Peacefully Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) 21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Agreed. This situation we see here is so sad. It has inverted all that is Holy. They know not what they do. Philosophy mingled with scripture? Not even that far. Sociology, and no scripture I wish I could be as nice as you. It's That Old Black Magic that still gunks stuff up. As always I need to repent. Can you speak a bit more directly? Are you saying the women on this board who have spoken up against sexism in the church are akin to false teachers who teach the philosophy of men mixed with scripture like the adversary himself? Edit: I just reread your comment and looks like it is even worse than that. I hope I misunderstood. Edited October 26, 2019 by Peacefully Addition 2
Bernard Gui Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 24 minutes ago, Calm said: Actually women are more likely to instigate domestic violence than men according to some stats. I will try to dig up the stats. The reason why we assume women aren't violent is because men's violence is more likely to result in physical damage and even death, though I don't know if this is because women don't intend to cause significant physical harm or just that the level of our strength and cultural teachings put a limit on how much damage we do. Very interesting. I think it would tend more to level of strength....as in my pet Hollywood peeve I mentioned above. Whatever the case, violence between spouses really make me sad.
Bernard Gui Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) 21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Agreed. This situation we see here is so sad. It has inverted all that is Holy. They know not what they do. Philosophy mingled with scripture? Not even that far. Sociology, and no scripture I wish I could be as nice as you. It's That Old Black Magic that still gunks stuff up. As always I need to repent. Yep. Don't we all. Edited October 26, 2019 by Bernard Gui 1
ttribe Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Thanks for defending these poor sisters. I'm not defending anyone. I'm pointing out how obnoxious your behavior is. Do you have even the slightest ability to engage in self-reflection? If so, it's not obvious here. 2
Calm Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) Quote . It doesn't make me crazy, though. One that does is that an averaged sized lady (do I dare say, scantily clad lady in this thread? Probably not, but there it is) can put some martial arts moves on a dozen large, armored, and highly trained men and take them out. That's reality, not a sexist remark, IMO, but some may disagree. For me, it offends the physicist in me...just don't see the mass of a 100 lb to 120 lb woman pushing around 200+ lb men in the ways portrayed (sure, if leverage is right, move the earth and all, but leverage isn't in many cases as far as I can tell). Hmm...I think I will check with my black belt son and grandson to get their opinions. Wonder if there was ever a mythbusters episode on it. Edited October 26, 2019 by Calm
juliann Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 59 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: It is not demeaning. I would love to talk it over amongst ourselves some time in the appropriate place. It's demeaning. Always interesting when the offender thinks he gets to decide how much damage he did. Not your call. If someone is demeaned, you are demeaning them. 2
juliann Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 24 minutes ago, Peacefully said: Can you speak a bit more directly? Are you saying the women on this board who have spoken up against sexism in the church are akin to false teachers who teach the philosophy of men mixed with scripture like the adversary himself? Edit: I just reread your comment and looks like it is even worse than that. I hope I misunderstood. You didn't. Standard fare for certain males here. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 8 minutes ago, juliann said: It's demeaning. Always interesting when the offender thinks he gets to decide how much damage he did. Not your call. If someone is demeaned, you are demeaning them. The temple is demeaning? That was the subject.
ttribe Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 14 minutes ago, juliann said: You didn't. Standard fare for certain males here. Not all males, to be fair. 1
Popular Post Calm Posted October 26, 2019 Popular Post Posted October 26, 2019 Quote The temple is demeaning? Of course not. More the 'I'm enlightened, I know the Truth and you don't' routine. 6
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Peacefully said: Can you speak a bit more directly? Are you saying the women on this board who have spoken up against sexism in the church are akin to false teachers who teach the philosophy of men mixed with scripture like the adversary himself? Edit: I just reread your comment and looks like it is even worse than that. I hope I misunderstood. I am defending church Doctrine as taught in the temple. Enough said Edited October 26, 2019 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Calm said: Of course not. More the 'I'm enlightened, I know the Truth and you don't' routine. Well I am certainly not more enlightened it but at least I do know what is taught in the temple. Edited October 26, 2019 by mfbukowski
Calm Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: least I do know what is taught in the temple. Don't you mean your interpretation of it? 4
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 44 minutes ago, ttribe said: I'm not defending anyone. I'm pointing out how obnoxious your behavior is. Do you have even the slightest ability to engage in self-reflection? If so, it's not obvious here. Oh I'm pretty good at self-reflection. And I suppose it would be obnoxious to people driven by political correctness. But that's okay I find them obnoxious as well.
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, Calm said: Don't you mean your interpretation of it? There's no point discussing that here, but when there are blessings given to sisters that men do not receive I would say that that is pretty clear. We have to work for the blessings but you are just given by your Birthright. As it should be. If that is the demeaning then so be it.
Stargazer Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 On 10/24/2019 at 6:10 PM, The Nehor said: I keep wanting to go back but always hesitate. I think the hesitation is that I find the idea of being a tourist in a land I taught the gospel to be almost vulgar. I would never judge anyone else for going back but it just seems uncomfortable to me. That seems kind of odd to me, I'm afraid, but like you I do not judge. I ended up back in Germany, courtesy of the US Army, and loved it. Since my new wife's sister lived in my first city (turned out I had knocked on their door back then and spoke briefly with my future brother-in-law), I was delighted to drive around to see how it all looked with non-missionary eyes. Even tried to visit one of the people I had taught - only to find he had died in the meantime. Which mission did you serve in?
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 Well being Saturday I've taken more time that I really should have on this topic. After all it is the day we get ready for Sunday isn't it? I know my fans will miss me so I'll check in later if I get a chance. Adieu.
Peacefully Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I am defending church Doctrine as taught in the temple. Enough said I’ve been a temple worker and I still don’t understand your point. But it’s probably just my female brain that can’t comprehend as much as you do. Carry on. 2
Rain Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 On 10/25/2019 at 11:16 AM, pogi said: I actually don't disagree with any of this at all which suggests that we are probably in more agreement than disagreement and are simply not communicating well. Absolutely agree! But I think you would also understand and agree that you are accountable for your influence on your child for good or evil. You are not accountable for their use of agency, but you are accountable for your influence and messages you teach them. I haven't forgotten about this. I'm looking into scriptures, talks etc. Meanwhile, thinking out loud here. One side of me would agree that we are accountable for influence. The other side not so much. If someone tells me to do something then that influences me not to do it. If they tell me to read my scriptures are they responsible for the influence of not reading my scriptures or the intended influence of reading them? It all gets kind of sticky especially when you throw in relationships, past experiences etc. So while I can see Alma being specifically able to tell Corianton that he was accountable for his influence on the Zoramites because he knew hearts and situations can we really apply that to unintended in all situations? (I'm guessing Corianton did not intend to influence the Zoramites to not listen to Alma, but was more self oriented and didn't even think about them when going after the harlot.) So let's say that a well endowed young woman is at youth conference and her shirt gets ripped. She borrows a shirt from a friend and because of her size her cleavage shows. A YM sees and starts to have normal body responses. Does this mean she is accountable for her influence on the YM? I really don't think so. Both Corianton's and the YW influence was unintended. So it isn't just an intended/unintended thing. It seems to me part of Corianton's accountability comes from his role as missionary. This goes along with our accountability in a parents's role. If we are talking about role's then it leads me to the idea that the YW has no accountability of influencing the YM because she has no stewardship there and no intention. Still thinking and reading on all of this, but one thing just keeps getting in the way. If we are specifically talking about how immodest dress affects YM I think the idea of influence doesn't really apply - our bodies have normal and natural sexual responses. This is not a bad thing. If a boy looks at a modestly or immodestly dressed girl and has these responses he has done nothing wrong. The problem comes with what he does with those responses and at that point the girl with with no intended influence is out of the equation. I'm debating on starting a new thread about influence and accountability because of this. On 10/25/2019 at 11:16 AM, pogi said: Exactly! And it is the same with dress and modesty, I agree. Clothes are symbols not much different from words. We teach through how we dress, we send messages with how we dress, etc. and we are responsible and accountable to teach and send good messages to others. We absolutely should be conscious of others and the messages we send and teach when we dress, just like we are conscious of others in the messages we teach through words. 1
bluebell Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 54 minutes ago, Peacefully said: I’ve been a temple worker and I still don’t understand your point. But it’s probably just my female brain that can’t comprehend as much as you do. Carry on.
bluebell Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 3 hours ago, Rain said: He has talked about it enough on this board that I am pretty sure I know what he is talking about. One time he was pretty clear and I specifically went through the words for what he was talking about because I had never noticed anything like that. I heard it - I just don't agree that it means what he feels it means. There was a male poster on here who once went on about how the endowment showed that men had a level of responsibility and accountability that they had to be cleansed of that women didn’t, and that that said something about women’s lack of accountability. Of course he didn’t know that that is actually covered in the women’s initiatory. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 1 hour ago, Peacefully said: I’ve been a temple worker and I still don’t understand your point. But it’s probably just my female brain that can’t comprehend as much as you do. Carry on. Great! Me too! Compare sisters washings w brothers. Easy for you, ask any bro on your break during your shift
MustardSeed Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: There are great rewards for work. That’s why most of us work. I don’t see my wife as “hot.” I don’t even know what that means in the context of our relationship. When I said “smoking hot husband” I was being facetious, because it used to be the thing for young pastors to say about their wives. It’s not just a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints thing. My husband is, though, hands down the sexiest man I know. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 40 minutes ago, bluebell said: There was a male poster on here who once went on about how the endowment showed that men had a level of responsibility and accountability that they had to be cleansed of that women didn’t, and that that said something about women’s lack of accountability. Of course he didn’t know that that is actually covered in the women’s initiatory. Uh, not so Why are there massive differences there and nowhere else?
Calm Posted October 26, 2019 Posted October 26, 2019 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: when there are blessings given to sisters that men do not receive I would say that that is pretty clear. But isn't it the "why" you are hinting at, not the "what"?
Recommended Posts