BYU grad general resigns over "swinging"

[_Runtu]

Reminds me of someone who was from West Virginia.

[_DrW]

. . . a real estate holding corporation with a religion department division.

Holy cow, what a great descriptor! Statement of the week, and it's only Sunday afternoon.

I just might have to make that my signature line, if you don't mind.

Dr. Shades,

If you should decide to do so, it would be an honor (especially if you were to make the change suggested above).

Please be my guest.

[_moksha]

I have a Master's too. From an outstanding school. It is a big name, it is on top of a lot of lists. It is a big deal, parents were proud. But I am not going to go parading around in my Big Name School robes because I can.

Go for it! Wear that cougar blue robe proudly.

Till you mentioned that smaller school and graduate certificates, I thought you might be the one Dr. Scratch calls, "The Emperor" due to investigating skills and ad hominem invectives. My mistake.

[_MsJack]

Pardon my ignorance, but I'm afraid it's something I never did figure out: What does "mansplaining" mean, exactly? (I'm not calling you out; I literally don't know the definition.)

"Mansplaining" is a neologism coined in 2008 or so to describe when men explain things to women in patronizing and condescending ways---particularly if the man is explaining something that the woman is an expert on or knows better than he does.

https://newrepublic.com/article/118555/ ... nsplaining

There was another thread recently wherein just me said something like "there is no virginity test" and ldsfaqs proceeded to question whether she was really a woman and lecture her on how a broken hymen is totally a reliable virginity test (using all kinds of outdated myths about the hymen). Textbook mansplaining.

[_Tator]

There was another thread recently wherein just me said something like "there is no virginity test" and ldsfaqs proceeded to question whether she was really a woman and lecture her on how a broken hymen is totally a reliable virginity test (using all kinds of outdated myths about the hymen). Textbook mansplaining.

I am not sure we can use "man"plaining when referencing ldsfaqs. We need a unique new word to reference faqs maybe imbecileplaining.

[_Dr. Shades]

"Mansplaining" is a neologism coined in 2008 or so to describe when men explain things to women in patronizing and condescending ways---particularly if the man is explaining something that the woman is an expert on or knows better than he does.

Ahh, that makes sense. Thank you.

[_Rino]

Rino ~ I'm satisfied with the amount of information about myself that I've put online and satisfied with telling the people I don't care to discuss it with to mind their own---especially when they insist on dragging it into completely unrelated threads because they can't hold their own without making things personal. Since you are so concerned about me though, allow me to put your mind at ease: 2016 has been one of the best years of my life. The only thing wrong with this year is how awesome it's been, and it's only about 2/3rds over. I can't wait for the rest of it.

"Do not resist an evildoer" obviously didn't mean "never respond to those who criticize you" or else Jesus wouldn't have been running around calling the Pharisees a "brood of vipers" and whatnot. In my church, the saying is, "No part of the Bible is the Word of God; it's all the Word of God." Ponderize that.

You made a very silly and uncharitable assumption that I was "parading around in [my] MA regalia," making a bunch of poor single mom community college grads feel terrible about themselves, and that my mental health was in some kind of jeopardy because of it based on nothing more than an avatar picture. Don't cry to me that you were called on it. I have one of the top neuropsychologists in the country on speed dial and your armchair psychology is a joke.

It seems that I incorrectly assumed a similar marital dissolution might engender some compassion for faqs, raising special needs children might engender compassion in the different, and commitment to your faith might help you look on others with compassion. Apparently compassion is a limited commodity, so I suppose I cannot question your decision to limit its use. It seems in a forum where there are so many broken marriages, instances of poor mental health, and even weight control difficulties, that such things would be overlooked in faqs, but apparently he is the victim of ridicule, while others' foibles are excused. Perhaps if he wasted several years with a WoW addiction he could be mocked for that too?

In any case, it seems that what will be, will be, so... I will raise a glass of Lagavulin 16 and wish you "Slainte Mhath".

[_Doctor Steuss]

I think it was Jesus who said "But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. Unless someone says something you do not like online then ignore everything I said."

For what little it may be worth (and not that it really has much bearing on the current thread -- just fun to share this kind of stuff), Jesus wasn't necessarily advocating unwavering pacifism in these verses. If one takes into account Jewish Laws (such as Leviticus 14: 15-17, and Exodus 22: 26-27), as well as Roman Law (such as Roman Impressment Law), it's more likely he was instructing on how to gain power over those who seek to oppress you. A kind of genius civil disobedience wherein you make those who are attacking and/or taking advantage of you in danger of punishment, so that they are now at your mercy.

[_madeleine]

I think it was Jesus who said "But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. Unless someone says something you do not like online then ignore everything I said."

For what little it may be worth (and not that it really has much bearing on the current thread -- just fun to share this kind of stuff), Jesus wasn't necessarily advocating unwavering pacifism in these verses. If one takes into account Jewish Laws (such as Leviticus 14: 15-17, and Exodus 22: 26-27), as well as Roman Law (such as Roman Impressment Law), it's more likely he was instructing on how to gain power over those who seek to oppress you. A kind of genius civil disobedience wherein you make those who are attacking and/or taking advantage of you in danger of punishment, so that they are now at your mercy.

Except the Law is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, he being the new covenant and all.

[_madeleine]

My 2 cents, there is a fine line. Jesus taught that following him would cause families to be torn apart, while at the same time he taught that we should reconcile ourselves to those we are in conflict with. We are called to reform ourselves, and see the "other" as Christ sees us. With mercy, love and forgiveness.

Often much easier said than done, especially if/when we are terribly wronged. That being said, Jesus calls us to show, better yet be, mercy, love and forgiveness. He does not call us to be doormats. It's totally ok, and healthy even, to let someone know they've offended you and why, but it doesn't stop there. Reconciliation is needed, which requires mercy, love and forgiveness.

In workplace parlance, it's called constructive criticism, where the goal is to improve, rather than an attempt to destroy in order to get what one wants. Love requires having the best interest of the "other" at heart.