M.J.
I never paid much attention to Avatars before. After I got thru reading about yours, I have to say, "Man, I am impressed!"
Thinkin' about hunting up one for me now. On the other hand, my daughter is a budding artist whose into computer graphics and all that. Maybe I'll get her to do it.
Thanks for turning on this "New Light" for me.
Rod P.
.
i hope this means i'm not a newbie anymore!!!.
i have made more progress in these 100 posts than i did in 25 yrs in the org.. moanzy
Way to go Moanzy! I'm proud of you.....
If you look off to the left, below your picture, you will see your designation "Junior Member".
Your next graduation will be at 250 posts when you become "Senior Member". (I reached that last Friday the 13th, which means it was a lucky day.)
Be talkin' to ya'
Love,
Dad
sometimes i'm so ashamed of being male - .
why are men responsible for most rapes, paedophilia, pornography, abuse, criminal behaviour, war, bullying etc..?
if women (on average) were as physically strong as men would they be responsible for 50% of the above or is it something to do with men?
Who was it that said "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Winston Churchill??, but not sure)
I think that holds true for both men and women.
Qcmbr,
I don't disagree with you that Margaret and Imelda are no comparison with Hitler and Genghis Kahn. I was not distinguishing the extent to which men or women can be "bad". I was merely trying to make the point that men and women are both capable of everything that was on your list. To what extent or limit (potentially speaking) I really don't know.
Who is to say how "bad or evil" a woman would have been had she occupied the same position as Hitler. I would like to believe the damage would have been less, but how can anyone know for sure. When someone in power turns on a war machine and unleashes it on their "enemies" it tends to take on a life of its own. I think George Bush may be experiencing some of that with Iraq. Once you are in the war, we suddenly find we are capable of more evil than we thought possible beforehand.
I have met some pretty deliberately cruel and evil women in my time, and it's not a pretty picture.
Rod P.
i touch on this subject in another post but i felt the need to take it further...back in the day jw's went out in fs but i don't know about today.... i live in a big city....the territory my congregation has is small because there are so many cong.
here.. our bookstudy only had maybe four blocks at the most to work.
my ex husband and i would go to the meetings and hear talk about fs and all the wonderful and experiences and the joy oh joy in being out in the ministry.
We did a lot of country travel and doorknocking. It was not unusual to have 5 or 6 in a car, since usually there were a couple of kids along. Everybody got to count their time, while only one or two actually got out of the car at any one time to knock on a farmhouse door.
The other thing that used to bother me as a JW was this business of standing on the street corner with a Watchtower and Awake in hand. I know in KM meetings we were shown how to take the initiative to walk up to people on the street and start talking, and I actually enjoyed that, but didn't witness on the street very often. But what bothered me a lot was all these "brothers and sisters" who just stood there on the streetcorner like wooden Indians, and never spoke a word unless spoken to by a passer-by. Many times I would see them look at their watches, and then put the magazines back in their purse or briefcase and then walk away, kind of blending into the crowd as though they had never been there. I don't know if most of them were just shy, or felt intimidated, but why did they just stand there?
So I thought about that for a while. And it began to dawn on me why they did that. It was because they could stand there and not have to talk to anyone, or knock on doors and meet abusive householders. They would stand there so that they could count this time on their field service report. At the same time, the odds are that if you stand there long enough, someone is bound to come up to you and talk to you, and most of those types are usually pretty kind or civil (but not all). So then you could talk about these little experiences at the Kingdom Hall. That reinforces your reputation amongst your fellow witnesses, and you become perceived as one of the more "spiritually mature", and a faithful Witness of Jehovah.
During Kingdom Ministry School, we practised how to give presentations for the field. Testimonials and experiences would be given. And we would hear comments about how "people of the world" respected JW's and how much courage it must take to knock on doors and stand on street corners for their faith. But for those who have done this, that is just not the case. Standing on the street corner does not require a lot of courage! It is the easy way out, when compared to approaching people on the street or knocking on doors or visiting offices to place literature.
I know this all sounds so cynical, but I feel that this is closer to the truth, than the JW version of how they do field service for Jehovah.
Rod P.
i think so.
very few couples got divorced, even after they were caught with another person.i know that most that got df'd for straying still didn't get divorced----they tried to work it out.
have you seen this too?
I don't know the true statistics on this one, but I am wondering if the relatively low divorce rate amongst JW's is more apparent than real.The question I have is, how many JW's "leave the truth" and then later divorce. Therefore, they would not be included in the numbers.
The reason I wonder if this might be significant, is because over the years there have been a heck of a lot of people that have left the JW's for good, or were kicked out and never came back. Therefore they would no longer feel obligated or inclined to follow the JW policy on divorce.
Hmmmm......just wondering!
Rod P.
here's the dirty dozen: .
1) ants- imagine being buried in a sandpile up to your neck with sand.
along come a bunch of ants from an ant colony, and they crawl all over your head, in and out of your nose, your mouth, your ears, your eyes, and all thru your hair.
swiftbreeze,
You realize don't you that spiders are a good thing to have around. They get rid of a lot of other little insects around your place.
Whenever I see a spider, I always get a stick or a flyswatter, and coax it onto the stick and then carry it outside and then shake it off the stick. They'll help you with yard bugs too.
Rod P.
i agree with all.
before i become a mormon i study jw and when i read about the 144.00 i remeber asking the witness if i would be one of them.. they never replid they said they would get back to me on that one but they never did.
so what i have said is not to make it look like i dislike jws but just that i disagree with da doctrine......love ya mormon 4 life.
Double Edge,
Now that I have had the chance to review the material available on Tanner's website on the matter of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, I offer the following:
First of all, the part I quoted from her was actually a rather small part of the whole thing. Many sources other than her own articles are also indexed and readily available for all to see, including that of Juanita Brooks, which you hold as "one of the best, objective books written on the subject."
In view of that, let me quote an observation of Juanita Brooks in her book (p.219-220), which, by the way, I took of Tanner's web-site:
"While Brigham Young and George A. Smith, the church authorities chiefly responsible, did not specifically order the massacre, they did preach sermons and set up social conditions which made it possible....Brigham Young was accessory after the fact, in that he knew what had happened, and how and why it happened. Evidence of this is abundant and unmistakable, and from the most impeccable Mormon sources.
Knowing then, why did not President Young take action against these men?... He did have the men chiefly responsible released from their offices in the church following a private church investigation, but since he understood well that their acts had grown out of loyalty to him and his cause, he would not betray them into the hands of their common "enemy"....Someone assuredly warned all the participants, so that for many yars they were all able to evade arrest.
The church leaders decided to sacrifice Lee only when they could see that it would be impossible to acquit him without assuming a part of the responsibility themselves....this token sacrifice had to be made. Hence the farce which was the second trial of [John D.] Lee. The leaders evidently felt that by placing all the responsibility squarely upon him, already doomed, they could lift the stigma from the church as a whole."
In Hubert Howe Bancroft's "History of Utah 1540 - 1886" Chapter XX The Mountain Meadows Massacre, we see the following words of John D. Lee, the only man sentenced for this entire crime, who is about to be executed by firing squad:
"The marshall now read the order of the court, and, turning to the prisoner, said: "Mr.Lee, if you have anything to say before the order of the court is carried into effect, you can do so now." Rising from the coffin, he looked calmly around for a moment, and then with unfaltering voice repeated in substance the statements already quoted from his confession. "I have but little to say this morning." he added. "It seems I have to be made a victim; a victim must be had, and I am the victim. I studied to make Brigham Young's will my pleasure for thirty years. See now what I have come to this day! I have been sacrificed in a cowardly, dastardly manner. I cannot help it; it is my last word; it is so. I do not fear death; I shall never go to a worse place than I am now in. I ask the Lord my God, if my labors are done, to receive my spirit." A Methodist clergyman, who acted as his spiritual advisor, then knelt by his side and offered a brief prayer, to which he listened attentively. After shaking hands with those around him, he removed a part of his clothing, handing his hat to the marshal, who bound a handkerchief over his eyes, his hands being free at his own request. Seating himself with his face to the firing party, and with hands clasped over his head, he exclaimed: "Let them shoot the balls through my heart. Don't let them mangle my body" The words of command was given; the report of rifles rang forth on the still morning air, and without a groan or quiver the body of the criminal fell back lifeless on his coffin. God was more merciful to him than he had been to his victims." End quote.
And so the words of a dieing man now ring in my ears. Why would John D. Lee speak with such conviction just a few minutes before his death? What does a dieing man have to lose? Why would he lie? And if he was speaking the truth, then tell me the leaders of the Church, including Brigham Young, did not have some responsibility for this whole murderous affair?
Anyway, I do not want to drag this whole thing out any further, because I do not to spend all my time "picking on the Church". But I do want people to know why it is that I am no longer Mormon, and why I don't believe it anymore.
Finally, I will reiterate once more, that I bear no animosity or hatred towards the Mormon people as individuals. There are many things about them I admire and respect, and by far the majority of them are honest, decent and hard-working people who are sincere in their beliefs. It's the sytem and the doctrines that I do battle with. By the way, I still listen to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and I consider them one of the best in the world. When I hear them sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic and Handel's Messiah I still get chills up my back.
Regards,
Rod P.
i agree with all.
before i become a mormon i study jw and when i read about the 144.00 i remeber asking the witness if i would be one of them.. they never replid they said they would get back to me on that one but they never did.
so what i have said is not to make it look like i dislike jws but just that i disagree with da doctrine......love ya mormon 4 life.
Double Edge,
Sorry, I just now discovered your post above. I'm a little busy right now, but will definitely get back to you on it.
In the meantime, I want you to know that I am not "out to get the Mormons or the Mormon Church." I did not pick and choose who I was going to quote from on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I am aware of Sandra Tanner being an anti-Mormon writer. I am also aware of other books on this topic, which have far more details than what the Tanners have written on the subject. The article was simply selected because of its overall brevity, as well as its connection with her ancestry. I also know that the Tanners have written a lot more about this incident than the article I quoted, so I am not ready to accept the idea that she may have deliberately withheld information in order to bias the story in her favor. So I will have a second look at greater length to see whether she has covered the points that Juanita Brooks has brought to light.
In the final analysis, the Massacre should never have happened, and I hold the leadership at the top responsible to a fair extent. If there had not been the kind of sermons and doctrines being preached to the members at that time, and fueling the type of mentality that was present, I have my doubts this tragedy would have occurred in the first place.
And if Brigham Young really did say "It should be Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little." then in my books, that is a tacit admission of approval for the deed, rather than a condemnation of it.
One more thing, I am equally appalled at the wickedness and injustices that were inflicted on the Mormon people back in Illinois and Missouri. And yes, I do believe they were entitled to defend themselves. But the Massacre in Utah is not excusable on those grounds. Two wrongs don't make a right. And Lee should not have been executed by the state for the deed, and then later the Church reinstate his full standings in the Church, particularly if Lee took part in the Massacre, and the Church at the same time considers it wrong and that cold-blooded murders were committed here. That fact cannot be dismissed or glossed over with words.
.......to be continued.
Rod P.
sometimes i'm so ashamed of being male - .
why are men responsible for most rapes, paedophilia, pornography, abuse, criminal behaviour, war, bullying etc..?
if women (on average) were as physically strong as men would they be responsible for 50% of the above or is it something to do with men?
Qcmbr,
I think members of the human race of the female persuasion are capable of all of the things you have listed, and there examples for every one of them in history.
Respecting wars, remember the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher and the war in the Faulklands. Not that she started that war, or that the British weren't justified in their military response against Argentina. But the point is, she was just as capable of ordering the use of weapons of war as a means.
Look at the history of the monarchy in Britain (eg. Mary, Queen of Scotts, etc)
Look at Joan of Arch and the bloody massacres during the Crusades.
When it comes to Political Corruption, the women are every bit as capable as the men. Think about Amelda Marcos of the Phillipines, and her 500 pairs of shoes. Her husband (and I'm sure Amelda was a part of this) robbed the country of billions of dollars, took it out of the counrty and stashed the wealth in secret bank accounts around the world.
Think about the husband and wife team of the former Presidency of Romania (Chaucheskus- or however the heck you spell this), whose own citizens shot them to death. Afterwards, their palaces and obscene wealth that was built on the backs of its citizens was paraded before all to see just how corrupt they were.
Don't forget the last of the Russian Czars, the story of Nicholas and Alexandra, who were also quite corrupt and lavish in their lifestyles, and didn't care about their own people.
Remember the remark of Marie Antoinette, when told about the poor people who had no bread, she said "Well, let them eat cake."
And while I do not want to make a big case over Martha Stewart, the fact is she lied about her stock transactions, and was privy to insider information that enabled her to make a tidy little sum by selling off earlier, while the rest of the public lost money on the stock big time, because they were not informed until later, when it was too late. The common people can't get away with that, show why should she, just because she's rich?
How about Leona Helmsley, who served time in jail for tax evasion, and who said that "taxes were for the little people." (She spent something like over $200,000 building a swimming pool for herself, and then charged it as business expense thru one of her companies). After she was let out of jail on probation, and ordered to do community time, she had the audacity to try and get some of her "servants" to do the work for her. The nerve!
When it comes to crimes, the jails are filled with women prisoners convicted of everything from murder to robbery, from rape, kidnapping and child abuse, and any other thing that men have been convicited of.
In the community where I live, more and more stories are hitting the newspapers and television about girl gangs and bullying. It seems they are "catching up" with the boys these days.
What I am trying to say here is that it is not so much about these things being done by men because it's a male thing. Rather, it has more to do with the fact that the men have been in charge of everything that has gone on in the world since the beginning of the human race. It stands to reason, since they were the hunters, and were the strongest ones physically to handle this responsibility. It wasthe men that set up all the systems, the institutions and the rules. As civilization moved into more modern times, and opportunites emerged for woman to participate in the things that used to be exclusively "for men only" then, of course, women were now subject to the same kinds of influences and temptations and corruption. And in this day and age, as the playing field becomes more level, and all of the barriers that prevent women from participating in something are removed, we see a great many more women entering in with a force to be recognized. Look at all the sports that women are in now: Boxing, Wrestling, Hockey, Body-Building, etc. How about the Military, flying airplanes, ditch digging and construction work, automotive fields, driving trucks, car racing, etc. It's getting to the point that there is no such thing as something only a man can do, because somewhere in the world is a woman or two proving that they can do it too.
In short, it's a matter of statistics. The more women get into the places and activities and roles of what supposedly is a "man thing" the more we are going to hear about and witness women committing the same crimes as the men. It is only a matter of time and statistics.
Human nature befalls both men and women, and I would go so far as to say equally so. After all, do we not all have the same DNA, and is man not born of Woman. How can one be different from the other in terms of "the human condition"?
And while both men and women have testosterone (that "male aggressiveness"), and both have estrogen (that "femaleness"), the gender differences are that males have way more of the testosterone and far less of the estrogen than the females do, whereas the females have just the opposite. But even there, mother nature does not alway distribute these in the same proportion for one sex over the other. (Witness gays and lesbians)
Rod P.
there are a large number of very smart people here.
a vast array of intelligences has a power and scope quite out of the ordinary.
ask a question you've always wanted to know (not necessarily religious in nature; just in general) from trivia to personal inquiry......let it out now.
Terry,
Well then, if the glue that held your marriage together was the "business(es)" (you with the Art Studio, and her with her Photography), albeit with another business partner involved, and then this ended in failure, I can see how this could adversely affect the marriage. Is it possible that the marriage relationship was a kind of extension to the business relationship, so that as goes one, so goes the other? Did she see you more as a business partner than a husband. Was this the basis for the attraction in the first place? Was the marriage a means to the end (i.e. of financial success)?
I know a lot about business failures and business partners myself, because I've been thru a couple in my time. It's a real kick in the teeth, it takes a lot out of you, it saps you of your strength and energy and creativity and vision. It robs you of your self-esteem, and you become embarrassed amongst your peer group, your friends, your relatives, and your banker. It leaves you feeling helpless and hopeless, and you become totally disillusioned with life and love, and the human race. And as the money problems grow and compound like interest, so does the stress and strain test the marriage to its limit. Money problems and expectations can destroy a marriage. It can destroy faith, trust and respect for ones mate.
But, you know, "Hope springs eternal." And, like the Phoenix, we can rise from the ashes, start again, and rebuild. Wealth can be rebuilt, and lives restored. But you have to start, you have to try again. You have to try and ignite that "spark" again. Get that fire back in your belly. Give yourselves a shot of determination, and talk up a little bit of enthusiasm. Lift up those shoulders, hold that head up high, and hold out that chin, and say "I'm gonna do this!" Enthusiasm is contagious. Show that wife of yours some spunk, and a spark in your eye, and get those feet movin' Do something. "Just do it." Maybe you can light a fire under your wife, and get her batteries recharged while your at it. Start with what you know best and love most. Maybe you can be a catalyst for your wife, and help her get her up and running. I don't know the circumstances, Terry, but if business is the problem here, then business can be the solution. But it ain't going to happen on its own. And if having sufficient working capital is the barrier to getting things going, there are solutions for that too!.........Anyway, enough said about that, so I'll get off my soap box, and straighten my suit and tie. Whew, I kinda got carried away there, gettin' enthusastic and all.
Being an accountant, I have had, and continue to have a number of wealthy business clients. Some I have been with for 15 and 20 years, and watched their children grow up. I know about the lifestyles of the rich, and this environment the kids are raised in. Rich kids are often "spoiled rotten" and indulged with their every wish and whim. (I have also seen some treated just the opposite because the rich parents did not want their kids to become spoiled brats.) The indulged ones are put into the best schools and clubs and activities that money can buy, and are put on pedestals, being the centre of attention. Children from this type of background, more often than not, grow up with the expectation that the world revolves around them, they are the centre of the universe, and they will have temper tantrums if they do not get their own way. "I'm the star here, not you." "I'll fix you, you're fired."
Money is the instrument of power and control. Those who are rich know all about that. Without wealth, these people become helpless. Unless they are self-made, entrepreneurial millionaires, who had to fight for everything they've got, the wealthy who have become that by way of inheritance (i.e. born with a silver spoon in their mouth), and then lose it, become totally immobilized. Not always, but more often than not. The wealthy can afford to hire those with the necessary expertise and qualifications and abilities to accomplish virtually anything they want. Lose your wealth, and suddenly you are forced to do everything yourself, a situation they may never have had to face a day in their lives.
Now, I take it your wife has developed a certain kind of self-sufficiency in that she obviously has knowledge, expertise and ability in the field of photography. Is she still interested in photography? Does she still have the necessary tools of the trade, or is that a "barrier to entry" at the present time? Does she have any sort of collection or portfolio of the photography works she produced in the past? If so, can she use that as leverage? Does she have any particular subject matter or themes with which she has a particular interest at the present time? Is this an area you and her can share and exchange ideas around? (Also, maybe this is one way where you could convey the message to her that you are interested in her and what she in interested in. That could be a good way to rekindle things. It is hard not to like/love someone who likes/loves what you do.)
And what about you, Terry. If you like the Art business, and art studios, can you resurrect that in any way. And if you had an art studio, is there a way you could dedicate a space or a wall to display your wife's photographs. What if your wife were to consign some of her photography to another gallery that is already in business. That way, she doesn't incur overhhead expenses, while the studio doesn't have to purchase her inventory in advance. What about the internet, and getting your own web-site up and running, and then displaying her (and your) works of photography (and art) for sale. Obviously you would have to be set up as a merchant with major credit card companies in order to make sales on the internet.
I'm not trying to get my nose into your business, and I'm certainly not telling you or your wife what to do, and no, I do not have all the answers. Just trying to get some creative juices flowing here, and get some kind of spark ignited, get something going to overcome the inertia. If ya wanna get the marriage to work, ya gotta do somethin' to make it happen. It ain't gonna happen all by itself. And if you still love your wife, and long for her to feel the same way, then I'm tellin' ya man, you gotta be the leader in this thing; the instigator; the catalyst.
What do you think would happen if you (and your wife) developed a business that turned into a money making venture, a "cash cow". Do you think she would feel differently towards you and the marriage then? Think about that one.
Rod P.
