Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/23/19 in all areas

  1. 10 points
    So much “woke” feminist garbage in this article. The progressive woman have become a huge thorn in teaching doctrine now-a-days due to the feminist movement. Just like testifying of the roll of men and woman in the home and the innate value of a baby fetus, Talking about the truth of modesty is social suicide. But here I go cause there is no society I am worried about here. claim 1: women were taught not to wear scandalous attire so men wouldn’t be tempted. Yes young women were taught this. As found in the gospel topics section on churchofjesuschrist.org: ”Central to the command to be modest is an understanding of the sacred power of procreation, the ability to bring children into the world. This power is to be used only between husband and wife. Revealing and sexually suggestive clothing, which includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach, can stimulate desires and actions that violate the Lord’s law of chastity.” clearly there is a problem here. Clearly immodesty can lead to temptation and I don’t know anyone that would argue that. Lindsey’s (the author) approach to this is an “every man/woman” for his/herself approach. As long as what she is doing is not affecting her, than everything is ok. It is so frustratingly un-Christlike and has only fed to the raging feminist fire that has spread into our church. Yes. ONE reason to dress modestly is so not to arouse sexual feelings in others. Men should do the same. If I find out that something I am doing or wearing causes lustful feelings in women or homosexual men, the I better stop right away. I know what it is like to struggle with thoughts and I don’t want to be the source of any one else’s evil thoughts. That is the Christlike way. claim 2: modesty is a woman’s issue No one is teaching this, it’s just a harder thing to do if you are a woman. I definitely had modesty lessons, but it was more about appearing clean and acting appropriately. This is another feminist situation where because it is more difficult for woman, they see it as oppressive and evil. Claim 3: we can tell people what to wear This is just an extension of claim 1 and 2 I can agree with her at point here. If the story she tells about her “pink” shirt is true, I wouldn’t have worried to much about it. But If I wore a Trojan shirt, that would definitely be considered immodest and I would not wear it. It’s different levels of the same principle. If you are worried someone might look at your t-shirt with a Victoria secret logo and feel aroused, dont wear it. claim 4: priesthood leaders are attracted to young woman This whole section she has is completely idiotic. She tells the story of when she was at girls camp and the young woman leaders forced the young woman To dress modestly for when the bishopric comes and speaks. In the mornings and evenings, my wife does not wear a bra under her shirt. However, If we have guests coming over she goes and puts one on so her nipples are poking through her shirt. Additionally, I have a pair of shorts that are short, tight, and “revealing”. I like wearing them to bed, but if I’m having company over in the morning or evening, I’m going to change out of them, especially if one of them coming over is female. Other nonsensical statements 1. “If a claim cannot be supported by scripture, or perhaps a recent general conference talk: don’t teach it.“ The irony here is so thick I can’t even cut it with my metaphorical lightsaber. She says this in her explanation of a quote from a 70 from 1974. Additionally, giving prophetic direction an expiration date is what leads to apostasy. 2. “The claim that women have stewardship over another man’s thoughts is nowhere to be found in the scriptures. In Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s talk To Young Women, there was no mention of young men depending on the women to keep them clean.” Jeffery R Holland also taught “although I am not my brother’s keeper, I am my brothers brother”. Stop making this mortal life a free-for-all. When I’m with my friends, we make fun of each other and laugh at our mistakes together. But If one of my friends struggles with depression, I’m going to be more careful about the things I say.
  2. 7 points
    NeuroTypical

    Opt out of endowments?

    Going to the temple? Exciting! I've never heard the term "opt out" in regards to endowments. I think it's probably more accurate to say that people just don't pursue going to the temple like they should. Lots of reasons for this - fear, ignorance, apathy come to mind. And maybe other people go to the temple and receive their endowments, and then later fall away from the church or go inactive, or stop believing or some such. Again, lots of reasons for that too. From where I'm standing, once you know what you believe and why you believe it, your testimony is pretty much rock solid and the only thing that can prevail against it is you.
  3. 7 points
    Not sure when there's ever actually an either/or situation where you can only pick one and not the other. I can see that sometimes it's not productive to argue your point, but you don't always have to argue your point to be right.
  4. 6 points
    In the New Testament, they were baptized when they knew nothing more than "Christ Jesus" or "the Messiah" was come. In the Book of Mormon, those that were baptized did so when they knew nothing more than "hey, this is spiritually good food." None of them had even a Deacon level of understanding of the gospel. Yet the had faith and believed to the point of baptism. The fourth article of faith: Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ Repentance Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. GotHG Nowhere in here does it say that they need to have a firm understanding of the plan of Salvation or the workings of the priesthood or anything else that people are talking about on this thread. (forgive me if I didn't read ALL the posts. I read most of them). It seems everyone is ignoring what baptism actually is. Do they have faith in Jesus Christ to the the point of being motivated to repentance? Then they need to be baptized. For some reason, we think of baptism as a formality to become a member of the Church. Tangentially, this is true. But scripturally, the first fruits of repentance is baptism. That is why we baptize. For the remission of sins. And this desire can and DOES exist in first or second discussions with the misisonaries. Peter and his compatriots joined Christ after a simple invitation to put down their nets and follow Him. They didn't even know who He was. But they felt the Spirit. Even after walking with him day by day for three years, they still didn't get the gospel. After the resurrection, they just went back to fishing. Then Jesus had the conversation "Lovest thou me more than these?" Baptism was REALLY early in this process. They didn't know a THING!! We are sent out to gather the lost sheep. Those who have been prepared are those who are humbled to the point of repentance. But repentance is only possible through Jesus Christ. And the gate by which we enter is baptism. If missionaries forget that, then we truly are only interested in numbers.
  5. 6 points
    This, to me, is a major point. Yes, there’s far more to modesty than helping those dastardly males to control their baser instincts; but even if there weren’t—we are under covenant to bear one another’s burdens. Speaking in generalities, and with due exceptions for individual cases: both the general population of men and the general population of women have predilections towards certain behaviors that undermine the establishment of a Zion community. Men often tend to be lustful, controlling, and insensitive. Women often tend towards drama, hyper-sensitivity, the emphasis of emotion over reason, and physical weakness. Making allowances for the weakness of others while diligently striving to improve ourselves, is something we all must do; and I will bear with my sisters’ gender-linked psychoses if they will bear with mine.
  6. 6 points
    As I sit here relaxing on vacation, my children chose to start a movie called 'Wonder', while eating their lunch. During one scene a girl in the protagonist's classroom makes the statement, "When given the choice between being right and being kind, choose being kind." At first glance, such a statement would make it seem like the child shared heartwarming wisdom beyond her years. The statement evokes an emotional call to acceptance which, if followed by a general populous, would lead to complete chaos. Why? Because the interpretation of kindness is 100% subjective to the recipient, resulting in the inevitably unattainable nature of living by such a precept. True Christlike kindness is akin to true love, and would involve being right in whichever way is necessary to benefit the recipient. Hence, Christ often taught in such a way that 'he who hath ears to hear [would] hear'; this was a kindness to those who had not ears to hear. True Christlike kindness will result in presumably millions of God's children being gifted Telestial Glory, and yet being barred from dwelling in His presence. Society as a whole is increasingly losing it's ears to hear; being right is increasingly more important. The premise of the argument to choose kindness over rightness is flawed. We should always choose to be right, but strive to do so in a loving and Christlike way.
  7. 6 points
    Vort

    Bloggernacle Rant

    In general, I have rather liked reading Ardis Parshall. She is obviously both intelligent and well-read, she seems to value her testimony of the restored gospel, and she appears to be a much more careful historian than many (most) who identify themselves as such in LDS circles. I used to read her blog fairly often. But she appears to partake to some degree in the intellectualist sport of LDS iconoclasm, which I find distasteful. Now I'm as willing as the next guy to identify silly ideas that have crept into LDS circles and even to call them out on occasion*. But in the final analysis, we are a Church and kingdom led by men of God under revelation, and definitely not by the learned who carefully parse literature and Think Deeply About Stuff and then pronounce their pontifications. That describes the various Catholic schools of thought as well as the Muslim madahib. The restored kingdom of God doesn't work like that. I have no advice for Sister Parshall. I am not on her level, certainly not as pertaining to LDS history. But I, like you, get annoyed by much of this iconoclasm. It strikes me as self-serving and as not building the kingdom. Perhaps Elder McConkie's speculations were ill-considered, or perhaps they simply shouldn't have been shared. But I really don't think that the doctrine of "Michael as comforting angel to Christ during the atonement" is a widespread idea in LDS circles or one that threatens to unbalance our understanding of Christ's atonement for us. *For example, "Jesus was left alone during the act of atonement because God could not bear to witness the sufferings of his Son. The Father fled to the furthest corner of His universe to escape this evil." This particular idea enjoyed a brief period of popularity when I was a youth and young man, and really, if you read it carefully and consider its implications, it is simply appalling. So I have little problem dismantling such nonsense, though I also realize that some people more tender in the gospel might put stock in such things and could be bruised by a vigorous attack against it. So we proceed with caution. But the point is that iconoclasm per se is not what I object to.
  8. 6 points
    I guess Fridays are good days to put words under microscopes. "Be honest". If I can be honest as I stand there quietly, not making any particular eye contact with anybody, with neutral body language not meant to say much of anything, communicating nothing to anybody, then I agree. Sometimes shutting up is best. Not all the time, but sometimes. So if the admonition to "always be honest" means that there are zero cases where I should shut up, that I must always actively advocate for something from a position of honesty, then I must decline to adopt that phrase into my big pile of good life quotes. For whatever reason, the older I get, the more situations I find myself in that seem best handled by just standing there with a dumb look on my face.
  9. 5 points
    Baptism is sacred. It is a public declaration of faith--in this case--faith, not only in Jesus, but in what the church deems the Restored Gospel. I've seen baptismal services that made me cringe. At one, after the candidates had finished, one of the leaders of the church went to the microphone and said, "Anybody else wanna git baptized...come on, now--the water's warm!" Sometimes, when I conduct baptisms in the jail candidates will try to get the friends to get baptized with them--friends who do not attend church, and may not even know what Christianity is. I usually say something like, "There's no need to be baptized at this moment. Join us for a few Sundays, and if you feel so prompted I can always schedule another baptism." I hate it when folks say, "Well, I was baptized a few years back, but I really didn't understand it...it didn't mean much to me." So, whatever the backstory and motivation for this pronouncement, to my outsider ears it sounds like a positive development.
  10. 5 points
    And yet the atonement is never taught? https://blog.survivalfrog.com/survival-uses-gum/ See #2 So just so we're clear -- I'm not suggesting the chewing gum analogy should remain in use (nor do I believe @SpiritDragon is) -- I just feel like the criticism against it and similar metaphors are WAY overblown to the level of ridiculousness. They aren't ideal analogies, agreed. And I'm all behind the discontinued use of them. But seriously -- it doesn't take that much intelligence to understand that just because some inexpert teacher used chewed up gum to represent sexual sin doesn't mean that if you sin sexually it must mean you have no remaining worth and can never be whole and pure again. Was the chewing gum lesson the only one said individual ever heard? That was the one time they went to church -- but otherwise never bothered? No other seminary, scripture study, church lessons, firesides? They've never heard of the atonement? Well there's an easy solution to that. It takes about 3 seconds to resolve that dilemma. You quote Isaiah 1:18 to them.
  11. 5 points
    IIRC, there are some issues with the dating of the MP restoration that I haven’t completely resolved to my satisfaction. For example, Oliver Cowdery (I think!) recounts that the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood happened in the immediate aftermath of Joseph’s escaping official custody while being escorted to trial, or something along those lines. But the trial to which he is referring happened after the Church was organized. So, was the Church organized under the authority of the Melchiezedek Priesthood, or the Aaronic Priesthood? I understand that by the time of his excommunication David Whitmer argues that the whole “higher priesthood” thing was an unauthorized innovation; and early revelations have a confusing degree of ambiguity because they don’t clearly distinguish between “high priesthood” as a catch-all term for the Melchizedek Priesthood; versus “high priesthood” as a reference to the specific office of high priest. It may be that our conventional simplistic narrative about the Melchizedek Priesthood constituting the authority to run the church and confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost is overly simplistic, and that the MP is actually more tied to temple work and the Patriarchal Order. Alternatively, maybe some of the “limitations” we associate with the Aaronic Priesthood are ad hoc in nature, rather than something inherent to that order. Ancient Israel functioned for centuries with its ecclesiastical apparatus being administered by the Aaronic Priesthood; so the notion that the Church of Christ may have done the same between 1830-1831 isn’t earth-shattering for me. I just wish Joseph Smith had been more careful to contemporaneously document the MP restoration, whenever it did happen.
  12. 5 points
    What I am trying to teach my daughters about modesty comes down to three principles, deliberately ranked in order of importance. 1. Modesty in dress means wearing clothing appropriate to the activity you are currently engaged in. 2. Modesty in dress and behavior means dressing and acting in ways that do not call attention to yourself for reasons that distract from your capabilities and divine nature. (ie, don't try to be noticed by how you dress or how you act, but by the things you accomplish) 3. You are not responsible for how people look at or think about you, neither are you in control of it. You are free to dress how you want, but choose the clothing that will attract the kind of attention you desire.
  13. 5 points
    Good thing no one said that. I'm sure your dad was proud of that behavior. Just like it's not my job to keep you from getting angry. But if I say enough harsh words, you know you'll blow your top. Am I responsible for your anger? NO!!! But I'm not innocent either.
  14. 5 points
    We sang Hymn #191 this week: Behold the Great Redeemer Die. Verses two & three read: The bolded line caught my attention this week. I've glossed over it so many times. But this week, I was drawn to it. I pondered how he could have endured the simple earthly pains alone, nevermind the agonies of the infinite Atonement. Yet He didn't complain. Much of the overall song focuses on the additional lines (that he was focused on his Father's will). And certainly verse 4 seems to indicate that was what he was focused on. But for some reason, my thoughts went to verse 2. I wondered how I would have endured. My response was -- not at all. I don't do pain very well. I can't begin to imagine how much weeping and wailing and moaning and screaming and ... that I'd be doing if I were in His place. But I wasn't. I prayed for understanding. How did He do it? An answer came to me. He wasn't focused on himself, or his own pain. With each stripe he bore, with each drop of blood from the plaited thorns digging into his skull, with the agony of crucifixion, He did not think of it as His pain. He was filled with compassion for those mere mortals who had to suffer those pains. All those who suffered in the past, those were were suffering with him in the present, and those yet to come who would suffer so much. He was filled with compassion and mercy and tenderness towards us all. He endured because of His endless selflessness. Whether He was focused on His Father's will, or upon the suffering of all of us, He was never focused on His own suffering. It was always about us. It was always about fulfilling the will of The Father.
  15. 5 points
    They should be avoided. It's virtually impossible to make a decent living with those companies. Oh sure, you'll meet someone here or there who claims they've gotten rich selling Essential Oils. But they haven't. You'd be better off getting a job at a supermarket/fast food. At least that's honest work.
  16. 5 points
    pam

    To Gain a Fuller Understanding

    If I remember correctly...Mormon Doctrine 1st edition was the edition that had incorrect doctrine and had to be changed. Someone can correct me if I am wrong. Plus I wouldn't use The Work and the Glory as official teachings either. It's a historical setting with fictional characters so not everything in the books are historically accurate.
  17. 5 points
    Handbook 2 "The garment is sacred and should be treated with respect at all times. Garments should be kept off the floor. They should also be kept clean and mended. After garments are washed, they should not be hung in public areas to dry. Nor should they be displayed or exposed to the view of people who do not understand their significance"
  18. 5 points
    Just_A_Guy

    Bloggernacle Rant

    The Bloggernacle, like any community, has a certain number of presuppositions; and has little patience for those who question them. In their mind, they’ve already invented the wheel and they have no use for people who want to take all their time re-inventing that wheel or asking if everyone’s SURE the wheel really works. We here at ThirdHour are kind of like that too, in point of fact. The difference is that at ThirdHour, a) we don’t pretend to be infinitely open minded; and b) our sacred cows reflect the statements of LDS leaders who (i) had priesthood authority, (ii) lived/live righteously, (iii) sincerely and undeniably loved the Lord, and (iv) had/have our best interests at heart (sorry, ‘nacle, but you guys are mostly 0 for 4 on that score). By the way, LDSblogs.org/Mormon Archipelago was developed by the proprietors of bycommonconsent.org (which frankly includes some genuinely evil people) to drive traffic to their own site; and IIRC they include at least three openly anti blogs on their list (“anti” as in, their owners/major regular co-bloggers have been excommunicated). NothingWavering.org is a better collation of LDS-oriented bloggers who haven’t completely lost their cookies.
  19. 5 points
    President Oaks gets a lot of online hate for having observed, some time ago, that not all truths are useful. But, he was right; and I think that principle has some applicability in the present discussion as well.
  20. 5 points
    To me there is a difference between being right and choosing the right. I've found that sometimes when people talk about "being right" they mean that they want others to know or acknowledge that they are right. Personally, I think sometimes winning an argument is not as important as keeping a relationship.
  21. 4 points
    Hello

    Second marriage and temple garments

    I suppose to does seem strange to someone who has grown up in the church and has only been sealed once. I think it takes on a new meaning because the ceremonial clothing is what he actually wore during his sealing to his first wife. I wouldn’t wear my first wedding dress to this sealing. And again I am a convert so I look at things differently I suppose. I agree renting sounds reasonable as I don’t think he should get rid of them and he can certainly wear them again if he chooses. I jsut prefer not on our sealing day.
  22. 4 points
    Fairmormon should not be the source of one's faith. I have no idea what this is -- but I guarantee it won't fix one's faith. ... Putting Joseph Smith "on a pedestal" or not has nothing to do with where and why we have a testimony and where and why we exercise faith. First, @Queolby, understand the difference between testimony and faith. A testimony is something you've experienced that you can bear witness of. Faith is a commitment to a belief. Someone can have a testimony but no faith. Someone can exercise faith without a testimony. Both are required. Do you have a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel? That question isn't about historical study, because we NEVER (or should never, at least) be bearing witness that we studied history and concluded the gospel is true. That is not the witness that matters, nor is it a reliable witness because it relies upon the arm of flesh. God has explicitly warned us to not rely upon the arm of flesh. Stop relying upon the arm of flesh. God can only be known from God through the Holy Spirit. What we bear witness of -- give testimony of -- is that God Himself has told us of the truthfulness of something through the Holy Spirit. He has given us the promise of this, which you should be well familiar with, but I'll repeat here for good measure. In Moroni 10: 3-5 we read: 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. If you have been through this experience and you have been given an answer then you have a testimony -- because you can bear witness that you have been through this and the Spirit of God has spoken to you. If you have not been through this then you cannot testify of such a thing, and you have no testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (and thereby the truth that Joseph Smith was what he said he was). If you have a testimony to offer, then you are failing to exercise faith in that. You are forgetting or ignoring it. If you do not have a testimony then your responsibility is to get one through the means given in The Book of Mormon. Read it, ponder it, and ask God in Christ's name as to its truthfulness with honest, humble intent. Then exercise faith in the answer given. If you have had such an experience then you are faltering in your faith. You need to remember. You need to get back to the scriptures, get back on your knees, and strive with all diligence for your faith to be shored up. And choose. Faith is a choice. NONE OF THESE THINGS COME THROUGH STUDYING HISTORY! The study of church history is a useful tool if and when it comes from a place of faith based on a sure testimony as given from God by the Holy Ghost. It is not, nor can it ever be, a tool to create or destroy a witness of something that does not come from the unreliable. Even the best study of history is NOT RELIABLE. God is reliable. Turn to Him. Do as He has asked. Read His words as given by His prophets, and then follow His counsel, asking for His sure word and comfort as promised. That is the source and means of faith and testimony.
  23. 4 points
    Hello

    Opt out of endowments?

    I totally agree no one should do it because it’s the next step! I guess as a convert everything is new and exciting to me. And would have gotten endowed the next day if I could have! I want to wrap myself in all things gospel related. And I can’t wait to get my garments! I love seeing my husband in his and knowing what they stand for.
  24. 4 points
    This is akin to the discussion on Becoming One. In a marriage, Becoming One is not really just Becoming One With Your Spouse because that would mean the wife would either yield and just do what her husband wants or vice versa. Rather, Becoming One is Becoming One With Christ - because, as you and your spouse gets closer to Becoming One with Christ, then you get closer to Becoming One With Your Spouse.
  25. 4 points
    I would add this in hopes to give you a better view on him. Alma 48:17 is a very popular verse, it reads “17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.” but go ahead and read one more verse. “18 Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon, the son of Mosiah, yea, and even the other sons of Mosiah, yea, and also Alma and his sons, for they were all men of God.” We like to think of Moroni as this great man, yet he was still compared to the righteousness of all the sins of Alma, including Corianton. There was about a 4 year difference between Corianton’s rebuke and this verse describing Moroni. I like to think Corianton did some major repenting, and like Zeezrom, became a mighty man of God.