Leaderboard

We don't entirely disagree with you: The Lord appears to use the word "church" in two ways: one to mean The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Church), and the other to mean those who repent and come unto Christ (the church). Some Latter-day Saints might disagree with me, but I think this is similar to "the body of Christ" idea found in the New Testament that a lot of Christians cite. Where we diverge from other Christians is in the idea that the Church doesn't matter, as long as you're of the church. The church is a starting point to us - a good place to be if you know nothing more. But the Church is where you want to be headed. Also, just yesterday I saw evidence of something @Vort taught us on here long ago: Christ's sheep know His voice. Our job isn't to convince them, it's to let them hear His voice. (I read the account online of an investigator who felt overwhelmed by the Spirit just holding the Book of Mormon - clearly one of His sheep. Which isn't to say that all of His sheep recognize His voice the way this person did; it's simply an extreme example.) On an unrelated note: I'm glad you're still with us, @Jamie123 (as opposed to being tossed in jail). I hear some pretty scary things about the UK speech-police and consequences of uncontrolled immigration there these days.

I have thought to engage you post and certain thoughts. My intention is to be careful because there are some things that may appear that I disagree, but I am not sure that is the case. Hopefully, it is mostly a misunderstanding. My understanding of righteousness is someone that makes and keeps covenants with G-d. The opposite of righteousness is wickedness and thus is someone that either refuses to covenant with G-d or deliberately breaks their covenant with G-d. I believe that there is a third option – someone that does not know or understand G-d and his covenants. I am of the mind that the vast majority of us humans fall into this third option of someone, that to some degree or another, just does not understand that much about G-d or his covenants as we should. We tend to think only someone that is anti-Christ would crucify Him – and yet the last words of Christ during his mortal experience were, “Father forgive them for they know no what they do.” At another time and place Jesus forbid his disciples from judging others. Some scholars have interpreted that what Jesus said would be better translated as Jesus forbidding his disciples from condemning others. This introduces a bit of a conundrum. Would condemning someone as being anti-Christ be an actual act of an anti-Christ? Jesus said that to look upon another and lust after them, means that we have already committed adultery in our heart. If we are to only have those void of adultery to be our leaders – who has never committed adultery in their heart? And who is worthy to determine who has or has not repented? Be it 7 or 70 times 7 acts of repentance? I would personally be elated if an Apostle of Christ could be elected. Unfortunately, in our society to even write in an Apostle of Christ would be a wasted ballot. I would make one point for your consideration. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints donated funds are considered sacred. The abuse and misuse of donated funds to the Church are considered sufficient for excommunication from the Church. It is an act that requires the First Presidency review for repentance and restoration of covenant blessings. During my entire lifetime (which is approaching 8 decades) there has never been a president of the United States of America that believes donated (taxed) funds are sacred and should not be wasted or abused than what appears to me to be the actions of President Trump. I do not personally know Trump. I have not liked him much as a person because I am not a fan of corporate billionaires. I am even less a fan of professional politicians. It has been more than 50 years that I have felt that I could campaign for anyone running for political office because of my personal prejudice of those willing to run for a national political office. Because of my personal covenants with G-d and especially the 12th Article of Faith I have personally bit my tongue about kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates. I hope for a time when Christ will reign. But until such a time, I will abide by the laws that are established – even while I visit such places as Russia or China or wherever. And yet for all my disappointments in political leaders I dare not judge or condemn any so as to present my witness that any are without any doubt in my mind to be anti-Christ. Though I believe many things of the world to be anti-Christ and should be called out and witnessed to be anti-Christ – I do not know enough about any individual to so label them. The Traveler

I wanted to post thanks to you and others like you for choosing the profession that you have. I do not believe that force is ever an option when they are angry with rage. I could not or should not do your job for a different reason. Force should be avoided at all costs if it feeds into an adrenaline rush. The Traveler

I've posted an announcement underneath the rules banner. Please take note. This will affect most of those who have accounts. We're not sure yet when this will take place but we wanted to give people plenty of notice.

Anyone who's already logged in can just go to Account Settings to see their email address.

No. I've neve suplexed anyone. I have assisted people to the ground.

There’s a lot there thought-provoking and attractive in the article, but let me play devil’s advocate for a minute. I confess I don’t know much about what Anglican clerics of Collins’s station actually did (then or now). It would be interesting to know what Austen thought of clerics generally (wasn’t her father one? And wasn’t there a sort of view through the period that the clergy was more or less a dumping ground for the mediocre younger sons of the gentry/ nobility?) You get the impression that at least some measure of self-discipline and sexual restraint was expected (cf Darcy’s observation that Wickham “must not” (IIRC) join the clergy). And you get the feeling that whatever was expected of clergymen, Sense and Sensibility’s Edward Farrars would probably do it in good faith and with good intentions, if nothing else. But it’s hard to imagine any of those characters (at least, as I recall them) crafting really effective sermons, or providing particularly solid life-advice to congregants seeking counseling, or offering material charity to the poor in a way that wasn’t at least a little bit cringeworthy. And - again, I don’t know what contemporary Anglican discourse really looked or sounded like; but it seems telling to me that (again, so far as I can remember) none of these priestly candidates ever says anything about Jesus Himself. The entire Church, for Austen, seems more an enforcer of convention than a repository of spiritual vivification; and we know from Collins’s final letter to Mr. Bennet that he himself is capable of (and advocates for) great cruelty which even Bennet (not a particularly kind man himself) recognizes. One could potentially respond to the author of the article of the OP that Collins is at heart a secular humanist in a collar—the sort of amiable bumbler intent primarily on cashing out his own legacy of life-happiness while giving perfunctory service to forms created by predecessors better than himself whose purpose he is incapable of comprehending; and the type of person who through ignorance and apathy permitted and enabled the spiritual (and then temporal) rot of the British Empire.

It would not be impolite, mean, or insulting if we are asking you to do so. And the mods could hardly complain if you did as we asked and did it in a polite fashion. You believe people here are worshiping Trump. I'm certain no one else even understands why you think people here are worshiping Trump. As members of the Church, we know what idol worship means in the modern world. We recognize that things like ditching Church to watch Sunday sports would constitute idol worship; skipping tithing this year so I can buy a $4000 fountain pen would be idol worship. We get the concept. So how is it that we're worshiping Trump and yet unaware? Would it not be a blessing to us to understand so that we might change? You can help us to understand by quoting a passage of text (better to quote as little as needed rather than the whole post), and saying something like: "This sentence sounds to me like worshiping Trump, because [blah blah blah]. If you don't worship Trump, can you explain to me [blah blah blah]?" In this way, you explain your understanding without accusation and ask for someone to engage with you toward mutual understanding. No offense, no contention, just seeking mutual understanding. Now if you think we won't listen, or can't learn, then why publicly condemn us at all? It does no one an ounce of good.

I do disagree, but not as strongly as you might think. The New Testament speaks of the "body" of Christ as metaphorically being the individual Christians—eyes and ears and hands and all that. This idea has extended through thousands of years now, and still forms a part of most if not all Christian theology. "Church" is the English rendition of a Greek word that was used to translate an old Hebrew term that meant, ultimately, "congregation"—that is, a gathering of people, namely, the people of Israel. In Italian, a "gregge" means a flock of sheep. The Latin word congregatio, meaning a "society" or "association", was literally formed from the Latin con- "with" and greg "flock [of sheep]". That's how our modern word "congregation" came about. The "congregations" spoken of in English translations of the Old Testament were the gatherings of Israel together in groups. If you understand "church" as being exactly these sorts of gatherings, then I would actually agree that the separate "congregations" or "gatherings" are churches, and the entire "congregation" of believers in Christ could be considered a sort of "church", in the sense of usage described above. Obviously, as a believing Latter-day Saint, I think the Church [of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] is much more than simply a gathering of like-minded people; I believe it is literally God's earthly kingdom, here to allow us to gather and associate and eventually lead us back to our home in God's eternal kingdom.

That is a dodge since you can't really defend your claim. Care to try again? Say you misspoke? Provide proof? Triple down?

Very true!

You won’t admit this because it doesn’t fit your current narrative but I’ve always defended you too, so it’s not personal.

Okay, then what you just said is basically meaningless and can be dismissed. I’m not a Trumper-but this forum is full of wonderful people who give conservatism a good name. It’s incredibly insulting of you to say what you said about them. You are way off base here.

I find these videos both interesting and compelling. And yet at the same time, I believe we must be careful. I do not believe that Brother Bradley insights are coincidences but rather these things are rather threads in a tapestry of understanding and conviction to assist us to believe in and follow Christ. It is both confusing and sad to me that not one of the witnesses (including all the exceptional historical parallels to the ancient witnesses of Christ) of the Book of Mormon came west to what is now Utah with Brigham Young and the pioneering vanguard of Saints. Of course, we can argue that none of the witnesses ever wavered in their testimony of the Book of Mormon and that is another witness in and of itself. But never-the-less, the historical parallel is not quite the same. I do believe that Brother Bradley has exceptional spiritual gifts, and it would be well for us to incorporate his witness and testimony into our own tapestry of understanding of the marvelous works and wonders of the restoration. I also believe that every testimony and witness of Christ (including even those not of our faith) can be received and added to our personal tapestry that Jesus is the Christ, our L-rd, our redeemer and the author of our salvation. The Traveler

I carry a gun for a living. I pretty much carry one all the time and have done so for 30ish years now. In all those years there has been only one time I thought about pulling my gun while not at work. I had gone out with a buddy who worked for a different department for an evening and was in plain clothes. We had a run in with some gang members. One particular one did not like us much. A couple weeks later I was with my wife in a Sears. We were walking towards the parking lot and I saw that same gang member with a group of his buddies. They were on the escalator going up to the second floor. We made eye contact and he clearly recognized me. I immediately knew he was going to turn around and come right back down. My wife was looking at something and was not ready to leave. I had two options. Leave or likely end up pulling my gun on a half dozen turds. I opted to leave. As we headed out the doors I looked back and saw the group coming right back down the escalator as I expected. The one I had already had a run in with was scanning the area I had been standing just a minute earlier. Not using force whenever possible is the best option.

May I steal this? Seriously-I think it’s great to tell the students at TKD this.

Just clicking like so I can see mine by mousing over the thumbs up I left on your post.

I raised my kiddos to think about things like this: When we think about danger and staying safe, we practice 100 things. - 80 ways to 'not be there in the first place'. We live in safe areas, go safe places, don't make ourselves targets of opportunity. - 15 ways to 'run the other way'. Leave situations. End conversations and walk away. Take a different route. - 3 ways to hide. Become invisible. Get behind a locked door. Disappear into a crowd. Go into a police station. - 2 ways to fight back. Krav Maga and sticks and mace and pressure points are the first one. The last one involves a weapon and stopping the threat as quickly as possible. So if you ever come to me and say you had to hurt someone to escape danger, you should come ready to explain why the 99 other things we always practice didn't work.

I've not made any secret of the fact that, although I'm still a practicing Anglican, I'm not a great fan of the Church. So I don’t totally disagree with your assessment of it. I suppose I get a kind of comfort from the continuity the Church of England provides - stretching back to Saint Augustine - to a time even before England was a single country. You're going to disagree strongly with this, but I've always seen the "real" Church as the individuals who love Jesus Christ - be they Anglicans, Catholics, Latter-day Saints or whatever - not as an organised body.

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1MaF8HNjzy/?mibextid=wwXIfr here’s another highly skilled guy who chooses not to engage with others. It’s validating to me that he shares my opinion, he even brings up permanently injuring someone. Not worth it.

Just posting so I can remember my user name.

I just learned that the prohibition on seeing the plates and the interpreters did not include Emma. She was there when he pulled the plates and the interpreters out of the stone box. Later, when they got the items home, she handled the interpreters by hand without any covering.

Technically, I think we are talking about “battery”, not “assault”.

No.

I have been assaulted numerous times by females at work.

Oh anytime bro. We are praying for you.

JAG gave an excellent response to this already. I will add only that I never thought that Collins was portrayed as a good anything, and certainly not a good or even competent vicar. Like JAG, I wonder exactly what was expected of an Anglican vicar, then or now. Perhaps Fordyce wrote thoughtful and insightful sermons, but I wonder if that was expected of vicars in general. (Maybe Fordyce was popular exactly because he provided ready-made sermons for those who needed them but were unwilling, or unable, to generate them.) I, too, have sort of assumed that the Anglican Church of the time (and probably of today) functioned more as a promoter of societal status quo than as an agent of Christlike living. There is some inherent unfairness in putting LDS expectations on a decidedly non-LDS organization and perspective. But I think it entirely reasonable to expect a Christian clergyman of any denomination to attempt to uphold the ideals Christ taught. The literary character of Mr. Collins lacks even the most basic self-awareness and understanding of selfless service. Flattering his benefactrice seems Mr. Collins' highest and, ultimately, only purpose.

As to the article itself, I think the author gives Collins too much credit. Dislike of him is not based on (or mainly based on) his social cluelessness nor his blind optimism, but on his stringent insistence on categorizing people according to the most superficial, simplistic, vain categories possible. He is not happy because he's stupid; rather, he seems incapable of being truly happy or even contented, because he utterly lacks the awareness of self and of others that would allow him to order the world in any kind of coherence. He is thus the perfect underling for Lady Catherine, a slightly smarter but even more corrupt version of Collins himself. As far as the author's ideas of being content with one's place and situation, I think she's onto something. Long ago, as a child, I learned of the Buddhist idea of ridding oneself of desire in order to avoid the unhappiness of unmet desires. I dismissed it in my childhood as grossly cynical (though I would not have used that word; I probably didn't know that word), but the older I get, the more wisdom I see in getting rid of stupid, vain desires for exactly this reason—and the more I see that such stupid, vain desires constitute most of the desires we use to guide our life course. So in that, I agree with her. Despite his own lack of perception and good sense, Collins seemed to have ended up pretty well situated, all things considered.

What a great article! And it has a moral, too! A very good moral, if you happen to be an oyster.

Who told you that? The human brain never stops thinking – even during the different cycles of sleep. It is just a specific part of the brain that produces adrenaline and kicks in a different kind of thinking. 🤪 The Traveler

Absolutely. And then it's your solemn duty to convert them all to Glockhood for that last one.

Well, women have a thing for a man in a uniform . . .