Leaderboard

So, Brandon Sanderson teaches a creative writing class at BYU. Admission is by application only (for the workshop portion of the class). I will apply in October and hopefully get in (there are only 15 seats, unless something's changed). The coursework requires writing a novella (~35,000 words). I have been pondering my unwritten story ideas and am tweaking one of them down from something epic-ish to novella-ish (which is good because I never could figure out a satisfying ending for the epic-ish version, but I have a good ending for the novella-ish version). I have a good idea of the plot, a basic idea of the characters, now I'm doing worldbuilding. These doohickeys positioned around this kingdom is significant. I also need names for everyone / everything, to figure out what the magic can and can't do, if it's even called magic, how it works, and more details about the structure of the political states involved. At the moment, I'm leaning toward a sort of federation of small kingdoms held together by a class of people who can do magic - they sort of keep the peace and settle disputes, and keep the federation united against some common enemies beyond their mutual borders.

The fact that you are trying to draw parallels to the temple tell me that you are trying to justify something that you know inside of you is wrong or incorrect. Take a woodshop class and make a sign that says the same thing, hang it someplace you look everyday

leechmire

Is this the record for necropost?

Okay. Thank you for this. So, please answer the following: 1) Do you think I am trying to trick you? 2) Would you agree that taking 70 posts for you to answer my original question I had in my first post is a bit excessive? 3) Why do you think you are so hesitant to answer plainly the questions that I ask? That last one, you don't have to answer. Just know that it is coming across that way, and I want you to consider - At least to yourself - Why you are so resistant to providing an overarching framework whereby we can actually have a discussion.

All right - I want you to go back. Take a deep breath. Reread the thread we have here. Go ahead - I'll wait. Back? Good. Now, what I want you to consider is: Do you think I have been trying to trick you, or deliberately misinterpret you, or attempt to mislead you? For the most part, I have been asking questions. And when I have attempted to reiterate your points to make sure I've understood, you have told me I was wrong in every single case - Every one. You have stated that our morals are subjective, but that overarching morality is objective. You have stated that you would create a morality based upon consensus and, when the problems with consensus morality were pointed out, you shifted tack and said that 'appropriate, informed people' would make the decisions rather than a consensus. And despite the fact that I have clearly misunderstood your meaning every time I have attempted to clarify your own beliefs in an attempt to speak to you in a language you understood, you are getting irritated as I attempt to clarify what it is that you believe. Would you say that's a fair assessment?

capacitor Also, you can use the backronym MAW. (Mass Attracting Well or whatever) If it gains sentience, name it Kirby.

I believe this has started to become circular: So Rationality is the standard by which universal truth may be known? I believe you stated 'Not exclusively' before. Could you care to elaborate on what other standards you will apply?

Fair enough. I am simply asking - As any student would ask a teacher who is assessing their work - How you plan on doing that. You have admitted that you have no framework by which my responses will be judged, nor do you think any framework is currently possible. I have asked repeatedly, "How will you know that you know the essence of right when it is presented?" And you have stated that you have no way of knowing. If you have no way of knowing, you have no way of assessing. Were you a student and a teacher said, "I want you to make an argument that I will be assessing. I will not share the assessment standards, nor do I think there is any reasonable way such a standard could be reached. I will simply respond according to a whim I admit is arbitrary." How well do you think one could prepare for that argument?

I will and would love to, as soon as you answer my original question: How will you know that you know the essence of right when it is presented?

Reservoir?

“May the Good Lord bless and keep the Tsar . . . . . . far away from us!!!”

... What? So they've been barred, not because of a failure of teaching or because of a measurable and verifiable act of harm, but because of values? Well, that sucks.

I'm so excited!!!!! Check it: https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-announces-plans-for-new-hymnbook-and-childrens-songbook?cid=HP_MO-18-6-2018_dPTH_fCNWS_xLIDyL1-B_&lang=eng Big highlights-- More international hymns / hymns orientating in non-English language Standardize hymn numbers across all books / languages (currently they're all over the place) Members encouraged to submit suggestions and/or their own music Doing updated translations and recordings for all songs Getting the rights for all languages / formats (right now some rights don't exist in certain languages or digital formats) This is a loooooong way off-- submissions are open until summer 2019, so getting something published by 2022 would be light speed. Still, uber exciting! Honestly I am hoping for a larger variety in tempos and play styles too. Yes, reverence is important, but that doesn't mean we need to sing "Now come let us rejoice" like we're at a funeral.

:C sad day. hmm. how about ... Zilch Box, Zilch Rod, Zilgem

“THE POWER DRAIN INATOR!”

Devourer Absorber absorbator Drainer Draineraxiumanatoratoramoror consumer Tyler

My thoughts stem from expunge opposites conserve forge bear enmesh attain absorb magnetic vortex (similar to vacuum I suppose) gravity

It is my impression that if it was important enough for an official declaration (one way or the other) that there would be several. I use the term several because this is the economy of G-d -- to provide plural witness concerning things he is bringing about and plans to happen. The Traveler

I heard you turned 29! Pretty soon you won't be be able to go to YSA!

Consume?

Absorb?

Soul Prism? The Eldritch Stone? The Soul Mirror?

Not worth getting branded as a rapist your entire life. Or having children that the woman kills in the womb or take away from you while they take half your income. Blow up dolls are the new boobs.

You mean like a battery? Your cell phone battery does exactly this when you recharge it. If it's to do with heat, just call it an "Endothermic battery".

Men are dumb! Actually, I've noticed this issue in Canada, the US, Britain... The YSA aren't dating. And I don't think the issue falls on the women - For some reason, men are retreating from responsibility and I have no theory on why. In the church, this responsibility is a blessing. We shouldn't be facing the same difficulties the rest of the world is. I am a Dad and eternal family is the greatest thing ever.

To know a truth Alma asks us to live the commandments, this is planting the seed. If you want to know if the Mormon approach to truth is true, obey the commandments and sincerely humble yourself before God and ask if the church is true. No shortcuts, https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/32.21

How can I know the difference between right and wrong: https://www.lds.org/youth/learn/ss/apostasy-restoration/difference?lang=eng

Light of Christ - lds with scriptural references https://www.lds.org/topics/light-of-christ?lang=eng Lds guide to scriptures https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/light-light-of-christ

Reminds me of “I am Legion.” Kraken Leviathan

Drain

My ponderings are pointing me to the possible conclusion that the "wrongness" of an act, or of anything, is determined by the extent to which it hinders our eternal progression. and the rightness of an act is determined by the extent to which it facilitates, or contributes, to our progression. I believe that we, and God, have the same desired outcome from our time in mortality, and that which contributes to the achievement of that outcome is right, and that which detracts from achieving the outcome is wrong. A degree of shaping and moulding our immortal spirits is required to achieve the outcome, and, like creating a pot on a potter's wheel, some shaping helps achieve the desired end outcome and we call this shaping right acts, and some shaping - wrong act - hinders the creative process. The impact that an act has on our eternal progress is what determines whether it is right or wrong. As to how and why certain acts have particular impacts, and why they have the impact they do, and how that was determined/decided, I'm still thinking about that. Speaking hypothetically, under this approach, its quite possible to imagine a scenario whereby if we and God were seeking to achieve an outcome different from what we actually are trying to achieve, then what constitutes a right or a wrong action in that hypothetical world could be entirely different from our understanding of right and wrong is in this world.

LOL that only makes me think of Sonny and Cher!

I just uploaded some free sheet music on my website www.HolversonMusic.com There are 3 versions of "America the Beautiful / Nearer, My God, to Thee". One is a hymn. One is for choir. One is a piano solo. They have their own page: https://holversonmusic.com/america-the-beautiful-nearer-my-god-to-thee They will be free through July 4th! I hope you enjoy them and spread the word. Let me know what you think.

If I were Canadian I'd be doubling my prayers for my country's leaders now. Of course, we who find ourselves south of that border have been doubling our prayers for leadership quite regularly, of late. 😬

A vamp, from the 1920s, was based on vampire. Denoted a woman who drew the life force from someone. A catalyst is meant to Cause a chemical reaction and dissipate some sort of emotion. Black hole?

Embrace Hoard amass compile Assemble muster

I don't envy the amount of work it will be for those on committees who will ultimately compile the feedback and make the decisions what will stay, go or be added to our musical canon. Just reading through here I can see that I agree and disagree with song selections being put out there, sometimes within the same post I both agree and disagree. For instance, I would also love to see Come Thou Fount added, but would find it such a shame to see In Our Lovely Deseret Go. I am diametrically opposed to the notion of pulling If You Could Hie to Kolob, but would generally agree that Ring Out Wild Bells could go. I wouldn't mind seeing something as rousing and fun as Our God is an Awesome God by Rich Mullins, but it's not doctrinally or instrumentally appropriate. I do think it could be nice to have some familiar songs that aren't in the hymnal become a part of it, perhaps Oh Lord My Redeemer or I Heard Him Come, but perhaps they don't quite rise to the standard of hymn? I'm honestly a bit frightened at the idea of new submissions - mostly because I'm a creature of habit and don't want to learn new hymns. It will likely take years for me to feel like they belong. I have the same problem with musicians performing live and ad-libbing little bits into their songs that aren't on a studio recorded album or when hymns are re-arranged for conference or primary presentations I've just never enjoyed it. It ruins the whole thing, it's a strange form of musical massacre that I'll never understand why some people like it.

Hereditary evolution doesn't go that fast. You can't weed out the "dumb" people in thousands of years of selective mating practices, let alone do it in a few generations.

To be fair my wife and I lived separately so we could both attend grad school. She wasn't a bad wife for not following me and I wasn't a bad husband for not following her. I will defend him. Change is scary for anyone, she has been without him for a while it seems so she is used to that. Why would she be scared to still live apart from him? It makes more sense that she is scared to emigrate than to stay in Costa Rica. It isn't living with JayKi she is afraid of, it is living in a different country. It shows that she loves JayKi if she is willing to marry him

So a person can confess, find forgiveness, yet still have their sin revealed? This is pursuant to your interpretation of Luke 12:2-3? I am unfamiliar with that teaching. I am not taking D&C 58: 42 too literally. The scripture says nothing about forgetting, or God's forgetfulness. It says "I, the Lord, remember them no more." I take this to mean the Lord actively takes the stance that once forgiven, he will not bring it up, or hold it against you, or remind you or anyone else about it.

I am no man, but... I agree... I got married when I was 18! (I know, I don't know what I was thinking). Got a divorced 7 1/2 yrs later. and 3 years after that I met my current husband and we are going to get sealed (my first sealing was cancelled) this June 30th!! I am sooo excited! I love my kids, and thank goodness I have a good relationship with my ex (healing and forgiveness ) So... my advice... yes, please, enjoy life as a single person, and get married when you're like over 25, or after you have truly enjoyed being alone, studying, visiting places, making friends. I really enjoyed the time I was divorced, I was single, did what I wanted (always held a temple recommend though), but had no one to ask for permission or explain myself to. My husband and I always tell our kids, go to school, go on a mission, meet people, date, and theeeeen get married. Don't rush life.

Funkytown!!! Well isn't this an awesome blast from the past!!!

Granted, I don't know if Phelps documented what he meant by that anywhere, but I never assumed he meant skin color - I assumed he meant "species" - as in, "the human race". Nothing wrong with that line as far as I can tell.

If you go to the back of the hymnal where they list author/composer names, you'll see that some of them have an asterisk by them. The asterisk marks members of the Church. That and "Once in Royal David's City" are my two favorite Christmas hymns, partly because they're both fabulous, and partly because the rest of them have been done to death!

Oh wow - I wonder if Amazing Grace might find it's way in. If they get rid of Phelps' 'The Spirit of God', the brethren and I are gonna have words. (I'm still ticked off at LDS culture for not having "Lead, Kindly Light" be a sacrament meeting staple.)

I just re-listened to this talk, upon hearing your question. (And because it was a good talk to listen to while cleaning). It was really good talk, and provides good insight as to what revelation is. As to your question "Is it possible for personal revelation to contradict general Church or local leadership revelation?" I don't think that this question can be addressed as one umbrella, but instead needs to be broken down into different things. ---Using your example " can a Bishop get a revelation that you should have a particular calling, you pray about it and come up with a different answer", I would say "yes 100%". Callings are something you need to confirm with the Lord directly too. If there's a disagreement on things, talk about it. Thinking of one instance in my life: I was called to be in Scouts, which met Tuesday night. This calling came from the current Scout leaders, who felt the Lord telling them I would be a great addition to the team. And I would have been-- but I had to work every Tuesday and could not serve then. So I told them, and it was agreed that would not work. Still... being extended the call made me feel thought of, and was a blessing in my life. --- For a different example: "can I get a revelation that it's ok for my girlfriend and I to have sex, despite what the prophet teaches on the Law of Chasity?" No. Just no. --- There are other examples which can also be examples of two people describing different parts of the same elephant. And many more. When in doubt, approach each case with prayer, consulting God's words, and wise counsel.

I don't believe God contradicts himself, nor forgets what he told to whom when. So, how do we explain your example, which I'll bet happens fairly often. First, the bishop likely discussed the calling with the ward council (and / or presidency over the area in question) and accepted suggestions. After consideration, discussion, and prayer (probably with his counselors), he comes to a decision. Then he takes it to the Lord. He (or they) likely feels an impression that this is right (or wrong and we start this loop over). It's probably quite rare to receive something more firm (for lack of a better word) than the impression that he's made a good decision. I suspect that the impression he's received thus far is that it's right to extend the call. Being humans who are big fans of "cut to the chase", we tend to assume this means the Lord wants that person in this calling. Any more, I assume it means the Lord is good with the bishop extending the call to that person. Next, the person either agrees to meet with the bishop or not. If so, they hear the call extended, and respond in some way. If they feel the need to pray before answering, that is their privilege and the Lord will guide them as much as they are able to receive said guidance. Could the guidance they receive be to decline to accept the calling? At least in theory, yes. Perhaps the Lord was good with extending the calling because of some side effect it would have. Perhaps this person needs to discuss some struggle they're going through. None of that necessarily means the bishop or the member erred in understanding the Spirit's guidance (though in any given instance, these are possibilities). And yet, I'd bet most of the time, people would assume it does mean that someone was wrong (and if they're personally involved, it's the other person who was wrong). If I were teaching a talk about revelation, I would refresh my memory of Acquiring Spiritual Knowledge, and I would review the numerous (ok, at least 4) talks from General Conference that relate to following the Spirit, so that I had a variety of perspectives and teaching approaches. And one of the points of my lesson would likely be that we shouldn't assume more than what the Spirit actually tells you. A positive feeling about asking someone out does not necessarily mean you're going to marry them - it means asking them out is good. A positive feeling about moving to a new place may not mean life there is going to be rainbows and unicorns - it might mean there's hard work there and you're needed to help with it. It seems the Lord doesn't like to skip to the ending, he wants us to pay attention to the here and now.

This is a sad day for Canadian freedom.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada has come down on the Trinity Western Law School matter. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trinity-western-supreme-court-decision-1.4707240 Informed reaction: