Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/28/18 in all areas

  1. Faith, hope, and charity is what allows us to become compatible; however, in the beginning it is good to find common ground. I wouldn't be the expert of dating, as I didn't have much fun in the dating realm. Far too many power struggles, dishonesty, etc... for my liking. Like a guy I worked with who said while engaged, "My fiance doesn't even know I cuss. She won't know until we are married. She wanted to marry a guy who doesn't cuss." This is the type of dishonesty that will later create a wedge in a marriage and disappointment. The first example, be glad she made the choice as it doesn't appear you would have been compatible unless you are/were both of the nature to be very patient pertaining to what is allowed in the home. You now know she wasn't right and probably wouldn't have been compatible. The second example, refer to first example response. It also, isn't our choice as to what should matter to a "grown adult" when we are deciding on being sealed in the temple. If a person believes not believing or believing in evolution is important to him or her, then they should follow that and all of us should accept it - even if we disagree.
    2 points
  2. Hispanic women breast-fed in front of me all the time when I was a missionary. They just popped em out right in the open, no covering or anything. Perhaps it was never really uncomfortable because I was 12 and 14 when my mom breast fed my little brothers at home. Normally, as long as a mother uses one of those wrap/covering blanket things, I see no reason why she shouldn't be able to breast feed just about anywhere.
    2 points
  3. https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/27/scientists-revived-42-000-year-old-frozen-worms/ Close runner-up: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44952710
    2 points
  4. But, the source material you quoted makes no mention of "worship," let alone it being what is supposedly sought after by those seeking to fulfill God's will that His children become like Him--i.e. one with Him even as the Son is one with the Father. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
    2 points
  5. I suspect animals are a great deal more intelligent than we generally give them credit for. I have seen dogs exhibit love, anger, embarrassment, and even deep shame. I do not for a moment believe this is merely my anthropomorphizing the animal's behavior and actions. I believe that mammals, especially the larger ones, share much of our fundamental "human" emotional make-up. It's part of having a brain with a prefrontal cortex. All mammals have it to some degree, although the human's is larger and more complex than any other (except maybe whales). The resemblance between the feelings, reactions, and personalities of humans and other primates, especially chimpanzees, is downright uncanny. This is one reason chimps are so scary, along with the fact that they can literally rip you to pieces, and will if given motivation and opportunity.
    2 points
  6. This one would have made the top two almost any other week: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/07/27/rare-whale-dolphin-hybrid-discovered-in-hawaii-scientists-say.html
    2 points
  7. This is fantastic! Thanks! Im getting a bit picky though on this, are these quotes found on an official LDS site? Or in a book with the LDS stamp on it? I absolutely love Book Craft and the many wonderful books they have produced, but they are not the church. I want somewhere I can point when someone says “Orson Pratt said *insert strange quote* so this is what the church believes”. But I’m beginning to see a stark difference between official teachings of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as accepted by the quorum of the twelve and the church as a whole, and the teachings found in books written by apostles under their own volition and printed by LDS affiliated companies like Book Craft, Deseret Book/News, LDS Living, Fair Mormon, BYU, and other non “in house” sources. I find all sorts of quotes by church authority explaining the break down of what is to be accepted as doctrine and what isn’t. But I haven’t come across much on the topic under the official church.
    2 points
  8. So the Salt Lake Tribune ran an article recently. I shall not link it because I don't find that paper fit to line my hamster's cage. But I sort of watched this from the beginning to do those dreaded Facebook mom groups. The story goes is a woman was breastfeeding at church. People complained, bishop asked her to stop, she said she wouldn't, bishop took her temple recommend away as well as that of her husband's for not commanding her better, yada yada. I don't know how much is true or exaggerated, but now there's a call or petition or something for LDS leadership to not condemn breastfeeding as sexual. Now, I've breastfed at church. I've done it in the mother's lounge, though I don't always like to because it's tiny, tends towards crowding, and smells of diapers. Plus it has no speaker system. I've done it elsewhere. It's never been a problem. I am a tad rah-rah-breastfeeding and I lean toward "avert your own eyes as I'm trying my best not to flash you." Ultimately, I don't know what really happened. While part of me is shocked at the notion the bishop took away recommends JUST because she was breastfeeding and JUST because her husband was on her side, I doubt it's so simple. I imagine a bigger hullabaloo went down that possibly did stem from this conversation. I don't know if this is something the church should take a hard stand on. Is it a reoccuring problem? Does it support all cultures in the world-wide church? At the same time, is it a good idea, the breastfeeding being a few steps short of a strip tease, to mess with temple recommends?
    1 point
  9. Traveler

    Character Storming

    I have been in writing clubs and editing groups – yes I know I have a problem with characters. It is mostly because I have such a hard time with touchy feely notions of characters. I will give an example. A certain character is an excellent marksman – a William Tell type (whether it be the bow and arrow are sniper with a rifle) – the physics of an accurate bullseye shot have logistics that alter the aim when the target is at a different height than the source of the shot. If a character is proficient with such a skill the writer should know what they are talking about. For another example – if a character must build a fire without matches – the author should know how it is (or should be) done. A third grader can make up a story and a character – I just think there must be enough believable evidence that someone writing about anything has something important to say that is consistent both in the story and the character. I was a great fan of Star Trek and Spok – until an episode where Spok went back in time and thought that a tape transport was a computer. For me it is like cotton candy – it looks fun and tastes very sweet – but there is nothing to eat – so that when you are done, you feel unfulfilled and if you gave it to your kids – they will act as if there is no reality leaving you to wonder – not just if it was worth it but why you even considered it in the first place. And now you know why I am not successful writing anything other than user manuals for techs. The Traveler
    1 point
  10. I can guarantee you that a person who actively serves others, love others, and do "good" cannot stay atheist. I would like to think this is true; however, the concept of "moral agency" tells me otherwise. Our gift from our Father in heaven let's us know that people can choose to persue good things without choosing him. If not, it would destroy the agency of men. I know some atheists and every single one of them are selfish, do not love and serve others with a genuine love and generally don't do good. We have different experiences then of people who are atheist. Overall, INMO, the concept of atheism is a selfish state (a law unto themselves); however, this doesn't mean that every act performed or accomplished by an atheist is selfish. Atheist's can love people (a good thing), and I have seen fiercely loyal atheists to their marriage. This is a good thing and requires more than mere selfish desires to keep the marriage alive and thriving. My personal experience is that many atheist serve and have genuine love for those they truly care for, especially those in their close circle of friends. I don't think for a minute when a friend atheist visits their friend dying of cancer in the hospital that it is from a selfish point of view. I am sure its root is love, and to love is good and godly. I would not say their compassion and love is a Godly desire (which is the irony in this life when an atheist meets their creator and they realize all their good, all their love and compassion they ever felt were gifts from the God they rejected). The rain falls on the just and the unjust, while the sun shines on the just and the unjust. God blesses atheists with genuine love and service when they themselves honor the law that brings this blessing, even if they do not acknowledge the hand that gave it to them. The person you describe as having literally the light of Christ in their countenances because of their good works are not atheists. My personal experience tells me otherwise. All children of our Father in heaven have been blessed with a spiritual gift (if not two or three). Atheists, like all others, have been given gifts from God by which they are able to act with. Their religion or lack of religion does not dictate their service to be less than a believing Mormon. Atheism and selfishness go hand in hand, that's a fact. Anytime we seek to glorify ourselves (believer or non-believer), as we act in this world, is selfishness. I would say an atheist is more likely to glorify themselves; although, this doesn't mean they go hand in hand. An atheist is able to take no thought for themselves and thus genuinely server others. In this case, we disagree.
    1 point
  11. Kol Hamispalel by the Yeshiva Boys Translation: "Whoever prays in this place, in Jerusalem, it is as if he has prayed before the heavenly throne [literally "throne of (the)Glory" -- 'the Glory' meaning 'God']. For the gate of heaven is there, and the doorway is open for prayers to be heard."
    1 point
  12. I disagree. Satan's #1 goal is the spiritual destruction of mankind. I believe he will do anything he thinks will help to achieve that goal.
    1 point
  13. That corrected version sounds exactly like something he might say.
    1 point
  14. If it's any better, I see that KUTV has also picked up the story. I think Vort's answer is the best -- if the leadership is being overly prudish, then they need to get over it. If the sister in question is being unnecessarily stubborn, then she needs to back down. The thing that I find frustrating is that the sister and the feminist groups that have picked up her cause are the ones writing and controlling the narrative. The Church has so far refused to make any statement. Perhaps because Salt Lake needs to gather some information and investigate both sides before making a statement. Patience is difficult sometimes, but I am hoping that there will be some more clarity come forward in the days ahead. Though, as the Trib article points out, this kind of thing seems to pop up every couple of years, with similar results. Someone gets grief for breastfeeding in Church, the incident goes public, and the Church offers some kind of verbal support of motherhood, and things settle down until the next incident.
    1 point
  15. That's absolutely scriptural. Haven't you read the scripture where it says 'their worm dieth not'?
    1 point
  16. I have not read (and will not read) the SLTrib article, for the same reasons you don't link it. What a useless rag. The mere fact that the SL Trib finds a cause worthwhile is valid reason to question whether it's actually worthwhile. I see at least two non-mutually-exclusive possibilities: The woman was being rude and a pain in the neck, and/or the bishop was being unnecessarily prudish. If the latter, then the bishop should get over it. If the former, then the woman should repent and quit embarrassing herself and acting like an idiot. Count on the Trib to blow anything up out of proportion, especially if they can somehow smear the Church, directly or by association. Scum of the earth.
    1 point
  17. This is a lake deep underground, like a mile down. No surface water can exist on Mars, not for more than a few seconds.
    1 point
  18. Cool! I thought the going theory on Martian water, was it turned to gas the instant it hit the surface...
    1 point
  19. Thanks. I see your rationale. Jim
    1 point
  20. I think that the church’s stance in Brigham Young is the same as with another previous prophet. What they have said is true unless it doesn’t agree with current church policy in which case we can forget what they said. Bruce R. McConkie ”And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”
    1 point
  21. zil

    Spirit Children

    I'm not saying who is right or wrong in any of this (that seems pointless to me). Given these things you wrote (emphasis mine): ...do you see why some of us got the impression that he had done something wrong (in your eyes)? And why that might indicate you have an opportunity to forgive him? This is just an example of how two people, looking at the same thing, perceive it very differently. Neither party has ill intent, both parties have good reason to believe what they believe, and yet, they see differently. To avoid contention, both sides have to concede that the other is experiencing their own reality and perspective. Regardless, I'm hoping we can give you information and tools that will help you deal with this situation in a way that doesn't involve contention. I have no idea whether your dad and his new wife have gone nuts (it happens), or whether they're behaving in a way that would seem normal to most Mormons, but is disturbing to you. But regardless, the possible techniques to interact well with him are pretty much the same, and hopefully you can find ones that will work for you within this thread (and/or others that you may participate in). One of those tools is to "step out of yourself" and view your own and his actions as an outsider with no emotional investment. Technically, this is impossible, but one can do it to a degree, and it can help one to adjust expectations, gain understanding, and keep a cool head. At the end of the day, words are just sound waves traveling from one person's mouth to another's ears. As long as the volume isn't physically painful, they have no power unless the listener gives them power (yes, very, very hard to do, but not impossible and trying can help in situations that are otherwise contentious). It may be that you need to learn a new way to ask your questions - not because you're doing it wrong, but because your method is upsetting him. If he can't find a way to not get upset, and you still want to ask your questions, then regardless of fault, the solution is to come up with a new way of phrasing questions. Or it may be that you need to ask us your questions, and not ask your dad. You'll have to figure that one out.
    1 point
  22. @theplains What you're presenting and asking about is a caricature that bears absolutely no resemblance to the passages you're citing. Would you care to share your source material with us so we can better understand what's driving your inquiry?
    1 point
  23. anatess2

    Spirit Children

    Hi @TurboGirl. Your questions are good and valid. At the same time, I believe you are asking a question that does not resolve your conundrum. Questions pertaining to life after final judgment are very deep questions and is very difficult to grasp for someone who doesn't even accept the truths pertaining our mortal condition. We are taught that faith is built line upon line, precept upon precept. So, we start in "Kindergarten" gospel principles with "God loves me". We build faith on that first then we can move on to "1st Grade". We may have to take remedial classes if we get confused and go back to a simpler precept but it is always confusing to jump over a few or a lot of precepts and tackle higher faith lessons. Celestial Glory and our lives of being gods ourselves including being able to build worlds and gather spirits of our own is a "PhD class". I believe what you need is "How can I learn to love my stepmother without feeling like a traitor to my mother?" or maybe, "How can I love my father?" or maybe, "How can I forgive my father?", or "How do I recover from grief?".
    1 point
  24. zil

    Spirit Children

    This is the real problem. You need to stop thinking about yourself, and he needs to stop thinking about himself. You need to listen harder than you ever have before to his feelings, experiences, and desires - without once thinking about how to respond to them or explain yourself. Your goal should only be to understand. You should go into it believing that he is sincere, honest, and virtuous in his intent. Then those roles should reverse. He should go into it understanding that the pain you feel is real and that it's not his job to "fix" it, but to understand it (that's very hard for a man - they don't see the point if it's not to "fix" it). Paul clearly tells us we cannot imagine heaven. Yet you are imagining up nightmares of your own making and then rejecting them as unacceptable. If you can reach a point where you acknowledge that these are your own ideas, it will be much easier to find peace. Yes, it is nigh impossible for the human mind to accept a lack of knowledge. We fear the unknown even when a trustworthy person tells us there's nothing to fear. But in this case, it is better to come to peace with the not-knowing than to torment ourselves with our own imagined, nightmarish-to-us version of heaven. Please note that you aren't the only person who does or has done this - not by far. Why right here in this thread, we have two people who have taken diametrically opposed views of how spirit children come to be spirit children. Each believes they have solid evidence for their interpretation and I'd bet neither one of them is yet willing to recognize that neither of their sources is sufficient for either of their interpretations to be held to so doggedly. The simple fact is that we do not know. The lines immediately preceding the quote I gave in my previous reply: Rather than torment yourself with what may be false conclusions, learn to analyze the scope of what something really says. But more importantly, you need to learn a different, more selfless way to interact with your father (and he may well need to do the same). And this won't happen quickly, so be patient, and go into it not intending to make yourself understood, but to understand him.
    1 point
  25. You are assuming God would not create the appropriate environments where those things could dwell as part of His process?
    1 point
  26. zil

    receiving a fulness of joy

    I personally highly doubt that God ever sat around thinking, "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if millions upon millions worshiped me?" @CV75's description seems far more probable. Further, I think Abraham gives us a more likely shadow: Regardless, I think one should be very careful about speculating on things which have not been revealed lest one convince oneself that fantasy is reality.
    1 point
  27. Given the speed at which celestial beings appear to be able to travel, and the length of time the evolution process takes, that is highly doubtful.
    1 point
  28. It's kind of funny how we re-hash the same topics, and somehow it seemingly never gets old to do so. Anyway, aside from other reasons that have been given in the past. The use of organic evolution in respect to the creation of our earth, as I see it, would lack common sense. If there are worlds without number that God has created, and if literal and direct creation of the body from the 'dust of the earth' were to be rejected as plausible, in my mind the most logical thing would be for Adam and Eve and all the animals to simply be born and then transplanted from another location. Why re-invent the wheel, and re-hash the process of evolution if mankind and animal kind already exist? Seems like a wasted effort, unless you somehow want to assume that animals on other worlds are not the same as the ones here. The only alternative would be to assume that God had no other option but to use that method, but once again, if man and beast already exist, seems like an unnecessary procedure to go through the process of evolution.
    1 point
  29. Vort

    Church stance on Brigham Young

    J. Reuben Clark told this story, quoted most recently by Elder Christofferson in the April 2012 General Conference. Note that Elder Clark himself said that the story may have been apocryphal (read: made up): “To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. … “… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.” -J. Reuben Clark Jr., When Are Church Leaders’ Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture, 10. The footnote in the linked version of Elder Christofferson's talk reads: Of the story his father told him about Brigham Young, President Clark further wrote: “I do not know if this ever happened, but I say it illustrates a principle—that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”
    1 point
  30. @DennisTate Thank-you for this thread. If you haven't read CS Lewis' "The Great Divorce" already, i'd highly recommend it. i've been reading near death experiences also (though not nearly so long as you), and i think it's a really unique insight that has a lot of wisdom. Amy Call's Near Death Experience really touched me also. You can find it on Youtube, if you have any interest. As you, i find it rather confusing that so many good people can report so many different things. In the end, i think i've come to the conclusion that there is quite a bit of variety in the afterlife. And also that i think that God and Jesus give people the things/experiences they most need (some pleasant, some not so much), choosing from those that the person will accept - while continuing to work with each of us. And i am not active in the Mormon church - so please know that my statements reflect that.
    1 point
  31. That may be where it became "pop culture". Catholics have always held this belief though whereas Protestants dropped the teaching as the scriptural basis for it is in the deuterocanons which the Protestants excluded from biblical scripture.
    1 point
  32. Purgatory as a Catholic doctrine seems to have really taken root in the high Middle Ages, very possibly entrenched in the European mind by Dante's classic Divine Comedy trilogy of Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. The idea of purgation is that of the continuation of the soul and its progress after death. Purification of some sort needs to happen, either from sin or from the filth of mortality. This is an ancient idea, had by many peoples and cultures through the millennia. I believe it is a remnant idea surviving among various groups of an early established truth. Today, the best, fullest explanation of that truth about "purgatory" is found in the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those doctrines teach us that we are eternal beings currently undergoing a mortal probation, and that that probation continues after our mortal death. We continue to be the people we were in mortality, and insofar as we have preserved our ability to exercise agency, can still choose and grow. So yes, the Catholic idea of purgatory is more accurate than the binary idea of our eternal abode immediately after death being either heaven or hell for all eternity. But it's still an inaccurate doctrine, similar to saying that the idea of the sun being fixed in the crystalline heavens and rotating around the earth is more accurate than the belief that Apollo drives the sun chariot across the sky every day.
    1 point
  33. Well @anatess2 hit the ball out of the park. No way I can add anything to those 10-star posts except "Amen".
    1 point
  34. We would love to do the work for you. I suggest you create a record of your dad in familysearch.org. It's a free website that the LDS Church provides for everybody regardless of faith. The Church also provides this website to members of the Church to organize their information to help them prepare for temple ordinances. So, it would be easy to just hand over your dad's info by entering all of it on familysearch.org then authorizing a member of the church to pull the info for temple ordinances. BUT... I strongly suggest you hold off on it. Baptism for our dead loved ones is a very very special moment. If there's any possibility - even just a small teeny-beety possibility - that you will accept the teachings of the Church and be baptized yourself, it would be one of the most special moments of your life to be able to go through the baptism again on behalf of your father. We would not want to rob you of that moment. Right at this moment, my 14-year-old son is at the Nauvoo temple waiting to be baptized on behalf of his great-great-grandfather who was born in 1880. He is in a very special spiritual moment and we spent most of yesterday talking about his great-great-grandfather. I spent the last 3+ months in the Philippines digging up all the information surrounding my great-grandfather, asking all my elderly relatives for stories about him - the oldest of whom is around 90 years old who is my great-grandfather's daughter-in-law. It was an awesome experience for me just getting to know my great-grandpa. It was a special moment passing all those stories to my son, and it was a special moment for my son to go to the temple on his behalf.
    1 point
  35. Purgatory - being the staging ground before salvation where those penitent plea with Christ for salvation and saints help and pray for those in purgatory to be saved - is closer to the LDS teaching of the Plan of Salvation than the Protestant teaching of heaven and hell simply because of the fact that heaven and hell is taught as a final destination. In LDS teaching, the similar teaching of heaven and hell is spirit paradise and spirit prison. These are estates that are part of the progression and is not the final salvific destination. Therefore, spirits who die go to either spirit paradise (heaven) or spirit prison (hell) and continue to learn about Christ and accept his saving grace (heaven and hell being like purgatory where it is not the final destination). Spirits in paradise have accepted Christ and has overcome their mortal challenges in such a way that they have freed themselves from unGodly Will - this is similar to the Catholic saints. Spirits in prison still haven't accepted Christ or have not overcome their sinful nature so they continue to learn and grow and repent until such time that they qualify for paradise - this is similar to Catholic Purgatory. Baptism for the dead - a temple ordinance - is an act of love for those who are in prison by those who are in their mortal probation as baptism is an ordinance performed on mortal bodies. Those in prison may accept the baptism done by their proxies as a covenant they make with Christ to accept his atoning grace. Also, those in spirit paradise continue their work as teachers and ministers to those in prison to help them free themselves from bondage (similar to Catholic saints aiding spirits bound in purgatory - so it is like in Catholic tradition where mortal people pray and plea to the saints to aid them and intercede on behalf of their dead loved ones in purgatory). This is the important teaching absent in either Catholic or Protestant teaching: After the completion of Christ's work of atonement, spirits in paradise/prison go through the final judgment of Christ where we are sifted to the final estate within the Plan of Salvation - outer darkness or any of the degrees of glory where Christ reigns. Those who pass through the waters of baptism and make the covenant (including those baptized by proxy) will be in glory, the lowest degree being degrees of magnitude more glorious than earthly paradise and the highest degree of which is being in the constant companion of the Father. Those who reject the covenant with Christ will be in outer darkness - a spiritual death that is a complete and eternal separation from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So, in a way, the Catholic teaching is somewhat closer but still very far. And that is because of the missing teaching on temple ordinances. This exact same missing teaching is what causes Catholics and Protestants to argue endlessly over works vs. grace.
    1 point
  36. @DennisTate Hi Dennis! I confess that I don’t know what purgatory is! There is an lds temple in Dartmouth. Although nonrecommend holders cannot enter, many people find inspiration by being on the grounds. 44 Cumberland Dr, Dartmouth, NS B2W 6M1, Canada
    1 point
  37. And for what it's worth, I imagine the question was prompted by other readings, since the neither the title (receiving a fulness of joy) nor the sources cited (God wants us to be like Him), lead us to God's ambition to be worshiped. Rather, it should lead the reader to realize how much God loves us as a father.
    1 point
  38. The chapter you're quoting from is about the premortal life. The earliest point that we have consistent and clear teaching on are this period of the Heavenly Council (see here), which includes the introduction of the plan of salvation, the fall of Satan, and the creation. Margaret Barker refers to this as the First Day teachings. Note that none of these teachings take place before the Father is God (in everything that means). As for God the Father's origins, we have a handful of sources, but no clear consistent teaching. For example, perhaps the most well-known teaching comes from Lorenzo Snow: And then when you read through the lesson that quotes it, you'll see the emphasis is on our potential to become like our Father in Heaven (just like the lesson you quoted from Gospel Principles), not on the origins of God the Father.
    1 point
  39. Ohh!! You just triggered a memory. In our old house, our next-door neighbors are Jews but I didn't know it at the time. She invited us over to dinner and I told her I'll bring something. I felt she wanted to decline it but was too polite to say so but then I thought, nah, that was just my imagination. So I brought Filipino pork sticks! That's when I found out they were Jews. Hah hah. She was very nice about the faux pas though and asked me if she can put a sign next to the dish that says Filipino Pork Sticks. Of course I said yes. That made it easy for her Jewish guests to avoid and the non-Jewish ones to partake. Those guys are also smart as all get... I don't think I've met a Jew yet that wasn't smart.
    1 point
  40. AM Talk show host Dennis Praeger was talking about this last week. He figures there are three indicators of compatibility in marriage: Intellectual, spiritual/moral, and sexual. I only heard part of the show, but I think he claimed that basically any two folks who had all three, could absolutely succeed at long term marriage. I'd add a fourth: Maturity to know where you stand on those three. If you know what you believe, want, and are, and you know why you believe it, then you can look for similar things in another. I figure nobody reaches that level of maturity for at least two decades. Some people never reach it.
    1 point
  41. How far do we take this situational ethics thing in light of D&C 98:10’s lack of ambiguity, though? That scripture doesn’t say “choose honest, wise, and good men unless they can’t beat Hillary”, any more than Exodus 20:14 says “thou shalt not commit adultery unless your wife is ugly”. Why do we as Mormons openly talk about how the wickedness of corrupt kings like Noah inevitably trickles down to hoi polloi, but then act as though the wickedness of elected leaders is magically prevented from becoming a cultural phenomenon? Would you endorse a man like Donald Trump as the prophet of the LDS Church? Why not, if God is perfectly capable of working through unrighteous leaders? By the way, Nebuchadnezzar was an instrument of divine punishment; not protection (unless we choose identify ourselves spiritually with ancient Babylon rather than ancient Israel—for a worldly, idolatrous Babylonian, I suppose Nebuchadnezzar’s reign was a pretty sweet gig). And to use the Old Testament to suggest that temporal security lies in declaring allegiance to one strongman, is a gross perversion of the messages of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Samuel, and a host of other pre-exilic prophets.
    1 point
  42. Was that the same worm that was eating it’s way through the fruit of the knowledge If good and evil that Adam partook of?
    0 points