Leaderboard

PP, I’m having a hard time following your posts here; but it seems like you’re coming down on @Vort primarily for his having the temerity to suggest that Jesus is, objectively, more real than Santa Claus. Flirting with nihilism doesn’t make a person smarter. It doesn’t even make the person seem smarter.

I open carry sometimes, though it's not my preferred choice. Even when I open carry, you probably wouldn't notice I'm carrying because I usually have something partially covering it. I live on a homestead. I work on the property often. I have animals and predators. I find open carry to be more comfortable when working. If I run into town to get something, I'm not taking the time to swap holsters or guns because frankly, I don't care if someone does or doesn't like that I'm displaying a firearm.

The so-called Adamic language has been called a "pure tongue" and is generally construed to be a divine or perfect language. What constitutes a "perfect language" was a topic of considerable debate in the nineteenth century, resulting in the creation of various artificial languages. Esperanto is almost certainly the most successful of these linguistic efforts from the 1800s; I would suggest that Brigham Young's Deseret Alphabet sprang from the same impulse. At that time, many people held the opinion that a "pure" or "perfect" language would be one in which there would be no ambiguity. There would be only one way to say something, and more importantly, it would be impossible to say two different things in the same way. The prevailing idea was that this absolute avoidance of any possible ambiguity would surely allow pure and perfect communication, mind to mind. The difficulty (it was thought) lay in the structure of the language itself. If only we had better linguistic tools, surely we would have better communication. Developments in linguistics and especially metalinguistics in the past 150 years has pretty much debunked that idea. I don't think anyone really knowledgeable in the area believes any such thing now. (Like all good Scotsmen... ) Gõdel's* famous "Incompleteness Theorems" prove or at least strongly suggest that no such unambiguous language is even possible. Languages inherently have ambiguity, which is a darn good thing for us. Otherwise, we would need to have a perfect knowledge of everything before we could say anything about anything. *(In the 1930s Kurt Gõdel proved mathematically that every formal axiomatic system capable of modeling even basic arithmetic must always contain true statements that cannot be derived from the fundamental axioms that define the system. In fact, such a system cannot even prove its own consistency. This was a mind-blowing result, which literally stood the mathematical academic world on its head.) So what was and is the "Adamic tongue"? If you're not a believing Latter-day Saint, I suppose you'd say it's a flight of fancy invented by Joseph Smith. For those of us who are faithful Latter-day Saints, the question is very real but not easily answered, except in a question-begging literal way of, "It's the language Adam spoke." If I had to make a guess, I would probably suggest it was the ancestor of modern Semitic languages, mainly because several linguistic elements mentioned in the book of Abraham (e.g Kolob, Kokaubeam, gnolaum) look suspiciously like Hebraisms, or at least as if they share roots with Hebrew or Phonecian or other Semitic languages. The purity of communication is possible, but not through means of some special language. The Spirit allows such communication. With the Spirit, it is possible to have complete, unambiguous communication between individuals, including between God and his children. Without the Spirit, no such communication is possible on any but the most restricted topics, even with some special language.

Yes.

I'm fairly certain that a lot of us believe that, not just mirkwood.

Handbook 2 14.4.4 says the opening and closing hymns are "...normally sung by the congregation." Exceptions occur. The same section also goes on to say, "The sacrament hymn is always sung by the congregation." Exceptions should not occur.

Adam and Eve were real people. The fall took place, and was a necessary event. The stories in the Book of Mormon really happened, as did those in the Bible..as far as they are translated correctly. It matters very much as these accounts were not recorded at large for people during those times, but for our benefit in this day and age.

I was chatting with our LDS volunteer yesterday, and mentioned Adamic language (he knows I am Pentecostal). After the discussion I went to the encyclopedia at byu.edu, and it said that Joseph Smith, and a few others, did speak in tongues, and that the believed it was the Adamic language. Most recently, President Benson indicated he believed (perhaps as a personal opinion) that the Adamic language would be restored during the Millennial Kingdom, and that this language represented a pure culture that has been lost. Of course, none of this is doctrine, and the church does not put much emphasis on it. However, as an outsider, what I gain from the topic is that LDS do tend to be much more open to the promptings and workings of the Holy Spirit, even than some of my Evangelical brethren. This post probably won't garner much debate, but perhaps some observations and insights . . .

How things change our lives.

Most of what we call real - is belief. Are electrons real? Something is happening and science does its best to come up with an explanation. The more we learn about what we think are electrons the more we realize the inadequacies or our explanations. But there is another problem - how does one distinguish between what is real and what they think is real? There are two possibilities in determining reality. One is by relying on empirical evidence to construct a proof of reality. The second is faith initiated revelation from a divine source. Some time ago I introduced to the forum that what we think is empirical reality - quite possibly is a simulation. This simulation concept of reality is a most difficult concept to deal with. In short it means that the only way to conceptualize reality is be divine revelation. But there is a problem with divine revelation and that is anyone can claim anything to be divine revelation. By definition - G-d is the proctor of whatever simulation concept of empirical reality is in effect and is also the divine source of revelation. Thus the only possible means for us to determine "reality" is by whatever consistency is resolved through empirical evidence and divine revelation. Without publishing volumes on this subject - Jesus being real is the only possibility of commuting divine justice and mercy I have encountered. Does this mean that it was necessary for Jesus to walk on water? To be honest - I cannot resolve that question beyond the decision that it really does not matter if that story is a fabrication or not. Even if Jesus walking on water turns out to be a false distortion of reality - it does not negate the absolute need of a divine redeemer to resolve divine mercy with divine justice. The Messiahship of Christ is necessary and real. The Traveler

Agreed. Some may choose to question the divinity of Jesus, however, only a completely ignorant fool would question his reality as a person. Aside from the Bible, multiple Roman and Jewish writings mention him as actually existing...both in life and in death. It is fact that he was a real person who lived upon the earth.

Dear @mirkwood Serous series of questions. If you do not feel comfortable answering the following I completely understand. If this is the case let’s not pursue the subject. Am I correct in believing that you feel that it is in the interests of your community that a civilian nonpolice officer should own a handgun and to transport that handgun relatively freely eg to a grocery store? I acknowledge that you have the right to own a handgun and to transport it freely but I am not asking about rights but rather if having this right gives a practical benefit to the community. Thanks!

Sure. That's why I don't typically open carry. The element of surprise is good in any situation. However, I also think the average every-day thug in rural New England would be deterred by an open carry gun. Most violent crimes aren't mass shootings. I'm more likely to cut someone off or inadvertently steal a parking space and get road raged. That being said, I'm also generally not on red alert for a mass shooting when I head to Blue Seal. My odds of being caught in a mass shooting are pretty small unless I move to the hood or start selling smack.

If it does, we deserve it. Especially the political left, by far the largest and most virulent cancer in our national body, but the political right is hardly lily white.

If you see critics talk about the Book of Mormon, they will cry about how there is NO archeological evidence. But... If you say nothing of the bom and listen to archeologists talk about archeological discoveries in South America, they will say that the Amazon is such a huge mystery. Joe Rogan interviews an archeologist that spend a good portion of the time talking about how we have only recently discovered how incredibly advanced the ancient South Americans were in agriculture in a seemingly impossible place to grow crops. and how we have no idea what is underneath the Amazon Rainforest. Only recently are Entire cities have been discovered buried next to popular tourist attractions.

That’s been my experience as well—other than with law enforcement officers, of course. There’s very much a “NOTICE ME!!!” component about most of the schlubs I see doing it that goes beyond their decision to carry a gun.

Can I just say that everyone I have ever seen “open carry” have been people I don’t trust with a firearm. They seem to be people who are trying to make a statement or are just seeking a reaction. I am very on with that policy

Unless the Book of Mormon is real, it doesn’t make sense to believe anything it says. Same with Adam and Eve. I could make up some sort of value system, and populate it with made up characters myself. It would mean nothing unless I could sell it and gather believers to my system. Some people have stated to me that the Bible is totally made up by people to obtain some sort of control over the gullible. So, in order to contradict this sort of thing, the people, places and events in the Bible must be largely true. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Like Mark Twain said, you can’t pray a lie, and you cannot believe in one either. Not really For us believers, the Spirit has testified these things are true. If it were otherwise, there would be no Spirit. And there would be no believers.

As we saw starting thirty or so years ago with the then-RLDS Church (now the Community of Christ).

This incongruous idea of a Book of Mormon that presents itself in a most solemn and unmistakable manner as a true history of a real people, and most solemnly attested to be a real history in no less than the sacred name of Jesus Christ, is a perfect example of how Satan can carefully and cunningly lead the Church of God Into a state apostasy. It’s all so diabolically clever because it’s a strategy to seed the Church with unbelieving but still participating members of record who, if they are not open and transparent about the state of their unbelief (at very least with their bishops), could end up masquerading as testimony bearing members of the Church. This, in turn, could create a detrimental atmosphere of dishonesty and deception that would no doubt hinder a fuller presence of the Spirit of truth and light. Even worse, if such unbelievers developed a proselyting spirit that seeks to gain “converts” to their way of thinking. they may be numbered among those ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing so often warned of in the scriptures. Such people might also serve in the role of “sleeper agents” who could significantly undermine the the Church at a time of crisis when the testimonies of the saints need to be strengthened. I can almost imagine the Adversary and his generals gathered for a strategy session as one of them speaks up and says, “I’ve got a better idea... Instead of destroying the testimonies of the Latter-Day Saints so that they leave Church and harass it from without, better yet, let’s destroy their testimonies and find a way to keep them in the Church where they’ll be in a much better positions to do significant harm.” On the flip side, I do acknowledge that for the more sincere and humble among the “Book of Mormon as fantasy” crowd, it may be better for them to remain in the Church where there’s a better chance to regain their weakened testimonies.

I am reminded of something Dr. Henry Eyring said (quoting from Dan Peterson's blog -- not original sources https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/08/henry-eyring.html I tend to agree with Dr. Eyring. Yes, some have accepted scientific claims so dogmatically as to limit their spiritual growth. It also seems to me that some religionists -- including some of our apostles and prophets -- have been so dogmatic about their private interpretation of scripture as to limit our ability to discover the real truth. I'm not sure which side of this coin I fall on. Ultimately, I like Dr. Eyring's conclusion. I don't have to believe anything that is not true. I'm not sure if or how I will always, infallibly know what is true and what is not true -- as Vort says, this is where enough humility to accept that I don't really know the final answers.

Viewing the Book of Mormon (as a whole) as inspired non-history is problematic because of the tangible physical way it was revealed. As I've written elsewhere:

Reason I ask this question: A returned missionary that is currently studying at BYU came over to the house and was discussing his beliefs about evolution and archaeology and because these sciences don't support a record of Adam and Eve nor the peoples of the Book of Mormon in the Americas - he rationalized that the stories must be figurative. For him science is stronger than revelation. I happen to believe that revelation is much more solid than our current understanding of science. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve and the fall just as described in the Scriptures. Just like Jeffery R. Holland; Where Justice, Love, and Mercy Meet. April 2015 I also believe the Book of Mormon as a literal historical account. The angel Moroni who wrote the majority of the book instructed Joseph Smith personally. I think that some of the instruction that students are getting at BYU (as well as the remainder of 'Higher Education') is questionable. We don't know as much as we think we do. There is a God and He is infinitely more intelligent than any University Professor.

I personally take the Bible and Book of Mormon as being literal. I also know that we can show that they could not possibly have occurred with our current historical, geological, archeological, and other records in the secular world. How do I sync up these two views? I don't, I simply hold them as separate portions of my life. There ARE gaps in the genetic records and other areas which I feel will change as time passes (and have already changed during my lifetime in how we understand it). A prime example is DNA and the origins of people. To determine where the origins of people come from, in many instances, relies on CURRENT DNA relations. In otherwords, those from the Middle East and especially Palestine is based more on the genetic makeup of those who reside there now, rather than who actually lived there 2000 or 3000 years ago. This is because...for no surprise to anyone...we have a massive lack of DNA from those time periods. We have some testing, but overall, there is more DNA matching with current DNA than old DNA in recourse of determining the origins of individuals. With that view, and seeing that Jew is short of those who are part of the tribe of Judah, and the ten tribes are actually seen as LOST...how does one actually KNOW what the DNA of the lost ten tribes IS? What were they? Could it be the same as the Jews and those who have origins in the Middle East today or at least Palestine? That's the supposition. Is it a correct one? I don't know. We'd at least suppose they had a common ancestor within the past 10,000 years, but honestly, as those tribes are supposedly lost...I'd say...we don't know. Even as we can show what we feel occurred in the world with our scientific records and other items from the past, those who think we have a PERFECT knowledge of it all are just fooling themselves. Things will continue to change as our understanding increases. Whether that shows things from the Book of Mormon or Bible have any accuracy at all, or continue to show a greater deviation in the actual history is something I cannot foretell. However, overall, I simply separate my religious beliefs from my secular ideas and thoughts in many instances.

I am fully aware of the change in the Book of Mormon intro as well as other “shifts” that have been made. The problem isn't that the church may be wrong or that changes come and go at times, the problem is thinking you know better than the church. That attitude is the problem. I don’t know how someone can have disagree with church teachings and not cultivate that thinking in their life.

I did some more pondering on the topic and I think their is a problem with believing the Book of Mormon is a figurative and fictional book. The intro to the Book of Mormon says the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the native Americans and there are multiple church supported sources where they speak of the evidence for the Book of Mormon. Believing that the Book of Mormon is figurative is not the problem, but believing you know better than the church in any matter seems to me to be sowing the seeds of apostasy in your own life. When times goes on and the church does something you disagree with, you can then point to the matter of the reality/figurativity of the Book of Mormon as proof that the church isn’t always right and further separate yourself from church’s teachings. Apostasy doesn’t happen all at once, but little by little.

Yes you can believe that, but don’t cry it from the roof tops as if it were true. Don’t turn it into a “gospel hobby” where you become obsessed with sharing it with people and finding other scriptural stories and demand they be accepted as figurative too... I would argue however that there is some impressive revelatory evidence from apostles and prophets that says the Book of Mormon is literal. But will being wrong in this matter effect your salvation? Perhaps...

Adam and Eve: we know that aspects of this story are figurative, but we also know that there was/is a literal daughter & son of God with the names Adam & Eve. Honestly, I don't think it particularly matters where how much you find any particular aspects is figurative versus literal -- the big point is to testify of Christ. There's lots of parts I'm personally in the "I don't know and I don't care" camp. I can also give my my passionate speech about how I do believe in creation AND evolution and how they are not opposed to each other. Scriptures being literal (because the question applies to *all* scriptures): ok, this is actually the same answer as above.

I was in the Renton Stake as a youth in WA, and our stake had a Youth Dance Committee (YDC) comprised of a girl and boy from each ward. The stake had its own music collection and the YDC met with a High Counselor at least once a month (usually on a Saturday morning) to review new music that the youth suggested would be good to add to the collection. We listened to the music and the criteria were simple - it had to be clean, and it had to be a good fast dance song or a good slow dance song. Approved songs were added to the stake collection. This way the music played at dances stayed fresh and every song was a good dance song. Kids could request older music from the collection list and the Stake DJ (usually the High Counselor) would work it in if he could. Standard format was 2-3 fast songs, then a slow song. We always ended the night with a slow song. The YDC also had responsibility for reviewing the standards for updates (usually printed on the dance cards) and for manning the check-in table at the dances. If someone was inappropriately dressed it was the youth who told them, but we also maintained a collection of clothing that boys or girls could borrow to meet the standards. Girls wore dresses and men wore slacks, ties, and collared shirts. No tennis shoes were allowed but that was rarely an issue when people dressed up. People without a dance card could attend after a short YDC interview to review the standards if they had an escort with a card. Members and non-members could both have dance cards. Other policies that made the dances successful: 1. Adults supervised the parking lot and cars. Nobody was allowed to hang-out in their cars or in the parking lot. 2. There were adults assigned to sit next to every building entry/exit. There was only one way in and out. 3. Adults roamed the halls and checked the rooms regularly. Areas were blocked off to reduce problems and wandering. 4. Once you entered the dance, you had to stay. If you left for any "unapproved" reason, you were not allowed back in. The youth enforced the entry/exit rules. 5. If anyone was dancing inappropriately it was a member of the YDC that spoke to them. Since they tended to be Laurels and Priests, kids were usually willing to heed their warnings. 6. There were always good refreshments. 7. It was consistent. You knew what to expect every time, and you got to know the adults who sometimes danced as well. As I've grown older I've come to recognize that President Jensen's dance policies were very wise and inspired. Every stake should have a Youth Dance Committee IMHO. PS: I remember one Saturday when a group of us decided to go up to the Bellevue Stake to attend one of their dances. When we got there we realized we were the only one's dressed up, and as we walked into the cultural hall we were surprised to find a live band playing Highway to Hell from AC/DC. Nobody was dancing and nobody seemed to care. We left and never came back .

WARNING! Man's perspective: I think what has been shared above is amazing. But if you can't seem to fix things, I would release her regardless of the backlash from her. She may defile your name, drag it in the dirt... but that doesn't really matter at the end of the day. The YW need a healthy place to go to and they deserve leaders that will give them the attention and direction they need. She is focused on who is right, you need to be focused on what is right for the YW. EVEN IF you were as terrible as she thinks you are, it sounds like it is her that is driving wedges into the YW leadership and causing contention. The righteous leading of the YW is far more important than her feelings.

That's true, but the fundamental question is: Whence derives the elemental oxygen in our atmosphere? The answer is without doubt water, which means the oceans. But the bulk of that oxygen must have been liberated well before what we call the "oxygen cycle" was well-developed. Anaerobic bacterial activity must have been responsible in the first instance for creating an atmosphere filled with then-toxic oxygen, before life developed which actually used that oxygen for its own benefit. Amazing, really. (Perhaps "mind-blowing" or "incomprehensible" would be better words.)

I've had a contentious calling once (and only once) before. I was called Activities Chairperson (that calling doesn't exist anymore) and somebody else was called as Activities Coordinator. I'm the type of person that works best when I either decide how to tackle a project myself or I don't make decisions at all. I'm just not very good with collaboration especially when the people I collaborate with have a completely different idea of how to handle the project (you can call me by my nickname - Miss Control Freak). Anyway, we found out we couldn't agree on anything and she wouldn't follow what I planned for the Activity - she goes and does her own thing - so I told her, ok, I'm not good with collaboration, so I will give you full control of all decisions and you just let me know what you want me to do and you can be assured it will be done... well, that didn't work because she wouldn't plan the entire activity, she would come up with this not-well-thought-out plan, scrap it if it doesn't work and come up with a new not-well-thought-out plan... Anyway, it was giving me a headache and 2 activities that weren't up to "my standards" so I told the bishopric I can't work with her, explained why, and asked to be released. The bishopric released her instead. She had a Mary Kay business so I made sure I attended her parties and supported her the best I can with that just to keep our relationship from going sour. I later found out she has bipolar disorder which is the main reason she couldn't stick to a plan. If I would have gone to her Mary Kay things and got to know her more right when I realized it was going to be difficult to work with her... it wouldn't have made things any easier but at least, I wouldn't have gotten a headache. I would have probably tried different things to accommodate what the REAL problem was - marrying her bipolar challenges with my control freak challenges. What I'm trying to say is... sometimes, we get ourselves too stuck on our perspectives of what the problem is, that we forget to learn about the other person and miss what the REAL problem actually is.

I could actually look up the section numbers for the restriction on baptism. But that is not the same thing as a restriction on a calling. I know that probably sounds insane, but as a case study, there was a certain person in my ward that, if they had requested to be baptized, I don't think we would have been supportive of it (habitual, serious transgressions that were unlikely to change quickly). But, as it turns out, the person had already been baptized and began their descent into this pattern of transgression after their baptism. Their name came up as a potential primary teacher. The bishop was hesitant because he was considering disciplinary action. So I told the bishop, either call the disciplinary council or give them the calling. They won't progress until you do one or the other. This person became a primary teacher. I won't say that we hold pre-baptism people to different standards than post-baptism people, but we do sometimes respond to their specific challenges differently. Is there a case where I might give a cohabitating member a calling? Maybe. Depends on a lot of different factors. I just think it's important we don't invent requirements that aren't needed, or perpetuate requirements that don't actually exist.

I would like to see your reference on this. I'm not familiar with this restriction in the Handbook.

Hi @Bella, welcome to the forum! You being concerned about the Law of Chasity and your boyfriend's disrespectful to go on a mission are both great things. So I'm going to be really straight with you here: Similar to how riding around on a motorcycle without a helmet and with a passenger sitting on the handlebars shows a lack of many things. non-sexual sleeping with your boyfriend is a REALLY stupid thing to be do. It shows a lack of commitment to God and your covenants with Him, a lack of understanding of those covenants, and leaves the door wide open to a whole web of sin. I would make it a priority to study things more, and deepen your testimony. That is something the Bishop and/or your youth leaders and very much help with too.

You know what you get if you take 100 boyfriend/girlfriend couples, and put them alone in tents for a night, and all 100 couples say "we didn't do anything sexual"? Many, many couples who are lying. This isn't about breaking the law of chastity (unless your friend is lying), this is about trying to avoid alcohol by sleeping in a liquor cabinet. Some things are just not good ideas.

That's King Benjamin's opinion. Would you like to know the Lord's?

I know it's a commandment to "Honor your father and mother", basically parents. It's just really hard to honor them when they have been missing all my life. It's like they are there but not really there. My father, who was very abusive to me in the past, also threatened our family to leave us to divorce(but never did), who beat up my siblings and me and also was emotionally abusive to us. Everything has calmed down now but time to time, he has his own tantrums. My mom is basically missing on my life. I never had a meaningful conversation with her all my life. It's like we are there but we are so far apart. It hurts so much to know that they just exist and we don't really know each other. I am about to be independent now and moving out, but I feel like this has put a lot of burden in me. I've always wanted a family but they are just not there. We don't talk, we work, come home, do our thing, and when we do talk, we argue....

We need a name for this “firewall”... say... veil???

Sounds awful (quoth the lawyer).

When I read this, my head literally exploded. (The other people on the bus weren't happy.)

You're not off. But the simplicity of the meme is lost on you. Anti-FA, who have liberty, choose Communism. In HongKong where the protesters are threatened with the possibility of falling under a Communist regime, they embrace the American Flag which, especially to them, is the symbol of Liberty. The idea being - Trump, the President that Anti-FA is protesting, is the President of Liberty which is great for the rest of the world. None of the 20-or-so Democrats running for President will be that President especially after the fascist plans they are proposing at that Climate Town Hall.