Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/03/20 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Be careful there. Lying about Bushman has become de rigeur in anti-Mormon circles, and we don’t want to be caught embracing the lies just because we might be leery of some of Bushman’s work. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/03/yet-again-has-richard-bushman-declared-the-dominant-narrative-of-church-history-false.html Takeaway quote from Bushman himself, when he heard about how some of his statements were being perverted:
  2. 2 points
    Godless

    Led along by the nose.

    Sooo, a capitalist doing capitalist things? Seems weird to me that conservatives would be up in arms about that.
  3. 1 point
    just use a lighter to heat up the gas pump handle for a few minutes and you won't ever have to worry about the virus again.
  4. 1 point
    Playing Russian roulette each Sabbath would get a lot more people much closer to G-d significantly quicker - if that is the goal. The Traveler
  5. 1 point
    Just_A_Guy

    Kneeling to bless sacrament.

    Are the two of you living together? If not, than my thought is: your father is not the presiding authority over you when you bless the sacrament in your own home. Your branch president is, and he has approved your practice, and if your dad doesn’t like it then (assuming his priesthood leaders have authorized it) he can bless his own sacrament in his own home. If you live with your dad, then I can see how he’d think he’s the presiding authority over the family sacrament meeting (subject to your BP); and if you physically can’t do it his way, then it sounds like your only option is to decline to bless the sacrament in the family service and (if you want) do your own sacrament later in the privacy of your own room. Sorry you’re going through this, brother. Your physical issues are trial enough; but if your post gives the right tenor of things, it sounds like your dad is also kind of a jerk about it.
  6. 1 point
    JohnsonJones

    And, the Tyranny continues.

    Well, on the opposite end of the spectrum... When the desires of the small minority work to outweigh the desires and needs of the vast majority. A Prime example...there were a protesters at the Michigan capital. If they imposed their will to stop a stay at home idea that a majority of Michigan supports...and spread the virus willy nilly...THAT would be closer to tyranny than a stay at home order that a majority support (reality is I think polls put it more at a 50% support, but less than that by far for supporting the protesters and their methods in Michigan...so...harder to say in Michigan). Normally it is cruel and oppressive rule imposed by one individual or an outside force, but it could also be put into a small group of individuals or people imposing things which the population consider oppressive or cruel. The question is whether we ascribe to the ideas of Smedley (2 time Medal of Honor awardee, patriot, and individual who supported us NOT getting involved with the conflict in Asia and Europe for World War 2) or some of those in the Roosevelt Administration (which led support for lend-lease and involvement in World War 2, possibly also saved the world from facism and Japanese imperialism). Do we see the only rights worth fighting for are individual freedoms and the Bill of Rights and only for those do we stand, or do we feel that there are situations where individuality needs to be put aside for the cooperation of all of us and the future preservation of those rights. At which point do we allow a minority (those claiming the stay at home orders are tyranny and would like to enforce their OWN form of it by forcing others to contract the disease and be in the open) to enforce their will upon the majority, do we just go along with what the governments think are best, or do we find some alternative? Right now, many of those who were able to get unemployment (and there are many who have not been able to) have expressed concerns about going back to work. They work in jobs where they would be exposed, and when states resume functions (and many feel it is too early for those states to resume) they cannot collect unemployment if offered to go back to work in their eyes. Thus, they do NOT have the option to isolate (even if they ARE in a high risk category). This push to get the states to open back up could force many who would choose to isolate at home back to work simply because options that would allow them to stay at home are now unavailable. There are different ways to view tyranny. These protests are not about first amendment rights for the most part, but about the right to gather publically and the right to get a haircut, go to McDonalds, and go to the Movie theater and sports venues. They are not entertained...and want to be. It's about the right to be entertained more than the right to free speech, bear arms, or religion (IMO). Forcing those who work in those venues back to those places and to be exposed to a disease they may feel is dangerous to them is just as much tyranny as what these protesters are claiming to be against.
  7. 1 point
    tesuji

    An unfortunate 1950s fundamentalism

    Here's a great presentation at a recent FairMormon conference that I think makes the point even better than my original post: A Paradoxical Preservation of Faith: LDS Creation Accounts and the Composite Nature of Revelation https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2019/a-paradoxical-preservation-of-faith?fbclid=IwAR3ZdogxsEmsYGEJEdXLd_5yCVmHD1QgyJKjQQf7A4vhJMqi7t5xR70v1hM
  8. 1 point
    askandanswer

    And, the Tyranny continues.

    Or, phrased differently, have any elements of tyranny began to appear? I don't have a view one way or the other in this discussion, I just think the way I have phrased the question might be more likely to lead to a more productive discussion. And even if some elements of tryranny have began to appear, that still doesn't' mean that things have become tyrannical, because there might still be countervailing circumstances, but it might suggest that the position on the scale might have moved.
  9. 1 point
    MormonGator

    And, the Tyranny continues.

    Apparently, some would say yes. The irony here is that I'm a small government guy-I vote consistently Libertarian-but I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I understand history. So I would say no.
  10. 1 point
    askandanswer

    And, the Tyranny continues.

    I agree that the USSR and North Korea are tyrannical, but responding to the point @Carborendum made earlier, tyranny can be a scale. Has the position of the US on that scale shifted in the past month or so?
  11. 1 point
    What this sign says to me is if you see someone drowning, in large print, right in the middle of the sign, lol. Hardly an appropriate response. And then, in small print, at the bottom, call 911
  12. 1 point
    NeuroTypical

    The Comedy News Network

    From The Harvard Business Review (1995 - when Rush was making news and Fox was happening, and the left was more willing to look at such things critically)
  13. 1 point
    My personal practice is to try to do things the Lord inspires me to do, in general, in specific instances, and as exceptions. When I do my best in general I find I receive more specific promptings, including apparent exceptions to the rule. For example: In general, I avoid such a commitment to entertainment (4 hours in front of a TV? -- come on!), but I would sit in for a few minutes here and there if it was the only way to interact with a family member(s) in a positive way as opposed to avoiding them for the evening altogether. I don't foresee an occasion where the Spirit prompted me to sit there and watch it for that long, though, and I don't find it that edifying a practice, anyway. If my example isn't good enough for them to follow, at least I'm doing my best in good faith. As for professionals who play on Sundays: who knows what the Lord has told them to do for their particular circumstance and to provide opportunities for spiritual development? They might be doing a lot worse otherwise!
  14. 1 point
    I think @Vort is correct - but one part of G-d's opinion indicates that the Sabbath was made for man and that man was not made for the Sabbath. One problem that I see with do's and don't's governing Sabbath activity is that I am quite sure that two people doing exactly the same thing on the Sabbath - One is selfishly sinning and the other making a righteous sacrifice. We humans tend to judge others on what we see or perhaps on what we want to see. The ancient Apostle Paul suggested that the Sabbath is a day that sets our eternal course - that what we prepare for our Sabbath activity will shape our eternal destiny. I am of the mind that what motivates our core and dominates our mind concerning our Sabbath activity will be a primary contribution to our eternal discipline. So rather that ask what is acceptable or not acceptable - I think it is better to establish a Sabbath covenant with G-d. Not in do's and don't's but in attitudes of righteous sacrifice (sacrifice meaning to make whole, complete, holy) to become one with G-d. All of which is the essence of @Vort's response - just with a lot more words. The Traveler
  15. 1 point
    In my family, when it’s my birthday or Father’s day I get to choose the activities for that day. When it’s the Lord’s day, we should grant Him that same privilege.
  16. 1 point
    My opinion is that our opinions do not matter. The Lord's opinion is the only one that matters. My suggestion is that you find out the Lord's opinion.
  17. 1 point
    There are many who can instinctively feel when there is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The problem today is that many of these are doing 1 of 2 things. 1. They are trying to be good historians. They are gathering primary and secondary sources in a good historical method. They are trying to write the history in a way that recounts the Church's history from a good historical background. The problem with this is that EVERYONE get's equal footing. They get equal say, those who hate the church and those who loved the church. Unfortunately, over the years, those who were trying to take down the church have more evidence on their side than those who spoke for the church. This leads to a preponderance that says the church is false. The personal stories of Joseph Smith and others around him and from his time that WERE good members are ignored because the majority are against him. If one wants to be a good historian, this is what the evidence will tell them. AS Church historians, they can't say that. Thus, they try to ride the balance between what a good historian would do, and the traditional story of the church. This is trying to appease both sides, but in reality appeasing neither one. The other problem with this is instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to Joseph Smith and those who were on his side and trying to interpret things as per HIS viewpoint (Accept that his opinion is the basis of the true story and take everything from there) they take it from the viewpoint that he lied. Instead, they take the preponderance of evidence as telling the real story which, unfortunately is anti-Mormon generally. Thus, we have the really weird and strange place that Church history is today where the revisionist are trying to rewrite it (for example, why write Saints as the new official Church history when we ALREADY HAD one, and it had better sources from a historians viewpoint) and change it to appease more to those who already hate the church. This is a flawed take. They are never going to convince those who are anti-Mormon to agree with them, nor are they going to get historians to think it is good history (you can't do good history with the technique they are doing). Sure, it is more accurate than it was before, but at the cost of taking the viewpoint that Joseph Smith did more of his actions because he was a man rather than a Prophet of God. 2. They lost their testimony overall. They still have fragments of it which they are trying to reconcile with the gospel, but they also disbelieve the idea that Joseph and prophets from the 19th and the 20th centuries were really inspired. Thus, they discount things and revelations from them and rewrite them as racism, sexism, and many other things in an attempt to appeal to modern audiences. The truth...they will NEVER appeal to modern audiences in the way they think they are. By detracting from the prophets of the Early Church they only diminish the viewpoint of the modern prophets. Most believing members will not discount that the Prophets are men. It is obvious. However, the efforts today by those who lost their testimony but are still in the Church employ or working for the Church (supposedly) to discount earlier revelations and prophets I think it will only lead to more confusion and falling away rather than helping people stay firm in their testimony. ----------------------------------------------------------- As I said, from a historian's viewpoint form the outside looking in at what is happening in the Church History departments today...you have wolf in sheep's clothing there and it puzzles me why the Church is moving so far along with them. They think that by balancing between secular and traditional history they are keeping members, but I only see them as being catalysts to drive members leaving at this point. There are those that take anything they write and believe it, but there are many others that are on one side or the other...and by trying to go between the two, they are going to appeal to neither. It is better to appeal to the believing audience (and my real personal beliefs in the gospel and religion), then to try to appease those that will never be appeased to begin with (The secular world). You aren't going to convince me (my secular practice of history) or any other secular organization, much less those who don't like the church to begin with, with the current approach. It is better to teach to the living than the dead. I'll accept the religious history as coming from Joseph Smith, John Taylor and others from their own testimonies and mouths than a lot of this revisionist stuff coming out today. On my secular side...the secular world was already closed on that account and nothing the church does is going to convince them of the divine nature of the gospel or the church. I am a believer, but I do not try to reconcile my belief with what the secular world sees as facts. I cannot. However, I truly believe and know that Joseph was a Prophet and those that followed him are as well. I know the Book of Mormon is true and the gospel is true. No secular knowledge will ever lead me there, only the Holy Ghost and the Lord.
  18. 1 point
    There are some thing going on with Church Historians which should be ALARMING to members today. Rather than BELIEVE what the prophets (yes, even those from the 1950s and such) said and related, even those with FIRST HAND EXPERIENCES with those who said them (for example, Joseph F. Smith KNEW many of the older Prophets and General Authorities personally, and knew his Father perhaps better than any other living during the time when he was Prophet. He also understood Brigham Young's teachings enough to counter many polygamists who wanted to continue the traditions of it when the time was not right for it) and explained them. Instead, the church historians have turned to the ANTI-MORMON dialogues to explain things, sometimes even using documents and items which were greatly discredited in the past. They are writing revisionist history...and some of them if you READ between the lines are doing so because THEY LOST THEIR TESTIMONY. (Then again, I'm an outsider of the LDS historian circles, more of the worldly traditions and practices. Plus, I'm just a amateur church historian, my more professional focuses are in other areas) Why, then is the church letting them take control and change policies, rewrite church history, and many other things!!!? I have NO IDEA. For some reason we've handed the keys to much of our things to those who hate Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, and even more recent ones like Ezra Taft Benson. I do not know WHY we are doing this or for what reason. It should be obvious from what has happened to other churches that by giving up the discourse to those that hate the traditional teachings it convinces NONE of those that hated the church to begin with, and drives the true beleivers away once you've gone down the path to liberalize your church enough. Now, I will be at the forefront to say as a Historian, via what we would use as sources, I could probably say from a world viewpoint that the Church's history would be incorrect. Of course, with that same logic I can also show that the Bible cannot be true and is ALSO false. How do I correlate this between what I know is true and my stance that the Book of Mormon and the Bible are literal and true (in otherwords, I take that the Book of Mormon is a literal history as is the Bible and they are also true). I can't. I cannot see in any way to correlate them. Thus, the best stance is to admit from a worldly point of view one is how I handle it scholastically, and the other is a PERSONAL belief. Religion and Facts do not mix in this. I think those that try to mix them and intermingle to try to make religion match what we currently know of history (and that actually changes quite a bit) only weaken their own arguments of Faith and doctrine. From what we have seen over the past 2 decades on churches that try to rewrite their history to conform with what their enemies have said about them, or to acquiesce more towards the LGBT and other audiences, it has only served to weaken those churches and drive down membership. From every angle I can see, it is a mistake. You cannot convert those who already are determined to destroy your church, and you are not going to retain those who believe in the old doctrines if you change them to new doctrines. It's a good way to destroy your church. And yet, I see a LOT of those among the Church historians today. They are accurately trying to portray church history as per the world acceptance (which includes also including anti-Mormon accounts and first hand experiences). In this, from a secular viewpoint they are more accurate than the church has been before. At the same time they are completely failing (because rather than go the entire way the world sees it, they are trying to do a balancing act between what the secular interpretations of the world are and the traditional spiritual accounts of church witnesses) to convince other historians outside the church anyways, or anyone else. You cannot balance the two. You either embrace what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said and believe that they told the truth rather than those who wrote primary accounts against them, OR, you take the preponderance of evidence and take the secular view against them. You cannot have both pieces of the pie, which is what the Church currently seems to be trying to do. This is not so much about Prophets, but more about what seems to be a revisionist revolution within the Church to be more sympathetic to those who would destroy the church (which is actually kind of insane, why you would ever sympathize with those that want to destroy you is normally not a smart strategy. You end up dead doing that. ) among the ranks of bureaucracy. What the Prophets of Old said, is correct. What the Prophets of the Latter-day is Correct. When there is conflict, take into account what (I believe Joseph Fielding Smith said this) which, in summary basically says, old and new will always agree. Basically, the old is always correct, the new just fulfills it. A way to see it is the Savior. Some thought he was trying to teach against the old teachings, but in truth, if you keep the HIGHER LAW, you are keeping the Lower Law. He NEVER taught against the ten commandments, rather he taught that not only should we keep them in action, we should ALSO keep them at thought. He fulfilled the law of sacrifice, he didn't teach against it. HE NEVER said that any of the Old Testament prophets were liars, instead he taught that they brought truth. This same can be seen in our day. When Historical Bureaucrats try to convince us that Brigham Young or Joseph Smith were less of prophets because they were influenced by something as petty as racism, or let their more base human desires get the better of them...alarms go of in my head and say...something is wrong here. If they are fallen prophets, that would mean ALL of those after them are fallen prophets. What does one get by teaching against them in such a manner as it would, by logic, mean any of the prophets today are also thus (and unfortunately, if you read some of the Historical revisionist histories on the church today, that is EXACTLY the takeaway...which is SCARY). I do not know why the Church is allowing this to go on, or why we are bending to them. I am just a lowly member at this point trying to hang on by the fingernails. However, I think it's a problem stemming from the bureaucracy and other people within the church rather than the Leaders at this point (or so I would hope and pray). Right now, it's the wolf in sheep clothing that I think we have to fear the worst from, and I feel they have invaded the church administrative system enough to force their viewpoint to the fore. I only hope and pray that the Lord does something to help us before they do more than they already have. (personal opinion, of course).
  19. 0 points
    Well, you were fired as my propaganda minster a few months ago...you are now rehired as my loyalty enforcer. @mirkwood, reschedule the execution. @Midwest LDS has redeemed himself.
  20. 0 points
    CNN isn't liberal, they just like to focus on outrage and controversy; sensationalism. In the last few years, conservatives have been their primary source of headlines, but that may change, depending on what liberals will do during this next election.
  21. 0 points
    How else are you supposed to keep the peasants in line?
  22. 0 points
    I think we should discuss caffeine and the Word of Wisdom in this thread too.