Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/19/20 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    classylady

    No Talk of Miracles

    I have never heard that we should never speak of miracles, but rather, only if the Spirit prompts us to share. I have had miracles occur in my life. Most of the time I do not share them, but there are times when I have felt prompted to do so. For my children, now all adults, I created a binder I called “Family Treasures“. In the binder I have recorded the miracles that have happened to me, my husband, my children, and many of our ancestors. I believe there is a time and place for some of these miracles to be shared. They are sacred. I hope in my telling of the events that they will help strengthen my children and grandchildren’s testimonies.
  2. 2 points
    It really comes down to what you believe. This really has become a political issue and not a health issue. when all is said and done, individual’s chosen sources of news will be spun to show they were correct. I, of course, take the conservative side and think this is all slightly concerning hullabaloo. But certainly not serious enough to take such drastic measures.
  3. 2 points
    I don't know. That's really the sum of the whole argument. I have had various theories through the years, and have largely abandoned them all as insufficient. For the moment, I assume that Adam lived 6000—10000 or so years ago, a real man, in fact the first man as far as we are concerned. I think the garden of Eden story is a true history, though I don't know if it took place in an actual garden or if the garden setting is a representation of something else. I think the fall of Adam is absolutely real, and that the story of Adam's and Eve's parts in that fall are true, though again, I am not sure if those histories are to be taken exactly at face value or if they represent an underlying truth. I also believe that God does not play games with us, or that Satan plants fake fossils around to destroy our faith in God. The fossil evidence pretty clearly indicates that anatomically modern humans have been around for at least a score thousand years and probably more like 150,000-200,000. I see no reason to doubt that. It appears that we are the latest in a very, very, very long line of anthropoid creatures. Homo erectus, of whom homo sapiens might be considered the most recent and up-to-date version, looks to have been walking the earth for the last two million years. The morphological record preserved in fossils traces human origins back past homo erectus to what were apparently much more ape-like creatures that originated in Africa. Again, I see no reason, logically, rationally, or religiously, to reject this. In fact, I personally find this extremely consonant with the teachings of the gospel. The natural man is an enemy to God. But what is the natural man? It is man as an animal, nothing more than the brute body, created (through evolution) from the dust of the earth. What separates man from animal? Nothing. Nothing, that is, until you introduce the gospel, the good news of salvation from our fallen, mortal, corrupt state. Because however much of a miracle human life and human evolution are, the experience of living as a human animal is pathetic, not even a faint echo of our destiny, if we will but seize it. God himself took upon him the animal form of human life, became homo erectus in the flesh, so he could dwell among us and teach us a better path. His mortal life was not our first taste of heaven; indeed, that was Adam's and Eve's roles. God has been with mankind ever since Adam, ever since there was an actual man dwelling on the earth—not just a human-shaped and intelligent homo erectus, but a spirit son or daughter of the Father. So what place did early humans (if we may call them that) hold in God's plan of salvation? Were they truly nothing more than human-shaped animals, no more children of the Father than are dogs and porpoises? I don't know. Those are questions that, as the saying goes, are far above my pay grade. I hold no firm opinions on such matters, indeed no real opinions at all past mere speculation. But I do know the natural man, from my own experience. I have experienced the brutish and ugly in man, the objectification, seeing women as sex toys and men as pawns to be manipulated or sacrificed as convenient. I have also personally experienced, in my own heart, the feelings of brotherhood and belonging, the seeing beyond mortal sight as I perceive my fellow beings to be something potentially far greater than what we see before us. I have felt the hope that arises in the heart as I experience kindness and even love from other human beings. Many of our emotions appear to be based in the primate structure of our brains, or at least the mammalian structure; I have seen dogs and horses demonstrate fondness, affection, bravery, cowardice, and courage in the face of evil. But I have felt things that i believe no mere animal can experience, feelings that I think are outside the ken of the natural man, precisely because the natural man is an animal. I cannot harmonize the so-called scientific view of the descent of man with the religious view of man's divine origin. But that's okay. I can't harmonize the various gospel accounts of Jesus' life, either, or the accounts of Paul's (or Alma's) angelic experiences. That doesn't mean those accounts are false. I'm sure such things can and will all be explained to perfection when the time is right. For now, we are to overcome the natural man and seek the face of God. I suggest again that what you're battling is the idea of a stable population. You seem convinced that any human population that does not die out must of necessity grow and increase in numbers over a period of, say, fifty generations. But pretty simple math will demonstrate that, given constraints of food, shelter, and other necessities, it is not only reasonable but inevitable that a stable population will be achieved and likely maintained for a long period of time, even thousands (or tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands) of years.
  4. 2 points
    As you probably know, PC, we Latter-day Saints consider David to be a fallen prophet, one who has lost his exaltation and will now receive that which he was willing to receive instead of that which he might have received. How ancestral and cultural Jews perceive David is unlikely to change LDS perceptions on the matter. I'm offering this as an explanation, not as any sort of correction.
  5. 2 points
    Both the existence and details of this virus, and the all the different national/federal/state/local government's various reactions to it, have all made perfect sense to me... Since we got a new virus with a high R0 value, where people can be carriers for days and not have any symptoms. Since we got a new virus with a high R0 value, where people can be carriers for days and not have any symptoms, and the thing has a higher fatality rate than the usual flu. No really, high R0 value, asymptomatic carriers, and higher death rate. Those are three things. They're the things that make everything make perfect sense. If you don't understand or believe one or more of them, I suppose you could have your beliefs about it. But I both understand and believe all 3, and it all makes sense to me. Governors shutting things down, doesn't have a single thing to do with the federal constitution. It has to do with the individual states' constitutions. I wish more people would understand this important point. State governments don't get their rights from the constitution, they get them from the people. Best dang thing I've seen during this whole thing: A reporter asked Trump something like "You just said that you wish more states would X, and yet there are reports that some states are not X-ing. Why doesn't your administration do more to make these governors X?" Trump replied "Well, there's this thing called the constitution..."
  6. 2 points
    I'm so glad that we can find such surety about a topic that Christians can admit we have no revelation on and that scientist admit that we haven't really figured it out yet.
  7. 2 points
    Colirio

    No Talk of Miracles

    Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Or even better: JST Matthew 7:9 Go ye into the world, saying unto all, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come nigh unto you. 10 And the mysteries of the kingdom ye shall keep within yourselves; for it is not meet to give that which is holy unto the dogs; neither cast ye your pearls unto swine, lest they trample them under their feet. 11 For the world cannot receive that which ye, yourselves, are not able to bear; wherefore ye shall not give your pearls unto them, lest they turn again and rend you.
  8. 1 point
    To summarize the story: A judge ruled that the governor's (Oregon) extension of a 28-day executive order by 60-days was null and void since she did not get consent from the state legislature. Further, the judge seemed to agree with many of the plaintiff's contentions--mostly from churches. I first read this in the Epoch Times, a conservative publication. So, I checked to see if the mainstream media had suppressed the story or not. To my positive amazement, both Time and ABC News reported on it. Here's the ABC version: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-tosses-coronavirus-restrictions-oregon-governor-70751385 So...were the churches bad actors, protecting their church budgets by threatening members and the community at large with rampant spreading of COVID-19, or were they religious liberty guardians, assuring that the balance between free exercise of religion and state emergency powers be maintained with great care?
  9. 1 point
    JohnsonJones

    The Slow Return to "Normal"

    6...definitely...6
  10. 1 point
    The Bible Dictionary synopsis of King David, which both praises him, but points out some of the consequences of his actions: David’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba was followed by a series of misfortunes that marred the last twenty years of his life. The nation as a whole was prosperous during his reign, but David himself suffered from the consequences of his sins. There were constant family feuds, which, in the case of Absalom and Adonijah, ended in open rebellion. These incidents are a fulfillment of the pronouncement of Nathan the prophet upon David because of his sin (2 Sam. 12:7–13). In spite of these disasters, David’s reign was the most brilliant of Israelite history, for (1) he united the tribes into one nation, (2) he secured undisputed possession of the country, (3) he based the government on the true religion so that the will of God was the law of Israel. For these reasons, David’s reign was later regarded as the nation’s golden age and the type of the more glorious age when the Messiah would come (Isa. 16:5; Jer. 23:5; Ezek. 37:24–28). David’s life illustrates the need for all persons to endure in righteousness to the end. As a youth, he was said to be a man after the Lord’s “own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14); as a man, he spoke by the Spirit and had many revelations. But he paid a heavy price for his disobedience to the commandments of God (D&C 132:39). ‐------‐‐------------------------- Anyway, if I were to choose and OT hero to emulate, it would be Joseph.
  11. 1 point
    People are often surprised at what I do know and what I don't. Today, I learned something new. 🤷‍♂️
  12. 1 point
    Yes, and Hebrews 11 also praises Jephthae, who offered his daughter as a burt offering (though some people try and dance around this and come up with an alternate explanation even though the scriptures are clear on the matter). Jephthae is praised right before King David in that verse in Hebrews. Yes. Christians (including the LDS) praise him a lot too (though the LDS believe him to be a fallen prophet). I personally can't view him as a good guy though, at least not later in his life. I do know that some might disagree.
  13. 1 point
    And there it is. You disbelieve evolution not for any scientific or pseudoscientific reason, as you suppose, but simply because you think it doesn't square with your religious beliefs. I have no response to that. I am not going to try to convert you to the gospel of evolution. But by the same token, I reject your arguments against organic evolution as utterly specious. I do not perceive the religious conflicts that you do, so I'm perfectly at ease accepting the principles of molecular organic evolution, including speciation and all the rest. You are welcome to disagree. As I wrote before, I don't believe Peter guards the Pearly Gates with a molecular biology exam. You are welcome to claim that organic evolution violates the tenets of our religion, though I am equally welcome to claim the opposite. You are welcome to deny the central tenets of evolution, though you may not simultaneously deny them and also claim truthfully that you have any real comprehension of them on anything but a strictly surface level. You are also free to teach your children about the evils of evolution. But when your children enter high school and college (including BYU), begin thinking for themselves, and perhaps accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution, you had best hope and pray that they do not take your religious objections to evolution at face value, or at least you had better hope and pray that they have developed a reasonably mature testimony of God in their lives. Otherwise, you might find your children taking your anti-evolutionary stance in a way diametrically opposed to that which you had hoped. I've seen it happen before.
  14. 1 point
    The Book of Mormon when they first landed appears to back this up. Just look at how quickly the Book of Mormon numbers increased. It is said that the American Indians were anywhere from 8 to 112 million population size (they were hunters, gatherers, and traders). We know of two people (family groups) who were on the American continent. We know the Nephites spread north and south. Although, to be fair, there could have been populations that didn't increase very quickly, but you are talking about 6K to 7K years. Not just a hundred years. So, population increase isn't just something that happened within 1200 years ago. Jaredites were 3000 years ago or more and there numbers doubled. They would have been hunters, gatherers, and probably traders. The American Indians, have been around a long time (assuming we are considering the American Indians as those who traveled to America around 10,000 BC). Their population (added to by Jaredites, Mulekites, and Nephites) is estimated to have been anywhere from 8 million to 112 million (and I would assume the population didn't begin in the millions when they traveled here). It doesn't appear you are suffering from presentism as others have suggested. This appears to be steady population growth long before 1200 years ago. The interesting thing also, depending on which population growth one accepts (8 million or 112 million) that was also after all the wars and death (up to Columbus). Mayans themselves were around 4000 years ago with a steady population growth that was first estimated at 5 million (from whatever number they started with) with new discovery of potentially 10-15 million. That appears to be steady population growth (not presentism).
  15. 1 point
    askandanswer

    Baptisms for the dead

    This immediately leads to the surprising conclusion (for me) that there were billions of spirit children of God who were denied access to the gospel for thousands of years. That conclusion raises some interesting questions.
  16. 1 point
    And I'm just here because I'm a moderator and keeping an eye on stuff is what I do. 🧐
  17. 1 point
    I had a philosophy teacher tell us once "I can come up with a theory that says we were all created five minutes ago with wrinkles on our faces, food in our stomachs, and memories from events that never happened. And people would believe it."
  18. 1 point
    You're not seeing that this is utterly irrelevant. Consider this idea. For 150,000 years, the human population did not significantly change. It remained pretty much the same. Like the American bison, the human population hit its capacity and remained there. It did not increase until it filled the entire planet. It stayed more or less the same for a long, long, long, long, long time. This is not a difficult concept, but it is one you appear either to have ignored or rejected. I don't understand why. That is not a logical conclusion. It is non sequitur, unless by "atheistic" you do not mean disbelief in God, but only not using God as part of your model. If that is what you mean, then I agree. But in that case, there is not wrong with such an "atheism" that does not deny God, but merely says that we're not looking for God as the immediate causative agent. I don't know how my views are different from the mainstream. I don't particularly care; as I noted explicitly yesterday, I am not deeply trained in molecular biology and don't pretend to have great new insights into evolutionary theory. By "how DNA came to be", I assume you mean the biogenerative process leading to its existence. I don't know that. Neither do you. Neither do the scientists who speculate about warm, shallow, amino acid-laden pools three billion years ago.
  19. 1 point
    No, you do not. That many scientists proclaim themselves atheist doesn't mean science is atheistic. To use your words, that "defies logic" (but in this case, it really does). Science does not deny God. Rather, science seeks mechanisms and models for observed phenomena. To say, "Thus-and-such phenomenon is like that because that's how God made it" might be true, but it's a useless statement. It adds exactly nothing to our understanding of the mechanics of the phenomenon or the predictive models we should use. Saying "that's how God made it" is ultimately a philosophical, not a mechanistic, argument. Of course science doesn't accept "because God made it that way" as a valid hypothesis! It's unfalsifiable and useless for anything but a philosophical argument.
  20. 1 point
    NeuroTypical

    The Slow Return to "Normal"

    2 factors that influence the virus spread: - How dense the population is. - How dense the population is.
  21. 1 point
    Fether

    Celebrity Doppelganger

    There is the famous Will Ferrel and Chad Smith (Red Hot Chili Peppers)
  22. 1 point
    Scott

    Baptisms for the dead

    That's not what our Church believes, but traditional Christians do. Our church believes that baptisms have always been performed, with the exception of during the great apostasy. In Moses 6, for example, Adam was baptized unto Christ. Our church believes that baptism is needed for salvation, regardless of the time period and that it is part of our conversion unto Christ.
  23. 1 point
    Scott

    Baptisms for the dead

    No. Several church materials have stated this. See here for example under Temples: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/temple?lang=eng From Adam to the time of Jesus, ordinances were performed in temples for the living only. After Jesus opened the way for the gospel to be preached in the world of spirits, ceremonial work for the dead, as well as for the living, has been done in temples on the earth by faithful members of the Church. Building and properly using a temple is one of the marks of the true Church in any dispensation, and is especially so in the present day.
  24. 1 point
    This session focuses on King Saul's consultation with the witch at Endor. I suspect that we share a rejection of fortune telling, which despite this episode being roughly 3,000 years old, gets called "New Age," these days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSI6MXB0rCA
  25. 1 point
    This lesson explores how devastating Saul's decline was. Not only did he lose the kingdom--his own family and household became divided. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoNFecm78Uc&t=5s