Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/09/21 in all areas

  1. So, this is a long thread that I haven't followed closely (family camping trip the last couple of days). So, @clbent04, I'll throw out some random thoughts that occurred to me as I perused the thread this evening; and maybe they'll be useful, or maybe they'll just be illogical rantings. I also want to note that it seems to me that you've been very tentative and vague in some of your questions/inferences in this thread. Some other folks seem to have read you as suggesting either a) that a person can, with some degree of scienter, deliberately reject opportunities to enter into covenants with God throughout their mortality and yet still claim exaltation at some point thereafter; or b) that it is unnecessary for an exalted person to have received their saving ordinances, either in person or by proxy, prior to the Resurrection. Frankly, I don't read you as alleging either of those things--and I'm not sure if it's because I've been reading you very closely, or not closely enough! Either way--I'll respond to some of those ideas, but please don't interpret me as posing straw-men if that wasn't what you intended to suggest. With that said . . . here goes: 1) I don't know that, in these sorts of discussions, it's very helpful to talk about what a "good Baptist" or "good Methodist" or "good Buddhist" or "good Muslim" was. Religion--other than our religion--is, to a significant degree, man-made; and in many cases is so inextricably tied up with local culture/peer pressure that I'm not sure a person's loyalty to their chosen religion is an eternally significant indicator as to what kind of eternal reward someone is going to receive. 2) Similarly, I would agree with those who have pointed out that it's not particularly helpful to get wrapped up in a person's deeds/works in these kinds of decisions. 3) I would also beware about over-emphasizing trite platitudes about charity or "wuuuuuuv"; particularly as the concept has been bastardized and perverted in the last fifty years. 4) The seminal scriptural texts here, I think, are D&C 76 (cited by @mordorbund), D&C 88 (cited by @laronius), and perhaps also D&C 130. Then-Elder Oaks's "The Challenge to Become", I think, is also crucial in getting a proper perspective on these sorts of issues. Again, these scriptures seem to say relatively little about institutional religious devotion; and they don't come off to me as being either legalistically works-based or being rooted in hippie-dippie notions of "charity". Taken together, I think the scripture and Elder Oaks point to a set of "judging criteria" that focuses primarily on the nature of the relationship that we have formed with Jesus Christ, the ability we have cultivated to hear Him, what we have become already, what we are willing to become further under His tutelage, and what we are willing to give up. 5) The covenant path--the commitments and liturgies associated with what we call the "saving ordinances"--are a sine qua non for exaltation, full stop. They are non-negotiable. They have to be made, whether in person or by proxy. No other current institution has the divine authority to administer those ordinances. The quantity and depth of Church teaching on this (as exposed in part by @The Folk Prophet) and the tremendous sacrifices the Church has historically made to make this teaching a reality, is staggering and--to my mind--not up for debate. 6) In the priesthood ordinances, the power of godliness is made manifest. In the ordinances, we receive (or become eligible to receive) endowments of spiritual power that can magnify and enhance every virtue, give power to every endeavor, and fundamentally change our lives. We can also receive these ordinances and thereafter fail to live up to the privileges associated with them. It seems that significant proportion of Church members fall under this category--I know I do. 7) Nobody on this earth is a finished project. The finished project is Godhood; and the most amazing, godly person any of us has ever met in person is a tiny speck compared to the dazzling light of exaltation that may one day be attained through atonement and full reconciliation with Christ Jesus. In this sense, then, no one is living a "celestial caliber" at any point in their mortal life. I can't look at anyone and think "yeah, he's made it." Similarly--and harking back to point 6) above--the question is not whether John Q. Non-Mormon seems to be living a more "celestial caliber" life than Jane Z. Mormon. The question is how much more awesome John Q. Non-Mormon would be at this moment if he had access to the same wells of divine power--the same promise of potential--that we in the Church do. I am satisfied that--as I think it was @estradling75 who suggested it--those who were denied access to that power in life will wistfully reflect on how much better mortality would have been if they'd had that power; even if only in an Alma-esque, "I do sin in my wish, for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted to me" sort of way. I don't see anyone in the eternities saying "geez, sure glad I dodged that 'Mormonism' bullet, 'cause paying tithing woulda sucked!" 8 ) Are the saving covenants/ordinances required for salvation as well as exaltation? I don't know. Is there progression between the kingdoms that renders the difference between "salvation" and "exaltation" moot in the long run? Again, I don't know. These questions add a layer of complexity to what we've been talking about. I've also grown up with the paradigm that proxy temple work is of absolutely no benefit to people who rejected the Gospel in this life; which had always led me to the conclusion (which I'm sort of revisiting now, but I haven't abandoned at this point) that a person who receives a Terrestrial or Telestial inheritance does it independently of any priesthood authority that the LDS Church currently possesses (and has the ability to receive limited ministrations from the Holy Ghost even in their unbaptized state). So, if the Catholics or the Presbyterians or even the Shintos can bring a person to the Terrestrial Kingdom just fine, it seems to me that the LDS Church's raison d'etre is to do what the other churches can't--to point out the path to exaltation for those people who want to follow it, and to facilitate the liturgical work for the living and dead who want to go down that path. There may be some incidental material benefits--supportive communities of fellow believers, cheap food storage, ridiculously economical academic degrees, and the like--but fundamentally that's not what make us, us. I believe it is in our acknowledgment of the quest for exaltation and our ability to orient people on that quest, that fundamentally defines us as a Church; and if we fail to do that, we make ourselves institutionally expendable as far as the Lord is concerned.
    4 points
  2. Slave trade was an essential and established activity of native Indian life in Utah prior to 1847. The Utes, often traded Indian children (including their own) for goods and firearms. When Mormons arrived, they were confronted with this disturbing reality and were coerced into participation. Early members felt they didn’t have a choice in the matter, if they were not willing to do it the Utes would sell the children to the Mexican trade, torture them or kill them. However, when Mormons first arrived in Utah, Ute Chief Walkara welcome them with open arms, thinking perhaps that they would become potential customers and business partners. In 1848 New Mexico became part of the United States, and as a result, things were about to change dramatically for known Mexican traders such as Don Pedro Leon Lujan. He made a request to Brigham Young (Utah's governor and ex officio superintendent of Indian affairs) for a new license. Young refused to grant it and also, gave him a lecture about the evils of Indian slavery. Later on, Don Pedro was discovered with Indian slaves and was charged with trading with Indians without proper documentation, arrested and sent to trial. Chief Walkara was furious at this unexpected outcome because his livelihood was now being threatened by the Mormons. The Indian slave trade as previously mentioned, was an established practice long before the Mormons arrived in Utah. In 1851, the brother of Ute Chief Walkara, decided to go to Provo, confront the Mormons and force them to buy slaves. When the early members refused, he went into a rage telling them they didn’t have the right to stop Don Pedro Leon Lujan from buying children unless they were willing to do it themselves. Daniel W. Jones (Mormon pioneer and who started the first translations of the BOM into Spanish) recorded: “Several of us were present when he took one of the children by the heels and dashed his brains out on the hard ground. He then threw the body toward the Mormons and told them that if they’d had a heart, they would have purchased the child instead.” (The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in America, Andres Resendez) Solomon F. Kimball stated: “The red men were not long in learning that the Saints were a tender hearted people and could not witness such scenes without sympathizing to the uttermost with those who were being tortured”. (The Effects of Spanish Slavery on the Indians of the Intermountain West, Carling Malouf & A. Arline Malouf). John Young described one of the children they were able to save: “She was the saddest little piece of humanity I have ever seen, they had shingled her head with butcher knives and fire brands. All the fleshy parts of her body, legs and arms have been hacked with knives, then fire brands had been stuck into the wounds. She was gaunt with hunger and smeared from head to foot with blood and ashes.” (Memoirs of John R. Young, Utah Pioneer, 1847) Even though Mormon pioneers opposed the practice, Brigham Young saw it as an opportunity to save them from death and starvation. He stated that these children were so emaciated that they were not able to stand upon their feet. He also mentioned that Ute Chief Walkara was in the “habit of tying them out from his camp at night, naked, and destitute of food unless it is so cold, he apprehends they would freeze to death”. (The Whites Want Everything: Indian-Mormon Relations 1847-1877 ) So he encouraged early members to buy Indian children, particularly those who were on the verge of death. Brian Q. Cannon noted that Mormons bought slaves for a variety of reasons: Some early members wanted to buy these children because they felt they needed to be “civilized” and wanted to convert them to Mormonism (and Anglo-Americanized). Child slaves soon became a vital source of labor for early settlers. They traded these children with other members or even gave them as gifts. Orson Pratt stated that “the Lord has caused us to come here for this very purpose that we might accomplish the redemption of these suffering degraded Israelites.” (Journal of Discourses Volume 9: Salvation of the House of Israel to Come Through the Gentiles). At least one of these minors, Sally Pidash Young, was indentured by Brigham Young himself. There is anecdotal evidence that suggests that these children were not always treated equally. Some were treated as children of the family and others were exploited and mistreated. They worked as servants for long hours and were not taught how to read or write. They also slept separately from the rest of the family. Brigham Young was aware of this and advocated the passage of the Act for the Relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners of 1852 which allowed Utah residents to become guardians of Indian minors for up to 20 years. Even though it was not the ideal outcome, it provided some sort of legal protection towards these children since part of the agreement was to ensure that they were clothed "in a comfortable and becoming manner" and receive an education. Some members and historians argue whether or not the church is guilty for engaging in the Indian slave trade. The following is not to justify the activity; however, true motives of why some early Mormon settlers started to engage in the practice shouldn’t be ignored. Despite the controversy, Young himself was opposed to Indian slavery. In his address to the Utah Territorial Legislature in 1852 he stated the following: “It is unnecessary perhaps for me to indicate the true policy for Utah in regard to slavery...When human flesh is to be dealt as property; it is not consistent or compatible with the true principals of government. My own feelings are that no property can or should be recognized as existing in slaves, either Indian or African. No persons can purchase them [Indians] without their becoming as free, so far as natural rights are concerned, as persons of any color; under the present law and degraded situation of the Indian Race, so long as the practice of gambling away, selling and otherwise disposing off their children, as also sacrificing prisoners, occurs among them, it seems indeed that any transfer would be to them a relief and a benefit… This may be said to present a new feature in the traffic of human beings; it is essentially purchasing them into a freedom instead of slavery; but it is not the low, servile drudgery of Mexican slavery, to which I would doom them, not to be raised among beings scarcely superior to themselves but where they could find that considerations pertaining not only to be civilized but humane and benevolent society.” (Address to the Utah Territorial Legislature, 1852)
    3 points
  3. Just wanted to share a bit of job success. I teach for one of the virtual schools. Last week, I got a nastygram from a parent. Like, insulting my intelligence and skill. After letting myself imagine lots of delightfully nasty and unprofessional responses in my head, I responded with nothing but empathy and sorrow and offers of help. I did this to about half a dozen more nastygrams. Turned out that while the parent and I were talking over how to solve problems A, B, and C, it turned out the real problem was in an entirely different universe. Coworker in charge of separate universe helped and matter was resolved. Parent has been nothing but supportive and polite and friendly since. Like, freakishly polite and kind. I think, though, we may become good partners over the year.
    3 points
  4. Vort

    The Holy War

    There was a time when the football rivalry between BYU and the U of U was fun and light-hearted. When I was a student at BYU in the 1980s, that is how we approached it. I was shocked to discover that many U of U students, even back then, sincerely despised BYU and honestly wished evil upon its football team as well as the institution itself and especially its students. Charges of "holier-than-thou" attitudes abounded, though I rarely saw such from BYU students. Acquaintances at the U of U confirmed that the bitter feelings were both sincere and widely felt. I avoid most rivalry nonsense now. Some U of U students, alumni, and supporters I count as friends, even family. I have been disappointed to find in my adult life that some U of U alums proudly wear a chip on their shoulder and actively denigrate BYU as an institution as well as its students and alumni, even at Church. A better man than I would take pity on such souls. For myself, I tend to despise those who despise me and things I find sacred. There is nothing ennobling or fun or enjoyable about "rivalry" interactions with Utah. U of U students, alumni, and faculty have seen to that. It's all hatred and virtue-signaling allegations of oppression. Mockery is common; a favorite of many U of U students is "sacrament" using Jello and whiskey shots. Har de har har. Personally, I am all for BYU dropping U of U from any and all sports and other intermural activities forever. Winning streak? Losing streak? Who cares? If they want to proclaim their superiority, that's okay by me. Let them wallow in their own filth. Just keep those I care about away from them. The point is, there is nothing holy about it. (And for the record, I'm certainly not talking about mirkwood. Don't mean to rain on his parade or his rivalry smack. I consider him one of the Ute friends I mentioned back in the second paragraph.)
    3 points
  5. @anatess2 isn't on these boards anymore. I know there's a number of people on the right who defend nation building, but I haven't seen nearly as much this board. Maybe I'm missing something. Quick poll: Who here thinks that when we deploy troops (or even drones) there should be a well-defined scope and it should not include nation-building? Bonus question: Who here thinks Congress should grow a spine and formally declare war before deploying troops? As for the initial wars - I'll remind you that there was bipartisan support for both Iraq and Afghanistan (including Senator Clinton), can the same be said for such infrastructure as universal pre-K? Spending bills are set for 10-year windows. Should we compare it against total Medicaid spending without drawing attention to the difference in time scales? Now that we're out of Afghanistan we might save $1T over the next 10 years (I don't think that's how the actual numbers work but let's use it) then that means we can now fund almost 1/3 of this spending bill. In other words, this proposed bill is 3 1/2 Afghanistans! @Grunt and @JohnsonJones have expressed that what bugs them about this bill is how it will affect our debt. Assuming they were okay with the Afghanistan spending I'm sure you can see how replacing that with triple spending might make a taxpayer or citizen nervous. And the Afghanistan spending was done by Federal agencies directly accountable to both the Executive and Legislative branches. This bill includes some Federal things (like Medicaid expansion) but a significant portion is going to the States to administer. @mikbone expressed concern about how the funds would be handled (incompetently) locally. Even if he was okay with the Federal administration of tax dollars for the Afghanistan War I'm sure you can see how including State and local governments in the administration would make a person nervous when they haven't shown themselves to be very trustworthy in the past (such as the light rail train to nowhere in recent years). I could see a person wanting FEMA to come offer relief instead of passing money to your mafia-run construction agencies. All this rhetoric is built on "if". Your comment is a complete non sequitur if most posters on here would like less hawkishness from our Executives.
    3 points
  6. Is this a cut and paste from somewhere? No, I gathered all the information and put it together. I will edit my original post and add some of the sources (I normally do this but I have a COVID vaccine brain at the moment).
    3 points
  7. I wonder how our modern sensibilities apply in the eternal sense to such people. I am reminded of Ammon the Disarming, who told the Old King bluntly that if he (the Old King) were to die at that moment, his soul could not be saved. Not "would not", but "could not". Yet in a matter of dozens of hours, this exceedingly wicked man was converted to God and spent the rest of his life (not long) serving God. Walkara indeed seems like a brute and a force of evil. I'm just not sure what that means in any eternal sense. If our judgments of good and evil here in mortality are so ephemeral, passing such judgment seems futile. I suppose that is why we have been encouraged (read: commanded) not to judge people in what Elder Oaks called a final sense. tl;dr—Righteous judgment is hard.
    2 points
  8. One thing we can say with the Spanish Flu, there wasn't any discussion pertaining to, "Well, you may not know you have it." It definitely isn't "supposed" also, the Spanish Flu was more lethal and it didn't have a particular "high risk" group to worry about. If you contracted the Spanish Flu, no matter your state of health, you had to worry. First year the Spanish Flu killed between 20 million to 40 million individuals (with a population around the globe much lower than it is now - 1.8 Billion in comparison to 8 Billion). If I am remembering correctly, the first year with Covid was around 1.3 million. We have nearly 7 times greater population -- worldwide -- with nearly 20 to 40 times less the death rate. With the Spanish Flu there wouldn't have been any memes saying, "Imagine a virus so dangerous you have to be told you have it," or asymptomatic. So the idea of what virus was more deadly is easily seen in the statistics. I am also more concerned about how many doctors -- who practiced medicine and saw patients -- were shut up, and how in the beginning (can't find the videos anymore) of doctors concerned with how it was being treated. Some even saying that the treatment was causing more harm then the virus.
    2 points
  9. This is where things get pretty well impossible to compare effectively across time. We can't compare apples to apples because we are simply under different circumstances. The spanish flu had the opportunity to be spread by overstressed, overtired, undernourished soldiers coming home from war to all parts of the world under different guidelines and understanding than we have now. Today, while we didn't have to compete with soldiers coming home from a world war, we dealt with world travel on a scale never before seen to bring this to/from all parts of the world. But because we used the measures we did in our era and they used the measures they did in their era and the measures aren't identical and perhaps more important to the point of lethality neither were the treatments offered, we can't accurately determine if we did a better or worse job or were simply up against a more ferocious or more tame enemy.
    2 points
  10. It's not just a problem in the USA. The problem lies in the fact that we've raised people to believe the day of reckoning will never come and so voting for fiscal responsibility isn't a priority. The fact of the matter is that cuts and austerity don't win elections so no party that wants to actually get in power seems able to pull this off.
    2 points
  11. I've been baffled by the fervency so many in the US have for the Republican and Democratic parties when neither party gives an iota about the national debt. Both parties are irresponsible, reckless stewards over the finances of this country. The national debt hasn't been taken seriously for quite some time. We're fine throwing money at America's problems as the go-to solution we think works for everything. Who's interested in balancing America's budget and restoring fiscal conservative values? No one. We need another party to emerge soon that embraces fiscal conservatism, but I'm afraid even if it did, the popularity of writing blank checks seems like it will prevail until a rude awakening comes. The country at large either willfully or ignorantly embraces anarchy with its irresponsible spending.
    2 points
  12. I make no secret that I feel people should get vaccinated and that we should wear masks and social distance. I think this is the right thing to do, and personally what I espouse. I think their is a great amount of evidence to support it. here is a mandate that the news is reporting came out today which supposedly will effect 2/3 of the American Population. I know that people who are against vaccines (they've been around forever against measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, and many other vaccines) have been around for many years, a sign of how anti-science many in the United States have become. I know that we can require them for schools, but normally these mandates are NOT from the executive branch. I think that he CAN enforce it upon Federal employees, but mandating that any business with over 100 employees I think may be beyond the purview of his power. I don't know that this will be something that he can actually DO. Something seems off with the mandate. I imagine there will be lawsuits against it rather rapidly (I could also be wrong, but I expect there will be a lawsuit or two that state he cannot force a private business or company or one that is majority owned by an individual or family, to perform such a thing or other such relations to be one that pops ups).
    1 point
  13. Too far for me. And I"m one who believes to quite an extent that the antivaxx community is evil and likes to flatter those in it. I think every person of age without contraindications (I get it, I get it, exceptions exist) should get vaccinate because it's the intelligent thing to do. I think the COVID vaccines are an answer to prayers. But too far. But I, too, doubt how enforceable this will be.
    1 point
  14. LDSGator

    The Holy War

    College sports always were a bit more intense than the pros. Down here it’s a religion.
    1 point
  15. Almost. I pass on passing judgement of cultural aspects of the past. And it's pleasing.
    1 point
  16. It’s hard for me to avoid characterizing Wakara as a miserable, evil SOB. Didn’t he leave instructions for the live burial of a couple of slave women and children with him to serve him into the afterlife?
    1 point
  17. LDSGator

    The Holy War

    It’s a religious school (BYU) vs a secular one (Utah). So I don’t get it either. The other holy war in college football is between two nominally religious schools-Notre Dame and BC.
    1 point
  18. It's such a fascinating chapter in US, LDS, and frontier American history. Is this a cut and paste from somewhere? If so, please cite the source.
    1 point
  19. The Folk Prophet

    Musicals

    I'm not sure what tastes might overlap but just for fun here are some of my other favorites in the rock and or roll world. Metallica Queen White Zombie Rob Zombie Children of Bodom Meshuggah I like lots of styles of music here and there.
    1 point
  20. The Folk Prophet

    Musicals

    I've always secretly kind of wanted to write a heavy metal opera. But....I won't ever.
    1 point
  21. The Folk Prophet

    Musicals

    I think you'd be surprised. Don't get me wrong. The problem with rock in musicals to me is like pineapple on pizza. It just doesn't belong. Give me rock when I want rock. Give me musicals when I want musicals. That being said, it can work. I secretly really like Jesus Christ Superstar. I dislike the concept. I very much like the music.
    1 point
  22. The Folk Prophet

    Musicals

    Well good golly if I didn't enjoy that a lot! I have some critiques. And it's not like...super high art...but... Okay...here's my detailed review. Music-wise it's up there pretty high for Andrew Lloyd Webber. I don't know that I'd put any one song in his top 10. But there were several solid good songs. And that's not typically typical. In fact, Phantom is unique in that regard, in that it has several great songs. But Cinderalla did too, darn it all. In fact, I'd handily and readily put this in his top 5. Out of 20, that's not bad. Now for the critiques: Well, for one, I dislike rock songs in musicals. I don't mind back beats entirely. They can work. But just straight up rock orchestrations....no. (One of my reasons for not loving The Greatest Showman, I'm sure.) Now, to be fair, I happen to know that some of the songs there were studio recordings and I don't know for sure if the orchestrations match. I suspect they do. But I don't know for sure. But, for example, the song Bad Cinderella would have been better with more of an orchestra-y orchestration instead of the rock one, in my opinion. It could have had some elements of that...sure. But...well...there it is. Secondly, the song The Vanquishing of the Three Headed Sea Witch was terrible. I mean talk about killing the show. It should have been a short snippet, nothing more. Even better, do a flash back in the start of the show where the prince sings a short snippet about going off to fight the sea witch, and then reprise it here. Keep them both short and recitative in style instead of the mind-numbingly long straight up rock and or roll style song -- which was.....okay. I mean it sounded like a Tenacious D song (meaning a parody of DIO or something...). I dunno. It'll probably be @LDSGator's favorite song in the show. Sung by Adam Lambert for the recording (though played by another in the show, apparently). But whether one likes the song or not...plot wise it killed the momentum badly. There were a few other songs that did that a bit too...but not too badly. Forgivably. Not that one though. Putting that aside, the ending was...quick. And simple. But it worked. I found myself satisfied. Very much so. So that works. Finally...and here's the kicker for me... I found myself emotional a few times in the show. It was moving in parts. That's a good, good thing in my book. I felt for the characters. It worked. Simple. But it worked. Now I do place it high for an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, relatively. But that doesn't mean I place it that high overall. It's mediocre. It's fun. It works pretty well. I'll take it. But, I dunno. 3 out of 5 stars. Maybe.
    1 point
  23. clwnuke

    Doctrine Fallout

    @mikbone I believe that one source of confusion for your brother is when the issue is boiled down to the basic statement above. The question is follow what? Let's condense the two statements down to the possible "what" portions: January 12th 2021 In word and deed, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has supported vaccinations for generations. As a prominent component of our humanitarian efforts, the Church has funded, distributed and administered life-saving vaccines throughout the world. Vaccinations have helped curb or eliminate devastating communicable diseases, such as polio, diphtheria, tetanus, smallpox and measles. Vaccinations administered by competent medical professionals protect health and preserve life. As this pandemic spread across the world, the Church immediately canceled meetings, closed temples, and restricted other activities because of our desire to be good global citizens and do our part to fight the pandemic. Now, COVID-19 vaccines that many have worked, prayed, and fasted for are being developed, and some are being provided. Under the guidelines issued by local health officials, vaccinations were first offered to health care workers, first responders, and other high-priority recipients. Because of their age, Senior Church leaders over 70 now welcome the opportunity to be vaccinated. As appropriate opportunities become available, the Church urges its members, employees and missionaries to be good global citizens and help quell the pandemic by safeguarding themselves and others through immunization. Individuals are responsible to make their own decisions about vaccination. In making that determination, we recommend that, where possible, they counsel with a competent medical professional about their personal circumstances and needs. _________ August 12th 2021 We find ourselves fighting a war against the ravages of COVID-19 and its variants, an unrelenting pandemic. We want to do all we can to limit the spread of these viruses. We know that protection from the diseases they cause can only be achieved by immunizing a very high percentage of the population. To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge the use of face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible. To provide personal protection from such severe infections, we urge individuals to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective. We can win this war if everyone will follow the wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts and government leaders. Please know of our sincere love and great concern for all of God’s children. ___________________ Now let's analyze the action words "urge" and "recommend". Is this a mandate, or a command to "follow"? No, not in the strict sense. I think you could possibly classify it as an "instruction", but if you call the Church office building and ask that question you will be given a clear statement that there is no requirement for members to be vaccinated. They will refer you back to the portion in red above. So per the statements and church instruction: #1 - The Church is not responsible for your health care, you are. #2: - If people choose to be vaccinated it should not be because President Russell M. Nelson was vaccinated, it's because you read his urging and recommendation, and you discussed the matter with your spouse (which was mentioned in the original release letter reporting), sought competent medical advice, and determined what was correct for your "personal circumstances and needs". Everything else is pride loudly proclaiming "I'm more righteous than you because I don't need to be commanded in all things!" IMHO, there would have been no reason to add the language "In making that determination ..," to the original statement if it was pre-determined what the "correct" outcome should be. The bottom line to me is that everyone who considered the issue carefully, and reached a personal decision to either be vaccinated or not, has followed the Prophet. So when you brother says "Your either follow or don't" I believe he is mistaken in what we were actually supposed to do. Joseph Smith still had an occasional beer or wine after the Word of Wisdom was revealed, because it was not yet a requirement of the Church to follow. That doesn't shock me, but it does sometimes shock other people until they understand the Spirit in which the Word of Wisdom was given. It wasn't black or white. I firmly believe that I have followed the counsel given, and I am at complete spiritual peace with my determination to be vaccinated once the Covaxin or Novavax vaccines are available in the United States. Until that time, I mask, I wash, I respect others - and I have not infected a single individual (if the antibody tests are reasonably accurate) - which is more than many vaccinated people can say. At some point I'm sure I will get Covid, and when I do I will isolate. I feel that I am doing my part. I don't know your brother, but I think most people can see the issue in a broader perspective if given the chance. I share your hope that your brother might feel God's love once again and return to the safety and peace of the True Shepherd's fold. Curiosity question: Of your family members who are currently inactive, do any of them still believe in the doctrine that they are sons and daughters of God? I find that this specific doctrine seems to have a particular holding power among many who have left Church activity.
    1 point
  24. Oh, I'm pretty darn convinced what enough debt will do in the long run. Problem is, we won't know what is "enough", until it's pretty much too late to do anything about it.
    1 point
  25. SpiritDragon

    Doctrine Fallout

    I don't believe the most recent statement to be doctrine of any kind. It has no direct bearing on salvation one way or the other whether one masks or vaccinates (and following the guidance of government and health authorities varies greatly by area), but it does make a difference if one follows the 1st Presidency's counsel. Prophetic counsel can simply be specific to a situation or individual without being canonized into any doctrinal umbrella. Consider counsel given to a leper to bathe in the River Jordan or other such acts (that were likely not necessary, but either bolstered faith or tested obedience) and yet they were never taught as something that others needed to do for healing, salvation, or anything else. However, these instances do showcase the outpouring of blessings available to those who follow the prophet, even in matters not tied to doctrinal teaching.
    1 point
  26. This is a good question, but it’s more complicated than that. Republicans only care about government spending when a democrat is in office, and democrats only care about “deficits” when a republican in office. So again, it’s strictly politics and gives the sides another reason to bicker.
    1 point
  27. The other reason that side controls the dialogue is because the pro life side is a mess. They spend too much of their time infighting about exceptions, birth control, tactics, other social issues....it’s basically a textbook on how to fail. Now, that said, things are changing for the pro life side. They’ve smartened up (only took them 40 years) and are now aligning with pro-life gays, pro life atheists, not arguing about other social issues, etc.So I think the pro life side is on the upswing, at least slightly
    1 point
  28. You're just now figuring out they are two sides of the same coin? Your SS is now set to be slashed in 12 years.
    1 point
  29. The first problem was Trump's Tax Bill. It created Debt and disgusted me with the Republican Party. If they were supposed to be the party of the balanced budget and doing away with the US debt, they did the exact opposite. It just reminded me that they are just as evil as the Democrats (and people wonder why I'm independent), just the other side of the coin doing the same thing when they are in power in many cases. The second problem is that now that the Democrats are in charge they are writing checks that the books don't balance. It doesn't seem which way we go, both parties are out to spend...spend...spend without accounting for how much we already owe. It's a dangerous situations...hopefully I'm long gone before it all comes due and then comes crashing down. I would like to keep my SS for as long as possible, even if it is overall the biggest Ponzi scheme in the world.
    1 point
  30. https://usdebtclock.org
    1 point
  31. I think your definition of what qualifies a person for the Celestial kingdom is far too narrow in it's scope to correctly understanding who and how people arrive there. I think this is a clearer perspective. D&C 88:36 All kingdoms have a law given; 37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. 38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions. 39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified. To qualify for the Celestial kingdom you simply must abide the laws of that kingdom. Any willing to abide those laws will qualify and all will have the same opportunity to choose. I think judgement day will be far less about God telling us where to go and more of us deciding, after a thorough review of our life, which kingdom's laws we are willing to obey. Having said that Alma 42 makes it clear that our attitudes aren't going to suddenly change in the spirit world and I think our obedience to the light we did possess in this life will likely be a pretty good indicator of which kingdom's laws we are willing to accept in the next. That light consists of the light of Christ (given to all in general), the power of the Holy Ghost (before baptism), and the gift of the Holy Ghost (upon confirmation). Some of the most important truths we will be measured by come to us through the light of Christ. So whether we are offered the fullness of the gospel in this life or not, there will still be plenty to gauge the measure of a person and to reveal our true natures. Now concerning those who qualify for exaltation, if the glory of the Celestial to the Terrestrial (future home to many of the honorable on earth) is like the sun and moon in comparison then we should expect an equal disparity between the obedience to law required for admission, for all blessings come by obedience to some law. The Church meanwhile is the vehicle the Lord uses to teach the necessary doctrine and administer the necessary ordinances to help prepare us to obey those laws and the Church's role continues into the spirit world where prophets and apostles continue the directing of this work leading up to judgment day. Those ordained to preach the gospel in this life will continue to administer to those who haven't had a full opportunity to accept it. The ordinances, which must be performed in the flesh, are then administered within the Church in this world on their behalf, the temple being the bridge between the two. Sorry for the long post but the answers to these questions deserve some depth and yet I feel it's only scratched the surface.
    1 point
  32. I cannot see how to reconcile my thinking beyond this as well. The difference being that I do believe. So I follow. However, I think there's an inherent implication in what the First Presidency message has urged that there are exceptions. And I believe President Nelson would be the first to recommend to someone who had underlying health reasons, spiritual promptings, or the like to not get vaccinated for Covid. What I worry about is how many seem to have neither of these things but are merely swayed strongly by the politics and conspiracies' of it all. I am one of those, actually (though not to the extent some are). But I do not believe such to be a good reason to disregard prophetic council. Therefore I am getting the vaccination, despite my strong reservations. I might add that I'd come to this conclusion before the latest First Presidency letter. Basically, to me, it is exactly this simple. You either follow, or you don't.
    1 point
  33. Fether

    Doctrine Fallout

    Your brother is either creating a straw man out of desperation, or deeply misunderstood the gospel and that is why he left.
    1 point
  34. mirkwood

    The Holy War

    Interesting perspective @Vort. I've experienced some less than light hearted rivalry while attending basket ball games between the two down in Provo (never could get football tix.) I would not say either set of fans is innocent, though I suspect the minority are the problem. That said:
    0 points
  35. You pass on passing judgement on the past? So passe!
    0 points
  36. dprh

    The Holy War

    Maybe he meant 'holey' war, referring to BYU's defensive line. BOOM!
    0 points
  37. My old college buddy once stole an orange road cone then put it in the window that faced the dean’s office. I was going to tell him how stupid that was, but then I realized that we both went to the same college, so who am I to judge?
    0 points