Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/06/22 in all areas

  1. I found a few interesting translation quirks in the Book of Daniel. I had to wonder why they mention three "trades" (for lack of a better term) and then mention a nationality. So, I looked at the original language. "Magician": חַרְטֹם (char-tome') =magician -- specifically applied to the type of mystic that came from Egypt. "Astrologer": אַשָּׁף (ash-shawf') = necromancer/conjurer -- specifically applied to Assyrians. "Sorcerer": כָּשַׁף ( kaw-shaf') = Sorcerer/Witch -- This term is more generic, but it has Syrian origins. So, we can assume this was some sort of magician type that came from Syria. The strange thing about "astrologers" (applied to the Assyrians) is that the Chaldeans were the ones who were held as THE authority on astrology. All nations believed in astrology. But to be a Chaldean was synonymous with being an astrologer. The choice of these words indicates a dual meaning to what this verse is trying to convey. The king had access to the most learned men in the empire. His empire was vast enough to give him free access to the knowledge of the known world. And even with all this knowledge available to him, "There is not a man upon the earth that can shew the king’s matter" Notice the word "other" is italicized (per the KJV). When a word is italicized it means that it is either an uncertain translation, or it was added in English for it to make sense lingustically. In this case, the latter was true. The word "other" doesn't exist in the original Aramaic. A sectarian would look at this and realize that it wouldn't make sense for it to say "this article of clothing, another article of clothing, and their clothing." So, the to make sense of it, they added the word "other." But to a Latter-day Saint, we see the word "garment" instead of clothing and think of something completely different. While in earlier generations/centuries, there was no difference in meaning, today, there is a difference to us. So, if we remove the word "other", it makes a whole lot of difference to us.
    2 points
  2. SilentOne

    Advent 2022

    On the third of October, in the year nineteen hundred and eighteen, I sat in my room pondering over the scriptures; and reflecting upon the great atoning sacrifice that was made by the Son of God, for the redemption of the world; and the great and wonderful love made manifest by the Father and the Son in the coming of the Redeemer into the world; that through his atonement, and by obedience to the principles of the gospel, mankind might be saved. Doctrine and Covenants 138:1-4 The gospel is the good news of Christ. It is the revelation that the Son of God came to earth, lived a perfect life, atoned for our sins, and conquered death. It is the path of salvation, the way of hope and joy, and the assurance that God has a plan of redemption and happiness for His children. Dieter F. Uchtdorf, The Way of the Disciple
    1 point
  3. @JohnsonJones A previous poster referred to the revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants to show that the early implementation for the Law of Consecration had the member voluntarily deed their property to the bishop as agent of the Church, who in turn deeded a "stewardship" back to the person. The Joseph Smith Papers editors note that the execution was limited in scope and duration. "Not all features of consecration were implemented, and many members of the church were never invited to practice consecration as outlined in the scriptures." I've searched for examples of these deeds either to the bishop or from the bishop and have turned up empty. The closest I can find is 1) general land transactions and 2) dissolving the United Firm. For 1) every Kirtland transaction and Missouri transaction I see involves the exchange of land for money. For 2) I haven't found the deeds, but Revelations in Context says Whitney's store stewardship was deeded to him after the Firm was dissolved. Is this what you were talking about with the deeds not actually being deeded? Or are you talking about something else? As a historian, I would appreciate it if you would provide sources for your claims that Consecrated properties were communal and theocommunistic in practice.
    1 point
  4. Oh, yes. I remember VOICE. Only vaguely. I actually went on a few dates with one girl who attended those meetings. I didn't know that until after I stopped dating her. Funny thing... she broke it off when I shared with her my idea of the idyllic life of a traditional family. Some time later, she wanted to get back together with me. I asked her, "Why?" She stammered for a while and eventually just dropped the idea and we went our separate ways. We still attended school together for another couple of years. So, we were cordial. But we knew there wouldn't be any kind of happily ever after when we clearly didn't share the same values and goals. She didn't want to have children. I did. She saw marriage as a somewhat desirable evil but not really necessary. I saw it as a holy sacrament that would join two separate people into one whole. What kind of future was there for us? That is a metaphor. What kind of future is there for people in the Church who clearly don't want to follow its tenets? ANYWAY... the student population at large was never privy to that information.
    1 point
  5. NEWS FLASH: All the "we-must-pray-to-Mother-in-Heaven" types are Ashera worshipers. It has become a real problem in the Church. Holding our tongues and trying to be loving instead of simply correcting the false doctrine immediately and unambiguously has, in my estimation, worsened the problem.
    1 point
  6. The Folk Prophet

    Musicals

    So she wants a progeny that will be capable of carrying on the family gift...and she...plucks the different colored flower from her daughters hair implying.... Um.... well it's a Freudian nature subconscious hope for sure (seems like the kind of thing my mother-in-law would do...haha).... but does it actually imply evil? I mean she didn't have Mirabella killed or something. I get that Abuela was too focussed on her progeny's "gifts". That message was pretty on the nose, after all. But akin to locking a kidnapped child in a dungeon to steal her power from the world selfishly for yourself, lying to said child about who they are, gaslighting them, and tricking them into loyalty through more lies, etc., etc. Mother Gothel level evil? Really? It doesn't feel like Abuela is evil at all. A bit misguided, sure. Focused on the wrong thing? Sure. Insensitive? Yeah. Hurtful? Of course. But evil? I mean that sounds like every parent or grandparent in every family that ever was to me.
    1 point
  7. NeuroTypical

    Musicals

    Heh. My wife and I loved it, because it hit home in many, many ways. I'm guessing you missed that the whole story was straight out of our own LDS church doctrine on the family. It's a villain redemption story about a tyrannical matriarch who abuses and sacrifices her offspring (and grandkids) in any way she must, in the name of keeping up appearances and preserving the family's standing as community leaders. Mirabella did get a door - the front door to the whole dang house - and her special gift is the power to heal a fractured family by exposing the evil actions of the matriarch and bring stuff to the surface so it can be dealt with. The candle was the patriarchical light of Abuelo Pedro, holding the family together despite his death. Why them and not someone else? Because the movie would have had to be about those other people instead. The candle and gifts are just analogies for the bonds that tie families together, and the gifts we all possess. (You might want to re-listen to some of the songs and think about what's meant behind the lyric the stars don't shine, they burn.) No really - if you missed that Abuela was doing great evil, then go back and watch. Here we see some of the greatest evil I've seen in a Disney villain - look at what she's willing to do to any of Isabella's children that don't fit her idea of good enough: That's some Mother Gothel level evil, right there. And she'll do it too - just look at what happened to Bruno. I mean, we get Abuela's position - the candle not only protects her house and family, but the entire community from invaders. But holy crap woman - that doesn't mean you sacrifice your own offspring for not being perfect enough. Wife and I were impacted by that movie to the point of tears on the way home. Because she grew up under the thumb of an abuela who sacrificed my wife for her own desperate desire to keep the community's respect. Wife's abuela never bothered to forsake her evil and seek redemption. Good for Senora Madrigal. Glad she was able to pull her head out and repent, and be forgiven by the family. Repentance and forgiveness rock when we get them in this life - especially when they are able to go hand in hand. Heh- and one of our wedding photos shows when her Bruno showed up and the entire room gasped.
    1 point
  8. The Folk Prophet

    Musicals

    I saw Spirited last night. Now THAT'S how you make a danged movie people! I mean it wasn't perfect, which I'll explain. And people who despise musicals will, obviously, be put off by that aspect of it. But holy cow it was nice to finish a movie and feel satisfied and happy and emotional and uplifted and etc., etc. It's been so long since a movie really did that for me. Was it entirely un-woke? No. Lot's of racial "diversity" in ways that felt very forced. And unnecessarily so. It was set up in such a way that diverse casting was entirely possible without the forced stuff. In particular when they go to 17th century England. It's just so stupid when they do that. And I'm pretty sure there was a gay couple that flashed across the screen at one point...though not so in your face that it HAD to be taken that way. But the story/writing was SO well put together. Not perfectly executed. But pretty good. A few things I had serious problems with that are nonsense. (Like the idea that an otherwise well-adjusted, happy, kid who serves the community and stuff, with a great dad and so-forth, would kill himself because of a single mean post about him online. Good grief.) But the story arch of the main characters (Will Ferrel and Ryan Reynolds) was done so well...and part of how they did that was......... MUSIC. Good golly musicals done right can work. As an example, Will Ferrel has a solo he sings in the start of the show and it does SO much to just bring you into his character, understand his motivations, and root for him. It's done so well. That being said, I'd rate the music as....... good. Like 7-8 out of 10 maybe. I realize that it's a bit subjective. I'm not a huge fan of Pasek & Paul's stuff (Dear Evan Hansen, The Greatest Showman, Lyle, Lyle, Crocodile, A Christmas Story: The Musical, La La Land). They're style's a bit too contemporary for me. That being said, contemporary works here better than it does in, say The Greatest Showman, because this one's set in contemporary times. But still...not my primary preference. But that being said, it was, as I said, good. Catchy stuff overall. And for some I'm sure the music would be a 10. But nothing, music-wise, by itself really sent chills down my spine, so to speak. It was good. Just not PHENOMENAL. Taken as a whole, however, the music was SO effective. By "as a whole", I mean when you put in lyrics and usage. As to working for the story, it WORKED and it worked very well. One particular part had me bawling like a baby. Now, granted, I do that with movies pretty easy (though not very often with the movies they're making now-a-days...which partially explains my enthusiasm for this one), so I'm not suggesting others watching it will all have the same reaction. Without going into spoilers, the message and execution was handled in a way that really moved me, and made me not only feel strongly for the characters, but also related to my own life, and my love and gratitude for my Savior (which wasn't what the show was going for...but I relate everything to that, so.....) Toward the end of the show I was thinking to myself, "Man oh man, they HAVE to end it such-n-such away. Please don't subvert my expectations! Do this right!" And then....to my amazement....they DID. Haha! SO SATISFYING. So it wasn't a twist ending, or subversive, or surprising, or the like, since they did exactly what I hoped they would. But it was satisfying. It made me happy. (Not that everything in the show was exactly what I expected. A few interesting things actually.) That being said... the idea and direction of the ending was done just right...but the execution of the ending was...a bit clunky. Which is too bad. Not terrible. It just could have been done better. And then there were a few issues in the show that bothered me a bit, morally speaking. Some implied sexual stuff, some language, and the like. I wish they'd kept that out. Kept it truly family friendly. It would have been stronger overall as a show that way. So overall I'd rate the show as a 7-8 out of 10 too (right along with the music). A few tweaks to the way they handled a few things and improved music and it'd easily be a 10 for me. Alas...
    1 point
  9. Nephi shows that there’s at least 3 layers of interpretation to Lehi’s dream. The first, as you note, is the personal path to salvation that invariable leads to the Savior. The second is a large scale explanation that centers on Jesus’ birth, the gospel message, apostasy, restoration, and Christ’s return. Nephi only explains some of this because he refers to John’s Apocalypse. The third is familial, tracing Nephi’s descendants and their covenant relationship with the Lord. The highlight is when they are visited by the Savior, followed by a period of apostasy, and a prophesied day of renewal and restoration. There may be other interpretations, but these are the ones Nephi gave.
    1 point