FlaviusHambonius
-
Posts
280 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by FlaviusHambonius
-
-
Dance The Night awaY---Van Halen
-
Do You Think I'm Sexy----Rod Stewart
-
Love Me Do----The Beatles
-
Baby Love-----The Supremes
-
Ice, Ice Baby---Vannilla Ice
-
Fire and Rain----James Taylor
-
Fire----The Ohio Players
-
Up on the roof----The Drifters
-
Sorry Pam, your right--Glen Frey did write a completely different 'River of Dreams'
Deduct a point from me--Oh, wait I haven't scored yet!! This is supposed to be my field of expertise and I have failed miserably.
-
Sorry Glenn Frey did it as well.
OK, my bad I thought you had to put the songwriter.
-
I didn't know Bob Dylan did that song! I thought it was the Soggy Bottom Boys :)
Correct!
Also 'River of Dreams' is a Billy Joel song--not Glenn Frey.
Deduct one point from Pam.
-
In one of my areas on my mission the father of a family we ate with was a military man and the former Bishop. He told us while he was Bishop when Sacrament meeting started he would have the deacons close the doors into the chapel area (not the building) and they stayed closed, no one was allowed to come in late, at first there was some complaints, but within a few months church attendance had gone up 40% (if I remember right)
So the former Bishop took it upon himself to exclude members from renewing their covenents?
Sounds like the former Bishop wasn't getting enough fiber in his diet. Perhaps someone should have informed the former Bishop that this was a Sacrament meeting and not a roll call at Headquarters.
-
Thanks for the heads up---sounds like a good one.
I just got through the part in Mormon Enigma where the last few Mormons are defending the city Nauvoo against the Carthage Gray's after the bulk of the saints had crossed the Mississippi trecking westward. Very brave souls indeed.
-
Look at the general authorities they are all very very successful men in life. these men are very well to do because of their own business ventures. their educational back grounds have gotten them. there have been very few if any poor and/ or uneducated general authorities in the last thirty probably 60 years. they have never been bought houses or cars or anything of the like. the church does not pay them for publishing books there are separate entities that do that such as deseret book.
the church owned companies were started by members who dedicated their businesses to the church and/ or donated them. tithing does not and has not been used for starting any business and will be blasphemous if they do. Joseph smith and several others in his time tried to start a bank and did start one but all of the funds came from third party members(ie loans were taken out by people with the state)and none came from the tithing funds.
Yes, I am quite aware that the GA's as the norm were very successful men financially before they were called as a GA.
My point was that they are well taken care of by the church whatever their financial status.
I never claimed that the church has bought them houses or cars--what I said was that they (GA's) live in dwellings (apartments) free of charge--that have been bought and paid for by the church and the church has ownership of these dwellings ie. the GA's only live in them during their calling until their demise. (at least that was my meaning).
I never claimed that the church paid them for their books--I said I thought that they might recieve a certain amount of money for their books.
I was unaware that all of the money that the church has accumulated through investments and buisnesses were dedicated or donated as you say.
So, never in the history of the church has tithing been used as investments? There was no starting point--it all came from kind hearted rich buisnessmen who donated their resourses to the church? Interesting....Maybe Mr. Marriot will do the same.
I am also aware of the failed bank that JS tried to pursue and many of his other misadventures in the financial world.
By the way, who were some of the poor/uneducated GA's in the last 30-60 years?
Who were some of the church members that donated their companies to the church?
That would be very interesting information.
-
I am not to good at rope climbing. I have no problem with holding on to the Iron Rod. For me it is very easy to hold to the rod and follow it down the path that leads to the tree. Not even an incline on the path.
I am sure that there are those who have to work hard and struggle like climbing a rope or even climbing a long line of steep stairs.
Ben Raines
You must be one of the few. Personally I find myself as one of those that have to work hard and struggle. Perhaps I need to invest in a rosin bag, maybe my grip will improve, or maybe a treadmill.
-
Lyle, just to clarify: I am active LDS, and I daresay I'm as familiar with the church's financial procedures as most members; generally speaking I am very comfortable with them. I was responding to a claim about the evils of a paid ministry by pointing out that "The LDS Church also pays its senior leadership". Which is true.
I was not suggesting that funds are mismanaged. I was not suggesting that church leaders are growing rich off the labors of the membership. I was just trying to counteract the implication (all-too-common within Mormonism) that the bulk of Protestant ministers are only in it for the money.
I would also note that the following extract from your post just isn't true:
Listen closely at the next Conference. What they're really saying is that the Church has audited itself (or that it has been audited by an independent firm--I don't remember the specifics) and that everything is in order. They do not provide specifics as to how church funds have been spent. Haven't done it for fifty years now.
This is what I have alway's been led to believe ie. that the church never discloses their financial assets-- to either the members of the church or to the public.
The General Authoritives live in multi-million $ dwellings in SLC--paid for by the church long ago.
Some GA's I have read long ago, have been members of boards of companies and received a certain income.
I'm guessing that they receive money from books they write--or do they?
Someone mentioned that they receive money for cost of living and travel expenses that comes from church owned companies....but didn't the church owned companies come from tithing once upon a time...of course it did...unless it magically appeared out on the old apricot tree, at least I would think so.
The church has made some great financial decisions and great investments, worth billions, so I'm sure they take care of their leaders--as they should, since they have given up their occupation's to lead the church--but they will never lack for food or shelter.
-
Perhaps instead of reading books about this type of topic but seek a witness of the Prophet Joseph Smith?
So what's wrong with reading this type of book? Especially if it's from an LDS author who is supposedly one of the great historians on the life of Joseph Smith? Is it better to go hide under a rock regarding Mormon history or is it better to get a more accurate version of events, or shall I say a more rounded or fuller account.
-
I finished reading RSR several weeks ago and thought it was a great book. It took me quite awhile to get through as time allowed, which is not the way I like to read a book.
I had heard about it a couple of years ago from a non-Mormon and when I read a couple of reviews on it. They basically said that it wouldn't effect your views on Mormonism, one way or the other, whether you were LDS or non-LDS, at least the couple that I read.
I have heard it said that Bushman is one of the premiere historians when it comes to Joseph Smith, and I appriciate his work on this book, and thought in my mind that he was pretty fair and balanced with the good, the bad and the ugly regarding Joseph Smith.
I must say at times I felt like I was on a roller-coaster ride at times regarding JS in this book. Sometimes I was shaking my head about JS and then sometimes coming back to a somewhat even keel regarding this man. It seems like Bushman at times would shovel the dirt on him only to bring you back to Josephs way of thinking or perspective or so it seemed to me at times.
The disiplinary council I thought for the most part was a joke, or should I say disturbing. Joseph brought these people in to these councils who had either offended him or had acused him of him of inappropriate behavior in their eyes, and the next thing you know, it's either Joseph's way or the highway or in their case a dirt road.
It seems as though the other party was always shown to be the guilty party by Joseph and the bretheren and that Joseph was alway's right of course. I don't remember one time that JS actually admitted that he was perhaps in the wrong. It was always, always, the other guy--as best that I can remember. Of course, after the offending party would concede to their supposed guilt, the JS would soften his heart and forgive the offender and all would be well in Zion----what a load of BS. (IMO)
I had to respect Oliver Cowdry for standing his ground against JS with his accusation of "the filthy, dirty scandalous affair" regarding Joseph and Fanny Alger. Oliver never recanted his accusation if memory serves me and it wasn't long after that Oliver was ex-communicated. Joseph's main concern was that he was shown not to have committed adultry---why?----because Joseph had taken Fanny to be his 'spiritual wife'---secretly of course. This would have been years before the doctrine came out.
I might not be exactly precise with the info--but I think I'm pretty close--like I say I read it in segments over a too long of a period.
I'm currently reading 'Mormon Enigma:Emma Hale Smith' with about 100 pages to go, and all I can say is-- WOW--hopefully I can get it knocked out by the weekend. I have enjoyed this book even more than RSR.
Yes, to say that JS was human and flawed is an understatment (IMO)--but then aren't we all?
-
The story of Mary and Joseph trying to find a room at the inn I think perhaps could be a misnotion.
An Inn was usually a containment area consisting of four walls with no roof or overhead protection, usually where people went to set up individual family camps.
So as you can imagine with all of these families being cramped about each other with all of their belongings, I think this would be the last place that Mary would want to give birth to the Lord Jesus. Thus, the belief in a cave, probably close to the outskirts of town or thereabouts make much more sense--privacy and shelter for the Mother and her newborn.
Moses departing the Red Sea made a nice scene in Cecil B. DeMille's classic 'The 10 Commandments, but likely happened at a narrow stretch called the 'Sea of Reeds' which if I remember right usually had a depth of 2-10 feet on most occasions depending on the tides.
It would have taken a great Northern wind about 45-50 minutes to clear that stretch of ground--when Pharoh's armies pursued after the Israelites, there Chariots would have bogged down in the wet sand and when the winds subsided, back comes the water.
Another interesting thing related to this story is the pillar of fire. It was more than likely a gigantic man made fire of sorts by the Israelites--as the armies of Pharoh were approaching and stopped at the pillar (speculation at night time) they would not be able to see past the fire in the darkness--while the Israelites were escaping through the sea of reeds.
It has been said that Moses was a great tactician.
As far as the flood, I believe it was a more localized area, not the entire earth.
As far as Jonah, that's a lot to swallow --even for a whale--IMO.
I've always wondered how a human could survive in the acidic stomach of a whale, but then again with God all things are possible--so what do I know---absolutely nada.
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have alway's thought that LDS belief is that we will be judged by our pre-existence and our mortal life here on earth in the final judgment.
Since we existed as intelligence then progressed to spirit children then came to earth, we have been taught that we were valient and chose to side with Christ in the plan of salvation.
If eons of time transpired up to the time of this coming to earth and then time as we know it called earth life is but a blip on the radar screen of the eternities--will our judgement be more on our earth life because we chose that path of probation or agency ie. faith in Christ as our reedemer, living the commandments, repentence etc.
How much bearing will our pre-existence have on our final judgement? Especially for people that have fallen away from the church, whether temporarally or permanent.
People that have not been to the Temple, much less sealed in the Temple etc.
Possibly not as much bearing on our pre-existence because possibly not as much opposition?
Oh yes, then there's that little obstacle called the veil LOL.
Any thought's or material someone can refer me to in thought of pre-existence and mortal earth life combining together in final judgement?
-
Wow, you have all listed some great movies that jerks the tears from the ol' eyes for sure.
But one I remember when I was a wee little lad was called 'Brians Song'
It was about the relationship of the great Chicago Bears running back Gayle Sayers and Brian Piccolo, another running back for Chicago who died of cancer. They were the first Black-White roomates in sports.
I remember after watching this movie I went up to my bedroom and cried like a newborn baby.
-
I will be eating a big can of Albacore Tuna out of a can while watching the Celtics beat the Lakers and then when the game is over I will be clicking the remote as fast as possible to watch Lawrence Welk re-runs on PBS.
Those Christmas re-runs of the 60's and 70s are the absolute bomb. Bobby and Sissy rock!
Of course which time I will be spiking the punch bowl with 7-up----Party like there's no tommorrow.
-
Classic Coca Cola hands down. Pepsi is for those that can't handle the Real Thing.
-
OK Here's the last one:
Thanks Billy Boy.
I have never heard of Carlfred B. Broderick. I also note he is pretty specific in his statement about saying the view you cite is his interpretation. But I agree completely with your observation:
Quote
The problem you have is that the statements from LDS officials often do not jive with LDS doctrine. This includes Presidents, Prohets & scholars who speak with authority on behalf of the church.
That is exactly the point. Where you are going astray is that no authority has spoken on behalf of the Church contradicting the canonized doctrines of the Church contained in the scriptures on this subject. I have previously acknowledged that I find statements by various members, including some who served as leaders of the Church, which could be seen as stating that God had some kind of physical relationship with Mary to create Jesus. But I always first assume they are talking about the literal fatherhood and creation of Jesus' physical body, since that is the official doctrine of the Church, and if they appear to go beyond that, then I simply accept them as their personal opinion on the subject. Which is also a well recognized tradition in the LDS Church, although more so in its first 100 years or so than in the past 50. In light of the scriptures and statements by Church officials, particularly the Harold B. Lee statement, I don't see how the church of the last 40 years can be accused of teaching anything approaching God having sex with Mary. Sorting out earlier statements is more difficult, but the Church's response to Orson Pratt's teachings, which I will also concede included topics beyond the incarnation, seems instructive.
I remember being on my mission in Austria, and translating General Conference for a German speaking missionary who did not speak English. It was about 5 weeks after GC had aired in April, and so we had the Conference issue of the Ensign to help translate from. One talk was by a member of the 70, and his live remarks were edited in the magazine in such a way as to correct what he was saying. His verbal statements were expressing new doctrine about a topic which there was no revelation on the subject. The Ensign had removed those statements, and brought it back to doctrinal soundness. Prior to the 1940's, many general authorities, including the Presidents of the Church, would often teach their opinions with no indication of it being their opinions. Then the Church started clamping down, and just because something was published by Desseret Book no longer meant it also got the "Published by the LDS Church" stamp.
That process has continued to evolve, specifically to protect the integrity of LDS doctrine. If you read Journal of Discourses, for example, virtually none of the talks were ever edited by the speakers who gave them, and none were ever reviewed by the Church as we would see today in Conference report. Add to the fact most leaders were first generation members, and many doctrines were still not completely codified as we have them today. The Church was much smaller, and if you had a question, you could walk up to Brother Brigham and ask him, or a member of the Twelve. And even then it was acknowledged that only statements from the Prophet and approved by the councils of the Church and presented to the entire Church had the force of doctrine, binding upon the Church. Which is why you don't see Adam God, God having sex with Mary, or even whether God the Father lived on a planet like Jesus did, taught in the Church. They are or were opinions, not accepted revelations, even when we have the case of a prophet saying he had received some insight from God. According to the Doctrine and Covenants, that is not enough to be accepted as new doctrine, as it may still lack the final form desired by God and the Spirit. Thus the King Follett discourse, though it may be correct, was never reviewed and codified to be construed as scripture.
I read some remarks by General Authorities last night in preparing my response which could easily be taken to mean God had sex with Mary. But they were their opinions, and would not make it into Conference Report if it were to happen today.
Opinions, even by leaders, have no authority unless endorsed by the highest councils of the Church, at a minimum, and do not rise to the level of being scripturally binding unless presented to the Church and accepted by vote. This is the long standing method to be able to recognize and separate doctrine from opinion. And in this case, the doctrine, as contained in LDS scripture, is clearly teaching that Mary did not have sex with God.
Peace.
the song game
in General Discussion
Posted
Home on The Range-----The Buffalo Chips