Vort

I'm afraid of this series being a repeat of Once Upon a Time, where the premise sounds interesting and the series starts out solidly, only to degenerate all too quickly into a soap opera with manufactured drama and important-seeming but ultimately inconsequential events. I finished Season 2, and I honestly was put off by their treatment of religion and fanaticism—truly a Leftist's view of religion and the religious. I think of Obama talking disparagingly about those who "cling to guns or religion". The writers apparently share Obama's viewpoint. On the other hand, there is occasionally some raw honesty that seems to make the premise potentially insightful. But the leftist tropes too often interfere, which is disappointing. I am less than cautiously optimistic, but I am still hopeful. Maybe Season 3 will show some actual thoughtful and courageous writing rather than another paint-by-numbers recitation of the Leftist viewpoint.

Just finished Season One. Curse you, Backroads!

Good for you, though I'm very sorry for the tragic route you've taken. Ftr, I'm talking about the parents who smile benignly as their little children run screaming through the aisles.

Yes, but parents be parents, and parents should discipline their children.

If they were my daughters or perhaps my sisters who were involved in such shenanigans, I would probably feel great sorrow. As it is, I think it's wonderful that such wolves are removing their sheepskins so that we can more easily detect them.

Notice that the answer to "How is it done?" is not a lesson in the details of divine spiritual mechanics. Nothing like "if one who is innocent willingly accepts the natural consequence of blah blah blah" here, just an immediate reference to the blood of Christ—literally, HOW one accesses forgiveness. Like someone asking, "How do I get to the 104th floor of this skyscraper?", and the respondent not launching into a lecture about stairs and incremental rises against gravity or counterweights and electric motors, but rather just pointing the guy toward the elevator door.

That should take care of the mods. Okay, @The Folk Prophet, let's hear your mod complaints.

So @Jamie123's wearing an owl mask these days. Anyone want to mock him for it? Maybe we could get some owl pellets if we ask nicely. I'd wear a bunny mask, but I'm afraid of raptors.

Looks like @Jamie123 only reads General Discussion. We should go to the other forums and talk about him. He'll never know.

Here's the most recent public posting before yours, posted less than an hour ago.

Any talk of personal responsibility for embracing one's salvation is dismissed by many as "earning your way to heaven", and asserting that sin is real and that it separates us from God is characterized as denying the pure love of Christ. All manner of false doctrine exist. We cannot blame individuals for the existence of Satan's lies. But it is clear that at least some actively embrace the victimized "not my fault" mentality, eschewing all accountability for their actions. They will find to their dismay that their Creator will indeed require an accounting at their hand, despite their protestations.

No, he was not, not in any sense in which that word is used in American political discourse today. That is not a feature of today's American liberalism, unless you're saying that Jesus would call for the freedom to destroy your unborn baby if you feel it might inconvenience you. Pretty sure you're not saying that. Certainly not any sort of feature in modern American "liberalism". This is simply false. We as Latter-day Saints are familiar with this general idea. It's an application of the law of consecration; early latter-day efforts were generally called "united orders", were entered into only by covenant, were always voluntary, could be left at any time, and were administered in all cases by leaders called of God and not by agents of profane governments. To compare such small, private, religiously motivated efforts to "a type of socialism" is way beyond the mark. I think it's worth noting that even with divine guidance, the early covenant Saints failed to get those societies to work as they were intended, until the effort was ultimately abandoned. As he has always done. Note that he did not call for Rome to care for the sick or for the nominal Jewish king Herod "to feed the poor and care for the sick so that none would be hungry and all would have basic necessities." Jesus' call to action was an individual charge, to be fulfilled individually and not to be abrogated to a government (profane or otherwise) to enforce such feeding and caring. I think you overstate, or simply misstate. Please outline which of "the more conservative ideals of the time...were alarmingly closely aligned with many of the [conservative] ideas of today." This is not even slightly true unless you intend the word "liberal" in almost the opposite sense to which it is normally used in America today.

You are openly misrepresenting what I said.

I think this is rather more similar to buying a gallon of milk from a store that also sells cigarettes and booze. Engaging in a financial transaction could certainly be considered "supporting" someone or something, but that's a problematic stance to take for an organization that does not want to be isolationist.

I've been waiting years for someone to write a Chick Tract of Jack Chick post-mortem.

Perhaps I would have better said that they don't believe in modern revelation in the sense preached throughout the Restoration—that is, that God reveals Himself to His prophets. They certainly believe in revelation such as inspiration and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which puts them in the same class as most of the rest of modern Christianity. You may still disagree with this, and maybe you're right, but right or wrong, that would be a better reflection of what I intended to communicate.

Funny you should say that, since the tragedy at Marathon might have been prevented by something like a bicycle.

I am sure this is true for some. I doubt it is the common sentiment among CoC members, who seem to have long since abandoned any real belief in the Book of Mormon, restoration, modern revelation, and so forth.

The hill near the finger lakes region in eastern (upstate) New York that we call "Cumorah", where Joseph Smith first unearthed the plates of Mormon, is a drumlin—an enlongated, roundish hill composed of debris piled up by and left over from the actions of glaciers that retreated at the end of the last ice age, 13,000 or so years ago. Its structure is not like e.g. the mountains in Utah. You will not likely find limestone caverns in a drumlin. While I suppose it's possible there is some sort of large cave in the modern hill Cumorah, I doubt it, and don't see any convincing reason to suppose there is.

Laban was just a misunderstood guy with a temper problem. He lost his head. It happens.

I'll go further. The Republican Party is corrupt, and many or most Republican leaders are also corrupt and care about power and influence much more than freedom and liberty. Of the two major parties that have been thrust upon us, the Republicans are significantly less corrupt and awful than the Democrats, which is why I nominally support the Republicans. But I am under no illusions as to the purity of the Republican cause. My feelings about the Republicans are in line with my feelings about Donald Trump and a potential second Trump administration: It's much better than the alternative, but that does not make it ideal, or even particularly good.

How would it be?

I find this unlikely for several reasons: The Bible is perhaps our strongest contact with "traditional" Christianity, a commonality we would be loathe to lose. The JST was never proclaimed as complete. On the contrary, it's a sporadic mishmash of retranslation, interpretation, and doctrinal additions and changes. I think it would not be especially useful as the Bible is used today to try to use the JST as a regular Bible version. The Church has used a non-JST Bible throughout its history. That's what people know. You don't easily just give that up. (This is sort of an extension of the first bullet.) Saints have often complained about the shortcomings and difficulties inherent in using the KJV. The JST preserves all those perceived shortcomings and adds others. Whatever insights Biblical scholarship might add (e.g. the Dead Sea scrolls) would largely be mitigated by a slavish adherence to the JST. (Bonus point: The existence of the JST itself argues against "slavish adherence".)

How would it be?