Vort

Matthew 8:23-27 and Mark 4:35-41

Everything in my life seems to be about this story at the moment. We had it at a meeting at the vicarage a few weeks back, and we had it again at church yesterday. (It was the all-age service so we did it as a play, and since there weren't enough kids to play all the disciples, I had to stand in as one of them.) I'm sure there was something else about it recently though I don't remember. I think God has His ways of getting me to hear what I need to hear.
Just to get it out of the way, let's talk briefly about the elephant in the room: How did Jesus sleep in in a rocking leaking boat in the middle of a raging storm? Nobody ever mentions that unless you bring it up yourself, at which point they say things like "Ah well, that's just it! He's the Son of God!" etc. But no one ever wants to discuss it unless you force them to. It's one of those questions you're not supposed to ask. A bit like the "Parable of the Shrewd Manager" in Luke 16:1-15, which has at least two elephants hiding in plain sight - and that's before we even get to the matter of whether Jesus is recommending dishonest dealing! But I'll leave that to another day.
Meanwhile, do you notice that when one storm is stilled, instead of enjoying the calm you find yourself terrified by another storm somewhere else, and you have no more faith to "rebuke" it than you had with the first one?
Last Wednesday when I was almost home from driving my daughter back to university, the car engine started making that clicky-clicky noise you get when the oil is low, but not quite low enough to make the oil light come on. And this was strange because I'd checked the oil that morning and it was fine. Furthermore there was oil all over the underneath of the car, and some had even spattered up the tailgate, and it was dripping on the ground. I put some more oil in and the clicky-clicky stopped, but I took it to the workshop first thing next morning. The mechanic soon told me the oil seal on the crankshaft had broken and he would need to order a new one, and he couldn't do the job till Monday - i.e. today. Well by midday today I was a nervous wreck, terrified I was going to get a call saying there were umpteen more things wrong with the car. But Jesus calmed the storm, and I didn't even need to wake him! The mechanic called at 3pm to say the car was fixed and ready!
Well, all the way home my mind was hunting for something else to worry about, and I soon remembered the dreaded crack in the garage wall. I had the insurance people survey it a while back and they said it was subsidence due to the moisture demands of two large conifers, and once they were gone the soil would recover and "push up" the wall again. The repairs which would then be needed were not enough to justify a claim. So I got someone to come and chop the trees down, but but since then if anything the crack seems to have got bigger. Well, not bigger top-to-bottom, but the lower bricks are sliding outwards a bit relative to the upper ones in a kind of "staircase" pattern. I checked it about an hour ago and a bit more of the pointing has come loose. I suppose that could be the upward pressure of the recovering soil (none of the actual bricks are loose) but that's just my desperately optimistic know-nothing layman theory. I ought really to get a builder to look at it again, but that would be akin to opening Schrodinger's garage. Anyway, that's what's bugging me now that the car story ended happily (apart from the bill - though even that wasn't too bad.)
I feel sure if the garage wall problem went away, some other storm would take its place. They stack up like bottles of anxiety in a vending machine - you know the sort where when one bottle of soda falls, the one behind it slides in to take its place?
Does anyone else have this problem?
Thanks anyway for listening to my drivelings!

A few questions to consider:
Where in LDS scripture is the phrase "become a god" found? (Hint: Nowhere) What does it mean to "be a god"? If it makes a difference, capitalize the G before answering. In what sense are we expected to become as God is? What does that mean, exactly? What is the glory of God? Can God's glory be shared? Can it be taken by another? What is the difference between God's glory and God's honor? What exactly was the rebellious Satan trying to take from God? Describe a scenario where such a thing (procuring God's honor by taking it from Him) even makes sense, not merely semantically, but philosophically. As with many seemingly "deep" questions, this issue cannot even be addressed until we define our verbal tokens sufficiently that we can manipulate them in a rational way. Once we sufficiently define those tokens such that the situation they describe becomes meaningful, the answer is likely to reveal itself in a pretty straightforward manner.
Until then, we cannot even know if the question has any real-world meaning. "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" makes perfect sense grammatically, but not semantically. It proposes a meaningless situation that exists only because of wordplay and the rules of grammar, then demands we take that situation seriously. But we cannot, because it is not a serious situation. It is meaningless, like "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". (For further development of this particular part of investigating the topic, see Gõdel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter. Seriously, if you're willing to put the effort in, you'll learn a great deal.)
As a general life rule, I believe that many of our questions can be approached only after we grasp the fundamental elements of those questions, not merely in a grammatical sense, but semantically, epistemologically, and hermeneutically. Until then, we are small children pondering how to solve a differential equation. We're just scrawling crude pictures on a whiteboard covered with equations, carelessly and vacuously kicking words around without actually addressing anything meaningful.

Well, let's take a look at these verses:
Forgive me, but it certainly sounds like "glory added upon our heads forever and ever."  So, why do you find it objectionable?
Context matters.
That last phrase which you ignored gives a new perspective to the verse, does it not?  The "glory" spoken of here is not the vague notion of power or radiating light.  It is the worship/love/devotion that we offer to the Lord and none else.  We do not worship idolatrous gods.
It may take some understanding of the Hebrew writing style.  But phrases like this are used  by repeating the same idea in different words to clarify & emphasize.
If that is the meaning of glory (you brought up the citation) then it CAN increase as more people worship Him.

I see you've cited Isaiah 42:8 a couple of times now.  After trying hard to follow your argument about how LDS exaltation somehow violates what's laid down there, I still don't see it.  Isaiah's statement is indeed profound, but then, so is as Romans 8:16-17: 
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."
 
The notion of exaltation is little more than the notion that we should read the scriptures a tad more literally than trinitarian creedal Christianity does.  I figure Paul meant what he said here, and so does the Spirit.  We are not just broken creations reliant on our Creator's grace, we are the literal offspring of deity.  Our Father in heaven is literally just that - our Father.  And children grow up.
I am totally fine that you and yours see things differently. Very happy to share this earth with folks who think different thoughts than I about the nature of God and our relationship to Him.  I don't see the point in arguing who is right or wrong, whose concept is more or less supported, more or less refuted with this or that scripture.  In the decades I've been paying attention to the debate, I've almost never seen anyone budge from their opinion based on argumentation or apologetics.   I've seen faiths evolve and beliefs change over time, and I've witnessed people starting in one camp and experiencing a huge growth in spiritual understanding and end up in the other camp.  And I've seen them pass each other on such journeys.  You're not my first "I started LDS and then grew my way into trinitarian Christianity" person I've met.   And I've also met plenty of "I started some other kind of Christian or Jew and then grew my way into the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" people.   If there's going to be a winner before Christ's second coming, I doubt it will occur based on discussions such as the one you've started in this thread.   After all, people have been having variations of this discussion for almost 200 years, and matters haven't been settled.
 

 
This isn't exactly logarithmic growth where we can plot a point where every human is converted.  But it is certainly a firm statement that we've heard the best creedal Christianity has to offer, evaluated your best arguments about the nature of God, and every year more and more of us find better answers, more in line with what the Spirit witnesses to us, in the Church of Jesus Christ. 
Glad you're here @fiddle tenders.    What is a fiddle tender, anyway?  Someone who plays with their chicken tenders, or someone who takes care of a musical instrument, or something else?

A few questions to consider:
Where in LDS scripture is the phrase "become a god" found? (Hint: Nowhere) What does it mean to "be a god"? If it makes a difference, capitalize the G before answering. In what sense are we expected to become as God is? What does that mean, exactly? What is the glory of God? Can God's glory be shared? Can it be taken by another? What is the difference between God's glory and God's honor? What exactly was the rebellious Satan trying to take from God? Describe a scenario where such a thing (procuring God's honor by taking it from Him) even makes sense, not merely semantically, but philosophically. As with many seemingly "deep" questions, this issue cannot even be addressed until we define our verbal tokens sufficiently that we can manipulate them in a rational way. Once we sufficiently define those tokens such that the situation they describe becomes meaningful, the answer is likely to reveal itself in a pretty straightforward manner.
Until then, we cannot even know if the question has any real-world meaning. "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" makes perfect sense grammatically, but not semantically. It proposes a meaningless situation that exists only because of wordplay and the rules of grammar, then demands we take that situation seriously. But we cannot, because it is not a serious situation. It is meaningless, like "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". (For further development of this particular part of investigating the topic, see Gõdel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter. Seriously, if you're willing to put the effort in, you'll learn a great deal.)
As a general life rule, I believe that many of our questions can be approached only after we grasp the fundamental elements of those questions, not merely in a grammatical sense, but semantically, epistemologically, and hermeneutically. Until then, we are small children pondering how to solve a differential equation. We're just scrawling crude pictures on a whiteboard covered with equations, carelessly and vacuously kicking words around without actually addressing anything meaningful.

A few questions to consider:
Where in LDS scripture is the phrase "become a god" found? (Hint: Nowhere) What does it mean to "be a god"? If it makes a difference, capitalize the G before answering. In what sense are we expected to become as God is? What does that mean, exactly? What is the glory of God? Can God's glory be shared? Can it be taken by another? What is the difference between God's glory and God's honor? What exactly was the rebellious Satan trying to take from God? Describe a scenario where such a thing (procuring God's honor by taking it from Him) even makes sense, not merely semantically, but philosophically. As with many seemingly "deep" questions, this issue cannot even be addressed until we define our verbal tokens sufficiently that we can manipulate them in a rational way. Once we sufficiently define those tokens such that the situation they describe becomes meaningful, the answer is likely to reveal itself in a pretty straightforward manner.
Until then, we cannot even know if the question has any real-world meaning. "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" makes perfect sense grammatically, but not semantically. It proposes a meaningless situation that exists only because of wordplay and the rules of grammar, then demands we take that situation seriously. But we cannot, because it is not a serious situation. It is meaningless, like "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". (For further development of this particular part of investigating the topic, see Gõdel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter. Seriously, if you're willing to put the effort in, you'll learn a great deal.)
As a general life rule, I believe that many of our questions can be approached only after we grasp the fundamental elements of those questions, not merely in a grammatical sense, but semantically, epistemologically, and hermeneutically. Until then, we are small children pondering how to solve a differential equation. We're just scrawling crude pictures on a whiteboard covered with equations, carelessly and vacuously kicking words around without actually addressing anything meaningful.

A few questions to consider:
Where in LDS scripture is the phrase "become a god" found? (Hint: Nowhere) What does it mean to "be a god"? If it makes a difference, capitalize the G before answering. In what sense are we expected to become as God is? What does that mean, exactly? What is the glory of God? Can God's glory be shared? Can it be taken by another? What is the difference between God's glory and God's honor? What exactly was the rebellious Satan trying to take from God? Describe a scenario where such a thing (procuring God's honor by taking it from Him) even makes sense, not merely semantically, but philosophically. As with many seemingly "deep" questions, this issue cannot even be addressed until we define our verbal tokens sufficiently that we can manipulate them in a rational way. Once we sufficiently define those tokens such that the situation they describe becomes meaningful, the answer is likely to reveal itself in a pretty straightforward manner.
Until then, we cannot even know if the question has any real-world meaning. "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" makes perfect sense grammatically, but not semantically. It proposes a meaningless situation that exists only because of wordplay and the rules of grammar, then demands we take that situation seriously. But we cannot, because it is not a serious situation. It is meaningless, like "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". (For further development of this particular part of investigating the topic, see Gõdel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter. Seriously, if you're willing to put the effort in, you'll learn a great deal.)
As a general life rule, I believe that many of our questions can be approached only after we grasp the fundamental elements of those questions, not merely in a grammatical sense, but semantically, epistemologically, and hermeneutically. Until then, we are small children pondering how to solve a differential equation. We're just scrawling crude pictures on a whiteboard covered with equations, carelessly and vacuously kicking words around without actually addressing anything meaningful.

Facial hair. I don't think so.
I hope for the best for Retzlaff. I hope even more that future BYU athletes will take their promise to follow the honor code with greater sincerity. We're definitely swimming upstream in that regard. Maybe we should call ourselves the BYU Salmon.

FTR, I have nothing against beards, and I wouldn't mind a bit seeing BYU remove beard restrictions. Assuming the guys who wore beards actually took care of them and didn't look, well, um, like i would have looked if I had tried growing a beard in my early 20s.

More like this, but shorter.

@Vort in college. 

He looks like an out of work 70’s adult film star 

He’ll find a new position very quickly and this will not affect his life in the way you think it will. 

"Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!"
(I have an annoying report for you: When I was a child (in Utah), it was common to just let kids get the measles and develop natural immunity. That's how me and my brothers got ours. <gdrvvf> )

Those are probably just the UK Thought Police bots logging your activities.

Well stated. I don't remember ever really thinking about this before. I have always taken the words as meaning "The predator and the prey will be at peace", but maybe there are more layers to the story.  For example, the lion is a widely recognized figure of the tribe of Judah, and specifically of David and his reign and progeny. The lamb is obviously a figure of Jesus, but may also symbolize those ruled by David's or Judah's house.
Come to think about it, I don't think the "lamb and lion" metaphor/prophecy/whatever you want to call it is biblical. Pretty sure Isaiah talks about the wolf and the lamb. Okay, looks like Isaiah 11:6, which reads:
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Hmmmm. Not sure what to make of this. Why do we so often talk about the lion and the lamb? Is there another verse of scripture that I'm missing here?

My guess is the phrasing comes from the lyrics to "The Spirit of God" verse 4:
How blessed the day when the lamb and the lion Shall lie down together without any ire

Well stated. I don't remember ever really thinking about this before. I have always taken the words as meaning "The predator and the prey will be at peace", but maybe there are more layers to the story.  For example, the lion is a widely recognized figure of the tribe of Judah, and specifically of David and his reign and progeny. The lamb is obviously a figure of Jesus, but may also symbolize those ruled by David's or Judah's house.
Come to think about it, I don't think the "lamb and lion" metaphor/prophecy/whatever you want to call it is biblical. Pretty sure Isaiah talks about the wolf and the lamb. Okay, looks like Isaiah 11:6, which reads:
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Hmmmm. Not sure what to make of this. Why do we so often talk about the lion and the lamb? Is there another verse of scripture that I'm missing here?

Well stated. I don't remember ever really thinking about this before. I have always taken the words as meaning "The predator and the prey will be at peace", but maybe there are more layers to the story.  For example, the lion is a widely recognized figure of the tribe of Judah, and specifically of David and his reign and progeny. The lamb is obviously a figure of Jesus, but may also symbolize those ruled by David's or Judah's house.
Come to think about it, I don't think the "lamb and lion" metaphor/prophecy/whatever you want to call it is biblical. Pretty sure Isaiah talks about the wolf and the lamb. Okay, looks like Isaiah 11:6, which reads:
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Hmmmm. Not sure what to make of this. Why do we so often talk about the lion and the lamb? Is there another verse of scripture that I'm missing here?

The Lion will lay down with the Lamb is not just talking about animals. 

This verse is a transition verse between the judgements falling on unrighteous Israel and the promises of righteous Israel (after it is cleansed). So it's probably speaking of a time imminent to the second coming or immediately following it. And while there may be a literal fulfillment of this verse I'm thinking the spiritual fulfillment may be related to the ten virgins and apply to both men in women in relation to The Bridegroom.

"...to take away our reproach."  This is the part that always struck me as unlikely.  There's no social stigma in America for an unmarried woman (as of now, so far as I can tell).

We're just one global or even national disaster away from some pretty interesting possibilities.  
I think about the dark ages, and Catholics cloistered in monasteries, preserving knowledge and culture.  Fascinating AI summary:
Monasteries during the Middle Ages were often designed with some level of defensibility in mind, especially in regions where they were vulnerable to attacks from raiders or during times of conflict. Here are some key features and considerations regarding the defensibility of monasteries:
Defensive Features
Location: Many monasteries were strategically located on elevated ground, near rivers, or in remote areas to provide natural defenses against potential attackers.
Architecture: Some monasteries were built with fortified walls, towers, and gates. These structures could help protect the inhabitants from invasions and provide a place of refuge during attacks.
Self-Sufficiency: Monasteries often had their own agricultural lands, which allowed them to be self-sufficient. This meant they could sustain themselves during sieges or prolonged conflicts without relying on outside resources.
Community Defense: Monks and nuns were sometimes trained in basic self-defense and could organize to protect their community. In some cases, local laypeople would also come to their aid in times of danger.
Isolation: The secluded nature of many monasteries made them less visible and less likely to be targeted compared to urban centers, which were more prominent and accessible.
 
Then I think about how the church has just been quietly investing surplus tithing funds for decades in real estate and productive farmland.  
Then I think about the continual cultural decline of the United States, the ascendancy of China, and how every empire comes with an expiration date built in.