Connie
-
Posts
1986 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Connie
-
-
13 minutes ago, TurboGirl said:
Why is a temple marriage so important?
The information at this website might help you understand the importance LDS places on the temple marriage: https://www.lds.org/temples/what-happens-in-a-temple-sealing?lang=eng
-
I finished Up From Slavery by Booker T. Washington. It's fantastic!
-
2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
I've seen this meme, but what does it mean?
I actually saw this done today. I went to a restaurant with one of my kids and their kids (my grandkids) today. While there, I saw a member and one of the youth sitting there. The Youth did this dab thing, then smiled and waved.
The rest of the family then waved too. I think it may be a kidding or something, but the kid did that arm thing.
What does it mean?
According to the urban dictionary: "Atlanta term used to describe dance move (bowing head into elbow) which represents confidence, accomplishment, and pride."
-
The LDS definition of charity is that it is "the pure love of Christ." This comes from the Book of Mormon in Moroni chapter 7.
Starting in verse 44, it states, "...for none is acceptable before God, save the meek and lowly in heart; and if a man be meek and lowly in heart, and confesses by the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, he must needs have charity; for it he have not charity he is nothing; wherefore he must needs have charity.
And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in inquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
Wherefore… if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail—
But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.
Wherefore… pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ…”Charity, to the LDS people, includes love. It is so much more than just giving money or service, though it does include those things.
Moroni 10:21 states, “…except ye have charity ye can in nowise be saved in the kingdom of God; neither can ye be saved in the kingdom of God if ye have not faith; neither can ye if ye have no hope.”
And Ether 12:34 states, “And now I know that this love which thou hast had for the children of men is charity; wherefore, except men shall have charity they cannot inherit that place which thou hast prepared in the mansions of thy Father.”
So the answer to your question is no. One cannot be saved without charity. It may, however, depend on how you are defining “saved.” LDS beliefs distinguish between physical salvation and spiritual salvation. See this link for further details: https://www.lds.org/manual/true-to-the-faith/salvation?lang=eng
- Jane_Doe, Vort, Just_A_Guy and 4 others
-
7
-
I’m currently reading a book called Home-Making by J.R. Miller, a Presbyterian pastor of a century ago. It’s basically a book about marriage and family life. I’m enjoying it a lot and find that his position is very close to LDS beliefs.
For LDS books I would suggest:
Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon by Jeffrey R. Holland
Hearing the Voice of the Lord: Principles and Patterns of Personal Revelation by Gerald N. Lund
Things As They Really Are by Neal A. Maxwell (LDS epistemology type book)
The Lord’s Way by Dallin H. Oaks (Compares and contrasts the Lord’s way versus the world’s way on various topics)
Anything by Terryl Givens
-
2 hours ago, Lee said:
I don't usually comment on how women dress but today my wife and I were lounging around the house all day so my wife was wearing short shorts and a vest top like what you would work out in. In the afternoon my friend was coming over to watch a game, so I told my wife she may want to get dressed she said she was already dresses, so I told her she may want to cover up a bit and she told me she doesn't have to in her own house and she thinks I am out of line asking her to. I like to walk around my house shirtless but if my wife has friends over I put a shirt on. Was I in the wrong for asking my wife to get changed because I had a friend coming over? Do you bother to dress modestly at home ?
Yes, I dress modestly at home. I try to be a good example to my children. And I generally believe in being by brother’s keeper and helping to bear the burdens of others. I personally see the attitude of “I’m comfortable the way I am and others just have to deal with that” to be very selfish. I think it’s more important to show respect for others. I always appreciate it when people show respect to me, so I try to do my part.
- SilentOne and classylady
-
2
-
I prefer the way it is. I think it helps to combat the normal isolation and cliquishness you get when groups of people get together. You have those members who really isolate themselves, the members who are very friendly with everyone, and the members who stay within their own little clique and never branch out as just a regular kind of “way things are.” I think that would be exacerbated if people are left to themselves. Having an assignment is a stretch for both the person assigned and the person they are assigned to. It causes people to get out of their comfort zone and to interact with someone they wouldn’t normally and find the good in that person. It means putting yourself out there, being vulnerable, and letting people see the good in you. It’s very humbling.
That’s not always an easy thing. Believe me; I get it. I am what I like to refer to as an introverted introvert. I had the wonderful opportunity of being partnered with my mother for several years. She has the same quiet, introverted disposition that I do. I learned so much by getting to watch how she ministered. It really is the little things that go the longest way, and it was never fake though I'm sure there were some who thought so. It tends to be a big part of human nature that we make the most ungenerous assumptions about people we don't know very well rather than extending the benefit of the doubt.
-
On 5/18/2018 at 5:33 PM, MormonGator said:
@Connie, just by reading this I know you are going to be a great RS president. Your ward is blessed to have you.
Thanks, MG. I'm lucky I just get to be the 1st counselor for now. I am definitely not ready to be president.
-
I was not prepared for being privy to the confidential details of the lives of some of the individuals and families in our ward. It is heartbreaking what people right in our ward are going through, and I had no idea! So many trials and heart aches! I was up longer than I wanted to be last night just thinking about and praying for some of these people. It's a great reminder to be kind to others always. It's all too often you don't know what they are going through in their lives.
- Vort, classylady, seashmore and 1 other
-
4
-
-
Most of my changing of words doesn't come from finding the original word boring but from how my kids said it when they were little or how my family said things growing up. So we call magazines "mazagines" because that is how my oldest daughter said it when she was small. We call the remote control a "clicker" and a rubber spatula a "kid cheater" because that is how I grew up saying them. And we still call Popsicles "spockitas." I believe I posted the story to that one a long while ago in another thread.
-
2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:
So, someone recommended me to read 'The God who Weeps'. I can't remember who it was, and despite trawling my threads, can't find the post. Anyway, I'd just like to report that I have bought the Kindle edition of the book, which I will read as opportunity, time, and inclination permits. Thanks, anyway, whoever you are. It looked interesting.
Best wishes, 2RM.
PS. Just found it. Thank you Connie.
You're welcome.
-
If you're interested in more of a philosophical treatment of LDS beliefs, I would recommend reading The God Who Weeps by Terryl Givens. That is... I would, if I didn't understand that your reading list is sufficient for the next 5 years or so.
- Sunday21 and lostinwater
-
2
-
22 minutes ago, CV75 said:
I believe you are correct! I think I misread this: https://www.kimballlarsen.com/2015/01/11/original-lyrics-for-redeemer-of-israel/ when I found both hymns listed in the same site you did: https://hymnary.org/person/Swain_Joseph
I won't be offended if @zil and @Vort remove your "Like" from my post!
Ha! Not a big deal.
That was a really interesting article. Some strong opinions there, for sure. But I had no idea that some of Phelps words had been changed from what he originally wrote. And how did I not know there was a PDF of Emma's hymnal! Had to download that! Thanks.
-
34 minutes ago, CV75 said:
This original hymn in which these verses appear was written by Joseph Swain (1761-1796), a Baptist minister in England decades before the restoration. William W. Phelps later changed some of the words, but not those particular words. The Baptists were persecuted both in England and America, so the 'tokens" may be a reference to 2 Thessalonians 1 (note verses 5 and 6).
I'm not seeing any mention of tokens in the original. Not according to these sources anyway:
https://hymnary.org/text/o_thou_in_whose_presence_my_soul_takes_d
https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/h/687
Good scripture, though. It definitely seems applicable to the early saints.
-
20 minutes ago, Vort said:
I think "the tokens" refer to the signs of Christ's coming, good tidings for us in which we can rejoice. I kind of think it's also an oblique reference to the tokens of Christ's crucifixion. Assuming the first, I wonder which tokens of Christ's coming the hymn refers to?
I think so, too.
The restoration of the gospel, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, the preaching of the gospel to other nations, and the building of a temple are all likely candidates based on the time period. Phelps could have been thinking of any or all of these signs.
The restoration is an ongoing process. We have even more tokens of Christ’s coming today. This is still a wonderful, significant hymn! One of my favorites!
-
56 minutes ago, estradling75 said:
Therefore the idea that the Ban was in place and remained it place for so long solely because Brigham was a flawed person (like we all are) is an attack on the idea of the church being lead by God.
I think that's a fair point. I imagine JohnsonJones and BJ64 would vehemently reject that conclusion of their idea and would love to hear their response.
-
Perhaps this is an instance where the 1828 dictionary would actually be helpful. For the definition of token it says, "A sign; something intended to represent or indicate another thing or an event." It also mentions some Biblical tokens such as Noah's rainbow and the blood on the doors of the Hebrews in Egypt. Maybe Phelps is referencing the signs of the second coming of the Savior and His millennial reign. The two end verses may indicate such.
- mordorbund, BeccaKirstyn, Vort and 5 others
-
8
-
-
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:
If they intended such disclaimers, that makes it more palatable. But I'm still wondering how "none of these theories is accepted" somewhow translates into "there is no doctrinal basis." Since they are unwilling/unable to explain this, perhaps you, with your level head and silver tongue, could shed some light on that translation.
This is what I’m understanding:
1. The priesthood ban was put in place by Brigham Young who gave reasons for it in various places—political speeches and the like. There is no directly written revelation or any other historical records to indicate that there were other reasons than these.
2. The theories that were later given for the ban were a direct result of those reasons that Brigham Young did give.
3. So when the essay says that the theories are being disavowed, then the direct reasons for those theories would naturally be included. And it’s not unreasonable to conclude (via inference rather than from explicit statements) that “Brigham Young had no doctrinal basis for the priesthood ban.”
As Vort has pointed out, there may be some semantic issues with understanding the word “disavow.” But, from what I’m understanding, the main problem many of us have with the argument is that lack of evidence of other reasons doesn’t mean there weren’t other reasons, perhaps even doctrinal ones. We just don’t know. There’s not enough to go on. So while I can acknowledge that they have made a reasonable inference given what evidence there is, there is still, in my mind, the issue of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Make sense?
P.S. As an awkward introvert, I have never been called "silver tongued." Thank you. I am flattered.
-
Okay. I think I am understanding JohnsonJones and BJ64’s position better now. I get the point. And, logically speaking, it’s a reasonable inference. It just would have been nice to know that it was an inference right from the start. Saying “the church says there was no doctrinal basis for the ban” is a pretty bold statement unless you temper it with “in my opinion” or “based on my understanding” or some such phrase to indicate that is how you are interpreting things. I see that point was eventually reached, even before I jumped onto the thread. But I’m grateful for the clarifications that helped me understand.
-
It's full name is Food Preparedness Committee. They are involved in activities. I guess there's a demand for food storage, preparedness, and simple meal preparation ideas here locally. They tend to give a short talk or demonstration during an activity or sometimes something more involved. I'm not super worried about it. There is a committee leader, and she's really on top of things. I figure I just need to listen to any of her ideas and concerns and bring them to presidency meetings as well as making sure she is aware of assignments well ahead of time and is prepared with any help she needs.
-
-
19 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:
I think that is what he is stating.
If you read the essay in a certain way, that is ALSO what the essay is stating.
One should remember though, the essays are written from a scholarly perspective and with a historian's bias. It is NOT doctrine. It is NOT written by inspiration of General Authorities. It is written to the best degree that scholars are allowed to in regards to their specific topics and then approved on by higher ups. They are written to supplement teachings of doctrine, not to supplant them.
I see. When I first read this essay and now as I've read it again, I don't think the essay makes it clear that these theories were Brigham Young's reasoning. I think it's quite the opposite. Especially when I read this paragraph:
QuoteIn 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.
"Following the death of Brigham Young" and "Over time" would seem to indicate that the theories came later and not from Brigham Young, himself. The essay then goes through the theories but says nothing about them being Young's reasoning. I've looked through the resource list and can't see anything that would indicate such. Can you point to some sources that would indicate these theories were the reasons Brigham Young, himself, gave? I am not seeing anything in the essay to indicate that is the case.
Is St. George, Utah a nice place to raise a family?
in General Discussion
Posted
St. George is pretty popular as a retirement community, but it has plenty of families as well. Many of my co-workers are raising their families there, and they really like it. It’s a nice area. Let me know if you have any other questions.