Maureen
-
Posts
5658 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Maureen
-
-
25 minutes ago, Mores said:
Here's the thread.
Somewhere on the second page you were saying that "I'm a Mormon" is a good way to explain why you do or don't do a thing. That's sounds like "giving a speech" (exaggerated) to me.
Now you're saying that @unixknight should NOT have "given a speech" (exaggerated) about the WoW.
@Mores, your reading comprehension is lacking. This old thread actually adds to my current thought with this new thread.
In the old thread "Guest" was saying that no matter how he explained (in several words) why he had never been or will never go to a men's club, his audience was not understanding. So by him just saying those few words of "I'm a Mormon", everything became clear to his audience and they understood. The many worded explanations didn't cut it, but the concise explanation did.
Moral of the story is: Be brief and concise if you're trying to get a message across. Like "No thanks" or "I'm a Mormon".
M.
-
12 minutes ago, unixknight said:
I hate it when people accuse me of saying things I didn't say too.
But I also admitted I was exaggerating to make a point.
M.
-
Just now, Mores said:
Sure sign of old age when you start forgetting things like that. My internet connection is pretty slow right now. I'll have to do a search because it was on an old thread I came across in my browsing a bit ago. I'll have to figure out where it was when I get my connection back up to speed. But it had to do with a strip club.
Can't wait.
M.
-
1 hour ago, Mores said:
...BTW, you're switching positions. You used to say that it would be better to go ahead and state that it was because of religious beliefs rather than keep people wondering. That way, they'll leave you alone. But now you're saying he shouldn't have done so (which he didn't anyway). So, whaddup?
I've never said any such thing.
M.
-
17 minutes ago, unixknight said:
Why would you assume I make some kind of speech? Is this lecture based on that assumption?
@Midwest LDS hit the nail on the head.
You said you usually give an explanation as to why you can't partake, your religion. I was being hyperbolic to make a point. Don't bother with an explanation, just say "No thanks".
M.
-
18 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:
...Speaking from personal experience...
Speaking from my personal experience, saying "No thanks" usually does the trick.
M.
-
3 hours ago, unixknight said:
...When I'm among Muslims however, (and in my experience this is also true of Hindu folks) when I say I'm unable to partake in those things because of my religious beliefs, they understand completely and that's that. They just get it. No offense is taken, no criticism, no exaggerated eye rolls....
Here's a thought. Next time you find yourself in company that offer you food or drink you don't want to partake in. Instead of offering them a big speech as to why you can't partake, just say "No thanks" and maybe that will help you avoid the criticism and eye rolling.
M.
-
2 hours ago, Mores said:
Really?
I don't mean to be too judgmental, BUT, your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your ignorance. Now don't take that in a bad way. I mean that in a good way.
At least I'm concise. You blather on for 3 whole sentences. 😊
M.
-
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:
Just because you want it doesn't make it not a weakness. I want chocolates after my dinner. It's a weakness regardless of how many articles people write about the health benefits of chocolates because I'm not wanting chocolates for their health benefits. I want it because it is sweet and makes me feel good for the next 10 minutes.
Just because you think it's a weakness doesn't make it so. And just because you want that chocolate as a treat doesn't negate the health benefits it can offer.
M.
-
20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
...Therefore, the reasons for getting married Civilly first becomes a reason that detracts from the sanctity and meaning of the Temple ordinance. The default of one-year wait (the rule for new converts) was, therefore, applied to give the couple a chance to reflect on the sanctity and meaning of the Temple ordinance....
How? Are you saying that a sealing looses it's reverence, authority, sacredness just because it occured after a civil marriage? That the time inbetween the wedding and the sealing, whether it's hours, days or weeks, causes the bride and groom to loose focus of the sealing ceremony, making it less effective?
I'm going to speculate that if Latter-day Saints in the UK can cherish the temple sealing after getting married then North American members can do the same.
M.
-
31 minutes ago, Fether said:
Off topic question I have had for a while, but never wanted to make a whole topic on it.
This whole civil marriage and temple marriage thing has confused me when considered with the commandment to not have sexual relations before “marriage”.
What is a civil marriage and what about it allows for two people to engage in intercourse without being under condemnation?
Is it just the idea that two people are commuting to each other? That explanation could cause problems and lead to justification of this law.
Is it that a society of people acknowledge that two people are together? If this is it, does it mean if I crash land on an unknown island with a single woman, could we sleep together all we wanted because we were the only society? Or how does the different understandings of civil marriage in other countries (like in South America where no one does cause it’s too expensive but still claim to be married)?
I never understood the requirement to wait a year, nor the concept of how civil marriage satisfies the pre-req for sex.
I don't mean to offend but your questions are crazy.
Civil or legal marriage is where two people, in conjunction with the law, vow to become husband and wife. (And in some countries where SSM is legal, also spouses). The main requirements for a legal marriage are a marriage licence, valid officiant and two witnesses.
M.
-
-
6 minutes ago, Mores said:
Yes. That is exactly what I said.
I'm too lazy to look. Please provide a quote where you said exactly that.
M.
-
@Mores, as human beings it is only normal to anthropomorphize God. We are finite, he is infinite. We see God as a being with fatherly and even motherly qualities. He loves us, protects us, cares about us. It's just natural to visualize God as a fatherly figure. But just because we do that, does not mean he actually is "human" or a glorified "human". I can easily visualize God as a father figure and at the same time accept and wholeheartedly believe in the Trinity.
M.
-
10 hours ago, Mores said:
I'd agree. But I'm not sure what point you're making given the context. I was wondering about what the Trinity actually is. If you're saying that a necessary component of the belief in the Trinity is the belief that God has no body, then that would certainly be more alien to a Latter-day Saint. But my friend's impression was that (again, if we were to hypothetically "surprise" God) He would appear to be human in form. What chemical or physical composition of that form is even unknown to Latter-day Saints. So, we would again agree that "we don't know".
In your first post you describe to your friend God as three "people". The trinity is described as 3 "persons" in 1 God. Your friend may well have understood the word "people" as close enough to "persons" that he didn't need to point out the distintion. You may have visualized "human" in your "people" word but a trinitarian would not so easily go there. Next time you see your friend, be more specific in describing your Godhead and see if he actually agrees with you.
M.
-
7 hours ago, Mores said:
...Then he asked me what the LDS belief is. I said,"If we were able to hypothetically surprise God and open the veil of heaven and look at God, we would see three people as individual as the three people at this table today. But they interchange their roles so much and their power, authority, and knowledge are so intertwined that when speaking with one, we may as well be speaking to any of them."
He agreed, "That's what I believe too." Amazing. I then said that most Trinitarians would say he was a heretic. He agreed. So, then what makes you a Christian? "I believe in the five solas." OK. I found that odd.
So, what is it that defines a Christian to protestant faiths? I was told that if you didn't believe in the Trinity, then you're not Christian. So, therefore Mormons are not Christians. Well, this friend does not seem to believe in the Trinity. But he claims the label of "Christian" by claiming the 5 solas. But some "Christian" sects don't believe in those either. So, what's up with this?...
I think if you would have taken the time to mention that you believe that God the Father has a physical body of flesh and bones, your friend would not have said "That's what I believe too."
M.
-
On 4/22/2019 at 10:24 PM, BeccaKirstyn said:
Golden Knights fan. That game last night was unbearable to watch. Don't think we'll be able to to beat the Sharks in Game 7 in their hometown. So my next team are the Caps.
I wasn't able to watch that game on Sunday but kept track of the score on my phone. I was so shocked to find out the Sharks won that game with a short handed goal.
ETA: And in double OT.
M.
-
12 hours ago, MormonGator said:
I'm stuck tonight. As a Montreal fan, I dislike both the Maple Leafs and the Bruins. Can both teams lose tonight? Has that ever happened?
I was cheering for the Leafs because they are so overdue. Their last Stanley Cup was 1967. The Bruins might lose in Round 2. I'll be cheering for the Columbus. 😊
M.
-
The Dallas Stars are moving on to Round 2. Their new opponents are the St. Louis Blues.
M.
-
4 hours ago, unixknight said:
When I'm not rooting for the Caps, I root for the Avalanche.
Should they meet for the Stanley Cup... I dunno what will happen. I'm from the D.C. area, my wife is from Denver...
You might have to do "eeny-meeny-miney-mo". 😊
M.
-
The Winnipeg Jets are gone. Only one Canadian team left.
M.
-
The Calgary Flames are out of the playoffs. They were the highest winning team in the Western Conference.
M.
-
28 minutes ago, unixknight said:
I'm always happy to see the Penguins humiliated.
Same here. 😊
M.
-
40 minutes ago, mirkwood said:
How about you @Maureen? Same question.
I am definitely against censorship unless it falls under the category of hate speech. If someone's speech entices violence against others then I do not support that. Though I would not condemn (attack, berate, revile, etc) those who are for censorship.
M.
A Realization I had During Ramadan Last Night
in General Discussion
Posted
@Mores, I remember that thread and conversation. Go back to the thread and this time try really hard to understand the context of what "Guest" first explained and what I said in my posts. And yes, three little words like "I'm a Mormon" are very concise and are definitely not a speech. If you're not clear what a speech is then find a dictionary.
M.