Just_A_Guy
-
Posts
15564 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
260
Posts posted by Just_A_Guy
-
-
But where in the Bible is the evidence that they could not have been fruitful and multiplied even if they had never sinned?
We don't look to the Bible for proof positive of every point of our doctrine.
You opened this thread with the stated purpose of
. . . not trying to cause trouble, I only want to understand how these discrepancies have been reconciled.
I would respectfully suggest that you seem to be straying from that objective. We're Mormons. We believe in continuing revelation. Telling us to reconcile our doctrine without using extrabiblical sources is like telling a bird to reproduce without laying eggs.
-
I know what you meant, I just don't agree with it. Nothing personal. :)
-
However, we did not know that stuff back then. So, the Saints had to go by faith. I am sure that when the Prophet announced the Word of Wisdom that the Spirit confirmed to the people the importance of it, and so they followed. But they had to already have had experiences with the Spirit. Why was the word not given right away? Because the church was new. The Saints would not have been ready to give up tobacco and alcohol, and many souls would have been lost.
FWIW, the Word of Wisdom in some respects closely parallels the so-called Graham Diet introduced around 1829 (though the underlying rationale was vastly different!). Sylvester Graham (inventor of the Graham Cracker) may be the reason that Seventh-Day Adventists follow a code very similar to our own WoW.
-
I have it on hearsay (but very good hearsay) that the 2nd Anointing was being done at least as recently as the mid-nineties. Not sure if it's still being done.
Technically, it is incorrect to call it a "Second Endowment". The Endowment precedes (or should precede) an endowment of power from the Spirit. The Second Anointing is received preparatory to having one's calling and election made sure, which according to Joseph Smith entails a personal visitation from Jesus Christ. See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 150.
David Buerger wrote an article about it in Dialogue some years back. I don't think he really wrote anything he shouldn't have, but it nevertheless was enough to get him barred from Church Archives.
-
If it was Wine, it had only minutes to ferment when we noticed it in the marriage feast. No! The Savior knew exactly what was a eternal value for His life and health. I highly doubt if he associated Himself anything less.
I disagree. The story ends with the remark that ordinarily the best wine was served at the beginning of the wedding; but that in this case the best wine had come at the end.
Why the longstanding practice of serving the best wine first? Because (as Talmage points out in Jesus the Christ, if I remember correctly), by the end of the feast everyone was usually too wasted to care what they were drinking.
-
I think you misunderstood my point. We should not use Agency (or even Free Agency) to describe "freedom to choose". That is not what Agency means to the rest of the world, and I don't think it meant that originally in our scriptures. We should use the scriptural term "Free Will" to describe the idea of "freedom to choose", and Agency should be something along the lines of what you have suggested.
If you look at "agency" in the topical guide and then follow the BOM definitions, it seems that the references to choosing are usually placed in context with some reference to accountability (though, yes, the word "agency" doesn't seem to appear in the BoM).
Maybe I'm just not getting it, but it almost seems like you're advocating teaching "free will" in and of itself, without the corresponding element of accountability. If so, I must beg to differ; I just don't think that's necessary.
EDIT for clarity: In other words, why teach the incomplete doctrine of "free will" when we have the complete doctrine of "agency" at our disposal?
-
In order to change a law it is up to the plaintiff(in this case the gay rights groups) to show a valid reason why it needs to be changed. Most of the argument i have seen coming from that side is "straights get to marry the opposite gender, gays don't like the opposite gender, they like their own, therefor in the interest of fairness we must allow marriage to occur between any gender. This idea is absurd IMO.
The California and Massachusetts judiciaries would seem to disagree with you. (I'm not saying I do, but those courts do.)
While i think the idea is absurd it has been pushed farther and they are using the equal protection clause as support for their argument. In order combat this the opposition to gay marriage needs to show reason why the equal protection clause shouldn't cover same sex marriage. Ideas like "the EPC protects who people are and not their thoughts and actions. (for example)
I agree that slippery slope arguments don't get very far in the courtroom; but if you go back and read the judicial opinions and the party briefs in particular cases I don't think SSM opponents usually try to run those types of arguments in that forum. The simple fact is, the judges in those states knew what they wanted to do and they did it, irrespective of the arguments actually raised by either side.
The problem is the majority of the opponents to SSM come from the "religious right" so they continue to fight it on the idea "what will it do to the church" slippery slope argument. This is a logical fallacy. Laws aren't made or upheld on logical fallacy.
The trouble with your statement here is that you make it look like many/most/all oppose SSM per se, and then bring up the Free Exercise Clause to substantiate our earlier opposition. With many of us (myself included), it's precisely the opposite.
This slippery slope may in fact exist. But if history has taught us anything pointing it out does nothing to change it.
Actually, the ad campaigns run by ProtectMarriage.org and the results of that election would seem to teach quite the opposite.
-
Nothing wrong with that. Individuals have the right to live it but not force it on others. Religious institutions are still protected.
Who's forcing what on whom, under the status quo?
If we allowed individuals to run there business based on religious beliefs this country would be a mess. The civil rights movement wouldn't have mattered. Blacks could still be in the back of the bus or in separate dinning areas as "decedents of Cain". AIDS patents going untreated because the disease is "caused by sin". etc.
I take a slightly less dim view of human nature. I think that if the courts had held off, change would have come more slowly--but when it did come, it would have been genuine and we wouldn't have so many "closet racists" as we do at present. But that's probably due to my libertarian views in general.
I agree the "squeaky wheel gets the oil" but don't believe it changes the rules.
I confess I don't follow you here. The "oil", in this case, is a change in the rules.
Religions adherence have the right to practice their religion as long as it doesn't interfere with another rights. This is why we can't let Dr. refuse service to people who don't follow their religious law.
What "rights"? The "right" not to be offended and the "right" to health care from a doctor of one's choosing regardless of the doctor's own abilities or wishes were not written into the Constitution, and I for one don't believe that they should be read into it either. (And for the record, I also oppose universal health care.)
Do you really want Drs refusing treatment based on your ability to follow there religious customs? God help you if you your dieing of (smoking related) lung cancer in Utah. Or bowel cancer for eating non kosher foods in south Florida.
The libertarian in me says yes. Better than putting my trust in a doctor who secretly believes I deserve to die. Generally speaking, too, I have a more optimistic view of market forces. Here in Utah, for example, the general prejudice against gay couples has actually given rise to a cottage industry of estate planning attorneys who specifically cater to such couples. They do very well; and gay couples who need estate planning services have no problem getting them once they know where to look.
I can see a situation where, if no one would provide a despised minority with medically necessary care, there's a case for requiring that physicians put their moral compunctions aside. But such was not the case in North Coast: The couple knew where they could get the procedure done, because the original physician had told them so--and it was a purely elective procedure, to boot. The couple wasn't suing because they couldn't get needed medical care. They were suing because they were offended that someone dared to express his opinion that they were "sinning".
As far as the federal level ther is also the Deference of marriage act (signed into law under Clinton)
Which keeps the feds from recognizing gay marriage.
Which President Obama and the current Congressional leadership aim to repeal.
What i would like to know is are conservative churches in other countries forced to preform gay marriages? In Canada where gay marriage is legal and religion is not protected are LDS bishops forced to wed gay couples? If it isn't happening there it will not be happening here.
In other forums, this gambit has turned into a bait-and-switch. When, for example, I point to ministers in Canada who were threatened with jail for "hate speech" for quoting (admittedly pointed) Biblical passages regarding homosexuality in a public forum, I am usually met with "well, the First Amendment guarantees that that can't happen here".
Moreover, to the extent that forced marriages are *not* yet occurring, you again fall into the trap of projecting centuries of future jurisprudence based on, at most, a decade or two of past jurisprudence; while ignoring the general rise in social sympathy for gays and the corresponding decline in social sympathy for religious groups.
-
Bytor, lemme guess--your wife's name is Jessica?
I don't want to pick apart Brookshes' post--if love-at-first-sight worked for him, then great--but don't get locked into a mindset that it has to be that way.
Somewhat echoing Godless' sentiments, a cousin of mine once put it this way: You won't always love your wife. But you should always like her. (I realize that some would say the reverse is true, but the point is that a solid relationship will have a strong element of friendship and mutual respect.)
-
On the one hand, yeah, you don't want to have a grudge festering--but there's still the question of why your husband stalled on the issue when he knew it was so important to you. The answer, of course, is none of my business--my point is that a bit of marriage counseling might be in order. Maybe a visit to your bishop would make a good starting point.
-
What Ninjamormon said. Be you.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't aspire to develop good qualities as per the counsel of our leaders and the whisperings of the Spirit. You should. But do it because that's the person you want to be (and who the Lord wants you to be), not because you think it's what someone else likes.
If you love to giggle--giggle. If you love computer games, play computer games. If you're into sports, play sports. If you like bolder makeup (within reasonable limits), go for it.
Being yourself is the best way to guarantee that when a guy comes calling at your door, he'll like you for who you are and not for who he thought you were.
-
How many of our Youth get the freedom side and fail to grasp the accountability.
Well, they'll use the idea of agency as a rhetorical device to try to get what they want from their parents or other authority figures. But I don't think many of them honestly believe that God doesn't mind when they break His commandments. More often, what's really going on there is a lack of testimony of either God's existence generally or the particular commandment they wish to disobey.
Also, how many non-members don't understand us when we talk about Agency.
Touché. But I'm not convinced that "free will" really encompasses the dual nature of agency either--at least, not to the layman. We use lots of terms that are unique to Mormondom, and to some degree investigators and converts are just going to have to learn the lingo.
-
So, if it used to be okay to drink wine, and it will be again, why isn't it now? I'm not trying argue with God, or anyone else. I am just honestly curious. Why are we being asked to live what seems to be a "lower" law, as was the Law of Moses to the Children of Israel? The logical answer would seem to be because, just as the Children of Israel, we apparently need a more controlling, more dominant law.... "Don't drink too much wine" would not be good enough, and because we can't be trusted He had to say, "You know what, just don't ever touch the stuff."
Maxel has given me a lot to think about. The answer that I was going to give is pretty much the same as what I wrote here earlier today: God just wants us to be different.
-
Have you taken my polls yet?
Just did; but I'm a little slow on the uptake and so voted all four of them (I think a couple of the answers aren't necessarily mutually exclusive).
I would say that Black's Law Dictionary does not follow the common "freedom to choose" definition . . .
Well, the legal/scriptural definition seems to be a conjunction of choice and accountability.
If you're saying that Mormons tend to associate "agency" primarily with the "choice" element, I'd agree with you.
If you're raising concerns that Mormons--collectively or individually, to any serious degree--are improperly marginalizing the notion of accountability, I think I'd have to disagree at present (based solely on my own anecdotal experience). We might not contextualize the concept as well as we ought, but we certainly still teach it.
-
I don't know that I'd go so far as to paint such eventualities as certainties, and in all candor I am a little uncomfortable with advertising that does so.
But it's a viable possibility, and we would be incredibly naive (not to say reckless) not to foreclose that avenue now while we still have the political capital to do so.
-
I would say a temporal law, but built on a foundation of eternal principles.
But, see D&C 29:34-35:
34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.
35 Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual.
Reconcile that as you will.
Did Christ drink wine? As in real wine? Or was it, as I have heard some Mormons claim, actually grape juice?
It was real wine. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are full of stories of people getting drunk on "wine". And there are numerous contemporary accounts of Joseph Smith drinking bona fide wine.
We had (he died a few years ago) a Patriarch in our stake who was a convert, and when baptized, he had a wine cellar with thousands of dollars worth of wine. He pored it all down the drain. I heard him say on more then one occasion, "When I die, I am confident that God will greet me at the pearly gates with two glass of the very best wine the universe has to offer, one for me and one for Him, and as we toast, he will say, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant.' "
He had apparently read D&C 27:5-14, paying particular attention to verse 14.
-
Did you know that the traditional 'Mormon' definition of Agency [freedom to choose] is NOT in standard dictionary definitions? (By the way, if anyone can find a mainstream dictionary or thesarus that ties Agency or Agents to either the ideas of Freedom or Choice, please show me. I'd love to see it!)
Perhaps not, but I think Black's Law Dictionary comes pretty close:
agency. 1. A fiduciary relationship created by express or implied contract or by law, in which one party (the agent) may act on behalf of another party (the principal) and bind that other party by words or actions.
Remember, the scripture teaches that men are agents "unto themselves" (D&C 58:28). So, in the legal sense, we are both agents--enjoying the capacity to act--and principals--accountable for those actions.
I once read an interesting piece (drawing heavily on 2 Nephi 2, IIRC) suggesting that without opposition there is no real agency, and without law there is no real opposition. By this theory, Satan's plan to deprive us of agency was actually a plan whereby we would be sent to earth, but without any law to govern us (and, incidentally, without any need for a "savior" who would actually suffer for the sins of mankind, since there could be no sin in the first place. No wonder he was so willing to volunteer for the job!). I'm particularly fond of this idea because it turns the common liberal meme of "you're trying to control me! That's Satan's plan!!!" on its head.
-
My overall impression (and I should qualify that by saying I haven't read much FARMS stuff in the last two or three years) is that the recent stuff is consistently pretty good, but what you see in the 80s and 90s is kind of hit-or-miss.
-
I think there was probably a health aspect to parts of the Law of Moses, but I'm unconvinced that that was the entire purpose of the law.
It seems to me that from Abraham onwards, the people that would become Israel was by design a nation of outsiders--a peculiar people, as the saying goes. They were repeatedly placed in a variety of highly visible situations (first in the highest circles of the government of Egypt, then as a populous slave community, then finally ensconced in the Levant at the crossroads of three major empires and a number of smaller principalities)--but they were always aware that they were somehow different from the masses. It gave Israel a sense of community and purpose that has lasted through three millennia and several outright attempts at extermination.
As I understand it, several of the substances we eschew because of the Word of Wisdom aren't really that much more harmful than other substances about which the WoW says nothing. I don't know that the Lord was as concerned about the impact of the king of Babylon's meat on Shadrach, Mesach, and Abed-Nego's physical bodies as He was concerned about their opportunity and willingness to be an example of the believers to a nation that had not embraced Him. Similarly, I'm not sure that the Lord is as interested in what a daily cup of Joe will do to my body, as He is interested in how I take advantage of the subtle missionary opportunities that my abstinence from that substance may provide me among my co-workers and friends.
-
I see you missed the interfaith and temple marriage examples. They have been around for hundreds of years and the 1st amendment just keeps doing its job.
Those practices were nourished with water from a well that is clearly going dry. I don't think you're giving enough weight to the evolution of Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence. Courts have been limiting that aspect of the First Amendment for well over a century now, beginning with Reynolds and continuing into the present day with North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group.
Even if First Amendment jurisprudence were to somehow freeze in its current state, I find the status quo highly objectionable: the upshot is that while religions institutionally have rights of free exercise within certain parameters, their adherents individually have virtually no independent right to actually live according to their religious precepts. Who'd have thought, ten years ago, that a gynecologist who refused to help a lesbian couple to get pregnant on religious/moral grounds (but still put them in touch with another clinic that was willing to do it) could be driven out of medicine under the color of law?
Moreover, the law follows the evolution of society, which is generally directed by the most vocal liberal groups. So what we really need to be looking at is the rumblings coming from the gay-rights lobby. In their public statements, most have made it clear that they believe that in principle "gay rights" (however nebulously defined) should generally trump religious freedom--at the very least, a church's institutional freedom to speak out on moral matters, and an individual's freedom to make a living while adhering to his religious beliefs. When you look at the statements they make when they think no one else is listening, it becomes even more frightening.
I don't have a major problem with gay marriage per se (though I do think we need to re-evaluate state-sponsored marriage in general, and stop providing a number of government benefits that were intended primarily for families with one breadwinner and one stay-at-home parent); but I think it should be preconditioned on a federal Constitutional amendment clarifying the relationship between the rights of religious groups (and their adherents) under the First Amendment versus the rights of gay individuals and couples under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
Budgets aren't static.
I'll have to remember that one when my wife complains because I've just blown $30,000 on a new boat.
-
Religious institution have never been forced to endorse a marriage just because the government recognizes it.IIRC. In states like Mass where it is and has been legal for a few years now no bishop or clergyman has been forced to perform or recognize a gay union.
With all due respect, you're extrapolating centuries of future jurisprudence (assuming our Republic lasts that long, and barring the Second Coming) from what has happened in the last five years.
We should proceed with caution. The precedents we set today may be used fifty years from now to form the foundation of an argument we find abhorrent.
-
I have heard though that if she were to be rebaptised she'd return to her former state, including the sealing to her ex. . .
Ruthiechan is correct in that rebaptism entails a "restoration of blessings", but even if that restoration did include a temple marriage it could not overrule the agency (ability to choose one's own actions) of another person.
In other words, your fiancee's ex can't re-ingratiate herself into your fiancee's eternal life unless he allows her to. If he's still holding out hopes of spending eternity with his ex, then frankly you two probably have a lot more pressing issues to resolve than speculating about who will be with whom in the resurrection.
-
I think most people would agree that "pork" can be generally defined as unnecessary spending by the government which benefits limited groups of people.
Given that this spending wasn't included in last year's (or any year's) budget, I think you can make a decent argument for labeling the whole thing "pork". If you protest that the stimulus is essential to economic recovery, the whole thing would boil down to hyper-technical claims about Keynesian economics and a bunch of terms I couldn't begin to comprehend. Suffice it to say, there's a lot of smart folks who don't think it will work.
I am just wating for the Church to take over Utah and leave the Union so I can go live there. It is getting so bad, especially with the new POTUS, that I just do not see things getting better as our Govt continues to do things to make things worse.
I, for one, don't particularly look forward to the idea of the Church's starting a civil war. Assuming you buy into some variant of the White Horse prophecy, our commission is to save the Union. Not to destroy it.
Agency: More Info Please!
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
I think I see where you're going, Webster. Still not sure "free will" really can or should be taught as a stand-alone concept, but I'll let it lie for now. :)