bytebear

Members
  • Posts

    3238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by bytebear

  1. I would consider a historic church tour.  There are a few companies that provide them, and they do try to put in at least a bit of spiritual quiet time.  Of course, you could do your own pace, and maybe spend some extra time in Nauvoo or the sacred grove site.

    https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865602820/Tips-for-families-on-the-church-history-trail.html

  2. I think it depends on the situation, but if someone has the opportunity to change, then choose the right.  Otherwise choose the kind.  Example.  Your friend has a spot of dirt on his nose.  The right and kind thing is to to tell him, so he can fix it.  Hermione may have been unkind to Ron when she pointed out his dirty nose, but she did the right thing.   Now, say he has two mismatched socks.  It would be right to tell him so, but if he can't change his socks, all you have done is made him self conscious about them and he can do nothing about it.

  3. When I was on my mission, I was told the interpretation all depends on the comma.

    " And the Lord said unto him, This day thou shalt be with me in paradise. "

    becomes

    " And the Lord said unto him this day, thou shalt be with me in paradise."

    Shifting the comma shifts the meaning from the day you will be in paradise, to the day in which the Lord spoke. 

    This solves the problem for those who do not believe in an immediate spirit world, but a waiting period before salvation.

  4. 2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

    One of the tragedies here is that the "hygiene" habits she's been taught are those responsible for this disaster.   She's got a tough life road ahead of her. 

    Maybe, maybe not.  Most family members of hoarders don't end up hoarding themselves.  She may have simply stayed to keep the situation stable.  Probably got a lot of flack if she attempted to clean up. Frankly I am surprised you aren't getting more pushback about throwing things out.

  5. 1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

    And I've never experienced life as a white woman or a black woman.  I don't think I'm getting the point here.

    The point is, those examples of racism are often experienced by people who aren't a minority.  It's like you are comparing bad experiences of one group to the ideal life of white people.  Fact is, a lot of white people are shot by cops.  And per-encounter statistics show that whites are actually more likely to be shot than blacks.  But we never, EVER hear about these stories, because they don't fit the narrative.

  6. I have an unpopular belief, and that is that Fanny Alger was not a plural wife.  I believe she was accused of an affair with Smith, and that the rumor was false, and it ended up being elevated to the status of her being his first plural wife, but the timing is all wrong. One bride years before any others?  No, I think whatever went down with Alger, it had nothing to do with plural marriage.

  7. 3 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

    Some Latter-Day Saint thinkers have have adopted your idea (Orson Pratt was one of them, but President Young said Pratt was in error), but the only way you could be correct is if there was a time — or even a single moment — in all of eternity past when there was no sovereign God who was in possession of a celestial body of flesh and bone. This would mean there was a time when the only “god” that did exist was an unembodied consciousnesses (not conscienceless) that existed before any embodied God existed. 

    That's not true at all.  Eternal progression has no start and no end.  We know that God the Son went through a progression from spirit to mortal to spirit to immortal.  But that doesn't mean that God didn't exist any differently between those transitions, or that there is some kind of finite beginning to God.  Because there was a time when God the Son did not have a celestial body of flesh and bone.  The state of being of one personage is independent of the existence of God.   Both past and future. Infinite and forever.

  8. On 4/20/2019 at 7:35 PM, Queolby said:
    A friend of mine is investigating the church and I don't know how to answer one of his questions can you help me? I asked him what his number one issue was with the church. Here is what he said.
     
     
    "My number one issue is this. In the Greek in John 1, the word for word is Logos, which is something like the inherent intelligibility of reality. Most people think it’s “word” as in the written word, which is Rhēma, not logos. So basically this is stating that Jesus is Logic, Jesus is consciousness, etc. But if Jesus is the inherent intelligibility of reality itself, I don’t see how he can be a bi-product of it. And really it just gets at God in general. The LDS Church think that God is an embodiment of the primordial intellect, I think God is that primordial intellect in its totality"
     
    Thanks!

    God is a state of being, not an individual person. You could even say it is Logos, or conscienceless as he says.  Fits perfectly within LDS doctrine.  "God is that primordial intellect in its totality"  But that intellect is shared among individual beings, the Father, and the Son specifically.  And we are promised we can achieve the same state.  I think the only question is how does intellect and physical tangible beings correlate.   How do we share a common Godliness but still retain individualism?  Don't know, but it does seem to be how it works.

  9. I almost cried when I saw Lando.  Sorry, but I am one of those old farts who saw the original trilogy in theaters at the perfect age (7, 9, 11) and have a nostalgic heart.  Also, nothing can be worse than Episode I.  Nothing.   And I actually enjoyed Episode VIII maybe even more than VII.  And they both are way better than Episode I.   I have no connection to the new characters.  I finally can remember their names (mostly).  Leia flying across space is still better than anything in Episode I.   I also enjoyed Solo quite a lot, and am disappointing that it didn't get more attention and praise.  The capes alone made it a worthy addition to the Star Wars canon.   Now I have no idea what will happen in the next movie.  I imagine it will have a lot of random, illogical, nostalgic touches.  Ewoks on Tatooine fighting Wompas.  Sure. why not?   But I suspect that we will find out that Ray and Kilo Ren are actually twins (or cousins) and were separated to protect them, and she trains with ghost Luke while reading up on those text books that Yoda said were useless.  I just hope the plot is passable, and at least slightly different than the standard Star Wars plot - Big death star threatens the galaxy.  One team to turn off the force field, another group awaits the attack and when it goes down does a miraculous shot to blow it up, while a lone hero confronts the villain.   

    Whatever happens, I will enjoy the ride.  Did I mention that Episode I sucks?

  10. I believe it means that the house of Israel (i.e. the remnant of the tribe of Joseph, i.e. descendants of Lehi) will be judged by the 12 apostles that Jesus chose in Israel.   Now, does that mean the original 12 men (because Judas would be difficult).  I think rather it means the apostles of that dispensation, whoever they may be.  But Peter, James and John would be the top picks I would assume.

     

  11. I find it interesting that the prophet of the Lord just allowed the blessings of baptism be given to the children of gay parents.   And yet, we are still questioning that that child will not receive the blessings of the Lord?

    I have no reason to believe that such a child will be blessed any less than that of a child of a non-member. 

    I also take heed from the scriptures for those who reject this decision, just as I did those who rejected the decision made 3 years ago.

    "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’…"

    Driving out demons?  

  12. 2 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

    Who guessed 4 pages? Come by after hours and collect your prize!

    Well, I look at sin from two angles.  One is the sin of the outsider, and the other is the sin of the insider, who decides they are superior because they can point and mock the sin of the outsider.   Both sins, in my opinion, will keep you out of the presence of God.

  13. No, it's not.  You might as well be doing studies on children raised by Mormons over Lutherans.  Or Amish vs Methodists.   There are principles that help people be good parents,  but there is nothing inherit about your sexual orientation that makes you a more loving one.  So, no, God did not look at the studies on how parents would do, and created this law accordingly.

  14. 5 minutes ago, Vort said:

    Exactly. God's commandments, including those about homosexuality, are not merely temporal commandments. They apply in all cases.

    I think you misinterpret the verse.  The law exists because it has eternal ramifications.  Gay couples cannot be sealed to their children.   But neither can parents who prefer a beer at the end of the day.  And neither can a parent married to a non-member.   And neither could those who married black people prior to 1978.  You seem to be singling out one group of people because of cultural issues, but ignoring all the other sins out there.  it's almost as if you want to use God's law to be a bigot.  And that is unfortunate.  Particularly when the Lord and the prophet have clearly invited these people into His church with love.

  15. Do you want clinical studies?   There is no doubt it exists.  There is no reason to think that gay parents can't do as good a job or better a job at raising kids than a heterosexual couple.  Again, God did not make the law because of the temporal ramifications of the gender of parents.  There are some pretty horrible,awful, rotten straight parents.  Parents who made choices that have seriously detrimental ramifications to their children.   Divorce and abuse are not absent from people who are straight.   In an ideal world, every child will be raised by their biological parents, in a loving and eternal way.  But we don't live in a perfect world, and I would much rather have a child raised by loving adoptive gay parents than by biological abusive parents. 

  16. 3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

    A long-term committed relationship a person is WAY more defining to themselves than their wardrobe.  The bond between a kids parents is the role model that child sees from day 1 on how to interact with others, care for them, model love, etc--- in early years it forms the foundation of who that kid is.  WAY more important and defining than your shirt or job or food.  

     

    I agree that a long term relationship is different than clothing choice.  However, the notion that gay couples can't be loving parents is hogwash.  There are gay parents who are far better role models for parental love than some (many) heterosexual couples.  Being gay doesn't mean you are a bad parent, or an unloving person.   No more than a straight marriage automatically makes you a good candidate for raising kids.   The church isn't condemning gay marriage because of the social sciences of raising a child.  There are eternal ramifications.  But those same ramifications exist for single parents, or even parents who are restricted from temple sealings due to various sinful behavior, including things like alcohol use.  So, please don't think the church is condemning gay marriage because gay people are incapable of raising children successfully, even spiritually.  That's simply not true, and it's not the reason for the initial ban, for that matter.  The ban was so that children wouldn't have to choose the church over a parent.  The policy was siding with the parents.  And now that the new policy is in place, I think some members will have to learn to love gay parents who's children may be in their ward.  It may be a spiritual test they are unable to pass.

  17. 6 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

    Honestly... while I realize a lot of people will be happy about this, it makes me really worry.  I worry that it's going to put families in an awkward position -- kids being taught that their dad & papa's relationship is wrong in one venue and that it's totally ok in another.  That unrepentant dad & papa's would resent that.  Primary teachers being caught is the middle.  Little eight year olds feeling like they have to choose.  ...  

    Sorry, I am late to the game.  But how is this any different than a kid who's parents smoke, or drink, or who's parents work on Sunday, or who's parents have questionable taste in clothing or occupations that are not in line with the gospel?  I remember having a friend from the neighborhood who was in our scout troop.  Non-member single mom, at a time where that was rare.   We didn't care, and the church leaders wanted to make sure he was welcome in every way.  His mom didn't want him baptized, but she recognized the good that the church did. 

    Now, whenever I see a church policy that lasts only a few years, I immediately think "separating the wheat from the chaff."  This policy really affected only a tiny fraction of families.  But it sure did reveal those who would cast off the church and not follow the prophet.  I am sure they won't be back, and frankly, I see it as a way for the church to clear out the dead brush.  Once the brush is cleared, the Lord restores fertile ground for those who remain (including gay members).