Jamie123
-
Posts
2977 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Posts posted by Jamie123
-
-
Sorry to drag up Muppets Christmas Carol again, but 37:37 makes me think of that.
I've never been able to do it though. When I wake up in the morning, it's not so much "let thy heart be full of thanks to God" as "Ugggggghhhhhh...is it really 7 already? I'll have 5 more minutes" which is actually more than 25 more minutes, followed by a mad scramble to get dressed and out the door without very much "thanks to God" along the way. Something to work on...
P.S. First mention of the Liahona for a long, long time. No mention of who now has it though.
-
11 hours ago, Carborendum said:
Did you happen down Conti Street?
Hmmm so there really is one!
I couldn't walk down Bourbon street without humming the song by Sting.
"The rim of my hat hides the eye of a beast, I've the face of a sinner but the hands of a priest."
-
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
There once... was a house... down in New Orleans...
I've been to New Orleans. I kept my eyes open for it, but I never saw the House of the Rising Sun.
I did see Bourbon Street though.
-
32: This is the passage I was referring to a few weeks ago, when I wrongly connected it with Abinadi and King Noah. I do remember one of the missionaries reading it to me but I never had it in its proper context before today. (I somehow imagined the people being preached to had been cast out of the synagogues for their sins.) It is odd though that the poor people are truly humble and not angry and resentful towards the rich.
- Carborendum and zil2
-
2
-
44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
We are not railroaded into our decisions. We all have plenty of time to consider our own wishes, what are the desires of our hearts.
One possible analogy is the ending of Superman II. *SPOILER ALERT* Superman has a machine that can turn super-people into ordinary people and vice versa. Pretending to trust Lex Luthor, he tells him about the machine, and how he needs to trick the three super-villains into going inside it. Luthor betrays him and tells the super-villains about the machine. They put Superman inside the machine and turn it on. But little do they know that Superman has reversed the programming so that super-people outside the machine will be de-supered, while he himself will remain super. And so Superman wins.
Superman knew that given the chance, Lex Luthor would act treacherously, and built his plan around that knowledge. Yet he didn't force Luthor to do anything he didn't want to do. (I don't altogether like that movie. I find it quite disturbing for a number of reasons. The first Superman movie was far better.)
- JohnsonJones, zil2 and Carborendum
-
3
-
50 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:
...gone back to be children once again afterwards (which is bound to have been somewhat awkward I imagine at times).
Absolutely. I never really bought that either. If I had written it, I would have had them return to England as adults (perhaps taking on new identities) and introduced new children for the next book*.
Towards the end of his life, Lewis produced a chronology of Narnia, in a similar pattern to those in the appendices to The Lord of the Rings. However, Lewis was not Tolkien, and the "unified history" does not work. The books are too different from each other. They cannot be read as a single narrative. I hate the way books are now numbered chronologically. LWW needs to be read first, regardless of it being labelled "Book II".
* As soon as I wrote that, a whole host of problems sprang to mind. How would the disappearance of the children be explained? How would adults educated in Narnia cope in 1940s England? Maybe Lewis made the best of a bad job after all.
-
4 hours ago, Vort said:
As I'm sure you're aware, there is very much an LDS doctrine of election, though it does not involve predestination (in the sense of one's path through life being already written and determined beforehand). Only through election do we inherit all that God has and wishes to give us. This idea of election ties in very closely with another LDS doctrine you may have heard of, the doctrine of having one's calling and election "made sure".
I have heard/ read that the LDS consider themselves an "elect church" but I was never very clear what that meant.
-
12 minutes ago, zil2 said:
Joseph Smith translated this as "fore ordination" - that many in the premortal existence were ordained to certain things, but just like a priest ordained here in mortality, it's up to them whether to live up to that ordination.
The Greek is "pro-horizo", "pro"="before" and "horizo" (according to Strong's concordance) ="to mark out by boundaries, to determine". I've read that many pre-King James translations also have "fore ordained" - though I suspect many of those came via the Latin Vulgate rather than directly from Greek.
-
Chapter 31 has a lot to do with the hyper-Calvinist "all house and no door" way of thinking. (Most Calvinists are not so bad, though the Zoramites could be viewed as a parody of them.)
Back in 1991 when I first had the missionary lessons, I refused to call myself a Christian because I couldn't get my head around election. My position was:
1. Predestination makes existence pointless.
2. The Bible makes it quite clear that predestination is true (I was mostly basing this on Romans 8 and 9).
3. Therefore I do not believe in the Bible and am not a Christian.
I was encouraged that the Mormons (as they were then called) did not believe in predestination. But after a while, each lesson I had was 50% "actual lesson", and 50% arguing about Romans 9. Those two girls had the absolute patience of saints!
One Sunday at the meeting house they introduced me to the Elders. One Elder (an American lad with a very big smile, about my age but a lot taller) clapped me on the back (maybe metaphorically, but perhaps literally) and said in an encouraging tone "You're elect, aren't you? You want to know the truth!" I somehow managed to keep my mouth shut, but I can just imagine the Sisters inwardly groaning, thinking "Why did you have to say that of all things?"
-
3 hours ago, Vort said:
Not at all. I have no problem with Susan. (I think Pullman's and Rowling's criticism of Lewis that Susan went to hell because she "discovered sex" is absurd and a reflection of those two authors' state of spiritual maturity.) Lewis portrays Susan as being gently seduced by the vain things of the world. I suppose promiscuous sex may have been one of those things, but I never took it that way, and I don't believe Lewis implied anything of the sort.
I didn't honestly think you'd fallen into the trap of thinking that - hence the
. (Maybe the was bad taste, but I've never been world famous for my good taste.)
3 hours ago, Vort said:...that he...etc.
*ALSO CONTAINS SPOILERS*
..
..
..
Interesting perspective. I never really saw it that way: I think because the characters do not realize they are dead until the very end - after they have already begun to experience Heaven. When Aslan appears, Lucy assumes that he has come to "send them back", and the happy twist is when they realize there will be no "going back" - Heaven is for real and they are there.
What's more, Heaven is more real than the "real" world, which is merely a shadow. It is Plato's cave.
I have suicidal thoughts, but I would never act upon them. This is because: (1) I'm afraid of nonexistence. (Yes, I know Epicurus said that when death comes we won't be here to suffer anything from it. I don't know if that ever comforted Epicurus, but it's certainly never comforted me!) (2) I'm afraid of hell. "In the sleep of death what dreams may come?" However unhappy we may be, we can't know that whatever's on the other side of death won't be ten times worse. Better the devil you know! (3) As Richard Dawkins said, "We are all going to die, which makes us the lucky ones: most people don't even get to be born". He was talking about the "unborn ghosts" of the many DNA combinations that never get realized. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I do recognize the sentiment: life, however bad it may be, is a privilege.
But imagine you found yourself in paradise. You were young again. All your infirmities were gone. You are surrounded by all those you once loved and had lost. And suppose you thought it was a dream: that the cruel "light of common day" would soon come streaming in. And then you were to discover that this was reality. Your mortal life was over, and this was what your existence was now going to be. And not by any choice of yours. It had been chosen for you by God. Would you not rejoice and be thankful? Would you not accept with gratitude the gifts God had given?
In the words of Johnson:
QuoteImplore his Aid, in his Decisions rest,
Secure whate'er he gives, he gives the best.I know everyone hates The Shack*. (I have a few problems with it myself, but not the same problems everyone else has.) But there's a chapter where Mac, the main character, gets to visit his murdered daughter Missy in Heaven. He is given a totally free choice to stay with her (in which case he would die) or to return to his mortal life. He chooses to return. Totally the right choice in my opinion - his family need him now, and knows he will see Missy again one day. But supposing the choice had been made for him, by God in his infinite wisdom? Could he possibly considered that a bad thing?
*I've mentioned before that there ought to be an opposite expression to "sacred cow". There are so many things that are anti-sacred cows. The Shack, ELO, Pot Noodle and GKR Karate to name but four. There needs to be a term for it. (Perhaps I shouldn't have put ELO on the list - I am thinking mostly of one loud-mouthed person who hated it, and sneered at me for being a fan. Others I have heard call it "bubblegum pop", which mostly tells me they are only familiar with very late ELO. Their earlier music was quite dark - a development from the later work of The Beatles (for whom Jeff Lynn of ELO was a producer.)
-
11 minutes ago, Vort said:
I don't mention this much in mixed company, but the ugly truth is that I don't really like Lewis's The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe series. I especially dislike how it ends.
*SPOILER* I hope you're not going to do a Pullman* and tell me that Susan "went to hell".
When we left her, she was alive and well and enjoying her "lipstick, nylons and party invitations" (though she'll have a nasty shock when she finds out what's happened to her family!) However unfair Lewis' opinion on lipstick may have been, he didn't send any of his characters to hell for wearing it!
*For the record I do quite like Philip Pullman. It's just a pity he's an atheist!
-
24 minutes ago, Vort said:
The medical term is "aphasia". I decided some time ago that Korihor was made aphasiac, probably from something as simple as a blood clot in the brain. By small and simple means God brings to pass great things (cf. Alma 37:6).
EDIT: By the way, aphasia would mean that Korihor was not made deaf, but simply could not understand any spoken language. Aphasiacs often retain the ability to read, since that's controlled by a different part of the brain. (Or so I've been told. It's been a while since I actually practiced medicine.)
Then again, the High Priest knew he would have to write messages (though maybe Alma - or Mormon - didn't think it worth recording the High Priest's attempts to speak to Korihhor before he realised that he couldn't understand).
I didn't realize that you used to be a medic Vort. I always imagined you were a physicist or an engineer. I guess you have many strings to your bow!
-
On 11/7/2023 at 12:05 AM, askandanswer said:
Did Korihor provide any evidence of this or is it just a claim he asserted, with no support?
It's our old friend and enemy, the pooh-pooh.
On 11/7/2023 at 12:05 AM, askandanswer said:And as Descarte(s) pointed out, our senses are not completely accurate or reliable.
"Your eyes can deceive you, Luke! Don't trust them."
22 hours ago, Vort said:As Korihor himself admitted, he was seduced by the "angel"'s teachings:
And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me.
When I was a young man, I thought this was exceptional, really almost unbelievable. I'm now 60, and I find it utterly convincing. This is exactly how people approach things.
As Henry IV Part II* once said, "Desire is the father of the thought". It's Elizabeth Holmes all over again!
21 hours ago, zil2 said:Above verses are a lesson in reverse: don't do those things! Do them and you risk falling into your own trap.
“Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed.” (C.S. Lewis The Magician's Nephew)
21 hours ago, zil2 said:v51: Like everyone else, I wonder if Korihor was made deaf as well. Otherwise, why would the chief judge need to write his message?
I was wondering exactly the same.
Verse 17 makes me think of Ragnor Redbeard:
QuoteMight was right when Caesar bled upon the stones of Rome,
Might was right when Genghis led his hordes over Danube's foam,
And might was right when German troops poured down through Paris way,
It's the gospel of the ancient world and the logic of today.Might was right when Gideon led the "chosen" tribes of old,
And it was right when Titus burnt their temple roofed with gold:
And might was right from Bunker's hill to far Manilla bay,
By land and flood it's wrote in blood, the gospel of today.*Old joke, but it still makes me laugh!
- zil2, askandanswer and Vort
-
2
-
1
-
5 minutes ago, Traveler said:
You are correct concerning Jerusalem but there were Jews in northern Israel under Herod.
The Traveler
Absolutely, but it was Jewish leaders in Jerusalem who said "we have no king but Caesar". (Though....OK. I guess seeing as it was the Passover, some of them may have been from Galilee.)
-
16 hours ago, Vort said:
That's funny. If literally no one cares about Christians celebrating Christmas, why did I receive pushback last year for wishing people a "merry Christmas"? Curious to find out why my inoffensive well-wishing statement raised the hackles of some precious souls.
I totally love the Muppets' Christmas Carol. Absolutely no one else seems to love that movie as much as I do.
I cry like a baby every time I see it.
QuoteWe reach for you, and we stand tall,
And in our prayers and dreams we ask you 'bless us all'.God bless us every one?
And who except seriously out-of-touch people (who don't have sex on a second date) ever prays? * I mean, it's 2023 for goodness sake!
I wonder what the lyrics would be if that movie were made today!
(Don't get me started on A Charlie Brown Christmas!)
P.S. Don't you think that Michael Caine is the greatest actor in the entire universe of time, space, matter and energy?
*Well OK, Muslims maybe. Gotta be careful what we say about them.
- NeuroTypical and zil2
-
2
-
8 hours ago, Traveler said:
But one could ask the question of the Jews claiming they had no King but Cesar – who then was King Herod?
I don't think Herod Antipas was king in Jerusalem. He ruled the northern area around Galilee. (Although he was in Jerusalem for the Passover.) Judea was under direct Roman rule.
-
One positive thing I've found about the Book of Mormon is that the 16th Century language is not nearly so off-putting as I'd expected. You get used to it the more you read, and after a while you stop noticing it.
It's the same with "and it came to pass". I used to find this phrase incredibly irritating, but it's either become a lot less frequent or else its stopped registering.
-
8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
(no, it's not when someone rings a bell).
Haha - I never thought of that. Clarence is an angel and he doesn't have wings! (Until the end.)
8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:In fact, in the Old Testament angels are often not clearly distinguished from humans at all.
There is also the apocryphal Book of Tobit. (I was about to mention the relevance, but that's a big spoiler. For the record I don't think Tobit is genuine scripture - it's a novel, and a rollicking good one too!)
-
8 minutes ago, zil2 said:
Angels (living beings) don't. Imagery used in visions (or to describe visions) might.
I may be the worst Philistine when it comes to art, but I think the stupidest winged angel is the Angel of the North
I mean - aeroplane wings? I ask you!
- zil2, Vort and mordorbund
-
3
-
4 hours ago, Vort said:
I think it's great to have a major holiday, and a religiously inspired holiday at that (that is, an actual holiday), right at the winter solstice when it's dark and the weather is cold and uninviting. How nice to have a time when we're supposed to think about others and give them gifts. Sure, many will abuse such a thing, be cynical about it, whatever. But it's a nice idea. Christmas is my second-favorite holiday, right behind Thanksgiving, both calendrically and in my personal priority list.
Not allowed to call it Christmas anymore. No Marys and Josephs and mangers and little baby Jesusses. Someone might see them who's NOT A CHRISTIAN, and oh it will be SO offensive!!!
Except it won't of course. They won't mind one bit. Do you think I mind Diwali? No, I like the colourful lights and the different gods and goddesses: Hanuman and Parvati and Ganesha with his elephant head. I don't believe in them obviously, but they don't OFFEND me. So why should a Hindu be offended by pictures of the Nativity and choirs in the streets singing Christmas carols? He's not, one bit.
So none of this "festive season" nonsense. It's Christmas, so let's make it about Christ!
-
15 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:
Yep mustn't forget "the six winged serephs" (I've sung about them often enough!)
So if angels do sometimes have wings, wonder why it's so important to emphasise that they don't.
Totally irrelevant of course, but I just found this totally beautiful version of Be Thou My Vision by the same ensemble.
Original words too, not the politically correctified version. (Well not the original original words of course. Those are in medieval Irish.)
-
17 minutes ago, zil2 said:
There are such descriptions in scripture as well. And we have some explanation in D&C 77:2-4. FWIW. Short answer: When it suits, the Lord uses symbolism.
Yep mustn't forget "the six winged serephs" (I've sung about them often enough!)
So if angels do sometimes have wings, wonder why it's so important to emphasise that they don't.
-
38 minutes ago, zil2 said:
Also, for the record: Bible Dictionary entry for Angels - we don't believe they're a different species or category of beings - just people, either as spirit, translated, or resurrected beings.
LDSs are always very emphatic about angels not having wings. The one person I know who claims to have seen angels says that they do, and that they are extremely beautiful. So I wonder who is right...
-
6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
I guess, sometimes my jokes aren't as funny as I think they are.
I'm sure everyone else enjoyed it 😁
. (Maybe the 
Book of Mormon Reading Group: 06 Nov - 12 Nov 2023 (Alma 26 - Alma 37)
in Book of Mormon
Posted
Simply "saying prayers" can be a start though. I have a quotation above my desk at work: