Jamie123
-
Posts
2982 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Posts posted by Jamie123
-
-
You're quite right. When I said "fixed" and "moving" I meant relative to the celestial sphere (the sphere of fixed stars), not relative to the Earth. Before Copernicus the prevailing view was that the entire sky rotated around the Earth. The planets - and the Sun was considered a planet (and still is by astrologers) - were those points of light which moved relative to this general rotation.But didn't ancient people believe stars (the constellations) moved and even that the sun revolved around the earth?
If you're interested in this sort of stuff, an excellent book to read is The Fabric of the Heavens by Stephen Toulmin and June Goodfield (Amazon.com: The Fabric of the Heavens: The Development of Astronomy and Dynamics (9780226808482): Stephen Toulmin, June Goodfield: Books).
-
Just because they lived before us, does not mean they were stupid. I bet even a caveman would know the difference...
I didn't say they were stupid, but none of us can work beyond the information we have. It took many hundreds of years, and the accumulated reasoning of many minds to achieve the scientific understanding we have today. Yes they would have understood there was a difference, but if you'd asked them to explain they'd it have said something like "stars are fixed, planets move".
let alone someone God was teaching.
You may have a point there: God might (for all I know) sometimes impart scientific knowledge that human scientists only "discover" years later. Isaac Newton for instance believed that Moses understood the heliocentric theory - though I think his evidence of this was a bit tenuous. (Newton had some funny ideas.)
But let's consider this: (i) If Kolob is the name of a planet then it is an extrasolar planet orbiting another sun. (ii) It would therefore have a fixed position in our night's sky. (iii) In Abraham's day, the only known distinction between a star and a planet was that a planet moves (relative to the sphere of fixed stars) and a star doesn't. (iv) Therefore Kolob - even if it is a planet - would (in the language of that time) have been classified as a star.
-
That's an interesting question. Perhaps it's because of the different histories of the two books. Unlike the BOM, the Bible has never been out of circulation since the last parts of it were written. Moroni knew that his book was going to remain hidden for centuries and rediscovered in a very different age, when there would naturally be a lot of scepticism about its authenticity.One of the interesting questions, and in fact mentioned in the introduction of the Book of Mormon (which is specifically mentioned from Moroni 10) is that you ask if the book is true, however nowhere is that question ever poised (at least that I can recall ever reading) in the Bible. So why is that question asked of one book, but not the other?
-
Kolob is not a planet. It's a star. The Kolob solar system is where Heavenly Father lives.
Do you really think Abraham have understood the difference between "star" and "planet" as we understand these words today? Yes...I'm sure God understood, but I seriously doubt He'd have burdened poor Abraham (with his Bronze Age understanding of astronomy) with such niceties.
The modern word "planet" comes from the Greek "planetos"="wanderer". To the ancients a planet was exactly that: A star that wandered through the sky. The idea of stars being at the centre of planetary systems would have been undreamed of back then.
-
Why not use the "Famous Bayes-Moroni Prayer Analysis Calculator"? (I shan't provoke the mods by posting a link, but Google will find it for you.)A very dear friend of mine who I've known for a long time is a member of the Church and I have studied the LDS church beliefs for some time myself. Part of my commitment this year is to make it all the way through the Book of Mormon (so far this year, I'm doing pretty well). Both my wife and I teach sunday school at our church and it's doubtful that we'll ever become members, but I'm always one for learning and studying scriptures.
We've had the missionaries over a few times and this past week when they stopped by, they asked me how I felt when I read the Book of Mormon. I mentioned that I didn't "feel" anything. That shocked them a bit and they asked if I felt more peaceful when I read it. I mentioned that I've been reading/studying very early in the morning before anybody else in the house was up, so it's always peaceful to me. It's one of the few times that I get to have "me" time with everything being quiet and peaceful.
This isn't the first time that somebody has asked me how I "felt" when reading scriptures (of any religion). But I've never understood that question. Anybody here want to chime in and explain why that's important?
Wayne
Seriously though I've never really understood this "burning in the bosom" thing, but there is a particular feeling I've had twice in my life: The first time was when I was 20 and starting to get involved with the University Christian Union. The evening I had it (it was in January 1985) I counted as my "conversion" - though I later came to see it as just one in a long series of steps. The second time was a few years later when I was investigating Mormonism - though I never really identified it as pointing "towards" the LDS church in particular. I never joined the church, though I've always been interested in it.
Two comments about this feeling: First it's impossible to describe it properly in words, and secondly it's difficult to talk about it without making it sound ridiculous. I think this may be what Peter Gabriel was describing in his song Solsbury Hill:
To keep in silence I resigned
My friends would think I was a nut
In the last verse he attempts to put words to his feelings:
When illusion spin her net
I'm never where I want to be
And liberty she pirouette
When I think that I am free
Watched by empty silhouettes
Who close their eyes but still can see
No one taught them etiquette
I will show another me
which sounds like gobbldigook. It's like trying to bring apples from heaven to hell, or the Star of Astoroth from Naboombu. People don't describe these things because no words can ever really do them justice.
(OKOK...I suppose it's possible Gabriel was just describing a hallucinogenic experience after taking drugs, in which case I'm talking nonsense.)
-
Interesting: One of the first missionaries I ever spoke to told me that (a girl, of course!) but more-or-less immediately took it back. I expect it's urban mythology...though I suppose if polygyny exists in heaven there will need to be more women than men.
-
Being judgmental, definitely! There is nothing worse than judgmental people. They are bad, bad bad bad bad, and I really can't tolerate them!
They're almost as bad as BMW drivers!
-
Why is Jamie not banned yet?
I'm working on it!
-
I've always understood that the removal of a hat - as a sign of respect - is a male thing only. Years ago women would wear hugely elaborate hats held on by hat-pins. (You can still see such hats at Ascot on Ladies' Day: BBC - Berkshire - Sport - Ladies Day at Ascot photos.) Imagine the trouble of taking them off every time they went inside, or met someone they wished to greet? Male headgear like bowlers, top-hats, boaters etc. tend to be much simpler and easier to take off.
-
Can anyone spot the flaw in this logic?
-
On a lighter note, I've just realised I've been committing the ecological falacy myself in reference to BMW drivers. Excuse me while I go and flagellate myself!
-
You refer to “men” and group us all together. A poor mistake.
Indeed - it's sometimes referred to as the "ecological fallacy".
A good example of this is the feminist who says "Women don't lie about rape" and thus infers that all rape accusations are true. When it's pointed out that some women have been proven to have lied, the feminist replies "Just a few isolated examples!"
What the feminist fails to see is that her argument works just as well the other way: Her opponent could just as easily say "Men don't commit rape." While the vast majority of women would (I hope) never dream of falsely crying rape, the vast majority of men would (I hope) never dream of committing it.
Both the rapist and the false-rape-accuser are atypical of the groups to which they belong, so the general characteristics of those groups are not really very informative.
-
Hymns Old and New - the new(ish) "politically correct" hymn book. Some horrible examples from it:
Onward Christian Soldiers becomes Onward Christian Pilgrims (warlike references)
In Be Thou My Vision, "Be thou my great Father and I thy true son" becomes "Be thou my great Father and I thy true heir" (sexism)
In The Servant Song, "Brother let me be your servant" becomes "Brother, sister let me serve you" (sexism) (*)
And many more... I think the book should be called Hymns Messed-up and Ruined.
(*) I love that hymn....
Brother, let me be your servant
Let me be as Christ to you
Pray that I may have the grace
To let you be my servant, too
We are pilgrims on a journey
We are brothers on the road
We are here to help each other
Walk the mile and bear the load
I will hold the Christlight for you
In the night-time of your fear
I will hold my hand out to you
Speak the peace you long to hear
I will weep when you are weeping
When you laugh I'll laugh with you
I will share your joy and sorrow
Till we've seen this journey through
When we sing to God in heaven
We shall find such harmony
Born of all we've known together
Of Christ's love and agony
Brother, let me be your servant
Let me be as Christ to you
Pray that I may have the grace
To let you be my servant, too
-
Ok...sorry...I admit there are a few BMW drivers who are nice and polite. My ex-next-door-neighbour owned a BMW and he was a very friendly, helpful, polite person. (And I'm not just saying that because he's a cop and can have me locked up if I don't!) I hope you are one of them too. (A polite person I mean - not a cop.)Hey..... We're not all bad! I never tailgate people!
But there is a certain kind of BMW driver that drives me (if you'll excuse the pun) into a fit of Nebuchadnezzarn rage. You see a lot of them in London. They are young-ish, male, smartly dressed and they think they own the road. They drive right up against your rear bumper and flash their lights at you for the heinous crime of keeping to the speed limit when they don't want to. Then when they finally overtake you (usually making oncoming drivers blow their horns in anger) they turn around in their seat, glaring and mouthing obscenities at you - making the whole procedure more dangerous still.
(OK, I'm exaggerating slightly - they're not all quite that bad, but you get the idea.)
Now I know what you're going to tell me: Why don't I pull over and let them past? Well OK - maybe I should. (At least my wife keeps telling me so.) But what if we all gave in to whatever the bullies want for the sake of "peace in our time"? Neville Chamberlain learned that lesson the hard way in 1938.
Grrrrr!
-
But if you're into that sort of media, here you go:
Abe Lincoln was a woman? WOW! If it's in the newspaper then it MUST be true!
-
You mean the United States Supreme Court?
(They didn't write the exact wording, but they mandated its use.)
LOL - Whoever mandated it needs to brush up on their English. CAN means "is able to happen", WILL means "is definitely going to happen".
The British version makes better sense (though I'm not claiming everything over here makes more sense than its equivalent in te US): "Anything you do say may be used in evidence".
-
While the Miranda rights vary from one jurisdiction to another, there is a standard script. According to Wiki, the "typical" Miranda rights script is
When you hear that, it's only that the police officer is complying with the law and affording the arresting the opportunity to understand his rights and responsibilities.
OK - so I guess my "peeve" is about the person who wrote the standard script (which I still say is nonsensical). You're right - we shouldn't get angry with the poor hardworking cop because his superiors don't understand logic.
-
People who sound their horn at you because you slow down to take a turn. What do they expect you to do - take the corner at 40mph so they don't have to slow down?
People - usually BMW drivers - who drive on your tail flashing their lights because you're keeping to the speed limit and they don't want to.
In fact BMW drivers period.
People who only have one thing to say. They say it, and when you ask a follow-on question they reply by simply saying it again.
People who recite things with seeming authority, with total disregard for whether or not they make sense. Example, when American TV cops arrest someone they always say:
I have no objection to the "can". It's the "and will" which is nonsensical. For example, if the suspect is asked his name and replies "John Smith", will that be used against him in court?Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
Makes me SO mad!!!Prosecuting Attorney: Your honour, the defendant was asked his name, and he replied John Smith.
Judge: So what? That's his name isn't it?
Prosecuting Attorney: Yes, but the Miranda rules specify that we have to use it as evidence against him.
-
The Baptists will tell you that baptism does not make you a Christian (or even a Baptist). It is merely a public demonstration of your faith. Simply being baptised in a Baptist church does not make you a member of that church; to formally "join" you would need to be interviewed by the pastor and elders, and then elected in by the existing members. (This again wouldn't necessarily make you a Christian, but it would allow you to vote in Church meetings etc.) So you can't really be accused of "formally joining another church", though I agree it's possible that many LDS members who don't understand Baptist beliefs will assume otherwise.Apostasy : refers to members who "repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders" and also includes those who repeatedly present information as church doctrine that is not church doctrine and those who repeatedly follow the teachings of apostate sects or those who formally join another church. Merely failing to attend church meetings does not qualify as apostasy.[5]
-
I just looked it up - it was made in 1982. (I'd got the impression it was more recent than that. I also have the book that accompanies the movie, which was published in 1994.) If its true that a lack of accessible temples was to blame, it would certainly be disingenuous to suggest any kind of elitist or exclusionist policy within the Church - but of course I'm preaching to the choir.When was the film made? In 1995 there were only 47 temples and only a small number were able to go. President Hinkley kicked it up to 124, where now you see wards with group temple trips. Plus your going to have more attendance in a place like Utah where you can see 5 temples in a day.
What was said is a half truth, plenty of members never make it to the temple, or only once (back when the video was made it was more true) plus you account for kids, new members who may fall away i'd say he is right.
but it's more a problem of logistics, not of exclusion.
-
I don't have any stats (I'm sure MOE or some other brainiac will have that for you), but I think my bishop once said that about 35% of the ward had been endowed, but less than that had current recommends.
I can say without a shadow of a doubt that many members will be temple worthy at least some point in their lives. Temple marriage, endowments. In fact, every missionary you've ever seen has been through the temple.
Thanks - that's very much the sort of impression I've got from talking to Mormons themselves. It's a lot different from the picture presented by many anti-Mormons, that the Temples are for the benefit of a tiny minority of "super saints", and that the average Joe Schmo won't get anywhere near one.
-
This is something I've been wondering about for some time:
According to some anti-Mormons, only a very small number of Mormon members actually manage to go to the Temple. One well-known film (*) showed thousands of people lining up in the rain for a Temple open-house; the voiceover said words to the effect that "this is the only time many of these Mormons will ever go inside a Temple".
If I didn't know better, I would think that the average ward could have no more than 2 or 3 Temple-worthy members at most. Yet people posting on this site, as well as those I've spoken to in chat, quite often talk about their visits to the Temple (though obviously not about what goes on inside).
Now I know what you're going to tell me: Any member who obeys the commandments, keeps his covenants...etc...etc....will get to the Temple. I know this and it's not what I'm asking. What I'm interested to know is how many of the people admitted to the Church actually reach these Temple-worthy standards, and hence how accurate are the comments in Mr. D****r's movie.
(I suspect not very: Like many other antis, he presents the the "Joe-became-God" idea as though it were generally accepted by all Mormons, and I've learned quite recently from this board that it's not.)
(*) I shan't anger the mods by naming the movie, but the producer's surname rhymes with that of the German tennis player who won Wimbledon in 1985.
-
Who told you that you absolutely HAD to have training and degrees?"
I said, "I just assumed that, because people woudl tell me to look on monster jobs, and other such sites for job listings, and all the office jobs said they required such-and-such years of expereince, or such-and-such training..."
I can certainly see where you're coming from here: My stepdaughter is in a similar position right now, having left school before taking her A-levels (exams you take at 18 here in the UK) and trying to get a job.
However, I agree that studying Open Office is an excellent step - something to put on your CV that will help you to get the interviews. Also, how about doing volunteer work for charitable organisations? Although you wouldn't get paid for it (obviously!) you would build up your profile of experience, and enable you to get references from the people you worked for.
I wish you the very best. Please let us know how you get on :)
-
All I know is that the Catholic church doesn't recognize any other baptism, so any convert would have to attend classes for several months. There are other denominations that recognize LDS baptism, so a potential convert would be accepted as a member if they chose to join.
This is not quite true: I know for a fact that the Catholic Church recognises the baptism of the Anglican Church, but not (as far as I know) our other ordinances like confirmation.
As a rule, the Anglican Church recognises the ordinances of all churches that believe in the Holy Trinity, as laid out in the three Catholic Creeds (Apostolic, Nicene and Athenasian) so that would probably exclude Mormon baptism.
Sacrilige or Good Business Sense?
in General Discussion
Posted
Reminds me of something I heard about once: A shop selling Christian books and merchandise at a large Christian convention had a big cardboard cut-out of God, smiling and holding a shopping basket, standing outside the door. The person who told the story thought it was a disgraceful sacrilege but you've got to admit - it's funny too!