volgadon
-
Posts
1446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by volgadon
-
-
I believe the Higher Law is what Christ taught on the Mount of Olives.
Do you perhaps mean the Mount of Beatitudes?
-
Metaphor? Not quite. A symbol, yes, but symbols can be an actual, physical occurence. Turning to a non-LDS source, the late Martin Buber (On the Bible, p. 53), there is the following observation on the meaning of signs in the Bible.
"It is a symbolization, a sensory presentation of a manifested truth, a perceptible reality which, no matter whether it is more or less "wondrous," always reminds people once again of that truth."
Same goes for baptism, and, indeed, the cleansing power of the atonement. As Buber goes on to say, "What is now only existent in words will then take on real existence."
-
The evidence that it doesn't is that graveyards are very quiet
Very weak argument.
-
Thanks Volgadon and forgive me if I was speaking or thinking for you. :)
You are welcome to do so. If I object I'll state it.
-
But yet I think Volgadon and myself were reading into it that if we forgive then they are forgiven completely. Perhaps I am misunderstanding her meaning but that is the way I took her explanation.
That is exactly how I understood it.
-
Lets reconsider what is meant by "cleansed from sin". Doesn't it mean that God will permit us to enter his presence despite us having committed sin? It means that he no longer will make us accountable for those sins. We won't need to pay for them because of our acceptance of Christ.
And what does accepting Christ have to do with anything? Oh, right, the atonement, where he took our sins upon himself. Are you still saying that the ability to do this comes as part of the evolutionary and technological process?
Forgiveness of sins is something we can all grant on another. I can forgive my husband for things just as God can forgive sins.
No, forgiveness of sins is not something we can grant anyone. We can forgive someone for what they've done to us, but only God can forgive them of their sins. So, in other words, even if I forgive the whole day long, the sin doesn't go away unless God forgives it.
-
I had written a nice long answer to these questions and when I tried to post it on the other thread, it was locked, so my proposed post was lost. Something I'm doing here is irritating the moderators, so I need to tread more lightly lest I lock this thread too.
I think sin and atonement fit just the way that the traditional LDS teachings tell us they do. I see no conflicts.
So, are you saying that the ability to cleanse from sin comes as part of the evolutionary and technological process?
-
Christyba, the other thread was closed before you had a chance to respond to my question. What I don't see in your hyper-evolved alien theory is how sin and atonement fit into it all. Would you mind expanding on that in relation to your theory?
-
What I don't see in you hyper-evolved alien theory how sin and atonement fit into it all.
-
My niece is with us for the holidays and she's been great but I think she's a bit bored. She has never said that she's bored but I sense it. I've made an effort to get us out and sightsee all the festivities but there's only so much before you've seen-it-all. Maybe she's enjoying the slower paced life? Ha ha. I was on the phone not too long ago with a girlfriend of mine, and she has a son that is 26 and single. Would it be inappropriate to see if my niece is interested in going out on a date with him? We weren't really thinking along the lines of playing matchmaker (after all she's going to be returning to California) but more along the lines that these two could have fun together, that's all. Is that too weird? Alright, maybe I've been watching too many Hallmark Holiday romance movies..
Seems perfectly fine.
-
If they were even brothers in the usual English sense of the word, and not half-brothers, or cousins.
-
I don't believe so either, but an understanding of the concept is still important so we fully understand what the text says. The Book of Moses states that Moses spoke with God, and understanding divine investiture merely affords us the knowledge that it was indeed Christ given authority to speak as if He were the Father. It doesn't do much, however, in helping me understand the notion of God's glory being too great for Man to bear when it is in fact Christ that conversed with Moses.
If it is God the Father speaking, though, one needn't speculate further. That is my point.
-
Love the book, can't stand the songs in the musical.
-
The first chapter of the Book of Moses details how Moses was transfigured by the Lord so that he could stand in His presence , for no mortal man may behold the glory of God without withering away and dying. But we also know that the God of the Old Testament is the Pre-Existent Jesus Christ, acting under the Principle of Divine Investiture. If this is the case, I guess I'm having a little trouble understanding the need for Moses to be transfigured if he wasn't actually in the presence of God the Father, but was instead conversing with Jesus Christ. What are we to understand of the glory of God in this context? Did Christ possess such glory prior to his mortal sojourn, or was the glory of God still manifest, yet channeled through Christ? I guess more than anything else, my question speaks to the relationship between the Father and Son prior to the Meridian of Time, and as to Christ's status as (a) God prior to his life, death and resurrection.
Sorry if my question seems a bit muttled. I'm still not sure if I know exactly what I'm asking. Hopefully its clear enough to be properly disseminated.
I don't find divine investiture a convincing explanation here.
-
Draw your own conclusions.
Not the most fortunate of emoticon choices.
-
Wonderful! I can conceive of the same thing, (that's what "believe" means, right?) If humanity were allowed to exist long enough and expand beyond this planet, and if we're allowed to advance science, then could we eventually arrive at where God is (i.e. Kolob), or would he obstruct us?
I don't think we'd ever even approximate God through technological advancement.
Does technology make one more moral?
Here are some thoughts from Woland in Bulgakov's Master and Margarita.
The entry of the magician with his tall assistant and his cat, who trotted on stage on his hind legs, pleased the audience greatly. 'Armchair, please,' said Woland quietly and instantly an armchair appeared on stage from nowhere. The magician sat down. 'Tell me, my dear Faggot,' Woland enquired of the check-clad buffoon, who apparently had another name besides 'Koroviev,': 'do you find the people of Moscow much changed?' The magician nodded towards the audience, still silent with astonishment at seeing an armchair materialise from nowhere.
'I do, messire,' replied Faggot-Koroviev in a low voice.
'You are right. The Muscovites have changed considerably... outwardly, I mean... as, too, has the city itself... Not just the clothes, but now they have all these... what d'you call 'em... tramways, cars...'
'Buses,' prompted Faggot respectfully.
...
'Well, now,' replied the magician reflectively. 'They're people like any others. They're over-fond of money, but then they always were... Humankind loves money, no matter if it's made of leather, paper, bronze or gold. They're thoughtless, of course... but then they sometimes feel compassion too... they're ordinary people, in fact they remind me very much of their predecessors, except that the housing shortage has soured them...'
-
Christ did not go among the Gentiles. The Book of Mormon goes further, where Christ teaches that he never goes among the Gentiles, but only ever to the house of Israel. This woman requested a favor, something reserved for "the children" (of Israel), and demonstrated not only cleverness but such great faith in her response to the Lord that he saw fit (or perhaps could not help but) grant her petition.
I like to think that she was an early baptism post-crucifixion and resurrection.
The way it is framed, her faith made her part of the covenant.
-
then he's real, measurable, and definable
I'm sure he is, with the right set of knowledge. Something we do not fully possess.
-
Exactly. Critical Thinking class is a completely separate class from World/Local History. It is taught as a subset of Reading and Phonics that comprise 3 credits every single year of Elementary School and the first 2 years of high school, which is also a separate class from English Language Class even when everything we read in Reading and Phonics is in English. Well, at least in the Philippine Catholic School System.
I think that severing critical thinking from an history class is disastrous. I don't mind separate critical thinking classes, but it has to be a component of history as well.
-
Textbooks have errors in them.
I paid over 80 bucks for a college textbook in Western history that contained several sizeable bloopers, illogical staments, muddled thinking, and other fun items.
And in history learning how to recognize and deal with errors and biases in your sources, to critically analyse them, is learning to walk. If you think that the subject of history is some sort of objective list of facts you're not walking, you're crawling.
Amen. Watching a movie and discussing it also allows one to come to grips critically with a very prevalent source of information about the world for many people.
But that's okay Anatess, you can win if you really want to, you win.
Aye.
-
I didn't say to shy away from it. But using a source that is not complete over something that is more complete just so you can exercise your critical thinking skills does not belong in history class - it belongs in critical thinking class.
Critical thinking is perhaps THE most important skill for any historian, yet all too often is taught so poorly.
-
Critical examination of documentaries are not usually centered around what is added for dramatic effect or what is fictional just so you can advance a story.
Actually, that is an important skill to have as those are some of the commoner embellishments and distortions in primary (and even secondary) sources.
-
Because you can get a better historical account through the proper history books. A visual medium - like a movie - has a bigger impact on the brain than the abstract words in a book. What will stick to a student's brain is the movie.
If you teach the history using the proper history books then make the movie a supplement with the caveat that it's not completely accurate, you'll get more mileage with the truth. But, in my opinion, a movie as the source of teaching is just not necessary.
I dunno, movies can be an effective teaching tool as long as there is a good discussion afterwards. I'm speaking as a bookworm, BTW. It has to do with how effective the teacher is, as a good teacher will employ various kinds of media. A movie also helps spark interest in a topic, encouraging people to read books they might not have tried otherwise.
-
I watched the first 2 minutes of the film and had to walk out! My 9-year-old couldn't handle the sounds of the opening Civil War battle with his eyes closed.
Anyway, I read some of the academia reviews on it and it seems like most agree that the visuals and characterizations in the movie was greatly done but the historical account did not quite cover the depth of the actual historical accounts.
So, probably not something you want in a classroom.
Here is one thing I read on it about it's authenticity:
Academic historians have been more ambivalent in their reaction, however, than movie critics. Eric Foner (Columbia), a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of the period, claims in a letter to the New York Times that the movie “grossly exaggerates” its main points about the choices at stake in the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment (November 26, 2012). Kate Masur (Northwestern University) accuses the film of oversimplifying the role of blacks in abolition and dismisses the effort as “an opportunity squandered” in an op-ed for the New York Times (November 12, 2012) Harold Holzer, co-chair of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation and author of more than 40 books, served as a consultant to the film and praises it but also observes that there is “no shortage of small historical bloopers in the movie” in a piece for The Daily Beast (November 22, 2012). Allen Guelzo (Gettysburg College), also writing for The Daily Beast has some plot criticism, but disagrees with Holzer, arguing that, “The pains that have been taken in the name of historical authenticity in this movie are worth hailing just on their own terms” (November 27, 2012). David O. Stewart, independent historical author, writing for History News Network, describes Spielberg’s work as “reasonably solid history” and tells readers of HNN, “go see it with a clear conscience” (November 20, 2012). Lincoln Biographer Ronald White also admired the film, though he noted a few mistakes and pointed out in an interview with NPR, “Is every word true? No.” (November 23, 2012).[
Sounds about right for a higher-calibre historical film. Why shouldn't this be used in a classroom? Seems like one could convey the gist, then open the door to discuss the differences.
Study into Family
in Marriage and Relationship Advice
Posted
My experience was the same. Even emanate took me perhaps 3 seconds.