volgadon
-
Posts
1446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by volgadon
-
-
They do have good lessons occasionally.
Don't worry, Relief Society has good lessons on ocassion.
-
Perhaps it is just me, but I find teary-monies for the most part an abysmal, tedious experience. Maybe it is a cultural thing.
-
I taught RS this Sunday. It was a wonderful experience for me! The topic was ch 17 from the George Albert Smith manual "The Strengthening Power of Faith". At the end of relief society there were very few dry eyes because of what we as sisters had shared with each other about faith.
Driving home I ask my wonderful eternal companion about his third hour experience... his responce "the teacher read straight from the manual and I had a hard time trying to stay awake". I guess I just came to ask why.
I know my husband is capable of feeling and responding to the spirit... as are all the men in the elder's quorum for that matter. :)
Why does there have to be such variance between RS and EQ with the same topic? Is it such a hard thing to ask that men open up and share spiritual things with each other? Is it too hard to ask for a little planning ahead instead of reading the manual ver batim?
It is obviously because women are perfect, transcendentally spiritual giants, whereas men are lazy, no-good spiritual midgets that can't even think simple things out ahead of time, or throw some inflection into a terminally-dull rote reading from the manual.
-
Hello,
I don't have difficulty with the Book of Mormon.
However, I find it very difficult that I might have to use the protestant version of the Old Testament, instead of the earlier orthodox version of the Old Testament - used by Catholics.
I searched lds.org and mormon.org and didn't find anything definitive that would "prohibit" me from using the Septuagint. So, that is my question.
Do I have to let go of the Septuagint in order to be Mormon?
Thanks
No, you don't have to let go of it.
-
How about modesty
Let us know then, the next time you purchase one of these swimming suits.
-
Oh, I don't claim to be sophisticated, but I know that I like. I know less about music than other things. Not being academic at all, music affects me deeply in my soul.
Musical literacy doesn't lessen the deep effect of music on the soul, if anything, it is increased when you understand the language of music.
-
True. I'm not saying it is all bad, but the majority of it is. Linkin Park and Metallica are good, but even by today's standards they are "old." Long gone are the days where artists can maintain popularity for decades rather than be a stylistic xerox of whatever is popular at the moment.
Not overseas.
-
Interestingly, I used to like everything from HOT Middle Eastern dance music to Queen to Barry Mcguire ... Well, just look at my profile... Ya know.
Lately, I just feel a halt if it is anything but very reverent music. To be sure, my time spent in the cold was enough to convince me to make my life as pleasing to Heavenly Father as posible.
Sadly, its not hard to see folks around me that seem to make a contest of treading the edge of permisibility. It seems dangerous.
Hala, I think you would enjoy the music of Piris and Mark Eliyahu. Father and son, Daghestani Jews who are extremely conversant in the classical musical traditions of the Middle East. Piris plays the taar, and Mark the kamanche. Utterly amazing and spiritual music.
-
It is not that I spoke too soon, but it did start raining in the night.
-
Hopefully it continues north even after that. I live in Logan, and a Friday night rainstorm would be so cozy.
Now I'm thinking of my camp days. We rarely would have wet summers... and we would go all camp season without any rain until the trails turned to dust and we had to tell the li'l Scouties to not run becasue they would slip in the dust and scrape up their knees. Then it would storm, and we would dance likes freaks in the rain singing our bizarre rain song...
SO do I, and I was just outside to mail a letter, hasn't rained yet.
-
★☆
I do need to watch it again.
Vort made a point that got me thinking. Johnny Lingo used the 8 cows to demonstrate Mahana's worth in a language that the villagers would understand. My question is, and anyone can respond, why was that important? Johnny Lingo could have shown his feelings for Mahana in a less in-your-face way, and Mahana would still know that she is desirable. The feel-good is Johnny Lingo reaching out to Mahana, and Mahana discovering her self-worth. Ultimately, the villagers opinions of Johnny Lingo and Mahana don't matter. So I'm wondering why the exaggeration of 8 cows, as opposed to 3 or 4, which would have been a higher dowry than most.
Would Mohanna have understood it as much in any other way? You have to bear in mind that Western cultural norms feel natural to Westerners. There is a wonderful bit in an old Soviet movie set in Central Asia of the 1920s. A Bolshevik soldier happened to liberate the harem of one of the guerilla chieftains. He immediately sets about reorganising them according to the most progressive standards. After long explanations of how they are free, and aren't his wives, and he hasn't captured them, he appoints the youngest one supervisor over the rest. She runs off to taunt the others by loudly proclaiming, "Our lord and master has made me the favourite wife!"
We relay experiences and events through our cultural lenses.
-
I found the earlier one very offensive racially and culturally.
What precisely?
-
How about the Spelling, Capitalization, and Punctuation Police? Do we get equal time?
We hang people on commas.
-
It has to do with that society's modes of expression.
-
It is, to me, a matter of understanding a perspective. I happen to have the perspective of 3 which I believe also overshadows the spirit world as well - that some see only as spirit prison and spirit paradise.
I have come to see this same grouping in all matters of social structure - but I do understand that most see things as black and white, pro and con or as often pointed out in scripture that everything has it opposite or opposition in all things. But rather than argue the point I believe it better to encourage others to find the pattern of the infidel (which has meaning in parallel with infidelity. The gentile and the covenant children or heir (also first born). All applied to the concept of a nation, kingdom or society.
The Traveler
What I meant is that I suffer from severe dyscalculia.
-
There were definitely 3 groups in the pre-existance. There are those that divided everyone into 3 groups and those that didn't. The third group was those that were mathematically challenged.
The Traveler
I am that third group.
-
Your group C will not work. The prophet Jacob noted that those who do not gain bodies and progress are forced to become angels of the devil. I prefer to see them as those who accepted God's plan, but were not the noble and great ones (the divine council).
The noble and great ones are leaders of those who did not follow Lucifer, not a separate group. The divine council, as you've noted.
-
In my opinion it is implied.
Just because there are only 2 groups that are listed does not mean that there are not other groups...
Take for instance, Heaven. Many Christians believe that heaven in only one place. LDS group heaven into either 3 or 5 divisions. Depending upon how you look at it.
Implied where? If the word doesn't require three groups, if only two groups are mentioned in the scriptures, then why is it logical to assume three groups? That is why your speculation doesn't make much sense to me.
-
Yes it is a "third part". The 1828 definition of the word 'part' does not really bring any clarity to the discussion... I bet you that I can divide an orange into 5 unequal parts.
I have never seen any mention of 2/3 part in the scripture.
But it is still a part of the orange, not a habanero.
If there are only two groups talked about, those who rebelled and those who did not, then where is the third group? In other words, what would lead you to suppose that each part was a separate group.
-
No, I haven't heard any definitive commentary either way. The scripture in question says "third part" not one third.
In my mind it is simpler to think of three groups. There have been multiple threads on this site discussing the difference between 1/3 and 3 parts.
See
http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/42560-1-3-1-3-part-cast-out-heaven.html
One third part host all men? | Ask Gramps
The point of this thread is to to discuss this third part that is not directly mentioned. Many have indicated that this third group coud have been fence sitters, but that concept never has sat well with me.
Your whole premise, I feel, rests on a misunderstanding, so why don't we look at the usual meaning of "part" in Joseph's day?
part
P`ART, n. [L. pars, partis.]
1. A portion, piece or fragment separated from a whole thing; as, to divide an orange into five parts.
So, if the whole is the "hosts of heaven," then a "third part" is just that, a third of the whole. Looking for three distinct groups is rather unnecessary, doing violence to the plain reading of the text.
-
I'm not so confident to say that God or the Devil have nothing to do with dreams. I think it's possible, depending on one's righteousness, to receive confirmation or revelation (to a degree) through dreams. But to answer OP, it's been awhile since I've experienced a pleasant dream that has abruptly gone nightmarish.
Very well put.
-
How do you know it means there were three groups of spirits and not simply that 1/3 of the whole chose differently? Isn't that complicating a pretty simple idea? Have you heard otherwise by a general authority of prophet?
My thoughts exactly.
-
This struck me. Would someone please clarify the text in red?
Is feeling insecure, dishonoured or "ashamed" a sin? Why would the Lord shun a lost sheep? If someone is carrying a burden of shame, it seems that this is the very kind of person that the Lord would reach out to and be compassionate towards. I didn't grasp the point, PC made, so that's why I'm asking for someone to enlighten me :)
He means those who are ashamed of Christ and, as a result, spurn him. Measure for measure. In LDS scripture you have those who partook of the fruit, looked at the great and spacious building, and became ashamed. Both are talking of a continual state, luckily for us all, repentance wipes that slate clean.
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
-
A third part doesn't mean there were three different groups. A third part is just that, a third, though it need not be scientifically precise. For example, a Hebrew poem from the 12th century calls Isaac a third part of the lights, refering to the tradition that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are likened to stars. Isaac here is a third of the same group.
So....Jesus WAS married after all.
in General Discussion
Posted
Even if the papyrus were authentic and the reading accurate, there is still far more evidence showing that Jesus was unmarried or celibate.