mrmarklin
-
Posts
1262 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by mrmarklin
-
-
22 hours ago, mrmarklin said:
Unless the Book of Mormon is real, it doesn’t make sense to believe anything it says.
Same with Adam and Eve. I could make up some sort of value system, and populate it with made up characters myself. It would mean nothing unless I could sell it and gather believers to my system. Some people have stated to me that the Bible is totally made up by people to obtain some sort of control over the gullible. So, in order to contradict this sort of thing, the people, places and events in the Bible must be largely true. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Like Mark Twain said, you can’t pray a lie, and you cannot believe in one either. Not really
For us believers, the Spirit has testified these things are true. If it were otherwise, there would be no Spirit. And there would be no believers.
I’ll quote myself to elaborate.
Obviously there are problems with both the Book of Mormon and the Biblical narratives.
Aside from the supposed anachronisms in the B of M (the list is getting shorter) there is also the problem of how did the Lamanites and Nephites migrate? JS stated that the landing was near Valparaiso, Chile. That would seemingly place most of the events in the B of M in SA. The early Mormons adopted a big view of where things took place, assuming the narrow neck of land was the Isthmus of Panama. But this can’t be true, because the isthmus is not passable. I discovered this from my uncle who surveyed the Pan American highway. The highway ends in Panama and continues in SA after a boat ride. So B of M events in this area are impossible. That leaves SA as the main area of events, leaving North America the recipient of the northern migrations mentioned in the text. But not the center of events. Of course JS could be wrong in his opinions of the landfall. No wonder there is scant archeological evidence. We don’t even know where to look. Plus, given the terrain of NA, we have only scratched the surface of places to look..
Adam and Eve are also problematic. How do we explain pre Adamites? Dinosaurs, sabretooth tigers etc etc? Assuming the Biblical narrative is true, and I believe it is, there is a lot of explaining to do!
so it comes down to faith. Only the Spirit can tell us the truth. We will discover all truth when the veil is lifted.
-
On 9/6/2019 at 4:43 AM, mikbone said:
Is it ok to believe that the Fall of Adam or that the Book of Mormon narratives are just stories that God has revealed or should we perceive these accounts as actual events that occurred to real people? And does it matter?
Unless the Book of Mormon is real, it doesn’t make sense to believe anything it says.
Same with Adam and Eve. I could make up some sort of value system, and populate it with made up characters myself. It would mean nothing unless I could sell it and gather believers to my system. Some people have stated to me that the Bible is totally made up by people to obtain some sort of control over the gullible. So, in order to contradict this sort of thing, the people, places and events in the Bible must be largely true. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Like Mark Twain said, you can’t pray a lie, and you cannot believe in one either. Not really
For us believers, the Spirit has testified these things are true. If it were otherwise, there would be no Spirit. And there would be no believers.
- Vort, Anddenex and Midwest LDS
-
3
-
On 9/3/2019 at 2:38 PM, anatess2 said:
Anyway, I'm not sure if this is really what's gonna happen but what I'm trying to say here is... you don't need a lot of money to enjoy life.
I’m of an age when most people are already retired.
But im addicted to a very good lifestyle. I like event vacations in foreign countries. I like my vacation home, and it’s not cheap to maintain. I enjoy several fairly expensive hobbies. Life is good and I have no desire at all to live on a restricted budget.
So, I keep working, albeit at a semi retired pace. I’ll need my 75% when I decide to retire.
But more power to those of you who are willing to forgo the niceties.
-
On 9/1/2019 at 4:10 PM, mrmarket said:
Working till you die? Most get sick, disabled etc and don't work for 10-20 yrs before they die. That is the problem. At that point someone else (usually relatives) has to pay the difference until you die. A family member of ours never saved any money and now in their golden years we have to help pay for medical stuff because they have no savings to live off of.
I agree with the cost of living. I rarely have a retiree living off much less than they previously earned unless their home is payed off. Generally they have Soc Sec between $1800-$2200 per month and then they subsidize with their savings.Rule of thumb in the financial planning business is that one needs about 75% of one’s normal earnings to be able to afford to retire decently. This assumes one has eliminated commuting expense and other work related costs such as eating away from home and special items like suits and ties or nicer clothing for women.
I have a joint life table on my desk at work and for married couples contemplating retirement, I show them with the use of the chart that one of them is likely to live 30 years. And they need to prepare for the accompanying inflation etc. They won’t be buying their “last” car, nor will the roof on their house likely last that long.
Many of these decide to work and save a little longer.
-
20 hours ago, Vort said:
It's like he uses his watch to, who knows, tell time or something.
Maybe. I’d like to know where these pics were taken. Pres. Nelson travels to a lot of third world countries. He wouldn’t take his Patek to any of those. He would wear such a watch as pictured. 😐
-
4 hours ago, mrmarket said:
I vote cheapskate lol
Seriously cheap! LOL
-
On 8/28/2019 at 11:06 AM, omegaseamaster75 said:
Well there is this:
I’ll note two things. He doesn’t have a bracelet that would add about $1,000 to the value of his watch. That’s modest.
Second, one assumes that the First Presidency, being higher in the pecking order, rocks either Rolex or Patek Philippe. The Prophet, having been a wealthy doctor, I vote Patek.
-
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:
So, looking at cataract surgery sometime in the future. The eye doctor gave me several options but seems to be pushing towards me having long distance vision, but needing glasses for near-vision.
A Majority of what I do at work is reading. I already wear glasses, but if I had a preference I'd wear glasses for long distance and ditch them for near vision or reading. The lenses offered (or whatever it is they are doing, I think they are replacing the lenses of my eye?) thus far all seem to have long distances as the preferred lense, or one that is not as effective at either.
Is anyone familiar with this and if there is an option to have near vision lenses (so I don't wear glasses when reading, or getting up in the morning to look at the alarm clock, etc.) and wearing glasses for long distance?
What are those lenses called and is there a reason my doctor seems to be pushing long distance and steering me away from anything dealing with near vision? Should I be considering other doctors that deal with this type of stuff?
I have had cataract surgery in both eyes. There are lenses that allow both reading and long distance vision at the same time. Your brain quickly adjusts to this. I don’t wear any kind of glasses anymore. And I previously had bifocals. As I recall, my insurance didn’t pay for the lens upgrade I don’t recall the cost, but it’s a small price compared to the benefit
Modern medicine is wonderful.
-
3 hours ago, dprh said:
Outside of government positions, it is difficult to find a job that provides a defined benefit plan. All the ones I've ever had or looked at used defined contribution plans. This puts the investment risk squarely on the employee instead of the employer.
Very true. The traditional pension plan is going the way of the Dodo bird. Government pensions cannot be too far behind. Most of them are going broke.
-
5 hours ago, Fether said:
Is the apostle special in that he has unique responsibilities? Or is the witness he holds special in that he has witnessed more than all other members of the church?
I would argue the former.
Clearly the former. All of us are entitled to the same testimony as an Apostle.
Being an Apostle is a calling. But one must be willing to accept that calling.
-
On 8/9/2019 at 12:43 PM, Vort said:
I'm curious what LDS forum members think. Discussion encouraged.
Here is my take.
As a missionary in 1968 I attended a meeting with Apostle Gordon B Hinckley who then presided over the South American missions.
He bore a testimony more or less as follows: I have never had a vision, never heard a voice. But the Spirit has conveyed to me in no uncertain terms that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. I obtained this witness by prayer and fasting.
As in olden times, the apostles are ones who are willing to give up all that they have to follow the Lord. Not many of us are willing to do that. I’m not. I’m looking forward to a relaxing retirement. Not gallivanting around the globe preachingthe gospel.
Gordon B Hinckley gave his life to the Lord. That makes him a special witness.
-
18 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
So, Brian David Mitchell has to change the way he prefers to “love” because he’s a freak of nature, but Ed Smart doesn’t have to change the way he prefers to love because God doesn’t make mistakes.
Bigot.
Who is Brian David Mitchell and why should I care about Him?
-
18 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Essentially he's apparently decided that his personal, carnal self-satisfaction is what the Savior really cares about.
My take, exactly.
-
The US is the greatest and richest country in the world, and will continue to be this in the foreseeable future. It is very unlikely any country will overtake the US anytime soon, due to us having the rule of law and in the case of Asian nations, their wide cultural differences that are incompatible with greatness.
The US stock market S&P 500, on average over the last 100+ years has yielded 8% with dividends reinvested. This is likely to continue A diversified stock portfolio is one of the best investments one can make.
This is by far, the best country in the world.
-
The Book of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, does it?
-
AKA Arkancide.
-
On 8/4/2019 at 12:34 PM, Serviteur du seigneur said:
Do they reach peace ? And can they still go at least to the telestial kingdom ?
We don’t know the answer to your question. God has not revealed this. In the Catholic faith, suicide is a mortal sin.
-
2 hours ago, Serviteur du seigneur said:
Well, i guess that it is. It just transcends understanding
Not really. We are taught that God has all things before Him. He’s seeing your future choices in His real time.
-
11 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
Mormon pioneers were not breaking any laws, going anywhere illegally, settling anywhere illegally.
(I can say that, because the impacted Native American tribes didn't have any such system of laws, or even know what hit them until it was too late. But that's not an LDS-specific thing, nor does it really have much in common with our modern definitions of nations, which include borders and systems of immigration.)
Uh, present day Utah was Mexican property in 1847. We were at war with Mexico and stole it from them soon after the pioneers arrived.
-
9 hours ago, Texan said:
Liberace claimed that his first frisky girlfriend was Miss Bea Haven. (Say it fast.)
The sad circumstances around Liberace's health and death seem to cast doubt on whether that was her real name, or whether she was even a woman, but it's still a nifty name. I almost named my cat after her.
You realize of course, that Liberace was a homosexual, right?
-
Spider-Man!
-
4 hours ago, Mores said:
I am unaware of any "formal discussions" from 1968. You may have made a typo. Did you mean 1986?
- The invitation to be baptized was in the second discussion. Not the first.
- The first discussion taught the first vision and the BoM. It also taught our general beliefs on God & Christ, as well as the precedence and importance of prophets. Finally, it taught about the Holy Ghost as a witness of truth. and that last part was meant to help them gain a testimony of everything else that was taught.
- Investigators were encouraged to read 2 Ne 11 and Moroni's promise before they met for the 2nd discussion.
- They were committed to:
***
Let's not beat around the bush. That is what you meant. How easy it is to so quickly judge others. Look at the facts.
Not any more than any other lesson manual is. And there isn't anything wrong with that. The scriptures are indeed scripted for us to tell the story of God's dealings with mankind. And how often do we repeat certain lines vebatim? Does that mean we act exactly as they did in the Bible? Well, when was the last time you sacrificed an animal to the Lord? How about keeping a woman from speaking in church? But. but. but. IT'S SCRIPTED!!!
- While memorization was encouraged in the 1986 discussions, it was not "required" to be repeated verbatim -- at least I'm unaware of any missionary in my mission who actually memorized them besides me. Memorization was simply a suggested method used for learning them in the first place. And it was certainly helpful in learning new languages.
- The instructions explicitly given in the second discussion (leading up to the invitation to be baptized) stated:
I honestly don't know where anyone got the impression that you're supposed to extend the invitation "regardless of whether they feel the Spirit or not." There was even an explicit statement:
You might want to get facts straight before you call an apostle a liar.
We need not jump to negative conclusions (inevitably leading to false accusations) simply because we don't wish to incorrectly assume positive conclusions (which I thought was considered an admirable trait). It is perfectly fine to say "I don't know" or "I guess he made a mistake." But now that we find that it was neither a mistake, nor a lie, how do you feel about what you said?
Don’t know how old you are Mores, but in 1968 the discussions were scripted and expected to be memorized. Challenge to baptism was midway through first discussion.
If you are unaware of any formal discussions in the sixties, you need to do more research.
-
On 7/8/2019 at 11:19 PM, Vort said:
What specific actions make you think that the brethren intended to get missionaries to ask people to be baptized before those people had ever even been introduced to the most basic aspects of the gospel?
In 1968 the discussions that were scripted and we were required to memorize, had the baptismal challenge midway through the first discussion. Basically by that time only the First Vision had been taught.
So for Ballard to say that he doesn’t know how early invitations began is disingenuous.
These invitations were scripted.
-
Discussion of this article is raging on another forum. Now apparently closed.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71993-ballard-baptismal-challenge/
Among other things, words that alleged the GAs didn’t know how the early baptism invitation got started created a lot of controversy.
Conference Rumors
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted · Edited by mrmarklin
I know no one who does all this, and never have. It’s the sort of thinking that leads to self destructive guilt trips. Most of us need to work on one thing at a time. I’m an early riser, but I don’t think I’ll be out of the elect by sleeping in once in a while. And I seriously don’t aspire to any Church offices as well. This among many other defects in my character
I believe that being elect and going to the Celestial Kingdom is a process. One that we won’t necessarily fulfill in our mortal lifetimes.