JudoMinja
-
Posts
1763 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JudoMinja
-
-
Have you asked for a Priesthood blessing? Sometimes, when you feel like you just can't go on any longer, a blessing may be exactly what you need. I feel for you, and I hope you regain your energy soon. I'll be praying for you.
-
Your response has given me a lot to think about. I want to thank you for it. Don't let the brevity of my response mislead you to the importance I've placed on it. I'm just taking some time to really assimilate it fully.
I understand. :) Just some more thoughts on it:
Our instincts and impulses are part of our biology designed to protect us from harm. When we go through a traumatic experience, our brains try to compensate for the fact that we failed to protect ourselves and anything we associate with that experience becomes a trigger for our fight-or-flight response.
To gain better control over those instincts, you need to analyze the experiences where you feel you overreacted to something and figure out what exactly triggered your response. Of course, knowing what your triggers are doesn't make them go away- but it does help you to think ahead, knowing what has the potential to set you off, so that over time you can rewire your brain to separate those triggers from the anticipated result of harm.
It is going to require practice. If you've haven't studied self-defense or a form of martial arts, I'd suggest it, because they heavily emphasize the need for practice so that your instinctive reaction to danger is an efficient one that will truly protect you from harm. What you practice becomes part of your muscle-memory, so that you can react the way you've practiced without even thinking about it.
-
My highest score was Quality Time, and Words of Affirmation and Physical Touch were tied for second.
-
Thanks for your reply. While most of the replies have been excellent answers as to why turning the other cheek is so very important, it hasn't really helped with my question of how to control the involuntary initial negative response I so often encounter.
Coming from my very violent background I did seek anger counseling early in life, most of it by choice, some court ordered. When I can get my brain engaged I have little trouble seeing the Savior's example and sincerely try to emulate it. It's the knee jerk reaction I'm trying to control. When I punched the person who struck me in anger there was no decision, no thought process. Like pulling your hand away from a hot stove I just instinctively struck back. That's the impulse I'm trying to control.
I honestly believe that I'm not having a problem with forgiveness or self control, its impulse control that's an issue. I was told in counseling years ago that reacting calmly would become second nature over time and I wouldn't respond impulsively. They owe me a refund, cause it just ain't happening.
It has been hard work for almost four decades. Perhaps there is still the underlying doubt, the unwillingness to become a target for abuse again. I don't know.
I can't afford or desire to get more counseling. I think I've talked this to death. I think it may simply be a scar I will carry all my life. It's seldom an issue in my day to day life, few people are abusive to me. But when it comes up I'm always so disappointed in myself for "losing it" again.
I don't think what you are describing here is difficulty turning the other cheek. It is exactly what you said- impulse control. And that can be very hard to rewire once it's been ingrained in you. Especially when it's a defense mechanism in response to abuse.
Towards the end of my relationship with my ex, the slightest raised tone in his voice would trigger my own impulse defensives. Of course, this just escalated issues, because me reacting defensively caused him to in-turn react with anger, which raised my defense, and back and forth until things quickly got very ugly.
When I left, those impulse reactions would crop up when situations reminded me of the stress I'd been through with him. I had to relearn how to interact with people, and it wouldn't have worked if they hadn't been patient and understanding with me. I specifically remember one instance with my mother, when she became stressed and upset and something I'd done had been the last straw that set her off. In the past, I would have been able to let it roll off my back, but because of my heightened impulse defenses, I didn't react very well at all.
We yelled at each other, and she got "in my face" confrontational, but then we broke it off so that we could both cool down. That experience ended up being very helpful in my recovery, because I knew from growing up that my mother would never hurt me. Yeah, she might lose her temper occassionally and yell over silly things when she gets overly stressed, but she is all-around a good, safe person. I didn't have to be defensive with her. Once I'd cried it out and disassociated the triggers from my actual problem, I was able to handle it better.
The thing is- our minds have a tendancy to generalize things and our emotions will get tied to those generalizations. I had tied "raised tone" and "angry over something I'd done" into a following consequence of- "I get hurt". So, I was scared. And because I was scared, I tried to defend myself. But I didn't need to. I had to separate the cause and effect. The real cause behind "I get hurt" was my ex. Not the argument. Make sense?
Since it sounds like your history of abuse is far more extensive than mine was, it's going to be harder and take more time for you to rewire your defenses. You need to figure out how to separate the true dangers from the generic things that don't require a defensive reaction. It's like if you've been in a car accident and lets say that car accident involved a red pickup-truck. Then, whenever you see a red pickup-truck you feel yourself tense up expecting a collision. You need to rewire your brain to realize that not all red pickup-trucks equal car accident, so there's no need to react defensively when you see one.
-
Dictionary definition of time; "1.the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.
2.duration regarded as belonging to the present life as distinct from the life to come or from eternity; finite duration.
3.( sometimes initial capital letter ) a system or method of measuring or reckoning the passage of time: mean time; apparent time; Greenwich Time.
4.a limited period or interval, as between two successive events: a long time.
5.a particular period considered as distinct from other periods: Youth is the best time of life. "
Actually- I think Gorton was mostly referring to the first definition for time (which somewhat blends into the second definition) and pointing out that this system of measurement that we use is incomplete, because our ability to perceive the "present" is limited by mortality. While, for God, everything is the present. I don't really see it as a difference between a metaphoric time and a literal time, but rather an attempt to show that our understanding of time is incomplete and our efforts to measure it are faulty.
I agree that much of miscommunication in discussions comes from a difference in understanding the definitions of words. But I also don't think that we necessarily need to focus on separating the definitions. Instead, I think that there is just so much meaning contained within our words that it can be difficult to grasp, and- like our understanding of time- our understanding of so many other words and concepts is incomplete. As we continue to study and seek greater understanding, these words come to encompass more and more, taking on deeper and more insightful meanings and connotations than they did before.
I honestly wish I had had the opportunity to meet "gramps."
Me too. :) I've been enjoying reading his articles.
-
Growing up, I used to get picked on at school. If I came home and told my dad about it, this is a basic outline for what our conversation would be like:
Me: So-and-so said I was stupid.
Dad: Are you stupid?
Me: No.
Dad: Then why are you upset?
or
Me: So-and-so said I was a "goody-two-shoes".
Dad: Are you a "goody-two-shoes"?
Me: Well, I guess, but they make it sound like it's a bad thing.
Dad: Is it a bad thing?
Me: No.
Dad: Then why are you upset?
Essentially- the point my dad drove home with me was that the truth matters more than others perceptions. There are more complicated examples, but these simple ones bring out the main focus very easily. If someone thinks you are a theif, or a horrible person, etc when in truth you are not, there is no need to react adversely. Getting upset makes the assumption appear to be true.
There is no need to defend yourself, if you've done nothing to warrant a defense. Let others think what they will, and move on. Let your calm and simple statements of the truth speak for themselves. Those who matter will know the kind of person you are and will support you. And those who are just "flapping-their-gums" will eventually leave you alone when they realize they can't get a rise out of you.
-
God plans for the future better than anyone. So exact is His planning that He creates things spiritually first. A lack of longing goes against the admonition of Paul, "... we seek after these things." So, we are told to make our character opposite of God's?
Where in the world do you get the idea that time is immeasurable to God?
Where is it proven that time is bounding? If anything it is liberating and makes more glorious - it is God's work to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. "Bringing to pass" requires the measurement of time and the passage of time which is at the heart of God's glory and work. If anything, time is a vital part of God not the lack of time. There is no "moment" without the passage of time. Moment has no meaning without time. The word "closer" has no meaning without the passage of time because you would have to compare two points in time to use the word "closer".
The idea of time not existing or the lack of passage of time etc is a man made idea, so it is impossible to really answer your question about a man made idea without it being a made up answer. This is not to say that God perceives the passage of time differently than we do; I can somewhat contemplate and understand that, but there still is passage of time.
SS- I think you'd enjoy reading the whole article. :) Gorton explains this far more eloquently than I ever could, and I believe your disagreement probably comes misunderstanding exactly what I was trying to describe. From what you're saying here I'm not exactly disagreeing with you- but feel like you are limiting your thinking to mortality.
Time does exist, but only as part of mortality. God exists outside time. When I said time is immesurable to God, I didn't mean that he can't and doesn't measure time, but that He exists in eternity which is time immeasurable. Or rather- the opposite of time.
Time is finite, and finite things are things of mortality. Eventually, all these things will be done away. "The seventh angel shall sound his trump; and he shall stand forth upon the land and upon the sea, and swear in the name of him who sitteth upon the throne, that there shall be time no longer" (D&C 88:110) When Christ comes again, and we are in His presence and experiencing His joy of the millenial reign, time will be "no longer".
We follow the admonition of Paul now, during mortality, because here we do measure time. Here, there is still joy to be sought. But once we have obtained those things, there is no longer anything to seek. Time is not constant- it is relative, and to someone who exists outside time (in eternity) all things are but an instant. Our "afflictions [mortality] shall be but a small moment". (D&C 121:7)
-
I was reading an article H. Clay Gorton- "There Shall Be Time No Longer", and I found it very thought provoking. He speaks about time being something that is only measured in mortality and because God exists in eternity He can see the expanse of time (past, present, and future) all around Him and all is the present to Him. As we pass from the limitations of the mortal world into eternity, we will likewise surpass the veil and see even as He does- like a person only able to perceive in 2D suddenly having access to all the perception of a 3D world.
Something occured to me though, as I was reading, that Gorton didn't seem to cover. He spoke of the relativity of time and how time seems to fly by when we are engaged in an actvity that requires our fullest attention and brings us joy. Yet when we are suffering or in pain, the time seems to drag on and on because we are focusing on time that is outside our present- a past in which we felt no pain and/or a future in which the pain has gone. And this is where my thought came in:
Perhaps the reason time is immeasurable to God is because He is joy. Meaning- He is fully engaged in the entire work of creation and that work brings Him joy. He has no longing for anything past or future, because He has lost Himself in His work and is experiencing a fullness of joy. So- the closer we draw unto Him and engage in His work, the closer we draw to eternity and pull away from the bounds of time and mortality. Time does not exist when we have joy.
Thoughts?
-
Yeah, my dad and I were both diagnosed with irritable bowel years ago, but now that all this is going on with my dad, it's looking like it's more than that.
I've been making this list of everything that's considered to be a symptom associated with Crohn's and putting down who in my family has it:
Recurring diarrhea- Dad, me, sister, son
Recurring constipation- Dad, me, sister, brother, son
Recurring gas/bloating- Dad, me, sister
Hemroids- Dad, mom, me
Bloody stools- Dad, me
Arthritis/joint pain- Dad, me, son, sister
Psoriasis- me
Colon cancer- great-grandfather on my dad's side
Heartburn- Dad, me, sister, son
Food allergies (dairy/nuts/soy)- brother, son (possibly Dad)
Gluten intolerance- (possibly Dad, possibly son)
Ulcers- Dad
Inflammed intestines- Dad
Gerd- Dad
Weight loss (from excessive diarrhea)- Dad
Anemia- me
Lower back pains- Dad, me
Osteoperosis- nobody
Looking at all of that together, I think my Dad at least definitely has Crohn's. And while it's possible the rest of us just have food allergies and/or irritable bowel, the fact that Crohn's is genetic makes me think we've got it too and just haven't had it bother us as severely as my father.
-
DV = Domestic Violence.
BadWolf- So you are saying that the political/legal fight against gay marriage is having a greater effect on abuse victims than on the gay community?
I'm wondering if this is just a local thing? Because, I have personal experience with DV, and I don't see the push for recognizing a two-parent system as the best way to raise a family causing as big of a problem as you are describing. As far as I can tell, awareness about DV is spreading and greater measures are being taken to ensure the safety of the victims- including the children. Yes, the two-parent system is the best. It is the ideal. But single parenting is better than 2-parents if one of those parents is abusive.
I know the courts differ from state to state in how they handle these cases- and that custody battles can be far more ugly than what I went through since my ex never showed up to contest anything. But I don't see the legal fight against gay marriage having any major effect on this. It is lack of awareness about DV that causes the problems you are describing, and as that awareness spreads throughout different courts, cases get handled differently.
-
One of my dad's tests in the works is to see if he's dairy and gluten intolerant, as well as if he has any other food allergies we've been unaware of. I know my son can't handle dairy and he's already been eating dairy free for the most part- haven't been sticking to it very strictly. I haven't been tested for anything myself, but I try to follow the same diet I give my son as much as I can just so I'm not making things complicated or he accidently has something he's not supposed to if he tries to share with me.
Since my dad's been having such a hard time getting diagnosed and I'm not experiencing anything as severe as he is, I was going to put off seeing a doctor about it for me and just see how the diet change worked out. My son's doctor came right out and said, "I wouldn't worry about that right now, as long as there's no bleeding." Even though we've been having issues with allergies, dairy, constipation, and diarrhea since he was an infant. *sigh* So I'm trying to do a test run and if the diet seems to make any difference at all, I'll try to pursue a diagnosis for both myself and my son.
I know the gluten avoidance is going to be the hardest. My mom has been going through everything and reading all the labels and checking for little "code words" in the ingredients that really mean gluten. Thanks for the info about the oats! I'll pass that on to her, and guess that means I need to cut out oatmeal for breakfast too.
My dad was told to avoid the legumes (and seeds) because of how severe his symptoms have been and because the beans contribute to gass. I forgot- my mom said he's also avoiding corn for the same reason as the legumes.
From what I've been able to understand of Crohn's so far- I'm seeing that it's something that won't ever go away- just kept under control. And I figure if my son and I follow the same diet recommendations my dad gets, we'll be able to keep it under control enough that neither of us eventually faces severe problems with it. At least that's my hope.
-
True Story:
I was driving down I-95, saw the cop from the rise and slowed down to 5 over speed limit (they don't catch those over here). The cop pulled out of his hide-away right infront of me, so I just followed him. Lo and behold, he turns on his lights, pulled to the right lane, slowed down, then went behind me. I was like, "huh?". I looked at my speed and it was 85 (70mph limit). The cop pulled me over and right when I opened the window I accused him of Entrapment! I told him I trusted the cop to know what the speed limit is! He gave me a ticket for driving 79 on a 70. It wasn't as big bucks as 85 but still... He said he was driving 90 and I was still right behind him, so he said I was lucky to not have gotten a 90mph ticket which, in his book, is reckless driving and jail time.
Maybe he was in a hurry to get somewhere but it was one of those situations where he needed to not have his lights on? But then he wouldn't have taken the time to snag you... Yeah. I'd call that entrapment, too. Wonder how many people he snags that way before someone actually refuses to pay the ticket and wins an entrapment charge?
-
Soulsearcher-
I liked the last two papers you provided. :) My only complaint about them though is that I would have liked to see more information behind exactly how the studies were conducted, data analyzed, etc. But that probably comes from me doing and reading so many scientific papers- I want to get into the nitty gritty details to see if I agree with how they tested their hypotheses and came up with their conclusions. And when they say there is a clear difference- how much of a difference? Is it really a scientifically significant difference? I crave the numbers.
Also- the one from Scientific American used a rather small sample. I'd love to see the results of another similar study with a larger number of people involved. -
My father has been dealing with a lot of very severe gastro-intestinal issues that have yet to be diagnosed, but it's looking like it is most probably Crohn's Disease. The doctors haven't really been all that helpful, as they keep doing tests and finding nothing wrong other than the obvious inflammation, diarrhea, and bleeding. They can't figure out the cause and just keep telling my dad what it isn't. The only reason we even have anything to go off of is because my mother is a nurse and did her research and came up with her own "self-diagnosis".
Even if the doctors reach a point where they agree with my mom- there isn't much they can do as Crohn's is still not understood scientifically. The cause is unknown, and there's no way to treat it, cure it, or prevent it. There are medications that can appease the symptoms for a little while, but they always crop back up, and it can eventually develop into cancer. My mom started researching natural remedies and wants to do everything she possibly can to help my father- and putting him on probiotics and using some other herbs meant to help with gastro-intestinal issues has been helpful.
She took my dad to a nutritionist, explained his symptoms and her conclusion that it was probably Crohn's and the nutritionist agreed. The nutritionist then suggested a gluten/dairy/legume/red-meat free diet. Whew. That's a lot of things to cut out. As my mom has been working on making the dietary changes for my father, she's been talking with me about all this, and I've been thinking it is very possible my son and I have this as well. It is genetic, and we both have a lot of the same symptoms as my dad, just much more minor- more annoyances than anything debilitating.
I've decided I'm going to go ahead and make these dietary changes as well. I don't think it will be too difficult. We already eat a lot of fruits, vegetables, and rice. And we already eat very little meat- mostly chicken and fish when we do eat it. I do like my occasional burger or beef roast though- maybe once a month- and I'll miss that. And I will definitely miss milk, cheese, noodles, bread, and nuts. But I'm hoping to see some changes in our health and the prevention of either of us having to go through what my father's going through now.
So- My question is, does anyone else here have any experience with Crohn's Disease or have any suggestions or advice for eating gluten/dairy/legume/red-meat free?
-
God created opposition. Aka- resistance, friction, conflict. Everything has an opposite-
Up vs. down
Forward vs. backward
Push vs. pull
Clean vs. dirty
Light vs. dark
Good vs. evil
All these things would not exist without their opposites, because it is the opposites that give them meaning. They are relative- "considered in relation or in proportion to something else". Without an opposite, without something to relate it to, all these things just wouldn't be. Everything would be the same. There would be no need to even clarify "light" or "dark" because it would all be the same.
So- when God created, he created diversity, difference, opposites. And the greater we move across the spectrum in one direction, so there must also be an equal growth in the opposite direction, keeping all things in balance. Why is this important? Why do we need such diversity? Because you can't have one without the other. You cannot have sweet, if there is no bitter. You cannot have joy, if there is no sorrow. You cannot have healing, if there is no pain.
-
Can you prove the claims of Joseph Smith?
No.
-
Origen of Alexandria says;
"Look at Peter, the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church."
(Homilies on Exodus 5:4) A.D. 249
Tatian The Syrian says;
"Simon Cephas answered and said, (you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God). Jesus answered and said to unto him, (Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." (Diatesseron 23) A.D. 170 - a little over 20 years after the bible was canonized.
Whose words am I gonna believe? You or the ones that were there from the beginning?
Look in Titian's writing..he uses "Cephas" which means "rock". Just as "petra" means rock.
I don't expect you to believe me. I'm simply stating what I believe and how I back up that belief.
I know cephas means rock- hence my example in John 1:42. I was reiterating that the use of symbols pertaining to rocks and stones were in support of Christ being the ultimate foundation of the church.
Alexandria interpreted Matthew 16:18 the same way you and all other Catholics have, so of course quoting him will support your position. You believe him, because he is a well-known historical figure within the Catholic church. Same for Tatian.
However- their words do not constitute scripture, and I don't believe them. I believe they were mistaken in their interpretation.
So I am not convinced of your position, just as you are not convinced of my position.
Hmmm... sounds like this convincing thing isn't really working?
I am most willing to share with you what I believe and why I believe it, but I certainly don't expect to convince you of anything. And you will continue to hit a brick wall if you think you will convince me of anything.
I rely on the spirit to testify to me of truth after I've studied it out in my mind and in my heart. Through this witness, I believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture, just as the Holy Bible is scripture, and I depend on the two together to acertain my interpretations as I study them and seek answers directly from the Lord in prayer.
-
Is there a bench she can sit on in the dressing room? If so, bring something that will distract her by occupying her hands- a favorite toy, book, etc.- and when you are trying on clothes sit her down with it. Then, use positive reinforcement if/when the technique works and give her some kind of reward for her good behavior.
Also- make sure to make dressing room visits short to accomodate her attention span. Only try on one or two things, then go do whatever it is you're going to do to reward her. You can come back to try more stuff on again and repeat the process for greater reinforcement and eventually be able to spend longer amounts of time in the dressing room.
-
That. Is. Awesome!
-
If you see the original post you will see what I asked to be convinced of..
To answer your first question, all thee above.
Scripture tells us a church was established in Matthew 16:18 and then later in chapter 18:17, he talks more about "the church".
1 church, not church(es). That issue doesn't exist until the Protestant reformation in 1517
Can you show evidence to your claim that the BoM predated the New Testament?
Ah, here are some scriptures that actually explain your position.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18)
As a Catholic, I know you interpret this scripture to mean that Christ's church established through Peter, the Catholic church, is HIS church. I can understand where you are coming from and why you believe that.
However- I do not share your belief because I do not interpret this scripture the same way you do. Peter's name comes from the Greek word "petros" which means rock, and the following word in the original scripture (where it says "upon this rock") was "petra" which means bedrock. Thus, Peter was to lead the church which was built on the "bedrock", which was Christ.
Christ used similar symbolic representations with others of His disciples. For example: "And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone" (John 1:42). Many of His prophets and disciplies were representations of Himself in their names and deeds, and we can learn from His use of symbolism.
We can also come to a better understanding of the "building" of His church in 1 Corinthians 3:9-11
"For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
So, HIS church, is a church which is built on the foundation of Christ. And I can assure you that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that church.
"And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall." (Helaman 5:12)
-
Our Lord had to convince his disciples who he was when he rose from the dead. You think if they wouldn't have believed him, he wouldn't have tried to convince him? (John 20:24-29)
Is the "burning in the bosom" anti-mormon because its untrue?
"But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (John 20:24-29)
I keep looking up the scriptures you're providing, and I keep failing to see how they back up your points. Jesus is not convincing Thomas here- he is chastizing him for his lack of faith.
-
See also Acts 1:3
Hypothetical question for you; if I'm an atheist and I ask you if there is a God, what are you going to tell me?
Was Jesus on earth not trying to convince people to believe?
It's our job to convince people to believe in The Lord. It's not by our doing that people become convinced.
Just like if I read the Book of Mormon and pray for that burning in the bosom
"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3)
Still not seeing how anything says it's my job to convince anyone of anything.
In answer to your hypothetical question, I would say "Yes, there is a God."
Of course me saying that doesn't mean the atheist is going to believe it. Is it my job to make him believe? No.
It is my job to bear witness of what I know to be true. To testify. To lead by example.
Will my witness, testimony, and example convince anyone? No.
The Holy Spirit will.
-
What you say reminds me of the words of Sister Reeves in the most recent General Relief Society Meeting:
Dear sisters, our Heavenly Father and our Savior, Jesus Christ, know us and love us. They know when we are in pain or suffering in any way. They do not say, “It’s OK that you’re in pain right now because soon everything is going to be all right. You will be healed, or your husband will find a job, or your wandering child will come back.” They feel the depth of our suffering, and we can feel of Their love and compassion in our suffering.
(Great meeting. If there are sisters reading this who did not watch or listen to the General RS Meeting, you would do well to go watch it today or sometime soon. Some of us brethren find it inspirational, too.)
I watched the General RS meeting, and that's probably why the story of Lazarus came to mind so quickly here. :)
-
"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them" (2 Timothy 3:14)
"But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak" (Hebrews 6:9)
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Romans 14:5)
Umm... I don't see how any of these scriptures say it is our job to convince others to believe....
We are to share, yes. To proclaim the gospel, yes. To bring good tidings, yes. To speak of Christ, preach of Christ, and rejoice in Christ, yes.
But convince people? .... of anything?
That's not our job. That is the job of the Holy Spirit who may use our preaching to speak to another's spirit and testify to them of the truth.
What is your language of love?
in General Discussion
Posted
I thought it was a verb. :)