mordorbund

Members
  • Content Count

    5760
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Backroads in Excommunications on the Rise.   
    For some reason I envisioned a live band playing the disco guitar (because, of course) that gets quiet for an exuberant sermonist to read 3 Nephi 19:26.
     
    And then the disco guitar cranks up again. 
     
     
    Now that I type it out, I realize it's just Bill Cosby with The Book of Mormon.
     

  2. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Traveler in Fascinating article on the role of women (and men)   
    First I must admit I did not read the entire article - but I plan to.  Second I will put forth some of my ideas about the Adam - Eve saga.
     
    Ideas: 
    I see nothing in any choice or decision made by Adam and Eve that were not part of the decisions and choices we all made in the pre-existence.   Thus I am not sure if I believe that the garden epoch in scripture is not symbolic of something far more reaching in the saga of all mankind.  I do not believe that anyone is “stuck” with a lot in life because something done by individuals (Adam and Eve) to which they would have no input.
     
    Next I think that because of the power of political correctness and some misguided feministic overreaching that almost everybody is ignoring the “elephant in the room”.  I know what some mean in saying men and women are equal.  But the simple and obvious truth is that men and women are not equal.  This is because men and women are different.  Most assume that if we realize that two things are not equal then one must be greater than the other and I simply do not believe this logic applies.  What I believe is that we assume men and women are equal because one is not greater than the other.  That is what I see as a great mistake in the logic of feminism.  Trying to make and prove men and women are equal a foolish exercise in stupidity that in the end will accomplish very little of benefit and cause more problems than what our misguided prejudice can realize. 
     
    I tend to think that men and women are both completely different by themselves and that only together can they be completed.  And that since the whole of their completeness is much greater than the sum of all their parts – it is foolish and stupid to think one is greater than the other.  One without the other is by them self unsustainable and thus an inevitable failure in the long run.  A man that does not honor and respect the role his wife and what she is capable of bringing to their partnership ruins himself and the best of his potential and likewise a woman that despises or does not appreciate and respect the role of her husband ruins herself and the best of her potential.  The one point I agree with the feminists is that in general men have been less appreciative and respectful.  What I disagree with is with any diminishing a man or the role of men by feminists that think they can do whatever a man does – just as well because the two are “equal”.
     
    The final point for now is that the greatest accomplishment of the partnership of men and women is children.  As women assume their role of carrying a child they are vulnerable on many levels and are best served by a responsible father that cares for and provides for the mother and the child’s needs during this time.  In this role women are dependent on men and men are responsible for the pregnant woman.  I also do not believe humanity is best served by large shifts in rolls or in the preparation of individual to their most important roll.  As with many things in life – if one is going to be a wide receiver I do not believe they should put forth a lot of effort in to being a running back.  The team needs both in order to have that winning combination. 
  3. Like
    mordorbund reacted to FunkyTown in The World Cup   
    Yeesh? can you believe the Suarez thing?
     
    WHAT A BUNCH OF BOZOS.
  4. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Just_A_Guy in What would you do if polygamy were reinstituted??   
    FWIW, SS, if you listen to the temple sealing carefully, it doesn't set up a direct sealing between siblings either. Their formal "link" is merely that they are sealed to, and therefore happen to claim eternal blessings via the same individual.
  5. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Just_A_Guy in your brother from the philippines   
    Re-read your letter. Your call is to be a missionary. Your assignment is to serve in Adelaide. Assignments can change.
    I would encourage you to start your service ASAP, even if it's not in the area you first thought you'd be going to. If they are offering you a temporary assignment, I would say "take it".
  6. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Backroads in Earrings   
    I remember that letter! Except is wasn't sister's earrings - it was high priests' ear lobes. They weren't supposed to droop more than an inch below the ear hole.
     
    Pretty sure I got that right.
  7. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Backroads in Laman and Lemuel   
  8. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Anddenex in Garden of Eden as an allegory, historicity of Adam   
    I think there are certain patriarchs who become foundational types for their descendants. In the process of becoming a type, individualistic elements of their stories are abstracted out to emphasize the essential themes their progeny should emulate. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all variations on the theme of the Abrahamic covenant. Abraham receives it in full, and the others get allusions to it via snippets. They experience similar trials. Sarah's trial with Pharaoh is repeated with Abimelech, and then repeated again with Rebekah and Abimelech (really? - fool me once...). Paul takes the abstraction one level further and sees that by emulating Isaac they are truly of the covenant, while those outside the Christian covenant are Ishmaels.
     
    1 Nephi 10 is interesting in this light. 1 Nephi 8 has Lehi sharing the elements of the American tree of life drama. 1 Nephi 11+ has Nephi seeing an expanded version of the same drama. In the extended version, Nephi sees the fate of his posterity for generations, until they meet Christ, and continuing on to when the covenants are extended to them again. Lehi got this too. Reading chapter 10 has Lehi preaching the meaning of the elements, so he clearly sees it the same way. The generations that followed understood the this representation of their tribal leaders as both allegorical and literal. There was indeed a real Nephi and a real Laman. They really did sail over on a boat from the land of Isaiah to the land of their inheritance. As their descendants, the elements of the ancestral life apply to them as well. I think that's why we see Mosiah escaping the land of Nephi (like Lehi did), Zeniff trying to claim a land of inheritance (like Nephi) and Alma ... (etc). Their life was abstracted directly by the Lord in the tree of life vision, and fulfilled down through the generations with those eating of the fruit being Nephi and those rejecting it being Laman (a very literal fulfillment comes in the 4 Nephi apostasy when dissidents voluntarily take the name of Laman).
     
    I think we're seeing the same thing with Adam. His life has set a theme, and many of the personal elements have been abstracted out (although modern revelation has given us more details of the individual - but that also gets abstracted out to teach general principles). He shows us individual fall and redemption. Paul uses his story to show us death and resurrection (via a second Adam). What's more, as with the other cases, his story is not just generic to John Everyman, but also to entire societies - Talmage (in The House of the Lord) sees in Adam's journey a reference to the universal apostasy.
     
    So from where I sit, there's a literal Adam and Eve who were literally tempted by the devil or one of his servants (I think the serpent is not literal, but there's a message there too), transgressed a law (it may have involved a tree, I'm not completely sold one way or the other so both models sit in my brain for now), and had to give an accounting of their actions. From that fallout, they learned of the redemptive power of the Son of God and repented (I think the altars and angels are literal).
     
    What's more, I can see us already starting the process with our own dispensational head. How often do we compare our own conversion stories to Joseph Smith's? He has set the pattern for us for search, ponder, and pray; seek and ye shall find; ask and ye shall receive; knock and it shall be opened unto you; receiving line upon line until you come to a perfect knowledge.
  9. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from scdoyle in Laman and Lemuel   
    From AskGramps.org
  10. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Anddenex in Garden of Eden as an allegory, historicity of Adam   
    I think there are certain patriarchs who become foundational types for their descendants. In the process of becoming a type, individualistic elements of their stories are abstracted out to emphasize the essential themes their progeny should emulate. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all variations on the theme of the Abrahamic covenant. Abraham receives it in full, and the others get allusions to it via snippets. They experience similar trials. Sarah's trial with Pharaoh is repeated with Abimelech, and then repeated again with Rebekah and Abimelech (really? - fool me once...). Paul takes the abstraction one level further and sees that by emulating Isaac they are truly of the covenant, while those outside the Christian covenant are Ishmaels.
     
    1 Nephi 10 is interesting in this light. 1 Nephi 8 has Lehi sharing the elements of the American tree of life drama. 1 Nephi 11+ has Nephi seeing an expanded version of the same drama. In the extended version, Nephi sees the fate of his posterity for generations, until they meet Christ, and continuing on to when the covenants are extended to them again. Lehi got this too. Reading chapter 10 has Lehi preaching the meaning of the elements, so he clearly sees it the same way. The generations that followed understood the this representation of their tribal leaders as both allegorical and literal. There was indeed a real Nephi and a real Laman. They really did sail over on a boat from the land of Isaiah to the land of their inheritance. As their descendants, the elements of the ancestral life apply to them as well. I think that's why we see Mosiah escaping the land of Nephi (like Lehi did), Zeniff trying to claim a land of inheritance (like Nephi) and Alma ... (etc). Their life was abstracted directly by the Lord in the tree of life vision, and fulfilled down through the generations with those eating of the fruit being Nephi and those rejecting it being Laman (a very literal fulfillment comes in the 4 Nephi apostasy when dissidents voluntarily take the name of Laman).
     
    I think we're seeing the same thing with Adam. His life has set a theme, and many of the personal elements have been abstracted out (although modern revelation has given us more details of the individual - but that also gets abstracted out to teach general principles). He shows us individual fall and redemption. Paul uses his story to show us death and resurrection (via a second Adam). What's more, as with the other cases, his story is not just generic to John Everyman, but also to entire societies - Talmage (in The House of the Lord) sees in Adam's journey a reference to the universal apostasy.
     
    So from where I sit, there's a literal Adam and Eve who were literally tempted by the devil or one of his servants (I think the serpent is not literal, but there's a message there too), transgressed a law (it may have involved a tree, I'm not completely sold one way or the other so both models sit in my brain for now), and had to give an accounting of their actions. From that fallout, they learned of the redemptive power of the Son of God and repented (I think the altars and angels are literal).
     
    What's more, I can see us already starting the process with our own dispensational head. How often do we compare our own conversion stories to Joseph Smith's? He has set the pattern for us for search, ponder, and pray; seek and ye shall find; ask and ye shall receive; knock and it shall be opened unto you; receiving line upon line until you come to a perfect knowledge.
  11. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Anddenex in Garden of Eden as an allegory, historicity of Adam   
    I think there are certain patriarchs who become foundational types for their descendants. In the process of becoming a type, individualistic elements of their stories are abstracted out to emphasize the essential themes their progeny should emulate. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all variations on the theme of the Abrahamic covenant. Abraham receives it in full, and the others get allusions to it via snippets. They experience similar trials. Sarah's trial with Pharaoh is repeated with Abimelech, and then repeated again with Rebekah and Abimelech (really? - fool me once...). Paul takes the abstraction one level further and sees that by emulating Isaac they are truly of the covenant, while those outside the Christian covenant are Ishmaels.
     
    1 Nephi 10 is interesting in this light. 1 Nephi 8 has Lehi sharing the elements of the American tree of life drama. 1 Nephi 11+ has Nephi seeing an expanded version of the same drama. In the extended version, Nephi sees the fate of his posterity for generations, until they meet Christ, and continuing on to when the covenants are extended to them again. Lehi got this too. Reading chapter 10 has Lehi preaching the meaning of the elements, so he clearly sees it the same way. The generations that followed understood the this representation of their tribal leaders as both allegorical and literal. There was indeed a real Nephi and a real Laman. They really did sail over on a boat from the land of Isaiah to the land of their inheritance. As their descendants, the elements of the ancestral life apply to them as well. I think that's why we see Mosiah escaping the land of Nephi (like Lehi did), Zeniff trying to claim a land of inheritance (like Nephi) and Alma ... (etc). Their life was abstracted directly by the Lord in the tree of life vision, and fulfilled down through the generations with those eating of the fruit being Nephi and those rejecting it being Laman (a very literal fulfillment comes in the 4 Nephi apostasy when dissidents voluntarily take the name of Laman).
     
    I think we're seeing the same thing with Adam. His life has set a theme, and many of the personal elements have been abstracted out (although modern revelation has given us more details of the individual - but that also gets abstracted out to teach general principles). He shows us individual fall and redemption. Paul uses his story to show us death and resurrection (via a second Adam). What's more, as with the other cases, his story is not just generic to John Everyman, but also to entire societies - Talmage (in The House of the Lord) sees in Adam's journey a reference to the universal apostasy.
     
    So from where I sit, there's a literal Adam and Eve who were literally tempted by the devil or one of his servants (I think the serpent is not literal, but there's a message there too), transgressed a law (it may have involved a tree, I'm not completely sold one way or the other so both models sit in my brain for now), and had to give an accounting of their actions. From that fallout, they learned of the redemptive power of the Son of God and repented (I think the altars and angels are literal).
     
    What's more, I can see us already starting the process with our own dispensational head. How often do we compare our own conversion stories to Joseph Smith's? He has set the pattern for us for search, ponder, and pray; seek and ye shall find; ask and ye shall receive; knock and it shall be opened unto you; receiving line upon line until you come to a perfect knowledge.
  12. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Anddenex in Garden of Eden as an allegory, historicity of Adam   
    I think there are certain patriarchs who become foundational types for their descendants. In the process of becoming a type, individualistic elements of their stories are abstracted out to emphasize the essential themes their progeny should emulate. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all variations on the theme of the Abrahamic covenant. Abraham receives it in full, and the others get allusions to it via snippets. They experience similar trials. Sarah's trial with Pharaoh is repeated with Abimelech, and then repeated again with Rebekah and Abimelech (really? - fool me once...). Paul takes the abstraction one level further and sees that by emulating Isaac they are truly of the covenant, while those outside the Christian covenant are Ishmaels.
     
    1 Nephi 10 is interesting in this light. 1 Nephi 8 has Lehi sharing the elements of the American tree of life drama. 1 Nephi 11+ has Nephi seeing an expanded version of the same drama. In the extended version, Nephi sees the fate of his posterity for generations, until they meet Christ, and continuing on to when the covenants are extended to them again. Lehi got this too. Reading chapter 10 has Lehi preaching the meaning of the elements, so he clearly sees it the same way. The generations that followed understood the this representation of their tribal leaders as both allegorical and literal. There was indeed a real Nephi and a real Laman. They really did sail over on a boat from the land of Isaiah to the land of their inheritance. As their descendants, the elements of the ancestral life apply to them as well. I think that's why we see Mosiah escaping the land of Nephi (like Lehi did), Zeniff trying to claim a land of inheritance (like Nephi) and Alma ... (etc). Their life was abstracted directly by the Lord in the tree of life vision, and fulfilled down through the generations with those eating of the fruit being Nephi and those rejecting it being Laman (a very literal fulfillment comes in the 4 Nephi apostasy when dissidents voluntarily take the name of Laman).
     
    I think we're seeing the same thing with Adam. His life has set a theme, and many of the personal elements have been abstracted out (although modern revelation has given us more details of the individual - but that also gets abstracted out to teach general principles). He shows us individual fall and redemption. Paul uses his story to show us death and resurrection (via a second Adam). What's more, as with the other cases, his story is not just generic to John Everyman, but also to entire societies - Talmage (in The House of the Lord) sees in Adam's journey a reference to the universal apostasy.
     
    So from where I sit, there's a literal Adam and Eve who were literally tempted by the devil or one of his servants (I think the serpent is not literal, but there's a message there too), transgressed a law (it may have involved a tree, I'm not completely sold one way or the other so both models sit in my brain for now), and had to give an accounting of their actions. From that fallout, they learned of the redemptive power of the Son of God and repented (I think the altars and angels are literal).
     
    What's more, I can see us already starting the process with our own dispensational head. How often do we compare our own conversion stories to Joseph Smith's? He has set the pattern for us for search, ponder, and pray; seek and ye shall find; ask and ye shall receive; knock and it shall be opened unto you; receiving line upon line until you come to a perfect knowledge.
  13. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Backroads in Heavenly Mother   
    The Father begat the Son. The Father is not the Son. The Father did not beget the Father, nor the Son beget the Son. Nor did Father, Son, and Spirit beget the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
     
    I can think of only two ways your statement could be accurate:
     
    1. Modalism, which is largely viewed by Christian theologians as misguided in its most innocent form or heresy in its worst.
    2. Your statement is using "God" as an overloaded operator and would be better read "God (the Father) somehow begat [God (the Son)]".
     
    The second is nonsense because it condemns Mormons for the same kind of thinking (which can't be the case in the Brigham Young context). The first isn't viable because that's not what the majority of Trinitarians believe. It can come back into play if it can be shown that while the majority don't believe it today, it was in fact, what Trinitarian Americans believed in the mid- to late 19th century. Which brings us back to Maureen's call for citations.
  14. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from LeKook in Did women ever hold the Priesthood?   
    http://lds.net/forums/topic/54066-did-women-ever-hold-the-priesthood/#entry777367
     
    We've acknowledged that women have been given authority to perform saving ordinances in the temple every bit as binding as though they were performed by a priesthood holder. Why stop there? What is so different about washings and anointings that they can be authorized to perform that ordinance but not baptism?
  15. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from The Folk Prophet in Garden of Eden as an allegory, historicity of Adam   
    Why do we need to keep these ideas exclusive? John, who's gospel is filled with thematic elements (Judas leaves the supper to betray his Master, "and it was night" - cue thunder, lightning) sees the blood, water, and spirit elements of birth and rebirth in the Atonement. He clearly sees it as carrying an allegorical message. Elder Talmage, relying on the testimony of physicians, sees it as a literal elements witnessed at His death that testify to the manner of his death (a broken heart - which leads others to apply their own allegorical teachings to it).
     
    I'm not going to tell you to exclusively sit in either the allegory or literal camp here. I don't think you necessarily have to for other Bible stories.
  16. Like
    mordorbund reacted to classylady in What would you do if polygamy were reinstituted??   
    The Church allows a widower to be sealed to more than one wife. Would that be considered serial polygamy, lol? And divorced couples don't necessarily get their sealing cancelled unless the woman remarries and is sealed to her subsequent husband/s. Even, women are able to be sealed by proxy to all husbands that she has had during her lifetime once she is dead. So, is polygamy still part of the Church?
     
    If polygamy is reinstated, and my husband took another wife, it would be very difficult for me to feel that I'm number one in his life. I would question his devotion to me. Many marriages fail because the wife doesn't feel she is number one in her husband's life. And that is a "need" that most women require in their marriage. And what about the 2nd wife?  How does she feel like she is number one in her husband's life. These are basic needs that women need in a marriage.  A wife needs emotional security just as she needs financial security.
     
    And then of course, there are these questions. What if the husband had a favorite wife? What if he negatively compares one wife over the other? What if finances were strained because of the subsequent wife? How do you have transparency in a marriage when there is more than one wife? How do wives have their privacy if their husband repeats back to the other what is going on with the other wife? And, honesty is required in marriage. Is the husband going to lie if his wife asks questions about what is going on with his relationship with the other wife? How does a husband meet the emotional needs of each wife, especially if the need is exclusivity? Isn't that what marriage is? We promise to be exclusive to one another. I think many men forget how important that is to a woman.
     
    All these questions would come into play with polygamy. In reading my great-grandmother's journals these were questions that were buried. Polygamy was hard. It would still be hard if reinstated today. But, if required it could be done. To quote my great grandmother, who was a second wife, and her mother was a third wife "I am grateful that as a heritage it seemed easy for me to accept and live happily in polygamy as one of my father's numerous posterity. And I leave my testimony as to its power in developing Christian ideals of unselfishness and its marvelous experiencing of live and deep consideration of the feelings of others, which we must all learn if we obtain Eternal Salvation."
  17. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from The Folk Prophet in Read from the pulpit, not most righteous saints saved for our time   
    The quotes are still included in the current online teachers manual for the Old Testament (and, what's more, the video supplement contains the disavowed teaching applied generally (where it's safe I guess) and not specifically).
     
    https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2012-06-2130-foreordained?category=new-testament/acts-revelation&〈=eng&order=chronological
  18. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from The Folk Prophet in Garden of Eden as an allegory, historicity of Adam   
    Why do we need to keep these ideas exclusive? John, who's gospel is filled with thematic elements (Judas leaves the supper to betray his Master, "and it was night" - cue thunder, lightning) sees the blood, water, and spirit elements of birth and rebirth in the Atonement. He clearly sees it as carrying an allegorical message. Elder Talmage, relying on the testimony of physicians, sees it as a literal elements witnessed at His death that testify to the manner of his death (a broken heart - which leads others to apply their own allegorical teachings to it).
     
    I'm not going to tell you to exclusively sit in either the allegory or literal camp here. I don't think you necessarily have to for other Bible stories.
  19. Like
    mordorbund reacted to FunkyTown in The World Cup   
    Living in England, I have to listen to the endless talks of football. It's on TV, the radio, in newsprint. Because of this, I have to support someone.
     
    But picking the wrong team will get you beaten up. So I have learned the best way to win:
     
    Support a team no one likes.
     
    I am very pro-Luxembourg. They have never made it to the World Cup - Never even qualified. Because of this, everyone assumes I am related to someone from Luxembourg. They also have no rivalries because they lose all the time. It is the safest thing ever.
     
    And if you ever have a conversation about it, here is what you need to do pre-emptively:
     
    Say, "Hey! Are you watching the World Cup? What a buncha bozos, huh? Yeesh."
     
    This is a safe thing to say. Either the referees are blind or they hate the other team, or the team they like lost(In which case they're the bozos) or the team they like won(In which case the opposing team were bozos).
     
    Someone, somewhere, was a bozo.
     
    I have never failed with that line.
  20. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Palerider in Lds Avatars   
    Not changing my avatar .....:)
  21. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Backroads in Earrings   
    I remember that letter! Except is wasn't sister's earrings - it was high priests' ear lobes. They weren't supposed to droop more than an inch below the ear hole.
     
    Pretty sure I got that right.
  22. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Latter Days Guy in Lds Avatars   
  23. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Backroads in Meetings Take To Long   
    Ok, so TFP (and anyone else who wants to chime in - but he's been the most vocal against the proposed solutions) - let's suppose you're a really inefficient and (just for kicks and grins) ineffective bishop when it comes to running a ward council. I take my obligations to sustain you seriously, but your meetings are too long and too unnecessary. What can I do to sustain you?
     
    I think letting you continue to waste everyone's time is not really sustaining you. Should I let yo know ahead of time that I have a hard stop 90 minutes after the meeting and walk out? Should I offer to give you training on setting and keeping agendas? Should I just tough it out and find whatever benefit I can? Should I play minesweeper in my head during the official meeting, and coordinate an informal meeting via email that's actually effective?
     
    How do you want me to sustain you?
     
     
    And, as a bonus, here's then Brother Monson sustaining others in the ward council (starts at 15:41):
     

  24. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Suzie in Meetings Take To Long   
    You seem fixated in trying to add your personal interpretation of things, which I guess it's fine as long as you are aware it is just your opinion.
  25. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Backroads in Meetings Take To Long   
    Ok, so TFP (and anyone else who wants to chime in - but he's been the most vocal against the proposed solutions) - let's suppose you're a really inefficient and (just for kicks and grins) ineffective bishop when it comes to running a ward council. I take my obligations to sustain you seriously, but your meetings are too long and too unnecessary. What can I do to sustain you?
     
    I think letting you continue to waste everyone's time is not really sustaining you. Should I let yo know ahead of time that I have a hard stop 90 minutes after the meeting and walk out? Should I offer to give you training on setting and keeping agendas? Should I just tough it out and find whatever benefit I can? Should I play minesweeper in my head during the official meeting, and coordinate an informal meeting via email that's actually effective?
     
    How do you want me to sustain you?
     
     
    And, as a bonus, here's then Brother Monson sustaining others in the ward council (starts at 15:41):