mordorbund

Members
  • Content Count

    5844
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    mordorbund reacted to NeedleinA in Elsewhere in the World   
    Admittedly, I'm shocked to see it that low considering my kid is always editing his next Youtube video - 😉
    Twitter - 0% here.
    Youtube - I use it multiple times a day. It serves as background music at work. Then at home it is my substitute to network television as I can access super niche content like Bootleg Star Wars toys from Poland OR figure out what kind of games Vort likes to play online. Ah...Roblox & Fortnite!

  2. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Jonah in Sharing and learning about personal revelation   
    With scripture.
  3. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Vort in Help from our leaders...   
    Bob, I am sincerely confused. You offer the above quotation from the General Handbook in answer to the question, "Who is this disciple that is so confused about gender identity?" Yet the quotation you cite evinces no confusion about gender identity, but only affirms that some people feel such confusion. It maintains that we should be Christlike to all people, including those who call themselves "transgender". It defines what "transgender" means in this context and declares that the Church takes no position on the causes (not on the morality!) of such identification.
    Do you disagree with any of the above? I don't see how any Saint can disagree. It's all obviously true. You may feel that the Handbook should take more of an openly moralistic stance against transgenderism. But that is a question of communication style, not one of doctrinal explication.
    The last paragraph might be considered problematic. But consider: People are baptized in their imperfections. We have a bar people must meet for baptism, but to be perfectly frank, the bar is not very high (from the perspective of those who are already Saints; from the convert's perspective, the bar is high indeed). We expect people to give themselves over to Christ, to strive to obey him and turn their lives to him. We expect them to cease fornications, lyings, deceivings, and other such unholy activities. In today's Church, we expect them to refrain from certain overt activities that explicitly violate the Word of Wisdom, though this standard is not evenly applied and is relatively recent.
    The point is, we do NOT expect proselytes to live in a perfect manner before they are baptized. We do not expect that they will abandon all beliefs or practices contrary to Church teachings. Even you and I, middle-aged men of long standing in the Church, cannot meet that standard. We meet, perhaps, a temple recommend-holding status, which is certainly a higher standard than that of the baptismal bar, but let's face it, still isn't really all that high. God allows us all sorts of foibles and weaknesses without completely denying us communion with him. He does not condemn us in our sins; he saves us from them.
    So the last paragraph is the judgment of the leaders of Christ's kingdom that acting in a "transgendered" manner is not per se sufficient to deny people the covenant of baptism, including the gift of the Holy Ghost, which may well be the only way these people can ever hope to overcome the "transgenderism" that afflicts them. Yes, they must cease fornications and open lasciviousness and whoredoms and lyings. But it appears that a boy saying that he feels like he's a girl and likes to wear dresses (or a girl saying she feels and wants to dress like a boy) is not in itself sufficient to disqualify a potential convert.
    Is this what you really, fundamentally disagree with? I suspect it is.
    If I am correct, then honestly, I'm not completely without sympathy for your point of view. I, too, am bothered by the creeping (so-called) tolerance we see in society, where any and all manner of perversions are to be accepted—except the horrific perversion of actually naming such things to be perversions. I, too, see such attitudes creeping into the membership of the kingdom of God. I hate to witness such things.
    But here's the catch: I'm not an apostle. It is not my place to steady the ark. Nor is it yours. We are anointed, but not as the leader's in God's kingdom today. Those who have received that anointing are making such decisions carefully and, I believe, under the guidance of the Lord through the influence of his Spirit.
    I have condensed what would have been probably an eight- or ten-post question and response down to the above, in hopes of moving the conversation along. Please let me know if I have understood correctly. The evidence you were trying to offer above boils down to: The apostles say that transgendered people can be baptized, and you don't like that. I think this is a fair summary. Is it? If so, I wonder what your thoughts are on steadying the ark.
  4. Like
    mordorbund reacted to askandanswer in Help from our leaders...   
    From 1,000 years of Book of Mormon history we get a little over 520 pages, some of which was simply taken from Jewish history? You can be sure that after a thousand years of LDS history, if a later historian were to compile the gems of LDS prophetic teachings, we would end up with something far richer, with much greater substance and power than what we get from the Book of Mormon. 
  5. Like
    mordorbund reacted to anatess2 in Help from our leaders...   
    Perspective.
    You talk of yesteryears as if God spoke every week or every year or something.  It's easy to think this when you are reading 4,000 years of history in 4 hours.
  6. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Just_A_Guy in LAPD Budget   
    That’s a fair question in a lot of cases, but in my line of work I send out social workers to execute warrants, fairly routinely.
    They almost always want the cops to go with them, because they are acutely aware that what they do is not mind control.  If the client/perp tells them “no”—they’re not only pretty well stuck, but in many cases they’re dealing with someone who hates *all* authority (cop or otherwise) and they may be about to be assaulted or raped.  “Women who aren’t trained to use swords can still die upon them”, as Tolkien would say.
    And if you make social workers do law-enforcement-type work, they’re going to insist on having backup from an armed cop.  And as long as a cop is there you have a risk of him shooting someone—maybe an amplified risk, since he sees himself as protection for the pretty young social worker six months out of college, and he may well be even more vigilant in protecting her than he would be for himself.
    Every law is backed up by the threat of force, and if we aren’t willing to use force, then we’d better not pass the law.  
  7. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Just_A_Guy in How is the Church doing handling the latest crisis?   
    I think I may agree with your overall point—that the Lord approves of what the Church leadership is doing, but they could be doing a lot more if we, the membership, were living up to our privileges more effectively.
    That said:  I am a little leery of this proposed dichotomy between revelation and inspiration.  Not that I disagree that the Lord manifesta Himself differently on different occasions via personal appearance/audible voice on some occasions, versus the “still small voice” on others; but the idea that the D&C represents all of the former and none of the latter.  
    The textual history of many of the revelations in our current D&C betrays too many edits and re-workings to conclude that *all* of them represent the absolute verbatim voice of God that Joseph Smith transmitted right, the first time, every time.  Moreover, some things in early editions of the D&C contained errors and were later taken out (Lectures on Faith, Article on Marriage).
    Joseph Smith’s own revelatory process seems to have evolved from using the Nephite interpreters, to using a seer stone, to not needing anything at all.  Sometimes those portions of his writings that are canonized turn out to be part of a longer writing that was *not* canonized (D&C 121, for example), or were excepted from sermons whose other portions shouldn’t necessarily be taken at face value (D&C 137).
    In practice, I suspect that most priesthood holders have given blessings where at time they were given very particular language, whereas at other times they were given vague impressions that they were left to articulate into language the best way they knew how (I know I have).
    I think we set ourselves up for disappointment and disillusionment when we conclude either a) that there’s a practical difference between “revelation” and “inspiration”; b) that the former is more authoritative or efficacious than the latter; c) that the former comes to a better class of people than the latter; and/or d) that anything in the canon is the result of the former whereas anything not in the canon is the latter.
    A tangential observation, as pertains to Woodruff:  We need to be really, really careful that we don’t fall into the Snufferist (or, before them, the FLDS) trap of misrepresenting Woodruff or suggesting that the post-Manifesto LDS leadership has been eligible only to receive a second-class form of divine communication.  What Woodruff actually wrote in his journal (on October 35, 1891) was:
    I wish to make the following remarks upon the principle of revelation. Some had thought that revelation had ceased, but this is not the case the Lord is with us and gives us revelation. But I will say for myself that I wish to avoid saying, Thus Saith the Lord, as far as I can when I give the will of the Lord to the people. In the days of Joseph Smith it was "Thus saith the Lord" almost daily until the revelations now embodied in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants had been given. Since that day President Brigham Young, John Taylor and myself have seldom [said] the words "Thus saith the Lord" when giving the word of the Lord to the people. In the 68th Section of the Book of D & C we are informed that when men speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost it is [the] word of the Lord and revelation. I have received a revelation and a commandment from the Lord which I had not revealed to any man which I shall reveal to this assembly and the command of the Lord I shall give to this people which is this: The Lord has revealed to me that there are many in the Church who feel badly tried about the Manifesto and about the testimony of the Presidency and Apostles before the Master in Chancery. The Lord has commanded me to put the following question to the Saints and those who will give attention to it shall have the Holy Ghost to be with them to inspire them to answer that question for the meek, and the Lord has promised that the answer will be to all alike. The question is this: . . . And it continues in kind.  Woodruff is absolutely clear that he did get a post-Manifesto “revelation”; and elsewhere he affirms that the Manifesto itself was his response to what he termed a revelation.  OD-2 also was precipitated by visions.
    Revelation still happens; we just use it differently.  Joseph and Brigham got the revelations, published them, and used them as a basis to guide the Church by fiat—a rather crude process that did what it needed to do for the faithful core of people to whom it was directed, but also resulted in Joseph being killed and Brigham, John and Wilford  spending substantial portions of their ministries on the run.  Later prophets get revelations that set their agenda and direction—but then, rather than saying “I got revelation x and you need to fall in line”, they start building consensus in a way that enables their broader community to get their own revelations affirming the one the prophet already got.  That just might be how you build the nation of prophets Moses yearned for.
    As for whether “kids today” are more righteous than those of a generation or two before:  I dunno.  What does that even mean?  Are they “more righteous” if they’re more susceptible to porn but actually fornicating and aborting less?  If they’re more cruel online, but less violent in-person?  Less hard-working, but also more generous?  Less obedient, but also more loving?  More willing to bend, but less willing to break?  I really don’t know.
    I’m 40.  As a kid I thought my peers in church were pretty on-the-ball, obedience wise; but easily half of them are out of the church now.  Today’s teenagers may do worse than my cohort did—but they could also do a LOT better; and I’m not about to begrudge President Nelson or anyone else who dares to express confidence that they will.
  8. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from unixknight in I never thought Richard Dawkins was stupid.   
    - Earth, Hitler 1938
  9. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from unixknight in Laugh or cry? Shake your head or just bang it?   
    Of course not. He performed with the Muppets.
  10. Haha
  11. Haha
    mordorbund got a reaction from Vort in Triumph In The Midst Of Chaos   
    If Traveler is asked about something classified he'll say "that's not accurate". Got it.
    Alien spaceships are "not accurate". Got it.

  12. Haha
    mordorbund got a reaction from Vort in Triumph In The Midst Of Chaos   
    If Traveler is asked about something classified he'll say "that's not accurate". Got it.
    Alien spaceships are "not accurate". Got it.

  13. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Carborendum in Kneeling Congress   
    I'm gonna need someone to explain to me the rules for cultural appropriation again.
  14. Haha
    mordorbund got a reaction from Vort in Triumph In The Midst Of Chaos   
    If Traveler is asked about something classified he'll say "that's not accurate". Got it.
    Alien spaceships are "not accurate". Got it.

  15. Haha
    mordorbund got a reaction from Vort in Triumph In The Midst Of Chaos   
    If Traveler is asked about something classified he'll say "that's not accurate". Got it.
    Alien spaceships are "not accurate". Got it.

  16. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Carborendum in Kneeling Congress   
    I'm gonna need someone to explain to me the rules for cultural appropriation again.
  17. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Carborendum in Kneeling Congress   
    I'm gonna need someone to explain to me the rules for cultural appropriation again.
  18. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Carborendum in Kneeling Congress   
    I'm gonna need someone to explain to me the rules for cultural appropriation again.
  19. Haha
  20. Like
    mordorbund reacted to prisonchaplain in Carb's Take on Racism   
    I recall efforts, back in the 1990s, at racial reconciliation. One powerful service had the leadership of predominantly white fellowships and denominations washing the feet of leaders from predominantly African-American ones. It was appropriate and seemed Spirit-driven. There was one African-American minister who said something to the effect of, "Very good. Now when will you walk with us to support Affirmative Action, increased welfare, etc.?"
    So, here we are 25 years later. Black Lives Matters Inc. was founded upon the notion that African-Americans are targeted by racist law enforcement for aggressive encounters, including shoot-to-kills.
    25 years ago I wondered if I could be seen as an ally of African-Americans, since I did not support Affirmative Action quotas. Today I wonder the same, since I do not believe law enforcement is systemically racist.
  21. Like
    mordorbund reacted to CV75 in No Talk of Miracles   
    How can you see Elder Oak's counsel applying to the writers of scriptural and other legitimate publications in answering your question? How can you see his counsel and the quote from FairMormon being mutually supportive? How can you see these and your opinion as mutually supportive?
    If you think the writers of scripture were not cautious, then that is a separate issue entirely.
  22. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Vort in Deception, the Spirit, and our bodies   
    Sad if true. Ideally, everyone should derive satisfaction and perhaps even a measure of what our vain and immature society calls "fulfillment" from his or her honest employment. But the woman (or man) who bases her (his) happiness and fulfillment on work is lost. The person who does not put God, family, and home first and highest on his priority list is a fool. If you do not put first things first, in the end it won't matter what you do put first, because you will lose everything. This is exactly as true for women as it is for men.
  23. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Vort in Deception, the Spirit, and our bodies   
    In fact, most Christians didn't believe that last two points were true even in 1964. Many Christians, including most Latter-day Saints, believe a woman's highest duty, honor, and joy is in the home, so they would object to the blatantly slanted "stuck at home" wording.
  24. Like
    mordorbund reacted to beefche in Faked Protests   
    @Carborendum how do you know you didn't get the jobs because you were Asian or LDS? Did they actually tell you that? Because that's against the law and even most companies own guidelines. So, I'm really curious how people know they were denied things based on a protected class.
    In the office I worked in, there was a black lady (good friend of mine) who was a supervisor. We had a newer employee who did good work but it just wasn't working out for him on the team he was on. I spoke with him privately about the issues (I was his coach/mentor) and encouraged him to seek a position on my friend's team. I honestly believed he would be very successful on that team. He prevaricated, never really stating if he didn't want to be on the team or wasn't interested in the position. I spoke with him on at least 3 occasions within a 2 wk or so time period. When I spoke to my friend about it, she said that he didn't want to be on her team because she was black. I was absolutely shocked. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING in my conversation with him indicated that he had an issue with ANYONE on that team. He kept talking about the work and if he would be capable of it, he liked what he was doing, etc. Because she was my friend, I told her that I thought she was wrong. And I asked her what was it that he did to make her think that? She said, she just knows because it's her experience as a black woman. I asked pertinent questions to figure out if he said or even looked at her in a questionable manner. Nope, just that he put off some kind of vibe or energy or something that as a black woman she had experienced before. Well, about a week later, he turned in his notice. He found a job that paid better and was closer to his home. So, that energy or vibe? Yeah, nothing more than he didn't want to give his hand away about getting a new job. When I said something to my friend about it, she just shrugged and insisted that there was still some amount of reluctance on his part due to her race. 
    This story reminds me that we seem to assume so much about others without any real evidence. I remember once being in Sunday School and having to leave the meeting a little early for a calling I had. The next Sunday, the teacher approached me and apologized for offending me. I had no idea what he was talking about. He said he was talking about single people in the church during that class and I ended up walking away. He assumed he had offended me since I was an older than normal single woman. Well, he forced me to admit that I wasn't even paying attention to his lesson and that in fact, my mind was on what I needed to do that prompted me to leave early. 
    I'm not denying that racism exists. Of course it does. And it exists in every country, every culture, every community. It will never go away until our Lord returns. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to overcome it, but I just wonder how much is assumed when the evidence isn't there. 
  25. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Carborendum in Simple common-sense physics problem   
    The panel is 3' tall and 3' wide (even wider when the doors are open). Why not have the user face the sun but block out the sun with the box?