• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About MrShorty

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Religion

Recent Profile Visitors

3987 profile views
  1. MrShorty

    God and theories of physics

    You may be right. I really have no objection to the possibility. I think the main thing I am objecting to is the certainty behind the statement. I don't think we can state this as true with the kind of certainty that I am reading into this.
  2. MrShorty

    God and theories of physics

    I disagree, I think there is plenty of room for doubt. Even the example of the Atonement, IMO, does not prove beyond any doubt that God must be subject to laws that He did not create. It certainly doesn't prove the converse or opposite or whatever you want to call it. I think, when all is said and done, I find my puny intellect is just unable to even commence to start to begin to want to fathom God's nature, that I find very little that I can say for certain other than God is Good and He is my Father (or maybe it is more appropriate to say They are my Parents, but that is a different rabbit hole).
  3. MrShorty

    God and theories of physics

    I tend to think that we must first come to decide if we believe that God is subject to the laws of physics that we experience, or if God operates above or outside or even creates those laws. If God is above our laws of physics, then I don't think it matters whether or not our understanding of physics can explain what God is doing outside of that. From a recent issue of BYU Studies Quarterly:
  4. MrShorty

    College football fans?

    With bowl season wrapped up for the three Utah teams, I'm really disappointed in BYU and Utah. I felt like both should have won their games, but something got slipped in to their food or something and they fell far short of what I was expecting. Aggies, on the other hand, WAY to GO!!!!! MWC champs and they defeated two PAC-12 teams.
  5. MrShorty

    What does “Eternal Families” mean?

    A couple of thoughts: 1) For those that can get past the SL Tribune sponsorship, the Mormon Land podcast did an interview this week (episode 214) with Nate Ohman about Pres. Woodruff's change to sealing policies in 1894. Bro. Ohman suggested that this change was very significant because of the way it changed how we as Latter-day Saints think of the sealing ordinance and it's eternal implications. Bro Ohman's ideas might shed some light on the OP. 2) As one who leans more and more into my "heresies" (at least, as Elder McConkie saw them), I notice that much of the discussion assumes no progression between kingdoms. As I see more and more of the historical disagreements over this topic, I find myself more and more open to the possibility that those who are not prepared for Celestial glory at the end of life will have the opportunity to grow into Celestial beings in the next life. I know it has come up before, and many in this group are not fond of the idea of progression between kingdoms, but I said it anyway.
  6. MrShorty

    College football fans?

    With only bowls games left to play, it has been a good year for the 3 main football schools here in Utah. BYU gets a 10 win season and goes 5-0 against the Pac-12, plus an invite into the Big 12. Utah started slow, but finished really strong to earn it's first trip to the Rose Bowl (and defeated UofO, a team who was often in the playoff discussion, twice by a combined score of something like 70 to 20. Utah State came out of nowhere to also get a 10 win season, and solidly defeated the Aztecs for its first Mountain West championship. All told, a good year. Can we go 3 and 0 in our bowl games??
  7. MrShorty

    A Pentacostal Reads the BoM

    I can't speak for @marge, but a lot of days I seem to lean more towards universalism, and cases like Marge's are a big reason why. I have no explanation for why the scriptures can be so certain that God will never lie and will always keep His promises and that means everyone (without exception) who checks off the right boxes will get a testimony of the BoM, and, yet, many people do not receive that testimony. Sure we can say that they did not check of all the right boxes in all the right ways, but then I God starts to seem an awful lot like Robert Jordan's Aes Sedai (from Wheel of Time). Aes Sedai are an organization of women in the Wheel of Time universe who are magically bound to be honest -- to never lie and always keep promises. In spite of those magically bound oaths, nobody really trusts the Aes Sedai because they are also so adept at hiding behind half truths and answering exactly the question asked (rather than the intended question) and so on. If someone like marge is honestly seeking (but maybe missing something from the checklist) why does God withhold some kind of testimony from them? It seems to me that, if God were keeping His promise in the most generous way possible, He would overlook minor imperfections in people's methodology and grant them testimonies. However, I am confident that God is good, so, if God is withholding testimonies for seemingly minor reasons, then He must have some reason for withholding testimonies that still allow those who do not receive a testimony to still find their way to salvation and exaltation (perhaps, as estradling said, it is about timing and maybe that even includes receiving testimonies in the next life). Of course, that is a slippery slope that readily slides down to universalism. If so, I'm okay with that. I know many LDS do not like universalism (it seems that this was another of Elder McConkie's influences).
  8. MrShorty

    A Pentacostal Reads the BoM

    @person0 It seems a bit presumptuous (coupled with some hubris, IMO) to assume that your testimony MUST transfer to others or they have obviously done something wrong. I, too, have a testimony of the Book of Mormon from the Holy Ghost, but I'm not entirely certain I agree that my testimony means that ALL others are expected to receive the same testimony. In some ways, I think some of this "all or nothing" thinking is part of why many people leave the Church. They come to look at some of the difficult, contested issues, decide that the Church's position on that issue is not true and, because they believe it is all or nothing as we have been taught, their entire house of cards crashes. I don't fully understand how it all works, but I find myself shying away from some of this all or nothing absolutism that characterized my older faith.
  9. I thought of @prisonchaplain while listening to Rick Bennet's (Gospel Tangents podcast) interview with Dr. Chris Thomas who recently wrote a book about his experience reading the Book of Mormon as a Pentacostal. I thought prisonchaplain and some of you others may enjoy this. I notice prisonchaplain hasn't been on the forum in a while. All's well, I hope??
  10. MrShorty

    Neuro's seitch for fremen fanboys

    No spoilers, no real commentary, but, I guess I'm just hard to please. I give it one thumbs up and one thumbs down.
  11. MrShorty

    BYU confuses LGBT discussion by offering data

    Fascinating! I'm sure there is much more to do to further understand how religion impacts suicidal ideation and such, but this certainly looks like one entry level piece on the subject. Almost certainly not the last word (I think the authors themselves say as much) on the subject. A few non-expert reactions to the opinion piece and the BYU paper: 1) The BYU authors emphasize early on that "significance" in the paper means that they were able to conclude "statistically significant" from their statistical tests. "Significant" does not necessarily say anything about the real world "size" of the effect. In other contexts, I have seen some criticize "high n studies" (where the conclusions are based on a large number of participants -- I don't know if n=86k is considered large n for this kind of work). Because of the large n, the criticism goes, the study has strong statistical power to "see" small differences between groups, but the perceived differences are still very small. At some level, even if the difference between LDS and other religion or no religion is statistically significant, is the difference large enough to have practical meaning? 2) As with anything like this, there is always the "correlation does not mean causation" thing going on. The authors find a statistically significant correlation between checking the LDS box on a form and less suicidal ideation/attempts, but that does not mean that being LDS prevents suicide. I expect that a large part of the future work that wants/needs to be done is trying to understand what factors drive the correlation. 3) I appreciated their attempts to address how disaffiliation might confound the conclusions. I can't say that I understood everything they did, but it does seem like an important thing to include in this analysis. It was somewhat gratifying that, even using their best guesses at disaffiliation numbers, the final conclusion did not change. However, in their discussion of disaffiliation, they also note that, assumptions along the extreme end of their alleged uncertainty limits, could change the conclusions, so their appears to be just enough overall uncertainty to claim, at the outside, that maybe some of the paper's conclusions are because the SHARP data do not include any indication on disaffiliation. On a personal note, perhaps just because of where some of my own thoughts are on the topic, if identifying as LDS is somehow correlated with lower suicide rates, is there some way we as a Church can do something more to discourage disaffiliation? I do not have the expertise to provide any expert opinions, but it seems like a good entry into the discussion. I look forward to more data to help clarify the relationships between the Church and its LGBQ members.
  12. MrShorty


    This thread has ranged all over, so I think it's okay to ask this one. I recently saw that they are releasing a musical "Cyrano" based on the old Cyrano de Bergerac play. From what I understand, this particular musical was released on stage a few years ago (2018?) by Erica Schmidt with the title role going to her husband, Peter Dinklage. The twist (that intrigues me) is that she uses Peter's dwarfism instead of an oversized nose as the physical trait that causes Cyrano to avoid professing his love for Roxanne. Has anyone seen the on-stage play or heard anything good or bad from it? I've seen mixed reviews, leaning positive.
  13. MrShorty

    When philosophy loses its utility

    I'm not an expert in logical fallacies. What I see in your description is a kind of distraction, which, I think, is a Red Herring fallacy. The idea is that the one who wants to argue about existence is using that argument as a "red herring" -- a distraction from the real issue that you want to discuss.
  14. MrShorty

    Should I say something?

    As chorister, I don't know if I would want it brought up or not. It's a very common complaint around the Church, but it doesn't seem to change, so I don't know if bringing it up yet again will really change anything. Of course, I often feel like I am rushing the congregation and/or organist, so maybe I'm seeing this from the other side of the problem -- a fear of going too fast. Having also been the accompanist, sometimes I think the pace is set by the organist/pianist, because that is the position related to music that requires the most skill. If the organist/pianist cannot play any faster, complaining that it is too slow won't help until the accompanist improves their skill level. Unless and until the Church decides to make accompanist a paid position (like other churches) we maybe need to be patient and tolerant of the volunteer musicians we use for this. My feeling -- if you have a good enough relationship with the chorister/organist to gently say something, then say that you, personally, would like to sing some of the hymns at a faster tempo. Then, leave the job of leading/playing the music to those called to the job. If it changes, then good. If the tempo remains slower than you like, accept that they are doing the best they can with the skills and artistic vision they have, and be patient with them.
  15. I'm not sure how seriously to take this. I, for one, certainly hope that we don't stop seeking new knowledge and new understanding. Perhaps you are overly concerned that new knowledge means "constant disruption and change"? Perhaps I am not as swayed by the strong language in the article, but it doesn't seem like a complete rewrite of the prevailing narrative of how the Americas were peopled. The only real change I see is that the previous assumption that people could not have crossed the Bering land bridge until late in the ice ages is wrong. For all intents and purposes, it looks like the main idea that the Americas were populated when people from Asia crossed the Bering land bridge is still intact. Exact timing seems uncertain, but, all in all, not much has changed. Maybe I am making a mole hill out of a mountain, but it certainly does not seem like something from which one should extrapolate that science is bogus and completely unreliable for learning about and understanding the world around us.