MrShorty

Members
  • Posts

    1495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    MrShorty got a reaction from Vort in Zedekiah and Mulek   
    Or, speaking of brother Card, a book...maybe set on a distant planet...with orbiting computers that speak into people's minds...and choose a few to take to another planet. (FTR, my wife dislikes his Harmony series because it feels to her to be too close to plagiarizing the Book of Mormon).
  2. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Vort in Zedekiah and Mulek   
    I thought it was Orson Scott Card who suggested that. Don't bet the ranch on my recollection, though. I have no problem in principle with the idea, but I don't believe it.
    Mulek was surely a young boy when he was taken from Jerusalem, whether he was the Judean dauphin (unlikely) or another son, perhaps even the youngest. I have always imagined his mother and some co-conspirators spiriting him away at night and/or in the confusion of the arrest of Zedekiah. Surely they had some idea what was going to happen and were prepared to some degree for it. Why they chose to flee by sea, how they got to open ocean, whether they were blown across to the New World or were led by the Spirit, or perhaps concocted a harebrained scheme based on ancient legends of another land, is all part of the big question of Mulek's history. It's all romantic speculation, of course, but it could make a great film.
  3. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Just_A_Guy in Zedekiah and Mulek   
    I think it was Nibley who suggested that the “Mulekites” encountered by Mosiah may have actually made up their origin story as a political ploy.  I’m not sure I agree—IIRC “mulek” ties back to some Hebrew cognate implying “son of the king”, or somesuch—but it’s interesting to see how different readers approach the issue.
  4. Like
    MrShorty got a reaction from askandanswer in Zedekiah and Mulek   
    I started the BoM recently, and Nephi mentions King Zedekiah, so I thought I would try to learn a little more about Zedekiah -- especially knowing that one of his sons crosses to the Americas after Lehi. The thing that struck me about Zedekiah is that he was most definitely not an old man. The Bible says that his reign started when he was 21 and lasted only 11 years (so about 32). He had several sons (I could not see anything that said how many or gave an age range). It occurred to me that the oldest of Zedekiah's children could maybe be about 18 (if Zedekiah was 14 when he was born).
    I guess I have always envisioned the Mulekites being led out of Jerusalem by Mulek -- but maybe that is not the case. Mulek would have been young -- at most 18 and that assumes Zedekiah was having children quite early. Nephi was also young, so maybe age doesn't matter. Details are lacking, but it would be easy to see Mulek as being a child, or, maybe even in an act reminiscent of Moses, an infant squirreled away and sent into hiding before Nebuchadnezzar could kill all of Zedekiah's sons.
    Who knows, the scriptural record gives no details. It was just interesting to recognize that Mulek could not have been very old, and maybe was not even the leader of the expedition, and maybe the Mulekites' journey through the wilderness and across the ocean was nothing like the Lehites' journey.
  5. Like
    MrShorty got a reaction from Anddenex in Who called John the Baptist?   
    Let me say up front, that I don't really expect a definitive answer, since it seems that scripture does not say. As I was reading John 1, I was struck by verse 33, where the Baptist mentions "he that sent me to baptize with water" regarding where he learned of the sign of the dove. Whoever gave John the Baptist his calling seemed to anticipate Christ's baptism. Considering the Angel Gabriel's visits to Elizabeth, Zechariah, and Mary, perhaps Gabriel is a candidate. Considering that John is the son of a temple priest, perhaps this calling came through Jewish channels. Or some other source of the calling that has been left to our speculation. I guess that, for whatever reason, I had always seen the Baptist's calling as something that he almost undertook himself, and it was interesting to note that he was sent by someone to perform these baptisms and ultimately to baptize the Son of God and the Savior of the world.
  6. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Vort in Long fasting   
    Most Latter-day Saints have at least attempted to fast for 24 hours, which in LDS tradition means to go without both food and drink (including water) for a 24-hour period. When this kind of a fast is actually done, it typically starts Saturday afternoon with a lunch, ending at e.g. 2:00 pm. The Latter-day Saint then quits eating or drinking until 2:00 pm Sunday, when s/he eats lunch perhaps a few minutes later than normal. Voilà! A 24-hour fast.
    It's actually a very simple fast, as fasts go, and within the capability of literally almost every Latter-day Saint. Now, many Latter-day Saints don't actually fast, or don't fast for 24 hours, because it "feels bad". It makes us feel "sick". We get a "headache". I've shared President Woodruff's quote about that before. Here it is again, in case anyone's interested:
    Too often, I have found myself not participating in a 24-hour fast for one lame reason or another, ranging from "I don't feel well" to "I forgot" to "I need to take this antihistamine" to "my wife will be upset if I don't eat the Saturday night dinner she fixed". Pathetic. One of my goals for this year is to complete (and enjoy) a true 24-hour fast at least once per month on Fast Sunday.
    Truth be told, a 24-hour fast is nothing. Literally, I think the majority of our ancestors would not have considered going without food for a day even to have constituted a true fast. Why not? Because skipping food for a day or two was a common occurrence in people's lives before the modern era. Sure, people got hungry when they didn't eat. But hunger is not starvation. When we say we're "starving", we're using hyperbole, even if most of us don't realize it. If there is one thing we obese Americans do not suffer from, it's starvation. On the contrary, we're overfed. We eat too much and too often.
    For these reasons, I believe that the LDS fast is a precious gift given us by a Father in heaven who knows our particular needs and challenges.
    But this post is not actually about what we might call "religious fasting", that 24-hour period that (usually) includes the first Sunday of the month and entails going without food or drink. People do that (or do not do it) according to their desires and willingness to subject themselves to some discomfort* in return for spiritual and physical benefit. Rather, I'm talking about something I've been referring to as "long fasting", which I believe is much more in line with historical ideas of fasting.
    [*By the way, I dispute the "discomfort" of fasting. I believe that is merely a wrong perception on our part, a perception that can quite easily be changed. Ten or so years ago, I went to take care of my parents for a week, both of whom were convalescing after surgery. I offered my mother a foot rub, which to my surprise she said she had never received before. I told her how wonderful it felt, and started massaging her feet. She said it hurt. I toned down my massage until I was barely rubbing her feet at all. She hated it; it caused her pain. That experience opened my eyes, and I soon came to realize that almost any experience that is new to us will be perceived as uncomfortable. If it's a physical sensation such as a massage, it will feel painful, because we have no experience with the sensation, and our body perceives all new or non-normal sensations as painful. So it is with fasting; it's "painful" to us because we are not used to how it feels. We think our joints feel "achy" because we are not used to the increased sensitivity that fasting brings about; when we are used to it, we realize that our joints aren't achy, they just don't feel the same. Truth be told, it's actually a pleasant, relaxed feeling, once we get used to it. As for the headaches that so commonly accompany a fast, in my experience that is merely a matter of habituation. When I first started taking fasting seriously years ago, I would get headaches, sometimes pretty bad, and even stomach aches (ironically) from fasting. After fasting a small number of times, maybe six or fewer, those symptoms went away. My body realized that fasting was not starvation, adapted to the blood sugar change (or whatever was going on), and I haven't had a headache from fasting since that time.]
    In the waning year of WWII, the US Army did a study on low-calorie (starvation) diets in preparation for what they foresaw as a real possibility of mass starvation in Europe and elsewhere. Thirty-six volunteers were chosen and given a twelve-week "control period", where they were fed 3200 calories per day. This was followed by a 24-week "semi-starvation period", where their calories were cut in half, about 1560 per day. This was followed by a couple of extended "recovery periods". The results of the "semi-starvation" part were sobering,if not exactly shocking. From Wikipedia:
    Compare this to Upton Sinclair's The Fasting Cure (downloadable PDF), written in the early 20th century. Sinclair experienced no starvation at all. He simply quit eating for extended periods, a week or more at a time. (Note that Sinclair drank water; this was a traditional "food fast", not an LDS-style "food and drink fast".) After a couple of days, all feelings of hunger vanished, and he felt fine. He was able to work and continue as normal. Eventually, his hunger returned, at which point he ate again.
    I find this remarkable. Completely giving up eating for a period of time is much healthier, and actually much easier and more comfortable, than going on a calorie-restricted diet. That seems counterintuitive, but maybe it makes good sense; your body might find it easier to shift into a "no-food" state than to be in a constant "food state" and not get enough food. With these and other thoughts on my mind, I have been toying with the idea of "long fasting" for a year or so now.
    Last week, I was fasting for a specific purpose, and decided to stretch that out just a bit to see what would happen. I ate a late dinner Thursday night, then stopped eating on Friday and did a traditional "religious" fast, no food or drink for a day. It went fine, very normal for 24-hour fast. I felt the sensation that, throughout my life, I have identified as "hunger". But it wasn't overwhelming, and frankly it wasn't that hard to ignore. I didn't really get thirsty at all—though note that (1) I did drink a few glasses of water before going to bed on Thursday, so I had "tanked up"; and (2) I live near Seattle, and it's wintertime, so heat and sweaty conditions weren't anything I had to contend with.
    In any case, I got up at the normal time Friday morning, worked a normal day, then spent the evening drywalling my basement—moderate physical activity, not high exertion, but lots of standing, stretching, bending over, picking things up, climbing up and down a ladder, etc. More than just sitting watching TV. Friday night came, and I felt fine, pretty much normal after a regular 24-hour fast. I broke my fast with prayer, but decided to continue food-fasting just to see what might happen. So I drank a glass of water (maybe it was two glasses) and shortly went to bed.
    Saturday morning came, and I felt okay. Not exactly filled with energy, but not bad by any means. It was a busy Saturday in the basement putting up drywall, and that went on more or less all day, interspersed with a few periods (maybe an hour or ninety minutes in total) of checking my email (and the TH forum 😁) and other such things, as well as helping a neighbor with pressure washing. Late Saturday afternoon, after a day of moderate (not strenuous) physical activity, I felt...well, I felt fine. I wasn't really hungry, not in any meaningful sense. My body wanted to eat, but I was not craving food and weak with hunger or anything like that. I could certainly have continued fasting. It was after 5:00 pm, so probably around 44 hours since I had last eaten—less than two days, so not a heroic fast by any means, but longer than a "normal" fast. It was almost certainly the longest period I had ever gone without solid food since infancy, and the longest I had gone without ingesting nutritious food in my entire life.
    And I felt fine. Seriously, no problem. Not really "weak", but relaxed, sort of "in touch" with my body.
    I decided to break my fast at that point for two reasons: First, I had thought my wife and I might be going out to eat (we didn't), and I didn't want to break my fast at a restaurant where I would end up eating like a bird. (Post-fasting meals for me are usually quite small; I can't eat much after fasting before feeling full.) Second, Fast Sunday was to start in a week, and I didn't want to be doing a "long fast" that would end within days of beginning a traditional fast. In addition I wanted to make sure I was in good shape for work on Monday (today); this "long fasting" business is new to me, and I don't want to throw a wrench into the works of my daily life while tinkering with it. So I ate a bowl of Cream of Wheat and drank a can of soda pop. An inglorious end to my first tentative exploration of fasting beyond the traditional 24-hour LDS fast, perhaps, but still a useful and interesting experience. I plan to continue pursuing this effort and see what fruits come of it.
    An interesting side effect: I lost a good three pounds during that short time. I weighed myself a few hours after breaking my fast, and was fully hydrated, so little if any of that three pounds was water-loss weight due to dehydration. The numbers don't really work out for having lost three pounds; a half-pound of fat should give the average man sufficient metabolic energy for a day's living and light labor, so even a two-day fast should not have moved my weight by more than a pound. So I'm not sure what was going on there, but I was three pounds down from my immediate pre-fast weight. That continued even on Sunday evening (last night), when my weight was still the same as post-fasting.
    Anyone else have any experience with what I'm calling "long fasting"? Any other "regular fasting" experiences worth sharing? I put this in the "General discussion" forum instead of the "LDS forum" because it's not specifically about religious fasting, but I'm interested to hear any experiences with fasting that others have to share, religious or otherwise.
  7. Haha
    MrShorty reacted to NightSG in Thanks, anti-vax movement...   
    Tasteless and pale...seems like eating rice would border on cannibalism for engineers.
  8. Like
    MrShorty reacted to NeuroTypical in Gay conversion therapy?   
    Neither parent has green eyes, but one out of their eight kids do, 8% chance that black moths kids will be white, that sort of thing?   That makes sense.  I was thinking the notion was "If your parents were gay, you have a higher chance of being gay yourself", but sounds like that's not the notion.
  9. Like
    MrShorty got a reaction from NeuroTypical in Gay conversion therapy?   
    @NeuroTypical I don't know that no one is trying to address this. One of the great successes of Mendelian genetics was its ability to explain how traits could appear in a children that were absent in either parent (recessive genes). Again, if you are expecting final answers, we don't have them, yet. But, there seem to be many trying to understand how homosexuality could be heritable when neither parent exhibits the trait. It seems widely accepted that homosexuality is not inherited in simple Mendelian dominant/recessive single gene manner. It appears to be more of a complex interaction of genes and some even hypothesize in-utero factors post fertilzation that could contribute. We don't have all the answers, but some of what we can see suggests that, yes, homosexuality can be inherited even when neither parent exhibits the trait.
  10. Like
    MrShorty got a reaction from Maureen in Gay conversion therapy?   
    Yes, this I know. The difficulty is discerning between "base" sexual desires and -- to borrow from Elder Holland -- and "sacramental" sexual desires. Sure some of them are obvious (like desires towards indiscriminant promiscuity), but I also find large gray areas where I am not sure. Couple that with a little bit of cynicism born from prophets and apostles (ancient and modern) who maybe presented their own opinions as God's word, and I find that I am not entirely certain what God has declared to be sin and what man has declared to be sin in the name of God. Given my own difficulties in discernment, I find myself unwilling to tell someone else what they ought to believe God has said. Perhaps someday when I understand all of this better myself, then I will be better able to speak into others' experiences.
  11. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Third Hour in Dear Doubters: You’re Not Damaged Goods   
    A long time ago in a student ward far, far away, my bishop stood at the pulpit and called a few members out of the audience to share their testimony. I relaxed, because no way this Bishop even knew my name and listened as one by one these students shared their beliefs that the Church is true, President Hinckley is a prophet, and they loved their mom and dad. Well okay, maybe not the last part. Sorry, Mom. I remember that everything felt safe. Everything felt normal. That was until the last young man got up and said, “I don’t know the Church is true. I pray every day to know. I hope it is. But that feeling that you’re supposed to get when you know it’s true? I’ve never felt that. I want to believe. There is nothing I want more than to know that God is there and I’m not alone, but I don’t.” I was shocked. Is he allowed to say that? I don’t think this is...
    View the full article
  12. Thanks
    MrShorty reacted to Vort in Gay conversion therapy?   
    True, but that's beside the point. We already know and acknowledge (most of us, anyway) that homosexual behavior is sinful and removes us from God's presence. That is not the issue. Rather, the issue is the experience of the thing from the perspective of the person involved. MrShorty is suggesting that perhaps the experience of being homosexual in a heterosexual society is similar in some senses to the experience of being deaf in a hearing world. I don't read this as an acceptance of homosexuality, but as an effort to understand the nature of the experience from the inside.
  13. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Vort in Gay conversion therapy?   
    This is exactly the attitude of many in the deaf community. It's a whole culture, you see, a beautiful, wonderful culture based on the lack of hearing. So therefore, hearing cannot be particularly good or even important. If I want my children to partake in my wonderful deaf culture, then I need to deafen them so they can be like me.
  14. Like
    MrShorty got a reaction from NeuroTypical in Gay conversion therapy?   
    @prisonchaplain: That might be a good response -- if we are assuming homosexuality is something like an addiction. My own questions and struggles with my sexuality lead me away from seeing my sexuality as an unsatisfiable addiction -- which makes it difficult for me to accept that his sexuality is some kind of addiction. That could just be me.
    What if our sense of sadness or betrayal or whatever we want to call it is more akin to the sadness and betrayal felt by those in the deaf community when someone gets an operation so they can enter the hearing world? What if experiencing same sex attraction is more like being deaf -- where some argue whether it is a disability or just a difference. Where some argue against "person first language" in favor of identifying as deaf. Where some argue that deafness is not a disease in need of "fixing."
    My hopes for him and others in the LGBT community is that they can find peace and happiness. Find, develop, and grow a relationship with God and Christ. And find and grow a relationship with a church. I would like to hope he could find a comfortable place within the LDS Church to be active.
  15. Thanks
    MrShorty reacted to CV75 in Who called John the Baptist?   
    "We learn that he was “ordained by an angel,” when he was eight days of age, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews and to prepare a people for the Lord. We learn also that he was baptized while yet in his childhood (D&C 84:27–28)." https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/john-the-baptist?lang=eng
  16. Thanks
    MrShorty reacted to JohnsonJones in Who called John the Baptist?   
    Who knew his mission and calling...his mother knew his mission and calling. 
    The following is NOT scripture, but is a passage that discusses and LDS view of it...
    John the Baptist a burning and shining light
    and more so
    and finally
     
  17. Like
    MrShorty reacted to unixknight in Would a Latter-day Saint Stay Silent With Trump, Or Recite This Creed With Everyone Else?   
    The mere fact that it's a matter of debate tells me that there's enough variety in points of view that it really doesn't make sense to try to rally people one way or the other.  If what the President did was wrong, it wasn't very egregious.  If it wasn't, it isn't a huge moral stand.
    Either way, this is an utter non-issue.  I'll waste no more ti
  18. Haha
    MrShorty reacted to mordorbund in The Hill Cumorah   
    An art studio in Utah?
  19. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Fether in Stacey Harkey comes out   
    I see that, I just don’t want another voice saying “pray the gay away”.
    We can’t have this idea being the go-to response to people struggling with homosexual tendencies 
  20. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Fether in Stacey Harkey comes out   
    But we don’t decide what God does.
    Im sure he could remove all suffering, mental illness and evil spirits. But he doesn’t. Why would healing homosexual tendencies be any different?
  21. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Zaccheus in The Bible is simply an LDS book   
    Hello. I’m formerly LDS (Utah-raised, mission, temple marriage, etc.) and now a Roman Catholic. I am also a chrismated Eastern Orthodox Christian, though I have returned to communion with the pope in Rome. Both comprise the ancient Catholic Church of the Nicene Creed, along with the Copts, the Syrian Orthodox churches, Armenians, and the Nestorian Church of the East. 
    Anyway, to the OP: a few comments.
    When you say the Bible is an LDS book, which Bible do you mean? The truncated KJV used by LDS and some Protestants? The original KJV that included the deuterocanonicals (Apocrypha)? The Greek Bible (with the Septuagint for the OT) used by Catholic churches of the Byzantine Rite, both those who are and aren’t in communion with Rome? The Syriac Peshitta? The Coptic Bible, whose OT is the Septuagint plus the Book of Enoch? Since you’re LDS, I assume you’re only referring to the Bible in your quad and saying the LDS KJV is an LDS book.
    When you say the Catholic Church took control of the scriptures and regulated them, it sounds like you’re not aware of this variety of Bibles in the Catholic tradition. Which Catholic Church are you referring to? It sounds like you’re referring to the Roman branch only.
    Your essay will benefit from some historical nuance. The various Catholic Churches I’ve mentioned have different Old Testaments, but all share the same New Testament, originally agreed to and canonized by Catholic Bishop representatives from all traditions (Latin, Greek, Syriac, Persian), meeting in a series of regional councils in the 4th century (centuries before the Latin, Roman Catholic branch of Catholicism was the monolithic institution it is today, by the way). When non-Catholics discuss the Apostasy and things like the Catholic Church “controlling the Bible” (or the Crusades, inquisitions, bad popes, indulgences, unmarried priests, the Reformation, etc), many aren’t aware that all of that applies ONLY to the Latin-Rite church, the Roman Catholic Church (out of which ALL Protestants came), which is just one branch of the ancient Catholic Church - the church of the Nicene Creed that established the New Testament canon (e.g., made the decision to put Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in your Bible and exclude the Gospel of Thomas). 
    Regarding the Holy Trinity. Anatess is spot on. Three persons, one ousia, one being, one God. Jesus did not pray to Himself in the garden. He prayed to His Father and our Father. This is all human concepts and language, rooted in matter, time and space, that can only fallibly describe a God who dwells outside/beyond time and space and made matter/time/space out of nothing.
     Regarding the apostasy, Anatess is spot on here, too. It’s a matter of faith. We Catholics use the exact same verses you cite and interpret them differently. After all, the only reason the KJV contains the books it contains is because King James’s Anglican translators stuck with the Roman Catholic canon established centuries before. In short, your essay will only convince those already convinced or those who are cast adrift and seeking.
    just my 2 cents.
     
  22. Like
    MrShorty reacted to The Folk Prophet in 13 C. S. Lewis Proverbs That Are so True They Should Be Canonized   
    I haven't read this article yet (I may get to it), but I will throw out that one of my pet peeves is when people treat C.S. Lewis as if he was a prophet.
  23. Haha
    MrShorty reacted to Vort in Does the Transgender Fish Kobudai Challenge What We Know About Gender?   
    You misspelled "ain't".
  24. Like
    MrShorty reacted to prisonchaplain in Adam and Eve's story   
    I'll use a different Bible account to explain my thinking on this. God used Joseph to save both Egypt and Israel from starvation. Part of Joseph's journey involved time as a slave, and then 10-15 years in prison (labeled as a sex offender, btw). Most Christians of all stripes believe that God used Joseph's hardships to place him where he needed to be to interpret dreams and gain Pharaoh's attention. I wonder though. Joseph received two dreams in which the brothers who despised him were bowing down to him. He could have done like Mary, and treasured these revelations in his heart. Instead, he tells both to his brothers. Was he naïve? Perhaps prideful? Given his father's reaction to the second dream, and again contrasting his actions with Mary's, I suspect Joseph was bragging. "Hey, I'm not only dad's favorite, I'm God's too!" Of course, I cannot prove this, and would not make doctrine out of it. However, I suspect that Joseph did not have to go through all the hardships he did. God could have brought him to Pharaoh without all that slave/jail time. The difficult path was one of his own making (plus, of course, the much greater sinfulness and blame his brothers bore).
    Did Adam & Eve have to disobey God in order for us to gain free will? I suspect not. However, there's no proving my view, and really not much point. They did sin and God knew it was coming. Given God's foreknowledge, it could be argued that the Fall was God's first plan. However, care should be taken along this road. There are too many voices arguing that sinners, and even the Devil himself, are only fulfilling God's purposes, and so bare no personal culpability. That notion I soundly reject. Likewise, without LDS revelations, I am left believing that Adam & Eve flat-out sinned.
    At least we all get to the same conclusion. I have sinned. I sin. I will sin. So, I need Jesus to forgive me "70 X 7," and I need the Holy Spirit to guide me in the path of righteousness, so my life may glorify God, rather than leading many to the wide and easy road to destruction.
  25. Like
    MrShorty reacted to anatess2 in The Bible is simply an LDS book   
    Your challenge is in explaining to everyone - LDS and Trinitarians both - that Divine Nature is exactly synonymous to ousia. 
    For LDS it is.  You're gonna have to explain how it can be that we have God ousia but not God.  It would pose the same challenge as pro-choicers explaining to a pregnant mother how her fetus is human but not a person. 
    For Trinitarians, it is not.  Because, if it is, then right now, right this very minute, we are God.
    (Pro tip:  The divergence is not found in the Holy Bible but in Joseph Smith's First Vision and the restored gospel - something Trinitarians don't accept as true - and is focused on what makes God God.  So the only way you can convince a Trinitarian of the Godhead is through a testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel and nothing else).