MrShorty

Members
  • Content Count

    1268
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Jane_Doe in Question on "Faith Crisis"   
    I get some (a lot of) people are polarizing.  
    It really annoys me.  REALLY annoys me.  As I stated earlier, I have no problem acknowledging that folks are imperfect humans.  
    I also don't like the term "Cafeteria Mormon", mostly due to all of the negative associations I've heard with it.  
    Believe what you do believe, listening to Christ and walking with Him (or at least trying to).  That's the most anyone can do.  
     
  2. Like
    MrShorty reacted to NeuroTypical in Pope Appears to Endorse Same-Sex Civil Unions in New Documentary   
    Catholic poster on another board puts it this way:
    As I hear news about Popes, for decades, I've heard similar things from Catholics after this or that news story gets everyone all excited.
  3. Like
    MrShorty got a reaction from NeuroTypical in Question on "Faith Crisis"   
    As one who judges himself in the middle of a faith crisis, here are some things I see through my glass darkly:
    1) As with so many things today, it seems so polarized. The shrillest anti voices have nothing good to say about the Church, and the loudest pro voices have nothing bad to say. Here in a middle place, where it seems obvious that the Church has made errors but also contains much that is good, it feels awful lonely. It seems difficult to find people and communities to interact with that are comfortable discussing the good and the bad.
    2) Related, there is a predominant "all or nothing" attitude. Many in the Church have long said something like it is all true or it is all fraud. Then the antis grab onto that, demonstrate one undeniable flaw or error in the all or nothing house of cards and claim that the whole thing comes crashing down. I find myself leaning into a "cafeteria Mormon" space, but that space tends to be maligned from both sides, and, again, you feel lonely. It's nice when you find spaces where people are talking about the things they choose to accept and the things they choose to reject from the Church -- that affirm that one can accept and reject pieces without needing to accept or reject the whole kit and kaboodle.
    3) Also related is the frequent fear from the orthodox of "wolves in sheep's clothing". Of course, the antis are fond of calling the faithful mindless sheep. I know that the watchmen on the tower need to be (as Alistair Moody would say) constantly vigilant, but it is sometimes difficult to carve out a space in the Church for yourself when you feel like everyone is suspiciously watching you ready to cast you out as a wolf. It seems like it would help if there were spaces in the Church that were more comfortable with my questions and heresies rather than constantly suspicious of them.
    My epistemology, soteriology, Christology, and such are strongly LDS, so I am most comfortable in LDS spaces. But the things that feel wrong to me can make those LDS spaces uncomfortable as well. How the Church deals with the comfortable and the uncomfortable will impact how I move forward.
  4. Like
    MrShorty got a reaction from NeuroTypical in Question on "Faith Crisis"   
    As one who judges himself in the middle of a faith crisis, here are some things I see through my glass darkly:
    1) As with so many things today, it seems so polarized. The shrillest anti voices have nothing good to say about the Church, and the loudest pro voices have nothing bad to say. Here in a middle place, where it seems obvious that the Church has made errors but also contains much that is good, it feels awful lonely. It seems difficult to find people and communities to interact with that are comfortable discussing the good and the bad.
    2) Related, there is a predominant "all or nothing" attitude. Many in the Church have long said something like it is all true or it is all fraud. Then the antis grab onto that, demonstrate one undeniable flaw or error in the all or nothing house of cards and claim that the whole thing comes crashing down. I find myself leaning into a "cafeteria Mormon" space, but that space tends to be maligned from both sides, and, again, you feel lonely. It's nice when you find spaces where people are talking about the things they choose to accept and the things they choose to reject from the Church -- that affirm that one can accept and reject pieces without needing to accept or reject the whole kit and kaboodle.
    3) Also related is the frequent fear from the orthodox of "wolves in sheep's clothing". Of course, the antis are fond of calling the faithful mindless sheep. I know that the watchmen on the tower need to be (as Alistair Moody would say) constantly vigilant, but it is sometimes difficult to carve out a space in the Church for yourself when you feel like everyone is suspiciously watching you ready to cast you out as a wolf. It seems like it would help if there were spaces in the Church that were more comfortable with my questions and heresies rather than constantly suspicious of them.
    My epistemology, soteriology, Christology, and such are strongly LDS, so I am most comfortable in LDS spaces. But the things that feel wrong to me can make those LDS spaces uncomfortable as well. How the Church deals with the comfortable and the uncomfortable will impact how I move forward.
  5. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Just_A_Guy in Question on "Faith Crisis"   
    I thought like you do when I was younger, and when marriage and career and calling and kids and (increasingly) woodworking were far less of a burden on my time.  I believed—and still believe—that the vast majority of anti-type accusations and arguments have perfectly valid explanations, and I didn’t mind spending the time it would take to get to the bottom of things.  Plus, I’m a history nerd; and (if I’m perfectly honest) it also feeds my ego to know things that most other people don’t know.  
    But, once I “open the door” to an issue, it tends to gnaw at me for hours/days/weeks until I can work out a solution; and I find myself less willing to get into that sort of thing just because I no longer have that kind of time.  So I’m probably not as open-minded as I once was; but it’s less a matter of protecting my “delicate” testimony, than of me protecting my increasingly scarce time and productivity.
    I am also getting a better understanding of just how imperfectly the written record really conveys the full scope of what was going on in the early Church, and I am getting more and more disgusted with the willingness of historians—both critical and even, increasingly, apologetic—to “fill in gaps” and make assertions for the sake of supporting modern political/social agendas that can be neither supported nor debunked by the historical record.
  6. Like
    MrShorty reacted to prisonchaplain in Are members in your area: Awake or Asleep?   
    Any mention of the John Birch Society gets immediate eye-rolls from many. The accusation is that they are quick to condemn as Communist those they disagree with. Perhaps they would be accused of being a right-wing version of cancel culture. I hunger for civility, a return to intelligent public debate, and an embrace on both sides of the aisle to the concept of "loyal opposition." We're Americans. We love our country. We disagree on how best to improve society.
  7. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Just_A_Guy in Heavenly Parents   
    I would encourage folks interested in the topic to read Terryl Givens’s Wrestling the Angel, especially pp. 153-163.  It’s far too long for me to quote here, but Givens traces the history and distinction between the ideas of spirits being “begotten“ by God versus being “adopted” by God.  Joseph Smith himself made statements (and provided canonized revelations) supporting both views, as have a number of church leaders who I daresay were both smarter and more inspired than any of us.  I’d feel pretty uncomfortable telling folks on either side of the discussion that their position is “preposterous”.
  8. Like
    MrShorty reacted to NeuroTypical in Conference October 3-4, 2020   
    I can certainly appreciate your perspective and firsthand experience, dahlia.  (And welcome back btw! )   Of course I believe racism exists.  My father personally witnessed the segregated busses in Chicago, with a movable sign that said "no negroes beyond this point".  He personally witnessed a couple of idiot white college kids get on the empty bus, and laughingly move the sign back a few rows, and then laughed when the black lady had to move back.   He was also very much a product of his greatest-generation culture, and I grew up hearing his distrust and opposition to black soldiers in WWII.
     
    True enough.  There is enough crap going on in the world, even pre-covid, that I do not spend time looking for examples of this or that problem or bad behavior.  (Other than online, where that's basically my go-to behavior.)    I'm a massive fan of a high bar when it comes to judging others' actions as this or that.  For decades I've aligned myself with Elder Oaks' 1999 Judge Not and Judging talk, which basically lays out seven hurdles that must all be passed before anyone should say something like "I just witnessed racism".   When moving through my day, I'll look for threats to my family's safety.  I don't look for racism.    So, from that lens:
     
    Ok.  I've never seen it personally.  I cannot hope to truthfully claim "I have personally witnesed redlining against this or that minority".  To do so, would be bearing false witness against my neighbor.
     
    Ok.  I've only seen it personally once or twice in the past.  I can not hope to truthfully claim "I have personally witnessed lots of times when people shot nasty looks at black folks coming into this or that establishment"  Or anything like it.  To do so, would be bearing false witness against my neighbor.
     
    My life is a never-ending series of interactions with my fellow humans, most of whom fail in at least one identifiable way during the interaction.  For a guy who has perfected the art of being a snarky teenager, I can always find something offensive, objectionable, wrong, or stupid in tone of voice, body language, facial expression, word choice, driving behavior, you name it.  I simply do not know enough about the individuals involved to have a hope in heck of making a righteous judgment about why they're acting the way they do.  It would be unrighteous of me to ascribe this or that motivation to anyone, in 99.9% of my daily interactions.  
     
    Totally agree.  It's why I said "other than viewing media, and viewing crap on the internet, I pretty much never see racism."  I know umpteen left-of-center people who exhibit this behavior online.  I've seen umpteen videos, especially in 2020, demonstrating this behavior.   But on the rare times I've been around a leftie personally, and we've talked issues, I've never personally witnessed this behavior.
     
    Again, I'm absolutely certain racism exists.  Every single minority I've ever spoken to about the subject, without exception, have a list of valid firsthand experiences they can tell me.  Again, in my small handful of personal interactions with this or that minority person, I've never personally witnessed it.  
     
  9. Like
    MrShorty reacted to prisonchaplain in The Fall - Blessings or Punishments?   
    Institution corruption? Institutional racism? Hmmm. Yes, it happened--at least in the view of non-Catholic Christians. And, it happens. The Salvation Army started because the uptown Methodists struggled too much with accepting the redeemed/recovering alcoholics that were being brought into their churches. Pentecostal churches and denominations formed because the churches of the early 20th century weren't having that kind of religion. Many young ministers that grew up in denominations choose to plant non-denominational churches so they can make changes more quickly, without the impediments that church governance can bring.
    Still--I'm conservative, and so slow to cry corruption. Jesus was the last religious revolutionary I want to celebrate. Even Martin Luther was an unfortunate necessity. And, though my Pentecostal forefathers were loathe to form denominations (since they had booted them all out), it is amazing how quickly we formed our own "cooperative fellowships." 🙂
  10. Like
    MrShorty reacted to dahlia in Conference October 3-4, 2020   
    I don't want to write a whole book here, but if this is really the case, you aren't looking. I'm old enough that my family couldn't eat inside a DC restaurant, couldn't try on clothes at the better department stores, and couldn't buy a house where we wanted, because of red-lining. Have things changed? Yes, of course. But fast forward 20 years or so, I'm in an inter-racial marriage, and was told there were still places in town that would not welcome a mixed couple. I'm a black woman with a PhD and I still have to straighten out white people when they talk to me as if I just stepped off the plantation. The bar is set very low for blacks, especially by liberals who have a savior complex and whose lives only have meaning if blacks are perpetually stupid, unemployed, and criminal. I won't even go into the experiences of dark skinned blacks I've met over the years , whose lived experiences were more difficult than mine as a mixed race 'high yellow' type, as they used to say.
    I've been fortunate to live in very open places like Seattle and Ann Arbor. I've been to beautiful Colorado a number of times. Racism is not my normal daily experience. That doesn't mean it's not there.
  11. Like
    MrShorty reacted to prisonchaplain in The Fall - Blessings or Punishments?   
    This could turn into a discussion about history and interpretation. However, given the church doctrine of the Great Apostasy, suffice to say that the question of how much the Holy Spirit guided a broken, sin-filled humanity (yes, including church leadership) is something we would answer based on whether we accept that teaching or not. No Protestant, and very few Catholics, would argue that the post-apostolic bishops and cardinals were without sin. Very few deny that some terrible actions were carried out in the name of God. Yet, just as we oppose those who want to define our nation (USA) based primarily on slavery and racial/gender oppression, so we traditionalists would reject church history interpretations that focused primarily on the sins of leadership.
  12. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Just_A_Guy in The Fall - Blessings or Punishments?   
    One of the difficulties Latter-day Saints have in this sort of discussion is that we have more information than what is in the scripture record—but it comes from the temple endowment liturgy and thus we generally don’t talk about it, even with each other.  There have also been statements by Church leaders that seek to “fill in the gaps” and excuse Adam and/or Eve to some degree, but many of those statements don’t perfectly align with either our scripture or our liturgy (for example, the idea that God wasn’t really *forbidding* them from taking the fruit, but just giving them a choice and earning them they’d have to deal with the consequences, sounds lovely—but it just isn’t what the scriptures say). 
    Without talking about why I believe what I believe, I will simply offer my interpretation of the combined sources and some inferences based thereon—which are mine alone, and certainly not church doctrine; but which may be useful as giving an idea about how one Mormon interprets all of this:
    —God left Adam and Eve in the garden with a fruit He always intended for them to take eventually—but also with instructions to not take the fruit at that time, as well as a promise that He would return to provide further instruction.  I rather suspect that, given enough time and instruction, God would have removed His prohibition on their partaking the fruit and at least left the matter to their discretion, if not instructing them outright to go ahead and partake.  
    —Adam and Eve were given a pattern for marriage in the garden that represented companionship, equality, mutual aid, and mutual respect.  It was made clear to them that neither was supposed to be alone.
    —In this tale, Satan is making a play for Adam’s and Eve’s allegiance in the garden; ingratiating himself with them by offering them power and knowledge that their Father had been (unfairly, as Satan would flatteringly imply!) denying them.  Adam resisted, but Eve fell for it—hook, line, and sinker.  Her pro forma objection that “God told me not to!” evaporated when she concluded that taking the fruit could put her on par with God Himself.
    —Adam and Eve had initially failed to live up to the companionate model of marriage that they had been given.  Adam, knowing the serpent was loose in the garden, left Eve to face it alone without giving her any kind of warning.  For her part, Eve immediately and unilaterally made a choice that had deep ramifications for her marriage.  Adam disengaged; Eve over-engaged.  Eve then went back to Adam (per Satan’s instruction) and presented the “choice“ as a done deal, exploiting the fact that she had Adam over a barrel:  Adam knew Eve would have to leave; but he also knew the two of them had been commanded to stay together, and (I surmise) he understood that his own neglect of his wife had fed into the current situation.  Eve had been deceived when she took the fruit and was (briefly) in real risk of throwing her lot in with the serpent; but Adam never was (2 Tim 2:24)—his partaking the fruit was a deliberate choice to honor God and atone for his own mistake by staying with the partner God had given him, even though it meant leaving paradise.
    —The precise verbiage of the covenants we make/made in the endowment and in the sealing, to some degree are in memorial of these stories and principles.  Children of God have an obligation to be perfectly obedient, and show patience with divine commandments whose rationales we don’t always understand.  Adam and his sons are given a special commission—a priesthood, one may call it—to watch over their loved ones and provide them with the knowledge, support, and warnings necessary so that they don’t fall into sin through ignorance.  Eve and her daughters covenant to avoid unilateral actions that would bind their spouses into servitude against those spouses’ wishes.  Adam’s covenant leads him to engage and serve more than he was naturally inclined to do; Eve’s covenant helps her resist her natural urge to do everything herself and, instead, give the relationship enough space for a true partnership to develop.  Acting together, the endowment and sealing ceremony give both marital partners a charge to be supportive, communicative, deferential, empathetic, and physically and emotionally available towards their spouses.
  13. Like
    MrShorty reacted to prisonchaplain in Greater unity between Latter day Saints and Pentecostals ....   
    I've heard of Alpha, and just visited to see who is endorsing it. When you have Rick Warren, Joyce Meyer, and dignitaries from mainline churches (including Catholic) approving, that's a good sign. As I understand it, one goal is to sift out what is basic or essential to Christianity.  While that's a worthy endeavor, the goal of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to promote missing truths. The church's prophets have some distinct insights not shared by the rest of us. So, while both goals are worthy--striving to sift out non-essentials vs. helping God-worshippers to capture missing truths--I wonder if those two impulses can work simultaneously. My guess is that most LDS (I would be this way if I were a member) would want very much to proclaim, "This  is great, but I know some really great truths that everyone here would be so blessed to receive . . . "
  14. Like
    MrShorty reacted to prisonchaplain in Greater unity between Latter day Saints and Pentecostals ....   
    I know I may be blowing up the direction of this string, but, based on the title, two thoughts come to mind.
    1. Yes, we can unite for particular causes. I've mentioned before that Rev. Jerry Falwell (Sr.) embraced LDS participation in his Moral Majority. It is easy to imagine Pentecostals, LDS, and perhaps even other faith communities finding common cause for religious liberty and social-moral efforts.
    2. In terms of actual religious unity, I suspect that we can learn to be more civil, more respectful, more open to each other. We can stop with name-calling, and we can each ask the worst of our faith communities to cease with inappropriate opposition tactics and inflammatory attacks (and yes, Evangelicals--including Pentecostals--bare the greater guilt, probably by far). However, our doctrines remain very distinct, so I am not sure how much spiritual unity--other than mutual kindness and goodness--we can expect.
  15. Like
    MrShorty reacted to NeuroTypical in Timelapse of the Future - Very interesting video I found   
    I usually don't bother speculating about the hereafter, but the scenario is so science-fiction-ey, that I'll make an exception this time.
    I want (in whatever form my eventual conscious self takes) to be able to experience time in ways similar to how this video does it.  I wanna see stars die and grow cold, and fall into black holes, and stuff.  
  16. Haha
    MrShorty reacted to mordorbund in Timelapse of the Future - Very interesting video I found   
    Aaaaaaand just like that NT became a Star Trek villain.
  17. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Vort in Timelapse of the Future - Very interesting video I found   
    A thought-inspiring video. Here's my reaction.
    In the time before astrophysics was really a thing, scientists believed that the universe had existed forever, in more or less the same state we see it today. This was the so-called Steady State Theory (or Model). Edwin Hubble had demonstrated the very weird idea that the universe itself was expanding, so the Steady State Model accounted for this by saying that the average density stayed the same because matter was constantly being created from, apparently, nothing at all.
    (By the way, I believe it was this particular idea that Joseph Smith was responding to when he revealed that the elements are eternal, not "created" ex nihilo and not destroyed into nothingness. The model that replaced Steady State, at first rejected by both scientists and religionists alike and mockingly called "Big Bang", is the one most astrophysicists today accept. I personally think that it fits in much better with Christian—at least LDS Christian—doctrine than does the Steady State Model.)
    The video that @Fether linked in the OP suffers from exactly this same myopic view. (Thanks, President Nelson!) It assumes a sort of "steady state", in that what we see happening around us at this moment reflects what will inevitably happen in the vastly distant future. Like VASTLY distant. Like so much so that the entire life of the universe from its inception ("big bang") until  now, roughly 13.7 thousand million years, accounts for 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the time shown. If the age of the universe were represented by the width of a proton, this video purports to represent a time period represented by 100,000 times the width of the entire present universe itself.
    And therein lies the problem. We have no way to confirm our extrapolation of current observations and ideas through such a fantastically long time scale. Indeed, the video is, at best, conjecture. I see it as more a nihilistic fantasy. I admit I have nothing better to offer, cosmologically speaking. But that is the purpose of religion, to infuse purpose and relationship into a universe of things. Cosmology says nothing about purpose.
    Remember, we are here in proton-neutron-electron-based bodies exactly because we wanted the further progression that such a type of matter offers us. By taking upon ourselves bodies of such elements, we render ourselves capable of interacting with, influencing, and building things out of that same matter. Based on that idea alone, I reject the nihilistic take of the video that things will simply keep going on for literally unimaginable periods of time, growing ever dimmer and more entropic until...well, never, because (as the video states) time will have lost meaning.
    Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants tells of a time, much closer than 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years away, when "Satan is bound and time is no longer". That's a future I can look forward to.
  18. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Vort in Heavenly Parents   
    I agree with the above, but there's more to it than that. Most speculation is garbage. When speculation gets treated as actual Church doctrine in the minds of participants or readers, then not only do we run the danger of casting pearls before swine, but we run the much bigger (and IMO more damaging) risk of people thinking that the Restored Church actually believes and teaches the nonsense being discussed.
  19. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Vort in Heavenly Parents   
    When I think of the so-called lurkers who peruse this site, both LDS and non-LDS, I sometimes think that some of the speculative posts by the Saints are more damaging than the trolls by dedicated antiMormons.
  20. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Vort in The Fall - Blessings or Punishments?   
    I honestly don't know what "official Church doctrine" even means, besides what the scriptures teach and what the prophets have revealed. It is certainly the common and popular belief in the Church, apparently shared by our current Church president and prophet, that Eve is to be lauded for her decision to partake of the forbidden fruit.
    It is my considered opinion that we do not know what constituted "the fruit of knowledge of good and evil". We have multiple instances of prophetic insistence that it does not refer to sex. I find this interesting, because the whole setting and feel of the tale—including the explicit LDS doctrine that Eve could not conceive in the garden of Eden—point to the sexual act as the "forbidden fruit" that provides "knowledge of good and evil" and makes one "as gods [i.e. able to create life], knowing good and evil." Consider that the old Hebrew idiom "to know one's wife" refers to sex. Yet that is apparently not what the Biblical account refers to, at least in LDS understanding.
    So what does it mean? Was there a literal tree made of living wood growing in a literal garden in the land of Eden that produced a literal fruit that God commanded Adam and Eve literally not to eat? I mean, that's possible, but somehow that doesn't feel right to me. If we discount the literal tree-literal fruit idea and also discount the possibility of the forbidden fruit being sex, then what we're left with is a symbolic tale, possibly figurative, possibly parabolic, and certainly meaningful, but not immediately understandable to the modern western mind.
    At that point, our supposition and speculation and theorizing into the meaning of the story of the forbidden fruit becomes opaque. We need to depend on the Spirit to tell us what it means, which is actually a very good thing, because that's what we would have to do anyway. And what the Spirit has indicated to me and many others is that the story is meant to give us some idea of our relationship to God, that our very nature of mortality makes us somehow cursed or indebted or in some other way obligated to the Lord.
    I don't understand very well larger Christianity's condemnation of Adam and Eve as wicked people whose unspeakably awful act condemned us all to a hellish existence. Even the abbreviated Biblical account we have makes it clear that God dealt mercifully with Adam and Eve after casting them out of the land of Eden.
  21. Like
    MrShorty reacted to estradling75 in What happened to MormonGator?   
    The polarization that we see the country has undergone is being felt here.  This forum is for the Church of Christ's restored Gospel.  And all are welcome here as long as respect that.
    A large part of the Church membership (or at least the membership represented here) tends to have the same political leanings.  This leads those that feel differently to feel like they are second class citizens.  It does not help that we are all flawed and are not as Christ-like as we should be.
     
  22. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Traveler in The Fall - Blessings or Punishments?   
    It is my opinion that all questions concerning G-d's will and pleasure concerning the fall - especially among traditional Christians is quite disturbing.  Here are some reasons why:
    1. Did Satan outsmart G-d and ruin his initial plan for mankind?
    2. According to scripture; Eve (the first to partake of the fruit) said that she was beguiled.  If this is accurate then her partaking of the fruit was NOT!!! a matter of will or agency expression by Eve.  Rather it is a matter of being unprepared to make a choice of will and agency - Whose fault is that????
    3. Generally it is thought that because of the "Mistakes" of Adam and Eve (the parents of mankind) that all their children were brought to suffer through no fault of their own.  There is no honest way to mitigate any punishment applied to the children because of the transgressions of the parents.  How can this be according to the will and pleasure of G-d?  Let alone an act of agency on behalf of the children.  How can we say this is the plan of an all knowing and all powerful being - the will and pleasure of G-d to allow the children to suffer the wrongs (transgressions) of their parents?
    4. Does G-d know the future?  Why would he allow Eve to be beguiled?  Why didn't G-d warn Eve about Satan?  He warned her and Adam about the fruit of the Tree?  Now we are warned about Satan and his tricks and temptations - why was there no such warning before the fall?
    5. Why are there so many unanswered questions about the fall? 
    To me the answer to all of the above is that we are not in a condition for have all the answers - we are fallen beings and by divine design (the will and pleasure of G-d - but not just G-d but ourselves as well) must learn to live and die by faith.  The fall was necessary for the plan of G-d that we can learn faith.  What occurred was exactly as he planned it - both for Adam and Eve as well for us all as their offspring.  His plan was from the beginning to provide a Messiah to redeem us and save us from sin.  That is his will and pleasure - and it has never changed.
     
    The Traveler
  23. Like
    MrShorty reacted to prisonchaplain in The Fall - Blessings or Punishments?   
    Perhaps both/and...even traditional Christians admit that the Fall clearly resulted in free will, and we all love the promise of Genesis 3:15--that Jesus would crush Satan's head. This first messianic promise comes as a result of the Fall--it is part of God's "punishment." On the other hand, they did lose Eden, and far too many of the progeny of Adam & Eve have chosen badly. We may differ as to whether the Fall was pre-arranged in a before-creation agreement or not, but that the Fall brought both punishments and silver linings is truth. 
  24. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Vort in Conference October 3-4, 2020   
    I realize that people can say respectful, disrespectful, or downright awful things using "LDS" as an adjective. But the abbreviation "LDS" itself is, in my estimation, not disrespectful. It seems the best alternative in many situations.
    "LDS history", for example, seems a decent term to use, in fact one with no good alternative. "The history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", in addition to being long and potentially cumbersome, has a much narrower meaning than "LDS history", which might concern issues well outside the confines of the history of the Restored Church. The infamous and too-often-cited Mountain Meadows Massacre, for example, is quite obviously LDS history; but realistically, it is not properly a part of the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, any more than Mitt Romney's political ambitions, Steve Young's football career, or the rantings one reads on a ThirdHour forum are a part of the history of the Restored Church. (These events are tangentially related to the Restored Church, but to call them a part of Church history is to overbroaden the term until it becomes meaningless. By that estimate, the history of the United States of America is itself a part of the history of the Restored Church, as is the history of Rust Belt auto manufacturing, the history of defensive missile silos, the history of broadcast telecommunications, the history of soda pop, the history of ranch management and production, and so on ad nauseam.)
    So what are we to call such history if not "LDS history"? The only other appropriate term would be "Mormon history", which most Latter-day Saints would agree is inferior to "LDS history" in both precision and term usage. This is what I mean when I say that using "LDS" as an adjective in such cases is respectful per se.
  25. Like
    MrShorty reacted to laronius in Heavenly Parents   
    Outside the fact that we are the literal spirit children of a Heavenly Father and Mother there is actually very little that we do know. But if we want to speculate we do know that spirit is element so it's possible that our "intelligence," whatever that is, was through that divine birthing process, again whatever that is, was united with our spirit bodies. But it's all speculation because there is so much that we don't know but what we do know is sufficient.