estradling75
-
Posts
8390 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Posts posted by estradling75
-
-
On 3/8/2024 at 4:24 PM, The Folk Prophet said:
I understand why some are reticent to say such things, particularly with the harshness of the phrasing. But I don't think the idea was ever to specify another church as entirely belonging to the devil. But the idea behind specifying there are only 2 churches seems to me to be to teach a principle, not malign others. The principle is sound. Jesus's church is His church, and the foundation of all others is built by the lies, half-truths, deceptions, and workings of he who leads the fight against Christ's church...the devil. That doesn't mean every principle in every church but Christ's is satanic filth. All Satan has to do is convince someone of a single falsehood to lead them astray. And that's the principle and warning within the idea of there only being two churches. We are fully and completely guided by God, or we are not.
And yet that was not the context of my meaning.. I was addressing the context of not wanting to support another church in a Win Win situation for both. To be reluctant to engage in business with someone because they have lesser light and knowledge that is harsh... That is a judgement none of us would like God to turn around on us, because compared to God, our light (as great as it is) is but a fading spark and we only have it because he gave it to us. God does not judge us by the light we do not have and so we should not judge other by the light they do not have.
Now you might make the case that they had the light and then rejected it.... But give the time that has passed it would be like Ammon and the sons of Moisah refusing to go to the Lamanites because Laman and Lemual rebelled
-
3 hours ago, Vort said:
I think this is rather more similar to buying a gallon of milk from a store that also sells cigarettes and booze. Engaging in a financial transaction could certainly be considered "supporting" someone or something, but that's a problematic stance to take for an organization that does not want to be isolationist.
Indeed.
I have some issues with the whole idea. If I am doing a transaction with some one, the ideal of Capitalism and Christianity would be that we both got good value in the exchange. AKA it was a Win Win.
This mindset tells me I can't do an exchange with someone if they might Win and they might do something with that win that I do not like. That sounds like a very dark side of Capitalism and not very Christian at all.
Don't get me wrong, working with someone that shares your values makes the Wins even better but that can be very isolationist if that is all whom you will engage with.In this case I have no issues whatsoever. In the Book of Mormon, Nephi talks about there being 2 Churches only. Church of God and the Church of the Devil. Now clearly we think our Church as the Church of God... But I can't say the Church of Christ is the church of the devil... I have to classify it as also a Church of God. One with lesser light and truth, sure, but still in the group. And with that mindset why wouldn't we engage in a transaction that benefits both? Seems very Christ-like to me
-
Indeed...
My prediction/conspiracy theory is..No matter who wins the loser will claim election fraud as an excuse for poor behavior for losing.
But neither party will be proactive in securing the election because neither one are sure they can win a fair vote. Calling fraud is too good of a tool for either side to risk giving it up. Thus furthering our slide into the Divided States of America
- LDSGator and Still_Small_Voice
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry you are going through this.
Based on what you have told us my advise is... Do not stop doing what you know/feel to be right for your kids even if your ex benefits. With the divorce your priority needs to be your kids, which it looks like you have been doing. But now it seems like you want to control things to cut out your ex from any benefits she gets from being the mother of your kids. This completely understandable... But is also completely the natural man talking(which is why we understand it so well) don't give in to it. It leads to a bad and dark place.
Instead take your frustration, sense of offended fairness, sense offended justice and hand it to the Lord and let him deal with it. Allowing you to get back to focusing on being the best father you can be to your kids.
As for your ex... Kids are more aware then we give them credit for, they might not understand it yet but they will sooner then you think. Everything your ex is claiming you are doing she will accomplish entirely on her own with out you doing anything to her (Based on what you have said unless she repents).
So turn it over to the Lord. Do what you know to be right... Let her laugh and mock and scorn you from the great and spacious building, heed her not. It will fall on her soon enough.
-
I find it hard to talk about the judgemental-ness of others without becoming judgemental myself.
When someone asks me "Am I a Christian?" I answer yes... because I believe that answer is correct. When someone (rarely) asks "Why do "others" consider you to not be Christian?" and I can answer that one too. There is a doctrinal difference that is at the foundation of the disagreement. A lot of people like to make a big deal of the difference, but for me when I ask myself if I were to believe differently on the doctrinal point would I be acting differently. And I have to say the answer is No.
While I disagree with the other doctrinal interpretation for many reasons I have never found the difference to make a difference in how I act.
-
16 minutes ago, zil2 said:
Amen! And thank you!
Either Jesus Christ leads this Church or he doesn't. If he does, nothing else matters. Nothing. Have faith in Christ!
Indeed...
If you don't like how Christ is picking his leaders then tell him next time you talk tell him... Vent to him... get it all out... He will listen... He is unlikely to change how he does things.. but he will listen. And you will know to talked to the one and only person who can make a difference in the matter.
- NeuroTypical, zil2 and SilentOne
-
3
-
20 hours ago, LeKillerWallaby said:
So I'll start by saying that I'm not a member but have been lurking off and on for a long time.
Grunt's defense on the beard issue really resonated with me and reminded me how the Coast Guard dealt with having beards (or not).
In 1986 the Coast Guard forbid beards, the rumor was that it was due to the new Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Yost (who BTW was a member). Though the US Navy had just instituted a ban in 1985 and we tend to follow the Navy on these things.
Essentially leadership said if you want to be in the Coast Guard with all its benefits (implicit and explicit) you need to shave your beard. Some folks did get out, some folks sent their beards into HQ, and some folks figured that it was more important to stay in the Coast Guard than their beard.
I think prioritization is the key here. Is finding the one true church a priority for you? If that church mandates you abstaining from alcohol and coffee/hot drinks is that a deal breaker or possibly shaving one's beard(note that I am not there yet :))? Being in leadership is a completely different story of norms and benefits.
Anyway my point being that Grunt's defense of the beard prohibition is very much baked into the military services and their cultures. Which often contrasts with the culture of personal freedom and (maybe?) personal revelation.
Welcome to the forums...
Since you brought up the military lets use that as an example... In the military you have chains of command. One is expected to follow orders that come from from the proper authorities and it is generally considered a bad idea to follow order that come from outside the chain of command that you are under. This is part of how they stay organized and avoid confusion... Kinda of important.
God's kingdom is lead by revelation which can come to any individual... This would be highly chaotic but God has established his Chains of Command. We call them stewardships. Stewardship are what God has put you over. One is entitled to revelation from God over ones stewardship. Everyone has a stewardship over themselves. But we often have more then one stewardship. If you are a parent you also have a stewardship over your family (with in the limits of being a parent). If you have a calling you have a stewardship over that calling (with in the limits of that calling). At the highest level we have leaders who have calling/stewardship over all the Church and world.
Thus I could be given instructions/directions from anyone that has a Stewardship over me who is acting within the bounds of that stewardship... Just like how a superior officer can give orders in the military but how there are limits to what orders they can give.
On the subject of beards/facial hair currently that guidance is coming from limited stewardships. If you are under one of those stewardship then you should. If you are not then you are not in rebellion or disobeying for doing what you wish... No matter how many times and in different ways someone else without stewardship might declare or imply it so.
-
42 minutes ago, Grunt said:
I prefer to follow the example of priesthood leaders as best I can. YMMV. I won't bat an eye if you drink coffee, soda, have a beer, or whatever. I will speak up if it's asserted that those things are fine, or that you shouldn't ponder for personal revelation before doing something of the sort. I don't care what mental gymnastics are used to say it's a "good thing". If my wife suggests I should start drinking a beer with dinner I'm not going to start doing it because the prophet suggested I should listen to my wife. Again, YMMV.
And there you go being offensively misleading again. Time and time again the council of follow the word of wisdom (including no beer) has been given as general council. To always be followed. Whereas clean shaven is a narrowly focused council. Your local leaders have told you to be clean shaven to have leadership roles... great then do so... I have been in leadership roles in my ward also. I have received no such instructions. I would have gladly followed if I did. Since I did not get that council... I am following the council I did get to the best of my ability. It is hugely offensive (and very unchristian of you) to imply that I am using my wife as a pretext to disobey God. Rather then assuming that both my wife and I are trying our best to follow God as much as we can
-
I grew up in the Church, I served a mission, I have served and will continue to serve in various callings as I am called. And I was clean shaven... up until the day my wife told me she liked the scruffy Aragorn look. Now I don't know about the rest of you but I remember plenty of priesthood lesson around listening/hearing our wives. I distinctly remember one General Authority go so far as to ask us if we wanted to receive revelation? When we answered yes he told us to go home and listen to our wives.
I am a imperfect person I follow imperfectly but since that day I have been trying to do the scruffy Aragon look even though I am not nearly as good looking. Because that is what the prophet (by proxy) has instructed me to do. I am going to continue to do so until instructed otherwise.
Now some one might look at me and judge me that I am not following the prophet... That is their unrighteous judgment to make and answer for. I got enough on my plate dealing with my own faults.
-
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:
Because almost every lawsuit that has tried to show this has actually lost when evidence has been shown the contrary. There have been one or two which fraud WAS shown, BUT ironically, it was from the Republicans (one which just resulted in a wife being convicted of 52 counts of it if I've heard correctly).
By all the evidence that has been provided, our election system last time WAS secure, but one BIG reason was that they didn't corrupt the officials. This time things are being put into place to do what they attempted last time.
Wow... just wow... You are so full of... something.... that you can't see that contradict yourself in the same paragraph... and then ignore your own data point to live in your own fantasy.
Lets recap what you say... A lot of election fraud lawsuits were dismissed... this is a good thing I agree. But then you point out that not all of them were. Some evidence of fraud was found. It does not matter which party did the deed but in your desire to stick it to the Republicans, you proved the point. The vote and therefore the election was not secure. End of line you proved it.
By your own words fraud occurred in the last election (it does not matter the party). Knowing that this will be a challenge vector to the next election, wisdom dictates pulling the teeth to that challenge now.... before there is any possibility of partisan bias
-
2 hours ago, Vort said:
whining about election rigging (which I don't entirely disbelieve, btw).
I think anyone with eyes to see... Sees complaints about election rigging continuing to happen. (Agree or disagree it doesn't matter complaints going to continue) So why aren't we working to secure the vote and build up confidence that our votes are counted and fair? After all it is one thing to simply say someone is a sore loser (which they very well may be) but its a much better to be able to prove it.
So why haven't we taken the time between elections to create a voting system that can prove the accuracy of the vote to the voters rather then forcing use to assume it to be accurate?
- mordorbund, Vort and Traveler
-
2
-
1
-
On 10/28/2023 at 1:54 PM, MrShorty said:
I don't have all of the answers, but somehow these issues need some way for us to understand God's role in allowing, implementing, tolerating, etc. beliefs and practices that do not live up to the ideals of eternal truth and morality and righteousness.
For the prophet is human and can make mistakes vs the Lord will not allow the prophet to lead the church astray I heard the following story that helped me with it. (That being said I am not a historian so I do not know if this story is a some what true story or a complete Mormon Myth)
Brigham Young was speaking in the morning session of Conference. It was a fiery speech full of instruction and direction for the Saints. Then in the afternoon he spoke again, He began, by saying "This morning you heard from Brother Brigham. This afternoon you are going to hear from the Lord." And the rest of his speech completely reversed instruction he had given in the morning speech.That to me is an example how those two ideas work together. The willingness to do the Lord's will over there own is one of those characteristic that seem to exist in all our prophets. So if someone wants to say that the Priesthood Ban was "Brigham speaking in the morning" and the Lifting of the Ban was the "Lord speaking in the afternoon" I have no problem with that.
The problem comes with the idea Brigham some how bound God and God could not correct the course until Kimball that i do not accept. Trying to protect an image of God by rendering him powerless seems foolhardy to me. That being said.. . Trying to understand what God is accomplishing with the Ban... what greater purpose it served... That can be a brain twister. The church has not told us this. So we are left to our own logic an reasons. I found mine but it is worth exactly nothing to anyone else.
-
6 minutes ago, laronius said:
So at judgement day if both Hitler and an unforgiving Holocaust survivor stand before the judgement bar God will say:
"Adolf, you committee acts that caused untold suffering to millions of individuals, committed mass genocide and brought condemnation down upon many who followed you. But at least it wasn't as bad as this guy's sin of not forgiving you."
Now if that is truly what it means then I will accept it as such and chalk it up as one of the great mysteries I do not yet understand. But is it possible that maybe the Lord is not actually comparing the two sins that way and had something else in mind?
Yes... but you are missing a lot stuff that also has to happen. Hitler may or may not repent... If he does then he will have his sins remembered no more and it will not even come up in judgement.. That is the very power of repentance and being forgiven by the Lord its a very big deal. And if want if for ourselves (Which I do) then we have to allow it for everyone else including Hitler.
As for the Holocaust survivor.... the Lord is going to heal him... completely totally... without question. Then the Lord is going to ask the survivor to forgive, not for Hitler sake, not even the Lord's sake, but because the Lord has asked him to for in his own best interest. If the survivor at that point denys the Lord and rebels against God... It is pretty easy to see the greater sin there.
In this life we have no idea who might ultimately turn to the Lord. All we really know is who hurt us and how badly we have been hurt by them. So we need to work on forgiving them... not for them... But for us. Ultimately we want to be able to follow all the Lords commands and the Lord's command to forgive might just be one of the hardest.
- JohnsonJones and zil2
-
2
-
The problem I have with all attempts to make Brigham solely responsible... is who are they trying to protect... their image of God?!? Smash that idol please. God gets blamed for a lot of things and he is a big boy he can take it, deserved or not. But I can only image the mental paradoxes one has to setup to Claim the Church true and is Lead by prophets except.... when its not... And funny enough that "when its not" all most always involves personal gospel hobby horse.
Bottom line is I see no way of saying the Church is true and lead by God, without placing the blame for the Priesthood Ban directly on him.. either through direct action or just allowing it to happen.
- JohnsonJones, Vort, zil2 and 1 other
-
4
-
3 hours ago, zil2 said:
I've been deliberately avoiding this topic because I'm sure if I said everything I think it would be misunderstood, dismissed, and create an uproar all at the same time, but I will say two things:
1. These records were kept by men who were primarily concerned with covering what were, at the time, the affairs of men. (This isn't a value judgement either way, it's just what it is.)
2. I assert that the women who lived at the time these events were going on had a more profound impact on how things went down than anyone else - at least, the mothers among them. Don't believe me? Ask Helaman's "sons". A mother is a force of nature who alters generations of history. That we have nearly no record of the details of the wifing and mothering these women did is unfortunate, but I need no record to know that they were at least as heroic in their spheres as the men were in theirs. (And yes, as the records show, some of them were a terrible force for evil.)
I hear you. And I agree... I should have been more precise in my statement It should more clearly read
historical records unless they had a profound impact on how things went down in the eyes of the person writing the record.
In our day and age calling someone racist or sexist is pretty much the same as calling them evil. While a case might be for us and our peers, it fails hard the farther back in time we go.
If we want to ego stroke us now on how much more enlighten we are now on such subjects... then we should look back with compassion to those doing the best they can with lesser light they had. Not condemning them for not holding to a standard they did not even have.
- Vort, zil2 and askandanswer
-
3
-
8 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:
Except that Martin Luther was right.
And?!? If Martin Luther believed it was God's church and God was in control... Then he failed the test of Faith.
You and I and most on this fourm do not believe that the Catholic is God's church and he is in control of it... So we have no problem with declaring that Martin Luther was right and did the right thing. A man pointed out for correction the failures of men.
But it is an Faith and Logical paradox to believe/claim that it is God church and he is in control, while simultaneously believe the right/faithful thing to do is rebel against it. Either God is in control and you need to be patient and long-suffering, trusting in God to make it right in his own time, or he is not in which case do as you think best.
-
12 hours ago, pam said:
I hope you noticed that he used the tongue out emoji. What he said was pretty much tongue in cheek.
I know @Jamie123 likes to have fun, and that is a good thing. But this is a public forum and there are more then a few out there that would take this subject seriously and they need a serious response.
And the reality is women did not get to much representation in the historical records unless they had a profound impact on how things went down. Scriptures are not immune to this reality. The best we can do is acknowledge that it happened, and try to do better when given the chance.
-
11 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:
I can't speak to the Protestant Mormons. However, Martin Luther believed that the church would consider his proposed reforms. He did not predict a schism. Perhaps it wasn't so obvious--at least not at first.
You don't have to be able to predict a schism years down the road to be able to ask the question "Does this action I'm about to take strengthen my friends or empower my enemies?" That is usually a much clearer answer. We protect our friends and attack our enemies
And since our Judgement is suppose to be based on the Fruit people bring forth... When I see someone 'Nail' something to the door, I can get a pretty good feel for what/who they consider friends and who/what they consider enemies.
Now can people make mistakes??? Sure... we all sin, and we can all repent... But repentance has some very clear steps. Including trying to fix damage we did. Martin Luther was given this chance and declined. In doing so he made it clear where he stood. Now I am not a Catholic, I do not accept their claims. But to those that do... the next steps of the Catholic Church become very clear. Even Martin Luther should have been able to understand what his refusal to repent(in the eyes of the Catholic faith) would bring about for him personally.
-
-
Martin Luther may not have wanted a schism.. but actions have consequences.
Public displays are going to provoke public reactions.
While we do not control how other may react, we need to be aware of our potential as influences. So we do not get to entirely excuse ourselves by saying we do not control others.
When we nail our complaints to the door (Or Post to social media) we do need to take responsibly for some very predictable reactions
- Still_Small_Voice, Anddenex, Vort and 1 other
-
4
-
40 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:
Only 3 of those 8 you can put a name to - that's 37.5%.
My list has 37 women, 29 of whom I can name. That's 78.38%. 😝
Your analysis is flawed...
A Culture's value of women will determine will determine how often they are mentioned in the historical record... And frankly most cultures have not had that high of a value of women. That is is just something we have to acknowledge as simply being sucky.
The first flaw I see is comparing a 4000 plus year record to a 1000ish year record... Just from the number of years covered you would expect that the bible would have 4 times as many (assuming the cultural value is largely the same) So while 37 verse 8 seems large and important once we divide by 4 for the time span 37/4 = 9.25 vs 8 seems like a reasonable margin of error.
Another flaw is that Nephites cultural began in 600ish BC. To be fair we would need to start the Biblical record count at 600ish BC or give the Book of Mormon all the counts prior to 600ish BC because that is a culture that the Nephites and the Jew shared and could draw on but that Mormon would skip in making a record.
So while a raw numbers count can be fun to play with... but to make some kind of valid point you need a lot more rigor in your analyses
- Jamie123 and askandanswer
-
1
-
1
-
My wife has a interesting ability to remember dates, numbers, and events... Which is great because that means I only have to remember her birthday and our anniversary and she'll remind me of anything else I need to know.
Our Daughter just turned 18 and in the course of talking about her and birthdays she told us she did the math and figured she was a Valentine's baby. I'm like sure OK that works I guess. But my wife was like nope. My birthday is several days before Valentine... and my darling daughter is a birthday baby as well.
-
There are lots of valid ways to look at how things will be judged in the hereafter
Here is one of mine
Outer darkness... Unclean, sinful, evil. Christ could redeem them but they do not want to be redeem... they would rather suffer. (Or Suffering is more comfortable for them then being with God.
Telesital... They were unclean, sinful, evil... But their Suffering was enough to convince them to accept Christ and become clean able to abide some light. They will no longer do evil or sinful because they do not want to suffering. But the absence of evil is not the presence of good... They are largely neutral and this is where they are the most comfortable.
Terrestrial... Good people, noble, honorable, people, but not Valiant... there is only so far that they would go/endure to do the right/good thing. (this is where they are the most comfortable.
Celestial... Those who like there Lord and Savior are willing to sacrifice and endure all things for the good of other. This is a hard sale.. It is so much easier to be at a lower level, but this is the level that God is on... and the level we need to be comfortable on if we are going to inherit all that he offers us.
-
The benefits or privilege of two parent families come from a simple truth. 1 does not equal 2... 2 does not equal 1. And like many of "Privilege" I have no problem with other having the same privilege... in fact it is so often that I assume that they do have the same privilege that gets me in trouble. I clearly have no problem with people having same privilege as me, otherwise I wouldn't be getting in so much trouble.
The problem I have is people demanding the "Privilege" without the price being paid.. or being paid by people from whom it is not due. My parents paid the price for me to have a two parent privilege... I'm paying for my kids to have it. No one else can pay for my kids but me and my wife.... and I can not pay for anyone else's.
But it is absolutely insane to demand that society give everyone the two parent privilege... while simultaneously gutting society ability to hold the parents accountable for giving to their children.
No in-betweeners?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Before the Kingdoms of Glory were revealed to us... The same type of question was asked about the dividing line between Heaven and Hell. The best in Hell and the worst in Heaven weren't that much apart yet there rewards were starkly different.
Now the Lord has revealed the Three Kingdoms of Glory showing that not all receive the same rewards... We don't know much about the Kingdoms of Glory except that the Celestial Kingdom appears to have an internal difference of rewards between the Exalted and the rest.
Therefore to me the revelations of the Three Kingdoms of Glory is a giant clue bat that we should stop thinking that the Heaven/Hell model or the Kingdom's model is an all or nothing type deal in the Lord's plan. But rather its more of a spectrum. Sure there are lines drawn but the reward/punishment change is gradual as you move through it.