-
Posts
4858 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
33
Reputation Activity
-
mirkwood got a reaction from Still_Small_Voice in The Stickman Thread
HA! Stabbed yourself in the head.
-
-
-
-
-
-
mirkwood got a reaction from Traveler in Israel declares war
I'm not going by feelings either.
We busted two trafficking groups in SL County last week.
But I guess I don't really have any knowledge on the topic.
-
mirkwood reacted to askandanswer in Hello October
This reminds me of Revelations 10:10
10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and aate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
-
-
-
-
mirkwood got a reaction from askandanswer in Public Service Announcement: Candy Recall Notice Issued
-
-
-
-
-
mirkwood got a reaction from askandanswer in "Protestant Mormons"
Ben Shapiro posted this on social media. I think it is 100% accurate.
I think it has application to this as well:
-
-
mirkwood reacted to Vort in "Protestant Mormons"
Let me point out that what we say in this forum is not necessarily representative of what we say at Church or among Saints in the flesh. On this forum, an opinion/conversation/discussion forum, I am willing to voice ideas and viewpoints in explicit and blunt terms that I would be hesitant to do in a casual, friendly meeting of a group of Saints (e.g. an elders quorum party) and would probably refuse to do at church.
In my experience, blaming lack of attendance or participation on mean things said at Church is usually an excuse rather than a legitimate complaint. Such supposed offenses are often much lighter than represented or even non-existent. I can think of many examples through the years. I can also think of examples of people who really were treated offensively and who stuck it out. Sadly, I can think of a few where the offense, though not intended (or not intended quite as taken), did cause a rift. But that is the small minority of cases. Even in my own extended family, those who claim being offended are normally just looking for a reason to avoid taking responsibility. Frankly, I find it almost refreshing when a cousin or niece simply says she doesn't want to come to Church any more rather than look around for lame reasons to put the blame elsewhere.
-
mirkwood got a reaction from Vort in "Protestant Mormons"
Ben Shapiro posted this on social media. I think it is 100% accurate.
I think it has application to this as well:
-
mirkwood reacted to estradling75 in "Protestant Mormons"
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.
-
mirkwood got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Survey about censorship on social media
FTR: @Just_A_Guy and I are totally joking.
-
-
mirkwood reacted to Ironhold in Hello October
So this weekend's episode of "Sammy Hagar's Top Rock Countdown" is him playing spooky songs from various artists because it's Halloween next week.
He was rolling through such classics as "Werewolves of London" and "Welcome To My Nightmare", but I had to change the channel for a few minutes when a certain infamous Rolling Stones number came on. I've had enough go wrong today, and don't want to invite anything else to happen.
-
mirkwood reacted to zil2 in "Protestant Mormons"
I know what it says. I can go read it myself (and re-did that before posting). I asked what you meant. It shouldn't take paragraphs of quoting to answer what you meant.
Nowhere does the essay say that the priesthood ban was revealed by God. Nowhere does it say that the priesthood ban was not revealed by God. The essay is silent on whether the ban was by revelation from God or was of man. Anyone who thinks otherwise is lacking in reading comprehension.
The essay comments on the facts of the ban (who did what when). The essay comments on after-the-fact explanations and justifications which various parties used to explain the ban. Only these after-the-fact explanations are rejected.
Nothing in the essay negates that statement.
Other parties can twist and distort and believe what they will. That was not my question and cannot be my concern. My only concern is to reiterate and ensure there is no confusion on your part (nor on the part of others who will read this) that the essay is silent on the question of whether the ban was instituted by God. Therefore, no one can use the essay to say "it wasn't revealed by God" (nor to say similar things such as, "it was instituted by Brigham Young because he was racist") - you cannot use the essay to support such an assertions, because it doesn't.