jerome1232
-
Posts
1633 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by jerome1232
-
-
On 11/13/2018 at 7:47 AM, Carborendum said:
nicotine is really about the most addictive drug on the planet
Remember that a caffiene addiction is about the easiest to have. But it is also about the easiest to get rid of.
I find that funny because I dropped smoking at the drop of hat, but caffeine... sheesh, you will pry my rockstar out of my cold, dead, shaking fingers. I've been trying for awhile now to reduce my caffeine intake and I just never seem to accomplish it.
-
1 hour ago, Tyme said:
This is where we go down divergent paths in our thinking. I don’t think being LGBT is a choice. I’m sure some choose but most don’t.
An example: A gay Mormon who doesn’t want to be gay but is. There are plenty of gays who don’t want to be gay. If it’s a choice, how do you explain that?
I guess this is where words get funny. Identifying as LGBT is absolutely a choice, just like identifying as a Latter-day Saint is.
Someone who struggles with gender dysphoria, or same-sex attraction can choose not to undergo gender reassignment surgery, or to not have sexual/romantic relations with their own gender for many reasons, one of which could be their devotion to God and their determination to follow his covenant path as best as they can despite their particular individual struggles. -
I would be open to two-tier type of system somewhat like Germany. But I'm mostly an idiot about these things, from what I've read of their system it seems like it strikes a good balance.
-
I like to be blunt on occasion.
"blacks and the priesthood is to yesterday as homosexual sealings are to today".
How can you seriously think that? Have you actually studied anything about the priesthood ban?
You know what, I see how they are the same, because ever since homosexuality was spoken out against WAAAAAY back in Leviticus it was mentioned that this was a temporary thing and at some point in the future it would be lifted, exactly like the priesthood ban. -
7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
It may be that in 20-40 years things will change, which will be weird if they do as to reconciliation with the Bible.
Aww you see, that's what modernized interpretations/translations of the Bible are for!
-
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:
Okay, so $200 for non-illegal labor is just capitalism.
"Uneducated manual labor" is still elitist. There's this story about the person who rows the boat to and from each bank of the river and the engineer who rode the boat. The engineer complained about how much he had to pay the rower when he's an engineer while the other guy is just an uneducated boat rower. So the rower jumped into the water and swam for shore so the engineer can row himself to shore and be happy he got more than he paid for.
P.S. That eliticism is actually part of the reason illegal immigrants are fought for in the USA:
See I don't get it.. the engineer then rows to shore just fine, if a bit tired after. The boat rower however couldn't take over the engineers project at the drop of a hat proving the "elitest" viewpoint.
-
22 hours ago, Lost Boy said:
I find it odd that so many here have carried in church. What is the chance of there being a mass shooting in an LDS church? Very low. What is the chance of you being in that particular church if it ever does happen? Much lower. You have far greater chance dying in a car accident going to and returning from church.
If I am taken to heaven while attending church, then that is where my maker wants me. Things don't happen by chance. The man upstairs knows the end from the beginning.
And while I would never take away the right to carry, I won't carry and trust the Lord is watching over us.
I didn't realize we were playing a lottery.
Look, with safety, with being prepared. We don't usually play this game of "what are the chances of a fire, you don't *need* that extinguisher" We just take reasonable safety precautions against the unlikely but devastating such as a fire, or being attacked by a rampant gunman in a public place.
My house is not likely to catch on fire, and to defeat my point I actually don't have a fire extinguisher, ha!
I'm unlikely to get shot tomorrow, and again, I actually don't own a gun, haha.
But that's because I'm in debt and I need to pay that off before I go buy fancy things like guns and fire extinguishers. I probably had a point but now I'm just rambling incoherently and contradicting myself. -
Except for it's not always that straightforward. Especially with dynamic content and images. Plus there are instances where Mormon is still appropriate, like the book, the prophet, historical references ( the Mormon trail ), a "change all and forget" isn't going to work.
-
2 hours ago, dahlia said:
Apparently there is an unwritten rule in our ward that all verses of all hymns are always sung.
Maybe with the reduced meeting time, we will sing 2 verses and be done with it. Except for 'If You Could Hie to Kolob.' I love that one. We can sing all the verses every Sunday as far as I'm concerned. 
I demand #27, all verses! (I'm pretty sure I got the number right)
-
-
16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
. . . for continually giving away the endings of the books he was reading.
Because in Soviet Russia, you don’t give the book ending away; the book ending gives you away.
Clearly a justifiable action. I'm offended that he was not given an honor for being a gentleman of great restraint.
-
59 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
That's not the way a sundial works... in either location.
Yeah well it appears I was ignorant of how sundials work.
-
10 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:
An analogy that may help is speaking to someone over the phone. In doing so the conversation is directed to the person on the other end directly, but, presumably because of distance, the conversation can't be held in person. The phone system facilitates this. Thus it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that the conversation was through the phone.
That's an interesting analogy. I really like it.
-
7 minutes ago, zil said:
I'm thinking you made a type-o there. You got the same person in that list twice.
Fixed, thanks.
-
I have to admit, my wife has severe rheumatoid arthritis and initially the idea of having another hand to help out with domestic duties is attractive to me.
But then my sister-in-law is temporarily staying with us and already there are conflicts over discipline of children and more (we have custody of two of her kids). There is more stress with her here than without. I think that's about as close to experiencing polygamy as one can get, and it's tough, and that's without having to deal with intimacy/jealousy/romantic love issues thrown in too.
I think that law must have been a much more difficult law to live than many of us realize. -
My initial reaction to this thread was a brief thought.
QuoteWhom (I added the whom just for Vort) do we worship? Why God of course!
I think this is being overthought. It's clear to *me* from scripture that Jesus of Nazareth instructed us to pray to the Father. That the Glory goes to the Father. The Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one God united in purpose.
Whom do we worship? God! To whom do we address our prayers? God the Father in the name of God the Son.
-
14 minutes ago, Styln said:
Your reference to Joh is slightly different than what is quoted in my Bible:
King James Version
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.Styln
You just quoted the NIV, and provided a link to the KJV. I'm a bit confused. Which one do you actually use?
I personally really enjoy the flowery language the the KJV, it sounds so good when read aloud. I read something in Isaiah (we are studying the Old Testament in Sunday School this year) earlier this week and it was poetic and beautifully written in the KJV. The newer translations lose that magic of cadence and flow that KJV has. Plus as pointed out, the KJV is what our bibles are. I've found that when you've grown up on the KJV, it's language is barely archaic, you get used to the way it reads.
-
Isn't there generally a way to disable BBC code?
-
14 minutes ago, Styln said:
Please feel free to quote Biblical Scriptural references.
I can't imagine why I'd limit myself to The Bible when I have in addition to The Bible: The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, and all of the modern day prophets as sources for doctrine.
I believe this has been given before, this is a fantastic summary, with fantastic links.
https://www.lds.org/topics/kingdoms-of-glory?lang=eng#overview
If you click scriptures it gives you the primary scriptural sources for this doctrine, in addition it provides talks given by modern day prophets on the subject, along with explanatory texts that are easy to understand under Learning resources.
Scriptural links below.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/15.40-41
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88.20-39
Prophets talks on the subject:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/05/apostasy-and-restoration
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/an-eternal-hope-in-christ
Apostles talks on the subject:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/l-tom-perry_university-mortality/
- Midwest LDS, Iggy and Jane_Doe
-
3
-
Come on Traveler, now we have network connected light switches, locks, and anything you put your mind to. You can talk to your Google overlord and ask it to turn the lights off and on for you!
-
2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:
So... I took a visit over at mennoniteusa.org, and confirmed that your faith community believes in the resurrection and Kingdom of God to come. It also affirms punishment for those who reject fellowship with God, engage in unrighteousness, and who refuse his kingdom. My church (Assemblies of God) teaches much the same. If I may offer my crude understanding of the resurrection, from the perspective of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it would be thus:
Heavenly Realms:
Celestial Kingdom: Populated by those valiant in faith. Even within this kingdom, there will be degrees of glory, with the highest attaining exaltation--becoming like God.
Terrestial Kingdom: Populated by those sincere people who were mostly righteous, and who were sincere in whatever spirituality they practiced. This realm will be glorious beyond our imagination, but, in comparison with the Celestial Kingdom will be as the moon is to the sun. Those here will experience the presence of the Son of God, but not the Father.
Telestial Kingdom: Populated by those who are mostly selfish and unresponsive to the things of God. Yet, these never became enemies of God or his church. This realm will also be wonderful, but significantly less than the Terrestial Kingdom.
Outer Darkness: Reserved for the enemies of God and his church, and those who were very intentionally unrighteous.
CHURCH MEMBERS: Please correct any over-simplifications and misunderstandings I put above.
I would change telestial and outer darkness.
Telestial:
D&C 76
103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.
It goes on to describe how people that inherit this kingdom will suffer in hell for their sins until the last resurrection, which is when they'll inherit this kingdom.
Outer darkness is a special place reserved for those who denied the holy spirit, that is they knew God and had a testimony of Christ but still tried to tear down His church despite that fact.
- Midwest LDS, zil and prisonchaplain
-
2
-
1
-
49 minutes ago, Styln said:
Thanks for your reply... Since nobody can tell me for sure if I will make it to heaven, I guess it must be a matter of Faith.
Styln
We can tell you that one has to work quite hard to not make it to a degree of glory.
Which kingdom of God you will inherit is up to you, and how far you choose to advance along God's covenant path.
Your question can only be answered with another question. If you rephrased it to "Which kingdom of glory will I inherit in my fathers kingdom?" I would respond with "How much of God's truth are you willing to accept and to act upon?"
- Midwest LDS, Jane_Doe and Iggy
-
3
-
Hey this thread still lives.
Funny enough, I'm American, fairly clueless if you give me a temperature in Celsius. I'd have to convert it to realize "Hey that's room temp".
But with computer temperatures, it's really standard to measure the temperature in celsius. It's what I understand. If a cpu temp is 65 degrees I know that's getting really hot and that's it's in celsius. If you tell me It's 150 degrees fahrenheit I'd look at you like you were an alien for a bit before converting it to celsius. Engine sizes tend to be metric too. I see cubic centimeters listed for bikes way more often than I see cubic inches, to the point where I "understand" cc better than ci, and liters for car engines more often than cubic inches too. I think we are actually slowly sliding to the metric system. -
10 hours ago, theplains said:
Are they considered married then? For example, if a living believer wanted to seal with a single unbelieving person
whom had died, would they be considered married in the afterlife?Thanks,
JimI totally misread your comment. See JAG's post above.
For some reason I thought you were talking about those who had been married in life but never sealed in a Temple.
The next logical step
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by jerome1232
I'm not fond of games, I'm fairly sure you know full well what the scriptures say.
The priesthood has a long history of being restricted by lineage.
The commandment to not have sex with your own gender has a long history of absolute "thou shalt not" statements.
Totally the same you are right. I can see how you might get confused on that. I'd invite you to give both of these topic a read.
https://www.lds.org/topics/same-sex-attraction
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood
Now can you find anything that words the commandment to not have sex with your own gender as a temporary thing? How then is the priesthood restrictions by lineage the same as doctrine regarding marriage and chastity?