SpiritDragon

I hope you can have a change of heart at some point. I wish you well. My wife had poor health which caused us to wait on having kids. Even after the wait, I was stressed about finances when my wife first told me we were expecting. I wanted to be really excited, and I was, but I was also terrified. I think that's normal to have some concern about how things will change. In any event my kids are a great source of joy and I love them. They give my life more purpose than I had before and I hope that you and yours can be blessed in the same manner.

So true. This interview was pure drivel and I couldn't stop rolling my eyes at the lies. I'm not sure if any new data has come out to actually show that the increased suicides in Utah are driven by the LGBTQ community, but the last time I looked there really wasn't anything to go on. https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2017/10/11/gay-youth-suicides-utah This post isn't that old, and shares some of my same concerns about assumptions being made. I also found this interesting link while reading comments, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-016-0154-6 which is a look into suicide rates in Sweden where the LGBT lifestyle is supposedly very well accepted and yet three times the suicide rate remains among the male gay population. Why still triple the rate if it's not driven by bigotry? Perhaps same sex attraction issue needs to be reconsidered as a mental illness as it used to be because of the increased risk of self-harm. I'm not saying that the churches stance on chastity isn't a driver for suicide among teens and young adults, but I don't think it fair to blame the church for increased suicide rates either. Out of fifty states basically 25 are going to have above average suicide rates and 25 will have below average rates - okay well that would be assuming equal population distribution, but the point is that Utah doesn't even lead the nation in suicide deaths, but the church gets all of this blame on the issue. Perhaps suicide being a leading cause of death in Utah teens is a result of less death from other risky behaviours or better recognition and reporting of suicide in the state - we just don't know.

Perhaps not, but Bates did!

I think depending on the needs of the narration 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person all have their place in past and present tense. I find the idea of telling a story (past tense 'ing') in the future tense just plain odd. I generally prefer 3rd person for most story telling. I don't mind 1st person with multiple narrators to get a more complete picture than one point of view while still lacking omniscience either though. It took some getting used to when I was first exposed to this POV reading Dracula, but I got used to it and think it's brilliant. I like 2nd person for books where a conversational feel is helpful, probably material that might be a little on the dry side otherwise, or for children's books because sometimes they seem to feel more involved when the story is speaking to them. I have been known to enjoy a good choose your own adventure story and look forward to when my kids are old enough to play along. As for whether one is going to be changing points of view and or tense, well, I thought you'd have to be nutty to soon be reading @zil's story, about @Sunday21 hunting @MormonGator in the morning, last night anyway! I think I'd get confused and stop reading.

On the resurrection of Peter and James I found the following that seem authoritative enough to me to accept they were indeed resurrected. This link has a lot of reading all about resurrection and includes other statements to affirm the resurrected status of Peter and James. Another notable one is from Ezra Taft Benson. Whether this was ever directly revealed to a prophet or simply inferred by virtue of physicality being essential to the performance of ordinances, I can't say.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Resurrection Same story. This article asserts they were resurrected, but only Moroni is given a reference in the list given in the third paragraph.

I get a "sorry, can't get to that page" error when clicking this link.

I think a little background on me will be helpful to understanding my thoughts better. I was born into the church as was baptized on my eighth birthday. The thing is I had an extremely hard time believing the church was true and I never liked going to church. It was just what we did at my house and I despised my parents for forcing me to go every week and looked forward to excuses to get out of it, gladly taking jobs on Sunday as a teenager so I wouldn't have to go to church. we had a lot of us in my ward that worked on Sundays so the Bishop even started having 8:00 pm sacrament meetings for those who work during the day to still be able to come renew covenants - it was insult to injury, I couldn't win, I still ended up at church on Sunday. I longed for the day I'd graduate high school and move out and say good riddance to all that churchy stuff. Before that all happened though I wanted to be sure the church was wrong, so I gave it a last ditch effort. I felt like the only way I could feel sure is if I could say that I read the Book of Mormon cover to cover and prayed to know whether or not it was true and still received no answer or perhaps even received and answer to the negative. As it turned out I read the Book of Mormon for the first time through and prayed and felt a feeling of great peace and love which I felt was my answer that the Book of Mormon is true. Once I had a real testimony I found church to be much less frustrating. I wasn't just wasting my time, but actually working toward something of value and renewing covenants that mattered instead of being held to a standard that may not actually have any real meaning. After that time I went on to serve a mission and succeeded at personal scripture study daily for a seven year time frame wherein I only missed a maximum of two-weeks in all that time. During this phase in my life when I was very consistent with my scripture study, I found church to be something I occasionally would even find myself looking forward to. When I got married, family life threw some great challenges into my routine of scripture study and I've never been able to get back to the consistency I had for that seven-year span. I've also noticed that I don't find church as interesting, nor do I find life in general as hopeful as I used to. Now that may not all be related to scripture study, but I'm going to say that personal scripture study and personal testimony make a huge difference into how one perceives church enjoyment. I can also say that being called to repentance saps more of my energy when I am guilty of greater sins. Constantly being reminded to read scriptures when i am failing to do so is kind of defeating. Constantly being reminded to do the now defunct home teaching that requires me to see a single sister with a companion who is MIA and not having others willing to go - it feels defeating. Post-poning missionary service for almost a year while trying to clear up chastity issues can feel very VERY defeating. On the flip side though overcoming these shortcomings can really strengthen faith in Christ and is so freeing. I have also always enjoyed being physically fit. I have generally always enjoyed exercise - I was the kid in gym class who would hold up his hand when the teacher asked who wanted to run more laps. As I am getting older I find exercise less enjoyable than I did in my younger years, but I still value my physical fitness and do it anyway for the health and performance benefits. So while I may no longer get the same enjoyment out of hoisting over twice my bodyweight for multiple repetitions, I do greatly enjoy being able to play hard with my kids, move furniture without trouble, climb stairs without being winded and leaving the doctor's office with good blood work. Sometimes, I think of going to church a little bit in the same way. Maybe while I'm sitting there in the pew trying to listen to a talk while my toddler is squirming everywhere, my baby is crying and I just want a nap I don't find it terribly enjoyable all the time. But when someone wants a blessing, or is getting married in the temple and I'm confident that I've been doing my part to be worthy to participate as invited it's a great and fulfilling experience. Without going to church as part of this process I wouldn't be spiritually fit enough to just up and do these things that I not only enjoy, but bring some of the greatest meaning in this life.

Hey everyone, What do we know of feasts and festivals one would expect to find in the Old Testament that would have been a part of Mosaic custom prior to the Lehites flight from Jerusalem? I am hoping to find some useful material for a talk. I was thinking over the scripture stating to feast upon the words of Christ and suddenly had the thought that perhaps Feasting had a bit of a different meaning than we typically think of that may be worth exploring. Even beyond helping me with information for the upcoming talk, I'm just really interested in this now, because I expect there should be plenty of evidence of such feasts, although my searches so far have mostly only come up with King Benjamin's address as having some resemblance to some feasts and how the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith during the Feast of Trumpets. I suppose I'm just curious to get some context as to whether or not it is safe to assume that Book of Mormon people would have observed the same holy days and feasts/festivals as OT Israel. If so I'm also curious to learn more about the duration of the feasts and customs around them. Some of my digging so far has yielded the following for anyone interested in exploring this with me: https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/did-the-nephites-have-a-“holiday-season”-like-we-do-today https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/feasts?lang=eng http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Holidays/Introduction/introduction.html

And I'm convinced the real Bini is a dancing candy cane!

I thought you were making an allusion to this:

I've mostly played D&D and GURPs. I couldn't even say what edition of D&D it was an old red TSR Booklet of rules we used. I liked GURPS better personally because I liked the realism and logic a little better. Rather than universal level ups where all character abilities improve at seemingly random increments, characters in GURPS progress skills based on use. So a character doesn't suddenly become better at something unrelated to fighting by battling endless hordes of goblins or pop-up enemy du jour. I usually played as the game master though and liked to implement the "pass the sprite" rule because I wanted to encourage actual role playing, but my friends would often say things like, "my character is going to do XYZ" or, "hey we need more munchies" to which I'd have NPC's reply to them about how odd is to talk about such things will rappelling down a cliff face. Just to clarify that the pass the sprite rule simply states that the words that are coming out of players mouths are heard in the game world without the need to preface by saying, "my character says..." I found both systems fun. I also enjoyed a text-based RPG (if a computer game can ever really be called role playing) called Werewolves and the Wanderer that my brother programmed in Basic on our Apple IIC using a script from a book he checked out of the public library. I got killed by the the ice dragon a few too many times 😃I would have simply avoided it but the rooms monsters ended up in was randomly assigned. I particularly liked it when my brother added a secret garden to the game where I could get healing herbs. I didn't like it when that ice dragon happened to pop-up in said garden and kill me before I could build up my health.

That reminds me a little bit of my experience with GURPS. I had played GURPS Light and enjoyed it and wanted more complexity and got my hands on volumes of greater GURPS information which was awesome, only to realize that the game mechanics were very slow dealing with all those details - so I learned I preferred to stick mostly with the light rules and only occasionally borrow from the more complex rules.

I'm sorry you feel that way. It makes all the difference in the world when the term is followed by a blank or string of symbols representing an undesirable word is missing and simply using the word as a stand alone. There is nothing wrong with rats or mothers when the words are not followed by a filter skip.

I recently watched Indian Horse. It's a fictional story of an Ojibwa boy who lost his family and was raised in a residential school where horrors took place. Although the character is fictional the depictions of what took place are likely to resemble the realities of such a life more than many would care to admit. It's a bit tough to watch and I wouldn't recommend it for anyone looking for a movie to watch with family, on a date or for some escapism.

Everyone has different tolerance levels for foul language. I personally didn't pick up on terminology such as a word used to describe an illegitimate child or another for the act of bestiality as being foul language, but when I learned they are commonly offensive terms to others I decided it would be better not to use them even though I can be using them in correct context and don't find them offensive. I believe that by inserting a blank where a common word in the phrase belongs signals that the author is both aware that the word could be offensive by omitting the use of it, and that they intend to use a literary device to still have that word in use for the reader without actually using said word. Your example of substituting patootie is preferable because it doesn't leave the blank to be filled in by the vulgar term. I also understand that this was quoting someone else and perhaps the need was felt to preserve the "integrity" of the quote. That being said since there is no formal name involved for the person being quoted I doubt it would hurt anything to simply substitute a few words to still convey the message in different words that are appropriate to site rules. My point is simply that any variety of people can be reading here including children and many will have far more sensitivity to language than you or I. Maybe I should just keep quiet and let the moderators deal with everything as they see fit in such circumstances. I'm not trying to come across as self-righteous, just trying to raise a little awareness and help keep the environment as safe and respectable for everyone as the site rules indicate it should be, and hopefully not get anyone in trouble for a seemingly minor offense. Should I have just silently reported the post and said nothing? Perhaps sent a private message to @NightSG? I don't know. They say hindsight is 20/20, but I'm not sure what action would have been best.

Indeed. I would imagine if allowing girls in was the end of BSA and the Church that the Church would've severed ties with Scouts Canada decades ago. I believe they've allowed girl scouts since the seventies. However, it appears they claim to have only done so officially across all scouting programs since 1998. Even so that's 20 years back and we've still been involved with Scouting in the Church in Canada all this time.

Isn't that filter skipping? The last time I checked that was frowned upon in the forum rules. Still there: I don't want anyone getting suspended - but perhaps a reminder to everyone reading this.

Just a note as to what the Lord says on who has the responsibility and authority to receive revelation on behalf of the church and dispense the light and truth received: Doctrine and Covenants section 43: 1 O hearken, ye elders of my church, and give ear to the words which I shall speak unto you. 2 For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand. 3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is noneother appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me. 4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead. 5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments; 6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me. 7 For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed. There are proper channels the Lord has committed to work through to help His sheep avoid deception. Whether the teachings are labeled as revelations, doctrines, logic, enlightenment, superior intellect/perception we are assured that there are authorized channels that important teachings must go through. Random people on the internet are not those who have been authorized to speak the will of the Lord for His people.

@Earl I'm going to bow of this discussion now. I struggled with your ideas to begin with, but tried to gain some better understanding of your points and share my perspective in case it helped you learn more of what you came here looking for. Now that I've shared my position and had you share why you disagree, I am happy to agree to disagree and move on.

Indeed. I understand the lack of appeal of such a doctrine as it would seem unfair to those who were faithful in this life and went through much persecution and so on, when others would still have a chance at the same reward without putting in the same effort in this life. It is hard to reconcile with the idea of justice. It makes me think of the parable of the laborers in the vineyard: Now I have to say, I would traditionally read this as only referring to this life time, but I suppose that is not explicit to the parable. Of course, as you stated the danger of the notion that there are chances to repent and be forgiven for all eternity is that it potentially attenuates any urgency to do so now. Without a clear-cut teaching on the matter it is not worth gambling on second chances.

Curiosity. I decided to look into any teachings on progression between kingdoms and came across the article you have linked among others - I never realized that the church didn't have an official position, I had previously thought the position was clear on there being no kingdom hopping which made these quotes and articles extra interesting to me.

People of all ages have enjoyed coming up with pet theories to discuss about every topic. Whispering about Eve, to me, is simply referring to unfounded theories being discussed in private settings. This discussion right here could be considered whispering about Eve and accusing her of unchastity with someone other than her husband who you are referring to as Serpent. However, on a further note, LDS belief generally holds that Adam and Eve could not procreate in the Garden of Eden. Some have speculated that the act of creating a child symbolized a loss of innocence and is what the forbidden fruit represents. In this context, however, Adam and Eve were married and physical intimacy would not have been a sin and would not have caused them to need to be cast out of the Garden of Eden. The teaching @mordorbund referenced appears to simply be dispelling the myth that the fruit of knowledge of good and evil is in any way related to chastity.

Would you mind citing more examples of early belief in progression between kingdoms?

What ancient dictionary have you found to define likeness and image and what is the definition you have found? Just because the bible doesn't name every child of Adam and eve in Genesis doesn't mean they don't exist. It is very likely that The world was far more populous than just Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel just prior to Abel's murder. It is much more likely that several children and quite possibly grand-children were already around at the time Cain killed Abel. After being banished, Cain still managed to find himself a wife, where did she come from? She was likely his sister and probably no more far removed than his niece. Since his parents didn't have siblings he wouldn't have had any cousins. Even if Adam, Eve and Cain were the only ones alive after Abel's death, as you seem to be saying, Cain still feared for his life after killing his brother, so perhaps he thought Adam or Eve would kill him? Who are you suggesting he was afraid of? The bible also doesn't say that Cain told Adam and/or Eve or that the murder was witnessed by whomever. How is it you get to decide because the bible doesn't say God told Adam that this can't be, but when the bible is also silent on a witness or Cain confessing that these become sound conclusions?