CrimsonKairos

Thanks Pam, sorry for dropping off the face of the digital earth. I’m going through a personal renaissance and wanted to reconnect with this fine online community. I hope you’re well. 🌞

Diversity of individuals has intrinsic merit inasmuch as God distributes different spiritual and secular gifts among all of us in varying degrees: the more variety in people and cultures, the broader the range of abilities and talents you’ll have access to. Diversity of life direction & global goals is where cracks can form in Zion’s foundation: one heart, one mind, dwell in righteousness, that’s the non-negotiable minimum requirement. Everything else can be diverse (tastes, preferences, skin color, language…as long as all is overshadowed by the dwelling in righteousness element). If I’m cooking, I’d rather have a diverse set of spices and seasonings to work with: imagine trying to play The Well-Tempered Clavier without all of the keys on a piano. D&C 1:24 teaches us that God is very attuned to our individual differences and speaks to us “after the manner of [our] language, that [we] might come to understanding.” Language includes visual language, verbal language, neural language (so-called neurodiversity), etc. Last but not least: Love is Inclusive. Period. 😎

Everyone I talked to had a strong dislike for the most recent video versions (except for one young in-law), but localization of and updates to a slideshow/motion graphics certainly are easier than a video. Regardless of the reason I’m so glad I don’t have to watch “Eve” force tears when she asks “is there no other way?” Adam and Eve were like children, she wouldn’t have been thinking that deeply about it (or been able to), imho.

I just think it’s sad all that production budget got spent and crew did their best work but the overacting resulted in a slideshow…in 2023. I feel bad for the crew whose efforts were hamstrung because either the director wasn’t in control of the actors, or he/she was in control but had pretty bad taste. The question on everyone’s minds on set should have been (and should be even in secular productions): “Is this element (whatever it is) going to distract from the narrative intent?”

As a filmmaker by training, I find the visuals (actors) and audio/music choices very distracting. I usually close my eyes and endure to the end, but honestly it’s difficult. Not saying I could do better, but I certainly wouldn’t do worse. I miss the brunette-version of the video from 2001 with uninflected acting other than Satan who was excellent compared to the current version. Feel free to disagree. The covenants are why I go of course, and getting to kick down cell doors in Spirit Prison…but form distracts from function for me as things stand now.

I have no sense there was a gospel of prosperity being preached in this thread: in the world though? 24/7. In other news… Judas Iscariot was the only apostle from an urban setting. His “last name” derives from Hebrew “eesh” meaning “man” and Kerioth was a city, so he was “Judas the man from Kerioth.” The other apostles seem to have been rural folk, regardless of their financial status. Is there a lesson there about the corrupting power of cities and their attendant financial systems and values? Twenty pieces of silver seems to say “yes.”

Thanks zil2, I don’t know what the future holds but thankfully I know Who holds the future and I’m committed to sticking around until He calls me home. ✨ I liked your point about choosing Christ often paradoxically leading to encountering more darkness/temptation but having an increased capacity to overcome it. Gels with my personal experience and observations of others’ experiences.

In the New Testament physical illness and demonic possession are often correlated, and physical healing and casting out demons is often associated. Having suffered from brain illness/mental illness/neural inflammation…and having experienced extreme darkness even on my mission as a result…I believe our physical bodies are not just vessels for our spirits if the “front door is unlocked” by illness or other biological defect. Mary could have been one of those unfortunates born with a biological condition or later developing a biological condition that allowed evil spirits greater access to her. This is what I suspect anyway, and if a homeless man walked up to me and banished the darkness inside that often threatens to drown me, you’d better believe I’d be his disciple forever after.

Numbers 6 explains the law for Nazarites (not Nazarenes) which forbade the drinking of wine, vinegar or even eating dried grapes, plus not cutting your hair. Paul in the New Testament seems to have temporarily lived as a Nazarite (Acts 18:18). This wouldn’t have been a church-wide mandatory “law” however.

Faith is the fuel which powers miracles. No faith, no fuel: no miracles. To perform a miracle in front of the faithless would be to make inescapable their condemnation for not believing in the presence of such evidence. Jesus was ever careful to reveal his Light only fully in the presence of those who sought it and were prepared for it, including transmitting celestial truths through parables, because we are judged based on the Light we have. To give Light to those unprepared and unable to abide it would be cruel indeed.

Didn’t Joseph Smith say that the grand governing principle of Mormonism was to accept all truth, let it come from wherever it may?

Hi @anatess2, not sure if you remember me, it's been awhile. Anyway, liked your response. The "justice of God" is in a way illustrated by the problem-solving-test some of you may be familiar with: "A farmer wants to cross a river with his fox, chicken and bag of grain, because the soil is better on the other side and the grain would grow well, there is unlimited feed for the chicken and unlimited hunting for the fox: everything would be "in heaven." She/He has a boat that is only big enough to hold her/him and one other thing at a time. In what order does she/he carry her/his property across the river so that they all arrive safely on the other side?" If the farmer takes the fox across first and leaves the chicken and grain waiting together, the chicken will eat the grain; if she/he takes the grain across first, the fox will eat the chicken. Obviously she/he must take the chicken across first, because the fox won't eat the grain if the two are left together. Then the farmer comes back and takes the grain over and switches it for the chicken which she/he brings back across the river to the original side and switches it for the fox, which she/he takes over and leaves on the other side, then returns and brings the chicken back last since the fox won't eat the grain it's been left with in the meantime. Voila. The point is the farmer is limited in what she/he can do based on the nature of the fox, the chicken and the grain. The fox wants to eat the chicken, it is the fox's nature. The chicken wants to eat the grain, it is the chicken's nature. So because of what the fox and chicken would choose if given free agency and opportunity, the farmer must move them across the river in a very specific, tedious way. I've thought about that story from the point of view of both animals: -the chicken gets to cross first (yay), but then is taken back across the river (a setback) and must wait and be carried across last of all. It might seem "unfair" to the chicken that it be made to wait because of the fox's nature. -the fox must wait for the chicken to cross first before the fox is carried over. It might seem "unfair" for the fox to have to wait for the chicken to cross first because of the chicken's nature. I believe that's mortality in a nutshell, metaphorically speaking: God is the farmer, we're the animals. The brilliance of our all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful God is that He is able to take all of us with our individual and varying natures, and arrange our stay in mortality such that we each "cross the river" in a way that---I believe--best fulfills His purpose to grant us immortality and at least a chance at eternal life in His direct presence hereafter. (Moses 1:39) The point is to submit to God's wise and righteous will (2 Nephi 2:24) and wait patiently. The folly of believing we know better than the source of all knowledge is hopefully obvious. If the fox or chicken had disliked the waiting and the way the farmer was doing things, they could have run away but then they'd never have reached the other side where unlimited grain awaited the chicken and unlimited hunting awaited the fox. So it is with us.

@prisonchaplain , so good to see you’re still actively provoking thought in a peaceful and meaningful way. I always loved your contributions last time I was here 11 years or so ago. I hope you’re well friend. To your question: It saddens me when people of any faith invent a subjective set of criteria by which they determine who is a “real” Christian or not. Let’s see what God’s word has to say, since you mentioned orthodoxy: Acts 11:26 ...the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. Being Christian—according to the New Testament—means being Christ’s disciple. Okay, but what does that mean? Let’s see what the Savior himself had to say: Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. Paraphrase: Forfeiting all we used to value in order to follow Christ. John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; Paraphrase: Living according to Christ’s teachings/commandments. Speaking of his commandments... John 13:34-35 34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Paraphrase: Love everyone as Christ loves, including loving and forgiving our enemies (see the commandment explained further in the essential passage of Luke 6:27-38 to start). John 13:34-35 is the only place in the New Testament I’m aware of where Christ gives a litmus test as it were whereby anyone paying attention can discern if you truly are his disciple: love as he loved (to ingest the full implications of that command, we can begin by reviewing 1 John 4:19 and Luke 23:33-34). Militant or yelling-in-your-face anti-Mormons always sadden me because they are not showing themselves to be Christ’s disciples in a loving way. (yes, yes, I know we’re not “Mormons” anymore but I’ve yet to find a suitable and succinct substitute for “anti-Mormon”) In other words, they resort to un-Christian behavior in order to make sure the world knows LDS are not Christian. I don’t care what sect, denomination or splinter group you come from: if you treat others with Christ-like love, you’re a Christian according to Christ himself. To argue otherwise is to put yourself in opposition to Christ’s own teachings. Lastly, let me include this gem: 1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar... I say all that not to condemn or accuse but rather to remind ourselves that it isn’t priesthood authority or temple ordinances or anything else similar that “makes you” a Christian: it’s whether we truly believe this: 1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Dang, @Maureen! Nice to hear from you...lots of fond memories. 😁 I hope you and yours are well.

Long time, no post (stopped posting back when this was LDS.net and life got busy/got married/moved…11 years & 3 kids later…), thought I'd get going again with taking a stab at the question asked above. I think that Light (with a capital "L" i.e. eternal truth or knowledge of things as they were, are and will yet be) & our attitude towards Light motivates everything we say and do and feel regardless of what we claim or assert. We are judged/evaluated by God not based on how much or how little Light we have, but based on how we treat the Light He gives us in this life. There are a few possible ways to react to uncovering a glittering orb of "Light" (eternal truth) while stumbling through the lone & dreary world. We can: 1 - Ignore it. 2 - Try to conceal it. 3 - Lie and say it doesn't exist. 4 - Take it. 5 - Treasure it. 6 - Tell others where to find it. 7 - Share it. 8 - Become annoyed by how bright it is and try to convince others it's not good because it bothers us. I'm sure there are more than those 8 options, and in my experience (personal and observed), the reaction most people have is a mix of some of the above. Maybe it starts out with a lil' 4, 5, 6 or 7 (ideally). Then life happens, we make mistakes, others hurt us, we hurt ourselves through foolish choices, questions go unanswered, prayers seem to be unheard, etc. The question is, after all that happens, what do we do with that precious ball of Light we've been looking at or carrying around, and why? Those who forfeit membership in Christ's Church are usually toying with number 1, 2, 3, 8 or some combination thereof. The WHY behind which of those 8 reactions they choose is as important (or more) than the reaction they choose. It all comes down to how much Light do we personally want before we're satisfied, and how much do we value that Light? So for those who entertain false doctrines or foolish questions (so called), perhaps they're still developing the ability to recognize Light when they see it, versus the "neon" alternative peddled by the Adversary of Light. Ultimately, which Kingdom of Glory we end up in, I believe, we will have chosen because the amount of Light and responsibility there most closely matches our own capacity and desire.

Wow, that's pretty amazing! Nice job.

I go by this principle: If something makes it harder for you--you, specifically--to feel the Spirit, or lessens your resolve to live gospel principles, keep commandments and covenants, etc.....cast it aside. If it doesn't affect you in those ways, then a letter that some committee in Hollywood slapped on the film is irrelevant. That said, not everyone responds to the same film the same way, which is why I think it's wise to use the principle given above. And not condemn those whose media choices are different than ours. Note: something being uncomfortable/unpleasant to watch (like any documentary on Nazi concentration camps, "Night and Fog" comes to mind) is not the same thing as something being profane and unworthy of being watched (people using the Lord's name in vain, minimizing the seriousness of premarital sex, etc). :-)

Ask God to help you be better than you are on your own. Seriously. Ask Him in the name of Christ to change your heart. Demonstrate you want this change of heart: pray, study your scriptures for inspiration and encouragement, fast from food and drink (no more than 24 hrs, generally) with the purpose of having your old heart replaced with a new creation, a heart whose desires and passions reflect those of Heavenly Father and Jesus. In the New Testament, when Jesus healed people physically it usually mentions him at the same time casting out a demon. Some demons, he taught his disciples, come not out by but prayer and fasting. You're being tempted to act inappropriately, by the Father of lies who happens to give every demon their orders. God can cast out these demons/temptations, but as you know, you can't do it on your own. Time to call in the reinforcements, if you're serious about it. :)

Christianity (religion) is God's way of helping us through a vale of tears in which suffering teaches us what the Spirit can't. Christ taught that someone dying to save someone else is love's greatest manifestation. Because Heavenly Father is immortal (His physical body inseparably connected to His spirit body), He cannot die. So He sent Jesus to do for us what He could not do Himself: reveal how important and loved we are, by the death of a God. Everything else is commentary. The core is that the Supreme Being of the universe knows my name and your name, loves you and me, and has inspired prophets to help us become like Him and love others as He loves us. That's the whole point, to me. Helping us partake of His Divine Nature through teachings, ordinances, symbolism, service, etc.

I believe God reveals Himself to His children as best He can, according to their conditions, abilities, weaknesses and His Will which--let's admit--we don't quite fully understand (understatement of the year). Do you remember the one characteristic Christ listed as the definition of a Christian (i.e. a disciple of Christ)? Paraphrase: others will know you follow me if you love each other as I have loved you. In that sense, Christ-like love is the core. Ordinances, scriptures, everything else is commentary so to speak. And LDS believe that during the Millenial reign of Christ, there will be 1,000 years for doctrines and ordinances and missionary work to be completed in the spirit world for anyone not having that chance during mortality. So PrisonChaplain, I guess my answer is anywhere that mankind teaches a belief in the value of humans, and that we ought to treat each other as Christ loved us (even if they've never heard of Christ), to me that has to be a teaching/culture inspired by God in some way. As to your specific point about Christianity vs. Judaism vs. Islam/etc, I think you have a good point. After his resurrection, Christ told the apostles to preach his gospel to all the nations, and we know that on the Day of Pentecost the Jewish Pilgrims from all over who were in Jerusalem, got to hear Christ preached in their own languages. I believe God wants us to be able to come to know Him and His works/will in the way (read: language) that makes most sense to us. Demanding someone learn a foreign language (i.e. Arabic) before they can learn about God is, to me, overly prohibitive and not in line with the God I know and worship. Then again, there is the Islam of Mohammed, and the Islam that developed after his death. I think much of Islam's rules and schisms and cultural appendages are evidence of what happens when a prophet is taken from his people and no one with similar inspiration or authority is left to fill the void (I would say the same thing about Catholicism--Roman or East Orthodox--especially in light of the actions/teachings of the popes during the medieval period). My own view, though, about Mohammed is that he was a Joseph-Smith-type-figure for the Middle East but the culture(s) of the time, and no one being fit to fill his mantle when he died, meant Islam was destined for a short gasp of breath before becoming just one more religion run by men and not by God. :) I know that'll rub some people the wrong way but it's just what I've concluded after studying and reading and pondering everything.

Curious_George, to be honest with you, I had the same reaction you did. The stick of Judah/stick of Joseph thing in Ezekiel is a scripture mastery (or was) which is a scripture that LDS seminary students (high school age) are encouraged to memorize. When I got around to reading the Ezek. passage in context, I also felt a bit of a, "Well if the Bible / Book of Mormon connection is a meaning of the Ezek. scripture, it's a secondary or tertiary meaning at best." Then again, many prophecies have multiple levels and multiple methods of fulfillment (reduce, reuse, recycle, haha). Either way, even without the Ezek. scripture, it is worth stating on its own that the Bible and the Book of Mormon do go hand in hand, enrich the study of the other, and both testify of Jesus Christ as our Savior from death and hell. :)

Yeah, what an intriguing discovery of family genealogy.

I don't think anyone's mocking you. We're just saying we haven't had a spiritual witness that Freemasonry is bad or evil or anti-Christian. It's okay for good people, intelligent people, to disagree.

This is what is very, very frustrating to me. Despite what I believe are clearly worded, lucid posts from me, you continue to insist that I'm talking about or trying to justify the priesthood ban on people of African descent. I will give you one million dollars cash if you can find even one instance where the substance of my posts has been, "And because of Moses chapter 7, that's why blacks were banned by Pres. Young from having the priesthood until 1978." That's what infuriates me, you keep arguing against something I've never even said! You're so zealous to take up the Church's new position that you're seeing boogey-men in my posts where none exist. Try reading something twice before you comment on it, perhaps that way you'll actually get what I'm trying to say. :) Likewise.

A few one-liners I've come up with over the years: -Suffering teaches us what the Spirit can't. -Love without works is dead. -The lower your standards are, the easier it is to trip over them. -Do unto others as you would have God do unto you.