askandanswer

Members
  • Posts

    3532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    askandanswer reacted to Vort in how can we tell good from evil   
    This sounds like the beginning of a joke. Let's make one up:
     
    An atheist is meeing with LDS, Baptist, and Buddhist missionaries. He gets up to make himself a hot dog and asks the missionaries if they'd like one, too.
     
    The Baptist missionary says, "The hot dog is like the Trinity. It's made of beef, pork, and turkey, but it's all one hot dog."
     
    The LDS missionary says, "The hot dog is like our mortal lives. It's made of flesh. We dress it up with fancy condiments, but the real goodness is inside. And if we look at it in cross-section, we see it's one eternal round." (His companion says, "No thanks, I'm fasting.")
     
    The Buddhist missionary says, "Yes, thank you. Make me one with everything."
  2. Like
    askandanswer reacted to Crypto in Thoughts on the nature of discrimination   
    I have no idea.
    The best that I think I can come up with is that discrimination on the basis of superficial things, unchangeable, or situations from which you were born into. e.g. skin color should not be discriminated against.
    However there are exceptions to a general rule, such as being born poor and and not being able to afford things.
    Generally discrimination shouldn't cause harm to another human being. Though prison, fines, and even the death penalty could potentially be seen as causing harm. (there is a reason we discriminate against many legally defined criminal acts)
     
    Discrimination should largely be based on how an individual acts (say stealing). It's perfectly acceptable for people to avoid jerks/people they don't get along with. There is still the problem with this though, e.g. mental disorders, is it really alright to discriminate against them (probably not, though if for example you aren't capable of being say a chemist you shouldn't be one)
     
    I find most arguments pro-discrimination (e.g. required education before entering college) generally have some merit. Don't discriminate against {insert here}, also generally have some merit.
    The way discrimination is applied in modern society seem completely arbitrary to me.
     
  3. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from jerome1232 in Confused and concerned and definitely saddened.   
    I was hoping to keep it as a surprise until the stake and wood are fully prepared :)
  4. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from notquiteperfect in Confused and concerned and definitely saddened.   
    Last night while looking around for some material that I thought might inform my planned input to one of the current discussions on this site Google directed me to another LDS themed discussion forum. I read a few of the posts and was shocked to read how critical the posters were of other posters. After enjoying the friendly, good natured discussion on this site, it really was quite a surprise for me to see how unpleasant the posters were to each other on this other site. This experience renewed my appreciation for the thoughtful, well informed, friendly tone of discussion that prevails on this site. It made me feel grateful for people like Anatess, Vort, Pale Rider, Prison Chaplin, Mordurbund, Seminarysnoozer, Just a guy, the folk prophet, eowen, polarvortex, Jimmigerman, estradling and many many others. New as she is, I also enjoy and appreciate Claire’s well thought out and well written comments. And of course, I’m grateful to Pam for all that she does in moderating and maintaining this site, and the organisation she works for. 
  5. Like
    askandanswer reacted to The Folk Prophet in Thoughts on the nature of discrimination   
    Of course you are right askandanswer and SpiritDragon, but the point is somewhat of a non-starter when it comes to the gay-rights issue. That is because the homosexual non-discrimination discussion clearly carries the idea of biased/unfair discrimination as an implicit adjective. And bias is always, at it's core, mistaken.
     
    Those who argue against non-discrimination either have to confess bias, or they must claim that homosexuality is harmful to society and there is valid reason to discriminate. That's a pretty tough argument to make in today's culture.
  6. Like
    askandanswer reacted to Claire in Thoughts on the nature of discrimination   
    The reason I focus in on the "God given" part is because the origin of the institution is relevant. If it really is something man just made up, even if he originally made it up to be between only a man and a woman, men would still have the authority to change that definition. If it has its origin in some power external to man, then it is what it is and we can't change it. Even if we try to argue that the institution is rooted in nature vice God, and logically there's good reason to say that it is, it could reasonably be argued that we are not necessarily bound by those origins in establishing our civil institutions. 
     
    I agree that invoking God doesn't carry a lot of weight, but I also think that that is something of a double standard that I don't think we should capitulate to. Truth is truth, whether or not everybody agrees with it, so we should be willing to invoke the truth (at least as we understand it) in the political arena. Others are of course free to disagree, and debating why we disagree is probably more profitable that trying to side-step the issue altogether.
  7. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from mordorbund in Joseph Smith, multiple wives   
    Claire, this comes from the official church website
     
    https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng
  8. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from Vort in Thoughts on the nature of discrimination   
    If I hadn't been so tired when I wrote this post, it probably would have been more concise. Its longer than it should be but I think it still makes the point I want it to.
     
     
    In 2013, the last time our federal parliament gave some serious thought to same sex marriage, the church asked us to communicate our thoughts and feelings on the topic to our local Member of Parliament. I did so, and one of the lines I used in my letter was similar to the line Vort took in the news conference posting – that if we allowed same sex marriage because not to do so was unfair, unequal and discriminatory against gay couples who wanted to get married – then there was no longer any logical argument for banning daddies who wanted to marry their daughters or women who wanted to marry their dogs. A few weeks later, Senator Cory Bernardi, a government Senator and ferocious right wing hard core Christian, started making public statements along exactly the same lines. He was very strongly condemned from all sides, even his own, and after a week or two he stopped making such statement. Last year, the government wanted to remove a few words from Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act which would have had the effect of reducing the number of grounds on which a person could be sued for discrimination. These two events have led me to think a bit about discrimination and exactly what it is, or might be.
     
    It seems to me that the essence of discrimination is when a group that possesses a particular characteristic or attribute, is treated differently by other groups because they possess that particular characteristic or attribute. In the recent case, the attribute in question was being gay and the difference treatment was differential access to housing and jobs. If that sort of behaviour is indeed discrimination, which of the following is, and is not, discriminatory:
    Limited access to housing because of gender preference
    Limited access to housing because of a person's height
    Limited access to housing because of ethnic origins
    Limited access to housing because of inability to pay the rent
    Limited access to housing because of the poor condition of the house
    Limited access to jobs because of colour
    Limited access to jobs because of inadequate training or not having the correct qualifications
    Limited access to heaven because of sin
    Limited access to disabled parking spaces because of not having a disability
    Marriage only between a man and a woman
    Marriage between same sex couples
    Marriage between people and animals
    Limited access to baptism and temples because of sin
     
    Does God discriminate against those who are not worthy to enter the celestial kingdom by not allowing them entry? I certainly hope He does, otherwise there is no point in striving to meet the entry requirements. Is there a temple recommend question that discourages us from associating with certain groups or people who propagate certain beliefs? Is not the whole temple recommend interview process a means of discriminating between those who can and those who cannot enter the temple? I think that all of us, every week, need to be making decisions that involve a degree of discriminatory practice – eg, do I praise my son (different treatment) for a job well done (a characteristic)? Do I avoid my neighbour (different treatment) because he swears and is drunk (a characteristic) all the time? Do I refuse to employ the American gardener (different treatment) because he charges more than double what the Mexican gardener charges ( a characteristic) Do I make a different decision about someone or something or should my decision be influenced by (a difference) an attribute that that person has that is good or bad (a characteristic). If we answer yes to that question, we are practicing a form of discrimination. I hope we are making these kinds of decisions every day.
     
    My point is that discrimination is a necessary, unavoidable, important, and everyday, although usually unrecognised part of life. There is good discrimination and bad discrimination. The line between the two is often blurred and quite mobile. To simply reject something on the grounds that it is discriminatory may be failing to recognise the true nature of discrimination. The trouble seems to arise when people can’t agree on what is acceptable basis for discrimination. 
  9. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from yjacket in Thoughts on the nature of discrimination   
    If I hadn't been so tired when I wrote this post, it probably would have been more concise. Its longer than it should be but I think it still makes the point I want it to.
     
     
    In 2013, the last time our federal parliament gave some serious thought to same sex marriage, the church asked us to communicate our thoughts and feelings on the topic to our local Member of Parliament. I did so, and one of the lines I used in my letter was similar to the line Vort took in the news conference posting – that if we allowed same sex marriage because not to do so was unfair, unequal and discriminatory against gay couples who wanted to get married – then there was no longer any logical argument for banning daddies who wanted to marry their daughters or women who wanted to marry their dogs. A few weeks later, Senator Cory Bernardi, a government Senator and ferocious right wing hard core Christian, started making public statements along exactly the same lines. He was very strongly condemned from all sides, even his own, and after a week or two he stopped making such statement. Last year, the government wanted to remove a few words from Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act which would have had the effect of reducing the number of grounds on which a person could be sued for discrimination. These two events have led me to think a bit about discrimination and exactly what it is, or might be.
     
    It seems to me that the essence of discrimination is when a group that possesses a particular characteristic or attribute, is treated differently by other groups because they possess that particular characteristic or attribute. In the recent case, the attribute in question was being gay and the difference treatment was differential access to housing and jobs. If that sort of behaviour is indeed discrimination, which of the following is, and is not, discriminatory:
    Limited access to housing because of gender preference
    Limited access to housing because of a person's height
    Limited access to housing because of ethnic origins
    Limited access to housing because of inability to pay the rent
    Limited access to housing because of the poor condition of the house
    Limited access to jobs because of colour
    Limited access to jobs because of inadequate training or not having the correct qualifications
    Limited access to heaven because of sin
    Limited access to disabled parking spaces because of not having a disability
    Marriage only between a man and a woman
    Marriage between same sex couples
    Marriage between people and animals
    Limited access to baptism and temples because of sin
     
    Does God discriminate against those who are not worthy to enter the celestial kingdom by not allowing them entry? I certainly hope He does, otherwise there is no point in striving to meet the entry requirements. Is there a temple recommend question that discourages us from associating with certain groups or people who propagate certain beliefs? Is not the whole temple recommend interview process a means of discriminating between those who can and those who cannot enter the temple? I think that all of us, every week, need to be making decisions that involve a degree of discriminatory practice – eg, do I praise my son (different treatment) for a job well done (a characteristic)? Do I avoid my neighbour (different treatment) because he swears and is drunk (a characteristic) all the time? Do I refuse to employ the American gardener (different treatment) because he charges more than double what the Mexican gardener charges ( a characteristic) Do I make a different decision about someone or something or should my decision be influenced by (a difference) an attribute that that person has that is good or bad (a characteristic). If we answer yes to that question, we are practicing a form of discrimination. I hope we are making these kinds of decisions every day.
     
    My point is that discrimination is a necessary, unavoidable, important, and everyday, although usually unrecognised part of life. There is good discrimination and bad discrimination. The line between the two is often blurred and quite mobile. To simply reject something on the grounds that it is discriminatory may be failing to recognise the true nature of discrimination. The trouble seems to arise when people can’t agree on what is acceptable basis for discrimination. 
  10. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from SpiritDragon in Thoughts on the nature of discrimination   
    If I hadn't been so tired when I wrote this post, it probably would have been more concise. Its longer than it should be but I think it still makes the point I want it to.
     
     
    In 2013, the last time our federal parliament gave some serious thought to same sex marriage, the church asked us to communicate our thoughts and feelings on the topic to our local Member of Parliament. I did so, and one of the lines I used in my letter was similar to the line Vort took in the news conference posting – that if we allowed same sex marriage because not to do so was unfair, unequal and discriminatory against gay couples who wanted to get married – then there was no longer any logical argument for banning daddies who wanted to marry their daughters or women who wanted to marry their dogs. A few weeks later, Senator Cory Bernardi, a government Senator and ferocious right wing hard core Christian, started making public statements along exactly the same lines. He was very strongly condemned from all sides, even his own, and after a week or two he stopped making such statement. Last year, the government wanted to remove a few words from Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act which would have had the effect of reducing the number of grounds on which a person could be sued for discrimination. These two events have led me to think a bit about discrimination and exactly what it is, or might be.
     
    It seems to me that the essence of discrimination is when a group that possesses a particular characteristic or attribute, is treated differently by other groups because they possess that particular characteristic or attribute. In the recent case, the attribute in question was being gay and the difference treatment was differential access to housing and jobs. If that sort of behaviour is indeed discrimination, which of the following is, and is not, discriminatory:
    Limited access to housing because of gender preference
    Limited access to housing because of a person's height
    Limited access to housing because of ethnic origins
    Limited access to housing because of inability to pay the rent
    Limited access to housing because of the poor condition of the house
    Limited access to jobs because of colour
    Limited access to jobs because of inadequate training or not having the correct qualifications
    Limited access to heaven because of sin
    Limited access to disabled parking spaces because of not having a disability
    Marriage only between a man and a woman
    Marriage between same sex couples
    Marriage between people and animals
    Limited access to baptism and temples because of sin
     
    Does God discriminate against those who are not worthy to enter the celestial kingdom by not allowing them entry? I certainly hope He does, otherwise there is no point in striving to meet the entry requirements. Is there a temple recommend question that discourages us from associating with certain groups or people who propagate certain beliefs? Is not the whole temple recommend interview process a means of discriminating between those who can and those who cannot enter the temple? I think that all of us, every week, need to be making decisions that involve a degree of discriminatory practice – eg, do I praise my son (different treatment) for a job well done (a characteristic)? Do I avoid my neighbour (different treatment) because he swears and is drunk (a characteristic) all the time? Do I refuse to employ the American gardener (different treatment) because he charges more than double what the Mexican gardener charges ( a characteristic) Do I make a different decision about someone or something or should my decision be influenced by (a difference) an attribute that that person has that is good or bad (a characteristic). If we answer yes to that question, we are practicing a form of discrimination. I hope we are making these kinds of decisions every day.
     
    My point is that discrimination is a necessary, unavoidable, important, and everyday, although usually unrecognised part of life. There is good discrimination and bad discrimination. The line between the two is often blurred and quite mobile. To simply reject something on the grounds that it is discriminatory may be failing to recognise the true nature of discrimination. The trouble seems to arise when people can’t agree on what is acceptable basis for discrimination. 
  11. Like
    askandanswer reacted to Claire in Significance of Resurrection   
    I won't go into too many particulars since Catholics and LDS tend to differ a bit on some of these things, but I do think either camp can probably admit to there being some "principle of continuity."
     
    Obviously we all have standard issue "mortal" bodies right now. Throughout our lives, from conception to birth to adulthood to old age and death, those bodies change in a pretty radical way. The physical matter that makes up my body right now is probably 99+% different from the physical matter that made it up when I was first born, but we still consider it to be the "same" body. What this means is that, over and apart from the physical stuff making us up, there has to be some underlying unchanging thing that makes us up. For a Catholic, this would be the soul which orders and gives form to the body. For LDS, I think anatess was probably on the right track with your spirit bodies (I'll leave it to other LDS to determine if that's accurate or not).
     
    Regardless, we know from observing our physical bodies that there's some unperceived principle of continuity at work. I think that whatever that principle is, it will likely be present in your resurrected body as well.
  12. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from Roseslipper in Inactive Member trying to find the guts to go back!   
    Hi Keyra, welcome to the site. I hope it won't be long until you feel that it is time to change your name from Iusedtobelds to something like Iamlds and dropping the first two letters of your religious affiliation. I'm sure if you're courage isn't quite enough yet to get you back to church that there are many people here and in your ward who will be happy to lend you some of theirs. Hoping to hear more from you from time to time about your journey back and your safe and speedy arrival. 
  13. Like
    askandanswer reacted to Litzy in Family in trouble for kids walking home   
    Just my opinion as a parent and educator, but in the vast amount of cases, if your ten-year-old can't navigate by himself your community in a one-mile radius, you have committed a parenting fail. I have high schoolers that can barely cross streets by themselves. With crime rates down significantly from the "good ol' days when kids played by themselves all day long", why not?
     
    No, the whole case is ridiculous. They were walking home a few blocks from the park. I don't know if I'd let a six-year-old make that walk, but I'm trusting the parents that the older child was with-it enough. CPS has much greater problems to go after.
  14. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Exaltation Implications   
    My concern on the worship aspect is that, if there are "higher ups" in the supposed God heirarchy, then it seems like we should worship the "higher" God and not the "lesser." It makes more sense, at least in my mind, to aford worship to the one who set the cosmos in motion vice one who is simply another cog in the machine. If, rather, there are simply innumerable generations of Gods stretching back for eternity, it also seems as though we should honor them in the same way that one honor their grandparents and great-grandparents, with failure to do so being dishonorable at best and blasphemous at worst.
     
    1 Corinthians 8: 5-6
     
    5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
     6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are allthings, and we by him.
  15. Like
    askandanswer reacted to mordorbund in Exaltation Implications   
    Why is that a problem in the context of this thread? The question is, "explain what you believe". Well, we believe because we  have revelation stating as much. Here it is.
     
     
    On a more general note, the Gospel Principles lesson referenced in the OP even included some related scriptures for this particular topic. D&C 132:20–23:
     
     
    That's the scriptural definition of 'gods' in the sense that Mormons use the term. For more, you can find additional scriptures like D&C 76:59–70:
     
  16. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from SpiritDragon in According To Elder Jeffry R. Holland He and Two Prophets Have Had Mental Illnesses   
    Eowyn, from what I read of you here, I think the above statement is a bit of an understatement. :)
  17. Like
    askandanswer reacted to Vort in more than one type of light?   
    In the case of light, note that time does indeed pass for those not traveling at the speed of light. Only the photon itself does not experience time. In that sense, the passage of time appears to be a property of matter.
  18. Like
    askandanswer reacted to Vort in Why is prison chaplain here?   
    Other important questions:
    Where does prison chaplain come from? Where will prison chaplain go when this life is over?
  19. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from mordorbund in are the details still being worked out?   
    Most of my experience with counsels has been as an observing and recording clerk for many years at the ward and stake levels rather than as a major participant. I haven't really thought of how earthly and heavenly counsels might be different, but when I think about it now, I'm not sure if they would be very different - I suspect that both types of counsels would involve groups of people drawing on their wisdom and experience, trying to work out to best achieve a desired outcome within the broader framework of the Plan of Salvation. 
  20. Like
    askandanswer reacted to bytebear in are the details still being worked out?   
    I thought they were just silent note taking.
  21. Like
    askandanswer reacted to Seminarysnoozer in New revelation?   
    Why?  Cause you are JELLous of his ability to speak German?
  22. Like
    askandanswer reacted to JimmiGerman in Single for eternity?   
    Hmm... the person they want to meet should be like them, and they should be like the person they want to meet, who, as the same person they want to meet,  expects to meet a person that should be like herself or wants one of them to be like herself, because she is the same person like one of them, who wants to meet herself by being herself? Sounds like being on a LSD trip, hihihi. 
  23. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from Bini in New revelation?   
    if it is the case that our leaders do not receive revelation in the same way that Joseph Smith did, (and that may or may not be true, but if it is true, I'm not sure if the method of receiving makes any difference) then perhaps the reason might be that our leaders today, having been raised in the church as a child, and having had many decades of church leadership experience, they are so in tune with what God desires and requires that they do not need the Lord to reveal to them, in the same manner, or the same level of detail, how to run His kingdom. 
     
    The church needs to be far more than a foundation, If revelation was needed to lay the foundation, then no matter how good the builders are, more revelation may be needed for the walls and roof. 
  24. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from Bini in New revelation?   
    I would try again, and if necessary, maybe even again after that. If I still did not get the confirmation, I would examine myself to find out why I was not receiving it. If I felt that I had the necessary faith and worthiness to receive the confirmation, but had not received it, then I would be surprised and disappointed, but I like to think, and I hope, that my testimony and church involvement would continue unaffected. A few occasions of failing to receive a spiritual confirmation should not be enough to overturn a life time of testimony and many many other spiritual experiences. But, being human, I also suspect that if I did not receive a spiritual confirmation that my bishop and stake president had been called of God, I might not give quite as much heed to their counsel as I usually do. 
  25. Like
    askandanswer got a reaction from Bini in New revelation?   
    1. I am confident that the rapidly increased number of temples is a result of revelation. I suspect that in many instances, maybe all instances, the location of those temples has also been influenced by revelation. I think that the lowering of the mission age was a result of revelation, and there was probably some sort of revelation/inspiration involved in the large increase in the number of missions around the world. I think that author of the Proclamation on the Family received inspiration/revelation as he wrote that document. I think that the counsel to get out of debt that was repeated so frequently and strongly during the mid 2000's was a result of revelation. I am confident that the Lord continues to guide and inspire, and reveal to His prophets how they should run His kingdom on earth. And of course, there is the oft repeated story of how President Woodruff received a revelation during a drought in which he promised the members in St George Utah that if they would pay their tithing the Lord would bless them with rain.
     
    2. When a new Bishop or new Stake President or Prophet is called, I seek a divine confirmation whether or not the person has been divinely called to that position. Other than that, I trust that my leaders are doing the right thing and leading the church in the right direction. 
     
    3. I believe that as the last days get ever closer, the volume of revelation will significantly increase, as the  church and the world transitions from an earthly organisation presided over by man, to God's kingdom, presided over by Christ. There will almost certainly be revelations associated with the re-establishment of church government in Missouri and the greatly needed increase in the rate of ordinances for the dead. 
     
    My question is why is it that we, the members of the church, are not given copies of those revelations in the same way that the members of the church were during the time of Joseph Smith. What we get are the responses of prophets and apostles to the revelations and inspiration they receive, which is not the same as receiving the text of the revelations, as was the practice in time of Joseph Smith. When the revelations that make up the Doctrine and Covenants were first received, the church devoted considerable resources to getting them published and disseminated, and esteemed their “worth to the Church the riches of the whole Earth.”
    The church today receives many revelations, but very few seem to be published or made public in the form in which they are received.