• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About f1lbr

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Religion
  1. f1lbr

    Are the "basics" enough?

    Nice strawman. Of course, God's physical height is not an example of what I was talking about and isn't a gospel principle. Look, let me give it to you another way. When we tell children that they'll live with mommy and daddy forever, you and I both know that what they understand that to mean is not what it really means. But we teach it to them and let them understand it in a simplified manner because that's what they're capable of understanding. The broader truth of that principle is something they will figure out as they mature. The gospel is similar. We understand things with a limited capacity. The spirit teaches us as our capacity grows. The "mysteries" is nothing more than the deeper and more profound knowledge of the "basics". That's part of the reason for the danger is seeking out the "mysteries" while ignoring the "basics"; you're likely to find something that is not founded on the "basics". Now let me give you a clear example of this. D&C 19 reveals a "mystery" (and even calls it that). Namely that there is no eternal torment or eternal damnation. This isn't "faith, repentance, baptism, gothg". It's a bit deeper than the "basics". One can argue that that little tidbit of knowledge isn't relevant to our eternal salvation. Yet apparently the Lord felt it was worth revealing.
  2. f1lbr

    Are the "basics" enough?

    While I agree with your first statement, I believe the portion highlighted is erroneous. I believe it would be more correct to state, 'Those who concentrate on any gospel principle to the exclusion of the "basics" of the gospel are looking beyond the mark and are in danger of losing their exaltation.' Consider, for example, this quote by Joseph Smith: There are numerous others that are also of relevance to which we are encouraged to gain knowledge. However, in none of these are we command to only gain knowledge of the "basics" of the gospel. Spoken of in another way, if there are "basics" of the gospel then there are "non-basics" of the gospel and if they are true principles of the gospel then are they not worthy of study and understanding? The area where many people have gotten into trouble in "advanced" topics comes from two places: 1) Advanced topics are generally taught through personal revelation and not through a person's own personal reasoning. Reasoning may be involved in the process, but ultimately revelation is the governing principle. Advanced topics are not taught in Sunday School or through General Conference. They are to be received through personal revelation. As personal revelation, these things are not to be shared. They're personal. And once shared the spirit is grieved and withdraws and opens the person up to false revelation. When you hear someone "sharing" so-called "mysteries" you know that invariably they are on the wrong course: either they have not received revelation on the subject or they have and are in error for sharing personal revelation. 2) Leaving behind the basics of the gospel. This invariably causes troubles for those who are seeking, shall I say "too hard", after mysteries. The basics of the gospel are the fundamentals and the foundation and when one leaves those safe foundations for the sandy ones, they invariably open themselves up to false doctrines. For the "advanced" doctrines will never conflict with the "basic" doctrines. Now that being said, I will give a word of advice: the "mysteries" or the "advanced" gospel topics are readily available. But don't force the process. The easiest way to be taught those things is to study the basics, frequent the temple, be open to revelation and you will be taught the advanced things line upon line. Always guard those things sacredly in your heart. When the Lord can trust you with his secrets, He will give you more. The true "mysteries" are not "esoteric things of no worth", but are truths which will deepen your understanding, strengthen your relationship with the Savior and bless you in your confidence before the Lord.
  3. f1lbr

    Utah Mormons

    :) I hear ya. I wish we could all just be saints together instead of "Utah Mormons" or "Mission Field Mormons". It's almost as if we are dividing up into '-ites'. Although that would be a mouthful. utahmormonites. missionfieldites. This is how we should be (with editorial liberty):
  4. f1lbr

    Utah Mormons

    Actually you did imply it was OK: The implication in your statements "everyones been cool with it", that "it's all in good fun" is that it is OK. That is exactly my point. You keep addressing why everyone else should ignore it instead of addressing whether or not you should be saying it. It's really easy for the person giving offense to encourage the other person to turn the other cheek. Look I get you may not have know that some people find the term derogatory. But now you do know. The question should really be: now what? Do I keep using the term and darned be anyone who gets offended or do I respect that it offends others and change? Because a lot of you posts feel like you're taking the former position.
  5. f1lbr

    Utah Mormons

    The thing that rubs people the wrong way is that you won't accept that labeling people, "Utah Mormons" is unkind and you keep coming up with justification for why it's OK. It was "in good humor". Saying things like: 'YOU shouldn't let them bother you. YOU should ignore them.' You seem to want other people to change their response to bad behavior instead of stopping the bad behavior. You've been told it is rude and bad behavior. Why do you insist on justifying it? The real crux of the problem here is that we as saints should be "one". This kind of divisiveness serves no purpose. There shouldn't be "Utah Mormons" and whatever the implied opposite is ("Non-Utah Mormons?"). It reminds me of 4 Nephi when they began to divide among themselves and started calling themselves "Nephites" and "Lamanites" and such.
  6. f1lbr

    Utah Mormons

    I grew up outside of Utah (Alaska) but have lived in Utah since college/marriage. You are right there are great families in Utah, and outside of Utah in the church. However, to be honest after a while of culturally becoming a "Utah Mormon", I have to say the playful (snide) remarks got to be rather annoying. You know how many times I've visited a non-Utah ward, told people I'm from Utah and been told, to my face, "Oh, that's a shame", "Oh that's too bad", "Oh you seem like such a good Mormon". Yes, those are direct quotes and I've been told those and similar things many times. "All the Utah Mormons I've met chuckle at it, because they know it's all in good fun." This, of course, is the absolutely worst kind of justification. Nobody likes being labeled. Nobody likes being made fun of. Nobody likes snide remarks. Your comment is the kind of statement used to justify unkind behavior. So I'll add my $.02 that I also hate the "Utah Mormon" label. To the OP: I'm sorry your experience at your Utah ward wasn't better. Regardless of whether it happens solely here in Utah or occurs elsewhere, it is still unfortunate. Our ward does pretty good at welcoming people, but then we have a near constant turnover of people moving into and out of the ward so I guess we are a bit more used to it. I can see a ward that isn't used to new people not handling things overly well. Although I would like to share this. We had a couple move in a while ago who was older (we also have a small retirement community). The husband came 20 minutes early to church every week for a couple of months, stood at the door and greeted everyone as they arrived for church. He introduced himself to everyone, telling him he was new to the ward. Now I am a bit introverted and so that would be a bit outside of my comfort zone, but I have to admit everyone knew who he was.
  7. f1lbr

    Favorite way to save money?

    Favorite way to save money? Learn to live on a Budget! I cannot tell you how freeing it is to stop living paycheck to paycheck. It is so liberating. It requires discipline but it is so (financially) rewarding. I almost don't remember the days of getting to the end of a pay period and having to stop spending money because the checking account was getting close to zero. Overdraft? Haven't used it YEARS. First we started budgeting, then we paid off all credit cards, then we started saving money. It also helps to budget for the expected and unexpected. We save a little bit each paycheck to go towards christmas and birthdays. My youngest son's birthday is Monday and we don't even have to think about how we're going to pay for it. The money is already there. We put a little aside each paycheck for our annual family vacation (usually visiting grandparents). We also put a little aside for the inevitable car repairs. We also have a budget for unexpected expenses. These are emergency things that can't be planned for. A few months ago our sink disposal developed a huge crack in it and needed to be replaced. That's what the emergency fund is for. The nice thing about these budgets is that it takes the stress out of unexpected or unplanned expenses.
  8. f1lbr

    Sad news: Elder Scott has died

    I met Elder Scott once. It was a memorable experience. Prayers for his family.
  9. Well stated. OK. I'm not sure what part we are disagreeing on, but I guess we can agree that we don't agree on something in the mix. :)
  10. ye = you. Who is the Lord speaking to in verse 16? Verse 10 begins the quotation from the Lord: So verse 16 is seems to be talking about the righteous Nephites/Lamanites gathered at Bountiful, or at least their surviving remnant in our day. It should be noted that "you" can be either a second person or third person address. Here I'm assuming a second person address and then inferring the descendants to whom the Lord was directly addressing. It could be that "you" is a third person address in which the Nephites/Lamanites are not being directly addressed and that "you" is just addressing some other remnant of the House of Israel, but I don't put a whole lot on this viewpoint. The problem comes from verse 15: Who are the gentiles? I believe that this causes confusion because of the liberal way in which the term is seemingly applied. Some, especially those who use this prophecy as justification that the church has gone astray, apply the term "gentile" to the members of the church. And this confusion comes from, I believe, a misunderstanding of the term "gentile". The Guide to the Scriptures is pertinent to understanding this: This is especially important to keep in mind in the context in 3 Nephi 21 wherein it talks about the Gospel going forth "from the Gentiles". The gospel is going forth "from the Gentiles" in the context of the latter-days because Israel is not gathered as a nation. However it is very important to keep in mind that once converted, we as individuals cease to be gentiles and become part of the House of Israel, pursuant to the covenant thereof. Whereas many point to 3 Nephi 21 for justification that we are the "Gentiles" (because the Gospel is to go forth "from the Gentiles"), a careful reading indicates that the term "gentile" cannot be so constrained (3 Nephi 21:6): Thus, upon repentance and baptism gentiles become numbered among "[his] people". His people are the house of Israel. And they cease being gentiles even though we are still among the Gentile nations. Now let's go back and apply this the Chapter 20: What is the covenant made unto "his people", which are the house of Israel? It is that although they are scattered, they shall be gathered. This gathering seems to occur before the fulfillment of verses 15 and 16 (inline comments mine): Now following on into verses 18 and 19. Note that these verses seem to be addressing yet a third group of people than those discussed in verses 15 and 16. Verses 15 and 16 address two groups of people, "the Gentiles" and "a remnant of the house of Jacob". Now verses 18 and 19 seem to be addressing a third group. This third group the Lord refers to as "[his] people". Again this reinforces the idea that "the Gentiles" are not "[his] people". So in reading chapters 20 and 21, to me the terms "the Gentiles" refers to the gentile nations of which America is prominently among (since the gospel primarily is going forth from America). The "remnant of the house of Jacob" most likely refers to descendants of Lehi still alive. And "my people" refers to those who accept the Gospel and are converted. I do not equate "the Gentiles" as referring in any way to some imagined church apostasy. Although I would accept those who have apostatized individually to be back in "the Gentiles" category. Clear as mud? Now to answer the OP's comments. If by "us" and "ourselves" you mean us as a nation, I would agree with your interpretation. I believe fulfillment is forthcoming and will occur when the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled.
  11. f1lbr

    Father's Day and Mother's Day

    Honestly, the last few Father's Days in our ward only mentioned fathers in passing. Whereas on Mother's Days mothers are extolled extensively (as well they should be). Our ward has a lot of divorced sisters. I sometimes wonder if the lack of Father's Day comments about fathers is simply because it is too sensitive of an issue for too many people in our ward.
  12. Very true and a worthy reminder. Satan is a master at distraction and our entire world is carefully cultivated to distract us from what is most important, our relationship with God. Thanks for your thoughts.
  13. f1lbr

    Was there Death Before Adam

    Certainly not. We just need to make certain that our discussion does not move into the area of generating doubt. To me, true religion and true science are the same thing. But some things simply cannot be figured out by man's reasoning alone. For those things, I have a "bookshelf" in the back of my head of things I would (mostly out of curiosity) like to have and answer but for which I accept that answers are not forthcoming.
  14. f1lbr

    Pride or Self Esteem Promotion

    Well whether you consider it a different definition or a different sphere or a different perspective isn't really relevant. The point is that if you rely on external things, accomplishments, worldly praise or whatever it may be, your self esteem will always eventually fail you. Those are things you have limited control over. Yes, I did read the article. Yes, "fake accomplishments" don't instill lasting self worth. But then again, the difference between "fake accomplishments" and "real accomplishments" is only a difference of degree. Look at the people who have worldly "real accomplishments". Does it gain them lasting happiness? If not, then they don't really have real self esteem. From another perspective, the article comparing something that is a 1 against something that is a 10 on a scale of 10,000. From the perspective of the 1, the 10 looks nice. From the 10, the 1 looks terrible. Especially if you don't realize the scale goes up to 10,000. But from the perspective of 10,000 both look rather meaningless. And that's why I say it. Real, lasting self esteem comes from knowing that the life one is pursuing is pleasing to the Lord. That kind of self esteem anchors one against the constantly shifting winds of the world's metrics for self esteem.
  15. f1lbr

    Pride or Self Esteem Promotion

    Let me give you a different definition of self esteem. True and lasting self esteem comes from knowing that the life one is pursuing is pleasing to God. One can and should seek revelation and receive confirmation that their life is one that pleases God. When they receive that revelation, they understand their worth to God and experience true self esteem. The article in the OP is discussing different types of worldly self esteem. Worldly self esteem is always transient and is never permanent.