BeccaKirstyn

Members
  • Posts

    417
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by BeccaKirstyn

  1. I noticed a pattern of phrases in 3 Nephi 9 that Christ repeated four times in somewhat similar ways and was wondering if anyone has ever come across any conference talks or has any insight about this repetition? Assuming things that are repeated are extremely poignant and of significance among scripture.

    3 Nephi 9:5: "...to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them."

    3 Nephi 9:8: " ...to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them."

    3 Nephi 9: 9: "...to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them."

    3 Nephi 9: 11: "...that their wickedness and abominations might be hid from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints whom I sent among them might not cry unto me from the ground against them." 

     

     

  2. That is a difficult situation to be in. Definitely let the bishop figure out the records thing. As for your relationship with this person and how to handle conversations about going to church/activities, I would just say that you're not able to give her rides anymore and leave it at that. If she asks why, then you just say it's a personal matter and you'd wish to not discuss it. 

  3. 4 hours ago, hzdbl5 said:

    Handbook 2 14.4.4 says the opening and closing hymns are "...normally sung by the congregation."  Exceptions occur.

    The same section also goes on to say, "The sacrament hymn is always sung by the congregation."  Exceptions should not occur.

    Thanks!

  4. 34 minutes ago, Grunt said:

    The kid has a choice:  BYU or work his way through college.

    And it's very common for college kids to work part-time jobs or even full-time jobs to help pay for school. I personally believe it makes you a better student. You learn to prioritize your time more wisely, you gain more skills than you would just going to your classes and coming home. And you're building your resume while you're preparing for a job within your field. I'm a huge proponent of kids working during college. It is very doable. Easy? Nope, but doable and well worth it.

  5. Some in-state universities offer scholarships for kids who stay in the state instead of leaving for another university out-of-state. Look into (or have your child look into) the scholarship options your in-state universities offer! This will also save you money as they will most likely live at home (unless you prefer them not to)--which wouldn't be the case at BYU. Unless you live in Utah or Idaho....and then my last point is null. My in-state university ended up being cheaper for me than BYU because I could live at home and because I received a scholarship for graduating from a state high school with a specific GPA. Good luck!

  6. On 8/27/2019 at 11:39 AM, pam said:

    How would YOU answer this question:

    I'm having a hard time with the temple. I got my endowment and I'm worried that I have made promises I don't want to keep, and that my place in the eternities is worse than I thought before. Why are women only priestesses to their husbands and not to God? Why does Eve make her covenant to Adam instead of God? I feel like the temple has placed men between me and God, and I'm worried that it's true. Why does the sealing have me give myself to my husband but not have him promise the same?

    I would tell her to go to the source of where she finds truth--whatever that may be. And that these types of questions are not bad to have. As long as you look for answers in the right places (like many discussed here). And to try to take away her "worldly" view of the temple, which is hard to do but helps with understanding and interpreting the symbolic nature of the temple ordinances. This may take many visits and time, but if she is truly seeking answers to these questions, this is how she will successfully do so. 

  7. Junior, your wife as you said will not magically change her mind about your attendance at church in a day. So her feelings about you going to church will not magically be okay with it in one day. This will be a long journey for both of you. One that if you stay on the defensive about, you'll never go back. I can guarantee you that every time you want to bring this subject back up again with your wife, it will be the same reasonings from her. Because you haven't actually had a real, open, and honest discussion (not just blaming you--this is also on her). 

    If you go to church on Sunday will your wife be upset? Yep. If you wait until your wife says she's more "adjusted" with the baby, will she be upset that you ask her if you can go to church? I can almost guarantee it. Because your wife's opinion of the church has never changed since the moment you met her. So why would that change, unless you have more open and honest discussions about it? This includes telling her how important this part of your life is to you and SHOWING her how important it is to you. 

    Not every relationship is the same. Don't compare yours to the other gentlemen who has been describing how his past marriage fought over church. You are describing how you want to try to please your wife by not upsetting her. Is your wife pleasing you to try to not upset you? Does it upset you that you can't go to church? Marriage will constantly be about compromise on both ends. 

    The only thing I find interesting about your post is that you came to discuss your frustrations about not being able to attend church due to your wife's complaints about it, yet all responses to try to help you find a way to get there have been met with reasons as to why you can't make it happen. Were you looking for advice or to just vent your frustration? Both are fine, but if it was more the latter then I would suggest to maybe phrase your posts in such a way. Otherwise you'll be met with lots of posts like this one and others that are trying to help you change your circumstances, when you're not ready to do so.

  8. 1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

    Maybe if you look at it from another perspective...

    But, first off, this needs to be clarified:  The law does not address mothers.  It only addresses doctors.  So the government is not “telling mothers” it’s “telling doctors”.

    So, here’s the different perspective:

    We have a ban on homicide.  Not all killing rises to the crime of homicide.  For example, a woman killed a man that was trying to rape her.  A driver killed a person who ran across a dark highway in black clothing.  A doctor killed a patient by removing life support because of the family’s wishes.  Etc etc.

    All these justifiable cases of killings does not make anybody desire to lift the ban on homicide.  But the killings remain justified such that It doesn’t even trigger an arrest or a day in court.

    Of course, all these cases run off of the basic foundational assumption that it was a PERSON, with inalienable right to life, that got killed.

    Yeah doesn't really change how disgusted I feel when I think about the women in Alabama who are raped who can no longer receive an abortion if they do not want to carry the child of a rapist. 

    Morally do I support aborting children? No. Morally do I support women having the option to choose to do so? Yes. So just because the law doesn't "directly" address mothers doesn't make them feel any less powerful in this situation now. They have no legal means to choose to abort a child that is the product of rape. 

  9. 2 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

    I appreciate the viewpoint. And this is definitely the part of the "argument" that keeps me from being stuck on either side of it, but kind of on the fence. 

    On the other hand of this argument is something mentioned earlier in this thread. That the definition of human life, per the law, does not coincide with viewing a fetus as a human.

    Whether or not I agree with that is again a mute point. But using this argument that the death of a fetus is just the same as the death of another human being cannot be backed up using law, which is what state and federal case law is based off of. So in this regard, the Alabama ruling should not be upheld until the definition of human life is changed. 

  10. Just now, carlimac said:

    But the government has taken away a person's agency to kill another human being, no matter how annoying or inconvenient it is to live with or near that person.  There are lots of things we can't use our agency on, without serious repercussions. Like jail or being put to death ourselves.  

    I appreciate the viewpoint. And this is definitely the part of the "argument" that keeps me from being stuck on either side of it, but kind of on the fence. 

  11. 2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

    The federal courts will too. 

    I hope so. If this is the start of an appeals process for these types of laws to make it to the supreme court to try to reverse the original Roe v. Wade decision, I very much hope that the federal government will not side with the state. Or try to create new precedent in favor of such a strict abortion ban at a federal level. That would feel like a lot of progress lost over the course of many years in our judiciary system. 

  12. As someone who likes research, I'd be interested to see how this law will affect the state of Alabama over the next 5-10 years. How many women will report that they received an abortion through illegal means? How many will report that this ban changed their decision about whether or not to get an illegal abortion? How many individuals will "change" their mind about their stance on abortion?

    How many people will move from Alabama so to not be affected by this law?

    Only time will tell. 

  13. 1 minute ago, Mores said:

    It's not about "a ban".  It is about what is acceptable behavior in a civilized society.  Is it acceptable to take away every law abiding citizen's right to own a gun? Yes or no.  That's all.  Nothing else.  If you say yes, then we ban all guns.  If you say no, then we allow law-abiding citizens to keep them.  End of story.

    Is it acceptable in a civilized society to allow pregnant women to kill the life growing in their womb?  Yes or no.  That's all.  Nothing else.

    Yes, we can talk about exceptions (such as life or health of the mother).  And we can add conditions (like violent felons who have served a prison sentence).  But those are the primary questions to ask.  What is your answer?

    Are you asking my opinion? Because "my" opinion doesn't really matter in the state of Alabama, as I am neither a resident of that state nor a legislator. 

    We've asked many of these questions to those who reside in Alabama and many have disagreed with the stance that has been made. 

    I personally have a difficult time with the law, but it is not my state. 

  14. I have a hard time with this new law. I unfortunately view it in the same context as those who want to ban all weapons. Such a ban would not get rid of the use of weapons....just the legal ways to obtain them. Such is the same with this abortion ban. Banning abortion in the state of Alabama does not get rid of abortion in that state...just the legal (and safe) ways of doing so. 

    I am all about agency. To choose for oneself of how you want to live your life. Do I want to protect the life of a fetus? Absolutely, I do. But, if my friend, who chooses to have an abortion, doesn't feel the same, who am I (or who is the government) to tell her what to do? To get in the way of her agency. 

    I don't know. This has always been a very sticky and difficult issue that I have gone back and forth on for many years. But this law just does not feel right to me. 

  15. On 5/11/2019 at 10:09 PM, seashmore said:

    I don't know what would constitute my first "official" date, but I've been on plenty of first dates with different guys.  I'll share some highlights (all different dates).

    The good: he had friend-zoned me and wanted to buy me a concert ticket.  I told him I would pay for it, but he insisted, so I compromised and said he could buy it if we could consider it a date.  (Elder Oaks had recently given his "paired off, planned out, and paid for" talk to the YSA.)  He agreed.  Halfway through the concert, we both had our hands on our own knees, and I slyly reached over and rubbed my pinky along his knee.  He didn't respond, but I tried it again a few songs later, and he took the bait and we held hands for a little while.  I imagine we were adorable as we held hands and raced through the crowd to get to the car after the concert was over.

    The bad: He admitted he cried during an episode of Star Trek.  That's second date material, unless you've both established you're Trekkie's. 

    The ugly: he told me his residence was essentially him squatting in an old machine shed and that he slept on a mattress that was resting on his boxes of ammo.  Also, he modified his truck to add those dual-top exhausts that emit black smoke when you change gears.

     

    this is amazing.

    Also do you know the title of Elder Oaks' talk you're referring to? Would love to read it.

  16. 5 hours ago, Maureen said:

    I wasn't able to watch that game on Sunday but kept track of the score on my phone. I was so shocked to find out the Sharks won that game with a short handed goal.

    ETA: And in double OT.

    M.

    Yeah it was a painful one to watch. So was last night's game. So now I'm all in for the Caps! Don't let me down today either 😭

  17. On 2/27/2019 at 1:12 PM, wenglund said:

    I view the seeming contradiction as a good thing. It suggest the possibility that your friend may be doubting his doubts. [thumbs up]

    And, while fears about the prospects of the afterlife may be understandable and loom somewhat disquieting, it clearly isn't a motive for current change, and may even distract attention away from people's  current spiritual predicament.

    To me, this is where your friends concerns may best be placed--not that you have much sway or say. It is like were a person to have fallen down a well worrying about whether in the distant future they would be prevented from ever getting out of the hole. 

    Your friend is currently damning himself--i.e. he is now denying himself not only the blessings of heaven , but also the present opportunity to progress towards transcendent character and become like Christ. He is preventing, today, the light from shining into his darkness. He is keeping himself from climbing out of the spiritual hole.

    In contrast, the messages of the Restored Gospel, as conveyed in this weeks Come Follow Me lesson, is that : "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." (Jn 3:17-18)

    Condemnation and denial of salvation, then, is essentially of our own making and our own choosing.

    As @Barrett Maximus wisely counselled, pray for your friend, as we will as well.

    Thanks, -Wade Englund-

    Perfectly stated. Thank you.

    And thanks to all the other comments! He is currently in a mindset of having no desire to repent. Yet I know there is this underlying fear of this eternal damnation that he is fully aware of. But he uses these verses and others similar to rationalize away that if the gospel were true, it would not include such a "harsh" punishment (his words). Many underlying doubts/uncertainties/and lack of faith regarding certain principles of the gospel that are the root of these thoughts. 

    Many prayers will consistently be going his way, as well as my firm testimony of what I know to be true. 

  18. In Mosiah 2:38-39, King Benjamin is speaking about those who do not repent and die without doing so. He then speaks about the result of eternal damnation. I have a friend (who has fallen away from the gospel and does not believe in it anymore—yet he believes he is categorized as such from these verses, so quite contradictory) that believes this means he has no chance to ever be “saved”. That he’s a lost cause.

    In these verses, and the verses listed for the footnote of “torment” under damnation—this is talking about the spiritual damnation, or lack of progress, of those in spirit prison who must chose to repent before judgment day, yes? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly? I tried to explain it this way (hopefully assuming I was correct in that assumption), but of course he did not take to that explanation and pushed it aside. 

    Any other insights on this verse and similar “damnation” verses would be helpful! 😊