Fether
-
Posts
3690 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
27
Posts posted by Fether
-
-
11 minutes ago, Grunt said:
Whether or not it's hypocrisy depends on what was said. Whether or not it was hurtful isn't the decision line. To many, The Family is hurtful. To others, it's a loving testimony.
Memes making fun of the movement. I’m all for testimonies of the family proclamation, but using images and cheap jokes to make fun of what other people find important is not appropriate
-
From the article:
Sympathy,empathy, and compassion are all Topical Guide synonyms for love. Combined, they define our love for others as the state or condition of having internalized their well-being. … Adam Smith wrote, “Every man feels his own pleasures and his own pains more sensibly than those of other people”… divine love, the state or condition in which God has internalized our well-being, is the highest form of love because it is perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal…Sometimes we may not feel God’s love because we are unable or unwilling to pay the price—the price of internalizing the well-being of those around us… Part of that price is to sometimes suffer in place of, sometimes because of, and sometimes vicariously with those we love… to be in relationships with both God and others, we must willingly pay the price of love. As Sister Aileen H. Clyde explained, were we to refuse to pay the price love requires, “we would have to avoid what gives us life and hope and joy—our capacity to love deeply.” We willingly pay the price of love so we may experience joy. Of the Savior, Elder Bruce C. and Marie K. Hafen wrote that the Savior’s “infinite capacity for joy is the inverse, mirror image of the depth of his capacity to bear our burdens.”
-
For Christmas, my wife bought me a subscription to BYUs religious educator magazine. I was looking through a recent issue and came across two article titles next to each other.
”was the earth formed from the debris of other planets?”
and
”Feeling God’s Love”
Had I opened up this issue even a year or two ago, I would have gone straight to the article about the earth coming from the debris of other planets. But this morning, it was a no brainer. I had no interest in how the earth was made, but rather I became deeply curious as to how else I could learn to feel God’s love.
This has been an aspect of my life I have been seeking to change for a while. For most my life, I was like the Greeks on Mars Hill who wasted their time away looking for new things to hear (Acts 17:21). I’ve slowly progressed over the last year or two, but today I was confronted with two topics on opposite ends of my fight and I didn’t even hesitate which one I wanted to read.
Over the last year, my interest has shifted from learning “new things” to learning how to become a “new creature” in Christ. Instead of stimulating my mind, I’ve sought to stimulate my soul into growing and overcoming the weaknesses I have.
It has been a great year in which I have grown far more than I had in years prior. As you focus your studies on where you can improve, God helps you become whoever you want to be.
-
17 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
This is the way it is, and anyone who thinks otherwise must fight me.
Behind the school by the flag pole? Or is this an in the garden park with flintlocks type fight? …BYOF of course.
- NeuroTypical and Highlander
-
2
-
8 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:
After 23 years in federal service, and having raised three daughters through public education, I now find myself teaching civics in a private Christian school. I love this work and remain certain that we can serve God well, in part, through politics. I grew up as Rev. Falwell urged evangelical Christians (and some LDS, btw) to the pro-life cause. This morphed into the Moral Majority and later the Christian Coalition. After Clinton was elected some in the New Right gave up hope, called for a retreat into insular Christian culture, and circled the wagons. Others veered into a Kingdom Now end-times belief--that Christians must reclaim America, and the world, for Jesus. We must win the reins of power and establish God's law. THEN the Lord will return.
COVID-19 really shook my own understanding of balance. I saw many church members embrace conservative-constitutionalism, so much that they left the church because it was not willing to speak out against mandates and government violation of rights. My struggle was not with their politics, but that these matters came to outweigh the proclamation of faith and good news. In essence, they traded the greatness of the faith for the goodness of patriotic classical liberalism (aka constitutional conservatism).
I still believe Christians can serve effectively and well in politics. But, I see so clearly now the temptation to rely and political power rather than the power of God.
I call this the “thirteenth apostle syndrome”. Our church, as I am sure you are aware, is run by the quorum of the twelve apostles as well as a presidency. There are cultural figures in the world that we come with powerful polarizing views that I see many people treat as the 13th apostle.
I’ve seen good Christian people testify of Christ one day and the next post extremely hurtful things towards the LGBTQ, feminists, and other liberal movements. All the while they are blind to the hypocrisy.
- LDSGator, prisonchaplain, Jane_Doe and 1 other
-
4
-
56 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
It makes more and more sense to me (thanks @Fether, @Backroads and @NeuroTypical) now.
I think that saying reeks of sadness and ego. Most people who have said that in my life are incredibly abrasive and use it as a defense mechanism when they’ve alienated everyone around them. I can't imagine you @Backroads being someone like that!
The people who declare “I don’t care what other people think” tend to be the people that care the most and are just trying to make themselves look good. The statement itself is defensive so they obviously feel some sort of an attack. The fact that they find themselves in a situation where they must declare such a statement is a sign that they do care… and care quite a bit.
Example:
Person A: I think you are a bad father!
Person B: You are probably right, where can I improve?
vs
Person A: I think you are a bad father!
Person B: Well I don’t care what you think! (Defensive)
-
1 hour ago, LDSGator said:
Got love for you @Backroads, but that phrase “I don’t care what others think of me” is something I’ll never understand. After all, if someone doesn’t care what I think of them, then why should I care what they think of me? Doesn’t that make conversation and future interactions sort of meaningless? Why are any of us here if none of us care?
Maybe I’ll get there someday, who knows?
48 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:The phrase tends to have a lot of meaning to folks who have come to a healthy understanding of such things, from other places. Former people pleasers, who base their sense of self on what others think of them, grow out of their pasts into such phrases. A better phrase is something like "It's ok if you don't agree or don't like me, Imma do what I think is right anyway."
I don’t think the phrase really qualifies well what is intended to be communicated.
A more careful phrase would be “Other’s opinions of me do not affect my happiness or how I view myself”.
- LDSGator, askandanswer and Backroads
-
3
-
Is it possible for someone to cut down a massive redwood trees and just carve a kitchen table and chairs from the trunk? No need for screws or bolts!
-
My wife and I bought this wonderful table about 2 years ago. It looked great, was big enough for our growing the family to last a long time, and was priced fairly well.
However, shortly after we got it I found that each of the 5 chairs and bench have about 10,000 screws and bolts each. I have spent the last two years retightening the screws and bolts over and over.
Today was almost the last straw. I was already fairly grumpy when we sat down to dinner. My so. Sat in the bench and I heard the dreaded sound of a nail bouncing on our floor. I about lost it. This can’t be normal! Is this what fatherhood is all about retightening screws for eternity? Are there chairs and tables out there that don’t have this problem? Is there a permanent fix?
-
4 minutes ago, Ironhold said:
Suppose, for a moment, that we confirm sentient alien life.
We make first contact with them.
Maybe they look just like us, give or take a few odd features (like Spock's ears).
Maybe it's clear that they evolved from another critter, like a fox instead of a monkey.
Maybe they're three-story tall transforming robots.
Either way, it's now undeniable that there is life on other worlds.
How would you handle it?
How do you think the people in your belief system would handle it?
There are some secondary beliefs that aren’t taught anywhere, but rather they are assumed. I imagine some of those would need to be changed.
The only real conflict I see is the “made in his image” but of our scripture.
-
55 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
I used to feel that all politicians who disagreed with me had to be evil and part of some grand conspiracy, but as I got older I began to realize that someone can have vastly different views than mine and still be a moral person.
For me I went from thinking liberals were all idiots, to realizing everyone wants the same thing, we just have different beliefs for getting there, to thinking everyone was corrupt and every conspiracy is true, to now choosing to believe everything is awesome and there is no corruption in the government
-
2 hours ago, Traveler said:
Almost always, politics is far more treacherous than it seams (a lesson I learned reading the Book of Mormon and some personal experiences).
I made the decision a while ago to stop believing politicians are evil and the government is corrupt. I may be wrong or I may be right… who knows? But what I do know is that I’m happier and feel a LOT less anxiety
- MrShorty, JohnsonJones, Backroads and 1 other
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, Backroads said:
An odd question, but I think we have a fair amount of people from these states.
The story is I'm trying to find a virtual field. Why a virtual field trip? I teach virtual school and my kids are spread all over the great state of Utah, plus no one seems to know if we're allowed to meet together for other field trips. The rest of the story: the state is giving us money for virtual learning opportunities. I found one field trip that I'm excited about...but we have to run everything through DonorsChoose. And... my one field trip doesn't cost quite enough. Which means, hey, no problem, we can do another field trip, hooray! But golly, I'm struggling to find a cool place that would offer a virtual field trip experience that actually costs money (though now as I type this, I wonder if I couldn't get one of them to accept some sort of donation in return for an invoice I can use).
Anywho, my brain is frozen on cool places that would work for this, so those of you that get out more, does anything come to mind?
Southern UT:
- Arches National Park
- Zion National Park
- Capital Reef National Park
- Snow Canyon State Park
- Bryce Canyon National Park
- Cedar Breaks State Park
- Escalante
- Moab
Northern UT:
- Park City
- Salt Flats
- Peter Sinks (coldest place in the continental USA)
- Antelope Island
- Salt Lake
- this is the place state park
- SLC temple
- Bear Lake
-
58 minutes ago, laronius said:
I came across this quote from George Q Cannon in an article and it got me thinking:
"As a people we are expecting the day to come when Jesus will descend in the clouds of Heaven; but before this day comes we must be prepared to receive him. The organization of society that exists in the heavens must exist on the earth; the same condition of society, so far as it is applicable to mortal beings, must exist here."
1. To what extent is this true? Is this the purpose of the New Jerusalem, a sufficiently righteous society, or is it required of the Church membership in general, or something in between?
2. How much progress are we making towards that goal? Is each succeeding generation more righteous than the one before?
I don't have a firm opinion on the first question. I'd like to think that the Church in general was ready to meet him but that sure seems to be a LOOONNGG way off, longer than it seems like it should, at least at the rate we are going, which opinion reveals my attitude about the second question. We often hear of people saying how much better the then upcoming generation is but I don't know if I see it. That's not to criticize the upcoming generation, rather I'm pointing out the faithfulness of previous generations. So I guess my current opinion is that something's got to give. The hastening of the work needs to translate into a hastening of individual righteousness. But is that happening?
I have heard many time throughout my life that Christ is waiting for us to make Zion before he comes. I’ve also heard the opposite, that he is coming and we need to be ready for him.
Is he waiting for us to be ready? Or are we waiting for him to be ready? No idea. I imagine the latter since that seems to be what scripture suggest. But I’m not married to that view.
If the prior is true, there either needs to be some sort of mass coming to Christ or perhaps a removal of the non-valiant and the remaining saints will make up Zion.
As for the faithfulness of each generation, supposedly they get better and better because each generation gets the same messaging it seems.
-
21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
But that difficulty is a choice. Blacks not being given the priesthood was not their choice. Someone choosing to believe the Church is wrong in homosexuality is something they can choose to not believe and the conflict is resolved. No more difficulty in that regard.
Correct, I was responding to someone asking why they couldn’t participate. I was just pointing out that they couldn’t participate in the ordinances while holding on to those beliefs
-
9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Why don't they have access to the high blessings?
The OP comment about gays and the church assumed the conflict between the two, and the only conflict that exists is that of living a gay lifestyle while attending church. My comment carried the same assumptions
12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:Belief is a choice.
Which is why it is difficult for someone who chooses to believe their homosexual lifestyle is good while attending a church that teaches the opposite
-
45 minutes ago, Grunt said:
Why can't gay people fully participate in the Church? To my knowledge, and I suspect someone will come along and educate me, restricting participation due to heritage was a policy. There is no such restriction on participation for attractions.
Participating is no problem, this issue they have is mot having access to the high blessings and being around teachings that are contrary to their own beliefs.
-
1 hour ago, scottyg said:
Ammon went to serve King Lamoni, and stated that he intended to live amongst his people until the day he died. That would obviously necessitate knowing the Lamanite culture.
The church will continue to grow, and will be expanding in other Muslim dominant countries in the coming years. Dubai / U.A.E. as exhibit A. Knowing their backgrounds and religious/cultural views will reduce suspicion, help us minister to them in the right way, and in turn help their hearts become softened to the message of the Gospel. Don't be surprised to see another pamphlet like this on Hinduism and/or Buddhism as the church continues to make its way into India and China.
A new approach to killing with kindness
-
I’m reminded of Alma 3 where the allocates mark themselves to separate from the Nephites. It goes on to say that we bring upon ourselves our own Cursing.
If I go and have sex with many women and contract HIV, every child I have from them on out has a high risk of getting HIV, and they too are passing that on to their children, and so on. This isn’t a curse from God, but rather a natural curse that was brought on by not listening to God.
Similar thing happens with the Lamanites. If I abandon society and join a savage blood thirsty tribe, all my children will grow up to be savage blood thirsty people .
-
1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:
In fairness, I don’t think that’s what @CV75 was proposing.
He was responding to a post where I was trying to point out that declaring doctrine to him is likely mot what he wants, nor what is best for him. My response to his comment was in that context
-
15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
As for Archuleta... where does the blame actually lie?
Blame for what?
-
20 minutes ago, CV75 said:
Overcoming these immense feelings is also a doctrinal issue. True doctrine, correctly understood, can change attitudes and behavior. The Holy Spirit is the best way to understand true doctrine. We can have no better Friend see us through than Jesus Christ, and this is a deeply personal experience that we can invite people to share by our example.
Yes, however, some doctrines for some people cannot be understood simply by throwing a book at them.
-
22 minutes ago, Traveler said:
but like our own children that choose to depart from the path of covenant and walk into the mists of darkness (as per the revelation in the Book of Mormon concerning the Tree of Life) there will be momentary celebrations in places like the "Great and Spacious Building" among those that also rejected the fullness of the Gospel of Christ but for those that partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life and remain loyal to their covenants - there will always be sorrow for those that chose to live according to "lessor" laws and covenants of the "World". All lasting celebration and joy will only be among the Righteous (those that make and keep G-d's eternal covenants) or those that partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life. I believe the term that describes "All" those that are not loyal to G-d's covenants is "Misery". I think the only ones that will celebrate anyone's misery are those that follow Satan.
I was always under the impression that we would all be happy regardless of where we go. That the separation of kingdoms wasn’t a “you weren’t good enough to go here so I am putting you here”, but rather a “you didn’t want to go here, but you wanted here instead”
First covenant?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
I don’t think it is intended to be a secondary name. Just an acknowledgement that this may have been the first covenant