Fether

@laronius @mirkwood @mikbone @The Folk Prophet @scottyg @estradling75 All are excerpts from Alma 32 "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." "Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away. And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good. And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand." "Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you." To me, it seems Alma 32 talks about having perfect knowledge in that "thing" you did. When you plant a seed, the seed represents a particular action asked of us by the presumed God. That the experiences you have teach you that a certain thing is good and that we can know that doing said thing is good. So I can buy into that. I know that living the word of wisdom is good. I know that reading my scriptures every day is good. I know that prayer works, at least in helping me find ways to fix my own problems. But it says my knowledge is not perfect. It seems to be suggesting that we can know individual principles are good, and by learning that, we can grow our faith in the source (Christ, the Book of Mormon, Prophets, etc.). But we will not have perfect knowledge in this life for that. We must act on faith that they will continue to offer us spiritual strength and will not lead us astray. In the end, we reap the rewards of our faith. Not our knowledge. Knowledge seems to only cement in what we have faith in, but does not replace it. We can know a principle is good and it brings happiness, but we cannot know there is a God. We must have faith in Christ, and that faith leads us to be christlike. Are there other ways I ought to understand the reference of "perfect knowledge" and "knowledge [that] is perfec in that thing"?

You are right, it does depend on the definition. I guess let me ask more questions to more fully explain what I mean. - In this life, can the average righteous latter-day saint know there is a God with the same assurance that you know the color of thier car? - Are all the senses equally reliable in forming knowledge of something? ie if I smell a car, is that knowledge gained equal to the knowledge gained if I saw it or heard it? Which is most reliable? I would argue sight is the most reliable. If I smell it, I could just be smelling any variety of engine-based equipment. If I hear it, it similarily could be any engine from any vehicle. - Building on the last question. Is a single spiritual experience enough to form a knowledge of God equal to the knowledge gained if you saw him face to face? What about multiple spiritual experiences? If I got a burning in my bosom every time I opened the Book of Mormon and Bible, received and gave multiple blessings of healings that ended miraculously, and received great answers to my prayers every night, would that produce the same assurance of God as seeing him face to face? - Alma 32: 21 "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye b5hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Does perfect knowledge come from sight? Here is my biggest question and the core of why I am pondering all this. - Is there, and how much, value can you get from admitting that you don't know there is a God (the same way you know the color of your car), but believe and have faith there is a God. Are we doing ourselves a disservice in asserting at the pulpit that we know there is a God. Are we undervaluing the power of faith when we consciously (or unconsciously) choose to say "know" instead of "have faith"? I feel as though the biggest aspect of faith is that it is NOT knowledge. I feel like scriptures make that fairly clear... Yet we (including our leaders) still use the word know. And often time use it as if it is more powerful than having a faith. I am hoping this sheds more light on what I am trying to figure out. I know we can get caught up in definitions and philosophical meaning behind faith, knowledge, assurance, etc... but I hope we don't go beyond what is needed.

Been pondering this quite often, particularly around fast and testimony meetings. Many go up there and say things like "I know this is Christ's church" or "I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God." My initial thoughts have always been "You cannot know that." But I never pursue the thought beyond that because I understand the intention of what they are saying. This last couple of weeks, however, I have begun to pursue it a little more and I have a couple of questions I would like yall's insight on. But first, a couple of scriptures on to faith put a couple of these questions into perspective: “Faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). “If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true” (Alma 32:21). - Is to have faith greater than to have knowledge? Is it more of an impactful statement to share one's faith on a topic than their knowledge? - Is it improper to say we know something to be true when we are explicitly asked to act on faith on that topic? (ie truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, Joseph being a prophet, Christ suffering for our sins) - Are spiritual experiences enough for us to say that we know something? - When we have knowledge, we say "I know X...". When we have belief, we say "I believe X...". When we have faith, do we also say "I believe X..." or is it more correct to say "I have faith in X...". I guess I don't quite understand the difference between having faith, believing something, and believing in something. Thoughts?

It’s definitely an issue in our household, but thankfully my wife is self aware of it and is actively working on It

I my wife is under the impression that my time at work is spent hanging out, eating burgers, and playing video games. So when I come home, I’m order to make up for all the time I was partying, I do everything I kind of course (mostly). It use to be that I wake up at 5am to get my morning routine in. Our kids get up around 6:30. I pretty much changed their bums, fed them, played with them, etc until my wife woke up. I would also use that time to make sure the dishes were put away from the night before. when I’m home in the afternoon, my wife typically has a list of things that she needs done

Well maybe he was on to something

Trust me… they deserve every bit of it. They single handed my drove me away from the series. I use to be a pleasant enjoyer of it. Then one day, word got out that I was a fan and I was eaten alive by the whovian horde as the demanded I join their ranks. haven’t watched it since.

Is the only possible outcome to live either dependency on the sun or death? Will the day come when I will no longer need tote sun to grow crops or feel warm? I say that not to belittle your question or to blow it off, but to reframe it. Remember that we are dependent on Christ because he fulfilled the law. Our entire existence is governed by law. One law says we need the sun to grow food and feel warm. I think Christ’s atonement and it’s effect on Us is just as all encompassing as the effects of the sun. It is the sun that allows me to choose what restaurant to go to. Without the sun, I cannot tell my daughter I love her. Without the sun, I cannot fulfill my calling. Even when I can’t see it, it’s effect gives me everything I have. I believe Christ is similar. I believe his enabling power is far more encompassing than we realize. It is as necessary as the sun, oxygen, water, etc. would you say your dependency on water and oxygen in this life is problematic?

Found this beautiful talk from elder Holland. I recommend you read this today, tomorrow, and every day. https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/06/keeping-our-children-close-to-our-hearts?lang=eng

I figured as much. They are using a ps4, which is a newer console, though I didn’t know if the ps4 could play those older games

Not meaning to parent for you or their parents, but if the content of the game is an important factor, the new Baldurs gate game has a fair bit of swearing and there are characters you can romance and have sex with. Breasts visible. granted, there are a few Baldurs gates games, I’m am only referring to the newest one. I’m not sure which ones have all been released on PlayStation 4 as I don’t have it. I use common sense media and IMDb to screen games before I buy them https://m.imdb.com/title/tt10101078/parentalguide https://www.commonsensemedia.org/game-reviews/baldurs-gate-3

I do agree with the principles and doctrines you are referencing. I do not wish for the church to start baptizing people who are actively reveling against basic principles such as marriage and gender. Ive just been diving into podcast interviews with LGBTQ Latter-day Saints including Matthew Gong (elder gong’s son) and Jeff McLean (Michael McLean’s son) as well as others. In many cases, they break down crying in these interviews because they love the gospel, they love God, but they can’t come to terms with their feelings and how it could be fair that they are given this lot in life, probably one of the very hardest things to expect to be obedient to. Assuming what they are sharing is true, it is immensely traumatizing. I do not desire a change in doctrine or policy, rather, it breaks my heart to see these inner conflicts and I just hope we can be more sensitive. We had a young man in my own ward who came out as gay. I don’t know what things he experienced or how people spoke to him since he was a teacher and I was over the deacons. But he and felt he couldn’t come to church at all anymore. But it breaks my heart to think of all the things he heard about homosexuality in just passing or from a teacher who was under the assumption that no one in the room could possibly be gay. Similar to how speak about porn use, or word of wisdom struggles, premarital sex and any other potentially embarrassing or serious sin... we ought to be careful of what we say in our conversation. Preach the doctrine, but be careful not the demonize those who are facing the very thing being discussed. Telling a child (or anyone who is young in the gospel) that is struggling with their sexual identity and being a saint that being anti-family is anti-Christ is wrong in my opinion. I think it is true, it is absolutely true. But there are better ways to teach youth about the contents of the family proclamation than by starting the class off by saying “you are anti-Christ if you are gay”. It’s similar to prefacing a law of chastity lesson with “I know none of you have problems with this because you are all good kids, but we need to talk about pornography”.

@Vort I guess the core question is “If someone rejects one portion of the gospel (ie they choose to live a homosexual lifestyle), is there room for them in the church if they accept the rest?” and follow up question. “Should we be sensitive when speak about such issues in classes?” for example, there was a girl at a local seminary class who was lesbian, but was struggling with what to do between church and her sexuality. In class they were speaking about the family proclamation and the first thing the teacher did was write in large letters across the board “Anti-family is anti-Christ”. She left and called her mom crying. Should the teacher have been more sensitive? Should the girl just suck it up? This is a common enough situation where I think it should be addresses

Ignoring the straw-man, let me make a Correction in my statement. I’m referring to people that don’t wish to follow the the gospel to perfection out of choice, but wish to still be a part of the church and believe in God.

And to clarify, I was not intending to say we should or do. I have never heard that nor think we should teach it. I’m not referring to people who fall short and feel like exaltation is out of reach. I’m referring to people who love the gospel, but choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. Another question I could ask is “is it worth while or worth our time to help someone grow in basic Christian principles, such as faith hope and charity, when they reject specific and essential laws of God, such as the word of wisdom, law of chastity or modern revelation?”

As a rule of thumb, I default to not pay the ransom. here is my logic. (Whether it is good logic or not is undetermined and untested) - death and pain is bad, but more death and more pain is worst. - Paying ransoms incentivized more hostage holding.

I have been living with my parents for the last 3 weeks as we wait for our house to finish. Being here has given me a lot of time to talk with my parents and my sibling who are LGBTQ and so I have been entertaining different ideas, questions, and engaging in conversation with a mother who experienced first hand 1 kid that left the church, one that is gay, and one that is transgender. I love my mother so much and I am constantly impressed with how she has balanced supporting her children in love while remaining faithful in the church. One thing she spoke about was how she wished she had taught her kids that God's love and God's laws are not linked together. That no matter what decisions we make in life, God's love is always there. Additionally, she wished she could have taught the idea that just because you are "sinning" or believing differently from the church, doesn't mean you have to push away from God. One thing we talked about was how in the church, we teach both that (a) we all must strive for the celestial kingdom, and (b) we will be happy wherever we end up, and if we end up in the terrestrial kingdom, we shouldn't wish for the Celestial Kingdom because we would feel extremely uncomfortable there. There seem to be a dichotomy in these two (somewhat cultural) beliefs. If it is true that we will be happy where we end up, and that anything higher would feel uncomfortable, why don't we hear discussions in church about not wanting celestial glory and it being ok to go the terrestrial kingdom? Why don't we make room in our teaching and culture for those that desire the lower law, for "people who do not accept the fulness of the gospel in this life... but live honorable lives" (PMG pg. 53). Should we make room or should the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be a place for only those seeking exaltation? I recognize that in many ways we do, but we don't allow the conversation to be had out loud. And whether award welcomes that or not is based on a game of roulette. Now please don't take these questions as me wanting a cultural revolution or that even these changes SHOULD take place. In our conversation, I recognized many limitations and major issues with making such a change. Such as: - Will we inadvertently be teaching people to live terrestrial lives instead of celestial? - Would we have conflicts in classes where we are encouraging people to live celestial lives, but are surrounded by members who only desire terrestrial (ie lgbtq, people who reject the word of wisdom, etc.) - Would this create a stronger feeling of being judged by members who already feel looked down on at church (whether their feelings reflect reality or not)? This post is not me trying to shed words of wisdom, but rather me asking help to complete my thought and form a more solid opinion on the matter. I admit the logistics of rolling this out in a way that doesn't create an unintentional class system in the church may be difficult to overcome, but the Jehovah's Witnesses seem to work past this. Could we successfully teach on the basic Christian values and allow all to participate and grow in that, yet be ok when we speak about the Word of Wisdom, LGBTQ, Eternal Marriage / family, the law of chastity, Roles of men and women, etc. and be ok when there are members who do not wish to live the higher law disagree? Thoughts?

Now... the spiteful side of fether wants to come out and start purposefully turning into these cars when they are violating this law and demand payment from them and their insurance companies. Can one make a reasonable living doing this?

The scenario I am asking about refers specifically to a stop light or stop sign. When driving on a road (particularly busy ones) and you need to make a right turn where there is no stop sign/light, then yes, I think it is appropriate to use the shoulder. What I’m referencing is coming up to a red light. If there is no right turn lane, and there are three cars ahead of you that aren’t turning, can you use the shoulder as a path to turn right.

I guess my real concern is if I am in the lane and I turn right from the lane and get hit by someone who is using g the shoulder as a right turn lane, is it considered my fault?

For whatever reason, this has been coming up more and more as I drive. Maybe it is just unique to my Utah city. a solid white line marks the shoulder of the road where you aren’t suppose to drive. When making a right turn at a stop light where no right turn lane exists, do you remain in the lane you are in, or do you pull into the shoulder area, often times bypassing a line of people in your current lane. This is very much a safety question, as everyone on the road seems to have a different opinion. Just today, I was waiting behind a car at a stop light to turn right. Then three cars drove into the shoulder area, passing me and the other cars, and turned right. Had I been first in line and turned right, those three cars would have hit me. so in summary. While in line at a stop light, is it legal to leave your lane, drive on to the shoulder to bypass traffic and turn right?

I’ll be honest... I actually value that socializing prior to sacrament meeting and the ability to welcome guests and members above the apparent need to be reverent. Im not willing to admit that I’d the way it ought to be... but that is just how I value it

@Emmanuel Goldstein one thing that came to my mind earlier was keeping a journal. I find that when I am at church and journaling my thoughts and ways I can improve, the sounds from around me are drown out by my thoughts and attempts to put them in paper.

Said every bishop ever in existence... I would also argue that the majority of other religions treat their service areas as social halls unless it has the appearance of a holy place (ie magnificent pillars reaching to the ceiling, stone walls, massive statue of Christ on the cross, pane glass murals etc.) From what I have seen, it has less to do with what we call it and more to do with what it looks like. Admittedly, sacrament halls don’t appear all that holy. I would also add that having children makes it hard to have that “ideal” atmosphere. lastly, I would ask how much do others affect your experience? Could your frustration be more damaging to your experience than bro jones talking about yesterday’s bbq? Notwithstanding... we should treat it as a holy place.

well yes actually... I miss the days I thought you were a girl.