wenglund

Members
  • Posts

    1710
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    wenglund reacted to Still_Small_Voice in Church policy change on same sex marriage   
    The only way I passed mathematics classes in college is I passed on college.  I went the Information Technology certificate route and took a class, got certificates, and work experience.  No college debt for me.
  2. Like
    wenglund reacted to Vort in Easter Sunday - making sacrament meeting special?   
    I gave a talk, too! I'm just like Elder Bednar!
  3. Like
    wenglund got a reaction from Nacho2Dope in Help with an investigator question   
    Your friend isn't exactly correct about the meaning of "logos": According to Wikipedia, it is "derived from a Greek word variously meaning "ground", "plea", "opinion", "expectation", "word", "speech", "account", "reason", "proportion", and "discourse".[1][2] ....Despite the conventional translation as "word", it is not used for a word in the grammatical sense; instead, the term lexis (λέξις, léxis) was used.[11] However, both logos and lexis derive from the same verb légō (λέγω), meaning "(I) count, tell, say, speak".[1][11][12]" 
    It is important to read the term in context. The symbolic if not literal  meaning of Logos in Jn 1, is creation/creator,  which ties into Gen. 1. Both chapters open with "In the beginning." And, as explained in Gen. 1, the means by which God created was, "God said..."--i.e. God created by speaking or saying (logos *the word") and the  elements obeyed. Also God commanded, and Jesus obeyed and formed the heavens and earth,  making Jesus the creator.(the Word). 
    This is made evident in verses 3-5 of Jn 1:  
    3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
    5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
    Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  4. Like
    wenglund got a reaction from Traveler in Help with an investigator question   
    Your friend isn't exactly correct about the meaning of "logos": According to Wikipedia, it is "derived from a Greek word variously meaning "ground", "plea", "opinion", "expectation", "word", "speech", "account", "reason", "proportion", and "discourse".[1][2] ....Despite the conventional translation as "word", it is not used for a word in the grammatical sense; instead, the term lexis (λέξις, léxis) was used.[11] However, both logos and lexis derive from the same verb légō (λέγω), meaning "(I) count, tell, say, speak".[1][11][12]" 
    It is important to read the term in context. The symbolic if not literal  meaning of Logos in Jn 1, is creation/creator,  which ties into Gen. 1. Both chapters open with "In the beginning." And, as explained in Gen. 1, the means by which God created was, "God said..."--i.e. God created by speaking or saying (logos *the word") and the  elements obeyed. Also God commanded, and Jesus obeyed and formed the heavens and earth,  making Jesus the creator.(the Word). 
    This is made evident in verses 3-5 of Jn 1:  
    3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
    5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
    Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  5. Like
    wenglund got a reaction from Midwest LDS in Easter Sunday - making sacrament meeting special?   
    I didn't have anything to do with it, but my Sunday was made special today because David A. Bednar and his wife,  Susan, spoke in Sacrament Meeting. It was profound.
    Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-
  6. Like
    wenglund got a reaction from dprh in Answering my Young Women's Questions in the best way possible.   
    Not that I disagree with anything that has been said, but there is a natural tendency for adults to automatically answer questions of children rather than modeling how they can  think for themselves---a skill-set that becomes increasingly more vital the older the child gets, though increasingly absent in today's world.
    Granted, some questions and circumstances lend themselves better to teaching how to think rather than what to think, though we don't always avail ourselves of the opportunities to teach the how when age appropriate..
    For example, in response to the first question (What are good ways to help me feel strong when I really feel weak/tempted?) One may socratically ask questions like: What ideas have ideas they have already come up with and tried? What has worked and what hasn't, and why? Do some strategies work better than others? Are you strong in some areas of your life? Where does your strength come from in those areas? What makes us weak? Do you involve others in your strengthening strategies--Particularly the Lord?  What happens if you give in to the weakness? Etc.
    Thanks, -Wade Englund-
     
  7. Like
    wenglund reacted to mikbone in Speculation about same sex attraction and addictions   
    The above is the customized menu that my granddaughter would choose for every meal.
    Fortunately, she is not in charge of the menu...
  8. Like
    wenglund reacted to person0 in Speculation about same sex attraction and addictions   
    In all sincerity, and with no offense intended to your well thought out post, I think that the causes of same sex attraction are ultimately unimportant; what is important is that it is a real thing that exists, and that God commands us not to act or seek to fulfill the desire.  What is important is that we openly acknowledge the existence of these temptations and strive to be a support to those who experience them and still sincerely desire to keep God's commandments.
  9. Like
    wenglund got a reaction from askandanswer in Church policy change on same sex marriage   
    Yes, many of them. I am the weird uncle in the family after all.
    Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  10. Like
  11. Like
    wenglund got a reaction from scottyg in Church policy change on same sex marriage   
    I strongly encourage this as well.
    However, since you, Scott,  and perhaps 3 others, including Mormongator,  seem vulnerable to false equivalencies,  let me kindly offer two critical suggestions so that you don't end up make egregious rookie analytical mistakes.
    First, compare apples to apples rather than apples to an orange (deprecating pun intended). In other words, as @The Folk Prophet intimated a logical comparative  analysis should be sexual behavior to sexual behavior, and not sexual behavior to the full gamete of behaviors. And, it should be group to group rather than group to individual. In other words, tally all the positive and negative comments about the immoral behaviors (as the Church views it) of both homosexuals and heterosexuals, as made by the Right and the Left respectively pm this board.Then maybe create a subsection on Trump alone compared with one homosexual, to merely provide perspective Since the immoral behaviors of heterosexuals tends not to generate as much discussion as the immoral behavior of homosexuals (likely because of the stark difference in controversy), the analysis needs to be proportional. I would caution you, though, because these kinds of rational comparative analysis tend to work heavily against Leftist and pop-culture thinking, particularly as it relates to homosexuality. But, you may find the experience beneficial nevertheless.
    Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-. 
  12. Like
    wenglund got a reaction from scottyg in Church policy change on same sex marriage   
    It is because we are more in agreement about the heterosexual immorality, which is why it is less controversial.
    Ironically, that is the rub. Logically, there shouldn't be as much disagreement about homosexual immorality as there is about heterosexual immorality. But, pop culture has granted special status to homosexuals, and members, like yourself,  cater to that unwarranted favoritism. If you and other left-leaning members were consistent, there wouldn't be the greater degree of disagreement and controversy.
    [Edit: I just noticed that others have iterated and reiterated this point earlier in the thread. But, evidently it bears repeating since it seems to be lost on some]
    Thanks, -Wade  Englund-
     
  13. Haha
    wenglund got a reaction from Midwest LDS in Church policy change on same sex marriage   
    I can somewhat relate to this:

    Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  14. Haha
    wenglund got a reaction from Vort in Church policy change on same sex marriage   
    I can somewhat relate to this:

    Thanks, -Wade Englund-
  15. Like
    wenglund reacted to Traveler in Church policy change on same sex marriage   
    I wonder what will happen concerning homosexuality when Christ returns.
    I will predict two things.   #1.There will be no homosexual marriages, or any homosexual acts or public acceptance of homosexuality. 
    #2 There will not be anyone that rejects homosexual individuals and wishes them harm or any degree of retribution, punishment or unkindness.  
    Perhaps I would add one other thought - I do not believe there will be political actuations or differences - but that those that receive Christ will be of one mind and heart.   I am not sure who will be ready (especially me) but if I get a chance - my plan is to beg and plead for forgiveness.
     
    The Traveler 
  16. Like
    wenglund got a reaction from unixknight in Church policy change on same sex marriage   
    I respect the apologies, and even more the healthy self-reflection and taking some responsibility. Well done. [thumbs up]
    However, I have to say that I have participated in online discussion for nearly 3 decades,  across a variety of venues (politics, religion, etc.), and this board has been one of the mildest in my experience, which is unusual given the near invisibility of board moderating--which  tells me that the board participants her are generally uncommonly civil and keep themselves in check.
    And, while there may be some name-calling and personal attacks on occasion, mostly it is good-natured ribbing or a well-intended wake-up call.
    So, I am not seeing the toxicity, though I may be jaded.
    However, I have noticed that various board participants have found the exchanges here somewhat off-putting because they haven't experience much in the way of challenges to their point of view, particularly challenges that are well reasoned and compelling. This is especially true of participants whose  views are more in line with popular culture,  and /or who are used to agreement, particularly among the majority to which they are a part. It can be rather jarring to come to a board where the majority, or at least the vocal majority, tend to stand contrary to pop culture.
    Even still, it is not uncommon for many if not most of us to find various exchanges counterproductive--a waste of time, or a less meaningful use of our time. In that sense it may be viewed as toxic. Often, though, this is corrected by taking a much needed break from the board, or from certain topics, and even from certain board participants.
    Anyway, as for feeling the Spirit,  in my experience it depends upon at least two things: 1) the topic. The more political and less religiously oriented the topic, the less likely I am to feel the Spirit, and vice versa--which makes sense 2) Where my head and heart are at as I participate. The more I relying on the Spirit to guide what I say,  the greater the likelihood that i will feel the Spirit.  And, the more I rely on the Spirit in trying to understand and glean value from what others say, the more I feel the Spirit. And, vice versa. 
    I can honestly say that some interactions here, and some amazing posts, have rivaled, if not exceeded in spiritual enhancement what I have felt in Sunday School or other church meetings.
    But, again, that may just be me.
    The bottom line, from my lengthy experience, is that the toxicity or spirituality of what I experience here is largely dependent upon me rather than on others.  As with much of life, I am largely in control of the efficacy of my online experience. I tend to receive from the discussion table what I bring to the discussion table.
    Just some things to consider.
    Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-
  17. Like
    wenglund got a reaction from Midwest LDS in Church policy change on same sex marriage   
    I respect the apologies, and even more the healthy self-reflection and taking some responsibility. Well done. [thumbs up]
    However, I have to say that I have participated in online discussion for nearly 3 decades,  across a variety of venues (politics, religion, etc.), and this board has been one of the mildest in my experience, which is unusual given the near invisibility of board moderating--which  tells me that the board participants her are generally uncommonly civil and keep themselves in check.
    And, while there may be some name-calling and personal attacks on occasion, mostly it is good-natured ribbing or a well-intended wake-up call.
    So, I am not seeing the toxicity, though I may be jaded.
    However, I have noticed that various board participants have found the exchanges here somewhat off-putting because they haven't experience much in the way of challenges to their point of view, particularly challenges that are well reasoned and compelling. This is especially true of participants whose  views are more in line with popular culture,  and /or who are used to agreement, particularly among the majority to which they are a part. It can be rather jarring to come to a board where the majority, or at least the vocal majority, tend to stand contrary to pop culture.
    Even still, it is not uncommon for many if not most of us to find various exchanges counterproductive--a waste of time, or a less meaningful use of our time. In that sense it may be viewed as toxic. Often, though, this is corrected by taking a much needed break from the board, or from certain topics, and even from certain board participants.
    Anyway, as for feeling the Spirit,  in my experience it depends upon at least two things: 1) the topic. The more political and less religiously oriented the topic, the less likely I am to feel the Spirit, and vice versa--which makes sense 2) Where my head and heart are at as I participate. The more I relying on the Spirit to guide what I say,  the greater the likelihood that i will feel the Spirit.  And, the more I rely on the Spirit in trying to understand and glean value from what others say, the more I feel the Spirit. And, vice versa. 
    I can honestly say that some interactions here, and some amazing posts, have rivaled, if not exceeded in spiritual enhancement what I have felt in Sunday School or other church meetings.
    But, again, that may just be me.
    The bottom line, from my lengthy experience, is that the toxicity or spirituality of what I experience here is largely dependent upon me rather than on others.  As with much of life, I am largely in control of the efficacy of my online experience. I tend to receive from the discussion table what I bring to the discussion table.
    Just some things to consider.
    Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-
  18. Haha
    wenglund reacted to Just_A_Guy in Church policy change on same sex marriage   
    @wenglund, your check is in the mail.   
  19. Like
    wenglund got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Church policy change on same sex marriage   
    I respect the apologies, and even more the healthy self-reflection and taking some responsibility. Well done. [thumbs up]
    However, I have to say that I have participated in online discussion for nearly 3 decades,  across a variety of venues (politics, religion, etc.), and this board has been one of the mildest in my experience, which is unusual given the near invisibility of board moderating--which  tells me that the board participants her are generally uncommonly civil and keep themselves in check.
    And, while there may be some name-calling and personal attacks on occasion, mostly it is good-natured ribbing or a well-intended wake-up call.
    So, I am not seeing the toxicity, though I may be jaded.
    However, I have noticed that various board participants have found the exchanges here somewhat off-putting because they haven't experience much in the way of challenges to their point of view, particularly challenges that are well reasoned and compelling. This is especially true of participants whose  views are more in line with popular culture,  and /or who are used to agreement, particularly among the majority to which they are a part. It can be rather jarring to come to a board where the majority, or at least the vocal majority, tend to stand contrary to pop culture.
    Even still, it is not uncommon for many if not most of us to find various exchanges counterproductive--a waste of time, or a less meaningful use of our time. In that sense it may be viewed as toxic. Often, though, this is corrected by taking a much needed break from the board, or from certain topics, and even from certain board participants.
    Anyway, as for feeling the Spirit,  in my experience it depends upon at least two things: 1) the topic. The more political and less religiously oriented the topic, the less likely I am to feel the Spirit, and vice versa--which makes sense 2) Where my head and heart are at as I participate. The more I relying on the Spirit to guide what I say,  the greater the likelihood that i will feel the Spirit.  And, the more I rely on the Spirit in trying to understand and glean value from what others say, the more I feel the Spirit. And, vice versa. 
    I can honestly say that some interactions here, and some amazing posts, have rivaled, if not exceeded in spiritual enhancement what I have felt in Sunday School or other church meetings.
    But, again, that may just be me.
    The bottom line, from my lengthy experience, is that the toxicity or spirituality of what I experience here is largely dependent upon me rather than on others.  As with much of life, I am largely in control of the efficacy of my online experience. I tend to receive from the discussion table what I bring to the discussion table.
    Just some things to consider.
    Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-
  20. Like
    wenglund reacted to The Folk Prophet in Church policy change on same sex marriage   
    So seriously...let's parse this so you can hopefully see how ridiculous this is:
    I agree. (Maybe not the "epitome". But both sides are evil.)
    I agree that both sides are evil.
    I disagree that conservatives/republicans, on the whole, are any more "against" mercy, helping the poor, and charity than liberal/democrats are, or that it's a defining point of the party.
    I agree, however, that both sides are selfish and greedy and care more about power and money than they actually do about people.
    I agree. Though many republicans are against morality and living the law of chastity too.
    I agree.
    I agree.
    I agree.
    I agree.
     
    Can you see now how ridiculous it was for you to say that my post was an example of any of your claims?
    I actually agree with every point you made except one, which I only pointed out a statistical correction on -- and only disagree with it being a defining point of republicans that doesn't apply to democrats as well.
    Your implication that my single point of clarification was an example of idolatry, caring more for politics than God, and an example of all the nasty stuff Scott's talking about was legitimately stupid.
  21. Like
    wenglund reacted to The Folk Prophet in Church policy change on same sex marriage   
    You specifically said my post was an example of all several horrible things. That is not making a generic stereotype of Republicans (A party to which I do not even belong). You specifically called my post an example of idolatry and putting politics above God.
    Well, of course not. Telling someone their post is an example of idolatry isn't an attack. 
    Great. So you accuse me of caring about politics more than God, and then find it hilarious when I'm offended.
    Do you really believe I'm offended because of politics? You told me I was an idolater and that I didn't care about my faith and my religion if it got in the way of other lesser things.
    There are very, very few things I get offended at more than someone telling me I don't care about God or that I consider something more important than Him and His gospel.
    Can you really not understand why that was offensive?
    Apparently you're so bent on attacking politics that you cannot even see what was actually offensive and why I'm up in arms.
    If you tell me my view on any political subject is wrong then fine. We'll disagree and all is well. When you tell me I care more about it than God then I'm going to call you on that bull crap statement, and point out how ridiculously offensive it is.
    You're doubling down on your distortion, accusing me of something else that is not true. I am not up in arms about politics. I am up in arms about someone basely accusing me of not care enough about God and His gospel.
  22. Like
    wenglund reacted to The Folk Prophet in Church policy change on same sex marriage   
    Strangers? I've spent more time conversing with many of you than I have people I work with on a daily basis.
    Of course my expectations that anyone when called on a truly egregious post (or the "liking/thanking" thereof) will admit they went too far and apologize is, indeed, foolish.
    Heaven forbid we are kind to each other. Or apologize for offending each other.
    The proper response is, obviously, mocking cruelty. Good job.👍
  23. Like
    wenglund reacted to The Folk Prophet in Church policy change on same sex marriage   
    I think you're confused about how stereotyping works.
    Statistical facts are not stereotypes. They're facts.
    It becomes a stereotype when when you apply statistical facts to an individual.
    As in -- statistically men are stronger than women -- that's a fact. A stereotype would be -- you're a women so you must be weak.
    Statistically conservatives give more to charity. That doesn't mean every liberal is stingy. That doesn't mean every conservative is generous. It's just a statistically.
    You said conservatives are "...against mercy, helping the poor, and charity". If you had said "some conservatives are" then it might be true (but pointless), but you didn't. You simply said the conservatives are against charity. It might also be true if you said, "conservatives are against governmental programs for helping the poor, being in favor of personal charity instead". That would generally be true also. But the statistics show, factually, that conservatives are not "against" charity, helping the poor, and mercy.
    And then you state my post as evidence of things that are nowhere in my post at all. Your points:
    You claim my post is an example of not taking umbrage when a stereotype is stated strongly against liberals.
    How is my post an example of that? I didn't not take umbrage at something wrongly said about liberals. My post had nothing to do with liberals. It was correcting an erroneous statement you made.
    You claim that my post is an example of relating my political party to my religion and call me an idolater.
    How is my post an example of that? And how is it you feel that claiming statistics show that conservatives aren't actually against charity justifies you in calling me an idolater?
    You claim my post is an example of a Christian putting their party as their religion through my actions.
    How on earth is my post an example of that?
    You claim my post is putting my party on a pedestal so high that it might as well supersede my claimed religion.
    How is my post an example of that?
    And my post is an example of how any other party an people who affiliate therewith are enemies of my church.
    Seriously? What? How is my post an example of that?
    This is the sort of thing you say that causes me to rarely interact with your posts. The extreme reading between the lines and making up all this garbage that isn't even remotely inherent in what I said. You make this crap up and put words in my mouth and accuse me of worshiping idols and caring more about the Republican party than The Church of Christ because I said, what again?
    I stated that, statistically, conservatives give more to charity.
    And how is that an example of what Scot's talking about? He said conservatives condemn gays but won't condemn Trump for adultery.
    Seriously -- there's a reason why I don't discuss things with you. This sort of response is SO ridiculous, has no basis in reason or evidence. It's just a bunch of random garbage you spouted back at me that has absolutely nothing to do with the reply I gave.
    So AMAZINGLY ridiculous.
    If you're any kind of a decent man at all you will apologize.
    I can't believe you would go so low as to call me an idolater in response to my pointing out a statistic.
    SERIOUSLY?!
  24. Like
    wenglund reacted to Iggy in Is it just me?   
    @CommanderSouth Since we are studying the New Testament this calendar year I have been using the complete Joseph Smith Translation alongside the KJV. NOT just the footnotes, but the Complete book. What a difference it makes. Talk about plain and precious truths being lost - omitted from the KJV. As for the church history being re-written, I don't see it that way. I see it as Father, through his living prophets has been giving us morsels that even the weakest of us can understand. Here a little, there a little. Line upon line. Precept upon precept. Milk before pabulum, pabulum before meat.

    Going back to our New Testament study. Reading Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They have written about the same incidents - repeating the same instructions from Jesus Christ, yet each man has omitted one or more things, or added one or more things. But in reading them over several times and listing what I call the bullet points,  they are ALL saying the same thing.

    As for comparing Jesus Christ's Church to the Baptist's, Protestants, Catholic, Lutheran, Christian, etc. isn't really a fair and true comparison. The LDS faith - The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the same now as it was when Jesus organized it originally.

    As for comparing the history of the church, or the history of any of the latter-day prophets, seers & revelators told to us by various and sundry peoples aka their journals, letters, newspaper articles, said to a friend who then told a friend who then - - - etc., etc. Then claiming that said history has been rewritten is folly. Read the accounts with a pure heart, prayer and true intent by bringing the Holy Spirit into your heart. By ASKING Heavenly Father to give you a clear gift of discernment AND understanding. Ponder what you are readihng. Make notes. Lots of notes.

    Bullet point those impressions, or highlight them.
    Back many years ago when the church released those essays about church history, my niece and her husband's family went all ballistic and left the church over them. Their hue and cry - battle cry was "They lied to us. Everything that was said, taught from Primary, Seminary, Gospel Doctrine & Gospel Principles were lies. Lies, lies, and more lies." After her three Aunties patiently went over her complaints, point by point, and brought evidence of the truth of the recounting. No, there were no lies. Yes there was omissions. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little. Milk before pabulum. Pabulum before Meat.

    Then the declarations regarding same sex marriage, then later about the children in same sex households. Whoee, you would think that she, her husband, ALL of his near family (Mother, and all siblings & most of the spouses - Father did not enter into this *Stooopid Nonsense*) were gay, lesbian, trans, bi. NONE of them were - are. My nephew-in-law's heritage hails from LDS Pioneers. My neice on the other hand is first generation LDS. Both her parents are from NON-LDS families. My sister basically grew up in the church being the youngest sister to 4 siblings who were baptized at ages 16, 15, 14 and 14.


    You bring up historical doesn't back up what has been taught in the LDS church. 
    My point of view is that there is historical backing that has *not yet* been discovered. Remember also to take into consideration the author of each revisionist article. Their history within or even without the LDS church. For that reason alone, that is why calling upon the Holy Spirit is paramount in your readings. Discernment. To have discernment in which the Holy Spirit is able to testify of the truth to you, you must stay true to the covenants you have made with Heavenly Father.
    Discernment is one of the major gifts that Father has blessed me with. As I have matured in age as well as in my knowledge of the gospel and principles of the gospel, this discernment has grown exponentially, and I have learned to listen, pray, ponder and then take heed of what the Father through the Holy Spirit is saying to me. I am able to discern via the internet, email & snail mail letters, videos, phone calls and of course face to face encounters.
    Since *forever* we have been encouraged to pray before, during and after our studies of all church related lessons. It is the same with studying/comparing the different historical essays-writings of the LDS church/ LDS peoples. Pray, ponder then ask the Holy Spirit if it is true. Then listen. Truly listen.
     
  25. Like
    wenglund reacted to Vort in Is it just me?   
    For example:
    "I'm a 34-year-old man in the prime of my life. I have been called by the Holy Spirit and by God's anointed to serve as a traveling missionary, which I am engaged in trying to do. But I find myself drawn to the women I teach and serve, especially the unmarried Christian women. Without intending to, I catch myself idly thinking about being with them in intimate situations, not merely lustfully, but in the context of marriage and family. Brother Paul, I know that this season of my life is to be dedicated to the service of the Master as a missionary, just as you and Timothy are doing. But my mind keeps straying to marriage and family and intimate matters between husband and wife. I'm distracted all the time. I don't know what to do. As a widower, you are a man experienced in marital matters. What is your counsel?"