Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting

Mike

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    664

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Mike

  1. Mike
    Why do you say that it would seem the Lord's hair and yes were the same after death and resurrection? I would be crass to dispute or criticize your personal or family spiritual experiences, so I suppose our "analysis" is complete. I'll save any counter-views for another day.
  2. Mike
    I think I can accept this. It seems reasonable that whatever we want to call or describe *me* I existed eternally and at some point God organized a spiritual body, subsequently united *me" with it and later placed (me in my spirit body) into a physical mortal body. I control my spirit body and together with it I am learning to master (among other things) my physical body. So, if you want to equate *me* and "my mind" I think I'm good with that.
  3. Mike
    Thank you, I do have questions. But let me make clear that I'm not having trouble believing the spirt body and physical body have the same general bi-simmetry. What I'm having trouble with is whether we ought to conclude that they have the same features such as eye color, hair texture, body parts size ratios, and many other details. I think your examples so far don't require that conclusion. Or, do you and I already agree on that part?
  4. Mike
    I'm hoping you'll talk about this with me, and perhaps help me to get on board because currently I don''t see how I should believe that my spirit body looks like my mortal body.
  5. Mike
    I have wondered about this, too. It has always seemed absurd to me that anyone (including Lucifer, himself) could entertain the notion of even a possibility of "winning" in a rebellion against God, Himself.
  6. Mike
    It's difficult for me to wrap my brain around agency being a gift. Would that mean I had no choice to get a spirit body back when I was an "intelligence"? (Not that I can see how anyone would choose to forgo that privilege, but for discussion sake).
  7. Mike
    Oh, I see. Isn't it interesting how two people such as ourselves can use the same words and be talking about such different things? I'm glad we were able to come together.
  8. Mike
    I will start with this question. Taking into account the limitations of our language combined with Joseph Smith's vocabulary and meanings of words in his era I tend toward understanding this verse as contrasting the way we typically see and understand against the way Moses and others saw and understood. Looking at verse 11 pushes me further in this direction. The way I understand the phrases "state of mind" and "mindset" I don't think that's what the scripture refers to, I say this because of the limitations a physical mortal human body has in seeing, understanding, perceiving God and things of God, if that makes sense. It seems to me that the verses promise a change that God is willing to make happen on a given individual contingent upon stripping one's self of jealousy and fears, and becoming humble, as verse 10 states.
  9. Mike
    OK. I'll try to explain what I'm trying to say. When I think of carnality I think first of any kind of violation to any degree of the Law of Chastity along with the ugly results. I suppose we can expand on carnality to include everything else that is evil, for the sake of discussion. I use the word environment thinking of the object lesson often utilized in our Church that a human hand placed inside a glove is analogous to a spirit body placed in a mortal (human) physical body. In other words, my physical body is the environment in which my spirit finds itself. And by extension the rest of the mortal physical world including the Earth itself (elements, chemicals, etc.) and all the influences resulting from other people's choices are also part of the environment in which my spirit finds itself. Thus, I conclude that carnality in all its manifestations results from the influences of the environment in which our spirits find themselves. I suppose we could take this further and say that our bad choices become part of this environment--we perpetuate (and cause the expansion of) carnality by our choices, our actions, and the ensuing consequences which in turn become facets of the environment that influences the next spirits who come to Earth.
  10. Mike
    Alright, then it seems to me that if carnality comes with the mortal body (created for our spirits), then it is accurate to say that carnality comes with the earthly environment because our mortal bodies are earthly material.
  11. Mike
    Since you say that carnality is a mortal construct and that you don't mean carnality results from the earthly environment, then should I take it to mean carnality results from human existence? Then help me because I don't understand what you mean by human existence, either.
  12. Mike
    When you say that carnality is a mortal construct are you referring to the earthly environment in which we find ourselves?
  13. Mike
    Without meaning to judge any other person in their choices my personal taste about what I choose to put on was probably influenced to a great deal by what Tom Bombadil told Frodo when he invited Frodo to remove his golden ring. I like to think it has helped me in my efforts to see the fairness in people by looking past what they happen to have on.
  14. Mike
    I'm one of "those" people who has more questions than I do answers. If I don't confuse the brain with the mind, as you advise, then I'm still left wondering. What does mind/spirit mean? Does it mean mind and spirit together? Does it mean they should be considered as the same thing as you say Joseph Smith taught? Are they interchangeable? I talk about "my" mind and "my" spirit. That suggests that I possess my mind, therefore the mind is something that more or less belongs to me and which I utilize as an integral means for navigating existence. Likewise "my" spirit or "my" spirit body (and the Primary curriculum) suggest that spirit is something in which I reside (and which in turn resides in my physical body). So, if you say that our mind and spirit are the controlling force of our body, then I'm left wondering where that places "me" or "I" in the equation. Do I control my mind and my spirit? Or should I understand you to assert they control me? If the General Authorities say I must bring my spirit into subjection then it seems it is not the controlling force after all, but something over which "I" am the controlling force. Finally, I'm left wondering then *what* am I, what is me? Some people say I am intelligence, or I am an intelligence. If, as @Anddenex mentioned, intelligence is light and truth does that mean I am light and I am truth? That's confusing. It's even more confusing if I try to use the word intelligence to define my self (I or me) as Elder Bednar defined intelligence. I "am" the gaining of spiritual knowledge, I "am" the getting of an understanding of that by having it confirmed to by the Holy Spirit, and I "am" applying that knowledge in my life? Those sound more like wise (intelligent) actions for me to take, rather than definitions of me (if I am intelligence). As you can probably tell, I'm quite nonplussed.
  15. Mike
    So I am incorrect in that I thought you could write a letter to the editor and sign it with your name but without reference to your position as a prison chaplain? Also, what you say gives me the impression that you are sticking your neck out so to speak by merely participating as a member of this forum and identifying yourself as a prison chaplain rather than by your name. How does that work? So, as a civil servant *and* a minister are you employed by the Federal government, the State of Washington, etc.? I will say that I know LDS Bishops and Stake Presidents who by their public expressions in newspapers, etc. gave me the impression that they are not constrained outside of their callings in the ministry.
  16. Mike
    I read your remarks several times to be sure I don't misunderstand. I can't find anything with which to disagree. But I kinda feel a need to say that I intended my own remarks to amount to a rebuttal of Donald Trump's claims (brought to my attention by @prisonchaplain) that "the individual walking along the street had more right to speak his opinion than ministers do". I say this just out of a need to not be misunderstood. I agree with you here, too. Is there a specific event or chain of events that you are thinking about?
  17. Mike
    I agree that religious leaders have injected their influence and support for political leaders throughout history, if that's what you mean. And if as a separate issue you mean that religious leaders have injected their influence and support regarding moral issues throughout history, then I agree with that, too. And I also agree that the current era's rigid interpretation of "a wall of separation between Church and State" is relatively novel at least in human history. I see nothing amiss in observing that Jefferson invoked God because I hold that a man may worship God and still wish for a separation between Church and State. This is because what I think we really want is a wall of separation between unscrupulous or foolish religious men and women and our government. This does not mean we don't want religious men and women representing us. Nor does it mean we don't want principles of pure religion and undefiled helping us to govern ourselves. I also agree that most Americans oppose the evils that we struggled against and which caused us to agree with Civl Rights. I'm disappointed you construed a charge of hypocrisy--except that we are probably all guilty at times of being hypocrites. But that wasn't my point at all. I simply sought to point out that while some on one side cry foul there are simultaneously some on the other side crying foul--both of them I happen to believe for similar reasons, some of which are mean and some are passionate, etc. So, I'm not so interested in pointing my finger and talking about their "rights" to be unkind to one another which is they way I personally happen to see it. I for one would choose to offer my kindness as well as my professional skills and services to Trump supporters and detractors, Obama supporters and detractors, gays, minorities, publicans and sinners, etc., etc. I don't presume to preach to others that they ought to do the same (even though that's how I feel). By the way, coming full circle I'm wondering whether you feel that you have less freedom of speech than I have? (You being a minister and I being an average man on the street.)
  18. Mike
    Which, it seems to me, doesn't really go toward answering my question. But I suppose "why" questions seldom have satisfactory answers. Since my childhood the overall answers have seemed to run along the lines of "that's just the way it is". As I read your response, however, it also occurred to me that somewhere out there a liberal is probably lamenting what she sees as conservatives celebrating when individuals or companies refuse service to a gay person but rent their clothes and cast ashes about when someone refuses service to a Trump supporter. Right? And so it goes, and here we are perhaps always blaming the other guy for "starting it first" just like we did when we were children. Or were we just acting like adults?
  19. Mike
    Tell me what you mean, and I'll try to stay with your narrative.
  20. Mike
    Yes, it is indeed human nature to want as much influence as possible. My comparison of the hypothetical minister and man on the street was about the influence of an expressed idea, opinion, viewpoint etc. based upon its merits as opposed to being based upon the perceived reputation or influence (or lack thereof) of the man holding the idea. I see that I needn't belabor the reasons since you already believe them. I'll leave your other views about the taxation for another time. Why do you suppose you seldom hear criticism of religious action during the Civil Rights era?
  21. Mike
    I've met people who joined the LDS church in spite of their parents forbidding them to learn about it--sometimes I wondered whether their parents' attitudes unintentionally motivated their children--that and perhaps the way the children interpreted their parents' examples. Maybe it's just the principle of unintended consequences at work when parents object to their children being exposed to ideas they oppose. I know it's not that simple.
  22. Mike
    You may find it interesting to know that I enjoyed listening to Rush Limbaugh back in the 80s. Back then I would listen daily during my lunch commute to him and also to a radio personality named Michael Jackson (not the pop star, obviously), who I found to be Limbaugh's antithesis in terms of gentility, courtesy, and (for me) ease of listening. Unfortunately for me, Michael Jackson's appeal was not broad enough for the changing times of what I considered to be mean-spiritedness of some talk radio (probably my own naiveté) and the LA radio station dropped him from the slot in favor of an edgy sports talk show. Anyway, in the beginning I found Rush Limbaugh to be humorous, but later he began to grate on me. I totally share your feelings regarding Sean Hannity. I watched him debate live a time or two and I saw precisely what you describe; and he's not for me to put it mildly.
  23. Mike
    That must be why you (in your avatar) seem to be pulling your hair out. Hahahaha, friends.
  24. Mike
    When I started I was having a discussion on the degree to which the reporters in the OP video were saying anything negative (or positive) about the actions of the protesters. I wasn't prepared (motivated) to discuss the comparisons between CNN and William Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, et al. So maybe I should apologize to you as a respectful friend for my lack of preparedness in what is for you a larger issue. Maybe for now I should just say that I agree journalists today need to work harder for objectivity (this being the case since the first man or woman picked up a writing instrument); and journalists "ought" to be less motivated by the need to sell more newspapers, etc. and more motivated by the quest for truth (definitely the case since the first conversation on this planet). I personally believe that every (well maybe not every single one given all the garbage on the internet alongside all the good on the internet) outlet has reporters that are or at least started out on the right side of the equation. And I will take the opportunity to express my lack of admiration for Rush Limbaugh, and just leave that where it lies. No pun intended.
  25. Mike
    True, but that isn't the same thing as the thing I'm trying to talk about.