person0

Members
  • Posts

    2029
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    person0 reacted to askandanswer in Rowan Atkinson (Mr Bean) on free speech   
    I generally only have a mild interest and small amount of curiousity about woke-related issues, but this one caught my eye and I thought it was worth sharing. It's Rowan Atkinson talking about a planned change to section 5 of the English Public Order Act. I think he makes some good points, eloquently expressed. 
    "For me, the best way to increase society's resistance to insulting or offensive speech is to allow a lot more of it. As with childhood diseases, you can better resist those germs to which you have been exposed." (9 minutes)
     
  2. Like
    person0 reacted to Vort in The Parable of the Ten Young Girls   
    Doesn't it seem odd to you to refer to someone in public conversation based on their virginal status? I mean, many (perhaps most) of us on this forum dislike that many people today define themselves publicly based on their preferred sexual perversion, yet we don't blink an eye with scriptures that refer to women by a term based on whether or not they have ever had sex.
    The point is that (I believe) such scriptures usually are not referring to such women based on their sexual status. The women under discussion are being referred to as "maidens", technically meaning sexually inexperienced young women but in almost all cases actually meaning simply girls or young women. I suspect that the "virgin" aspect distracts, and therefore possibly detracts, from the central point that the Savior had in mind when offering up the parable.
  3. Like
    person0 reacted to laronius in Isaiah 4:1 - An Additional Interpretation   
    It may have just been those who actually remain transitioned as adults but the study did say that so much of what qualifies as transitioning is subjective that different studies can produce different results. I read somewhere else of a phenomenon they are seeing, especially among young women, where when one comes out as being transgender one or two close acquaintances on average come out as well and they aren't sure how much of that is legitimate verses just wanting to be part of the in thing or even just the unsureness that teens often feel about themselves. But my main point was that the number is very small, regardless. That's not to say it couldn't be part of what Isaiah is talking about though. And we don't know how far this is going to go in society either. 
  4. Like
    person0 reacted to Traveler in Isaiah 4:1 - An Additional Interpretation   
    You make a most interesting point.  Isaiah chapter 4 is and important part of Isaiah and is repeated in the Book of Mormon in 2Nephi chapter 14.  Isaiah is perhaps the greatest example of ancient Hebrew poetry structure ever written.  The Chiasm of the chapter connects verse 1 to verse 6 and the heart of the Chiasm are verses 3 and 4.  Verse 4 makes another reference to the “filth of the daughters of Zion”.  The men of Zion between verse 1 and verse 6 are symbolically a “tabernacle” and a place of refuge.
    The bifid structure of Isaiah also points chapter 32:2 which has more to say about men of Zion being a shelter and refuge.
    Isaiah is quite complex, and I believe that it can only be understood through personal revelation – which is something you have shared from how the spirit has spoken to you.  I think Isaiah has more to tell us than what you and I have discussed.  The spirit speaks softly to me as well that what you have heard through the spirit and Isaiah is something to be included in understanding. 
     
    The Traveler
  5. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Grunt in Isaiah 4:1 - An Additional Interpretation   
    I have considered, on occasion over the past year or so, that aside from the various plausible circumstances that could bring this to pass, an additional circumstance could be a large swath of repentant detransitioned women, who, depending on the extent of their initial transition, may not have a realistic opportunity in this life to fully participate in a marriage as a result of the changes they previously underwent.  I would imagine this potentially being in combination with other ways the prophecy might be fulfilled.

    Thoughts?
  6. Love
    person0 reacted to Grunt in The Great Division of Humanity   
    Oddly, the Law of Chastity was one of the first things I had a very strong testimony of.   
  7. Okay
    person0 got a reaction from NeuroTypical in Last Days' Timeline   
    If we're hopping on the speculation train, don't the Ezra's Eagle folks say that there will only be 4 more US presidents total, or something like that?
  8. Like
    person0 reacted to Anddenex in Gospel Theory: Cain Wasn't Adam's First Son   
    Yes, yes indeed. With one as studied as yourself, I will always play the scripture card. 😁
    I was first taught Adam and Eve's marriage by G.A. on my mission, and at that time coming from a G.A. I automatically assumed it was right. It wasn't until reading the following manual from the Church that it seemed to be a proper teaching.
    This particular statement, "Adam and Eve were married by God before there was any death in the world. They had an eternal marriage. They taught the law of eternal marriage to their children and their children’s children."
    In a different manual from the Church, we can read the following from Joseph Fielding Smith, "President Joseph Fielding Smith taught: “Marriage as established in the beginning was an eternal covenant. The first man and the first woman were not married until death should part them, for at that time death had not come into the world. The ceremony on that occasion was performed by the Eternal Father himself whose work endures forever. It is the will of the Lord that all marriages should be of like character, and in becoming ‘one flesh’ the man and the woman are to continue in the married status, according to the Lord’s plan, throughout all eternity as well as in this mortal life” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie [1955], 2:71)."
    You are correct though, we don't have any scripture that specifically says they were married in the Garden of Eden -- sealed; although, it seems more likely that this was done at this time. They were having children. They were married. Who married them? If the interpretation of scripture, as taught in Church manuals, is accurate then their marriage was a sealing covenant and any child then born to them would have been born under the covenant.
    I'm open though to what is true. This is why I was wanting to know the scriptures used to purport the idea of the sealing later and that Cain and Abel were the first under such. If that is the truth, then that is the truth.
     
  9. Like
    person0 reacted to Grunt in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    I’m looking for a new job currently, partially for these reasons.  I have the faith, but sometimes I don’t feel that courageous.  
  10. Like
    person0 reacted to Vort in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    If I leave Satan's employ, what will become of me? A worthwhile question, but one best approached with faith and courage, I think.
  11. Like
    person0 got a reaction from SilentOne in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    Usually, the pronouns being replaced such as 'he' or 'she' come up when speaking about someone, not when speaking to them.  As such, I would imagine it would be far simpler to refer to people using only their name, especially in an environment with so many students in and out each semester.
    I don't understand how it is respectful to validate an individual's false perception of themselves.  Seems to me that if we truly respect someone, we would be honest with them, though we may be tactful.  Using someone's name should accomplish both.
    Would you be punished for using their name only?  If the answer is yes, I would prayerfully consider seeking out a new employer.
  12. Like
    person0 reacted to Grunt in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    This is another false tactic.  Not making someone feel better about their sin isn't "treating them badly".
  13. Like
    person0 got a reaction from laronius in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    Oh, I agree with you 100%.  I have no intention of backing down from the truth.  Instead, I can speak the truth without being beholden to internal feelings of pent-up anger.  There have literally been moments where I have felt that I no longer want to be a member of the Church, but in the same feeling also knew that there is nowhere else for me to go because I know the Church is true and so I can't/won't leave.  The concerns I have and the changes and directness I would like to see from our leaders remain, but I don't have to let them burden me.

    I previously mentioned how our Area received guidance from our Area Presidency for leaders to avoid any affirmation of an individual's transition, and that my wife and I fought for over a year to achieve that small victory, but during that year, I would sometimes have two+ hour meetings with Stake leaders where I spent most of the meeting in anger and frustration, and where I let that anger and frustration show in the way I communicated.  I don't want to feel those feelings internally anymore; I want to act in righteousness without taking it personally when others disregard the things they ought to believe.  I want to be able to speak with boldness without anger, so that I can stand for truth at all times and in all things and in all places, without the spirit of contention.
    I have the tendency to become contentious when standing up for what is right and true, and I want to let go of the things that cause that contentious spirit to swell within me, so I can stand for truth with even greater power by always preserving the Spirit of the Lord.  I want the Spirit to work through me to pierce the hearts of others, and to achieve that I can't start a conversation with peace and the Spirit and allow contention to swell up and take over.
    I initially disliked Pres. Nelson's talk, from the moment of hearing it live, not because it isn't truth, but because experience has taught me that so many members will use it as an excuse for "peace, love, and use everyone's pronouns because that's what it means to be a peacemaker", similarly, I have already seen comments from members to the same effect from Pres. Oaks message.  To me it seems so clear that is not what was intended, and seeing others twist what seems so obviously true has a tendency to make me angry.  Rather than feeling anger, I want to feel sorrow at the wickedness of the world and love that leads me to stand for truth without any vindictive feelings.  I want my anger to be converted into mercy and into the desire for as much mercy as is possible to be shown at the day of judgement.

    Hopefully I am explaining this well enough, but this is ultimately about me wanting to improve myself and become more Christlike and has nothing to do with backing down from the truth.  I too will oppose the adversary, and I want to do it the right way, so I can do it with maximum power and efficacy, and minimum impact on my emotional state, regardless of outcome, because I know that in the end, the righteous will be victorious.
  14. Like
    person0 reacted to Grunt in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    This.   People willfully don't follow the Prophet then want to be made comfortable with it.  Sorry.  I love you.  I accept you.   I'm probably not going to take advice from you, though.
  15. Like
    person0 reacted to old in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    Depends on what they are doing and preaching.  If Bob is coming to Church with his mistress and sits in the front row while his wife with his kids are sitting in the back . . .you better believe Bob should be made to feel uncomfortable and out of place.
    If Bob has committed adultery, but is repentant, knows he has done wrong instead of flaunting it, then yes.  The idea that EVERYONE no matter ANY reason should be comfortable at Church and should be welcome has got to go.
  16. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Grunt in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    Oh, I agree with you 100%.  I have no intention of backing down from the truth.  Instead, I can speak the truth without being beholden to internal feelings of pent-up anger.  There have literally been moments where I have felt that I no longer want to be a member of the Church, but in the same feeling also knew that there is nowhere else for me to go because I know the Church is true and so I can't/won't leave.  The concerns I have and the changes and directness I would like to see from our leaders remain, but I don't have to let them burden me.

    I previously mentioned how our Area received guidance from our Area Presidency for leaders to avoid any affirmation of an individual's transition, and that my wife and I fought for over a year to achieve that small victory, but during that year, I would sometimes have two+ hour meetings with Stake leaders where I spent most of the meeting in anger and frustration, and where I let that anger and frustration show in the way I communicated.  I don't want to feel those feelings internally anymore; I want to act in righteousness without taking it personally when others disregard the things they ought to believe.  I want to be able to speak with boldness without anger, so that I can stand for truth at all times and in all things and in all places, without the spirit of contention.
    I have the tendency to become contentious when standing up for what is right and true, and I want to let go of the things that cause that contentious spirit to swell within me, so I can stand for truth with even greater power by always preserving the Spirit of the Lord.  I want the Spirit to work through me to pierce the hearts of others, and to achieve that I can't start a conversation with peace and the Spirit and allow contention to swell up and take over.
    I initially disliked Pres. Nelson's talk, from the moment of hearing it live, not because it isn't truth, but because experience has taught me that so many members will use it as an excuse for "peace, love, and use everyone's pronouns because that's what it means to be a peacemaker", similarly, I have already seen comments from members to the same effect from Pres. Oaks message.  To me it seems so clear that is not what was intended, and seeing others twist what seems so obviously true has a tendency to make me angry.  Rather than feeling anger, I want to feel sorrow at the wickedness of the world and love that leads me to stand for truth without any vindictive feelings.  I want my anger to be converted into mercy and into the desire for as much mercy as is possible to be shown at the day of judgement.

    Hopefully I am explaining this well enough, but this is ultimately about me wanting to improve myself and become more Christlike and has nothing to do with backing down from the truth.  I too will oppose the adversary, and I want to do it the right way, so I can do it with maximum power and efficacy, and minimum impact on my emotional state, regardless of outcome, because I know that in the end, the righteous will be victorious.
  17. Like
    person0 got a reaction from askandanswer in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    I've decided to try to just let it go.  I know the Church is true, and I know the Lord has a plan that will not be frustrated.  I can strive to live and teach the truth where I am able, and then just let go the things I cannot/should not control, and trust that the Lord will show me and others the way.  I will strive harder to have the holy spirit with me at all times, to help me be the man I want to be, and more importantly, the man our Heavenly Father wants me to be.
    Despite the evils of the world and the work of the adversary, with Christ's help, I got this! And so do you!
    (Interestingly, it isn't as if most of us don't already know these things, but it is astounding how much angst we can feel to preserve our environment, especially when we see our family, friends, and brethren being torn down by the adversary.  These are truly the last days, and it is becoming more and more clear that learning to navigate them is part of our calling as Latter-Day Saints!)
  18. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Vort in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    Oh, I agree with you 100%.  I have no intention of backing down from the truth.  Instead, I can speak the truth without being beholden to internal feelings of pent-up anger.  There have literally been moments where I have felt that I no longer want to be a member of the Church, but in the same feeling also knew that there is nowhere else for me to go because I know the Church is true and so I can't/won't leave.  The concerns I have and the changes and directness I would like to see from our leaders remain, but I don't have to let them burden me.

    I previously mentioned how our Area received guidance from our Area Presidency for leaders to avoid any affirmation of an individual's transition, and that my wife and I fought for over a year to achieve that small victory, but during that year, I would sometimes have two+ hour meetings with Stake leaders where I spent most of the meeting in anger and frustration, and where I let that anger and frustration show in the way I communicated.  I don't want to feel those feelings internally anymore; I want to act in righteousness without taking it personally when others disregard the things they ought to believe.  I want to be able to speak with boldness without anger, so that I can stand for truth at all times and in all things and in all places, without the spirit of contention.
    I have the tendency to become contentious when standing up for what is right and true, and I want to let go of the things that cause that contentious spirit to swell within me, so I can stand for truth with even greater power by always preserving the Spirit of the Lord.  I want the Spirit to work through me to pierce the hearts of others, and to achieve that I can't start a conversation with peace and the Spirit and allow contention to swell up and take over.
    I initially disliked Pres. Nelson's talk, from the moment of hearing it live, not because it isn't truth, but because experience has taught me that so many members will use it as an excuse for "peace, love, and use everyone's pronouns because that's what it means to be a peacemaker", similarly, I have already seen comments from members to the same effect from Pres. Oaks message.  To me it seems so clear that is not what was intended, and seeing others twist what seems so obviously true has a tendency to make me angry.  Rather than feeling anger, I want to feel sorrow at the wickedness of the world and love that leads me to stand for truth without any vindictive feelings.  I want my anger to be converted into mercy and into the desire for as much mercy as is possible to be shown at the day of judgement.

    Hopefully I am explaining this well enough, but this is ultimately about me wanting to improve myself and become more Christlike and has nothing to do with backing down from the truth.  I too will oppose the adversary, and I want to do it the right way, so I can do it with maximum power and efficacy, and minimum impact on my emotional state, regardless of outcome, because I know that in the end, the righteous will be victorious.
  19. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Vort in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    I've decided to try to just let it go.  I know the Church is true, and I know the Lord has a plan that will not be frustrated.  I can strive to live and teach the truth where I am able, and then just let go the things I cannot/should not control, and trust that the Lord will show me and others the way.  I will strive harder to have the holy spirit with me at all times, to help me be the man I want to be, and more importantly, the man our Heavenly Father wants me to be.
    Despite the evils of the world and the work of the adversary, with Christ's help, I got this! And so do you!
    (Interestingly, it isn't as if most of us don't already know these things, but it is astounding how much angst we can feel to preserve our environment, especially when we see our family, friends, and brethren being torn down by the adversary.  These are truly the last days, and it is becoming more and more clear that learning to navigate them is part of our calling as Latter-Day Saints!)
  20. Like
    person0 reacted to zil2 in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    If they do, you can use his own footnote to prove them wrong:
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/04/47nelson?lang=eng
    Publishing Peace means preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ - I agree with my stake president - this is what it really means to be a peacemaker.
  21. Sad
    person0 reacted to Carborendum in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    This is the wording in the handbook.  But the wording was just worded to cause some "implication" that pronouns should also be noted and used.  But as several on this forum pointed out, it only mentions pronouns in passing.  But wording is that the "name" may be noted and used.
    Anatess visited me and they apparently live in a fairly liberal part of Florida.  Their bishopric has counseled members of the ward to use the preferred pronouns for people in the ward.
    This is certainly causing a separation in the Church.
  22. Like
    person0 got a reaction from scottyg in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    I've decided to try to just let it go.  I know the Church is true, and I know the Lord has a plan that will not be frustrated.  I can strive to live and teach the truth where I am able, and then just let go the things I cannot/should not control, and trust that the Lord will show me and others the way.  I will strive harder to have the holy spirit with me at all times, to help me be the man I want to be, and more importantly, the man our Heavenly Father wants me to be.
    Despite the evils of the world and the work of the adversary, with Christ's help, I got this! And so do you!
    (Interestingly, it isn't as if most of us don't already know these things, but it is astounding how much angst we can feel to preserve our environment, especially when we see our family, friends, and brethren being torn down by the adversary.  These are truly the last days, and it is becoming more and more clear that learning to navigate them is part of our calling as Latter-Day Saints!)
  23. Love
    person0 got a reaction from zil2 in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    Oh, I agree with you 100%.  I have no intention of backing down from the truth.  Instead, I can speak the truth without being beholden to internal feelings of pent-up anger.  There have literally been moments where I have felt that I no longer want to be a member of the Church, but in the same feeling also knew that there is nowhere else for me to go because I know the Church is true and so I can't/won't leave.  The concerns I have and the changes and directness I would like to see from our leaders remain, but I don't have to let them burden me.

    I previously mentioned how our Area received guidance from our Area Presidency for leaders to avoid any affirmation of an individual's transition, and that my wife and I fought for over a year to achieve that small victory, but during that year, I would sometimes have two+ hour meetings with Stake leaders where I spent most of the meeting in anger and frustration, and where I let that anger and frustration show in the way I communicated.  I don't want to feel those feelings internally anymore; I want to act in righteousness without taking it personally when others disregard the things they ought to believe.  I want to be able to speak with boldness without anger, so that I can stand for truth at all times and in all things and in all places, without the spirit of contention.
    I have the tendency to become contentious when standing up for what is right and true, and I want to let go of the things that cause that contentious spirit to swell within me, so I can stand for truth with even greater power by always preserving the Spirit of the Lord.  I want the Spirit to work through me to pierce the hearts of others, and to achieve that I can't start a conversation with peace and the Spirit and allow contention to swell up and take over.
    I initially disliked Pres. Nelson's talk, from the moment of hearing it live, not because it isn't truth, but because experience has taught me that so many members will use it as an excuse for "peace, love, and use everyone's pronouns because that's what it means to be a peacemaker", similarly, I have already seen comments from members to the same effect from Pres. Oaks message.  To me it seems so clear that is not what was intended, and seeing others twist what seems so obviously true has a tendency to make me angry.  Rather than feeling anger, I want to feel sorrow at the wickedness of the world and love that leads me to stand for truth without any vindictive feelings.  I want my anger to be converted into mercy and into the desire for as much mercy as is possible to be shown at the day of judgement.

    Hopefully I am explaining this well enough, but this is ultimately about me wanting to improve myself and become more Christlike and has nothing to do with backing down from the truth.  I too will oppose the adversary, and I want to do it the right way, so I can do it with maximum power and efficacy, and minimum impact on my emotional state, regardless of outcome, because I know that in the end, the righteous will be victorious.
  24. Like
    person0 reacted to Carborendum in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    Here is where we agree.
  25. Like
    person0 reacted to Grunt in Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question   
    I'm not sure what you mean by "let it go".  I'll oppose the adversary and stand for Christ in all places, even on this forum.  Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.