Grunt
-
Posts
3898 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
70
Posts posted by Grunt
-
-
2 hours ago, Maytoday said:
Hello!
I'm a young protestant that really enjoys Studio C if any of you know what that is. I was reading about Stacey Harkey which brought me here. (Him being controversially gay to be exact) I'm interested to learn about Mormonism and why and how they believe what they do but it's like there are a billion different websites and rules and doctrines that I really don't understand. I would appreciate it if someone would be willing to tell me essentially what the beliefs are in a way that's understood by me...not using a whole lot of big words. Pretend I know absolutely nothing. Disclaimer though...I will probably argue with you, not because I want to argue and such, but because I am trying to like piece together the logic and truth in my head and I am REALLY bad at asking questions without sounding like I am arguing. There are also very few doctrinal paper that I wouldn't trust so if you plan on quoting anything, it probably needs to be proven as true before quoted.Hopefully someone has interest in this:)
Welcome to the forum. To start, I don't accept the conditions you placed on responses. That said:
I'm not really interested in arguing, but I'll answer any questions you have. We're Christians as well. Christ restored His Church on Earth via the Prophet Joseph Smith. We believe In God, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Accept the New Testament, Old Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price as scripture. We believe families are eternal. We believe the truth can be found in the Book of Mormon, and if you want to know more start reading it and schedule a lesson with your local missionaries.
- Vort, Carborendum and zil2
-
3
-
I reserve the right to be respectfully vocal about whatever I want to be respectfully vocal about. I think it is a bad move to hire someone who is publicly in support of things that run contrary to Heavenly Father's order. It makes me really question what is going on over there. It doesn't affect my faith or obedience and to be honest I don't give it any thought.
-
So, she has privilege? She should give her position to someone else to be fair.
- Vort and Carborendum
-
2
-
41 minutes ago, Traveler said:
In our modern society, the light of truth is perhaps the greatest act of offense towards certain individuals. Many are so offended by the light of truth that the only acceptable use of the words “Jesus Christ”m to them, is to utter a profanity. This is not new, in my lifetime – it was beem a very common occurrencem especially what I experienced while in the army. Sadly, this is not an uncommon behavior even among professed Christians – including LDS. It is possible that someone on the forum finds my just made statement in my post somewhat offensive.
Not me. You can't preach the gospel anymore without someone telling you to focus on forgiveness and compassion and stop teaching that we're expected to keep our covenants because it hurts their feelings.
-
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Okay. If you're going to randomly define things a certain way and then set your points against that backdrop then...okay.
Blurry doesn't mean intentionally forever muddled though. And it's strange to define it that way in my opinion. But if that's what you mean then..... okay.
I'm not randomly defining things. When something is blurry it is indistinct and unclear. This could be a permanent trait, and I refer to it as such. Lack of understanding requires there to be an understanding. When you get it you now understand it.
-
2 hours ago, Vort said:
I agree that God is a God of order. Nevertheless, remember Paul lamenting how "now we see through a glass, darkly". Many divine things are hidden from us in this state. The doctrine of the veil of forgetfulness illustrates that God actively keeps things from us until his own due time has arrived to accomplish his purposes.
A&A stole my Pauline thunder. I guess I should have read further. Not a single point I made above was not made earlier, and probably better, than my effort. Story of my life.
I'm not talking about this state. I was speaking of The Kingdoms.
-
4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Why can't blurriness be a part of order?
Clearly God wants things blurry for us. That's the entire point of the veil. That's the entire idea behind living by faith. That's the whole concept behind the "mysteries of God". That's the very reason Jesus explained why he spoke in parables. Etc., etc., etc.
Obviously it's lack of understanding. That's synonymous with "blurry". But it seems pretty clear to me that man's lack of understanding in mortality is God's intent and part of His plan. Or, in other words, it seems clear that God wants things to be blurry for mankind.
I don't view them as synonymous. One is something that will be intentionally forever muddled, the other is something you can clarify with knowledge. I believe it will be clarified with total knowledge.
4 hours ago, askandanswer said: -
-
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:
I think that is the case sometimes.
I am confident that we as mortals, even in the church, only have a very small taste of understanding of the priesthood and what it actually means.
Yeah. I can't see God wanting something to be blurry, but I can see us just not being able to comprehend it in this state. Like eternity. I understand it, but I can't comprehend it.
- SilentOne, askandanswer and Vort
-
2
-
1
-
6 minutes ago, Vort said:
I don't believe the Priesthood is "jointly held", any more than e.g. motherhood is "jointly held". Men have parental responsibilities, just as women do. But "motherhood" is not synonymous with "parenthood". Just so, I believe that "Priesthood" is not synonymous with "acting in God's name and with his authority". As has often been pointed out, women act under Priesthood assignment and in God's name, but that is not the same as holding the Priesthood.
I think it's worth noting that the highest (known?) "order" of the Priesthood, the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, requires both a man and a woman. Without the woman, that order does not even exist. But again, holding the Priesthood seems different to me from being a member of its highest order. I am not even sure exactly what it actually means to "hold the Priesthood", but I feel confident that it does mean something. Whatever it means, it seems to apply only to worthy men.
I really struggle with the concept of Priesthood, holding Priesthood, exercising Priesthood, Priesthood office, etc. Just when I think I have a grasp, I read something that makes the edges blurry. Maybe they're supposed to be blurry, I don't know.
- Traveler, Vort and mordorbund
-
3
-
41 minutes ago, Vort said:
By definition, angels are messengers from God. Angelic visitations recorded in scripture are almost always to prophets and devout believers (with Paul, Alma, and the sons of Mosiah standing out as stark exceptions). These visitations seem to me to have the quality of a Priesthood assignment, which might therefore be considered a Priesthood responsibility. This would explain why the angels we read of in these visitations are male.
That was my feeling, but I didn't dare post it.
-
-
-
On 12/28/2023 at 1:03 PM, LDSGator said:
Greed is absolutely sinful, but so is envy. In fact, I’ve noticed that greed is one of those sins that only the other guy has.
To be fair, like the old saying goes we’re wonderful prosecutors for the sins of others and spectacular defense attorneys for our own sins-but this is very true when it comes to greed & envy.
So is lying, fraud, and breaking covenants. Some people prosecute the sins of others. Some people defend them.
-
On 12/30/2023 at 10:18 AM, zil2 said:
Wonderful! Please do! I hope all is well with her, her family, and her pens!
I miss seeing her on here.
She’s doing great! After meeting her, it’s disappointing that she isn’t allowed here anymore.
She brought her family and they were awesome to visit with.
-
On 12/6/2023 at 1:06 PM, zil2 said:
I miss Anatess, LiterateParakeet, @Sunday21 and too many others. New folks seem to come, make a post or two, and disappear. Long-time folk drop off never to return.
The close-knit nature of our small-group discussions likely scares off newbies. We should all make an effort to love-bomb anyone brave enough to post.
I'm going to church with Antatess tomorrow. I'll tell her you said hello.
-
-
15 minutes ago, Ironhold said:
No, it sounds like you have an unclear communications policy at work. If you were supposed to read the entire e-mail trail, that should have been made clear to you ahead of time.
Yeah. I always say "see below" if I want them to read the email.
-
8 minutes ago, zil2 said:
I predict that between now and whenever the Lord comes again, people will leave the Church over right wing politics, left wing politics, to keep their jobs or their bank accounts, to keep their favorite sins, because the persecution is more than they can bear, because they are deceived, and for every other reason they can think of. The only people who will stay will be the truly humble followers of Jesus Christ who are willing to give up everything for his name's sake. I encourage everyone to get on the truly humble follower of Jesus Christ bandwagon and brace themselves to lose all for his name's sake. (Then, if they don't have to lose all, hooray! If they do lose all, hooray!)
100%. Oddly, it's those who don't even attempt to keep their covenants, or have never made them, that seem to be the most vocal about the Church and those in it who are just trying to find their way.
-
2 hours ago, Carborendum said:
Yes, moving may be an option (as @zil2 indicated). But I don't blame him for just going to a different church. Here's why:
It seems that his heart is still with the basic tenets of the faith. He probably still holds his covenants sacred. But like Lot and his household, he couldn't stay there lest he be consumed by their apostasy.
So, he chose to go out into the wilderness. There was no other refuge immediately available to him. What else is he supposed to do?
What would happen if he didn't sustain the Bishop or Stake President. If, during his Temple Recommend interview, he answered positively to everything except that, then explained why?
ETA: Now I'm curious and need to start reading. I've never encountered this.- old, JohnsonJones, Carborendum and 1 other
-
4
-
59 minutes ago, old said:
We now attend an Orthodox parish locally and it is very, very good for our souls. None of this is remotely a problem. There is no mention of rainbow this or rainbow that. No one would dare think of "coming out" to the parish. Our older children, instead of FSY or girls camp with transgender cabins went to an Orthodox summer camp last year. When we asked the question of is openly homosexual youth a problem to the camp director, the question was received more in a spirit of confusion-as in we don't understand what your question is or really why you would be asking it; it's just not a problem. My son is attending a Orthodox winter camp and I have absolutely no concerns. The past summer for the Orthodox summer camp, they spent the entire week studying Christ's greatest sermon-the Beatitudes.
Again, thank you very much for your comment; I wish this was the response that had been modeled all those months ago.
I think a lot of it has to do with the ward, apparently. I've seen none of what you've discussed.
-
38 minutes ago, Vort said:
I wrote a response to exactly this part. I deleted it before posting because I decided it didn't add much of value to the conversation. But this bothered me:
- If he's trying to live an LDS lifestyle and keep his covenants, why is he allowing himself to crush on a friend?
- If he actually cares about his friend, why wouldn't he celebrate (at least privately) when his friend reveals his heterosexuality? I mean, that's good news, right?
- If this young man is actively pursuing (or "exploring") his homosexual impulses, why on earth is he representing Christ and serving a mission?
- What kind of active, believing, testimony-holding Latter-day Saint young woman would approvingly nod at the idea of a friend's homosexual crush, then express disappointment because she thought the two of them would be "cute together"?
It's not that I doubt that a young LDS woman could be so callow and immature as to say such a thing. I know better. But that is just, I don't know, despicable.
Maybe I should have actually read it in its entirety before responding.
-
7 hours ago, Ironhold said:
As an MBA and thus an academic... that's not how this works.
If you bring an argument, you need to provide evidence and work with contradictory evidence.
Wait.....having an MBA makes me an academic? Hot diggity dog!
- askandanswer, JohnsonJones, mikbone and 2 others
-
5
-
Just now, laronius said:
I don't mind his overall message. It's good for people, no matter what they struggle with, to know they are loved. So to that extent it addresses a very real issue.
But as a missionary whatever he decides to share should always come back to Jesus Christ, his restored gospel, and the truthfulness of this Church and I don't think this does.
As a side note (and this is based on limited experience so maybe I'm off) but it seems like those with same-sex attraction who intend to live a chaste life for the rest of their life don't make a big deal about having same-sex attraction and don't see it as part of their identity. Where as the bigger the deal they make of it and define themselves by it the more likely they are to eventually start to live a gay lifestyle.
I completely agree with this. We could all do better loving people “generically”. We have people who struggle with many things but it isn’t the center of their identity. Being a child of God should be.
I'm a Christian.
in Learn about The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints
Posted
You absolutely have a way to contact a missionary. Here you go! https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist Good luck on your journey!