Scott

Members
  • Content Count

    1108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Scott last won the day on November 30 2019

Scott had the most liked content!

About Scott

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Scott

    Book of Mormon – Videos and Movies

    Maybe. Her certainly may have been. I think there is a tendency and stereotype to picture Old Testament prophets (or Old Testament time period prophets such as Lehi) as old. They are typically have long beards, gray hair, and are old. This seems to be the stereotype whether or not is was true. Even in Church artwork that is on our Church website Lehi is portrayed in this way (this is supposed to be in Jerusalem before they left): It seems that all Old Testament era prophets are protrayed in the same way when it comes to artwork and media. The Book of Mormon seems to indicate that Lehi and Sariah conceived and birthed at least four new children in the desert after fleeing Jerusalem, so that makes me guess that they were at least fairly young. The Book of Mormon also says that they were sticken in years which means they weren't too young. 40's sounds about right to me, but that's only a guess.
  2. Scott

    Modern Secret Combinations

    That quote came from Harold B Lee in April 1971 rather than John A Widstoe in April 1941. Widstoe's comment was different (but was also partially quoted by Harold B Lee immediately after). You can find the comment below at 8:05 in the video: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1971/04/the-iron-rod?lang=eng Here are Wistoe's comments on liberal in full context from his own book Evidences and Reconciliation, of which, Harold B Lee is quoting (see chapter 11): This is all word for word from Widstoe's book: https://www.cumorah.com/etexts/evidencesreconciliations.txt The word liberal, correctly used, has a noble meaning. The true liberal hates slavery of every kind. He battles for human freedom. He wants liberty in thought and action. He is tolerant, free from bigotry, and generous in all his deeds. He places truth above all else and hungers for full truth. He welcomes all new improvements and calls for more -- the telegraph, electric light, telephone, printing press, typewriter, railroad, airship, radio. He insists that every new invention must be used for human welfare, with full respect to civil and moral law. In short the liberal seeks to make better the day in which he lives, and he becomes therefore a crusader for the betterment of the human race. Such a liberal, to accomplish his purpose, holds fast, without the least concession, to the convictions of his soul. He is anchored to the rock of truth, as he may see it. He never wavers from the basic, underlying principles of the cause, whether of church or state, to which he is committed. All the world knows how and where he stands. His liberalism lies in his constant attempt to make the underlying unchanging principles of the cause he represents serve the changing conditions of the day. He may differ with the superficial conventions of the past, but not with its established truths. He may refuse to continue the church architecture of the past but will insist that the ancient truths of the gospel be taught in every building dedicated to worship. He may be forever seeking, under changing conditions, to make the doctrine of human brotherhood more effective in behalf of the needy. He is a believer who seeks to use his beliefs in every concern of his life. Unfortunately, the word liberal is not always properly used. It has been used, or misused, for so many purposes that its original meaning has largely vanished. Word-juggling, making a good word cover a doubtful or an ugly cause, is an age-old pastime. Words are too often used as shields to hide or disguise truth. Many men are inclined to hide their true motives behind a word. It is folly to speak of a liberal religion, if that religion claims that it rests upon unchanging truth. Neither can one be a liberal in religion except in the application of the underlying doctrine to human needs. It would be as preposterous as speaking of a liberal science, since science rests upon truthful observations of nature. It is only in the use of scientific discoveries that the word liberal may be used. One either accepts or rejects truth. There is no middle course. Under the true definition of liberalism, the Church of Jesus Christ is preeminently liberal... So why does Widstoe speak so positively at liberals and liberalism while speaking negatively of those calling themselves liberal Mormons? There was a group at the time referring to themselves (or being referred by such by others) as the liberal Mormons. Before that, even at BYU there were some professors who were teaching that the First Vision and even the atonement of Christ were figurative, but never physically happened. They were excommunicated and there was a controversy in the Church as well as arguements for and against things like evolution, etc. The so called liberal mormons wanted to change the Church and to believed it to be a good way of life, but didn't believe that things like the First Vision were literal. The so called fundamentalist mormons were the opposite and believed that the Church couldn't change and they wanted to continue to uphold the practices that were no longer approved by Church leaders. Both were diciplined and/or excommunicated. True. I guess we can let the Lord sort them out.
  3. If I am understanding right, I believe on big change is that for this conference there won't be a priesthood or women's session, but a Saturday combined session, so it seems that there will be something really important said in that session (which I don't mean to say that the rest isn't important too).
  4. Scott

    Balaam

    Archeological studies, Biblical analysis, historical records, and other writings (both Hebrew and non-Hebrew) indicate that the Hebrews and Persians (as far as known, the Persians were the first to do this) used crucifixtion (and impaling) as a form of punishment when displaying the body as a deterrent was done. The Bible implies this as well. For a standard execution during OT times, according to Rabbinical law the methods used were beheading, burning, stoning, and strangling. If the Hebrews wanted to display the bodies, it was done by impaling or crucifixtion. Those words weren't used though since the word crucify was translated from Greek which wasn't used in the Old Testament. The English translations of the Bible use the words hung on a tree as crufixtion. So getting back to the Bible and where it is implied, see Galatians 3:13: 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Notice that it says that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law since he was made a curse by being the one who hung on a tree. Hangeth from a tree is used as a term for crucifixtion. Notice also that it says for it is written. So where was a written and do we have a record of it? Yes we do. See Deuteronomy 21:22-23: 22 ¶ And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: 23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God; that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. Notice that Paul in Galatians uses the phrase that Jesus became a curse because he was hung on a tree. The words hangeth on a tree were used in the place of crucifixtion. Paul also says that it was previously written that everyone who dies in the same manner was cursed. The same phrases were used in the Old Testament such as in the above scripture in Deuteronomy. All archeological/written evidence found so far as least indicates that the words hung used in the Old Testament indicate impalings or crucifictions rather than what we think of today as hangings. Thus far there has been a lot of evidence pointing towards impalings and forms of crucifixtions during Old Testament times, but none towards hanging as lynching. In the New Testament, the suicide of Judas Iscariot seems to point towards a roped hanging (Matthew 27:5), but this isn't certain since Acts 1:18-19 seems to indicate a different method of death: 18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Anyway, back to the OT, it is believed that scriptures such as the one in Deuteronomy refer to crucifixtions (or a form thereof-exact methods are not known) and scriptures such as 2 Samuel 21:6 refer to impalings: Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, whom the Lord did choose. And the king said, I will give them. (Of note some versions of the Bible even use the words impale rather than hang in the above verse). Concerning the Hebrews/Jews closer to Christ and Roman times, it is also known that the the king of Judea, the Jewish King Alexander Jannaeus (the second Hasmonean king) crucified 800 people around 88 BC, which helped lead up to the Judean Civil War. This is recorded in historic sources such as the Jewish War and the Antiquites of the Jews. See here if you want to read more since the souced book is now out of print and very expensive: https://books.google.com/books?id=pbpSjsz_uY8C&pg=PA46#v=onepage&q&f=false During the Feast of the Tabernacles, where 6000 total people were killed, though many, but not all were crucified. See here for a pretty good summary of the killings at the Feast of the Tabernacles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus#Feast_of_Tabernacles During the Jewish holiday Sukkot, Alexander Jannaeus, while officiating as the High Priest at the Temple in Jerusalem, demonstrated his displeasure against the Pharisees by refusing to perform the water libation ceremony properly: instead of pouring it on the altar, he poured it on his feet. The crowd responded with shock at his mockery and showed their displeasure by pelting him with etrogim (citrons). They made the situation worse by insulting him. They called him a descendant of the captives and unsuitable to hold office and to sacrifice. Outraged, he killed six thousand people. Alexander also had wooden barriers built around the altar and the temple preventing people from going near him. Only the priest were permitted to enter. This incident during the Feast of Tabernacles was a major factor leading up to the Judean Civil War. So, yes crucifixtion existed long before Roman times and during Biblical times, including among the Hebrews/Jews. Concening impalement used by the Hebrews, such as used by King David in 2 Samuel 21:6, that wasn't a pleasant way to go either. It has been used as a punishment for centuries. It wasn't a quick death. It was a long and drawn out process. Usually for males, a sharpened stake was inserted into the anus. For females, it was the vagina. Over a long period of time, the persons own body weight would slowly cause the stake to pentrate the body until it came out the throat, mouth, or neck. The time that it took to die was several days and sometimes over a week. This might be getting off topic here and there is a lot to say, so if anyone really is interested in more discussion, perhaps a second thread is in order?
  5. Scott

    Balaam

    The Torah and Old Testament does say that Balaam enticed the Israelites to sin. It is in Numbers 31:16: They were the same ones who were involved with the children of Israel on Balaam's advice to betray the Lord over the incident of Peor, resulting in a plague among the congregation of the Lord. טזהֵ֣ן הֵ֜נָּה הָי֨וּ לִבְנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בִּדְבַ֣ר בִּלְעָ֔ם לִמְסָר־מַ֥עַל בַּֽיהֹוָ֖ה עַל־דְּבַ֣ר פְּע֑וֹר וַתְּהִ֥י הַמַּגֵּפָ֖ה בַּֽעֲדַ֥ת יְהֹוָֽה: Old Testament KJV: 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. If you look up the matter of Peor, it is in previous chapters: Numbers 25:1-5: 1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. 2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. 3 And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. 4 And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel. 5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baal-peor. So according to the OT and Torah (in chapter 31), it was Balaam who enticed the Israelites into worshipping Baal-peor, which led to a plague and the execution (of note, "hanging" in the OT was done by crucifixtion [the Romans weren't the first to do this] or impaling, not by rope) of many Isralites. In addition to the OT and Torah, the Tamud says specifically that Balaam was wicked.
  6. It does and the husband confessed. The wife however is blaming the Church for the counselor telling the authorities of the abuse and blaming her situation on the Church. It is not the Church's fault that her husband molested someone and went to jail, and if the husband was guilty he should have served time (facing legal actions is part of repentance). Instead of acknowledging the sin and consequences or going to the authorities herself, she blames the Church for her situation and then sues them for $10 million. If she hadn't done this, I would be more sympathetic towards her. Instead of blaming the Church for her situation, she should acknowledge that her husband committed a crime and should do the time. I'm sure it has been hard on her, but that her husband's doing, even if he is 100% repentant. If I robbed a bank last weekend and went to the Bishop and said that I was the one that robbed the bank, I doubt he would say "thanks for confessing; now you're off the hook". I would expect that he would turn me in if I didn't turn myself in. And I certainly wouldn't think it would be fair if my wife sued the Church for $10 million because of my own actions.
  7. She's not asking for a loaf of bread; she as asking for $10 million dollars. I would bet that if she was in a desperate situation the church welfare system would have helped her out.
  8. Only if he or she didn't accept the gospel in the next life. The same is true of non-LDS Christians. Everyone is given a chance to hear the gospel rather on earth or in the next life. If they accept it and were good people, they would go to the Celestial Kingdom. If they don't accept it, but were still good people, they will go to the Terrestial Kingdom. The sincere Muslim in your example has the same chance as you or I to reach the Celestial Kingdom.
  9. This may be true, but the situation is her husband's fault, not the counselor's. It was her husand who tore the family apart and violated trust. As far as healing wounds goes, part of repentance is supposed to be making restitution and facing the legal consequences of your actions. Confessing to the bishop or couselors does not nullify having to face the legal consequences of your actions.
  10. What an evil thing to do from the wife who is behind the lawsuit. Her husband molested the minor and she is pretending like her and her husband are the victims and the Bishop's counselor is the bad guy? It's too bad she can't be charged criminally as a co-conspirator.
  11. Scott

    Female v. Male College Ratios

    Continuation because I thought my last post might be too long: I don't know what the proper terms are now days, but when I was a kid there were names in the Mormon male youth hierarchy, at least in Utah. Maybe I’m showing my age since I’ve been out of the loop when it comes to Utah Mormon Culture for a while now. Here they are in order: Norman Mormon = The guy who goes on a mission, goes to BYU, gets married young in the temple, has kids, and then fulfills all his church callings. He might become a general authority or even prophet some day. If he goes to Church dances he always makes sure to keep the distance of a sideways standard Book of Mormon between him and his dance partner. Luke Mormon = The lukewarm guy who may or may not go on a mission and probably goes to the U of U if he goes to college. He probably drinks Coke or Pepsi on occasion. He goes to PG 13 movies on occasion and may have even seen Nightmare on Elm Street. He still goes to church most of the time. At the Church dance he keeps light between him and the girl, but might have to be reminded to keep more space by the chaperones. Jack Mormon = This guy isn’t an apostate, but usually isn’t that active either. He might drink coffee and certainly Pepsi or Coke. If he goes to Church dances, he might even go as far as spiking the punch with Mountain Dew. Apostate Mormon = Self-explanatory; I hope.
  12. Scott

    Female v. Male College Ratios

    This is just my own perception, but at least when I was younger and growing up in Utah, my perception was that there was a lot more pressure on men to attend BYU than there were women. There was probably was more pressure for member men in general to attend college as well, but especially BYU. If you were Norman Mormon (a term used by Seminary teachers at the time), the ultimate goal to aspire to was to go on a mission, go to BYU, get married in the Temple (at an early age of course), and have kids. Women weren't discouraged from serving a mission or going to BYU, but it was expected of Men to go on missions and they were highly encouraged to go to BYU. The U of U was the gentile hangout (although a lot of Church member, including myself went there) and was somehow viewed as the lesser goal among many. My own guess is that the discrepancy concerning the male-female ratio at BYU is at least partially and probably largely due to Church culture, especially in Utah.
  13. Scott

    Female v. Male College Ratios

    Except for BYU. Everyone goes there to get hitched.😀 j/k. Maybe.
  14. Scott

    The Glory of Men is the Woman

    The above is somewhat correct, but the entire real story is really complex as well as fascinating. Both the Church and its opponents supported women’s suffrage. You would think that that would make it easy to get women’s suffrage pushed through, but it didn’t since the two sides wanted women’s suffrage for different reasons. Viewpoint 1 Women voting = possible end of polygamy It was the New York Times who made the proposal that if women were allowed to vote that they could outvote polygamy. Many opponents of the Church (or perhaps more specifically polygamy) wanted suffrage for this reason. Viewpoint 2 Women voting = more political power and would show that women weren’t repressed Brigham Young supported women’s suffrage because he felt that more voters would give the Utah Territory (and hopefully Utah State) more political power since it at the time had a smaller population. Brigham Young also had the hope that giving women the right to vote would show to the outside world that women were not repressed in the territory. The problem was that the Church voted as a bloc and the Church (whether directly in many cases, or indirectly) decided who the members were going to vote for. This led to mistrust among the opposition that women really were going to have their free will to vote and led to the fear that their votes would just be dictated or turned in by the Church anyway. In the Utah Territory there were women’s groups both supporting and opposing (even in the Church-which led to excommunications) polygamy. Women were allowed to vote in some elections in the Utah Territory before statehood. The Edmunds Tucker Act put an end to this. The thing about the Edmunds Tucker Act was that it banned everyone who supported polygamy from voting. This was also true not only for polygamist, but basically all Church members, even those who didn’t practice polygamy because it was said that being a member of the Church is supporting polygamy whether or not you practiced it. All women outside the Church weren’t allowed to vote either since it was stripped away during the act for non-Mormons (they were called that at the time) as well. As Utah pushed for statehood, women once again asked for suffrage. This was granted in the State Constitution when Utah became a state in 1896. Anyway, because of all of the above, and the delay in statehood and suffrage, it was Wyoming who was the first state to give women the right to vote. It wasn’t without opposition there either. Congress insisted that Wyoming rescind the right for women to vote if they wanted to become a state. Wyoming basically told them to stick it and that they would rather remain a territory if they couldn’t give women the right to vote. Congress gave in and Wyoming became the first state to give women the right to vote.