Behemoth
-
Posts
50 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Behemoth
-
-
16 hours ago, MormonGator said:
So true.
I wish the questions in life were easy and black and white. Some certainly are. But most aren't.I think the goal in life is to understand and make them as black and white as possible. There are intricacies (forgot the better word) that require specific reactions. I think, God will absolutely help us in guidance, (or not harshly judge us, in our confusion. If he is REALLY, withholding knowledge) All we need to do is seek.
13 hours ago, NightSG said:I suspect that, like drug dealing, many of those who do it once because they legitimately need more money faster than they can reasonably expect to get it from any legal method, get dragged into doing it full time and/or long term by the promise of far more money for similarly little effort.
On the other hand, a slight variation of prostitution is somewhat legitimized even in LDS and other cultures to the extent that a woman (or man, though off the top of my head, the two guys I can think of who did similar actually married the women then divorced them within two years, so they'd have gotten half the bank accounts anyway) isn't expected or required to return even relatively large gifts given by a suitor after the breakup; for example I know of one LDS woman who has admitted to dating guys she doesn't like for several months at a time just so they'll buy her new clothes and other things. I know a non-member who brags about doing the same to get a car.
Will a man, sell his soul for the world ?
things aren’t so clear when we step out of the influence of the light. (Even if we may think we’re still in it). Courage in small things goes a very long way.
-
1 hour ago, unixknight said:
Should a Mormon own a brewery? A tobacco farm? To me, those are the same as selling cigarettes and booze at the counter. Either they're okay or they aren't. Scale is irrelevant.
Yup. Prostitution doesn’t become ok, because you’re starving. Or does it?....
choose what is right let the consequence follow
yeah, when it’s time to break one commandment to follow another, we need God’s help and approval to decide.
-
6 hours ago, john4truth said:
Marrijuana users do not fight they turn the other cheek
Alcohol is the gateway drug it leads less dangerous but illegal drugs
John, I thought Marijuana was called the gateway drug? And Alcohol a dangerous end.
-
10 hours ago, askandanswer said:
Do the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from people have any similarities with the objectives and arguments of those who want the US government to take weapons away from Iran and North Korea?No, you don’t give freedom to a dictator.
the government that allows the right to arms will not allow another government/ideolgy, that does not allow the right to bear arms, to supersede it. Capish?
Two different totalitarian ideologies can’t exist at the same time. E.g. In the U.S.A. some companies are wealthier then entire contries. Our government restricts them, so that the public’s way of life can be maintained. So the company doesn’t get bigger then the government, as to take over the government. They need to operate within the government’s outlines.
We want to maintain our way of life when we restrict other counties from exercising their “right to arms”. Do you think North Korea allows its people to bear arms? It doesn’t. And if we’d let it take over the U.S.A (cause we wanted to give them “freedom”) they wouldn’t allow the U.S. people to bear arms either.
Ironically the people who are right (that is the most peaceful) should carry the biggest stick to maintain order.
This is an important concept.
-
11 hours ago, dellme said:
You are clearly deflecting to avoid the root of the problem.
You complain about "fake friends" and low HT numbers, you complain " Christ was not assigned to minister to people. He casually went about his travels and anyone he met along the way he shared the message. " Yet you yourself will not allow yourself to be ministered to.
Do you see the problem? The only people who can effectively minister to you are a few close friends whom you trust. No one in your ward can minister to you b/c you won't allow them to minister to you. You are projecting your own failure to allow yourself to be ministered to upon others and you are therefore extremely critical of the program.
Your "solution" is totally unworkable-it would fail horribly-it would cause cliques to develop within the Church.
And quite frankly, with your attitude you will never be an effective ministering angel. If you don't know how to be ministered to (which involves letting someone into your life), then you will never be able to minister to others . . .b/c quite frankly giving someone a ride home from school one day-big deal-that's just called being kind.
I agree, your presentational method seems not easily palatable. (Remember rebuke, AND show love.)
I think, he’s alright, I would say he should keep in mind, that everyone else in life is faking-it-till-their-making-it as well and in reality running on low self esteem themselves. We’re all (very) insecure as well, even when we pretend we’re not.. He can easily be the leader by showing confidence in their friendship, and the goodness of others. (That’s a thing too. — you “fake” the goodness of others until THEY make it)
oh! they were’nt feeling secure enough to say hi? Walk up with confidence and give a fist pump and say what’s UP BROTHER! AND then, when a brother pretends like they’re too good (an epidemic feeling) for being friendly, you do the same thing to him, - a little low profile ignore ’tude (but only to them, (when they’re in the act of being lame) then later try confident friendliness again) so they can eventually learn what behavior, doesn’t win. YOU CAN DO IT!... btw I think you’ll be surprised how warmly people will react since their only waiting for someone to show kindness.
“fake-it-till-you-make-it” is a worldly phrase for faith. We desperately need more “fake-it-till-you-make-it” faith, in our circles, relationships and friendships. Fake the love, until you make the love.
-
21 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:
(disclaimer: title is kind of a click bait)
I clicked. Thanks for saying, I’d been making conspiracy theories about the intention of the posters.
21 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:Christ was not assigned to minister to people. He casually went about his travels and anyone he met along the way he shared the message.
Christ was the Son of God, And all your heart, might, mind and strength isnt “casually” engaged.
“casualness brings casualties”
1 hour ago, priesthoodpower said:As it currently stands, I havent done my HT in about two years. That is 0% in two years.
This is what I’m curious about...
Look, we’ve tried the law of consecration once already. It didn’t work out for us. we weren’t ready for the greater law. Once we Recieve this law well, maybe we’ll make progress to that greater law. If our hearts remain hardened to our duty, we’ll filter our selves out, because the law of consecration is MORE responsibility, not less.
Accountability is wonderful.
this is a test to see if we will step it up. We need to step it up.
-
Just made a topic, asking about a mobile app... was wondering if you guys were doing one?
-
So, I’ve been spending a good deal of time on this site of yours since I signed on and I’ve enjoyed it. 1. Cause I like to argue and 2. It’s a good group of people.
Just went to the App Store to see if you had an app, you don’t.
Are the administrators or owners of this site also the designers and developers? Are you considering making an app?
Sounds to me like that would be a really nice step.
-
1 hour ago, Fether said:
Here you go:
I think she looks great! 👍🏽 😁
-
1 minute ago, BJ64 said:
I do however do Taekwondo which has a modest uniform but I wouldn’t wear it to church since the top is open well below my chest.
Well Moroni the angel DID appear with a similar presentation to Joseph... they weren’t at church though
-
3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:
I think modesty standards very a lot by local traditions and I think church members from within the intermountain west would be surprised by traditions among members in other parts of the world.
Yup, in some places they don’t even wear clothes!
But, don’t think its without effect. There’s a reason why, I believe the USA has developed fast and strong, and I would like to attribute it to habits of decency and modesty over the general population.
And no, I despise the Burka in all situations. (If you were wondering)
-
22 hours ago, BJ64 said:
I don’t understand this comment.
Yeah, it was a complicated statement, I wanted to mention that your school uniform would be more appropriate in the church then your swimming uniform, since it’s a lot closer related.
-
-
And @BJ64 mr. BJ, you don’t need to let everyone know how strong you are.
-
Listen 👂
Seduction isn’t as much about skin as it is, about intention. Plenty of you have mentioned that. We have a standard order according to our culture(s) on how and what we do. We eat at a table, instead of the ground (anyone know why?). we wear clothes. we drive on one side of the street. we urinate in specific recepticals within specific gender enclosed rooms etc. There are reasons we do them, though as any generation detached from the original actions and mores of their anteprecedants, we may forget and begin to question their relevance (not always a bad thing) to free our selves from what could be foolish traditions.
a woman and a man understand their intention when they get dressed in the morning. - A little red lipstick, some high hills. “No, I don’t want to seduce anyone, that’s not the message I’M trying to communicate, I want to be pretty “ .
I need to know. What is the difference? what ARE you competing for?
Modesty, by definition, is about being reserved. Do you want everyone to notice your prettiness? Be orderly, not pretty.
After you get done competing, then we can talk about the men’s fault in the matter.
E.g. I often hear people of both genders get angry while fasting say something like this: “DONT you realize I’M FASTING!? Couldn’t you eat something cold, and nasty so I wouldn’t be so tempted? “ Really? This is the same person that is supposed to (as the scriptures say) wash their face, and change their countenance so as avoid letting others know they’re fasting, and being motivated for glory of others.
No, I don’t expect my family to change their behavior when I’m fasting. But, you know what they aren’t doing. They’re not competing to tempt me, by going out of their way to make my favorite things, they would NEVER make on any other day.
You could be in a burka for all I care and if your intention was seduction, I would say that was very immodest.
I want to hear your counter arguments. Do you all agree? Calling you back with the tags cause it looked like this conversation died out.
@Jane_Doe @zil @BJ64 @Carborendum @Dillon
-
On 5/8/2018 at 9:43 PM, Ken S. said:
Supposedly God was once a man in flesh and bone. So at one time, a God had to create him. But then that God must have been a man at one time then right? Where did he come from? Another God who was once a man also? Somewhere along the line, there had to be a first God. One that wasnt a man ever. I mean this cant be the Chicken or the egg thing here. There is just no way man has always been around and has no beginning. There is no way man became God first. Logically it had to be a God who was not a man and created the first man. If that is true, and there was one God who was first among all and he created man, why would he then allow man to ascend to become a God like him? Why would he want others to be his equal? That doesnt seemt o fit with me either. So there had to be a first God, and I cant see the first God deciding to let simple men that he created to become his equal. So only two possibilities seem to fit here.
1) There is still one True God above all others.
2) I saw someone post the idea that evolution actually did take place, and life forms evolved by accident and became the first men and one of them became the first God. But evolution doesnt fit either IMO, because it has never been observed for any non-living form to become a living form. Never have we observed any non-intelligent non-self aware life form to develop into an intelligent life form. And if evolution happened then where did the entire universe come from? The big bang theory is all but proven now, but they dont have any answer for where that first matter form that exploded or imploded or whatever came from. Science has proven one thing. All energy and matter changes from one form to another, but something cannot come from nothing. Not through science. So there had to be a God who created that first particle that created the big bang that evolved into a universe and developed life and became man for man to become Gods.
So basically, we are back to one initial God before all others.... who created man through evolution.... and let that man ascend to be his equal..... it just doesnt seem logical to me.
Can you see my problem with this? I just cant seem to get it to add up.No matter how I try to look at it, logically it goes back to one God who had to be first and being of no beginning to him as he was always here.
Now one might say they dont believe there can be something that never had a beginning, but if you can believe in an eternity with no end, then cant you have an eternity with no beginning? But if you had a beginning, then logically dont you have to have an end too? Again, it just doesnt seem to add up for me.
A long
long
time
ago.....
(in an eternity far far away)
——————————
some of us progress and some of us are deadbeats. Those that progress make elaborate plans, to help the lesser progressing individuals (cause they’re deadbeats). ——A few eternities later——there is a nice organized system to help the us (deadbeats) - the Plan of Salvation!!!
It all works! you become a God, you’re part of the Dream team and (because everything is spiritual you are one ☝️ with all the others) (John 17:22)
wow! See it works. Just gotta use your noggin!
-
With out God, there is no truth.
-
15 hours ago, Behemoth said:
I know God doesn’t lie just like I know, and am willing to bet my life on the idea, that 1+1=2. I know God doesn’t lie like I know that I exist and think.
5 hours ago, Carborendum said:OK. I'll repeat myself, for your benefit.
1) The answer to your question in bold is: Yes. I do.
We all said yes.
I’ll say it again... Yes! And you’re directly avoiding the answers. You are choosing to believe we are lying. That all of reality is a lie. God and Truth are not separable.
The question is based on a false premise. Like: “what if reality wasn’t reality!?”
I’m losing hope that words will make any difference to you Luke.
maybe a better question is: When should we use the word know, if it doesn’t imply omniscience?
My answer for my provided more productive question: we should use the word know, when we sense something is as real as the rest of reality.
-
14 minutes ago, BJ64 said:
The Ensign is not canonized scripture.
https://www.lds.org/manual/scripture-study-the-power-of-the-word-teacher-manual/lesson-1?lang=eng
Makes sense.
-
1 hour ago, Grunt said:
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here. Everyone faces temptations. I don't know a single natural man who doesn't. Some temptations are easier to control than others.
When I speak of the Law of Chastity, and I may be way off on this, I speak of the physical acts. Even though in Matthew we learn that lustful thoughts lead to transgressions of the heart, most of what is taught refers to the physical transgressions. I imagine we all succumb to inappropriate thoughts at times and struggle with resisting vanity. However, we are specifically warned in teachings about the physical sins in the Law of Chastity. THOSE are conscious decisions when they are broken.lustings of the heart and lasciviousnes everywhere are all along the same line. And I feel there’s hardly a difference
-
Just now, Carborendum said:
1958
Ouch... that’s worse then I thought. I’d be interested to confirm my suspicions that the number has changed somewhat congruently with the availability of pornography.
-
30 minutes ago, BJ64 said:
Yes but I can’t think of a commandment given by modern revelation which has not been added to scripture (D&C), can you?
What is so different between D&C and Ensigns? Is there an important distinction? Other then was is the larger plates and one the smaller?
-
27 minutes ago, Grunt said:
Just because you break the Law of Chastity doesn't mean everyone does. I certainly don't.
(I have recently struggled, and so feel weak, but haven’t always struggled with the law of Chastity.) so I could judge and if so, be encircled with yours and others examples of those with greater strength and determination to resist the vainity of the world.
Although, even in times I haven’t looked at bona fide pornography (whatever distinction that is) those temptations have held often held sway in my heart. You see? That is what I’m trying to say. The beach, the grocery store, anywhere! I’m going through a heavy internet phase (as you may have noticed) and I’ve become more familiar with the temptation and desire, hope, and will that I receive strength to avoid it forever, from my heart out and help others, from the example of my strength.
(Just another void in the soul, that I believe Jesus will help me fill correctly.)
@Carborendum when was that study done?
-
1 hour ago, BJ64 said:
Again im not wishing to sound rebellious, I’m just asking where this teaching comes from. In a historical scriptural context.
Zil mentioned some scriptures, but still, modern revelation is all that is needed correct?
2 hours ago, estradling75 said:The other extreme is to deny it is a problem at all, to justify themselves under a variation of "everybody does it." This is a falsehood that keeps them entangled in sinI’m
Even if, everyone masturbates (in your vicinity or what have you), there is no justification.
I wholeheartedly agree with @JohnsonJones comments. It’s surprised me, to think that the during the scribes and the Pharisees time with Jesus, he told them (in paraphrase): “the whores and publicans go before you to heaven”. They must have been complete hypocrites, pretending they had no sin, and condemning others to death for the very same ones. As others have said, masturbation and pornography, don’t always have to go together. In my guess of reality, seeing (I confess, and not with pleasure) that I have had struggles with masturbation, pornography and other sins, and seeing not the masturbation and pornography sins of others but their open interaction with other sins, I wonder, if it is far more prevalent then what is mentioned. Your answers can’t really change my mind, but I know it IS possible and happy to resist the world we live in. I also believe pornography is everywhere. Ads, “kid” shows, grocery stores, whatever. A sin resistant generation should know how prevelant it is, and learn to overcome temptation quickly. No need to be curious, you’ve already experienced it (even if you don’t think you have). it is what you think it is: exciting like a candy bar, and as hollow as a mirage. Down to a deep, deep hole, where you’ll eventually be anihilated into oblivion, deprived of everything. Although I haven’t experienced the “eventually anihilated” part, I have seen and heard testimonies of those who have. I am convinced, not to enter, (though, I stumble and am easily deceived) Or let the steady bombardment of lasciviousness in the world enter my heart and steal my future.
Mormons and Bikinis
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted · Edited by Behemoth
We could forget clothes all together... so everyone is... equal....
By devine design men are to preside. That means they’re ideally supposed to know and want and do the RIGHT things and lead a family that way. In courtship it’s ideal the man take the lead. If woman were the ones inviting and proposing all the time, men would be the ones in the position of marketing themselves to the highest “bidders” and would undoubtedly be the ones with traditions of makeup and shaven armpits. (Haha)
So it is, that the woman that markets her body, will get the body-hungry.
Kapish?
The man that markets his body, will get a WO-MAN after him...;)
(We could be marketing other more meaningful things.)
Extra: Men leading, is just practical. A man often has more strength, and more spatial cognitive ability which usually provides an advantage over woman to dominate. But that doesn’t mean men don’t need woman. It just means they generally need woman sightly less then woman need men. (Really, just in different ways) I’m saying, our traditions of letting men lead, has practical advantages even if you ignore the statements and power of God.