scottyg

Members
  • Content Count

    338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by scottyg


  1. On 9/3/2021 at 9:49 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

    But if we believe that life begins at conception, do we really want to create a regimen where abortion is the default option?  I've spilled a lot of virtual ink here in defending a rape victim's right to abort--but I would always hope she could find it within herself to deliver the baby.  

    So I assume you believe that a baby is a baby right at conception, and that the plan B pill is abortion correct? A large amount of people do not believe that, and are just fine with the pill. Yet I rarely hear plan B brought up in the topic of rape by the pro-choice camp. The abortion defenders always bring up the need to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, yet fail to acknowledge that taking a simple pill after the traumatic event will prevent the pregnancy.

    I am trying to understand why, outside of just being evil, why they would rather have a more expensive procedure weeks/months later that terminates the life of an almost fully developed person, when the pregnancy could just be avoided in the first place for around $40. Walmart sells the darn pill for just $12.

    I believe this is really all about money, politics, and influence/power. Also, the more the adversary can get people to care less about human life, the faster his plans take shape.


  2. Honest question here. If a woman was raped, why in the world would she not go out and take a plan B pill at the soonest opportunity? They are readily available and not expensive. I would recommend it even if it was near the end of her cycle and chance of pregnancy was slim to none. Far better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy then to end an actual life several months later.


  3. 20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

    And...by the way, and for what it's worth:

    for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified. D&C 132:63

    This is taken out of context. This verse is part of the introduction of this principle (plural marriage) to the early saints in Nauvoo. It was meant specifically for them, a select few...not the church at large. They needed reassurance that they were not entering into sin, but that the practice was allowed by the Lord at that time. The practice, which was an exception, is no longer taking place. Could it return...maybe. But, not every man in the church will one day be asked to take more then 1 wife. The standard is 1 man and 1 woman.


  4. 12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

    Does it not logically connect for you that plural marriage has to be an eternal principle unless there are exactly the same amount of men and women exalted?

     

    When I think of the word principle, I think of something that applies to everyone - kind of like doctrine. I guess some folks can interpret that a different way. Of course more of God's daughters will be saved than His sons. The concept wouldn't make any sense otherwise as many of His sons would be left without the ability to progress. However, plural marriage is not, and will not be, required of anyone. There will be single couples exalted just as plural ones.


  5. Correct. But as I said, it is better to make assumptions based off of the standards in place...not the exceptions.

    Even better is not making assumptions on matters that have no impact in our lives. This matter is of no real importance, and is in fact a slippery slope. There is a reason why such references are few and far between (and usually come from the odd member in the ward who secretly thinks he knows more about the eternities than the rest of the group). God holds Her in very high esteem, and does not want Her image disrespected in the way that He and His Son are in the world. He also wants us to concentrate on what is essential here and now...our progression and relationship with His Son, Jesus Christ.


  6. 5 hours ago, dprh said:

    I had a companion on my mission that pointed to Acts 2:20-21 saying that ALL things needed to be restored before the second coming will happen, including polygamy.  I pointed out that polygamy had already been restored....  And then stopped.  It didn't change his mind, but it makes sense to me.  It needed to happen, and now it doesn't anymore.

     

    Odd thing for the chap to think...but many missionaries are impressionable and like to research "deep doctrine", some of which is false. The word Restoration means returning something back to what it originally was. The first and standard marriage relationship is 1 man and 1 woman. Plural marriage will never be required of anyone...it is not something that is 100% coming back to the church someday. And, even if it does, no one will be required to enter into multiple marriage covenants...as one is all you need to qualify for exaltation.


  7. 3 hours ago, clbent04 said:

    Not that we have a lot of insight on this subject, but whenever I hear Heavenly Mother referenced within the Church, I perceive there's this idea that God only has one wife in particular. 

    If we are referencing something we have very little information about, shouldn't we do so assuming God follows the eternal principle of polygamy?

    I have never heard anyone ever mention anything like that in or out of the church. It is better to make assumptions based off of the standards in place...not the exceptions. Plural marriage has been authorized by the Lord at various times for various reasons, but the standard is one man and 1 woman. Maybe God does, but it is much more likely that He doesn't. Show me one scripture that says plural marriage is an "eternal principle". You will be searching a long time, because it is not. It is a special additional/optional blessing given to only a select few who have been prepared to enter into more than one marriage covenant. In no way will it be ever required of anyone.


  8. 4 hours ago, Vort said:

    Clarification: It would be a great blessing for all who obeyed and were faithful, and would be a great test of faith to most or all the Saints.

     

    4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

    Fixed it. ;)

    I said it that way because not everyone would be asked to participate...very likey a smell few. And of course some would be expected to fail. All those who were not asked, but kept their faith in the church nonetheless, would also be blessed.


  9. That would be a travesty, as it would not be done after the manner of God. It would be abused greatly, and our younger generations would see much more filth and be exposed to much more dysfunction than they are today.

    As for the church, I doubt anything would change. Although the people of God have practiced the principle of plural marriage (more properly named plural families) over thousands of years, it was always for a wise and specific purpose. Plural marriage is not a requirement. The standard is 1 man and 1 woman, and I highly doubt the Lord would just allow anyone in His church to marry multuple persons without need or authorization.

    Hypothetically, if it was reinstituted in the church, that would be a great blessing for a few, and a great test of faith for many.


  10. 16 hours ago, clbent04 said:

    Questions

    1.) Does anyone have any context to this situation as to why Elder Holland didn't focus on solely reproving the BYU dean and staff for allowing Matt Easton to state his sexual orientation in his valedictorian speech?

    2.) Are BYU valedictorians supposed to just speak generically and not draw upon any personal accounts or life experience for future commencement speeches?

    1. Only Elder Holland knows why Elder Holland said what he said. My guess is that he, and/or other church leaders, did reprove the dean of the Family, Home, and Social Sciences College for allowing him to give this speech...they simply reproved in private. We don't need to know all the juicy details. To me, Elder Holland's words indicate that something was said.

    2. Not necessarily. However, if one speaks about personal growth stories and/or their trials, yet fail to explain how they overcame such trials, it gives the impression that either the trial was never overcome, or that the trial was in fact, not a trial at all, but something acceptable. This kid never once said that he overcame his temptations (he didn't even use that word). He did not explain that through the Atonement he has been able to become a better person, or the person that the Lord ultimately wants Him to be. Instead, he simply said he was a proud gay man. Sins are personal, and should be treated as such. It takes a very difficult balance to make mentioning something so personal in a public speech appropriate, and he botched it by making a meeting about everyone in attendance all about himself, while at the same time implying that those who suffer from the same trial have no need to change. He also implied that BYU helped him come to this conclusion, which is disturbing.

    The favorite oft quoted lie of the lbgtxyz crowd is "God loves me just the way I am." It is a wicked lie because it is only half truth that also implies sin is acceptable in God's eyes. Yes, God loves you, but He does not love the way you are. He does not love the way any of us are really, and the hope is that we can better ourselves so that we can become the people He ultimately wants us to be...like Him. Participating in homosexuality is nothing short of a damning wall for individuals and families.

    Lastly, this kid was the valedictorian of the Family, Home, and Social Sciences College. What a slap in the face. When it comes to families, homosexuality is directly against what God has intended for His children. It does not paint a true picture of what BYU should be trying to stand for. Methinks that church leaders will, unfortunately, need to start being more involved in the school, and having more direct say in the day to day goings on. They should be able to trust their hired staff and appointed committees, but this has proven to not be the case multiple times. The school has been too lax when it comes to hiring staff whose beliefs align with church doctrine, because many of them do not. Instead, they have their own personal agenda, and prove Paul's words to be true...

    "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."


  11. 6 hours ago, laronius said:

    So do you believe the same could be said about the way the Lord tests us?

    I do think something great/major will be required of each of us at some point, but what that is will vary form person to person. Abraham was much farther along in his spiritual growth than most of (if not all of) us, so he was more prepared for a more difficult test of faith. Speaking for myself, I don't really see how I could warrant a place in the Celestial Kindgom next to a prophet like him without going through a similar test, or actually having to make some kind of great sacrifice. That being said, we were all at different stages of growth before coming to Earth, and are all at different stages now. The Lord knows best what we need to grow, and will do all He can to prepare us accordingly.


  12. John Taylor quoted Joseph Smith regarding this topic...

    "You will have all kinds of trials to pass through. And it is quite as necessary for you to be tried as it was for Abraham and other men of God... God will feel after you, and He will take hold of you and wrench your very heart strings and if you cannot stand it you will not be fit for an inheritance in the Celestial kingdom of God"

    "Well, some of the Twelve could not stand it. They faltered and fell by the way. It was not everybody that could stand what Abraham stood. And Joseph said that if God had known any other way whereby he could have touched Abraham's feelings more acutely and more keenly He would have done so."

    Some of the beginning verses in D&C 101 also say that very thing.


  13. The book is filth. It was not written to actually help anyone, but to create angst and foster division. The author will hide behind the guise of "love", "compassion", "tolerance", and "understanding". If this person is a member of the church, they likely won't be for much longer. Publishing a book talking about theology that differs from that of the church is an excellent way to be shown the door...they are practically daring the church to oust them. It is nothing but foul lies meant to further hurt those who are already struggling. Some of the BS in there is dangerous, and will canker our impressionable youth and members more than any disease ever could. There is no such thing as a "non-binary spirit", period. Those who openly teach such lies would not be allowed anywhere near my children, and I would have zero problem openly rebuking them in front of other ward members for doing so in a classroom setting. Everyone should stick to the scriptures and words of modern day prophets who have already given much wise counsel regarding those who deal with same sex attraction.


  14. All of Doctrine and Covenants section 63 is excellent, and worth another read, but many saints need to understand and accept verses 25 and 26 in greater abundance.

    "Behold, the land of Zion—I, the Lord, hold it in mine own hands; Nevertheless, I, the Lord, render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s."

    Administrative policies the church makes should not have any effect on testimony. This girl and her family obviously have an axe to grind. Have they prayed and asked the Lord what couse of action He thinks they should take...methinks not. He would not have them criticize one of His universities via national media. Church leaders are in very difficult positions with regards to all sorts of things, and it only gets harder as the church continues to fill various countries worldwide. The sifting continues.


  15. Fauci is not god. He is a man with an opinion on matters. Maybe he is honest...maybe he is corrupt. Fact is, he is no more intelligent than any other physician with experience in infectious disease. He does not have access to information that is also not available to the medical community at large. Regarding other studies, those who look at data and interpret it cannot possibly see every variable taking place. There is no standard of practice for any of this, period. Bias exists with covid data, treatment, and news, for better or worse, on both sides...and the high amount of money at stake only compounds the desire for control and power among those with widespread influence.

    Folks need to stop cherry picking information to justify their actions to themselves and others. In reality, they themselves are lost and truly don't know what they are doing or talking about, and may be leading others astray at the same time. Find out what God wants you to do, act on it, and don't start looking over your shoulder uncertain of yourself because others are mocking you. So many things, including people in prominent positions, that may not seem to have anything to do with or against the church or the Lord's work actually might under the surface. The adversary can use any form of contention, greed, or fear to his advantage.

    "If we are to have any hope of sifting through the myriad of voices and the philosophies of men that attack truth, we must learn to receive revelation."

    Russell M. Nelson, Apr 2018 General Conference


  16. With regards to prayer, the main purpose is to align our will with that of the Lord. We should not enter into prayer assuming we can convince Him of doing what we ask. Exercising the priesthood is no different.

    When it comes to this kind of blessing, I would classify it as one of counsel and/or comfort. It is always best to follow the promptings of the spirit, and not presume that anyone can command or control the life of another. The spirit will let us know the words that need to be said. Life, and death, is ultimately up to God.


  17. 1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

    Yeah, the uber rich, folks stuck with no other choice, or people who know how to google.  https://tech.churchofjesuschrist.org/wiki/Donations_in_kind

    (It does not surprise me that out of a member, a Bishop, a SP, and an area authority, none of them knew how to google.  Not everyone can be an internet superstar like the folks here at thirdhour.)

     

    We can google. Perhaps I should have unjumbled my thoughts a bit better...it made sense in my head.

    The member in question wanted to donate in kind through the local ward/unit...hence my suspicion (again, possibly wrong) that he just wanted to be perceived as different or better than others. He wanted those in leadership positions to know about him and how well he was doing. If you make your donation directly to the church, then sure, you can use the method you referenced, and it is completely anonymous. Although anyone can do it, the church discourages paying tithing or other donations in kind. If it goes through the ward/stake level though, you need area and/or headquarters approval...most likely for the protection of those local leaders.


  18. 5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

    Well, to be honest, the church just is happy that most members believe that isn't a thing any more.  But it still is.  My hope is to someyear hit it big enough in the stock market, that I can pay my entire year of tithing with a single stock donation.  Which will net me a tax break.  Which I must also pay tithing on, hopefully in stock.  Which will net me another tax break.   I'm sure there's some sort of fancy math I can do to figure that out - I'm sure @Vort can help me.

    Yep, it still exists. We had a brother desire to do this about 2-3 years ago. Bishop asked SP, SP asked area authority, and they said no. The member was just an average joe, and really had no legitimate reason to do it in that fashion. (he is the type who likes to stand out, and methinks he just wanted to be seen as "cool" or different, but I really don't know) It really is the exception to the rule for the uber rich whose wealth is tied up and/or those who actually cannot make a traditional donation.


  19. 1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

    True.  Some folks hand over envelopes on youth night.   And in the age of government stimulus checks, there has been more than one righteous individual who made it a point to immediately drive the horrid thing to the bishop's house, so as to not be burdened with the vile thing one second longer than necessary.  But I've still had more than one bishop struggle with keeping track of the envelopes.

     

    Our ward is one with many elderly...we still get a good amount of envelopes. We also have one brother that doesn't use technology as it allows others to spy on him. (no joke) It's great that they are so dilligent...but youth night is a pet peeve of mine. I always have to leave my boys and run to the clerk's office to lock it up because I don't have a suit coat pocket to put it in. 😩

    Full disclosure: my kids are some of those penny donating envelope using monsters who need to get with the times. 😉


  20. 5 hours ago, LugiaLvl138 said:

    I am also aware that currently, the command for all the saints to gather to a physical Zion such as Utah or Missouri is not in effect. Only sending certain people, like say certain priesthood leaders and their immediate family to do specific things makes sense and avoids most of said logistical problems.

    Correct. Such direction was given, and unfortunately, ignored in the past, Many of the early saints suffered much for it.


  21. 3 hours ago, laronius said:

    But if you think escaping to Missouri is to escape the less fun signs of the times I would think twice about that. I think that place is going to get "purified" like nothing we've seen before.  To be the Lord's Zion it's got to be.

    Yep. Something terrible would have to happen there to drive out the hundreds of thousands of current residents in the greater Independence area. I personally think much of it will be from man made evils...not just "natural disasters".


  22. 6 hours ago, Fether said:

     Do we do the surgery, but then leave expectations to exercise? What if they come back? Do we do the surgery again and continue to tell them to exercise? At what point do we stop offering the surgery?

    What is interesting is that if one doesn't do their exercise / therapy after surgery (or repentance), their chances of success are very slim. In many cases people can end up in a worse position than they were in to begin with. Orthopedics, Bariatric surgery, Cardiac Surgery, etc... Surgery won't truly "fix" anything if we do not also change the lifestyle that led to the problem and/or abide the prescribed therapy. In reality, you can only have surgery on a part of the body so many times.

    Repentance, having faith, and keeping the commandments is the same thing - our testimonies must always be nurtured. The basic things we teach in Primary are taught because they provide the best long-term growth and true foundation. Prayer, scripture study, and serving others are just some of the small things that bring true, lasting conversion. One of the most hidden secrets of the gospel (hidden because people choose not to see it) is that the big things are actually the small things.


  23. I'm a nurse (spent around 2 years in the OR) so I have seen it at work also. My ward sounds the same as well. This month I have assigned Sacrament meeting speakers the basics - faith and repentance - in hopes that it will get a few lost folks back on the right track. So many people are struggling with basic faith in God right now, which I do not understand.

    One man has been dealing with a particular sin for over 35 years, and he never changes. He meets with every new Bishop every few years or so hoping to hear something different. He just expects some grand thing to change him, when all he really needs to do is "wash in the river 7 times".

    Enduring to the end is not easy for the masses...it takes work, faith, and patience. Our oil lamps are filled drop by drop, not by a gush. Each drop is difficult to notice on it's own, but they do add up. Sadly, even if some have the necessary faith, they do not desire to put forth the needed effort. And, even if they do, their supposed faith is weakened when the desired blessing is not bestowed immediately after doing 1 or 2 good things. Waiting on the Lord is near impossible for some folks with today's "have it now" mentality.


  24. 3 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

    Looking for your thoughts on how to encourage members to renew their temple recommends?
    Stake leaders have spoken on this subject fairly recently, several times, with little to no movement towards success. Members just seem to be rather resistant to getting it done. 

    Do people feel the need to only renew their recommends 'if' a temple is open? 
    Do you try to keep a current recommend regardless of temple availability?

    Are people lazy? Disinterested? How about in your area?
    All other key indicators in our area are back to normal or better than pre-Covid times... except this one area and we haven't been able to pinpoint if there is a common theme/concern yet. 

    Thank you!

    Yes, you should always have one current.

    Yes, they have always been lazy as well as disinterested. Covid increased the numbers a bit, but people are lazy with all kinds of things both in and out of church. I can't tell you how many requests for interviews I have had from people who have had theirs expired for some time...and only need it to attend a wedding they have the following day. They usually call me last minute as I am eating dinner with my family, or even the morning of the temple event as I am starting work.

    A sad truth is that many people don't ever attend the temple on their own. They only go to family fuctions to save face and look like they are good card carrying members to their family members. Our bishop used to allow people to renew their recommends even if they never attended church. This is no longer the case since the questions have been revised. We also have many folks who just don't keep the commandments. An example is tithing...lots just choose not to pay it. Even a former bishop of our ward around 11-12 years ago is currently in this category.

    We have not been able to increase our numbers despite multiple requests.