scottyg

Members
  • Content Count

    314
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    scottyg reacted to Carborendum in Faith vs Knowledge   
    @Fether,
    I absolutely believe that many people get up to the pulpit and say they know when they don't really.  They just have a lot of faith. I absolutely believe that many people get up to the pulpit and say that they know -- and they really do For you to judge them on their testimonies is pretty presumptuous.  Give people the benefit of the doubt.  It would be more profitable for both you and them if you would ask for a private conversation with any of them or all of them (one at a time) and ask how they got to the point where they "know" because you'd like to get to that point too.
    Whether they are really there or not should not be your goal.  You're not their judge.  But whatever they say, prayerfully consider how you might emulate their paths and see if it helps you to "know."
  2. Thanks
    scottyg reacted to estradling75 in Faith vs Knowledge   
    Which is the judgmental idea that many of us are talking about.  You are basically calling the vast majority of those saying "I know" to be lying or at the very least mistaken, even if you do not really mean to.
    The first Principle of the Gospel is not Knowledge is it Faith...  People who get hung up on Knowledge (either for or against) are hung up.  And if it damages Faith then repentance becomes necessary
  3. Like
    scottyg reacted to mirkwood in Faith vs Knowledge   
    There are some gospel principles/doctrines that I KNOW.  I think it rather presumptuous of people to say that we cannot know some things.
  4. Like
    scottyg got a reaction from Backroads in Benefits of marrying for time only in the temple?   
    Agree 100%. Unfortunately it is the other way around. Government will continue to get more involved, the waters will become even more murky, and the definition of marriage will be soiled further.
    One day, He whose earth this is, will return and govern it properly.
  5. Like
    scottyg got a reaction from Vort in Minding versus obeying   
    I think of the scripture in Psalms that says "who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord...he that hath clean hands and a pure heart." Obeying could be having clean hands - simply doing the right thing. Minding could be related to having a pure heart / pure thoughts; actually having a desire to do good and not just going through the motions.
  6. Haha
    scottyg reacted to mirkwood in Stupid Apocalypse   
  7. Like
    scottyg reacted to Jane_Doe in Benefits of marrying for time only in the temple?   
    My grandpa’s second marriage was in the temple for time only. Both he and his bride were widowed, and their marriage was simply for companionship in their elder years. Both of them considering their original spouse as their eternal companion.  
    They married in the temple to show their commitment to the marriage and living worthy of the temple. 
  8. Like
    scottyg reacted to Just_A_Guy in Benefits of marrying for time only in the temple?   
    I imagine that if I were a youngish widower with small children, and were marrying another widow for time only – I think I would want my children to know that I had (re)married in the temple, if only for the sake of setting a good example for them to aspire to.  But of course, I trust that there are good and sufficient reasons for the Church to make the change that it has made.
  9. Like
    scottyg reacted to Carborendum in Benefits of marrying for time only in the temple?   
    It's all a series of chess moves, folks.  We're in the endgame now.
  10. Sad
    scottyg got a reaction from Vort in Benefits of marrying for time only in the temple?   
    Nope. Some folks just wanted to get married in a sacred place, but had no intent of being sealed to someone other than their original spouse. It always seemed odd to me that time only marriages would happen there when the concept doesn't align with the whole purpose of temples, but I never really gave it much concern.
    Given the way the world is going, I do think this is one more step the church is proactively taking to try and safeguard marriage, and to prevent our church from having to participate in unions we do not agree with. Sadly, I also believe there will be no marriages performed in temples in the coming years.
  11. Like
    scottyg got a reaction from Backroads in Benefits of marrying for time only in the temple?   
    Agree 100%. Unfortunately it is the other way around. Government will continue to get more involved, the waters will become even more murky, and the definition of marriage will be soiled further.
    One day, He whose earth this is, will return and govern it properly.
  12. Like
    scottyg reacted to Backroads in Benefits of marrying for time only in the temple?   
    I can appreciate others finding it sad, but I suppose I'm personally more neutral. I'm one of those people that thinks the government may as well get out of marriage altogether. Let it be before family/God/community/what have you. Let the temples be about eternal unions.
  13. Sad
    scottyg got a reaction from Vort in Benefits of marrying for time only in the temple?   
    Nope. Some folks just wanted to get married in a sacred place, but had no intent of being sealed to someone other than their original spouse. It always seemed odd to me that time only marriages would happen there when the concept doesn't align with the whole purpose of temples, but I never really gave it much concern.
    Given the way the world is going, I do think this is one more step the church is proactively taking to try and safeguard marriage, and to prevent our church from having to participate in unions we do not agree with. Sadly, I also believe there will be no marriages performed in temples in the coming years.
  14. Like
    scottyg reacted to NeedleinA in President Nelson vaccinated   
    Same in our area.
  15. Sad
    scottyg got a reaction from Vort in Benefits of marrying for time only in the temple?   
    Nope. Some folks just wanted to get married in a sacred place, but had no intent of being sealed to someone other than their original spouse. It always seemed odd to me that time only marriages would happen there when the concept doesn't align with the whole purpose of temples, but I never really gave it much concern.
    Given the way the world is going, I do think this is one more step the church is proactively taking to try and safeguard marriage, and to prevent our church from having to participate in unions we do not agree with. Sadly, I also believe there will be no marriages performed in temples in the coming years.
  16. Like
    scottyg reacted to Carborendum in Mission News   
    I thought this might be a great thread for people to talk about family members on missions.
    My daughter is recently dealing with really loud neighbors.  She had earplugs and ear muffs trying to fall asleep.  She could clearly hear the lyrics of the music being played in two apartments over.   They apparently have also see drug deals happening in their parking lot. 
    Things happened.  The mission home decided to get the wheels rolling to move them to another location.
    My son, The Bear, just got his mission call to Kobe, Japan.  He's already gotten on Duolingo to learn Japanese.  We're trying to figure out how to get scriptures and gospel principles in Japanese.  No progress yet.  He enters the MTC in August.
  17. Like
    scottyg reacted to mirkwood in President Nelson vaccinated   
    I see no indication of this in my area.  People are shopping in normal numbers and mostly maskless.
  18. Like
    scottyg reacted to Just_A_Guy in Biological Males Shower with Females   
    1.  Certainly not.  But of course, the devil is in the details of what “sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love” actually means in practice; especially given the LGBTQ lobby’s history of interpreting that phrase as meaning “you must never, ever tell us ‘no’”.  I can’t speak as to what specifically has happened in the incident @NeedleinA refers to; but (taking the account at face value) it does seem odd:  we don’t have, as far as I know, active and impenitent prostitutes or tax cheats or drug users being invited up to Salt Lake to advise the Church on how it can modify its rhetoric/practice to help these sorts of people feel more comfortable in church.
    2.  I would say that any deep-seated desire to depart from community standards creates stress and therefore “is a very serious condition that can lead to isolation, depression and suicide.”  Am I obliged to give @Vort the nonsensical title of “breaker of chains and mother of dragons” just his mental illness renders him vulnerable to suicide?
    And in what other set of circumstances do mental health professionals even accept the proposition that Person A’s suicide is really the fault of person B?  If I committed suicide tomorrow and left a note saying, “That @Suzie’s posts to ThirdHour rocked my world, and I don’t know what’s true anymore, and food has no taste and life has no meaning so I may as well end it all”—you wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) take that seriously; you’d dismiss it as the rantings of an unhinged madman.  And you’d be right.
    Even if we do ascribe third-party liability for the suicide of people in general, and LGBTQ folk in particular—what about the accountability of the “allies” who have legitimized suicide as an option for sexually-frustrated LGBTQ folk by continually nattering on about suicide while insisting that institutions like the Church that insist on traditional notions of chastity are somehow stunting these people’s chances for happiness and reducing them to a sort of second-class half-life as long as they can’t experience the glories of sexual fulfillment?  Isn’t there literature suggesting that the more suicide is normalized and discussed, the more likely it becomes?  As I wrote on these forums a couple of years ago, to an LGBTQ advocate (who, I hasten to add, was far less thoughtful, less careful, and less well-intentioned than you—hence the more accusatory tone I used in that discussion):
    The rash of gay suicides has not increased due to the Church suddenly telling gays that they have value independently of their sense of sexual fulfillment—we’ve been doing that for almost two centuries, and if anything our rhetoric has softened of late.  It’s you guys who have started telling gays in the last 30 years that the unsexed life is not worth living; and then when they start believing your bullcrap and end their lives—either out of a sincere belief they can never be happy in abstinence, or out of despair when they reject the values of their youth and experiment with new sexual practices, only to find them a hollow foundation on which to build a life—you turn around and blame us; even though you created the tension and you’re the one trying to leverage their deaths to muzzle the Church and get more formerly-abstinent young Mormons into the sexual meat market for use and abuse by your allies.  
    We mourn these youth and plan the funerals and dress the dead and pay for the undertaker and the coffin and the burial plot; while other filthy sex-crazed ghouls trot out their victims’ names at $500-a-plate fundraiser galas.
    The absolute lack of introspection and unwillingness by “allies” to acknowledge the effects their own antics have had on the problem, lead me to believe that most of them don’t give a flying flip about the LGBTQ youth suicide issue.  Those kids are just cannon fodder in the left’s greater struggle for supremacy over the Church and the trappings of power that the left thinks it controls.  I find that situation both outrageous and tragic—but the solution isn’t to treat a dude as a dame just because he asks me to.  
    The other wrinkle to the Church’s policy here is that while it is willing to put the new name on its records—a transsexual who changed their name is likely to be in the midst of a social transition to a different gender.  So what the Church is really saying here is, “we’ll do you the courtesy of calling you by the name you prefer—but we’ll be doing it at your membership council”; and we’ll be doing it in large part so that when Jane Brown applies for baptism in 2028, we can see that we’re dealing with the same individual as plain old John Smith whose membership was withdrawn for adultery in 2021.
    3.  Oh, undoubtedly the Church is getting pressure; and one of the joys (!) of being in a church with living prophets is that we really can’t quite ever say “never”; whether we’re talking about hypothetical developments like modifications to the law of chastity, or gay sealings, or the restoration of polygamy, or announcing that there actually is no Heavenly mother, or decreeing that only Asians with Klinefelter Syndrome can be called to the Q12, or teaching that Adam and Eve were actually purple Oompa Loompas who lived in Antarctica.    The issue, of course, comes when advocates say “go ahead and perpetrate this excommunicable offense now, and just trust that the prophets will catch up with you eventually.”  
  19. Like
    scottyg reacted to estradling75 in Biological Males Shower with Females   
    Which is why we need to also speak with our wallets....  They might not listen to our words due to the color of our skin or the sex organs but the color of our money is universal.  Note I am  not calling for a boycott... But rather everyone to exercise our stewardship wisely, in supporting good causes (as the church has repeatedly counciled) 
  20. Okay
    scottyg reacted to Carborendum in Biological Males Shower with Females   
    The "sell" is that they are NOT straight, white males.  They are trans women.  And if you're a woman who wishes to exclude trans women from that movement, then you're a TERF and not worth listening to.  Cancel culture at its best.
    Feminists who wish to embrace the trans movement are ignorant of the loss of all the work of the past century for women's rights.  At some point, those who truly are loyal to the idea of women's rights will awaken to their awful state and blame "certain other parties" for the loss of those rights, never realizing they gave them up all by themselves.
  21. Like
    scottyg reacted to Just_A_Guy in Biological Males Shower with Females   
    I still think that BYU is doing this the hard way.
    Non-Mormons and jack-Mormons primarily come to BYU because tuition is dirt cheap—about $5-6K/year, compared to $40K+ any comparable private university.
    So—fine.  Eliminate the Honor Code Office and raise tuition to $40K for everyone; and then the Church can directly administer $35K scholarships to temple-recommend-holders through the PEF.  Students devoted to the Gospel will still be attracted to BYU for the superabundance of fellow believers there; and the rabble-rousers will go back to state universities where they can play beer pong and engage in weekend orgies to their foul little hearts’ content.
    And if the Church felt so inclined, at some point it could even expand the scholarship program for students who attend schools that aren’t part of the CES and essentially offer a college education to every worthy youth.
  22. Like
    scottyg reacted to Carborendum in Biological Males Shower with Females   
    https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/education/2021/05/19/college-ozarks-c-of-o-request-sidestep-anti-discrimination-housing-denied-sexual-orientation-gender/5151236001/
    There is a lot of legalese going around exactly what the complaint was and what the ruling means.  But the bottom line is that there would have been no court proceedings at all if the college were allowed to segregate biological males (identifying as females) from biological females in showers, bathrooms, and dormitories.
    I am reminded of a proceeding decades ago about BYU housing rules. "Off campus housing" was inspected and approved by BYU standards office.  You then got a special certification that you were "BYU approved housing." 
    Someone began a lawsuit because they weren't a student at BYU, so why should they have to live BYU standards?  It was in the contract they signed when they moved in.  But they had no intention of living the rules.
    As a response, BYU changed the rules and said, "BYU approved housing shall ONLY rent to BYU students."
    Knowing the pattern of things, my guess is that there will come a time when the law forces the Church's hand regarding transgenders.  At some point, identifying as transgendered will be grounds for excommunication.  And at the same time, BYU will only accept members in good standing as students or employees.
  23. Okay
    scottyg reacted to Still_Small_Voice in War in the Middle East   
    If America is not hostile towards Israel in the future then our country will likely be apathetic with aid and turn away from Israel.  The days are coming in the future when Israel will be on their own sadly.
  24. Like
    scottyg reacted to JohnsonJones in fast for drought relief in Utah and western US.   
    Well, one of the ironies I see about many of the Western States (Utah, parts of California, Arizona, Nevada) is that they know they have limited water already.  They know they have limited resources.
    Yet, instead of taking a realistic approach, they WANT TO EXPAND THE POPULATION, BRING IN BUSINESSES WITH MORE WORKERS, AND BRING IN A LOT MORE PEOPLE TO MAKE MORE MONEY IN THEIR AREAS. 
    If you have a low amount of water, why in the world do you want to cause further stresses by trying to increase the population size which in turn uses MORE WATER!??
    It seems they are so focused on money and how to get MORE OF IT, that instead of looking at how to feasibly deal with their water situation, they want to aggravate it by making the matters worse because in the short term they can make a lot more money by bringing in more businesses which in turn bring more workers.
    One solution is to get people to move from those states.  This reduces the amount of water necessary.  Secondly, reduce the high end water usage of some of the businesses.  This also reduces the load.
    They blame farmers in many instances, but it's not the farmers.  Many of these locations (especially California) deal with reservoirs and underground aquifers.  The farmers were doing just fine in the balance prior to the population explosions in these states.  With more people though, more of the water is being used to the point where these reservoirs and aquifers were shrinking.  It was shown in the past few years that even at above average rainfalls for the next few years/decade that California would STILL not solve the problem.  The population was so great that the shrinking of the water sources would STILL continue. 
    Utah has been at the edge of the same problem as California for the past 5 years at least...they are at the tipping point where their population will continue to shrink their water resources EVEN IF THEY HAVE ABOVE AVERAGE precipitation during a year. 
    Last time I visited Utah, they were trying to attract a TON of businesses and people, especially south of Salt Lake.
    It seems to me that though they raise the alarm, because they are more focused on money than what happens to their water resources, they are making their own problems occur.  A lack of precipitation may be exacerbating the problem or hastening it's impact, but it is by no means WHY it has occurred.  This is a simple numbers game, and instead of addressing what the numbers have said, they are doing the exact opposite of what they should have because of "money" from what I can tell.
    The solution is actually remarkably simple, but I don't think they consider the solution one they want to look at.
  25. Like
    scottyg got a reaction from JohnsonJones in War in the Middle East   
    However things play out, the day will come when the majority of the world will be seeking Israel's destruction, and America will likely be among the number.