zil2

So annoying! (speaking of garden weeds) But back to the talk - it really was exceptional, IMO. These were the bits that caused me to go read the whole thing:

Is Sanderson is the opposite, or you're just saying you know these things about Card? (I haven't ever followed Sanderson, or any other writer, on social media, so I wouldn't know. I only know the dude has an amazing imagination and can write fantasy fiction.)

In that training I was in by Brother Camargo, one person mentioned that maybe those who aren't using CFM at home really don't know what to do or how to do it, and to help them, the class could do a pretended home study of the lesson. This could go any number of ways, but perhaps it might help - on the assumption that those who aren't participating also aren't studying at home... Dunno what to tell you, Carb. Sounds frustrating.

I have found that being excited about the material and happy to be leading the discussion - and letting that be seen - is one of the best ways to engage a class. (Being guided by the Spirit is, of course, always the highest priority and first requirement.) I also sometimes break out the dry erase markers and have folks spit out answers while I'm writing them on the board, with my back to them much of the time, encouraging them to keep 'em coming - this tends to build and once people say something, the energy tends to keep going and we can get into deeper questions. Pre-class encouragement, questions to consider, and similar things (including individual assignments, though I've never needed to resort to those) can also help. If I were in your place @Carborendum, I'd try every technique in the book - rearranging the chairs, breaking into small groups and having one member of the group report what the group concluded; taking turns reading a passage (just to get them used to speaking in class), a variety of questions. Trying to develop relationships (where appropriate) with class members, etc. I think I would even try the sit in silence for an hour, but with specific passages selected for us to read silently and perhaps an invitation to share something that the Spirit emphasizes as they read - even to share it just with me, quietly, and then I'll share it with the class. I think I would also spend a lot of time on my knees for each individual not participating, asking God what, if anything, I should do to help them. (Fact is, for a percentage - which should be less than half - leaving them alone may be the right thing, but I can't believe that's the case for the majority.) Regardless, you have my sympathy.

I learned after Robert Jordan not to start reading a series until it's finished - or rather, I almost learned - a J.V. Jones series appears to have been abandoned, too. Farland's son died before he finished the last book, and I guess he just never recovered the energy to finish the project.

Yeah, but the series isn't finished and it appears it never will be. I believe this guy was one of Brandon Sanderson's professors at BYU.

Nothing you said seems to contradict the point of this thread, which is: rely on your personal study and the Holy Ghost, not on what some podcast said. Seems to me your thoughts are in line with what the rest of us think. I would slightly alter this, though: According to Brother Camargo, first counselor in the SS General Presidency, the question should be "What did the Holy Ghost teach you during your study?" (per a multi-stake training, and he said this was from the SS General President - Mark L. Pace). Because we can all have personal insight and warm fuzzies, but what we need is the Holy Ghost. @Carborendum is probably right, though, that we need to find multiple ways to phrase the question - though I just end my lessons by reminding the sisters of what the next lesson is, inviting them to prepare, to ask in prayer another question Brother Camargo said we should: "What does God want me to learn from this?", and to come prepared to share (if appropriate / desired) what the Holy Ghost taught them. (In other words, he counseled us to be very careful to include the Holy Ghost and consideration of what God wants each person to learn, and that seems like wise counsel to me.)

I do think active discussions (online or otherwise) can be useful, but nothing can replace the scriptures and personal revelation from the Holy Ghost. Excellent analogy.

Thankfully, I don't think I've heard this in my Sunday School class - if I have, it's been rare. Personally, I wish the people doing those podcasts / YT channels / etc. would stop. The point of CFM is for people to learn from the Holy Ghost. If they have a podcast to turn to, they're not turning to the Holy Ghost. People think that some stranger's brilliant insight is more impressive than the Holy Ghost telling them [whatever simple thing], but they're wrong. Even feeling the Holy Ghost testify of the truthfulness of something presented in a podcast is not as important as learning to hear the Holy Ghost during your personal, private or family scripture study. The podcast may be easier or more interesting, it may feel like you learned something, but it's not as important as learning to learn from the Holy Ghost. /rant

Exactly.

Imperfection is not the same as error. More than one Book of Mormon prophet lamented that there were things he could not adequately (in his own estimation) express because of the nature or difficulty of writing in their language (and perhaps on plates). Also, there are places where a prophet corrects himself ("or in other words" type corrections - perhaps worried they'll be taken literally or that the idiom he's just written won't be understood correctly). If I have to, I can find examples, but I'm hoping you're familiar enough to recognize these situations.

Tripped over this today and just wanted to say that it would be well worth your time to revisit it (or visit it for the first time). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/04/the-atonement-all-for-all?lang=eng

A few days ago we saw a beautiful sunset (looking east rather than toward the sunset): And a hummingbird hovered about a meter from Klaw, only a few feet off the ground. They stared at each other for several seconds before the hummingbird flitted away. Unfortunately, I was distracted at the beginning of this and didn't have time to get a picture. It was a fascinating moment though. The little hummingbird seemed curious about what Klaw was. And this evening, Klaw went to the front door, waited for me to open it, and walked in all on his own. On all our previous walks, I had to carry him back to and into the house, protesting the whole time. Perhaps my little boy is learning. In other news: Klaw Pounces! Shockwaves Flatten Nearby Vegetation!

Acts 20:7-9

One of our dogs was named "Koshka" - Russian for female cat.

No, but I have considered adding a second "Native American" name - 'til now, it's just been "Thunderfeet" (for when he races through the house), but I thought "One Fang" would also be a good temporary nickname.

My little boy lost his first tooth today (at least, it's the first tooth I've found). It was his top, left fang. If you're squeamish, stop now!! Since I have a microscope, I stuck tooth under microscope. The only part that was interesting was the part that was close to the gums, which had blood on it. The color in the images is too dark - in real life, it looks more the color of fresh blood... U HAS BEEN WARND LOOK AWAY NAO BLOODY KITTEH FANG 10x, inside surface: 100 x, same surface: 100x, outside surface: Should we change the thread title to "Loose House Cat Teeth"?

Klaw loves using my arm as a kick toy. He has learned the differences between bare arm, arm with shirt sleeve, arm in two sleeves, and that he is allowed to use different amounts of violence for each. I have learned not to let him use my arm as a kick toy when he's suffering from the zoomies.

My only ideas are: 1. Adam was the man, thus Adam had to fall for man to fall. Eve's fall was the fall of woman... 2. Generic use / typical usage where only the man is referenced. 3. Women never fell. (Oops! That was supposed to be a secret. Crud. The committee are going to be all over me now.) 4. Eve's fall took only herself out of Eden. Adam's choice to fall and go with Eve resulted in the fall of their descendants - all mankind.

Feel free to go there. One of the things that sparked my re-interest was a video with a very interesting interpretation of "bereshit" (the Hebrew word translated "in the beginning"). In essence, the video was able to break down the Hebrew characters such that this one word foretold the Son of God and his crucifixion to atone for the sins of the world. There was more to it, but I can't find the video, let alone confirm whether any of it is remotely accurate. It reminded me of a similar video that breaks down various Chinese pictograms to demonstrate that the components of various words tell the creation story as found in the Bible. Again, I don't know Chinese, so I can't say whether it's remotely credible, but it was sure interesting. And all that reminds me of the talk “True Doctrine, Understood, Changes Attitudes and Behavior” by Todd B. Parker, particularly part 4 where he powerfully demonstrates that all things testify of Christ.

The difference is in the context wherein the phrase under discussion is placed. Scripture places the phrase in the context of this earth. You are placing the phrase in the context of the entire universe. While I agree there are many events which can be a beginning, I believe that the scriptural beginning is directly tied to this earth. (Or you can flip that and say that the scriptural account begins with an account of this earth.) OK. Yes, this seems accurate. And it was my primary interest.

The scriptures don't say: "In the beginning I created lots of stuff and now I'm going to tell you about this earth on which you stand." They do say: "I created lots of stuff. I'm only going to tell you about this planet on which you now stand: In the beginning, I created the heavens and the earth on which you now stand." ("In the beginning..." contextually has clear reference to this earth.) ...so, If you want to interpret "heavens" as "lots of stuff", then, OK, it's the beginning of all God's creations. I interpret "heavens" as "earth's atmosphere" and perhaps "solar system", maybe even "galaxy", but not "all God's creations". I don't interpret that as the first light ever anywhere. I interpret that as "light in this area here where we're going to create the earth and its immediate environs". I mean, there are lots of things one could speculate, but I personally can't go with the idea that God created light - after all, if He was once mortal, then He presumably had light during that mortality. Presumably light has existed for eternity - or all eternities. It seems to me that you're interpreting the scriptural account as the creation of all things God created ever, with details only about this earth. I'm interpreting it as the creation of this earth with passing mention that it's not the only creation. Regardless, I don't think it's that important - we're interpreting and speculating. To me the important part was the association between God (or Christ) as the Beginning and linking this fact to the beginning of this earth and to the concept of being "in" Christ and God - unity, oneness, whatever you want to call it.

Chapter 1 says worlds have come and gone, and other still stand. (My assumption is that the worlds being referred to are part of this universe.) Then verse 40: And chapter 2, verse 1 ends with this phrase: Thus, IMO, this "beginning" is the beginning of this earth - whether one wants to say it began with the thoughts in God's mind, with a covenant before the creation started, with a spiritual creation, or with a physical creation, it's still explicitly about this planet, not all mortal existences on all the planets God ever has or will create. Certainly, there are other beginnings, but it appears that the "in the beginning" in our scriptures is in reference to this earth.

Agreed. Moses 1:33-35 seems to contradict this - unless one wants to suggest that God was only referring to worlds outside this universe.

I think it was @Traveler who once asked here the question, "beginning of what?" and suggested it was the beginning of a covenant. I like that answer. I've pondered this phrase when I read it. I think there are multiple correct interpretations and one of those is about the beginning of this earth (or the process that led inevitably to it). In Moses 1:33-35 we learn that God has created worlds without number, by the Son, and that some had passed away and others still stood (as of the time Moses was learning these things). Therefore, "in the beginning" doesn't appear to be the beginning of everything - that is, the creation of this earth wasn't first. At some point, I discovered that one of the creation stories tells something different at the start, about the beginning. Today, while looking up references, I re-discovered this. I thought I would share and see if others have additional thoughts. NOTE: All three accounts go to the same place in verse 2, so it's only verse 1 I'm comparing. Abraham sure makes it sound like "the beginning of this earth". Regardless, neither expounds on "the beginning". Now look at Moses 2... OK, one is capitalized and one isn't, but I don't think the dual use of "beginning" is only a fluke here. I think we could say that all things were first created in the mind of God - in him - indeed, how could it be otherwise? Perhaps then they were created in the mind of Christ (and the Holy Ghost?). And this then leads me to ponder these (and similar) verses: ...and... I don't want to suggest some weird mysticism, and I can't put into words the notions these things create in my head, but there's a clear degree of unity or oneness here beyond what normal words suggest. I mean, that D&C passage is both simple and incomprehensible at the same time. Whatever the case, I'm thinking the first Beginning is God's mind, then a covenant, then a spiritual creation, then a physical creation - at least four beginnings. If you were expecting me to expound and draw a nice conclusion, sorry to disappoint you. All I have at this point are ponderings. I welcome any additional ideas to ponder.