Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

CV75

Contributor
  • Posts

    18,540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CV75

  1. While the calling is extended, the wives are asked. But time is short, the whole weekend is a fast blur and all will testify that revelation rules the day.
  2. In our ward today, many women were wearing something green, none stayed home in protest (that I could tell), and five that started coming back regularly a few weeks ago attended yet gain!
  3. To put a finer point on it, I see it as only certain men who are called after the holy order of the Son of God. Believing in a hypothetical reset that would make things work to someone's liking? That may be worthwhile; I also like to try the Chesterton's Fence route, trying to understand more fundamentally how the seating arrangements we see tie to scripture and principle in addition to sociological explanations of oppression. The specific concerns about who sits on the stand seems to me to tie more to the principle of belonging, and in Sunday School today we saw a video from Elder Christofferson about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmiBgY_w3Rk And excerpts from this related talk: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/10/28christofferson?lang=eng
  4. In this case, we both put Christ first. She in sustaining my assignment, me in keeping my assignment in perspective.
  5. Posted 6 minutes ago Not quite the same context, purpose and function.
  6. I have felt quite apart from others in many instances in my existence, but I know that Christ walks with me no matter what. I find great encouragement and broad perspective in that, and by His grace I find myself knowing and attaining, little by little, my potential.
  7. These seating arrangements (or the positions in 3 Nephi) don't seem to be a function of prioritization but of function . I would think a General Conference, where the people gather in part to sustain the callings and messages by common consent, would benefit from a "display" -- transparency -- of what they are sustaining. In 3 Nephi, we have the function of ordinances, in General Conference, the function of gathering and sustaining the Lord's callings. I would sit on the ceiling if that was how I could receive the sacrament peaceable. Today is St. Patrick's Day -- I propose green water and green bread. There is no scriptural prohibition, no revelation against the color of the sacramental emblems. Thus we recognize out common humanity of all people everywhere.
  8. Whatever works to enable the bishopric or presidency to administer to the congregation gathered in the chapel for sacrament, as Jesus (presiding) and the twelve Nephite disciples did for the multitude. Jesus and the disciples administered other ordinances for the gathered faithful in 3 Nephi, sometimes in their midst and sometimes in front. I think there is flexibility in other aspects in that some people wait in the pews until it is their turn to talk, and some go sit in the pews immediately after giving their talk. Or performing their musical number, etc. (Jesus seems to have been the only speaker in 3 Nephi, and then He conducted some business in the evaluation and correction of the record, and some leadership training to the disciples with instructions to the multitudes). I recall as a young branch presidency counselor, a few times, returning to the chairs -- small branch of 30-40 attendees, there might have been 5 rows -- after the sacrament was administered to be with my wife who was struggling with post partum depression.
  9. And I would think that seating as these leaders would arrange them would not be meant to symbolic of who has the power, but a physical means of ministering the power in behalf of the congregation gathered in a particular locale.
  10. This is partly why I don't think the purpose of the seating arrangement (or in the case of the Nephite visit, where Jesus and the disciples stood in relation to the multitude gathered around the temple) is to be noticed, but to minister/administer the ordinances.
  11. When Jesus visited the Nephites, “he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him…” This was around the temple. He called forth Nephi, who stood before Him and gave him his commission, and then He did the same for the rest of the disciples. After teaching the multitude, Jesus looked upon the twelve and addressed them directly, and then “he turned again to the multitude, and did open his mouth unto them again…[and] when Jesus had ended these sayings he cast his eyes round about on the multitude…” More than once He “he looked round about again on the multitude… cast his eyes round about again on the multitude.” The venue seems to have allowed Jesus and the disciples to stand in the midst of the people, but whether He was seated in front or standing in their midst, “the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him…” and presumably the twelve who stood with Him and administered the sacrament. There is a distinction because He more than once “turned his eyes again upon the disciples whom he had chosen…” – where were they? In front, to the side, behind Him? He was the center point, but the multitude could see the disciples with Him. In Chapter 18, when the disciples went to the water’s edge, the multitude followed them, placing the disciples in front. Jesus met up with the disciples in their midst, and from this situated position continued to minister to the disciples and the multitude. I'm not sure that these physical posts of Jesus and the disciples was meant to symbolic of who has the power, but a quite physical means of ministering the power in behalf of the congregation gathered in a particular locale.
  12. I haven't seen this going around on social media networks. I think there is always hope for positive change, and the insight gained from sacrament meeting attendance is a great way to identify and nourish hope in the Lord's will. If I understand the local origin of this particular practice and ending it, I think any traditional, local gesture of inclusion might have to be reconsidered as local character changes or when it assumes a different message.
  13. I wasn't addressing the particulars of his feeling socially out of place, but the deeper perspective that would result in his unusual summation of these particular problems as "there isn’t a place in the Church for singles."
  14. Your Uber ride partner may have interpreted Church doctrine as relegating some people to be single by not marrying them, and that denying any single person the rite of marriage denies them a place in the Church. He may consider himself single because of that, but if his circumstances or choices prevent him from marrying someone of the same sex outside the Church as well, he might see that the Church has a place for him on those other particular points after all.
  15. Absolutely. These triggers do differ from person to person and couple to couple. But my question was intended to compare his "before" and "after" opinions, and whether other justifications for divorce have loosened up as well, or whether they existed at all, seeing that @MrShorty's current view of sexual and romantic fulminant is the outcome of deconstructing and reconstructing faith and sexual ethics.
  16. Very early in my tenure as a Church member (college student convert), it was explained to me that "appearance" did not mean "outward semblance" but rather the "personal presence" in our demeanor or actions. In other words, don't give in to temptation. I find the Book of Mormon to phrase it as "shake at the appearance of sin" -- shake of temptation.
  17. This is why I added the context for Q1 in my post. Considering myself as one who “knows better,” my relationship with Christ helps me deal with my and others’ failures so that they don’t grind me down with abject misery. This relationship is based on His sacrifice and grace, so that my sacrifice and endurance more closely align with His expectations for our mutual joy, present and future. As you pointed out, one or both marriage partners decides when enough failure and the attendant abject misery is enough. From what I’ve seen, the lack of any form of fulfilment is important enough to justify divorce and remarriage as assessed by the parties involved. We can decide what is best for us based on what we take from their experience and even adopt a new paradigm upon getting to know other people and their struggles better.
  18. No problem, just posted that for the sake of conversation.
  19. What other forms of fulfillment did you accept as important enough to justify divorce and remarriage prior to accepting that sexual and romantic fulfillment were?
  20. I’d like to give my replies some context: Q1: God expects those who know better to keep the law of chastity. Q2: “Spouse” is a man for a woman’s spouse and a woman for a man’s spouse (and the context for Q1 still applies!) Q3: I would replace “should” for “would” in consideration of the context for Q1.
  21. I think this verse shows the eternal purpose of temple marriage. The wording in the rest of the Section and in the temple fleshes this out more specifically, but we do glorify the Lord's (and our) Father by keeping this covenant.
  22. You absolutely do pedal them. If you down vote this post like you usually do, that proves my point !!!
  23. Yes, the perception of rights has context. I understand and agree with yours in one context, and prefer mine the heavenly context. I never once thought of this in terms of pulling rank or lawsuits, so to me that demonstrates our respective biases. As to your question (maybe it was rhetorical), the way I see it is, you and your husband share a two-way mind as do and my wife and I; the two couples are of one four-way mind for the sake of life in the Church of the Firstborn, but our covenant relationships with our respective spouses and spirit children, and the covenant path which continues from estate to estate and eternal round to eternal round (necessitating an only begotten son in at least one of the estates) are not. Our personal one-on-one covenant relationship with our Savior and His Father are not, though many have them in common and we are all of one mind.
  24. Nobody knows that nobody knows God's will. You don't either. So yes whatever you say is whatever is in your head, and others think differently. What a wonderful day when you eventually realize you can share what is in your head without making it stink!
  25. I would say that by virtue of conforming to the laws of righteousness, heavenly parents exercise the attendant rights granted them by their parents through the service of an only begotten son, and that some responsibilities and rights as heavenly parents are not outsourced or shared with other heavenly parents, though they may have them in common. The largely egalitarian environment of the Church of the Firstborn, in that all its members have all the requisite godly attributes and perfections, still has an order to it (e.g., D&C 77:81; 107:19). Taking turns would mean they do not constantly have their own skin in the game -- literally -- when they do not employ their only begotten son to save the rest of their spirit children. "God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son..." Being so empathetically perfect they can have skin in the game even when they don't seems like an omnipotence paradox.
×
×
  • Create New...