Jump to content

YJacket

Members
  • Content Count

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

33 Excellent

About YJacket

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Congratulations on 26 years, truly that is awesome. I agree with much of what you have said. But I'm going to say a few things. A marriage works best when both people coming into the marriage have a common understanding a common framework of what marriage is or should look like. In times past men and women had a common understanding of what kind of framework to start from. Contrary to popular opinions, difference might initially draw people together but commonalities keep people together. It is sometimes hard to articulate what I want to say or to get across the point. But these commonalities is why for centuries people in general married other individuals who came from a common background, a common ethnicity, a common religious framework. There are fundamental underlying assumptions that are baked into the cake when one gets married. The vast majority of those underlying assumptions come from how we were raised and how we were taught. And for individuals who have never had serious conflict in their marriage, they quite frankly take for granted so much of these underlying assumptions. Having been in a marriage where the fundamental underlying assumptions of what makes a marriage were far apart, I've seen it with my own eyes. That is why religious individuals have the scriptures, to come to a common understanding of what the fundamental underlying basis for marriages should be. The Church taught marriage according to Scripture and now it doesn't. Ephesians 5 is a dead-letter now. To the bold, this more specifically goes to the fundamental heart of what is occurring in today's society. I'm not doing whatever is best for my relationship-I'm following God's word. Either the Scriptures contain the keys to how to best live one's life or they don't. At some point when everything becomes "do whatever is best for you", that basically means there are no rules and best becomes whatever you think it is. Why I say more marriages break-up, well b/c if one truly believes the Scriptures are the way to truth than deviation from the truth is going to lead to bad outcomes. So if Ephesians 5 is true, than deviation away from Ephesians 5 will lead to untruth and more broken marriages. It is just mind-boggling to me-clearly when you look at statistics, societies which conform as a whole to Ephesians 5 have less broken homes, less divorces, less family societal problems as a whole (this is evidence in the Asian cultures which still have a heavy emphasis on the patriarchal order). Clearly when you look at today's world compared to a more structured patriarchal order 100 years ago there are MORE familial societal structural problems not less. Ultimately it boils down to the following, can an individual athest be a moral individual-yes absolutely. Can an atheistic society be moral-no it will crumble apart. Can there be individual egalitarian marriages that don't fall apart-yes absolutely. Can society as a whole work with egalitarian marriages-no it will crumble apart.
  2. Christ washing the feet has so much meaning. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of roles and relationships. It's a misunderstanding of what a role is and how to play that role. It's a misunderstanding about relationships-especially in marriage. Having "equality" in marriage is such a flawed concept it is totally unworkable. It's amazing to me, do people even think about what they say and what they mean or do they just spout it off. Equal how? Equal in duties-each person does 50% of the work? Well what work? Do we need to line out each aspect of a job and split it 50/50. I do laundry this week, you do laundry next week? Equal in decisions? I make this decision-you make the next decision? Decision making requires there to be a head-it requires someone to actually be the decider. Someone to actually "lead"-lead means out in front, you can't lead if your not out in front being an example making decisions, etc. And good luck having 2 leaders . . .what happens when the leaders disagree. Yes in a perfect world we'd all make decision like the Q12-but marriage is probably the hardest long-term thing that an individual will do in their life. It is guaranteed in marriage you will have serious conflicts, serious issues, serious problems. And I have found personally that the absolute best way for a marriage to succeed long term with minimal conflict is to have a biblicaly based marriage based upon the scriptures found in the NT/OT/DC. The more that in my marriage we conform to those standards, the smoother, easier, and happier our marriage becomes. I look at my marriage 5 years ago when it didn't conform to it and now when it does and it's night and day; from a point where I wasn't sure if my marriage would even survive to where it's pretty strong. So that the Church is removing that framework in the Temple is quite sad, b/c it will just mean that more marriages will break up and it will mean more public shame, humiliation and calls of bigotry, misogyny, etc. for individuals who find the path to happiness in marriage as based upon the Scripture.
  3. What does this even mean? Seriously? I swear the older I get the more I think people just like contention. . .always got to have a fight, always got to have a cause to advocate for change, always have some "wrong" thing. We could live in paradise and still someone would find some cause to get riled up about . .. just to do something. (sigh).
  4. So you boycotted the temple over the old way? or am I misinterpreting.
  5. Which is sad b/c the true goal isn't to "build a church" or "tear one down", the true goal is to be converted to Christ and to lead a proper life as a disciple of Christ.
  6. Well it depends on what the instructions say-"don't talk about it at all", or "don't talk about it outside of the temple or to those who are not endowed". Those are different things.
  7. Which endowment version is closer to God's truth? Whichever one is closer to Scripture. The egalitarianism in modern marriage is nowhere supported in Scripture. The biblical role of men and women in marriage is found in scripture-especially in Ephasians (but it is found in other verses too). So unless we get new scriptures (always a possibility) which detail at how the OT, NT, DC versions of the roles of men and women are wrong then the older version which has it's backing according to scripture and doctrine is closer to the truth. But very few people read scriptures these days, and if they do they twist it to mean whatever they want it to mean (the Paul was asexual, that David and Saul were in a homosexual relationship, that anything contrary to the modern view is just wrong, outdated, etc.). A plain reading of the scriptures supports the old way and not the new way.
  8. Well I don't know if "pretending" is the right word. Not advertising it would probably be a better word. The Church doesn't advertise things like this. Pretending, it didn't happen-well that will depend on what happens in the future. That depends on what conversations happen in appropriate settings with regard to the changes.
  9. What about women who are hurt by the "new way"? Or is it only the "old way" that hurts? And more to the point which way is the true way? If you have an old covenant which covenants to spouse and a new covenant that covenants to God which one is the true covenant? Removing a covenant is just that, removing it. But changing a covenant . . .well that is something else. So is it more that the old way is the proper way and people in today's "enlightened" mindset can't handle the true covenant? Or is is that the changed covenant is the proper covenant and that the old covenant was the wrong covenant? Considering the JS broke tons of cultural and religious norms-I highly doubt that God would have instructed him in a "less" pure covenant when he instituted the endowment. Considering how many social/religious norms he broke-he could have very, very easily made the old covenant like the new covenant. Of course, I'd think those who are for homosexuality would be happy at this change-a small step towards homosexual marriages (homosexual marriages in the temple wouldn't make sense with Eve covenanting to Adam)-change that covenant and now with each spouse covenanting to God it makes it a whole lot easier for homosexual unions to occur. Bank on it homosexual marriages in the Temple at some point . . .I find patterns in the Scriptures, Christ is the great Restorer-he can't restore a perfect Church. He can only clean house when the house is filthy . . .
  10. You need to read scriptures more. "Saints" is a perfectly good description for members of Christ's Church. It is following the pattern laid out in the New Testament.
  11. Clearly you weren't listening to President Nelson. He stated very clearly that the reason why God was displeased wasn't because the name was shorter, or because it was an abbreviation, but because the nicknames removed Jesus Christ (in some fashion) from the nominclature. It doesn't so much to do with being called by the official name as in that the nominclatures remove Christ from the Church's name. That is what he is trying to fix. "I'm a Mormon" is not the same thing as "I'm a Christian". Mormon Church is not the same thing as Christ's Church. Boy, if you are in this much of a twisted knot over a simple thing like this. What are you going to do when Oaks is President? Nelson is 94 and Oaks is 86 in good health. It could be a while before you get a President to your liking (Holland maybe??).
  12. Which is funny b/c I described exactly what has happened. People recognize it, they just don't want to admit it . . . that's cool. You can make any analogy you want but these are the facts. Men are specifically addressed less now than in the past. Women are specifically addressed less now than in the past. Prior to this change, many, many women complained that b/c the Women's session wasn't on the same weekend as GC it wasn't on the same footing. In order to rectify this perceived "inequality" the Women's session is now held the same weekend, thus resulting in less for both men and women. That's a fact-it ain't about "life is a pizza", it's a very specific instance which has clearly resulted in less targeted instruction for both men and women. And as a result of that, less instruction for women, we have women complaining that they don't get as much . . .it's so incredibly ironic, but those complaining probably don't see the irony. To each his own.
  13. Equality. You reap what you sow. How many women complained that because the Women's Session the weekend before wasn't "officially" a part of GC that it made it seem "less than" the "regular" GC sessions. When they first announced this change, this was my comment. Sure it makes things more "equal", but everyone gets less. Socialism . . .thank you feminists inside the Church for making it so women AND men both get less . . .but hey at least we are now "equal" . . .yeeeeaaaaaah!!
  14. I don't believe you understand what respect is. I do my best to treat people fairly, honest, I say yes sir, no sir, yes ma'am, no ma'am. I don't know how I can be more respectful to someone other than calling them in sincerity "sir". Simply because I state a belief about someone has no bearing on respect or not. I can believe someone is trying to justify themselves in their sin, while talking to them respectfully. I refuse to be kowtowed by individuals who believe that b/c I believe that those who believe in homosexuality self-justify themselves, that I am being "disrespectful". All that amounts to is this: if you don't believe things the same way that HJW or YCB or whoever believe then you are disrespectful. If I get banned, so be it. God will be the determining of my actions, not some random board that in the end probably means nothing. It will just demonstrate further to me that an actual conversation with individuals who believe this way is impossible. I am open to someone discussing with me how they are not self-justifying, I have no problem with that. But in the end it just leads to conversations like this where the one who doesn't believe like the crowd is put upon as being disrespectful, evil, bigoted, hateful, etc, etc. etc. Again this conversation is pointless as this will lead to no-where, you have your belief, I have mine. We can not engage in a conversation without you or another who believes like you getting "offended", feeling disrespected or another else. Which means you will continue to believe in your echo-chamber. That is perfectly fine. Good day, sir. YJacket has been removed from the thread.
  15. Umm, okay . . . you choose to respond to me, you therefore engaged me in conversation. Now you claim you do not want to engage me in conversation in this thread but in another. I do not believe you truly do want to converse. You want to say I'm the problem; you could have not responded initially, in this thread if that was your desire-it takes two to tango. It's that simple. I see this is going nowhere. Unfortunately, you have confirmed many of my thoughts about individuals who believe in or practice in homosexuality-which is they don't really want to have a conversation-they'd rather justify themselves. I'm not going to get into a contest about whether I did or did not ask something respectfully-I refuse to. You can take my words however you desire, respectfully not respectfully-that is up to you, I know how I asked it, how I meant it in my heart, what you do with it is up to you. Thank you sir, I do believe this conversation has run it's course and since it is my feeling that you truly do not want to engage in a conversation (in this or in another thread) and that while I'm open to you demonstrating that you truly do want to converse, unless I see further proof, I bid you good day. I will not respond to you further in this type of conversation.
×
×
  • Create New...