• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis

Storm Rider

Contributor
  • Content count

    5,584
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Storm Rider last won the day on October 19 2015

Storm Rider had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,579 Excellent

1 Follower

About Storm Rider

  • Rank
    Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Herndon, Virginia

Recent Profile Visitors

2,975 profile views
  1. Erik, I am a fan of Bonhoeffer and his writings. I did not identify a conflict between LDS theology and Bonhoeffer's in what you wrote. I often sense that LDS and other Christians talk past one another when it comes to grace. We believe that the Holy Spirit changes the heart and thus one's life is changed as demonstrated by a new way of doing things i.e. living a more holy life or a righteous life. It is by God's grace that we are saved; all that is good in us comes from him. If we are admitting foibles I have the least amount of trust when surrounded by Evangelicals. Give me a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox any day of the week. There just seems to be a higher degree association and understand in my experience. Peace, Aside: HJG was not one of my favorites if it matters and I never forget that we are all human regardless of what God calls us to do.
  2. Everybody take a breath, step back, and consider how we may each stop talking past one another. Set down the axes and just converse about the topic; it is not personal; it is a topic about something that each of us is committed to and that is happiness, societal happiness and how to achieve it in a stable, long-lasting manner.
  3. First, you are going to have to convince me that Trump is a conservative. I don't think it is wise to derail this even further by trying to make this about Obama or Trump. When these kinds of topics come up the Left will often wrap itself in the self-righteous cloak of slavery, genocide, polygamy, and the list goes on. First, it was not the Democrats that ended slavery - that is so often forgotten. It was not the Democrats that ended polygamy regardless of the way it is or was practiced. However, it is the Democrats that speed to the defense of Muslims.....that practice polygamy in the US today. Strange how politicians can speak out both sides of the mouths (Please note that I said politicians without identifying any party i.e. they all do it). However, it is when their followers blindly mouth trite phrases and attack sound bites without any comprehension of history or the effects of their litany of desires and needs for self-satisfaction. Societies, with all its flaws, runs the gamut of being strong to being weak. The future offered by Leftist ideologies only leads to the complete destruction of common sense and the traditional family unit. It leads to unhappiness, failure, and the eventual defeat of the individual.
  4. I don't think that the break down of the family is caused by the Left directly; I just they place no value on the traditional family unit. I would even go so far as to say the Left falls somewhere between being antagonistic or ambivalent toward the traditional family unit. One of their main focuses is on the individual - if you desire it then it must be good, it must be right and we support. It parades as freedom, but as a religious individual I think the result is anything but freedom. The actions of the Left influence or assist in the breakdown of societal standards that have been around for thousands of years. Their influence has befuddled a weak Right that is fooled by this rose colored philosophy of the ultimate or primary importance is the wants and desires of the individual and ignored what creates a strong society. It is the failure of the Right to properly - and I cannot do it - identify why these principles lead to chaos and the destruction of society. The destruction of the family is a vital part of that, but it is just one part. Cal, this is not about absolving Mormons, conservatives, or anyone else of their participation in those things that destroy or weaken society. That is a straw man you are building there, but it is not what I am saying. You might want to put down that self-righteous indignation for a bit. My comments are about philosophies and principles; it is not about individuals or persons.
  5. As the philosophy that the desires of the individual progresses and takes dominance all things are possible to the "other". The unborn cannot speak so it is extremely easy to discount their value. Whereas now it is acceptable for the seriously ill to kill themselves it does not take too much to push that acceptance to an acceptance of those whose quality of life is deemed "bad" - those in a coma, those who are mute, mentally impaired, etc. Society has elevated the demands of the individual to untouched heights - a person who thinks they are a particular gender must be respected because of their thoughts; thus society must bow. The concept of the family unit is almost meaningless in society today. It is not mother, father, and children - a unit that grows, functions, etc. Today the family unit is anything you want it to be: two women, two men, or a whole lot of anything in between. We have done an poor job of philosophically addressing the motivations of the Left for casting aside society values and morals in favor of satiating the desires of the individual. It is evident the Left does not comprehend what they are doing or the meaning of their actions. Worse, the Right has sat on their hands and the best defenses were developed is the Bible "says" or it is immoral - we have not addressed what is actually happening or the slippery slope these actions imperil society.
  6. Our daughter delivered a little baby girl at 24 weeks gestation - a very common time period where babies are aborted. Ella Kate, Kate is after my mother, was 11 1/2 inches long and 1.4 pounds. She was on vent for two days and then was switched to a cannula type-thing. By the end of the first week her oxygen content was 22% (we breathe 21% in the air). The point is that she was doing incredibly well for how young she was. She is now one month old - she had to go back on the vent, but is off of it again - and has doubled her weight. Our daughter was born ten weeks early when she was born. I guess these early births run in our family for some reason. Regardless, these early births stand as evidence that most people who talk about late term abortions don't have a clue about the topic or subject. It is an emotional issue and emotion often rules the day. The definition of viable is difficult to define completely. Are we viable when we need medication? Are we viable if we need oxygen? Are we viable if we depend on anything else to facilitate life? If so, what is the different between me as an adult that must take medication in order to live and my granddaughter that needs the assistance of a cannula? If it is just to have an abortion at a time when the baby is viable i.e. she can live with medical assistance then it is just to kill any individual of any age if they need medical assistance for anything - children with physical impairments, adults with mental impairments, teenagers in wheelchairs, and almost every cancer patient. It is for this reason that the vast majority of reasoning for having abortions is logic built on a slippery, very steep slope. If a society can become so calloused as to kill innocent life it can very quickly become so calloused as to kill any inconvenient life.
  7. I think I probably miswrote/misspoke. When reading some of the comments I found the overall feeling to be cultish - not actually a cult. The number of followers is irrelevant rather it is simply how the individuals interact with one another. Sj, I listened to a few of his episodes years ago and I have not listened to anything since. I have commented on this Board about his work and his actions, but overall he is not an individual or has a product I interact with to any degree. At the end of the day, I suspect he likes what he was doing helping people that were losing their faith and later wanted to create a way to make money from it. His heart may have started out in the right place - to help people - but that morphed into a money making enterprise and the helping people became a lower priority. I conclude this from the manner in which he does not pay people for the hours worked, seeks to have all the attention on him, and tries to hide his actions by keeping things private....which are some of the criticisms he has thrown at the LDS Church.
  8. Humans have a real knack for creating a standard of judgment for "those people" over there, but seldom, if ever, apply the same standard to themselves. As I read this thread I agree with Robert F. Smith; Dehlin smacks of a cult leader. I find it strange that he his response to consistent issues seems to be to question everyone's loyalty and friendship. Then there is the pity me syndrome - I am doing such a great, important work, you even said so fifteen years ago on Wednesday night a 11:30 p.m. as you going out the door. I am just so overwhelmed and, gosh, I am criticized from all quarters. You have now criticized me and so you must not be my friend. Playground manipulation, self-centered, egotist. Humans, and Dehlin is certainly human, cannot see himself. That glass house you are living in? Yeah, might be time to not throw rocks at Mormonism, Joseph, or anyone else.
  9. Poptart, we cannot control what others do; in fact, what they do is their business. our focus is on what we do and what we think. That is the great lesson of the Savior - if they should slap you then turn the other cheek - their actions should have no bearing on our own actions. I was talking with my sister today. She was disappointed in how another sister was interacting with one of her 20+ year old daughter and she was focusing her disappointment on the daughter, our niece - it is a complex situation. What we concluded is that it does not matter what either one of them does. Our responsibility as disciples of Jesus Christ was to love unconditionally. That is the ideal and our goal; to learn to love as the Savior loved. It does not mean we accept their actions, but that we do not allow their actions to affect how we treat them. If we are going to judge others then first judge them for being human beings....and then stop. We are all just human. We are fragile, we err, we choose poorly, and we harm others as well as ourselves. This kind of judging is the flip side of focusing just on our own actions. It is all we can control.
  10. It is unfortunate that it is that way. There is a reason why the Mosaic Law is not longer what we follow. It is much harder to live by the Higher law that Christ gave the world; it demands that we live by the Spirit. I believe we will find that even with Church Policies leaders are counseled to follow the Spirit. Unfortunately, it is too easy to stop thinking and feeling and just follow what is written. Unfailingly, the prophet and apostles consistently teach leaders to first and last follow the Spirit. Exceptions will be made because exceptions should be made. There are round holes and square holes and we shouldn't mix them up because of the unnecessary pain that results.
  11. I don't know the "policy", but my niece was married to a wonderful fellow in the temple and his family was Evangelical. Their bishop facilitated a ring ceremony for the couple i.e. he stood in the place of a minister. The ceremony was short, but it declared their love for one another. They still had the bridesmaids and groomsmen that I see at LDS receptions, so exactly what is the issue? You are trying to make a policy to be a commandment and that is not how it works in the Church. I admit I have know leaders that are so strict on their adhering to policy that it seems like it is a commandment given from on High, but I also know others who, in their minds, follow the spirit of the policy and adapt to circumstances. There is no reason to twist everyone into pretzels over acting flexible with nonmember families. To allow them to witness an event that they will know was a marriage. For us our marriage and sealing is done in the temple. Nonmembers don't even accept the temple ceremony as real, certainly not Evangelicals. I also join with others who have said they don't like big-to-dos at weddings. I think it is a colossal waste of time. Our children had very modest receptions without bridesmaids and groomsmen that I have seen with others. I find that most LDS couples today have modest receptions. It seems like it is our culture and I applaud it. However, when there are parents, aunts, uncles that are non-members I have no problem being flexible and making the reception an expanded affair....still don't like the bridesmaids and groomsmen, but I am not the one getting married and wanting pictures taken.
  12. This seems like mountains out of mole hills. I have consistently said - get sealed in the morning and have whatever the couple needs to do in the evening, which is the most common time to have a reception. I have never, not once heard of a bishop, stake president, or general authority stop a ring ceremony or anything else related to a reception. If such a person choice to act I, as the parent and father, would throw them out and that would be end of that type of stupidity. Were you there or is this hearsay? I have been to a number of ring ceremonies and not a peep out of anyone. I think you are right - a ring ceremony is a typical wedding ceremony. I have seen receptions with groomsmen and bridesmaids the whole shebang - I really am having difficulty understanding the fuss. There is a sealing - which has nothing similar to a wedding ceremony or anything else on the outside. It is what we hold most sacred as LDS, but I see no need to make is so hard on non-members. I think we do it unnecessarily.
  13. Our son has that piece of art; we gave it to him and he keeps it hanging in his office. Jesus is our Master and Savior; he does not play favorites when it comes to his love for each of us.
  14. And the punishment is....what? To me this has become a basket of innuendo. The point is the the sealing is primary. The reception, which I have seen some doozies, are supposed to be secondary. For me, I don't see a different for couples that have one half nonmember to accommodate them with a ring ceremony of whatever the couple chooses in the afternoon after being sealed earlier in the day. I have never heard a bishop, stake president, or general authority become unglued, chastise, or reprimand anyone for have a ring ceremony (which is what a marriage ceremony is) after a sealing. Get on with it, have fun, and make all welcome and create memories for all.
  15. I know of situations where the couple was sealed in the morning and had ring ceremony in the afternoon for the nonmember side of the new couple. I see no reason not to do this to accommodate the nonmembers in the extended family: moms, dads, siblings, grandparents, etc. Just to add a little more, my friend attended a wedding reception where there was a similar ring ceremony because a large part of the groom's family was nonmember. The reception was attended by two general authorities. I don't think their presence validated or invalidated the ring ceremony, but what was evident is they did not walk out. They stayed and nothing was said. I think we have gone overboard to often on things. The focus is the temple sealing, but we can certainly do something that makes the nonmember side of the family participate in such a momentous day as the marriage of their child.