Jump to content

Storm Rider

Contributor
  • Content Count

    7,179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Storm Rider

  1. The administration of the Church has little to do with holiness. Holiness is personal and it is, or should be, the objective of each disciple of Christ. I expect as the divide between evil and righteousness continues to grow in world, we will see individuals of both genders exemplify and magnify spiritual gifts of prophecy, healing, and other signs of the Spirit. The administration of the Church will go on, but personal growth and union with God should be our focus.
  2. I agree and I blame many priesthood holders/leaders for proposing such nonsense. I had a temple president that fostered such a position and it never made sense. Our young men have been degraded and put down for some time now.
  3. Oh pleeze, our society has never been one that each citizen was required to have the identical beliefs and ways of thinking. To the contrary, prior to the Gay Gestapo's arrival on the scene, we respected the different peoples, different cultures, and different religions. Given your answer, I wonder what society would actually look like if everyone group acted in the same way? Nope, you cannot be here because you don't think like I do. No, you cannot attend school here because you are not identical to a specific group. The pendulum swings and it always has. When this begins to swing back, my advice is there will not be a closet to hide in - run. The GG has created a monster that will eat them. Another group will come and they will demand that all think like them and they will conflict with the GG and so it goes.
  4. No one, as in NOBODY, is more "tolerant" than Gay activists towards anyone that dares to conflict with their "tolerant" position of inclusion, equality, love, and compassion.
  5. I think my understanding of the priesthood is focused on the union of man and wife - they both use its power to act as disciples of Jesus Christ. It may appear that only the man holds the priesthood, but I think that shortchanges and misunderstands what a Celestial marriage is and the meaning of being one. More importantly, this fad we call equality is strictly a philosophy of the modern day. I don't believe its context and/or objective has any role in the Gospel of Jesus Christ or in the Kingdom of God. Said another way, and bluntly, I think it is designed by Satan to distort the gospel and to remove the focus and purpose of the Gospel to ideas and concepts foreign to all that God is. Further, it's objective appears to be the further destruction of the family unit. This article highlights on the role of motherhood and yet, in the realm of equality, motherhood is shortchanged, undermined and considered less than almost anything and everything.
  6. I don't think of it as changing, but rather an opinion that no longer gains a wide range of repetition among the saints or the current group of prophets and apostles. I suspect it is more of something that may be nice to know, but given there is no actual doctrinal acceptance, the focus on teachings are on more concrete things.
  7. That patriarchy tripe is rolled out with consistency on this site by specific individuals. It is a tired accusation. Sarcasm is used when tired, silly accusations are made. I think you can tell the difference even with a poor medium as the written word on a website. You might want to go back and reread some of the posts. The bolded sentence is exaggeration, but it is hardly made from new cloth. Those seeds of thought are common on these types of threads. What is odd is that you see the exaggeration of a man and completely excuse the same tired accusations of women. Why is that? Why is it that women don't correct women when they made silly comments?
  8. This thread has made me think of the WofW and the 89th Section of the Doctrine & Covenants: Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints. Here a standard of eating and drinking is instituted so that the weakest will not fail. I assume we don't need to accuse God of promulgating "the patriarchy" (I always love when that bit of utter stupidity is interjected into a conversation; nothing like shutting down one's brains in favor of a Feminist agenda). However, what is interesting is that we appear willing to curb our eating and drinking to help others without a problem. Yet, in this issue, the simple statement that a male could be affected by the the attire of a female and we begin to chaff, whine, and bring out tired accusations. Personally, I think both males and females should be modest. Just as personally, I recognize that I am not very modest. I don't really care if you are naked or not; my nakedness has never bothered me. Yet, I seldom had the thought I needed to be naked in an environment where others are clothed. I never saw the need to wear a thong, latex running pants or biking pants - regardless of what others wear, I always felt that wearing clothing that leaves almost nothing to the imagination was not what a disciple of Jesus Christ, or at least someone that is trying to be such, should wear under any circumstances. So, should be actually be concerned about the weakest among us, or should we all just ignore those weaklings and go on about our business and dress in what makes us feel good about ourselves? After all, almost all the individuals we are talking about are males and those scumbags don't really deserve the time of day in this age of fierce, powerful women who don't have time for such things; particularly, weakness in the male sex.
  9. I am familiar with those comments from President Young and President Woodruff, but my comment remains - the power of the resurrection comes directly in and through Jesus Christ. There MAY be ordinances such as described by these brethren, but they remain supposition and are not recognized as doctrine of the Church.
  10. The veil is just part of the a woman's temple clothing. When men are buried they are buried in the full temple clothing attire, which does not include a veil. An individual may choose not to be buried in temple clothing - there is no requirement to do so. The choice belongs to the deceased and their family. A "man" does not, cannot "wake" a woman up. The power of the resurrection belongs to God. There are rather romantic Mormon legends that talk of a husband lifting his wife's veil, but that is pure speculation.
  11. This always makes me laugh when I read it, "...hate speech by our own president". It is comical and so outrageously hypocritical. President Trump is the least presidential individual we have had in our day by a long shot; however, no one has been hated more, hounded more by an aggressive press, and castigated so completely by the Left as President Trump. It is not even a contest. The Left is so full of hate they cannot see straight; talk straight; or hide their utter hatred for the man. Who gets tagged with the hate label? Trump rather than the blatant haters on the Left.
  12. I have not heard this degree of strident declaration from you before; it is something new. I take it that you have made some decisions about what is true and what is not. This may be better than the lukewarm positions you have taken in the past, but it also demands that you have gained certain knowledge. Is this from a spiritual awakening or something else? I have studied the scriptures and world religions for over fifty years now. The rather trite phrase, "God is love", is used by a certain segment of believers and at certain times and in certain contexts. As in almost all things, context is everything. I believe that God is love, but he is absolutely know that concept of love that is all rose-colored glasses floating about the heavens throwing daisies at his creation. He is actively involved in creating a path for his children to become one with him. I have always appreciated the painting where Jesus is knocking at the door, but the door has no handle. It is we who must open ourselves to him. We must approach him, love him, follow him, emulate him, and seek his guidance throughout our lives. He demands that we grow, which is a very painful process. Suffering seems to be part of the process - a refiner's fire as it is often termed. In the midst of our own pain, it is an enlightened individual that can also see God's love for us. Too often, this God is love, is used in the context of an absence of commandments, God's teachings, holiness, or righteousness. It is strictly a diet of the most watered down liquid that can still be called milk. That is not a concept of God found in scripture, but in the philosophies of humans. I disagree that scripture is bereft of inspiration or God's guidance. There is a reason that Jesus is identified as the Word. The Word of God has value in the same way that his word has value. He told us it was for for us. Humans tend to kill the prophets when what they really want is not God's words, but rather an excuse to follow after their own passions.
  13. The Savior did not have much trouble identifying and asking his followers to support their local government while still drawing a definite line between what they did and the gospel he taught. I think I understand your point, but it is a bit too far for me to go. However, I completely agree that I look forward to the day when our Savior will return and govern.
  14. Cal, I haven't read everyone's comments, BUT I don't think religions/churches should participate in politics except within pretty defined areas that affect their beliefs, doctrines, and practices. After those areas, I don't support any churches involving themselves in the area of politics. Of course, I also think it would be better if mass media was completely barred from having ads and editorializing on politics. To me, they have proven themselves incapable of being neutral. I wish - big WISH - that we could have candidates talk directly to the people in small town settings. I realize it is not realistic, but it is a wish. I have long grown uncomfortable with political parties; just give us individuals that tell us what they believe in and let them serve, being totally focused on serving the people, rather than their party affiliation.
  15. Hello Cal, I must admit that I did not read the report, but I don't think that negates my comment....it may negate the report's findings. The phenomena found in the Western world is not easily answerable and I don't think there is one answer. That is all I was saying and if it disagrees with the report, I could list a number of other reports that provide different reasons for the loss of members on multiple continents.
  16. I am not sure your assumption is valid. The decline of European churches has been as dramatic, if not more so, and it has not been because religions have become more political similar to the Moral Majority. As an aside, I support your position that churches should stay out of politics i.e. supporting candidates and electing specific individuals. I think churches should be allowed to comment on moral issues and government actions that directly conflict with beliefs and the rights of churches to exist.
  17. Oh, I get it. You know, I heard one of the wives of Brigham Young ran away and hid in the Salt Lake temple because she was so scared of old Brigham. She hid there so long and then eventually jumped out of the upper most window into the Great Salt Lake and swam to safety in the arms of a passing wagon train returning to the east. I don't know her name, I don't really know when it happened, but I heard it said and therefore it must be true. Yup, got your number. Such juicy hearsay is worth what? And you new folk that pass hearsay off as fact and then become indignant because "long timers" have an ability to see BS and call you on it. I got it. I think we are done.
  18. Attempting to decipher your statement then - it is not the urban south that lost members after the '78 revelation, but "up to 50% in some lower South branches left". Where are these lower south branches? I grew up in Bonifay, Florida, a town of about 3,000 members. There is a ward there now, but it was a branch during the period you are talking about. There was no a member that left. Within this Church district was one branch, now a ward, in Liberty County (about 70 miles away). I heard that they lost a few members for a period of time and one of them stayed away. More than happy to provide the name of the current bishop and you can talk to him. Our district covered from Tallahassee, Florida westward including southern parts of Georgia and Alabama. Upon my return from my mission, I served as a counselor in our branch. I never heard of any branch or ward anywhere in the south that approached your projection of "up to 50% n some lower South branches". These are the kinds of things that folks would talk about - it certainly would not be secret. Can you point to any specific location in the lower South that you are talking about?
  19. Okay, Jake, get off the high horse. Not a single person has stated that no one left the church after the 1978 Revelation. In fact, it is quite the opposite, there were some members that left. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that you stated that up to 50% of members left in the south. That is what everyone has reacted to - it is an exaggeration, a gross exaggeration. Evidence has been provided that refutes that concept. No, baptisms did not magically appear to counter the ghosts that ran out the door as you have suggested. Baptisms did not spike during those years. Just retract the statement; acknowledge that some Mormons left and move on. We have beat this stupid little pig to death. A piece of advice, that a quarter will still not buy you a cup of coffee anywhere in the USA, - being so recalcitrant when clearly wrong does not lend confidence to perceiving you as a neutral participant, but rather one that has an axe to grind. This board is not filled with extremists of either side. Rather it is a group that is quite open minded and more than capable of knowing, learning, and understanding Church history. Give yourself some time and you will come to understand that and trust others.
  20. Jake - you made the claim. It is up to you to either support it with references or retract it. Read the rules. I am not sure you know what a District is. Do you understand how big a territory that covered in NW Florida and southern Alabama? It is not Utah where wards and stakes include just a few blocks. You keep making this accusation, but you don't seem to have any knowledge about what you are discussing. Either provide references or retract your statement. It is not not personal, just the rules of this site.
  21. No sir - I speak from knowledge of the entire district. The revelation occurred in 1978. Are you proposing that members somehow took offense after 1981? Please, just back up your story with facts and I will accept your position. However, since I was there and I was involved in the region, I am not guessing, using hearsay, but actually reality of the area. The south did not see a precipitous drop in membership numbers of the 1978 revelation.
  22. I am speaking from experience of the entire District with included NW Florida and southern Alabama. You talked of the south and you included west Florida. Obviously, what you stated is wrong. I was there in NW Florida - which is west Florida, but I don't know anyone who uses that terminology. It is better to just change your statement to include things you know and not hearsay. It is not anger; just a correction and a willingness to call stories for what they are - gross exaggerations of reality or simply lies.
  23. No, that is not reality - i.e. it is a lie. I lived in the south (NW Florida) from 1970 to 1981 except for two years I served a mission. Our branch did not lose a single member. Our District lost very, very few members for a short time and almost all returned after their hearts were softened and fewer than can be counted on one hand stayed away.
  24. This is the equivalent of asking can God sin? If he is omnipotent, then surely he would be able to choose to be evil. God would never choose to be evil; it is not a matter of choice, but of nature. He is eternally holy and the epitome of Light. No darkness can dwell there and thus choosing sin is never a choice - it is beyond or outside of his nature. This is the same answer for all celestial beings. You are posing a mortal condition and putting it into a celestial existence. The two are not equal and don't exist because the nature of the beings are not comparable. The family unit was chosen because existence is more than self-satisfaction. It goes beyond the self and into the whole. We are not saved alone, but with our families. These concepts of "binary mechanism" - gads, what a demeaning phrase in order to support the non-binary as equal and acceptable. Humans, children of God are made to be so much more than consumers - which is the end product of being for all sexual aberrations and all of the -isms that conflict and destroy the family unit. Spirit bodies - such as those that chose to follow Satan - hunger for the physical. This was the reason that asked to enter into the herd of Swine after being cast out of the young man's body by the Savior. Gender is an eternal part of each child of God. There is no concept of anything else in the eternities; there is never a question of am I male or am I female. Such conditions only exist only in a fallen world and such philosophies only exist in the mind of Satan who works to deceive all humanity. The assumption is not one that I would make. I assume that all, even intelligences, had gender as a part of their identity.
  25. My point was the exceptional situation - a man with a beard demanding to be called Madam and other employees are fired because they refused to do so - versus the more normal situation - an individual in a dress/pants suit, feminine clothing that wants to be known as Trixie. Who should be fired? Certainly not Trixie or Tom, as long as they are productive in their work, but not for their fetish/chosen gender identity, etc. The individual with a beard is just a sideshow and should probably be fired for creating a disturbance in the workplace. In a small family business, I can see far more leeway given to who they choose to employ and who they do not. The business is far more closely associated with their own identity. If they want to hire only Muslims, then fine. If that also means they will not tolerate a gay person, then I also think it is fine.
×
×
  • Create New...