Jump to content

Rivers

Members
  • Content Count

    2,263
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rivers

  1. Calling it the Two-Cumorah theory is inaccurate. The argument is that there was only one Cumorah and that the early Saints wrongly assumed it was in New York. I’ve never had a problem with the supposition that Moroni traveled from Central America to New York with the Plates. He was also fleeing for his life. I imagine he had plenty of time on his hands. I just don’t see why this theory gets so much flack.
  2. I was reading 1 Corinthians 15 in John Waymant’s Translation for Latter-day Saints. Verse 40 uses the words “heavenly” and “earthly” rather than than “celestial” and “terrestrial.” I find it rather odd that “celestial” and “terrestrial” became words that both denote levels of heaven. This makes D&C 76 more confusing to me. Joseph Smith knew that “terrestrial” means “earthly” didn’t he? Am I missing something? Or do we just need to accept that the Lord appropriated the word “terrestrial” to mean the second level of heaven?
  3. I can’t imagine what it must be like to hide your sexual orientation for so long. I really wish people didn’t feel the need to hide it.
  4. I wonder if President Nelson ever drinks caffeine. Or has.
  5. The more I read and hear about people going through faith crisis, I the more lucky I feel to have gone though my own relatively early in life. It sucks to have your whole paradigm turned upside down but getting to the other side of the faith struggle feels great. I imagine a faith crisis becomes more difficult the longer one has been in the church.
  6. The church doesn’t separate us from God. We separate us from God. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”
  7. I find it very unfortunate that being gay is something that people feel they need to hide. I wish we could have a society in which more people could just be open and honest about their sexual orientation. If you find yourself attracted to your own gender, no need to keep it a secret. Especially if somebody wants to date you or set you up on a date. Its just a really important piece of information people should know about you. That's why Facebook profiles includes a spot to say who you are "interested" in. I think the stigma and need to hide sexual orientation is what's causing all the distress. And once people are open about their gayness they can start making real decisions on how they want to live their lives. And if you disagree with the Church's teaching on homosexuality, you are free to think that way find the path that makes you happy. Let God do the judging. Simple as that.
  8. Legitimizing same-sex marriage would be way more radical than the discontinuation of polygamy. Polygamy was still a male/female union and it also had a biblical precedent.
  9. I often hear talk about how the Church needs to be more inclusive rather than exclusive. And I am all for inclusiveness. Jesus was all about being inclusive to everybody. We, as the body of Christ, can always do better. But when it comes to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, things get complicated. According to our theology, sexual relations are forbidden outside marriage. We also believe that marriage, by definition, is the union of male and female. Thus homosexual relations are always wrong. That is a rule members of the Church must follow. It's part of the buy-in to be a Latter-day Saint. And you can argue that it is a stupid and unfair rule. Regardless its the rule and its not changing. So given that fact that the theology is what it is and it isn't changing, is there anything more we can do policy-wise to be more inclusive? I'm all ears. I know that we can start by simply not being jerks. But are there any policy changes that could help?
  10. I was using hyperbole in comparing us to the Catholics. I don’t actually think we’re cold blooded killers.
  11. Does anybody here think that polygamy, even when consensual, is an inherently immoral thing?
  12. This is an issue in which I have some holy envy for the Catholics. For them a life is a life as soon as sperm meets egg. Intentionally killing it is bad even in cases of rape and incest no matter how early in development. I used to think that this was an absurdly extreme stance but now I have a lot of respect for such and intense and unfaltering reverence for human life. They make us look like cold-blooded killers with our more nuanced stance on abortion. As to the OP's question, it is clearly a moral and philosophical issue. Everybody who's been taught the birds and the bees knows that sperm + egg =baby. The big disagreement is whether the mother or the government has jurisdiction over the unborn baby.
  13. The time loop stuff I have trouble with originates with T1.
  14. Cyclical time is the most confusing for me. Those Terminator movies give me a real headache.
  15. The idea is that the source of the first cause is uncreated. Thus not contingent on anything. It simply is. This is how many theists answer the question of God’s origin. God is uncreated and therefore ontologically different than everything else which is created. So either there is some kind of uncreated thing that started the domino effect. Or it’s just one long line of dominos with no beginning. Even if you look at the cyclical time theory, the cycle either had a beginning or it did not. Both options are difficult to fathom.
  16. mashed potatoes using
  17. Nope. There has to be a first turtle. At least in my mind.
  18. My question is whether my theory makes sense or not. Since I can’t wrap my head around infinity backwards I am asking if it’s possible we can accept Intelligence as described in D&C as the the uncreated essence that started it all. But it seems like many of you have no problem with a backward infinite timeline.
  19. I've been thinking about another Latter-day Saint teaching that doesn't sit will with me. There's the belief that God the Father had a father. And is His father had a father. And so on forever backwards. But I'm not really sure if it is official doctrine or not. I believe its rooted in Joseph Smith's Sermon in the Grove shortly before his death. According to our other Christian friends, God is the first cause of all things being uncreated and self-existing. While that is a mind-boggling thing to think about, it makes more sense IMO than the other option of a never-ending backward timeline. I'm thinking of the theist argument of contingency. If everything is contingent on something else, there had to be some kind of first cause. And that first cause is God, or we can at least call it God. Our Christian friends argue that our perception of God isn't really God but a very intelligent and powerful extra-terrestrial or angel. This is one of the major reasons they don't like to consider us Christians. Our understanding of the very definition of God is very different from theirs. So part of me finds their view of God to be more within the realm of rationality than our view. But another part of me prefers our understanding of a corporeal God of passions that is coequal with us. Then I got thinking about D&C 93:29 which talks about Intelligence being not created or made. Is it possible that this uncreated Intelligence was the first cause? If so we can have our cake and eat it too (never understood that expression). We can have a theology with a first cause while still having an embodied God that was once a man like us. If other Christians tell us we don't believe in the same God as them, we can point to D&C 93:29. Uncreated Intelligence. That is essentially their view of God.
  20. Because it was too dark to accurately identify him at night when they arrested him?
  21. The Book of Moses tells us that there are "worlds without number" out in the cosmos. This begs the question of how these worlds relate to Christ and the Atonement. The answer that I have heard several times is that out of all the many worlds out there, our world was chosen. And the reason being that we are the most wicked. I'm sorry but I have a hard time swallowing this one. That is just way to convenient that our earth just so happened to be the one to which Christ came. But I also can't figure out how else things would work everywhere else. Would it make more sense for every other world to have its own savior? There's probably no answer for this one that can satisfy me but I thought I'd throw it out there.
  22. The translation of the Book of Mormon is to Mormonism what the Resurrection is to Christianity. The truth of Christianity hinges on Christ resurrecting. For The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it all hinges on the Book of Mormon being translated. But I am going to play Devil's Advocate here. This does not necessarily mean everything else is legit. Joseph Smith could have translated the BOM and become a fallen prophet soon after. Many of the early Saints believed this to me the case. The Book of Mormon may be true, but how do we know we are the true church rather than the offshoot and remnant groups?
  23. I would probably be a non-denominational Christian.
×
×
  • Create New...