Jump to content

alter idem

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

326 Excellent

About alter idem

  • Rank
    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    SLC UT

Recent Profile Visitors

2,014 profile views
  1. As a woman, I don't feel the need for an Equal Rights Amendment. If they're going to go spend time and effort amending the Constitution, I can think of a lot of things that are actually needed and useful--like a Balanced Budget or a term limit amendment for the Senate and Congress members.
  2. I'm not sure why you interpreted this as an indictment of all men and an elevation of all women. I think he was promoting what women should be striving to be (most don't attain this level, and the world does not encourage women to view themselves in this manner) and reminding men they'll be help accountable if they are neglectful of their wives, is needed. Maybe not necessary for you, but I'm sure a lot of men needed this admonition, and women need to be reminded of their divine potential. Pres. Hinckley was a Prophet and was divinely inspired to admonish us in the things Heavenly Father wanted us to hear.
  3. It's actually not, IMO, especially when it comes to the accusations and criticisms against the Church. The writers may be different, but the arguments are the same, just recycled and republished.
  4. I'm afraid you are also generalizing Pres. Oaks' message to suggest that he doesn't want anyone to 'research' the Church because they'll find out it's history/doctrines are flawed and false. I'm certain Pres. Oaks is not afraid of anyone reading accurate information about the church, it's doctrines and history--he would applaud it! We have nothing to hide. Joseph Smith jr. foresaw the obstacles we would face in spreading the gospel and trying to live it and what Pres. Oaks was discussing in that talk is one of those things. The Prophet stated; “The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.” If you observe what's on the web, there are many out there who are doing their best to misrepresent and sow seeds of doubt. Before the internet became so commonplace, it used to be you'd most likely have to find a pamphlet or a book from an anti-mormon group to read this stuff, but now, it's prevalent and persistent, just a couple clicks to find and spread exponentially. That's why this is a problem today--more easily accessible and many are exposed to it that don't know what is true and what is not. Pres. Oaks' counsel is wise. If you have a testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his Church and are struggling with a doubting spouse who's moved into choosing to leave the faith, then recognizing that more 'research' isn't the answer, because the answers come through the spirit teaching and testifying to what's true. I'm afraid that's something that a non-believer will not be able to understand.
  5. I think we should be careful not to generalize beyond what Pres. Oaks counsel was specifically for. He was not discouraging married couples from working together or researching gospel topics together. I believe the Gospel essays and scholarly church books prove that the Church is encouraging study, especially as families. Pres. Oaks was warning against a believing spouse being pressured into feeling they must read the websites and study the claims that have caused their spouse to go inactive and then try to refute that information using research into other sources and arguing to try to prove the church true in a secular manner, because that is what the world respects. The 'world' doesn't respect or consider things of a spiritual nature and so they are dismissed, but to us, as members of a religion, we understand that it is required that many of our beliefs are only to be known and understood by Faith. The 'world' and those who doubt, usually have abandoned faith as a means of gaining even spiritual knowledge and so, if given the opportunity, they will try to dismiss faith altogether when it is THE most important aspect of Religious belief.
  6. Yes, that's probably true. I'm certain that the doubting spouse will be upset when their loved one refuses to try to counter their claims or chooses not to read their sources. That cannot be avoided I'm afraid because we can't do anything about how another person is going to react. Hopefully, the believing spouse can show their love and support by their solicitude and outpouring of charity and patience. And, their prayers on behalf of the spouse my soften their heart and will be an example of their clear concern for what the loved one is going through. I am absolutely not against researching (since my preteens, I've spent a lifetime studying this church and it's teachings from all sources available to me), it is so important that we avail ourselves of all the resources now at our fingertips! I marvel at how easy it is to read this information now! We are truly blessed. We ought to be familiar with our own history, because it's always those who aren't familiar with it that will likely feel like they were blindsided. Not everyone though, because some don't stop with just one source or type of source. The best scenario is that they realize they don't know enough on the subject and decide to study it, thoroughly, looking at all sides, being objecting in their search for answers and inviting the spirit to teach them as well. And the break down of this is where the problems come in because those who accept without question what they read have also closed their minds to other possibilities and explanations. That goes for either side. I believe the time for research is before the doubter has hardened in their position; choosing to act on their doubts by removing the church from their lives through inactivity. That was one of the points Pres. Oaks made when he said research was not the answer. When Alma the younger was fully hardened in his unbelief, I assume his father did not try to counter his arguments with research and discussion, but spent his efforts mostly in prayer for his son. So, there is a time for research, and it should be done by the doubter--they are the one who needs to continue to research, and not just the critical sources. I used the example of Bible bashing because from my own experience, that's what I've found it most similar to(arguing points of church history or doctrine), on other forums I've been on, where the critics are allowed more leeway. No matter what you counter with, they won't change their minds, they aren't open to considering their conclusions could be wrong. It's the difference between a hard heart and a soft heart. Unless they can be open, unless they are able and willing to exercise a particle of faith, they will not be able to 'counsel with God' to find answers, and many of these answers they seek can only come from God or be fully known in the next life when the veil is removed and we see clearly. I agree with Pres. Oaks because I believe I understand what he's trying to teach and it rings true to me.
  7. I think Pres. Oaks is spot on. He's saying 'research is not the answer' on how to help a spouse who's struggling with Church history and doctrinal issues, because trying to find your own research to counter theirs is like Missionaries who get caught up 'Bible bashing' with investigators! It's not productive, and from my own experience on discussion forums, I can attest to that--it's pretty hard, if not impossible to change minds when they've already entered the doubting phase. They don't trust you and they don't trust what you share--they hold firmly to what they've found themselves and in fact, if you try to argue with them, like a drowning person, they will attempt to pull you down--get you to doubt as well. At least, that's what I've observed in my own experience with this. Faith is the only answer, because that's the only way to gain a witness of the Holy Ghost about spiritual things. Research and knowledge are valuable and they have their place, but they can't replace faith and without faith, they don't build a sure foundation for a witness to be received. Faith is the key to a witness of truth, to be able to recognize and know truth when you see or read it. I think sometimes people misunderstand because they may be picking apart what the Apostles say, looking for faults. In this instance, I don't see anything to fault Pres. Oaks about--he's absolutely right, IMO. In addition, I thought of 2 Ne 9:28-9 "O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good, if they hearken unto the counsels of God." So, what we see in this inspired admonition is that when we think we have so much knowledge it is simply 'vainness'. If we could actually look out into the universe and comprehend God and all he knows, we'd realize what a miniscule amount we actually 'know' or even comprehend--and this compared to God's knowledge is a joke! So our knowledge or learning needs to be combined with 'Hearkening to the counsels of God' and we can only receive that counsel when we are spiritually in tune, when we can exercise faith and receive inspiration/revelation. Those who put reason--knowledge, intellectual learning and wisdom on a pedestal above faith are fools, because they shut out the one communication that could reveal all truth and knowledge to them. God has told us this because he knows how little we know and how much we NEED his spiritual guidance to truly know TRUTH and obtain true wisdom--especially in a world where evil influences work to keep truth from us and make us believes lies.
  8. Let me state, this is only my own opinion--but I think that this is the first stage for getting the American people used to the idea of euthanasia of other, older people--those with disabilities , terminally ill and the aged. That's the direction I think we are headed as there is a push to adopt Universal healthcare, which is extremely expensive and necessarily means limiting/rationing healthcare procedures, allowing some to die, so that others may live. But that's just my own views from considering where these ideas in the past have led.
  9. If the baby is dead in the womb, I assume they use whatever techniques are best for removing it. I don't think that's at issue here. I'm not sure why a woman who finds out she has cancer and is under the care of doctors would later find out her baby won't survive birth after 24 weeks. The tests for fetal problems are done before 24 weeks and they find these things out then. Since abortion is legal they can easily get one earlier in the pregnancy--no need to wait till the last minute when the child is moving around inside and clearly alive. And, if something happens later and the baby dies in the womb, they will need to remove it, whether through vaginal delivery or c-section--I don't think that's an issue. I think what we are debating is the killing of a full term healthy baby during the last trimester up to and during delivery. If a woman decides she doesn't want a child, there is always adoption. I think we as a people should be abhored by one of our states legalizing infanticide, regardless of the excuses offered.
  10. I think this points out that the desire of pro-abortionists is to give full right to the mother to decide whether her baby lives or dies. In this age of modern medicine, I know of no medical reason to kill a full term infant in the womb or during delivery, except to be able to do away with the child if the mother does not want it, and avoid a charge of murder.
  11. https://nypost.com/2019/01/31/the-abortion-debate-the-rha-legalizes-infanticide/ From the article; https://www.vox.com/2019/2/1/18205428/virginia-abortion-bill-kathy-tran-ralph-northam From the article;
  12. I agree. It's only considered miscarriage before 20 weeks-- Death after 20 weeks to before delivery it is called a 'stillbirth' or 'stillborn'. The cut off is viability. The technical term for miscarriage is 'spontaneous abortion', but that would not be a correct term for a stillbirth.
  13. As I recall when reading up on this group, Mormon women for Ethical Govt. was formed as a response to Donald Trump's winning the Presidency. They are made up of mostly Democrat women with most likely only a handful of Republicans, and those republicans would be 'never trumpers'-- those who don't like Trump. What I've seen is they speak out on the issues which interest them, and true to the reason they were formed, these are issues where they can oppose the President, such as the Government shutdown. I'm certain they did not speak up on this issue because I believe when I read about their group, they stated they didn't take a stand on abortion. I believe that's because they know full well that the church does not support abortion and probably a majority of their members do. They don't want that pointed out. This bill in New York isn't even about abortion--it is a way to legalize infanticide because it allows for a baby which has been born to be killed--if the Mother wants it. There is no way this women's group who want to be known as 'mormons' can publicly support this, so the only other option is to oppose it, and that will get them in hot water with their members/donors who are pro-choice. I suspect that many of them would not approve of the bill, IF they actually knew what it allows for, but they are not aware and likely wouldn't believe it, if they were told.
  14. alter idem

    Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

    I have no problems with these changes, I had none with the 1990 changes either. I have no problems with the fact that many changes have been made to the Temple ceremonies over the decades since originally introduced--there've been additions and deletions. IMO, there is nothing wrong with making changes to the presentation--the 'vehicle' designed to teach eternal principles found in the basic covenants we make in the temple. The 'vehicle' is what was set up by those of past time periods to teach the things of the temple and they can and ought to be changed, through inspiration and revelation, by those authorized and anointed on earth to do so at the time. That is why we have a living prophet and continuing revelation and we should praise God we have a Prophet! If the changes help us to more clearly understand the covenants and not get bogged down or bothered by aspects of the 'vehicle' which may, in a changing time/society, come to detract or distract, that's positive change and should be welcomed. It is also a great condescension on the Lord's part to do this--it could have remained as is, but I think we should view this as the heavens being open and blessings coming to us to strengthen our faith and our understanding and helping us to gather Israel and brings souls to Christ and his church on earth. I feel that we as a church are being blessed to see these changes and I hope that we as individuals will pray about these changes for confirmation that this church is being led by Prophets, seers and revelators and the Lord is indeed the one who inspires them. Because that's a vital part of this--that we receive inspiration and spiritual knowledge, strengthen our faith and testimonies as we live the Gospel of Jesus Christ and work to serve him and do his will.
  15. Thanks for looking it up.