Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,886 Excellent

About hope_for_things

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants

Recent Profile Visitors

1,338 profile views
  1. Resurrection Question

    I thought the mods removed you from this thread?
  2. Resurrection Question

    Yes, I’m Mormon, no I’m not a member of any other churches. Don’t know why you’re asking these questions, why it’s relevant, or why you’re trying to make this personal (isn’t that against the message board rules anyway?) Don’t know what you mean by my attack/comments. Could you try and keep this as a substantive conversation about the topic please and be clear about what I said that you disagree with.
  3. CH1 Now online for all membership

    Yes, I thought the same thing earlier. The Elder Ballard comments are quite applicable. Perhaps he’s seeing the wisdom of poor advice given in times past under impetus of prophetic authority. Setting more realistic expectations makes a lot of sense.
  4. Resurrection Question

    Funny, I was raised Orthodox Mormon and I’m talking about invincible physical resurrected bodies. I couldn’t tell you what Protestants believe.
  5. CH1 Now online for all membership

    As I've thought about your point further, I think you bring up a scenario that also could be problematic for defending the brethren, even though this wasn't the point I was making earlier. For example, when some church leaders seemed to support the Iraq war. Is defending this support morally problematic if you're a proponent for peace, and could supporting the brethren on this issue be evil if it contradicts your deeply held personal values. I wasn't thinking along these lines at first, but I tend to think that this probably happens more often than not. On the SSM issue in particular, I know many people that believe that the church's current policies and practices around this topic are morally wrong, and that by supporting church leaders they feel they are complicit in sustaining something morally that they disagree with. I have had similar concerns myself, although I find this is a complicated issue. There are things the U.S. government is doing or has done that I don't support morally as well, and yet I'm a citizen and a tax payer and consider myself a patriot as well. How we negotiate these kinds of dilemmas is a challenge for each of us to consider as members of organizations, governments, and religious institutions.
  6. Resurrection Question

    Those remains were teleported from another planet to our earth to try and confuse non believers into thinking that the resurrection didn't happen.
  7. Resurrection Question

    I was always taught that this was a very literal thing, that not a hair of the head will be lost. I kind of always pictured it as a super hero kind of resurrection in my youth. That my new body would be at the peak performance it is capable of and I would be invincible, nothing could hurt me, I would be able to eat and sleep, but I wouldn't be required to do those things to sustain my body. I could have sex, but only with my wife or wives of course. I could teleport to any place in the universe instantaneously. I never thought much about the different degrees of resurrected bodies, that part didn't make much sense to me. It seems like if you're immortal then you're immortal. I guess if we're to believe some church leaders those without celestial bodies would be stripped of their sex organs, that sounds horrible, btw. Topics like this remind me that Mormon theology often smacks of being developed by a bunch of prepubescent boys with wild imaginations.
  8. CH1 Now online for all membership

    This whole topic has been interesting, and I think it also shines a light on how we look at the advice that church leaders and the church institutionally gives. What is inspired advice, vs. what is just advice. How do we look at the advice the church gives, should we look at it as directly God given and not to be questioned? Or should we put it in the category of the way we might take advice from a co-worker or friend. We appreciate the advice and will consider it along with other information we gather, including our experiences in life and then weigh the pros and cons and make a decision for ourselves. Its clear that not everything coming from the church or from church leaders is inspired, so why not just admit the limitations of the advice the church gives right up front and quit giving carte blanche deference to church advice?
  9. CH1 Now online for all membership

    Seems like the counsel of Elder Ballard about how members should not expect their leaders to have expertise in areas that they really have no expertise really applies to many of the things over time that the church has weighed in on. From politics to family planning to finances to medical decisions. The church should stick to spiritual advice.
  10. CH1 Now online for all membership

    I think the BoM war chapters have some interesting ideas about when defense is morally justified and under what circumstances and limitations. Christianity has a very checkered past with respect to using religious justification for very egregious ends. As soon as Christianity gained power then power was abused. I think we can look at lessons in our own history including in Mormonism where ends justifying the means kinds of rationale has been used in very inappropriate ways. Hopefully a thoughtful reflection on this history can help us to be better people.
  11. CH1 Now online for all membership

    Your interpretation is correct about how I was originally articulating my point. It’s the idea that a defense of something can become evil in its intensity or by the method. It really has nothing to do with what is being defended. I’m talking about the tactics of defense and when those tactics become evil unto themselves because they in essence are immoral.
  12. CH1 Now online for all membership

    I always thought the phrase Lord’s Annointed was specifically referring to church leadership, maybe I misinterpreted that? Criticism vs. evil speaking can be quite subjective. I think the culture doesn’t model very healthy discussions in this way. Elder Oaks recent talk criticizing the notion of loyal opposition is a case and point example of intolerance for certain critiques. The negative consequences of this perspective leads to clashes and shaming and blaming instead of honest disagreement and dispassionate dialogue.
  13. CH1 Now online for all membership

    Ha! You should get into politics.
  14. CH1 Now online for all membership

    The question this brings to mind is what is expected when the church makes people covenant to no evil speaking of the Lord's anointed? I imagine that smac is trying to defend what he considers the reputations of the brethren and he feels his tactics on this thread are justified by this injunction. I see this play out in many threads on this message board when criticism of the church and its leaders are brought up for debate. What do people think is required/expected of them when it comes to fulfilling this commitment? When does a defense of the brethren get out of control and become an evil unto itself? It might be useful to have an honest dialogue about this so people can discuss.
  15. CH1 Now online for all membership

    Perfect response, virtual rep points coming your way!