Jump to content

Joshua Valentine

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

91 Excellent

About Joshua Valentine

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    It has an "a" in it.
  • Interests
    God, Jesus, Truth, the Way, the Life more abundant, Love, disc golf, overcoming my long failure to learn to play the piano, movies, philosophy, religion, humans, ukelele (a shorter, but still too long failure), and probably some other stuff.

Recent Profile Visitors

854 profile views
  1. The paragraph following the anecdote does seem to be a little strange and to some extent justifying changed´s criticism. Counter to changed´s criticism is that the speaker seems to only be saying that swerving and leaving the tracks is unacceptable - slowing down, even stopping for a time is acceptable and appropriate for souls that may ¨get in our way¨. But it´s still a little weird to use an example of other human lives at risk while giving a message about staying the course. So I don´t think it´s as bad as changed has offered as the OP, but then she has also obviously broadened the scope of the metaphor to allow perspective. But it´s still strange and disconcerting. The metaphor, as offered by the speaker, has other direct implications that I do not think she would have wanted it to imply. In the end, I think a better anecdote than this one must exist or, perhaps, skip the anecdote altogether.
  2. I don´t know if this is said in jest or not. Is it jest to say ¨with no access to the Celestial Kingdom, it really would not matter what I would be¨? Is it tongue in cheek that what you ¨gain¨ is really all that motivates you in the reality that you find yourself now? Is this satire against the LDS Church as ¨what one needs to get into the Celestial Kingdom¨ (as opposed to, you know... Jesus)? If not in jest, then it´s practical, I guess. God may have another perspective. On a more serious note: If this were one´s perspective, and more so if the perspective (conscious or not) of many LDS, would it not show some of the issues with organizationalism, authoritarianism, and emphasis of works/rewards?
  3. Not quite. mfbukowski currently and largely submits himself to the authorities that he recognizes. If a major earthly part of that authority were no longer around, there would be no one holding mfbukowski back but God. And I rather think that mfbukowski would believe that God would not be holding him back but rather whole-heartedly behind his particular take.
  4. If the LDS Church just didn´t exist yet people ¨knew what they know today¨? How does this work? Are you asking if the LDS Church just didn´t exist but you happened to believe all of the beliefs that you gained through the LDS Church what would you do? The answer is simple for those who believe what the LDS Church has taught them - pray for the restoration of the one true Church of Jesus Christ. Maybe you might pray to know what ¨faith¨ to join in the meantime, but as long as you believe that the authority of God´s church is missing why would you join another faith? In fact, getting back to the strangeness of this scenario - if you ¨knew what you know today¨ then wouldn´t you already have an LDS faith (without the LDS Church) and so wouldn´t it be impossible to ¨Join another faith¨ in any real way? Just visiting and enjoying what you can all the while believing: -missing plain and precious truths -corrupted scriptures -leaders fooled by the machinations of Satan -no authority -no true baptism -no eternal marriage -no prophet -no ¨new¨ scriptures -no temples -non-trinitarian -no gracers -etc, etc, etc. Is not ¨joining another faith¨. In other words, if you already have a faith that excludes all other faiths then you don´t have another faith to join, or else you would no long have the faith you had, you would no longer ¨know what you know now¨.
  5. Yes, what does the LDS Church teach about all of Jesus´ eunuch talk? vs. have to get married? To your last question: but this young and thus (while not absolutely, certainly more probably) stupid is the M.O. for the LDS Church dating/marriage scene. That is, the LDS Church and culture encourage marrying young and with hopefully helpful prayer (to help overcome the young and stupid factor). I´ll have to try to look up some sources, but I seem to remember hearing teachings that seemed to indicate that it wasn´t so important who you married as long as they were a devout LDS (maybe/probably that you were led to marry by God?), that in this scenario love would grow. If this is a teaching of the LDS leadership, then should they not uphold Jesus´ commandment not to divorce except for fornication? IF (and I will try to find confirmation of this vague memory of mine) being a devout follower of the LDS God is sufficient to be married to, then it should be sufficient to stay in a marriage. And if the LDS God´s glory includes the happiness of humans, then it would seem that being a devout LDS member (who does not fornicate) should be enough to sustain a generally happy marriage, even.
  6. If this is true, does the 1 year membership before endowment not have any development in this regard? Given how little people know or understand when they often get baptized mere weeks after their first missionary lesson and that so much about the temple is not taught them (during that year, let alone before they are baptized) is this an accurate statement?
  7. That´s fair. Did it work for you in the sense that you didn´t have any family members who could not attend? Why are marriage sealings done in the LDS temple only? I understand it regarding the endowment because there is special/sacred&secret/exclusive😉 teachings and promises made, but are there for sealings? Why could sealings not be just the LDS wedding done in public? Could this not be a great way to include non-members and expose them to the LDS church in a positive way rather than exclude and negatively affect non-members, let alone ¨mixed¨ families´ interrelations?
  8. This would seem to be the case only if all members had to wait a year. Why would some need this trial period while others do not, and why would that be correlated to geography? (outside of your Utah Wedding industry hypothesis on that last question) Also, what would this imply about the Law of Chastity? While in a practical sense these may be incidental benefits of the policy, from an institutional sense, they are only incidental and probably undesirable options. Lastly, couples already get plenty of pressure from their LDS Church and culture to get married AND sealed early in their adulthood (¨when [not marrying at all] would be more appropriate¨). Compared to the pressures already in place, what you point out here is insignificant, I think.
  9. Unfortunately, this most likely would have happened to someone no matter when they changed it (although announcing in the dead of winter would probably given a better shot of effecting the least number of people - as opposed to May, right in the thick of wedding season/final planning). And if they prioritized the feelings of members and their families lower than whatever principle justified the rule, then they were just being consistent by not worrying too much about who might be affected by the particular time of the change.
  10. No, there was no drop off. That´s where the more mature spirit children went - to the UK and other countries with less training wheels 😉
  11. If the risk of a girlfriend/boyfriend/fiancé not waiting for their missionary to return can be thought of as ¨if they are the one then they´ll wait¨, then the removal of structures surrounding the sealing leading to less young couples sealed can be thought of as ¨if they are sincere then they´ll do it faithfully¨. If particular sealings are so easily compromised, then were they true sealings after all? Will God seal a less than sincere (enough to get sealed on one´s own initiative) sealee?
  12. That´s agency for you! agency - noun: the ability to choose for oneself synonym: rope to hang yourself
  13. If a policy is required for some youth to stay focused on ¨what mattered¨ then perhaps those individuals should drop off rather than be propped up artificially.
  14. Now, The Nehor, God taking away the true church from the face of the earth is no reason to go lax on hygiene.
  15. When is Card going to finish that series? Also, I felt like Alvin was a little prickly/angry in the last book (Crystal City) and I didn´t see a reason why he would be. It seemed out of character. Did you get any sense like that when you read it?
  • Create New...