Jump to content

Jane_Doe

Members
  • Content Count

    985
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jane_Doe

  1. Going to break this down: The 110 year for non-immediate family is a very good thing. We want to give living "Bob" the opportunity to serve his deceased mom/dad/sister/brothers first and foremost. Baby boom rush: there are billions and billions of people whom have lived on this Earth. We have so many people to serve, that a baby-boom rush honestly isn't going to make much of a difference. As to options for you to do: if you have done all the records going back as far as you can, then start working on cousin branches. There's also indexing and other opportunities to serve. As for Family Search suggesting things: it's a flawed computer program, working with very flawed information. So yeah, strange things happen sometime.
  2. God Himself. All other sources are lesser.
  3. It's a really grey area, depending where that person is wanting to go. If a person wants to be bitter and is looking for a reason to be bitter, they'll find it there. If a person wants to try to stay, it could be a ok place. Regardless, it's not a place I would recommend to anyone, having throughly checked it out during my own faith-rough-waters time.
  4. While there weren't any new Truths discussed over the session, there were some Truths that we so often neglect/space that were said very firmly last night. We (and that includes me) needed to hear them. Things like the importance self worth, divine heritage, and a women's power as a disciple of Christ. For a specific example: I'm an LDS Christian lady married to a supportive generic Christian dude. It has always been True that there is God's power/pressence and priesthood in my home, even if my husband is not a priesthood bearer. We do not lack. And I have said this for years to many people who don't see that. To have the Lord's prophet declare it from the General Conference podium was... incredible.
  5. I keep skipping from shouting in joy to happy crying. GREAT session.
  6. You got a place I can look up / at the underline part? I missed watching this afternoon.
  7. Haha! It happens to be "break time" between sessions
  8. Wyoming. My building has 2, but it's more common for them to have 3.
  9. Welcome I'm an active LDS lady, though haven't always been active. I'm also not the most "normal" in the way I think about things. My hubby is a generic Christian, and we have a little girl. One of my hobbies is getting to better understand what different people beliefs. I recreationally visit random churches, discussion groups, forums, and all sorts of places with people of different beliefs, just to better understand and love them. Through the process, I find that is also further develops my faith and love of God, even through the times I completely disagree with another's beliefs.
  10. First things first: Joseph Smith was a sinner. I also believe that he was a prophet, but he was also a sinner (as are all men). That's just stating a fact. As to how you approach criticizing a person/their actions (this applies to any person): try to keep criticism constructive / addressing actual concerns. Versus trash talking, which is never productive. Running with an example of productive with Joseph Smith: "I am concerned about Joseph Smith's sealing to Fanny Alger, for reasons A, B, C. Can any one help me work through this?" (while seeking honestly talk work through it. An unproductive example of Joseph Smith criticism: "Fanny Alger proves that Joseph Smith as a %*&Q#$ pedophile- such %(*#Q*. He need to %)*Q#%". There's just no where productive to go with that.
  11. 25 posts. You can also ask your questions on other sub-forums like this one.
  12. Hi @Pneumos, welcome to the forum. Robert Smith already posted the rules, so that's covered. A little bit about this forum--- as you know, there's a wide spectrum of beliefs LDS Christians have on certain topics. This particular forum has a lot of folks that are very unorthodox or inactive, as well as some more traditional folks, and a few downright anti trolls. So you'll likely find a LOT of diverse views on here-- way more than you'd expect. Talking and discussing this is allowed, pending the forum rules are followed, which does forbid a some temple specifics and stress the need to be respectful. But pretty much everything else it ok. Tips for remaining productive and respectful-- One topic per thread helps prevent rabbit trailing. Talk about the topic instead of posters. It's not personal that somebody has a different view than you, so don't take it personally. Treat even those that completely disagree with you as the same respect you'd like to be treated.
  13. Both: they are ONE. Two different persons, but the exact same one will. That is speculation on speculation on speculation territory.
  14. Agreed. The changes are necessary and important things to protect people. But there is some beautiful and meaningful 1-on-1 contact that unfortunately lost in the process.
  15. I'm an LDS Christian lady married to a Protestant Christian dude. Ok, so I'm going to break your OP down into different questions: -- How do these relationships come to? I actually added this question, because it's important. You'll get interfaith marriages lots of different ways. You could have a couple that gets married when both are active in different faiths. You can have couples where they were the same faith (LDS Christian or not) and one later converts to a different faith. You can have one or both people be inactive in a old faith, and later reactivate. And so many other ways. --How often does this happen? It depends on where you're talking about, and the local LDS Christian population density. In very high LDS Christian population areas, you'll get a much higher percentage of LDS-LDS marriages than in an area where there's very few LDS folks. -- How does it play out? That really depends on family to family. There's a lot of factor's going into it. Running with the example of my marriage/family: I'm an LDS Christian, he's a Protestant Christian. Little girl is too young to have made her choice, but comes to church with me. Hubby really dislikes going to any church so he usually stays home. We don't have any conflicts over drinking or coffee or smoking because we are both anti that stuff. Keeping Sunday's quiet he's actually more adamant about than me actually-- "Sunday is family day!". We're in agreement on the functionality pretty much everything. He'll occasionally come to a church event with me (like I'll drag him to the ward back-to-school picnic at the park in a few weeks here) and is... honestly he's ussually just bored, but goes to support me. He's very supportive of my personal faith, and we talk about everything, and he actually talked me through lot of pre-endowment jitters. He doesn't go to sealing-marriages in the family, but honestly if he had his way he'd ditch the entire wedding festivities just because he doesn't want to be social. As to our extended family: mine's completely chill with things, very supportive, ad most of the time pretty much forget he's not LDS. He atheist dad actually harasses him about "son, you should go to church with your wife and have family time". His Evangelical mom is ... very not supportive of the faith aspects of our marriage, but doesn't want to even think about it. Rest of his extended family is chill-- faith doesn't really come up.
  16. For what it's worth, us Colorado Front Range people (Denver, Spring, Fort Colins) has the same issue when we go to UT! What's more, people who grew up in Denver usually navigate by where the mountains are, so having the mountains on the 'wrong' side involves LOTS of getting lost
  17. Some jobs do require 7 days/week work -- like hospitals, emergency services, and transportation. That's just the nature of life. If a person is in such a field, then some Sundays will need to be worked-- maybe you could minimize some, but somebody has to work. And I don't find such to be inherently bad, though it does obviously mean that you'll be missing the benefit of the traditional community day of worship. In such cases, set apart another day for your day of rest: having scheduling spiritual enrichment activity, worshiping, resting, and being with family. A person still needs that day of rest.
  18. Denver Snuffer was an LDS Christian, whom vocally veered off to extreme right positions 20-10 years ago, and got excommunicated. He's picked up a following of his own and now leads a very loosely organized group.
  19. I never said anything was borrowed. I said that there was that influence from Plato, influence of Greek philosophical style of thinking, and moves to refute/deal with some ideas. The mere concept of substance / ex nihilio shows these influences / dealing with. The influence is especially highlighting when you're having discussions with folks that don't strongly come from that background (such as LDS Christians). bingo.
  20. Plato has substances. "Substances" is even a concept. And it is also Creedal Christianity (along with the need to supersede it with ex nihilio). In LDS Christianity, this isn't even a concept. Talking about "substances" and "ex nihilism" and classes of beings and "mutable and immutable traits" are completely foreign and baffling. To understand even this concept, a person must go read Plato, and then can better understand Creedal response to it.
  21. I respect that these are your thoughts but... my thoughts very much disagree. Honestly, if a person truly wants to understand Creedal Christianity, (such as the Trinity), I find that Plato's writings are essential readings. the talk of substances, different classes of beings, the very scale you describe, the need to be ex nihilio to trump the "natural world", etc. Coming from a background that doesn't have all of that huge amount of Greek philiosphy... it's huge.
  22. It's one difference, but not the largest. The largest difference between LDS Christians and Creedal Cristians is the of course the Creedal Cristians embracing of post-Bibilical philosophical statements as foundational theology, versus LDS Christians embracing of latter-day revelations. That source of authority is HUGE.
  23. Honestly, even if I wasn't an LDS Christian, I won't partake in any of those things. They just don't appeal to me. I've been at too many work functions where people pay lots of money to look stupid and wreck their livers -- I can look stupid without aids, thank you very much. And I have much sweeter ways to wreck my health. Coffee is disgusting, and I have way too many friends that are absolute slaves to it. Smoking isn't just disgusting, smelly and wrecks your health, but it also does that to eveyone/thing else around you. No thank you.
  24. Coming from the LDS perspective, I don't really understand what you seem by "literal" adoption here. LDS Christian believe in literal sonship -- you are literally a son/daughter of God. While right now we don't remotely understand God, we will eventually completely understand and eventually completely become like Him. Literally. Creedal Christianity ... even in the eternities you're still a (metaphorical) dog. A very beloved dog, has been taught the best manners, that spends every day with the master, sleeps in His bed with Him, and has everything a beloved dog could ever dream of. But due to the Creedal doctrine of consubstantiality: they are forever a dog. There is no literally becoming completely like God. Sorry if that sounds downplaying-- I'm trying to be respectful here. But from an LDS standpoint...honestly I find that Creedal Christians have a much more negative or lesser view of man than LDS Christians (speaking both of present-day man and eventual perfected man).
  25. We are the same "type" as He is: have the same positional, and He leads us along the way. As we don't know how "spiritual genetics" work, past then is really hard to say. Another useful thing is to compare this to Creedal Christian beliefs: in Creedal Christianity, God and man are two entirely different "types" of creatures -- God being that forever immovable mover, and man being a flawed pitiful creation. In Creedal Christianity, a person isn't literally a child of God, rather they are adopted by benevolent benefactor (God)--- somewhat* similar to the way a human would adopt a dog. The master loves the dog, and fights for the dog, and even dies for the dog. But the dog's never going to be human-- it's not literally their child. It's forever only a flawed mutt that the benevolence adopted. (*somewhat = this is a very imperfect analogy). No.
×
×
  • Create New...