Jump to content

OGHoosier

Members
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

47 Excellent

About OGHoosier

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's not particularly hard, especially when Whitmer confirms with eyewitness authority some of the most essential tenets of our doctrine in that same publication.
  2. Because of you I'm doing a detailed investigation of Pragmatism. I have the usual video, if there are any texts on it I'd like to know about them.
  3. The article in particular advocated for free and unlimited elective abortion. I clarified that for MiserereNobis above, I apologize that it wasn't made more clear.
  4. Well, I got caught with my pants down. Thanks for correcting me on LDS Family Services ceasing adoption procedures, I hadn't known.
  5. Christian religion in the United States is not generally threatened but the least popular in terms of public opinion (putting aside the Westboro Baptists and their like) is ours. LDS meetinghouses have been vandalized with anti-church messages in the recent past. I don't expect active shooter incidents, but if it were to happen to any Christian religion I feel like we're at risk.
  6. The problems come with regard to "federal protected class" legislation and adoptive equality legislation, especially since LDS Family Services does not arrange adoptions for homosexual couples. The positions endorsed by the article were vague but do put them on a collision course with Church policy.
  7. Because popular approval so obviously matters.
  8. Thanks for the check, MiserereNobis. I should clarify that the article advocated for the legality of elective abortion.
  9. Theosis is not a new concept, but our doctrine of family-based theosis is. The nature of sealing theology is pretty darn unique I'd say.
  10. I'm currently a student at BYU. This was not a LGBTQ+ event, this was a publication of the on-campus, student-written, faculty-overseen political quarterly, the BYU Political Review. They've become controversial recently. The last issue featured a defense of the legality of abortion (with a few claims that they were not endorsing it as a morally right position, just one that should be legal.) This most recent issue, which came out this week, featured as the cover article a piece expressing support for additional legal protections for LGBTQ+. While it did not directly endorse gay marriage as a morally acceptable stance, it defended its legality and advocated for, among other things, making LGBTQ+ a "federally protected class" and equality legislation regarding adoption by LGBTQ+ couples. The rainbow-background on the news stand was the front cover of the piece. The Political Review has a few conservative authors but overall bends hard to the left, which isn't a problem on it's own, but when it comes to social issues, as demonstrated above, they do play a little fast and loose with Church positions on various matters. If BYU is paying for the printing of this publication, I would like to have that reviewed as I don't think tithing funds should be used for this. As for the charge that it's "hate," the word hate has lost all meaning these days as everybody and their dog uses it to decry people who disagree with them on moral issues. I don't have enough time to be bothered every time somebody calls me or my coreligionists out as "hateful". I do have a copy of the article in my possession. Not sure if I'm allowed to scan an image of it and post it here but I'll see if I can so you can review it for yourself. Edit: Just checked out the Twitter thread. Absolutely freaking hilarious. What a fetid cesspool.
  11. Geez, I hadn't heard of that. My goodness. Here's hoping the South doesn't rise again.
  12. Regarding your questions 2 and 10...tell that to Sardius Smith and all the others who died at Hawn's Mill. We should know better than to just expect security in an era of increasing hatred. If any Christian religion in the States is vulnerable, it's us. That said, God didn't protect the slain of Ammonihah, nor did He permit Alma and Amulek to do so. Same goes for the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, unless you interpret the "swollen hearts" of the Lamanites in Alma 24 to be the Holy Ghost working on them. I hate to say that God might require that kind of sacrifice, but He has in the past.
  13. If we look at the entire spectrum of human religion from prehistory to now, there's little that's original, but I would say that we actually offer some impressive contrasts with contemporary Christianity. Our doctrine of exaltation/theosis is unique. Our definition of the Godhead is boldly divergent, as is our most esoteric priesthood theology.
  14. Can't fathom for the life of me why people oppose King Follett. Never have I seen a more ennobling theological position. Our theology has the most compelling theodicy I've seen from anywhere and strikes an impressive stance on Christ's grace relative to works, which is one of today's most tendentious theological topics. I also can't deny that I find our cosmology extremely compelling. Theologically I think we are stronger than we often presume. If anyone wants an excellent daily treatment of restored Church theology and its counterparts, I simply must recommend Robert Boylan's blog, Scriptural Mormonism. He usually posts a few times per day, has book-length texts on our theology relative to the wider Christian world, and offers very interesting insights on the Greek of holy scripture.
  15. Holy non sequitur, Batman. Didn't know this was a thread about Mountain Meadows or piolygamy or Trump.
×
×
  • Create New...