Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

810 Excellent


About Nofear

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Comment deleted (another answered)
  2. Nofear

    Preoccupation with the Afterlife

    Those that advocate frequent temple attendance do so, probably, on the belief that attending the temple serves and benefit those individuals going to the temple. That and other potential less tangible benefits to others the patrons associate with (e.g. prayer roll, the patron becoming a better person and hence more loving to those around them, receiving inspiration). Edit: can ignore (of course). Seems several others already said variations of the same thing.
  3. Nofear

    Ammon Bundy, socialists in the church?

    Yes. There was never a ward level high priest quorum. As such we can't say there is "no longer” such an entity. It is the high priest group that was done away with. The high priest quorum was always stake level and still exists. We are probably trying to say the same thing and we both appreciate precision of language. ☺
  4. The rationalization for the rebuttal of #3 is a bit weak. Polygamy ingrained an “in” identity that may have well afforded a better environment for the emerging latter-day saint society to seperate it from the “other”. Maybe. Maybe not. But I am of the opinion that historical evidence suggests such. Inclusion of blacks may have, given the weakness/biases/failings of the majority of the converts may have been a stumbling block the church was not ready to tackle. Indeed early accounts do show the sad racial biases our black converts had to deal with from other members (even before the priesthood ban became practiced policy). This, of course, does *not* mean rationalization #3 is/was correct. Maybe inclusion of blacks would have reinforced culural identity like polygamy maybe did instead of weakening it (as the previous paragraph asserts as a possibility). The fact is I just don't know how it would have all played out were it otherwise. What I do know is that there a gospel principles even now that the church has not and is not yet ready to adopt. All of that leads me to conclude #7 as the best option. Maybe a mistake, maybe a pragmatic tolerance of our weaknesses by God, maybe something else or some combination. I simply don't know. But if I did have personal revelation on the matter it would be a violation of that trust to tell everybody that God has told me the answer and this is it!
  5. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-gerard-addresses-naacp-national-convention "I'm pleased to announce that we will together launch an education and employment initiative with an eye towards national impact beginning in cities like Baltimore, Maryland; Atlanta, Georgia; and Camden, New Jersey," Elder Gerard told the audience.
  6. Of all things, a quote involving clothing cited in Bro. Peterson's blog (refer to link for quote citation) “I then semi-floated on, noticing I was wearing clothing of an unusual material that I could not recognize. It was at once soft, but very durable. The whiteness was like no earthly whiteness I know.” I could see something like that adorning the spirit body during the individual's mortal sojourn. Maybe not though. Maybe, yes. The tunnel is an item suggesting the potential non-admissability of the clothing clue. The account is cited in the context of a tunnel, a reasonably common feature of NDE experiences. But, the plurality of them makes them kind of weird for a materially present, spatially extant, spirit matter feature just scattered throughout the cosmos wherever they are handy. To me, it is more plausible they are a simulated reality to help the dying mortal mind get ready for the transition to the actual-honest-to-goodness-real-tactile-material spirit realm. And it may be that not everybody “needs” the softer transition and so, while common, tunnels are not a universal feature.
  7. I think that many (not all) NDE's cannot simply be dismissed as fanciful imaginations of a hypoxic brain. As a believing latter-day saint and a physicist, I subscribe to the materialism of our fully grown, adult spirit bodies. As such, there is one question that I think can help discern vision, from dream, from material experience. That question is, “What were you wearing?” Unfortunately, pretty much all of the accounts I've read neglect noting on this aspect of their experience. Those that (in my imperfect memory) do usually mention contempory/last worn clothing. That would suggest to me a more vision-like experience than an actual, in-spirit-body, encounter with the spirit world. Indeed, I've somewhat come to the conclusion that most NDE's are probably a simulated and transient reality to give comfort to the near dead. Does that conclusion, if even only somewhat accurate, negate the “reality” of the importance the experience has in their lives. Many do not share their experiences for fear of it being belittled as unbelievable fancy or some simple organic phenomena. I would/will never do that to someone.
  8. How can we solve *all* of humanity's problems in a single generation? Kill all the women. Follow up: can't say kill all the men because if we did, the women would probably figure a way to reproduce without us males. ☺
  9. Nofear


    I am interested in hearing juliann's reaction to Sis. Oscarson's talk.
  10. Nofear

    What do you want?

    At least for me, the levity merely attempts to camoflauge my own hypocrisy and hence is a self-affirming condemnation of my own words. Still, they would indeed be good things if we were all better at doing them. The bonus desire is a bit more subtle. I'm quite certain some of my opinions/understandings of the gospel are inadequate to wrong. I just don't know which ones those are.
  11. Nofear

    What do you want?

    I want a church where people sincerely endeavor to be the kind of person that the leaders and members of the church to be. No, scratch that. I want everyone *else* to simply be more patient and tolerant of me and all my personal failings. And for a bonus, they should all understand the gospel in the same way I do.
  12. Opioids are the only good option for a percentage of the population. They may take amounts that in another's body would be substance abuse. Accupuncture or chiropracty works in a percentage of the population. For others it is a placebo or does nothing. Marijuanna seems to be efficacious for a percentage of the population. For many or most it just wouldn't be helpful. Long story short, the church seems reticent to call out blanket rules beyond the current ones. A particular substance could be outright abuse in one person and in the same amounts a medical marvel in another. When one makes a blanket pronunciation for all on things like this, I can usually just ad hominem discount their comments.
  13. I quite agree. Part of the reason I used the phrase "not punishing an accusation" as opposed to "not believing the accuser". I personally would take precautions in allowing my children to have interactions with somebody who was accused but for which there was insufficient evidence to ethically create an actionable response. Just because somebody can't reasonably prove an accusation doesn't been they shouldn't be believed.
  14. The ethics of how to respond to abuse is something I considered with this event. So let's make a short hypothetical where there is a he said / she said scenario with an accusation of rape. For the purposes of the hypothetical no other evidence is available. There are two basic scenarios where the accounts disagree. False Denial -- rape did occur but was denied by the perpetrator False Accusation -- rape did not occur In the false denial situation if the perpetrator is believed the victim receives non-trivial emotional and social harm from the failure to be believed. The harm of the rape is exacerbated. In the false accusation scenario, the life of the accused is potentially ruined with very possible outcomes of loss of employment, imprisonment, family disruption, etc. From a strictly utilitarian view, the harm/damage created by a false accusation is new, significant, and very damaging. The harm from the false denial is certainly not to be discounted but I see it as less than the harm of most false accusation scenarios. Given that ethical calculus, it is better to error by not punishing an accusation without non-trivial evidence to change the ethical calculus as it were. One objection to this is the statement that very few false accusations occur, relatively speaking. Suppose that 99% of accusations are true. Does that change the above weighting? What if only 1% of accusations were true? Where do we draw the line? Believing in Blackstone's formulation, I prefer to error on letting the guilty go unpunished than to falsely condemn the innocent. This is, of course, one of the themes of the book To Kill a Mockingbird, where the community erred by believing the false accusation because the woman was white and the accused black. That same line of reasoning occurred de facto in this thread. Many were willing to withhold judgment barring more significant evidence. More significant evidence did come to light and fewer interlocutors here seem to favor the false accusation scenario.