Jump to content

Glenn101

Members
  • Content Count

    3,363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,319 Excellent

4 Followers

About Glenn101

  • Rank
    Just Basic
  • Birthday 04/26/1946

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Seven Springs, North Carolina

Recent Profile Visitors

3,566 profile views
  1. This is one area where cinepro and I seem to agree. There are many words in the Book of Mormon that would almost surely have to be given just as a translator would see them and provide the English translation. I don't see how Zarahemla could have come from any type of expansion. All of the concerns about intertextuality are really moot.... unless God had nothing to do with the translation. If He did have something to do with the translation, the original source of all those intertextual alignments. By the gift and power of God covers a lot of territory and explains things that are otherwise so far unexplainable.
  2. There is one thing for sure, in my mind, it is incumbent upon those of us who are not in a faith crisis to continue to reach out to those who are and who have become less or inactive, at least as much as they will let us. Maybe God has told some in one place that He doesn't like for people to be lukewarm. And in another place an apostle has said that without faith, it is impossible to please God. But that is God's province, since He knows our hearts and minds. Our province is to reach out, minister, and love, in my opinion. One of the things that has stood out to me about people that have had near death experiences where they remember meeting loved ones, etc. that had passed away and other beings is the feeling of unconditional love that emanated from those they met, surrounding, engulfing them, to the point that they did not want to go back into their bodies, back to their mortal life. And I believe that maybe that was the way it was in the City of Enoch. That what got everyone on the same page was an encompassing, unconditional love. And maybe if we don't worry so much about the nuts and bolts of doctrine and work in our wards and branches to help them become a little part of the City of Enoch, that could go a long way toward helping people just want to be around the people in those branches and wards. I am not trying to preach here. It is an idea, a feeling that has been working on me and was sort of brought out by posts like this. But I cannot look at anyone else in my ward and say, "You need to do this...." It has to start with me. So I am going to have to try to learn how to love well enough, strong enough, that people can feel it and hope it is contagious. Glenn
  3. I understand your point. I just make it a point not to react to a nutty post. I don't want to come away seeming any nuttier. Sort of paraphrasing an adage I read, a third party looning in might not be able to see the difference.
  4. The lack of attention from a father may seem far from ideal to us as we see it from our own mostly monogamous perspectives when many children were involved. Has anyone done any type of study to find out how children from families of our more famous polygamous leaders turned out in general? I would be interested in reading something on that subject. But it is only fairly recently that we have the expectation of fathers taking a more active role in their children's lives. It has happened as families have gotten smaller and men in general have been able to rise above a survival income level and have been able to do so on forty or so hour a week. There is something I remember from the Book of Mormon, something about the stripling warriors being taught by their mothers. Nothing is said about their fathers. That is interesting. I guess that polygamy would have been something that you would reject after praying about it. There were many that came to the same conclusion when they were approached about it. Men and women. Some left the church over it and some remained. Seems like God still allowed them to remain in the church in good standing. Glenn
  5. It is evident to me from what I have read about polygamy, actually, polygyny in the case of the Church, is a principle that takes a very high degree of righteousness to live properly. It's history in Biblical times shows just how difficult it is. Look at Jacob/Israel, who is held in such high esteem by God and note his preference for his first love and the problems and heart ache that it caused. There is no wonder that a lot of women who have read those stories have such a difficult time with this principle. But I think that stemelbow's comparison is inapt. In a non monogamous relationship with multiple partners of both sexes, relationships are really ambiguous, undefined, and children would seemingly be incidental and maybe accidental results of such relationships. The major focus of such an arrangement would be on the adults who engaged in the arrangement, their gratification, their relationships, etc. with any children seemingly being an afterthought. Such children probably would know who their mothers would be, but knowing who their father is would be problematic as it could be any of the men so involved. Add in the possibility/probability that people would move into and out of those arrangements with the children probably going with the mother, to be introduced to a new set of men etc. Polygamy, on the other, hand, as attempted to be practiced by members of the Church, was/is focused on the family unit. The children know who their mother and their father is. I would think that a polygamous unit would be more stable than a polyamorous situation. But I do not have the statistics to back me up on this. There are several polyamory advocates who write positive articles in Psychology today, but they seem to focus on the ones that are the self reported success stories. There are a couple of things though that polygamy and polyamory have in common to have any chance of success. A lack of jealousy and good relationship skills. Those are just some thoughts. I am not advocating a return to polygamy nor trying polyamory. I am a firm believer in the Proclamation. Glenn
  6. Thanks for that insight into your thinking. I have a bit different perspective. It involves the morality of the issue and from there we would get into the issues of religious morality versus relative morality of culture and society. Glenn
  7. I believe that the author of the survey was trying to narrow the argument down to only biological definitions so as to avoid social and cultural constructs. Glenn
  8. So, do you advocate for abortion on demand for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy? Glenn
  9. For the secular people, the atheists and all those who take God completely out of the equation, the physical. biological aspects of life begin at fertilization. Well, those aspects of it begin the same for everybody, religious or not. For the religious the belief is that life begins when an embryo is quickened by the spirit, and even in that there are disputes because God has not revealed that information to us. Then come the moral questions, Secular moralism is societal based and relative, subject to change with societal values, which has been demonstrated very dramatically recently. And I will leave it there. Glenn
  10. I don't want to get in trouble with the mods but I am lot a fan of leashing anyone. If a person gets obnoxious enough just ban them. Dissent is an essential part of any debating board. And maybe that is why things are so quiet. Glenn
  11. True. And we really do not know what Aaron ans Miriam were complaining about. I am going by the text as it is rendered to us right now which seems to indicate a current event, but yes, it is all speculation and evidently, as you have pointed out, not something of any great consequence to the Lord. Glenn
  12. Robert, Your comments are informative, but shoot past my question which was the late date of the complaints against Moses for having married a Cushite woman. This would seem to be complaints against a recent event rather than something which had occurred maybe forty years ago. Glenn
  13. Back to my point on the complaining. Why was Aaron and Miriam complaining about Moses marrying Zipporah maybe forty years after the fact? It would seem more logical to me that this marriage was something new. A Cushite being of the lineage of Ham might have been something Aaron and Miriam would see as an error on the part of Moses and give them pause to criticize him. Glenn
  14. That does not seem logical, i.e. that the Cushite woman spoken in Numbers 12:1 was Zipporah. I do not recall Midian being equated with Cush. Midian=Arabian peninsula, Cush=Africa. In any event, why would Miriam and Aaron be criticizing Moses about a marriage that had happened maybe forty years earlier? It is possible though that Zipporah had died before Moses married this second time, although her death is not recorded in the Bible. So that is an open question. Fifty-fifty chance of being right or wrong. Glenn
  15. I do not understand your point. Could you elaborate a bit? I do not see a nexus between your comments and the church staying away from polygamy even if it were to become legal because of the rapidly changing perspectives on personal relationships. Glenn
×
×
  • Create New...