Jump to content

JAHS

Contributor
  • Content Count

    4,090
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JAHS

  1. I agree. This is my belief on this subject. I believe that the spirit enters the body upon birth and leaves upon death. That's when I believe that life begins and ends in our human form. I know some will disagree (about the entering the body stage) and I understand that. I certainly would not think the spirit enters the body at conception. One can argue that the spirit probably does not enter a fertilized developing embryo until it has at least implanted itself in the mothers womb. It is not uncommon for an embryo to fail to implant itself, so it would therefore be illogical for the spirit to have already united with it before that happens. Also, during the time between conception and implantation, embryos can not yet be considered as individualized human life, since they still possess the potential to combine, or split (twins). It is also possible to store embryos in a frozen state, thaw them out later, and successfully implant them in a mother's womb. Has the spirit already entered an embryo that is being stored in a freezer at -70 C? I doubt it. The fact that Jesus Christ announced his birth to Nephi only a night before the event, suggests that the spirit enters the body at birth. (3 Nephi 1:13) But of course Christ was a God and probably could have come and gone out of His body anytime He wanted.
  2. I am not saying they do, just that saying it is simply a matter of their location is false. "Intelligence, abilities to communicate, potential for independence, etc....tons of significant differences." I have known a few disabled adults who could fit this description.
  3. Intelligence, abilities to communicate, potential for independence, etc....tons of significant differences. But why should those differences determine the right to be alive or not? There are no easy answers to any of this.
  4. By the way I noticed you reached the 30,000 post milestone. 👍 Never mind. Your numbers seems to be stuck at 30,000.
  5. Remember I am talking about a 17 year old teenager. Have you ever had one? 😉 I would certainly hope the answer to such a prayer would be no. And most of those certain situation would not apply to a 17 year-old.
  6. Well that should be acceptable because everyone knows that life begins at 40. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4gXVXVXzqg Meant to be a joke, but why should the thought of aborting a child at 17 be any different than aborting them at a few weeks in the womb? It's simply a matter of their location. By the way I noticed you reached the 30,000 post milestone. 👍
  7. I knew one lady who went to her doctor and said she wanted an abortion. The doctor asked "How far along are you?" The lady replied "He's 17 years old now".
  8. It's not a scientific question at all, because the answer is already known. I specifically remember this talk President Nelson gave back in 1985 when he said: "It is not a question of when “meaningful life” begins or when the spirit “quickens” the body. In the biological sciences, it is known that life begins when two germ cells unite to become one cell, bringing together twenty-three chromosomes from both the father and from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. The onset of life is not a debatable issue, but a fact of science." Reverence for Life Therefore, with regards to abortion, since we don't know when the spirit enters the body, it is a moral question.
  9. I would think that such actions would be fairly obvious and would therefore be prohibited by the rules.
  10. I agree. The article states "We instead hold that participants in any sport are not liable for injuries caused by their conduct if their conduct was inherent in the sport,” Flagrant injurious behavior behavior that is not inherent in the sport can and should be prosecuted regardless of whether it is on the basketball court or out on the street.
  11. Utah Supreme Court rules on a case of LDS ward basketball and injuries in sports The notoriously rough n’ tumble basketball games that take place in meetinghouses of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have become a cultural joke in Utah, so much so that the state’s top court has now acknowledged it. “An athletic competition acclaimed on some local t-shirts as ‘the brawl that begins with prayer,'” Utah Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Thomas Lee wrote. In an opinion published Saturday, the Utah Supreme Court ruled on a personal injury case involving an LDS ward basketball game and expanded the legal exception for liability in sports. The case will have impact on many other athletic events across the state. “We endorse the idea of an exception to liability arising out of sports injuries. But we do not think the exception should turn on the defendant’s state of mind, or be limited just to contact sports. We instead hold that participants in any sport are not liable for injuries caused by their conduct if their conduct was inherent in the sport,” the Court declared in a unanimous ruling. The case centers around an injury Judd Nixon suffered in a 2012 church-sponsored basketball game at an LDS stake center in Utah County. Nixon and Edward Clay were playing against each other. “Nixon dribbled the ball down the court to take a shot. Clay pursued Nixon to try to contest the shot. As Clay approached Nixon’s right side he extended his right arm over Nixon’s shoulder to reach for the ball. Nixon came to a ‘jump stop’ at the foul line and began his shooting motion. When Nixon came to this sudden stop, Clay’s arm made contact with Nixon’s right shoulder. Nixon then felt his left knee pop. Both men fell to the ground,” Justice Lee wrote. “The referee determined that the contact was not intentional and warranted only a common foul. Nixon unfortunately sustained a serious knee injury in the collision.” Nixon eventually sued Clay, alleging his negligence caused the injury. A Provo court granted Clay’s request to dismiss the case, declaring that basketball is a “contact sport.” It then declared that Nixon’s injury was not the result of willful or reckless behavior, but inherent with basketball, Justice Lee wrote. The Utah Supreme Court sided with Clay and upheld the personal injury lawsuit’s dismissal. But the Court took it further, essentially ruling that there is risk of injury in all sports — not just sports where contact takes place. “The game of tennis does not involve frequent bodily contact among participants in the sport. For that reason this sport conceivably might not qualify as a ‘contact sport.’ But there are obvious risks of injurious contact in tennis. Players may anticipate getting hit with a tennis ball or colliding with a teammate during a doubles match. And tennis players in these situations should be exposed to no more liability for injuries caused by their contact than a basketball player who collided with another player during a game,” Justice Lee wrote. Nixon’s attorney was out of town and did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. In a statement, Clay’s attorneys Sadé Turner, Karmen Schmid and Scarlet Smith said he had been “vindicated.” “The Utah Supreme Court’s decision is a win for everyone. The decision means Utahns can play hard at the sports they love without worrying about a potential lawsuit for injuries sustained in competition. We are very pleased the Court offered such clear and simple direction,” Turner wrote. __________________________________ Why does church basketball have this reputation for being so violent and physical? Are we venting our anger on the court instead of during normal life?
  12. That's too bad they had those experiences. Most of mine have been simple ask the question - give the answer situations and no discomfort at all unless I personally was unsure of my answer. But then that is my fault, not the interviewer's. They already have 8 year old baptism interviews. Should they discontinue those?
  13. Because "it takes a whole village to raise a child", right? 🙄 Well, maybe in Africa it does.
  14. I agree, it's good for the member and it give the Bishop the opportunity to get to know the kids better and teach them. It's not just about asking questions.
  15. LDS Church considering lowering age for youth interviews with clergy to 8, survey says A survey commissioned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints inquires about lowering the age of youth interviews with clergy from age 12 to eight. The Church has come under national scrutiny recently with headlines about children being asked sexually explicit questions, with some cases of abuse. One member, Talia Draper of Herriman, posted photos of the survey in a private Facebook group and gave 2News permission to publish them. Draper, who considers herself an "inactive member of the LDS Church," was shocked when she opened up the survey, telling 2News: "Frankly, my mouth dropped wide open as I read the words The Church is considering having Primary children ages 8 to 11 receive periodic individual interviews, similar to the current practice of interviewing young men and young women.' Considering that many (if not all) of the Church's highest-ranking leaders (thanks to Sam Young) are personally aware of the abuse that a large number of people have suffered at the hands of some of its leaders during these one-on-one interviews, it absolutely baffles me that they would be considering beginning these interviews at even younger ages. I was genuinely hopeful that the LDS church was moving towards changing the practice of conducting these interviews and this just feels like a giant slap in the face. I cannot fathom how they do not see the potential for grooming and abuse with this practice. I just cannot understand it." The questions: If the Church were to do interviews with 8-11 year old children, who would you prefer conduct those interviews? The bishop A counselor in the bishopric Either the bishop or a counselor A member of the Primary presidency A member of the Young Mens or Young Womens presidency Aside from the interviewer and child, who else would you prefer to be present in an interview with your Primary child? (Mark all that apply) No one else Myself My spouse A bishopric member A primary leader Are you aware of the new Church policy allowing parents to sit in on youth interviews with members of the bishopric? Yes No What are your preferences regarding the following topics that could be covered in an interview with your Primary child? (The survey gives three options for each topic: Prefer this be discussed, no preference, prefer this NOT be discussed) Challenges in their life Positive things in their life Their spiritual development Progress towards youth achievements (e.g. progress in the new youth program) Their relationships with family members Worthiness One purpose of the current bishopric youth interviews is to help youth establish a trusting relationship with a priesthood holder. If the Church were to do interviews with 8 to 11-year-old Primary children, how important would it be to you that your child establish a trusting relationship with a priesthood holder? Not at all important Slightly important Moderately important Very important Extremely important Overall, are you in favor of or opposed to the proposal to do interviews with children ages 8 to 11? (This question has a sliding scale that respondents can slide between the following three options) Very much opposed Neutral Very much in favor The last question was open for user feedback. This is just a survey and it does ask about who you would prefer do the interview and if a parent should be with the child during the interview, so I am not sure why anyone would be upset about the survey. Edited to add: What are your answers to the questions?
  16. One factor could be that church members are having fewer children now who would have become members.
  17. I abstain because God told us to do that and it has been put in the scriptures and supported by our latter-day prophets. We have been told by other prophets that it is not just a suggestion. It's an easy one for me though because I don't like coffee, or alcohol, or tobacco, or illegal drugs and I would not like my body to be dependent on any of these things and they can all cause an addiction to some degree. If we did not have the WOW I suppose I might have an occasional glass of wine with my dinner, but that's about it.
  18. I agree. I know lots of men and women who have tattoos that work in the temple; especially those men who served in the armed forces in the war. I wonder if a member's face was tattooed if they would be allowed to be a temple worker or would that be too much of a distraction?
  19. Could this man be an ordinance worker in the temple?
  20. Speaking of folklore here's a couple interesting ones regarding the stone box the plates were in. Martin Harris described a money digging incident that took place after Joseph found the plates. Harris is quoted as saying: "Three of us took some tools to go to the hill and hunt for more boxes of gold or something, and indeed we found a stone box. We got quite excited about it and dug carefully around it, and by some unseen power it slipped back into the hill. We stood there and looked at it and one of us took a crow-bar and tried to drive it through the lid and hold it, but the bar glanced off and broke off one of the corners of the box. Sometime that box will be found and you will see the corner broken off, and then you will know I have told you the truth" ("The Last Testimony of Martin Harris," by E. Cecil McGavin in The Instructor, October, 1930, Vol. 65, No. 10, pp. 587-589). In a series of interviews a Mormon writer named Edward Stevenson, who was acquainted with Joseph Smith relates what he was told by an old man living near the Hill Cumorah: "Questioning him closely he stated that he had seen some good-sized flat stones that had rolled down and lay near the bottom of the hill. This had occurred after the contents of the box had been removed and these stones were doubtless the ones that formerly composed the box. I felt a strong desire to see these ancient relics and told him I would be much pleased to have him inform me where they were to be found. He stated that they had long since been taken away." (REMINISCENCES OF JOSEPH THE PROPHET, And the Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon by Elder Edward Stevenson, 1893 Salt Lake City, Utah)
  21. The accounts in this article (below) seem to imply that they actually went to and into a cave in the hill Cumorah. Cumorah's Cave
  22. I am thinking that the early saints and we as well might improperly call the hill in New York, Cumorah. Moroni buried the "few plates" (Mormon 6:6) his father Mormon gave him in a hill somewhere. In the scriptures, Moroni never specified the name of the hill where he buried the "few plates" that he had. He only said that he hid them up in the earth.(Ether 4:3). Maybe it was the hill in New York but not the actual hill Cumorah/Ramah which could be somewhere else. I have always had a hard time believing the cave story actually happened, unless it was in a vision as you suggested.
×
×
  • Create New...