RevTestament Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What's a GMO? As for alcohol, yes, in this dispensation, the Lord has decreed that it is not for man, and no one should harbor the vain notion that is going to change. But I was a gospel doctrine teacher for many years and have been a class member for longer. I've never seen a discussion go off the rails like that. Ours are always stimulating and never boring. Maybe our ward is Zion. GMO are genetically modified foods - mostly so they can take being sprayed with glysophate(Roundup) and/or other herbicides, but increasingly to change various physical attributes or perhaps make them more pest resistant. Many of these crops can no longer reproduce by natural pollination. Some people go off the cliff about them, but perhaps time will prove some of their concerns right. If "this dispensation" means the restoration by JS perhaps you forget he drank some wine in jail...BY made plenty of money off the taxation of the Church beer brewery, etc. 2 Link to comment
Alan Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 In my view, Sunday School needs ditching. 1 Link to comment
Anijen Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 A couple of thoughts: GMO's are genetically altered not to produce a seed that can be used to grow. It's one and done type deal. It was purposely done so that seed would have to be bought each year. I have nothing against GMOs, they are healthy if not more so than "natural." You just can't replant from their off spring. The negative thing on GMOs are the control of pricing (i.e. corn) money and law suits behind the scenes. Same with chickens that are raised eating off the ground as compared to the ones grown in the dark with a simulated 18 hour day (get more eggs you see). These chickens and eggs are more healthy than the ones whom eat off the ground. Source: Michael Foods, the largest egg producer in the US. I interviewed their top veterinarian when he worked for them (bytheway he is a very active LDS man, a Patriarch in our Stake, now retired both from work and as our Patriarch). I am a fairly healthy person. I have a few things I wish my body did not have to suffer. One of these is; I am a diabetic. Diabetics are the Word of Wisdom anomalies. For example, I need to watch closely my carb intake such as breads, potatoes etc. however, I may eat as much meat as I like. How do I obey the word of wisdom as far as grains and meat go and not end up on dialyses, amputation, or a stroke? Oh and just a little more info about me, I am not fat at all. Another question. We have a guy in our ward who on occasion will answer a question in SS or in Priesthood with false doctrine. one time I was so upset with what he was saying stood up and corrected him, but the Spirit was no longer there with him or me. I was reprimanded by the Bishop at that time for standing up. I basically got re-upset and asked the Bishop why he didn't correct it? Frustrating. I then had another brother say to me Bro Anijen, (but he used my real name), I think the best way is just stand up and leave the meeting. So, I ask, is that the right course? Should I just leave with nothing being said? There is another Brother in my ward (Nofear, he posts here sometimes). He is one of the smartest persons I have ever met (this includes his wife and children), I would put his IQ up there with Hawking and Einstein. He always has good lessons or good concepts when he brings stuff up in SS or Priesthood. I do not think he has ever said anything that has been false. From a different perspective, but always incredibly interesting. I am thankful for his perspective. 2 Link to comment
Anijen Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Alan said: In my view, Sunday School needs ditching. I am all for ditching everything, with one exception (the sacrament). Make the sacrament the only reason to go, have leadership meetings via Skype. I live about 31 miles away from our ward building. My family is regular in our family prayer, scripture reading, FHP, we also are regular in our personal church stuff as well. It would be okay with me to go to church take the sacrament, sing some hymns, and go home. Church was made for man, not the other way around... Edited June 20, 2017 by Anijen 1 Link to comment
CV75 Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 13 hours ago, bluebell said: This last Sunday we had one member include not eating GMOs as part of the Word of Wisdom, and we also had a discussion about how alcohol isn't bad in and of itself and how exciting some people are to someday drink wine again. I'm not saying that both of those were obviously wrong; i'm using them as examples of how sometimes the discussion takes an unexpected turn. I've never been in a Sunday school class that got really rowdy or contentious but i've heard stories and just wondered what people on the board had seen or participated in? How bad can it get? Is it better for Sunday school to go off the rails sometimes to keep everyone engaged or is it better if everyone just 'goes along to get along' and keeps the peace? For example, no one said a word to "GMOs are evil" guy and everyone just let that slid. Should we have pushed back on that? I personally have a pretty high threshold and look to the leaders and teacher to moderate according to their judgement. From my experience as a leader, the judicious, active participation of leadership can help set the tone and prevent disruptions or encourage patience. They need to attend class regularly though and not just pipe in as a special guest auditor. 2 Link to comment
bluebell Posted June 20, 2017 Author Share Posted June 20, 2017 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: What's a GMO? As for alcohol, yes, in this dispensation, the Lord has decreed that it is not for man, and no one should harbor the vain notion that is going to change. But I was a gospel doctrine teacher for many years and have been a class member for longer. I've never seen a discussion go off the rails like that. Ours are always stimulating and never boring. Maybe our ward is Zion. The scriptures teach that Christ will drink wine again, right? Or something like that? And we know that alcohol isn't evil (or Christ would not have drunk it himself while in mortality) so it makes sense to believe that eventually, when the evil and conspiring men are gone (who are the reason for the prohibition) that things will change. I don't know why that believing that would have anything to do with being vain? I don't really care either way though as i've never had it. GMO's are Genetically Modified Organisms (grown food). There is a group of people (both in and out of the church) who believe they are killing us all of, a group who believe that they are the only reason that most of the world hasn't starved (reputable scientists generally fall into that group), and a group who don't care either way. People can get pretty feisty about the topic. 1 Link to comment
Duncan Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 my son is 14 and 6'1 and at stake conference in May this CRAZY guy, paranoid delusional member who I have known my whole life came up to us and said something like "oh, Matt is so tall now, you know why he's so tall? it's because the Government is jacking hormones into everything" and then he left. I thought OR it could be because his Great Grandpas were around 6 feet tall............it's all about an agenda with that guy, the government has this agenda that no one but him knows about 1 Link to comment
Johnnie Cake Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 14 hours ago, bluebell said: This last Sunday we had one member include not eating GMOs as part of the Word of Wisdom, and we also had a discussion about how alcohol isn't bad in and of itself and how exciting some people are to someday drink wine again. I'm not saying that both of those were obviously wrong; i'm using them as examples of how sometimes the discussion takes an unexpected turn. I've never been in a Sunday school class that got really rowdy or contentious but i've heard stories and just wondered what people on the board had seen or participated in? How bad can it get? Is it better for Sunday school to go off the rails sometimes to keep everyone engaged or is it better if everyone just 'goes along to get along' and keeps the peace? For example, no one said a word to "GMOs are evil" guy and everyone just let that slid. Should we have pushed back on that? Just to be clear...virtually EVERY plant and animal that human's have found beneficial for our use and chosen to breed and cultivate over the thousands of years history of doing so has had its original genetic makeup altered through the artificial selective breeding and or cultivation of human beings. GMO's is not a new trend...its a continuation of what humans have been doing to our food source for thousand's of years. Take for example our modern cow or modern wheat...both of which would be nearly unrecognizable from what humans originally found beneficial and began to alter through selective breading and cultivation....so your fellow parishioner...may need to be brought up to date that she has been eating GMO's her entire life. Link to comment
cacheman Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 2 hours ago, Anijen said: GMO's are genetically altered not to produce a seed that can be used to grow. Just to clarify..... GMOs are not typically sterile. Seeds can be saved and replanted. However, most GMO cultivars are patent protected, requiring growers to not re-plant. 1 hour ago, bluebell said: a group who believe that they are the only reason that most of the world hasn't starved (reputable scientists generally fall into that group) I don't know of any reputable scientists that believe that. I know lots of scientists that believe GMOs have the best potential to feed the growing population. But most scientists that are familiar with the application of this technology realize that GMOs are currently a very small portion of the world's food supply. 1 hour ago, bluebell said: People can get pretty feisty about the topic. This I can confirm! 26 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: GMO's is not a new trend...its a continuation of what humans have been doing to our food source for thousand's of years. This is one reason why I prefer the term 'transgenic' when discussing GMOs. It is commonly understood that when someone is discussing GMOs, they are talking about plants (or animals) that derive from transgenic technologies where only one or a few genes are altered/added/deleted. These technologies are new and different than traditional plant breeding which has produced the vast majority of our food supply. The similarities are there, but there are some very different pros and cons. Sorry to hijack the thread... cacheman 1 Link to comment
Alan Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 32 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Just to be clear...virtually EVERY plant and animal that human's have found beneficial for our use and chosen to breed and cultivate over the thousands of years history of doing so has had its original genetic makeup altered through the artificial selective breeding and or cultivation of human beings. GMO's is not a new trend...its a continuation of what humans have been doing to our food source for thousand's of years. Take for example our modern cow or modern wheat...both of which would be nearly unrecognizable from what humans originally found beneficial and began to alter through selective breading and cultivation....so your fellow parishioner...may need to be brought up to date that she has been eating GMO's her entire life. Not the same thing as GMO. Selective breeding is exactly that. GMO intervenes in a completely unnatural way. For example, introducing fish genes into a tomato to make it more tolerant of lower temperatures. Link to comment
RevTestament Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Anijen said: A couple of thoughts: GMO's are genetically altered not to produce a seed that can be used to grow. It's one and done type deal. It was purposely done so that seed would have to be bought each year. I have nothing against GMOs, they are healthy if not more so than "natural." You just can't replant from their off spring. The negative thing on GMOs are the control of pricing (i.e. corn) money and law suits behind the scenes. You seem to be confusing hybridized seed with GMOs. Hybridized seeds have been around for a long time, and yes, probably part of the reason they became popular is hybrids are selected which are sterile so new seed has to be bought - seed companies like that sort of thing. However, technically hybrids are not GMOs. GMOs are purposefully and specifically altered genes. Genes of specific plants may be artificially introduced to add certain characteristics rather than by plant breeding or cross pollination. This is very different from hybridizing. We have nothing to fear from hybridization except possible loss of old strains of plants. Hyrbidizing two different strains of corn aren't going to result in some dangerous type of corn. Man has been doing it for thousands of years already which is where all the various strains of corn came from and evidence for evolution(man being the natural selector). GMOs on the other hand may include some type of corn with a mallow gene spliced in to make it resistant to Roundup spray. There is no way to introduce this gene through hybridizing or pollination. They are two entirely separate processes. This worries GMO phobics since practically any gene from any plant or possibly even animal could conceivably be introduced. Edited June 20, 2017 by RevTestament 1 Link to comment
cacheman Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, RevTestament said: You seem to be confusing hybridized seed with GMOs. Hybridized seeds have been around for a long time, and yes, probably part of the reason they became popular is hybrids are selected which are sterile so new seed has to be bought - seed companies like that sort of thing. However, technically hybrids are not GMOs. GMOs are purposefully and specifically altered genes. Genes of specific plants may be artificially introduced to add certain characteristics rather than by plant breeding or cross pollination. This is very different from hybridizing. We have nothing to fear from hybridization except possible loss of old strains of plants. Hyrbidizing two different strains of corn aren't going to result in some dangerous type of corn. Man has been doing it for thousands of years already which is where all the various strains of corn came from and evidence for evolution(man being the natural selector). GMOs on the other hand may include some type of corn with a mallow gene spliced in to may it resistant to Roundup spray. There is no way to introduce this gene through hybridizing or pollination. They are two entirely separate processes. This worries GMO phobics. Most hybrids are not sterile either. However, their progeny doesn't stay true to type (lots of genetic and phenotypic variability). If you want the same traits as your previous hybrid crop, then you have to purchase new seeds. 3 Link to comment
RevTestament Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 13 minutes ago, cacheman said: Most hybrids are not sterile either. However, their progeny doesn't stay true to type (lots of genetic and phenotypic variability). If you want the same traits as your previous hybrid crop, then you have to purchase new seeds. This is probably true as well. However, there are a number of hybrids sold I believe specifically because they are sterile (and have desirable eating qualities). That's the concern I was responding to - I certainly wasn't trying to infer that all hybrids are sterile. Obviously, corn has been successfully hybridized for thousands of years specifically because the new hybrids are not sterile. 1 Link to comment
bluebell Posted June 20, 2017 Author Share Posted June 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: Just to be clear...virtually EVERY plant and animal that human's have found beneficial for our use and chosen to breed and cultivate over the thousands of years history of doing so has had its original genetic makeup altered through the artificial selective breeding and or cultivation of human beings. GMO's is not a new trend...its a continuation of what humans have been doing to our food source for thousand's of years. Take for example our modern cow or modern wheat...both of which would be nearly unrecognizable from what humans originally found beneficial and began to alter through selective breading and cultivation....so your fellow parishioner...may need to be brought up to date that she has been eating GMO's her entire life. I'll let him know. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, bluebell said: The scriptures teach that Christ will drink wine again, right? Or something like that? Yes. The incident is in Matthew 26:27-29. Quote 27 And he took the acup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, bDrink ye all of it; 28 For this is my ablood of the new btestament, which is shed for many for the cremission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not adrink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I bdrink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. I believe Jesus was here saying that there would come a future day when He would observe the sacrament of the Lord's supper with his disciples in His Father's kingdom. I could be wrong, but I think the reference to "the fruit of the vine" is merely a rhetorical way of referring to that ordinance, since wine at the time He instituted the ordinance was the only substance used to represent His blood. I don't believe it necessarily means that wine would be used forever after for that purpose, or even that its use would be stopped and then later resumed, since Christ revealed in latter days that "it mattereth not" and that water is perfectly fine. I think it rank speculation to draw from this that alcohol consumption -- including, presumably, hard liquor -- will one day be allowed among the people of God. Quote And we know that alcohol isn't evil (or Christ would not have drunk it himself while in mortality) so it makes sense to believe that eventually, when the evil and conspiring men are gone (who are the reason for the prohibition) that things will change. I believe it is evil in latter days, and not just because of conspiring men. I think of the lives and homes that have been destroyed by alcoholism, and I can readily see why Christ, through revelation to prophets and apostles, has forbidden alcohol consumption in our day. Quote I don't know why that believing that would have anything to do with being vain? You misunderstood the sense in which I used the word vain. I didn't mean it in the sense of being prideful. I intended its alternate definiition, which, according to one online dictionary, is "producing no result. Useless." That is to say, it is pointless to look forward to a time when alcohol consumption will be allowed in the Church, as such a thing is unlikely to happen, in my view. Quote I don't really care either way though as i've never had it. Nor have I, and I don't really care a whole lot either. It's just that I get uncomfortable when people use Church classes as a platform to propound their pet conjectures, especially when they act as if their notions are established fact, which it appears happened in this case. There is too much hazard that some people will be misled thereby. Quote GMO's are Genetically Modified Organisms (grown food). There is a group of people (both in and out of the church) who believe they are killing us all of, a group who believe that they are the only reason that most of the world hasn't starved (reputable scientists generally fall into that group), and a group who don't care either way. People can get pretty feisty about the topic. Again, gospel hobbyism and unauthoritative advocacy of pet causes in a Church venue. I don't like that. I'm glad I've never seen it happen in my own Sunday School class. Edited June 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 7 hours ago, Alan said: In my view, Sunday School needs ditching. Maybe instead you need better Sunday School classes. 1 Link to comment
stemelbow Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Yes. The incident is in Matthew 26:27-29. I believe Jesus was here saying that there would come a future day when He would observe the sacrament of the Lord's supper with his disciples in His Father's kingdom. I could be wrong, but I think the reference to "the fruit of the vine" is merely a rhetorical way of referring to that ordinance, since wine at the time He instituted the ordinance was the only substance used to represent His blood. I don't believe it necessarily means that wine would be used forever after for that purpose, or even that its use would be stopped and then later resumed, since Christ revealed in latter days that "it mattereth not" and that water is perfectly fine. I think it rank speculation to draw from this that alcohol consumption -- including, presumably, hard liquor -- will one day be allowed among the people of God. Well it was allowed for many years among the members of the Church. So it has been "allowed". I wager many who live on earth today are in God's favor and consume alcohol. I think the banning of it amongst Church members is less about God's will and more about trying to set rules and boundaries within the Church, as man has decided. Our cute explanations of why it is a commandment aren't bad. They're ok, for the most part. Afterall, I am troubled by alcoholism and am happy to think less people are alcoholics in the world because of the ban by our Church, among others. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, RevTestament said: If "this dispensation" means the restoration by JS perhaps you forget he drank some wine in jail...BY made plenty of money off the taxation of the Church beer brewery, etc. By "this dispensation," I mean the sum total of all the divine gospel light and knowledge that has been given to us from the earliest dawning of the Restoration down to the present day. So it won't do to say that Joseph Smith drank wine at Carthage Jail or that Brigham Young brewed beer. Additional instruction has been revealed through prophets since then for which we are today accountable. If Joseph and Brigham were with us today, they would each sustain that fact. I think they might also have a thing or two to say about trying to pit dead prophets against living ones. Edited June 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
stemelbow Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Maybe instead you need better Sunday School classes. Nah. I'm with Alan. It's not the classes...it's the system, and the material and... Link to comment
Popular Post ksfisher Posted June 20, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted June 20, 2017 4 hours ago, Anijen said: I am all for ditching everything, with one exception (the sacrament). Make the sacrament the only reason to go, have leadership meetings via Skype. I live about 31 miles away from our ward building. My family is regular in our family prayer, scripture reading, FHP, we also are regular in our personal church stuff as well. It would be okay with me to go to church take the sacrament, sing some hymns, and go home. Church was made for man, not the other way around... "And the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls." (Moroni 6:5) I'm really not sure that Skype fulfills all the needs that are met by being with one another. Who would teach the young womens or primary lesson to the girl who has inactive parents? There are many for whom the three hours they spend at church each week are the only opportunities they have to be in a peaceful, spiritual environment all week. I really think there is great value in sitting next to someone for an hour. In saying hi to someone week after week. In being in the same room as someone when they teach a lesson and hearing the comments that other people in the class make. There is great value in hearing the testimonies of others. If the church was to only meet together for 15-20 minutes a week to "take the sacrament, sing some hymns, and go home" I believe it would dwindle and die fairly quickly. "a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation" (Joseph Smith Lectures on Faith 6:7) 6 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: Well it was allowed for many years among the members of the Church. So it has been "allowed". I wager many who live on earth today are in God's favor and consume alcohol. I think the banning of it amongst Church members is less about God's will and more about trying to set rules and boundaries within the Church, as man has decided. Our cute explanations of why it is a commandment aren't bad. They're ok, for the most part. Afterall, I am troubled by alcoholism and am happy to think less people are alcoholics in the world because of the ban by our Church, among others. See the response post I just made to RevTestament which also applies to your remark. Link to comment
bluebell Posted June 20, 2017 Author Share Posted June 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Well it was allowed for many years among the members of the Church. So it has been "allowed". I wager many who live on earth today are in God's favor and consume alcohol. I think the banning of it amongst Church members is less about God's will and more about trying to set rules and boundaries within the Church, as man has decided. Our cute explanations of why it is a commandment aren't bad. They're ok, for the most part. Afterall, I am troubled by alcoholism and am happy to think less people are alcoholics in the world because of the ban by our Church, among others. Hey stem, can you explain your use of the word cute in this post? Whenever I hear people use the words cute or adorable to talk about things that others consider serious topics, they use it to imply how childish and "quaint" something is. It's generally seen as an insult. I'm sincerely asking because when you use it I don't know what you mean by it Thanks. 😊 3 Link to comment
ksfisher Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 8 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Nah. I'm with Alan. It's not the classes...it's the system, and the material and... Remember, "you get what you give." Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 24 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Nah. I'm with Alan. It's not the classes...it's the system, and the material and... The system, classes, material, etc. work fine where I live and from my perspective. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 20 minutes ago, bluebell said: Hey stem, can you explain your use of the word cute in this post? Whenever I hear people use the words cute or adorable to talk about things that others consider serious topics, they use it to imply how childish and "quaint" something is. It's generally seen as an insult. I'm sincerely asking because when you use it I don't know what you mean by it Thanks. 😊 Yeah, that really came off as patronizing. Link to comment
Recommended Posts