Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Everyone should ignore fit the purpose of this thread the bottom line as political, if you can find a source with just the numbers that would be better, Tacenda.
  3. Should have been from the start.
  4. Could be a practice run. Such things often escalate.
  5. If I don't let my little grandkids get it first it will be all over the floor as they rush to see who can get it first.
  6. I pass it to Sister Gui as a priest would do to the deacon would do to the member, and then she passes to me. I'm not the bishop. The nice thing is that the piece of bread is substantial....not the morsel or crumb we usually get in church. I'm sad that the teachers usually throw away half the bread in the trays. Just break them a little bigger.
  7. I can only speak from my perspective on this. My current stance is that the start of the ban was from fallible leaders and inherently racist in both its justifications and implications. I do believe that McKay likely did get a no from God. I personally believe it had more to do with the readiness of the people and I do not see that as God necessarily promoting racism or being racist himself. Let me give a non-race related example from my life that could apply. I believe that God wants families that are seal together and with a mother and father to bring up children in love and patiencemore. But I was born out of wedlock. When I was younger and struggling with some of the issues in my family as well as maybe feeling a little like I was missing out of things others took for granted, I received a series of revelations that helped me realize that I was meant to come to my more complicated family. I do not see that meaning that my family is the divine structure that God would want for his children, just that I was supposed to be here in this family and at this time and that it was okay that I didn't have a sealed family governed by gospel principles just yet. I developed as needed and know that I've been blessed by the journey I've been on. God's made up the difference in my family experience I believe in a God that allows His people to slowly become and personally choose a more zion state. If Pres. McKay was the church at the time, I have no doubt that there would have been a correction and change in racist policy then. But he wasn't, nor is any one member the church. The church to me is the experience or "family" we're given to help us all become the order and family of God. It's by no means perfect or the ideal that God envisions for his children. That is a body of believers who are of "one heart and one mind" and where there "are no poor among them." It's a people where all truly have access to God and his covenants. It's a It's a people that are willing to obey the Lord and in doing so, reflect the Light of Christ in their actions and behaviors to their fellow man. When the body of current believers were more willing and ready to accept black members as equals in the gospel and start shedding their prejudices and false beliefs, was when they could move forwards. We are still not fully the divine structure, but God makes up the difference and accepts our meager efforts nonetheless. So the no to me wasn't about the divinity of the practice at the time, but an indication of where the people were at in their process of becoming. Several members, including apostles, were clinging to false beliefs and couldn't shake themselves from them like McKay had. And that's okay. Thank God that getting it all right in this life is not the litmus test for how we'll stand before God in the next. I don't know if that helps, but that's how I see it from my perspective and how I can hold 2 seemingly contradictory beliefs at the same time (ie. the policy was racist and wrong but the timing for its removal was divinely revealed/inspired) On your aside, yes they were able to to baptisms for the dead for blacks....though if I remember correctly not at first and after some petitioning from black members at the time to church leaders. It's been a minute though since I've read about that, so I may have that a little wrong With luv, BD
  8. Today
  9. Could she be like this woman? I follow this woman on FB, and she doesn't appear to be too scary, and I thought she might be LDS as well. https://michellpowers.com/
  10. Truthfully, I don’t care who takes it first. I have little children so I bless and pass. i bless it then pass it to everyone.
  11. Regarding the theology being saturated with in 19th c. concerns we can turn to Smith's contemporary from the Stone-Campbell movement, Alexander Campbell: "This prophet Smith, through his stone spectacles, wrote on the plates of Nephi, in his book of Mormon, every error and almost every truth discussed in N. York for the last ten years. He decides all the great controversies – infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of freemasonry, republican government, and the rights of man. All these topics are repeatedly alluded to. How much more benevolent and intelligent this American Apostle, than were the holy twelve, and Paul to assist them!!! He prophesied of all these topics, and of the apostacy, and infallibly decided, by his authority, every question. How easy to prophecy of the past or of the present time!!"
  12. Not sure how accurate, but if it is, this is terribly shocking how bad the US is doing compared to the rest of the world.
  13. We agree, there is no systemic use of Early Modern English evident Smith's or Cowdery's writings though they apparently sprinkle them into their attempts to sound biblical. We seem to disagree that the BoM also fails to show systemic use of Early Modern English but instead has them sprinkled throughout. The advocate of a mysterious EmodE contributor finds themselves relying on Smith as the source for the non-EModE language but is still left with the problem you dismiss above. The obvious explaination is Smith/Cowdery as non-native EModE speakers were not using it subconsciously as a true EModE speaker might have done, so the usage patterns described by Carmack typically involve attempts to show how a high percentage of usages of separate examples vary from that found in texts also not thoroughly EModE. By distilling each example down to separate usage percentiles, he avoids the question of what kind of author we are actually dealing with whose language patterns are across a spectrum. This isn't the state of evidence that compels one to question why so many other fields are antagonistic or indifferent to the existence of Nephites.
  14. Hello Maestrophil... This is a difficult situation for certain... How you respond is very important to your relationship with your daughter, now and for the future... I have to tell you... to me, red flags were flying as you described the woman and situation. I believe, that for yourself... you should seek a priesthood blessing for wisdom and discernment in discussing this with your daughter and for how to proceed. My own personal opinion is that it was questionable for your wife to take your daughter to this person without telling you. This is bound to cause confusion in her mind in relation to her faith, particularly at 16 years old. I wish I had some words of wisdom for you... Others here have offered some valuable insights. She must already have questions due to your wife leaving the Church. I do wish you well in this... I was inactive for 35 years (married a wonderful but non-LDS man), and finally reactivated in August 1995... During those years I stilled loved the gospel. And, I was so hungry spiritually and had begun watching several television evangelists... and would become all caught up in their preaching. I had even attended a more "new age" community church. But I started all over at square one in the gospel, reading and studying. Finally in Oct 1995, I listened to Gen Conference and it was the calm, sure voices and messages that burned within me... that spoke truth to me, and I couldn't run back to the Church fast enough and have never looked back. Good luck... GG
  15. I would have to agree with Nevo having read descriptions of the burnt over district
  16. Wondering if the person presiding at church at Home - in your case - takes the Sacrament first, similar to the way the Bishop takes the Sacrament first at regular church. If the person requesting the blessing on the Sacrament partakes first because they are presiding or the head of the household (but not a Bishop, temporary calling) but a father (eternal calling), that seems kind of odd but likely the correct way to administer that ordinance, no?
  17. If I were to attribute this event to recent civil unrest in that general area, I would be: a) correct b) some -ist or -ism c) banned from this forum (again) for a week or two d) all of the above
  18. Wonderful thoughts from the Catholic perspective. I admire your devotion to the Lord. We LDS also have sacred physical emblems that help us recall his Atonement. We wear them privately next to our bodies as constant personal reminders. Every Sunday we partake of the emblems of his flesh which was broken and his blood which was spilled for us in hope and remembrance of his grace and forgiveness. We promise to God that we will take his name upon us, always remember him, and keep his commandments. Furthermore, our most intimate temple rites are implicitly and inextricably associated with his crucifixion. These are as sacred and significant to us as your practices are to you. I’m not telling you something new. I’m sure you understand and respect these things that we do.
  19. Take her to a fortune teller and respond to all of the nonsense as fun entertainment. Approach it like a fascinating research project that respects her intelligence but gives her information that doesn't come from you. Find another of these healers and she will get a different reading or whatever they call it. Do it yourself so you look like you aren't dismissing it.
  20. Royal Skousen has shown nothing of the sort, Robert. If mere assertion is enough to establish the truth of a claim, then here is Samuel Morris Brown and Terryl Givens: "Whatever else the Book of Mormon is, it's an English-language scripture written for the early nineteenth century. The book reads as if it were aware of the role it would play in antebellum America and the millennial preparations of that country for the restoration of Israel" (Brown, "'To Read the Round of Eternity,' Speech, Text, and Scripture in The Book of Mormon," in Americanist Approaches to The Book of Mormon, ed. Elizabeth Fenton and Jared Hickman [New York: Oxford University Press: 2019], 179). "Where the Bible was remote, the Book of Mormon was immediately relevant to the antebellum New York experience. The Book of Mormon expressed views on infant baptism, church and state, the providential role of the United States, and a dozen other timely issues" (Brown, Joseph Smith's Translation: The Words and Worlds of Early Mormonism [New York: Oxford University Press, 2020],134). "It is undeniably the case that folk magic, slippery treasures, and emotionally extravagant reactions to conversion all make their appearance in the Book of Mormon and in the popular culture of Joseph Smith's day. Mormons were undismayed by the transparent relevance of the Book of Mormon to nineteenth-century cultural and religious preoccupations . . ." (Givens, The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction [New York: Oxford University Press, 2009], 115-116).
  21. I believe early use of the cross is a holdover from previous practices or simply a general cultural act. The fact that LDS leaders never counsel the Saints to use the cross as an ornament or object of veneration is significant, IMO. You are free to disagree. The material cross is a frequent topic in Protestant and especially Catholic sermons and writings. It is emphasized in LDS discourse but not as an object of adornment or veneration. There are far more substantial doctrinal reasons they consIder us non-Christians. I have had many discussions with folks about our religion. My not having a cross around my neck has never come up. Except here and on anti-Mormon websites. Hanging crosses on our necks tomorrow and topping our ubiquitous steeples with them the next day that would do nothing to change their minds. There are much bigger fish they fry. I think it is a non-issue. Making President McKay the bad guy is sad. That this has been affirmed by subsequent prophets is significant. Perhaps he was right. How does putting up a cross on a wall or wearing one make a person a better Christian? While it is a tradition I respect, It doesn’t make any difference. In any case, if a member of the Church wants to wear a cross or place one on a wall in their home, please do. Who says one must wear a cross to show you are a Christian? Other than identifying ourselves as Christians to others who may question our devotion, what would be the benefit? Jesus said, Isn’t this sufficient?
  22. Yes - to her credit, she calls herself a spiritual healer - My daughter was calling her a therapist, and even thought that she was licensed, but my research has shown she isn't.
  23. Reading the posts, I get the impression that most in the board are life long members. The church in our area pretty much vanished. The fact is that for new converts the church is a critical link to their nurturing and strengthening of their faith and they all but lost it. Other than a phone call here and there from the leadership, the members were left to their own devices. A church that doesn't meet is not a church. For the early Christians, the converts of Asia Minor, meetings were the life blood of their new faith. Imagine that the Church stopped meeting, what would have happened to them? If all people get is a "social experience", there are better options out there. It is sad, from my perspective, that fear and submission to draconian and unnecessary measures derailed the long years of consistent effort in cultivating the faith of many that now are scattered to the wind.
  24. We have no such systematic evidence. Anyone can pretend to adopt a pseudo-biblical style. For a yokel to bring it off successfully, however, is just not possible. The BofM itself is the best evidence of this, as Carmack & Skousen demonstrate systematically. I fully expect eye-rolls from those who don't read the evidence -- they have apriori views, in any case, which automatically reject anything scholarly. While it is true that many people automatically disbelieve the BofM, usually without even reading it, they are not scholars and have made no scholarly assessment of BofM claims. For scholars, however, there is plenty of evidence to be considered in a host of different fields of study. I take a look at some of that in my 2014 FAirMormon Conference presentation: http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf . On the contrary, as Royal Skousen has shown, Not only is there no evidence to support a 19th century origin for the BofM, but the full panoply of LDS theology is already present in the BofM: https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH . A lot of people, both pro- and anti-Mormon, have a lot invested in the 19th century context. Heck, I used to think that Joseph actually did the translation by putting ideas from the Egyptian text into his own words -- as mediated through his mind by the Holy Ghost. A kind of biofeedback loop. New evidence has negated that possibility. We need to be able to adapt.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...