All Activity

... killing beasts on their farms. Hunting in the forest or tundra is a type of work, whether it is the Lamanites, the white man, or the eskimos. Take for example the beaver trade in Canada. It was a massive commercial and economic enterprise spanning the 17th to 19th centuries, driven by the intense European demand for beaver felt hats.

Whether Christ's suffering was somehow insufficient or incomplete and whether human suffering can have spiritual value and participate in the redemptive work of Christ, Latter-day Saint theology can affirm the second without conceding the first. Colossians 1:24 "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church." The Catholic interpretation often understands this through the concept of participation in Christ's sufferings. The church as his body can offer their own sufferings in union with Him. But notice what Paul does not say that Christ's atoning sacrifice was deficient or that Paul was making an additional payment for humanity's sins. Whatever Colossians 1:24 means by what remains of Christ's afflictions cannot casually be interpreted as requiring another sacrifice for sin. Latter-day Saints absolutely recognize spiritual value in suffering, that suffering can refine, sanctify, humble, strengthen, and spiritually develop us. Not that pain is inherently redemptive or that suffering purchases forgiveness. Freely accepting suffering in service to Christ and others, can unite our experiences with His. What it does not teach is that human suffering is an independent sacrifice that satisfies divine justice in place of Christ. Catholic theology does not appear to officially teach that people in purgatory are independently atoning for their sins either. It teaches purification through God's grace. So there is more theological common ground here than we might recognize. Latter-day Saint theology has a well-developed concept of suffering as a means of character development and spiritual refinement. D&C 122, "All these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good." 2 Nephi 2:2 says God consecrates our afflictions for our gain. I think you'd be mistaken if you believe Latter-day Saints don't recognize the spiritual value of suffering. We absolutely believe suffering can build character, develop faith, refine our nature, and help us become more Christ like. I think we can agree with Paul that suffering can have a purpose beyond simply enduring pain, without concluding that Christ's sacrifice needed to be supplemented. If Paul rejoices in his suffering because it benefits the Church, is that suffering atoning for the sins of others, or is it participating in Christ's work through discipleship and self-sacrifice? 1 Corinthians 3:13–15 Paul describes everyone's work being tested by fire. Some work survives; some is burned away. Interestingly, he describes someone suffering loss having their works burnt, while nevertheless still being saved. Paul anticipates more than salvation for working, suffering or being persecuted while working, but rather to be rewarded a degree of glory. 2 Corinthians 4:17 "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." Romans 8:17–18, "Heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." As Jesus taught the greater rewards come by how hard a work is to get done. Matthew 5:43-48, "I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you... For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?"

I believe Elder Cook’s intent is well meant. Anonymity certainly contributes to much harmful online speech. But as others have noted, it can be beneficial and even necessary at times. There’s only one absolute principle in my book - charity. All others have their meets and bounds. Heck, the Savior himself goes in disguise sometimes. Consider His walk with the disciples on the road to Emmaus or his disguise at the feast of the tabernacles. Still, Elder Cook’s words gave me pause to consider whether my comments on this board would ever have been different if they were under my full name. I’m sure some of them would have. I’m planning to stay anonymous for now, but will continue to ponder whether the guidance is well placed for me alone. And in the meantime I’ll try to say only things I’d be comfortable saying if my identity were known by those I love and trust.

It was never reported as stolen according to records, so maybe not. To be convicted, the state has to prove she willfully did not return it. (NC law apparently). If the rental company sold the same car later, they got it back somehow. If she really was in the ICU and her kid in foster care, my guess is it was noticed by police or traffic people or maybe over stayed in the hospital parking lot, the rental company was called and it got picked up by them…which would explain why she thought it was resolved even though she owed the company money (if she didn’t do it herself, no confrontation with the rental people). They probably realized it would cost more to track her down (maybe it wasn’t in the hospital parking lot, I wonder if she walked into emergency or was brought by ambulance) and take her to court and and then track her payments, send her notices, etc as she couldn’t pay immediately anyway once they discovered she had been living in the car. https://www.aol.com/articles/dem-flipped-north-carolina-house-035231000.html PS: I make no claims about the overall morality of either party.

No idea. In my experience one side tends to turn on and remove dangerous and predatory people from their midst and the other does not.

Except is being homeless and in the hospital a character issue vs using an attack ad impugning someone’s character in this fashion? Also according to Chat, Moore, her opponent, was accused of having an affair by an estranged husband, using public power for personal or political gain, and engaging in political favoritism.

I am curious, did she steal the car?

No…I am just saying tribalism leads to this. Vote for someone who will vote for things I care about or vote for someone who is has more character but will vote for things I don’t want or find evil. It is not so cut and dried.

You demonstrate some important distinctions while acknowledging some foundational agreement. I don't know enough about spirit prison to be critical about it. The opening post intrigued me for suggesting a Latter-day revelation that concurs with part of the Catholic interpretation of Col. 1:24, that Christ's suffering were in some sense wanting. It would suggest to us that Paul understood that there was more suffering for us to accept in this life. And remarkably it made him happy! I never knew of any Protestant Christians who would would admit that anything was lacking in Christ's suffering, until seeing the opening post on this thread, which of course is not Protestant, but LDS. I am glad that I know of at least one Latter-day Saint that agrees with us about that part of Col. 1:24. But I can't ignore our differences. I once got into a discussion about suffering here. If I recall correctly, I met with considerable resistance from the LDS when trying to explain that there is potential value in our own sufferings. I can't remember anyone who seemed drawn to the idea. So I am pretty sure that is another important distinction between LDS spirit prison and Catholic purgatory.

The people who said it is “cultural suicide” have put out fascinating articles about how legalizing marijuana means your kids could be given gummy edibles instead of candy and that minors being prostituted should, in fact, be arrested for it. This is a very hyperbolic and silly organization filled with doomsayers about how everything is part of a vast liberal conspiracy. Everything is cultural suicide to these deeply weird busybodies. Poly people are (generally speaking) measured and sane by comparison. Still, gotta have perpetual moral panics. If they aren’t imagining up new way that they are perpetually being persecuted and then telling their dullard audience that they should be deeply afraid all the time they might have to do something of value with all that money getting funneled to them.

The question is whether it was right or wrong. Saying it was lawful doesn’t answer that question.

Hey longview. Catholics don't teach that babies, or anyone else who never gained enough use of reason to be guilty of actual sin, would ever be found in spirit prison/purgatory. "The place of torment", would not have any purpose except for those who committed actual sin. Regards, 3DOP

Hi telnetd, I hadn't heard the explanation of spirit prison. While not equivalent, as has been pointed out, it sounds remarkably similar in significant respects to the Catholic teaching about purgatory. You mentioned this passage in Doctrine and Covenants: 59 which "suggests that Christ's atonement alone does not exempt them from paying a personal penalty for their transgressions before being washed clean." Catholics understand Christ's atonement as having cleared all the debts for the eternal punishment of sin. No one but Christ could have done that. But there are temporal punishments that will still need to be paid in this life or the next (in purgatory). I am thinking of some companion verses from the New Testament that would also suggest what you propose regarding that verse 59 of D&C. Below, St. Paul is referring to how the Church teaches that God has willed that the faithful, by offering our prayers and sacrifices on behalf of our brothers and sisters who still live and for those who are in purgatory. But this life, even though Catholics like me don't think of it often enough as we should, is a purgatory too. Below St. Paul is seeing great value in his sufferings. That is why he rejoices about it. Like Christ, Paul knew that we are called to imitate Him in purging the sins of our companions, of what? Of the punishment that is still due and is "lacking", because it is God's will that we might joyfully suffer ourselves to pray, and merit for others with good works of charity that "covers a multitude of sins", according to one of St. Peter's letters. "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church" ---Col. 1:24 It is a beautiful teaching that can help us to see potential meaning in the many sufferings which we cannot escape anyway. Like Jesus, and with His help, we can bring good out of evil. With faith, our sufferings can actually make the holy saint very happy. I am not a holy saint. I rarely think to happily offer it up when having a little cough or the frustration of a broken refrigerator. It doesn't have to be terminal cancer! Maybe this post will prompt me to be more on the lookout for opportunities everyday to suffer well. There are two choices before us Catholics. We can suffer joyfully, recognizing a providential opportunity to lighten our own purgatory or someone else's. The other option is to see no meaning in the sufferings we endure, that gain nothing for anybody, not our loved ones, not our civil leaders, and not ourselves. It seems like a terrible condition. We can recognize that we are in this terrible condition when we find ourselves complaining inwardly or outwardly about what God allows to happen in our lives. Thank you, telnetd.

Predatory sexual behavior, adultery, abuse of power, racism, homophobia, and intimidation using political power and threats to keep someone silent about your infidelity. And subject to LDS church discipline. vs. Felony indictment alleging she didn’t return a rental car 7 years ago. You really want to pretend there is any kind of moral equivalency there?

She claims to have been homeless with her son and there being a medical emergency (she is type 1 diabetic, so it may have been due to that), which falls kind of on the other side of family values. Anyone know if she returned the rental eventually? (One report has the car sold by the rental company and it was never formally reported stolen.). Or why she was homeless (unemployment?) It happened in 2019. Odd it took this long to charge her. Serving her at a Democrat rally was a nice touch if it happened. I can see this helping her, sympathetic for her past plight, anger for what looks like an attempt to manipulate the election. Chat says she was an underdog. If so, bet her opponent is pissed off at whoever went after her on this as it looks like a close win (51 to 49). Might be questioning himself for the attack ads and questioning her character. Answers may show up in four days. Her opponent had raised over $2 million, she $25,000/56,000$. All that free advertising helped. Given her campaign issues included health care, food security, and economic opportunity, it feels particularly appropriate. Democrats won big in NC, so she may have just been part of the wave…

Under the laws of the land in place at that time, the actions against the Church were broadly lawful. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862), the Edmunds Act (1882) and the Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887) were all valid federal laws at the time and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. That said, my understanding is that the general current and retrospective consensus describes the anti-polygamy campaign of the 1880s as a form of religious persecution that used Congress’s territorial power to force a minority faith to renounce a distinctive practice as the price of institutional survival and political normalization. So that is fairly problematic. Also, some of the enforcement measures were selective and extreme, and that is also problematic. Thanks, -Smac

Is our culture suiciding with gay marriage being legal? If so, how? (Credible stats please) suspect this group would have seen accepting early LDS as cultural suicide as well.

Why didn’t you quote his closing punchline? That looks like someone who would be willing to protect the fundamental religious rights of LDS, right?

Do you think it was wrong or right for the federal government to go after the LDS polygamist marriages and put any leader practicing or teaching polygamy into jail?

Is there anyone here or in mainstream transgender discussion that is arguing a person who is transgender is biologically somehow the opposite sex? Smac, you have posted since I ask for clarification in the above. I am assuming you missed this. I hope you will answer it because I am confused by your statement and how it is relevant to the discussion.

This should provide another avenue for protection for those who need it most, imo. Divorce, etc. is almost always brutal. If that (‘it’s too complicated’) is ever used as a reason not to have the state give legal protection for families, we are in big trouble. Whether or not this occurs in every non traditional—or traditional for that matter—marriage, it happens enough it is best to include legal protection for those involved, imo. There is also the problem with unequal partnerships, one providing contributing from home more, often with less income. They deserve legal protection as well.

Well, one of the D's who just won was arrested for felony car theft and goes to court next week.

Party of law and order and family values.

And in this total R wipeout, he won.

Biblically hunting often has a negative connotation. The most notable people associated with hunting are Nimrod, Ishmael, and Esau. All of them are rebels against God to an extent and the latter two are the ‘unfavored sons’. Hunting came to be associated with idleness as opposed to agrarian industry. This shows up in the Book of Mormon where the Lamanites are the hunters killing beasts in the wilderness whereas the Nephites are the civilized and industrious farmers. The irony of course is that from what we can tell hunter-gatherers tended to eat better due to a more varied diet and lived longer (farming wears out the body pretty fast). Farming won out because agrarian societies can have a higher population density and can drive out hunter-gatherers through the weight of numbers. You either become agrarian yourselves to be able to fight back or are driven into areas where agrarianism is impractical or impossible.