All Activity

Apologies for being dense... are you saying that NDE accounts likely influenced/instigated LDS folklore, or vice-versa, or something else? Well my brain state seems to be one of density... it sounds to me like you're saying, in effect, that extraordinary claims (such as NDEs and/or LDS folklore on pre-birth planning) require extraordinary proof... am I misunderstanding you?

The problem here is experience dictates language and both affects perception. Testimony meetings are a great example of this, Even if not Western NDEs, the fact we have massive global communication for some time now means we cannot discount influence. NDEs from times when civilizations were more isolated….commonalities then would be more impressive to me. Certain ideas about ghosts likely never existed until film portrayals of ghosts were shown and then they became common. The floating immaterial ghost is a result of Victorian era technology…the artifacts of early cameras. https://www.boredpanda.com/origin-idea-ghosts-floating-translucent/ Pirates never were thought to talk that way until a certain actor did it in Treasure Island. https://www.historyextra.com/period/stuart/english-pirates-accent-west-country-blackbeard/ There are commonalities, but as far as I am aware these could be explained by what is happening to the brain. (I am agnostic in this, it would be fascinating if it’s not shared culture driving these and something more than brain states, but because it would be extraordinary, seems like there should be clear evidence before assuming it’s not culture or brain, but actual experience). Exactly…. Added: I don’t have the years or intense interest that would drive this, so lazily resorted to Chat and asked if the idea of choosing to be born (present in many NDEs apparently, though not considered one of the universal or even more common themes) or an idea of a life planned by us were hinted at in any ancient or medieval likely NDE accounts (there were cultures who believed in a preexistence). Chat says no. I would be very interested if anyone (manol or anyone else) has come across possibles from non modern examples.

No. This is something I've always struggled with. If we understood then we wouldn't "need" it.

This is a topic on which quite a few near-death experiencers have weighed in. Their reports are pretty consistent. I come away with the impression that we are not victims; rather, we ourselves are intense experiencers of mortality and the unique opportunities for growth it offers us. I also come away with the impression that we simply do not have enough information to reliably sit in judgment. Here are two compilation videos wherein NDEers (and a few others) talk about planning our lives. While not everything on the videos aligns with current LDS thought, imo there are too many parallels with LDS doctrine and/or folklore for it to be mere coincidence. Each video is cued up to a clip that stood out to me, but imo all of the clips offer valuable insights. I think we are now living in one of the most amazing times in all of human history, having literally at our fingertips hundreds of first-hand accounts from otherwise ordinary people who have been on the other side and returned to report for the benefit of the rest of us:

I used to watch this guy on Sunday afternoons after football. But he has changed. If anything he is younger than his days on Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.

Even if we assume they chose to be born and were joyous about that because of LDS doctrine, as far as I aware there is nothing but folklore that suggests that we were aware of the specifics of our actual birth and were okay with those. When it comes to ‘well, accept you will be abused and tortured from the moment of your existence until your dying breath, but I promise that when it’s over there will be no lasting harm or trauma or existing as an eternity as a spirit, I can see why we would say ‘sure, let’s do it, it’s only for a moment after all, over before we know it even’. Could we have really understood the level of pain we were accepting? Not saying we wouldn’t accept it just saying not sure how it could have been true informed consent rather than trust in God given we had never experienced physical bodies before apparently.

I can appreciate that perspective. For my part, I find the "forced {} into existence" difficult to reconcile with my worldview. My phrasing is admittedly pointed. But every way I tried to soften it, it wandered away from the reality that kids face. Which is that they had no say so in getting existed. I strongly believe we have no call to impose a debt on them for that; I feel it shifts the whole circumstance toward unethical territory.

The notion of "kids owing parents" is on the table somewhere here but I'm not ascribing it to you. I think you're maybe exploring the cave it happens to live in. And as long as we're here, I'd like to drag the notion into the sunlight and pummel it a bit.

Even when I was active, I found this an extraordinarily insufficient reasoning. I can appreciate that perspective. For my part, I find the "forced {} into existence" difficult to reconcile with my worldview. I was not referring to a "my kids owe me" notion. Sorry if I gave that impression. Thanks, -Smac

The debt of using them to fulfill my own purpose and happiness. This works.

The debt of using them to fulfill my own purpose and happiness.

Yep. Would you trust someone who insisted you agreed to pay them for a product you didn’t like or even hated when you don’t remember agreeing to buy it.

That's another interesting thought. What debt do you owe them? I don't know the name of my debt but I pay it by helping them achieve happiness. Secondarily, I strive to encourage my kids to help others achieve happiness (which enriches their world).

This is an interesting thought. Aren't we told that we chose to come to this earth and have a mortal probation? How then is any of us "forced {} into existence?" Even when I was active, I found this an extraordinarily insufficient reasoning. It seems like a super thin justification for imposing life impacting obligations on my kids - particularly obligations that all flow to me. There isn't anything in my experience that supports the notion (that my kids owe me because of the premortal existence).

To you. Well, yes. We are all here sharing our opinions. I think I made it pretty clear: As Latter-day Saints, I think we must speak on behalf of the Restored Gospel. That may sometimes include saying something unpopular. I think there is sort of a trend amongst some members of the Church in which they conflate the not condemning the sinner with championing sin or championing behavior that doesn't lead to, or is incompatible with, a covenant relationship with the Savior. I think there is a lot of good will and goon intentions in there. We want to be kind and warm and welcoming, and that is all well and good. But I also think there is some measure of fear. We don't want to say things that go against popular sociopolitical worldviews. And we really don't want to be the subject of character assassination simply for speaking reasoned, but unpopular, thoughts. I wasn't presenting my opinion as fact, just as my opinion. I think what Charlie Bird is doing is profoundly incongruent with the Restored Gospel, both as to his marriage and as to his "Egg Donor" pageant. I don't think anyone is saying that you should be indifferent. I think since Nehor and SeekingUnderstanding are in this thread, the "Bigot!" accusations are a matter of when, not if. That they go draw water from the ad hominem well so immediately and so often is, to me, an indication of some things. The ad hominem stuff in this thread is, in my view, an effort to squelch viewpoints. Toe the line or shut up. I don't think that's a healthy state of affairs. We ought to be able to express an interested viewpoint on a topic, or else be indifferent to it. We ought to be able to have a discussion about the topic without being diverted by ad hominems. I think it matters a bit. Charlie Bird is trying to influence people to a particular set of principles relating to the Restored Gospel. I find some of the more important principles he is presenting are profoundly incongruent with the Restored Gospel. He is trying to influence people, and that matters. Others ought to be able to attempt to persuade and influence people away from the problematic things Charlie is advancing. True words. I would guess that Charlie Bird also agrees with them. You can definitely advocate for whatever interpretation of the gospel that you believe is most correct. Charlie and everyone else can do the same. Charlie seems to be advocating for, and seeking from others condoning treatment of, violations of the Church's teachings relative to marriage and the Law of Chastity. On these points I feel we must choose to listen to the cumulative counsel of the leaders of the Church (such as Elder Holland), or we can choose to listen to Charlie Bird. It's one or the other. Charlie has set himself up as a voice alternative and superior to that of the Brethren, and is, I think, implicitly asking other Latter-day Saints to listen to him more than to the Lord's anointed, at least in regards to marriage and the Law of Chastity. I think we should listen to the Brethren, and to set aside, and not endorse or condone or advocate for, the problematic things for which Charlie is seeking - and is getting - notoriety and influence. Thanks, -Smac

To be clear, your sentiment is especially honorable. To address the OT sentiment, shouldn't there be a corresponding commandment - or at least shouldn't this one include the two-way obligation? I personally suspect that OT adults more comfortable (than I am) with seeing their children as material.

I wonder why they chose “Remnant”. It has for me an unfortunate connotation of some of the apostate groups. Great name otherwise.

I've thought about this. But that part of the Gospel is tied to the non-existence of any memory of those events. The notion of holding one accountable to an agreement made in an existence that no one has 1st hand knowledge of - this seems problematic at best. Binding my own children to it doesn't feel at all like good parenting to me. Personally, it feels like leverage and exploitation.

If it’s the noodles she doesn’t like, a good sauce is great on baked or roasted potatoes or rice.

I prefer using tomato paste with water rather than sauce. It’s more intense flavour with a nice sweetness. Canned tomato sauce is typically pretty bland.

In my household, spaghetti is not well appreciated, but I love it. Too much. I finally found a recipe for the sauce that I really like. Here it is: GARRETT’S MEAT SPAGHETTI SAUCE Author: by Sue Garrett Ingredients • 1 lb. lean ground beef • 1 onion, chopped • 1 bell pepper, chopped • 1 TBS. minced garlic • 1 TBS. Italian Seasoning • 1 tsp. basil • 1/2 tsp. oregano • 1/2 tsp. Montreal Steak Seasoning • 1/2 tsp. parsley • 1 (16 oz.) can of tomato sauce • 2 (14.5 oz.) cans of diced tomatoes • Salt & Pepper to taste Instructions 1. Cook ground beef, onions, and bell pepper together until done. Drain if needed. 2. Add the remainder of the ingredients and bring to a boil. 3. Turn the stove down and simmer for at least 30 minutes. (I kept mine going for almost 2 hours.) 4. Serve over cooked spaghetti noodles. Here in England I can't find "tomato sauce" in the same form found in US grocery stores. Imports from Italy are available, which I haven't tried yet. So instead of the can of tomato sauce I just added another can of diced tomatoes. It worked out well. Since I like my spaghetti sauce with a little more "bite," I added a 1/4 teaspoon of cayenne. The wife liked the sauce! Which was a plus, since she's no big fan of spaghetti. For myself, I topped off my portion of pasta+sauce with Cholula hot sauce.

To you. That's an important part of the equation that I think probably needs to be said more. Not about your opinions specifically but about all of our opinions. Feeling strongly about something, and having arguments that show it's reasonable and which back us up, doesn't make opinions canon. You feel a certain way about their choices. 100% valid. Also 100% not fact. I don't think anyone is saying that you should be indifferent. I just think that it's good to remember that no one else should care about our indifference regarding their choices. You can think he's very much in the wrong and he equally can know that what you think (or what I think) doesn't matter. True words. I would guess that Charlie Bird also agrees with them. You can definitely advocate for whatever interpretation of the gospel that you believe is most correct. Charlie and everyone else can do the same.

Exactly. We are told this, we don’t typically know it automatically. It is part of our cultural programming. It may be an intellectual belief, but it may not be emotionally accepted and therefore not be much of a or even any part of a child’s motivation through their life. It therefore may not have much effect on a child except to induce guilt, because they are told they should feel grateful but they don’t, or makes them feel manipulated. Even if it is true, it doesn’t mean the child consented to the way a parent chose to have them or bring them up. Their existence is still forced in that sense.

I gravitate towards a mixture of these two perspectives. I do think that children have some obligation to their parents, and I think that parents obviously have obligations to their children. I think the way those obligations play out (and what they are) change greatly throughout life. From my perspective, I feel like the commandment to honor thy father and mother is a reminder that the relationship is meant to go both ways.

I appreciate the support though. While human water diversion is responsible for the vast majority, roughly 60% to 80%, of the lake's historical decline.