All Activity

Do you find all statutes an issue, just religious ones, or just ones outside or inside worship areas. What do you think of the Christus or the Angel Moroni statues on temples? (Apparently the sculptor intended them to be Gabriel, thus the horn, but then an apostle suggested Moroni (think it was Marinner Merrill as I just looked this up yesterday as we drove by Provo’s temple) and that’s what stuck. I never understood the horn before, book was obvious.

No worries. I was overly verbose sometimes. Understood. I agree with this. The Church does not "save" anyone. Christ does. We believe the Church, which He organized and heads, is there to facilitate ordinances and other components of discipleship in a communal sense. I appreciate the clarification. When we say “creedal Christianity,” we mean churches that treat the historic creeds—especially the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity—as the binding definition of God, and that treat the creed-making era as having closed the book on new public revelation. Individual sanctimony/pride in gifts of the Spirit is antithetical to that Spirit. I am sorry you have witnessed that in us. I served my mission in Taiwan, where no small number of Christians and prospective converts balked at the "onlyism" of Jesus as the sole source of salvation. There are elements in each of our faith traditions that rankle. By "it's not personal" I think we would each mean that these are the doctrines as we have found them and believe them to be, in a "let the chips fall where they may" sort of sense. They are not crafted to indict or offend, but to clarify. Yes, Christ taught in the temple. There is no evidence in the New Testament that he was ever “comfortable” there. In fact, since you are an attorney, I would suggest there is more evidence of his discomfort there. I think we are viewing things through the lenses of our respective presuppositions. Christ went to the temple as a young man (Luke 2:46-49), and characterized Himself as doing "my Father's business" while there. He healed in the temple (Matthew 21:14). He drove out the moneychangers from the temple (John 2:16). That is, I think, the only recorded instance of violence by Him. He referred to the temple as "My house" and a "house of prayer." Matthew 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–17; Luke 19:45–46. He chastised those who had made it a "den of thieves." He entered the temple as party of his triumphal entry (Mark 11:11). At one point He taught daily in the temple (Luke 19:47; 21:37–38), and at other times (John 7:14, 28; 8:2, 20; 10:23; 18:20). He paid the temple tax (Matthew 17:24–27). I can't read these without feeling that Christ revered and honored the temple as a sacred edifice. I don't see these passages as indicating He disliked or resented or rejected or was otherwise alienated from the temple. Reasonable minds can disagree about such things. Thanks, -Smac

I sense sequels coming….

It does! I couldn’t figure out how they were possibly going to come up with an ending either. But did you notice that the ending is kind of tricky? It leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

I haven’t personally spoken to a Protestant that didn’t claim to be creedal. But I don’t know how active they were in their own faith. Maybe they didn’t know what they were talking about.

Personally, I am not a fan of statues inside or outside of a chapel. It borders on bending the second commandment. Exodus 20:4-6: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of -__anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Then again there is that pesky AoF which says we allow folks to worship " how where and what they may "

Nice story about the sacrifice of the ward members to get their church building built, thanks for sharing and commenting. Hope your building turns out very nice and I'll be very interested if it's part of the subject of this topic.

At times it was like how is this going to end moments. I liked the ending thank goodness! The movie really has moments that you're shaking your head, but I ended up really liking it.

Hi @Calm: A creed is an official, normative confession of faith that articulates and defines the core doctrines of a religious body and serves as a standard for teaching, worship, and doctrinal identity. Therefore, it has to be an official, normative, confessional, and definitional statement of core doctrines of a religious body. Certainly there are groups, especially within the Mainstream branch of Protestant Christianity, that adhere to several creeds. However, the largest bodies of Protestant Christianity, the Evangelical and the Fundamentalist, as well as Pentecostals and almost all non-aligned Protestant groups, do not adhere to such documents. I certainly don't. I might agree with most of what one says, but it is neither official, normative, confessional, nor definitional for me in any way. The Nicene Creed requires belief in baptism as salvific, a method to achieve forgiveness of sins. I do not believe that. So it is neither normative, confessional, or definitional for me. I don't disagree with the points in the Apostles' Creed (depending on one's definition of a catholic church (small c, I believe). However, it also is neither normative, definitive, official, or confessional for me. A Statement of Faith is just that. It claims none of the attributes of a creed. I have written down in threads on this forum over the years differing things I believe (statements of my faith). Listing them doesn't make them creedal because they don't meet the standards I mentioned above. Of course, others will perhaps have different definitions of creeds. OK. I have no problem with that. I have answered your question with my understanding and interpretation of a creed. Therefore, I stick to my statement that most Protestant Christians do not adhere to creeds. Some certainly do. I believe more don't. Take care, Navidad.

Most do not accept the Nicene Creed or the Apostle’s Creed? Do you not define “Confessions of Faith” as creeds? I don’t or I would have to define the Articles of Faith as a creed, I think***, but I remember one Protestant I discussed this with did view their church’s confession as their creed as well as saying they accepted the Nicene Creed. Can’t remember their view on the Apostles’ Creed, but I remember discussions where declared Protestants did state they accepted both. (Perhaps what you mean is it is not a requirement?) How would you define “creed”? As I understand it, it’s a formal statement of essential beliefs. ***Some do see the AofF as a creed or creedish, so imo LDS need to get over our inclination to be pejorative about creeds in general and be more precise about why the Lord condemned creeds in the First Vision as reported by JS. https://rsc.byu.edu/literature-belief/confessing-belief-thoughts-language-articles-faith https://rsc.byu.edu/prelude-restoration/all-their-creeds-were-abomination

I’m in primary so it’s basically same as usual there. I’m kind of sad I don’t get to see this all play out!

I'm with the youth.

I am not sure how to answer the various points or questions you raise. I am not adept at doing that with such a long and intricate post. I do not offer my perspective to make or suggest yours is wrong. I simply, as a colleague on this forum, offer you a different view on certain things. I would ask you to receive them; not necessarily to accept them. There is a significant difference. Those of us who have grown up in a church are pretty much all conditioned by that experience. It becomes part, perhaps a large part of our faith. I believe the more any of us turn away from that conditioning, the closer we can draw to the truth, at least our personal truth. I do not reject thee Church of gathered believers world-wide, inclusive of the LDS. I do think it unwise to equate or engage the doctrine of ecclesiology as being on the same theological level or importance as the doctrine of Christ. No organization died for our sins or by its virtue or efficacy grants redemption to humans. There is no salvation in any organization, only in a person. That person is Christ. If any authority is given to an individual, it is still Christ's authority, not the individual's. Kierkegaard, a contemporary of Joseph Smith once said, "The self-assured believer is a greater sinner in the eyes of God than the troubled disbeliever.” I really like that, but it might sound very strange to my LDS friend's ears. Your remarks about the Protestants are great. I would offer one difference. You use the word creedal - "In the creedal sense". . . . . I would suggest eliminating the word creedal if you are going to describe us. The majority of Protestant Christians are not creedal in any sense of the word. In fact, we reject creeds. Many of my LDS friends are conditioned to see all or most non-LDS Protestant Christians as creedal. I would simply propose that is an error in perspective. Not that a word makes much difference, but "creed" and "creedal" are often used in a pejorative sense by my LDS friends. It is a way to dismiss a belief once it is deemed creedal - going all the way back to the 1838 take on the First Vision. Physically constructed brick and mortar or stone and mortar temples for us serve no need. They may even be perceived as contrary to Biblical scripture. We take Hebrews very seriously. We take the priesthood of the believer very seriously. Of course we do not believe Christ's authority was granted to only one church. The onlyism of the LDS church is a big stumbling block for me. I cringe when I am told that that onlyism is nothing personal. It sure is. One of the men who assured me in our ward that my wife does not and could not possibly have the Gift of the Holy Spirit is now a higher-up in the CEC of the LDS Church. That (in my opinion) is problematic. Of course, a faithful member probably would not see it that way. Yes, Christ taught in the temple. There is no evidence in the New Testament that he was ever “comfortable” there. In fact, since you are an attorney, I would suggest there is more evidence of his discomfort there.

Those gods were not real deities. Even Zeus was not a deity. The Jews sacrified to Baal, but Baal was not a real god in the sense of deity. He was either a being conceived in their mind or a demonic spirit. There is only one being referred to as the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4). The idea is that Satan has influence over the present world system and works to keep people from recognizing the truth of the gospel. There are not gods who are given ruling authority over specific countries.

I’d vote for you as our next apostle.

My point is that this isn’t happening and despite your assertions to the contrary, there is no reason to believe that it will happen. Just as we don’t need laws to keep litter boxes out of elementary school bathrooms, we don’t need laws to keep men out of the women’s restroom. First, "this isn't happening" is an assertion, not an established fact. Second, “It isn’t happening, so we don’t need a rule” is not an answer to what the rule is. A limiting principle is about who the class is, not about how many scandals have made the news this month. If the permission slip is self-declared identity or “presentation,” the class is no longer female. That is true whether two people use it this year or two thousand. You can think the uptake will stay small. That does not make “whoever says so” a sexed category. Third, we already have sex-segregated rooms. The question is whether we keep sex as the criterion or replace it with "identity." “We don’t need a law” usually means one of two things: (1) custom and ordinary crime statutes are enough, or (2) identity access is fine because abuse will stay rare. (1) only works if the custom is still sex. (2) is a prediction. Predictions are not a limiting principle. Fourth, the litter-box line is a different claim. Nobody serious is drafting a statute about litter boxes. People are drafting and litigating rules that treat a male as entitled to the women’s room if he identifies or presents as a woman. That is not a meme. It is the ordinance / school / HR fight. Pointing at a silly story does not make the category question go away. I am not asking you to prove a national wave of predators by Friday. I am asking you to say, in a sentence that could go in a policy, which males are out. This is what you are steadfastly refusing to do. And I think that is because A) you can't articulate a limiting principle without running afoul of the mobocratic elements of the trans movement, B) your proposal is perhaps a motte-and-bailey tactic that would be undermined by admitting that there are no limiting principles, and that there is a need for them. “Be decent and don’t peep” applies under a sex rule too. It does not tell a staff member or a court who belongs in the room. If your view is that no written sex rule is needed because almost no one will push it, say that plainly. That is a bet on manners. It is still not a limiting principle. Ah. So we are in agreement that, contrary to your prior representations, these others are not “separate issues.” You have just said the same test should run in changing rooms, sports, and prisons. So we're talking motte-and-bailey tactics after all. That is the point of the analogy. I was not claiming you personally want Lia Thomas in the NCAA. I was claiming that a lawyer does not need your permission. If the bathroom holding is “identity/expression is the access rule, and a sex statute does more harm than good,” the next brief will say: same rule, different doorway. Stalls vs lockers will be a fact for the balancing, not a new definition of “woman.” “Don’t pass a law unless there is a need, and don’t let it do more harm than good” is not a criterion for who the class is. It is a reason to regulate less. Applied to a women’s prison or a girls’ locker room, it can just as easily mean “don’t pass a sex law” as “don’t pass an identity entitlement.” You still have to say which males are out. You have said sport can stay sexed. Good. That is a sex rule in one venue. The bathroom argument you have been defending is that a sex rule there fails the harm test. Counsel will ask why the harm test flips when the clothes come off or the points are scored. So I do think it is bad to “extend that same reasoning” if the reasoning is identity access plus no administrable gate. Extending minimal-statute / weigh the harms is fine—if sex remains the thing you are weighing harms to. If “woman” on the door is already a social category, the harm tally is no longer a tally of females. That is the fence I have been asking for. “I like fewer laws” is not it. Sigh. . The natural and foreseeable effect of your proposal is the elimination, either de facto or de jure or both, of sex-segregated spaces. You will not acknowledge this, either because you don't know how the law works, or you don't care how the law works, or you are indifferent to the effects of your proposal, or you are aware of the effects and want them to come to pass. It is this last one that I think is the motte-and-bailey thing. In any event, what I am saying is narrower, and I will keep saying it without the heat: The justification you use for the bathroom—identity or expression as the access rule, and a sex statute as more harm than good—is the same justification other people will carry into lockers, sport, and prisons. That can be true even if you personally would not vote for those outcomes. Analogies do not require you to be an ideologue. They require a court to be consistent. Moreover, even if you are not personally attempting to advance motte-and-bailey tactics, I think other activists and groups are. I glean this from the failure/refusal to articulate limiting principles, the failure/refusal to acknowledge the natural and foreseeable camel's-nose-in-the-tent / motte-and-bailey consequences of letting men into women's bathrooms. “Bad for women and girls” is the disagreement. On my definition, the group those rooms were built for is female. A rule that admits males on identity changes that group. You can weigh harms and think a sex statute is the worse package. I can weigh the same facts and think dissolving the criterion is the worse package. That is a policy fight. I am against statutes that do more harm than good too. The question remains which rule does that, and who counts as the women and girls in the tally. That is the argument, and you are evading important elements of it. Thanks, -Smac

It’s not that you can’t order, it’s that when you go to order they indicate everything is sold out.

I know this is not my subject area Is it possible, that the items being purchased need to be seen before purchasing. Just a thought.

Exactly.

I don't understand why there were so many available for in purchase buying but none online.

The End of Oak Street I'd say definitely worth seeing in a theater. It takes place in the 1980s and is about a family/neighborhood that ends up in another time and place. I don't want to say too much more than that. It's about the people and not about the special effects, which is nice. They do a good job of making the story make sense (because the premise is pretty far out there). There is a third act twist that you really don't see coming. PG-13 so good for tweens and up I'd say.

My point is that this isn’t happening and despite your assertions to the contrary, there is no reason to believe that it will happen. Just as we don’t need laws to keep litter boxes out of elementary school bathrooms, we don’t need laws to keep men out of the women’s restroom. As I’ve made it very clear throughout this conversation, I believe we shouldn’t have laws unless there is a need for them, and that such laws should be crafted in a way that ensures they don’t do more harm than good. I don’t know why you think it would be bad to extend that same reasoning to women’s changing rooms, sports, or prisons. Sigh. I’m against the bathroom law you propose because it is bad for women and girls. Your insinuation that I have some sort of ideological master goal of crowding out women from women’s sports, defeating the purpose of women’s shelters, and causing the eradication of women’s-only spaces is both inaccurate and offensive. If being against laws that do more harm than good makes me an ideologue, then so be it.

I think I did. I think I have answered your questions and explained my reasoning, both at some length. I think my comments responsive to your post were quite relevant to the questions you asked. I said: "They give more credit to academics as a collective than I would. I find much of the prone-to-activism segments of academia to be craven, ideologically compromised, and morally bankrupt." That's not quite the same as "contempt of higher education." And that was in a post that was not responsive to your questions. I have two "higher education" degrees, a BA and a JD, and I taught at a local university for five years. I see its virtues, but also its flaws. My contempt for activist elements of academia is substantial and pronounced. I am gratified at the prospect of there being a substantial contraction of colleges and universities. We have too many, charging way too much, granting far to many not-very-worthwhile degrees, and too many faculty and administrators in them who are less interested in education than in sociopolitical activism and indoctrination. We need to divert time and money and effort toward more worthwhile efforts to help kids gain skills for employment. Trade schools and vocational schools, for examples. Okay. Thanks, -Smac

I would have added to the videos to say that there is now officially a 3-comment-per-class limit for those who don't know how to stay quiet. Also, anyone who walks into class late is required to bring cinnamon rolls the following week.

Yes, I have needed to make a checklist for everything I do daily that must be done because memories and anticipation both create the belief I have taken my meds, etc when I haven’t or in tracking I get convinced that I have exercised, tidied a room, etc more than I actually have. I used to be really good with my lists, but now I forget to check them.