All Activity

What should be noted is that for the WNBA, the only reason this is an issue is because some people who do not identify as women and who in reality do not want to play in the WNBA are pretending they are and do in order to make a political point. For my part, I don't think there is a constitutional right to play in the WNBA, and I'm quite content to let them figure out for themselves what is and is not fair. In high school wrestling, they have a rule that in order to wrestle in the heavyweight division, your weight needs to be between 215 and 285. Is that fair to everybody? I don't know. But I'm happy to let the stakeholders in high school wrestling figure it out. Ditto NCAA swimming. Likewise, in everyday discourse it's easy to make broad declarations that "only biological women are women" and "only biological men are men." But the problems of taking rigid philosophical absolutes and insisting they be rigid "limiting principles" is that the world is messier than these abstract principles. What's wrong with letting people use the bathroom that is most comfortable to them? Why do we need a law that this person must use the women's restroom? Why do we need a law that this person must use the men's restroom?

These broad brush stroke comments about the "Ex- and Anti-Mormon crowd" are always so lovely to read. The OP brings up Strong's book, but rather than addressing what is actually in Strong's book, there is the same old discussion of how those of us have left having been "deceived" and "wayward" and not "staying faithful." For some reason there is no consideration for the Ex-LDS person who after spending decades living as a faithful member, really wanting it to be true, building a life around the principles taught as the Gospel, and who experiences the heartache of unfulfilled prayers, prophecies, and scriptural promises, combined with studying the un-sanitized accounts from Church history and simply concludes that it just isn't true. I desperately wanted it to be true. So much so that my brain went into dangerous places for my own safety under the fear that I was destroying eternity for an entire family. Being compared to a person of bad "soil" or to being a "tare" or being called a "covenant breaker" (not in this thread) after spending 40 years trying to do everything right as a member is not just insulting, it's is just plain hurtful. If you want to learn something from Strong's book and from us as former members, how about you try learning that we are still pretty much the same people, that we didn't take this decision lightly, that it was a painful and terrifying experience, and that we are neither traitors nor enemies. Just as the stages of grief suggest, many of us may go through periods of anger and lashing out. Some may even become antagonistic. But the vast majority of just fade away and try our best to navigate family relationships, friendships, careers, and other daily concerns that are still impacted by the Church.

There are ways to make it comfortable. I have a pad that wraps around where it hits my neck. Used to get irritations there and was constantly pulling on it. Don’t even notice it anymore. This is just an example, not specifically recommending it. https://www.amazon.com/Universal-Comfortable-Backpack-Shoulder-Automotive/dp/B0C6DTT5MJ/

I will pass this on. They put a lot of work into trying to get this to work well each year. I am sure they will be happy that the result this year showed that effort.

He quotes the Bible that says flesh and blood are corrupt, but then allows flesh to be quickened even though it’s labeled as corrupt. Why not blood? I believe this is a case of him reasoning, not revelation as he is showing the reasoning he did. I think his reasoning is faulty to make that conclusion. Not claiming there is blood, my position is we don’t have enough info for that conclusion. I don’t believe we actually have that much info on our actual eternal physical bodies’ operation. What can be perceived and understood by mortal eyes even in a quickened state may be a very limited view of the reality. Blood is symbolic of life and is used to purify. We drink a symbol of blood as part of our purification/union with God ritual, the Sacrament. Why would blood be seen as inherently corrupt by God and yet he cleanses us of sin with his blood? I understand that blood is also a sign of mortality, which an be seen as a condition due to physical corruption. But the fact that is can symbolize both corruption and what purifies us of corruption indicates to me blood itself is not inherently corrupt.

No I didn't miss it. There is indeed a difference between a [T/T/C] glory and [T/T/C] kingdom. At least for me, the former is physics. The latter is a social scenario built upon/with/around that physics. Consequently, I can believe the Garden of Eden abided a Terrestrial glory but it is not the Terrestrial Kingdom. Even setting all that aside, that's a different question than whether an entire planet must be the same thing or whether or not there can be localized variations.

I do not doubt it. Lots of speculation, some horrible (past Old Testament study guide on creation) has been published in manuals. Thankfully the Church has been correcting that over time. Joseph Fielding Smith unfortunately presented some of his own speculation as doctrine and rejection of such as false doctrine when even that speculation contradicted previous prophets’ positions or at least were extensively published under their direction. So while I recognized it has been taught and likely still is, I see no reason to accept it as truth myself since it is not consistently or logically explained. Nor is my salvation dependent on that detail. https://benspackman.com/2023/08/the-power-of-good-historiography-or-how-joseph-fielding-smith-unwittingly-undermined-joseph-fielding-smith/ This talk was also given in the Tabernacle, iirc. I can accept Joseph Fielding Smith as prophet and still believe he taught some false doctrine. He established that precedent for me. (See bold in quote)

That was a smart thing to say as his body would become a projectile capable of seriously injuring or killing any passengers in a bad wreck. I don’t understand the no seatbelt thing either. I’ve known three people who died or were forever disabled as teens in wrecks the otherwise would have probably walked away from. And any adult who doesn’t wear a seatbelt in a car with kids is missing some brain cells.

Google says that’s a liquor. (Added: Chat agrees with you) This is what it gave me старший starshiy https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/старший Chat gave a different word last night. I will see if I can find it. added: here’s the appraisal of the claim by Chat: ”The usual Russian LDS translation of Elder is старейшина (stareyshina). The ordinary Russian meaning is essentially “elder,” “senior/respected member,” or “leader of a community.” It comes from the root associated with being old/eldest. Russian dictionaries do not give “wizard” or “magician” as a meaning. There is another Russian word, старец (starets), meaning an old/respected man and, particularly, a religious elder, monk, or spiritual guide. That’s a very important word in Russian Orthodox culture because of the tradition of the starets—a spiritually gifted elder regarded as having unusual wisdom or insight”

It has the connotation of wise spiritual leader according to wiki (I checked after I posted, but forgot to add that. Not surprising it got misinterpreted for them, maybe someone thought wizard meant wise one….or maybe a Russian was teasing them or maybe it was wishful thinking by an elder that wanted something besides religious and national prejudice to explain the evil eye signs and harassment. Just being obviously Americans preaching an American faith (in Russians’ view) was more than enough to explain that behaviour from my own experience.

The concern is not some things of God are hard and we should be open to them. The concern is that not all hard things are of God, and sometimes maybe we are open to some of those things when we shouldn't be. This may especially be a problem if the thing is in the scriptures or taught/practiced by leaders. Not all that find some hard practies against their morals are turning away from God. Some are turning to God. Shorty is saying that we have to be careful in deciding where we are turning to God and where we are justifying.

The remarkable thing is that they think they’re somehow glorifying God when they assert that men are incapable of being filled with all the fullness of God, but in reality they’re actually asserting that the infinite and eternal God somehow lacks the power to perfect his own creation. And what possible justification could there be for God not wanting to perfect his children whom he created in his own image? Why would he want to prevent them from being just as happy, enlightened and glorious as he is? 16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. 20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, (Ephesians 3)

Back when we lived in Kansas, my husband attended a very tragic funeral of a three year old. Everyone else was strapped in but her. She was dancing and laughing in the backseat seat having a blast and entertaining everyone. Mom was only going ten miles an hour due to slow traffic but a car crossed the line, also not going that fast, and there was a head on (obviously not a full one, more corners hitting iirc). I think the combined speed was only 20, 25 mph. The kid just got jerked in the wrong way and snapped her neck. You can just never really predict when it’s going to get dangerous. Keep those seatbelts on and kids in their car seats.

The trickster Loki? As I mentioned earlier, our missionaries were recently teaching a man who seemed happy with what he was being taught, until he was taught the Word of Wisdom and about tithing. Then he was gone. Is there something wrong with those two things? I remember a new convert in my mission who stopped attending because of something that was taught in that year's priesthood manual (back in 1973). It must have violated his sense of morality and ethics. Should the Lord give up on his "tricks"? The commandments of God are full of things that people just can't handle. Morally and ethically repugnant? By whose morals, and whose ethics? Jesus started teaching something in his mortal ministry that caused many of his followers to leave him. After the feeding of the 5,000 he began to be followed by huge crowds, who were no doubt waiting for the next mass miracle. He entered a synagogue in Capernaum on the Sabbath (John 6:59), and taught the following to the Jews and disciples gathered. "I am the living bread, which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is even My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world . . . Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves" (John 6:51, 53). Those assembled to worship God were shocked and offended at what they heard (John 6:60). They were well aware that God commanded ancient Israel to not eat blood even if it was in a clean animal killed for food (Leviticus 7:26 - 27, 17:10 - 15). They also knew that God promised to punish, severely, those who knowingly broke this prohibition. They were morally and ethically offended at Jesus's teaching. Word of what Jesus said in the synagogue quickly spread to others who had followed him into Capernaum. They too found his statements absurd, unbelievable and offensive. Their lack of understanding led them to leave, to no longer associate with him or acknowledge he was the Messiah. "Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?" Even the Apostles were shaken by this. Jesus detected this and the following ensued: "Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." [John 6:67-69 Why did Jesus do this? Was he simply exercising his Loki side? No. It appears that the Lord chose to make his statements when he did because he knew it would winnow out those who did not have their minds open to the truth, who would ultimately reject his message. Those who heard Jesus' statements completely misunderstood his words. They interpreted them in a literal fashion, believing he was crazy for condoning what amounted to cannibalism! Are you going to winnow yourself out because of your preconceived morality and ethics? Will you allow the Lord to take you only so far, but no farther?

The Russian word for "Elder" is Старейшина (Stareyshina). I've never heard of it having any connotation along the lines of "magician." I think Russians view us as an "American" church, and therefore bad or suspect. Given the sociocultural influence of the Russian Orthodox Church... Thanks, -Smac

And what scripture would this be? I can't count myself as well-read in scripture as many others, but I don't believe I've ever read anything that corresponds to what you are saying here. He takes Isaiah 43:10 out of its context of decrying idol worship and thinks there is a "before" and "after" to an eternal God, where it says "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me". What does "before" or "after" mean to an eternal God? Obviously that's referring to the context of Israel as God's witnesses, as it says in verse 12: "I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God." When God declared himself to Israel at a time "when there was no strange god" among them, there is no other god formed to be the God of Israel either before or after that time. It says nothing against other gods existing, nor does it contradict God's plan for others to become like he is. God gives his glory to those who follow him (John 17:20-23) and has them sit with him on his throne (as you pointed out) in Revelation 3:21.

Did you miss Teddyaware's post immediately before your post? Please have a look.

My stake president served his mission in Russia, but not near where this occurred. He spent most of his time in Siberia.

I'm sad to hear that you can't attend! I would have loved to attend myself, but it isn't quite worth an 8 hour airplane ride. For the past few years I've bought the streaming pass to the conference, but I was not able to remember to watch them live. Add to that handicap the fact that I'm 7 hours ahead of it, and some of the talks happen very late for me here in the UK. But this year I made myself remember to watch at least a couple of them live. So I watched Dan Peterson live for the first time in my life! I do have to say that the streaming was very well done this year. In some prior years it was difficult to access, and there were technical issues with the audio. But this year was excellent.

I had a very scary experience that taught me to always wear a seatbelt. It was in 1979 when I was in the Army at Ft. Lewis. I was driving my Ford Pinto on post, alone on a totally clear road. I decided to change the station on the radio I was listening to. I reached over, started twiddling with the radio dial. Something made me look up, and there stopped in the road was another car I had not seen, about to make a left turn. There was no time to slam on the brakes -- or so it seemed. By reflex I got both hands on the steering wheel and zagged around him off the road (there was no curb). Completely zonked out, I drove just a bit further to a gas station, pulled in, and had a quiet panic attack. I had not been wearing a seatbelt. If I had hit him at the speed limit, 30 mph, I probably would have died. From then on I never, ever, never failed to put on my seatbelt. A number of years later I was driving up to the Seattle Temple, and an older brother in my ward was going to be traveling with me. He got into my car, and I waited for him to put on his seatbelt. He didn't. I asked him about it, and he said the stupidest thing I could imagine in this circustance, which was he didn't believe in them, and if we had an accident he would prefer to be "thrown clear" of the wreck, not trapped inside. I told him that if he didn't wear a seatbelt in my car, he could find another ride, or walk. He grumpily did so.

Every year it seems like Utah drivers are ranked worst in the nation and it's just weird. They aren't just aggressive and reckless, they are mean! They would rather you both die in a fiery crash than let you merge sometimes. One thing that I think causes some problems is the length of the yellow lights. They are really long, trying to get through as many people as possible I'm guessing, but it gives people a false sense of security I think. When people see one but are still a ways away from the intersection they often still continue at their regular speed or even start to go faster. I have been guilty of that myself. Wyoming (with much much less traffic) has really short yellow lights and when we first moved back we were constantly running red lights because we were still in the mindset of a yellow light meaning to speed up so you can get through, not prepare to stop.

I have finally found where JFSjr got the "no blood in immortal bodies" thing. Two places in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith: "God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. "Our God is a consuming fire." When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood in this tabernacle." "As concerning the resurrection, I will merely say that all men will come from the grave as they lie down, whether old or young; there will not be "added unto their stature one cubit," neither taken from it; all will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood."

I'm glad that you can at least admit that much. And what scripture would this be? I can't count myself as well-read in scripture as many others, but I don't believe I've ever read anything that corresponds to what you are saying here. And on the contrary, the Book of Revelation seems to say otherwise. To him who overcometh, Christ invites him to sit with Him in His throne, even as He is set with the Father in His. Sounds precariously close to a direct denial of what you have written here. Rev. 3:21

If church history is ever an obstacle for someone in their faith I would highly highly recommend the Church History Matters podcast. They cover all the hard topics and they lay it all on the line. Someone somewhere once said that too often we too often make thick conclusions based on thin evidence. This podcast provides all the evidence anyone could possibly want as they try to figure out what our history means for our faith.

The Florida statute is not about that. It absolutely is about that. I appreciate that you have strong feelings about this, but the statute has no religious component. It's not in the language of the statute. The folks who filed a lawsuit challenging it appeared to not even attempt to make such an argument about the statute. I think we have addressed this a few times now. We have both laid out what we think of the Florida statute. The statute is about protecting children from exposure to sexually explicit live adult performances. I don't see that this has much to do with abstractions about parents' efforts to have their children "find their own path back to God." I generally do not find it difficult to understand that parents hold different views about how to raise their children, including matters of belief, culture, and exposure to the wider world. Reasonable people disagree about those questions, and a pluralistic society has to make room for that disagreement. The Florida statute, however, is not an attempt to impose a single religious or cultural upbringing. It does not dictate what books parents may read to their children, what movies they may watch at home, what conversations they may have, or what path a child may ultimately take in matters of faith or identity. It addresses a narrower issue: whether commercial venues may admit minors to live performances that meet a specific legal definition of sexual conduct. Parental rights are important, but they have never been treated as absolute in every context. Long-standing limits already exist on what parents may authorize for minors: entry into adult entertainment venues, provision of alcohol, certain medical procedures, and so on. The statute operates in that same tradition in that it draws a boundary around a particular category of commercial activity rather than placing broad parental judgment under state control. One can debate whether the line is drawn in the right place. That is a fair policy discussion. That said, I think framing the law as an effort to force a “narrow upbringing” or to prevent children from finding their own path mischaracterizes what the statute actually does. I appreciate your input and observations. Thanks, -Smac