All Activity

It hasn't been easy, also had a few friends go back to their home country despite being US citizens. Irony, their standard of living went up by quite a bit. I see myself following in their footsteps in a few years, me and mine have never been treated well by the greater mainland culture. I don't see it improving either, is what it is..

I'm glad to see you. I've been worried about you.

I still wander in here from time to time, mostly to lurk. I gave up on engaging most English speaking places a while ago now, Covid was it for me, besides having to use ublock/privacy apps it's just too much. I've had a presence here for a while, looking at it now this board looks quite sane. I'm actually quite pleased, compared to a lot of other places there's still civility here and a shared reality.

I misspoke about King Herod sending them with gifts to find the baby Jesus. Thanks for better clarification Calm. I do remember now a story much like these scriptures I looked up. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 2&version=KJV

About 50 years ago when I was the ward finance clerk, before computers, the Bishop let my wife type out the Sunday donations forms(in triplicate) each week. She was a faster and better typist than me.

And it’s pretty well established that legal protections increase family stability. Removes sources of conflict and anxiety for both adults and children. People are going to poly whether it is recognized or not, so for the best interest of the children involved, it seems logical to establish legal protections to maximize what stability there is. Gone are the days social stigma was enough to keep people in even in the most abusive marriages. Never was strong enough to keep men that faithful. Fear of poverty, losing rights to their children worked for women as long as they were treated as children themselves, property of either their father or husband. Want to promote so called traditional marriage (labeling it traditional just because there’s a man and woman involved doesn’t make sense to me since culture and technology has pretty much changed so much of the other characteristics)? Makes more sense to approach it by removing the biggest contributors to instability, especially financial stress. Provide counseling and education to lower divorce rates. Remove the need for any parent to be long absent from their home just so they can get a decent paying job or even if living together, not interacting with each other because needing to work long hours to survive. (There is also the imo foolish setup of school hours that works more as babysitting than maximizing learning.) Remove marriage penalties that lower rates of assistance or raises taxes if persons from lower income levels gets married. Let people be confident they will be able to afford a stable, safe home for their family, that they will have time off from work for pregnancy if necessary and paternity leave plus assurance they can get effective medical care for themselves and their children and that they will be able to feed and care for all their children no matter what happens and they will likely have more. If you want a parent in the home raising children, then make it possible to live on one income. Highly unlikely pointing at others, insisting those people must not be allowed to marry or anything similar to it and no way should the community help them with babies and children they shouldn’t have had in the first place (even if abortion was also removed as a choice) is somehow magically going to make other people want to cuddle up in male-female pairs with government approval and pop kids out. https://community.lawschool.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Sheff-et-al.-final.pdf https://vanierinstitute.ca/families-count-2024/polyamorous-families-have-broadened-family-law/ Create a family friendly, family supportive environment rather than a community where parents feel they are walking a tight rope. https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eurpop/v29y2013i4d10.1007_s10680-013-9295-4.html https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304020356_The_Influence_of_Family_Policies_on_Fertility_in_France_Lessons_from_the_Past_and_Prospects_for_the_Future https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6286255/

So I was wrong…it wasn’t a writer taking liberty with the story to make it more dramatic. It is appropriate to the story, one of the many, apparently, misinterpretations by the Herdsmen children. Got this from Chat: In answer to “who is the king they think gave the presents”:

Because that is a creative interpretation. The actual scriptures identify them as coming from the treasure chests of the magi, nothing about Herod giving gifts. Now Herod could have given them stuff they then added to their treasure chests or “their” could have meant in their stewardship. That Herod gave the chests for them to carry. But a more natural interpretation imo you don’t have to squint hard and pencil in words to read between the lines to see is they brought their own treasures to worship the child. I double-checked my memory. Matthew appears to be the only reference to that.

Decent work as a mainstream Protestant devotional analyzing Matthew 15:21–28. But for your purposes, this specific devotional could be a polemical subtext using a Protestant interpretation of grace and exclusivity to implicitly critique LDS theology or culture. As non-LDS in LDS spaces frequently share Protestant devotionals to contrast "Biblical Christianity" with what they view as LDS errors. (Not that you shouldn't tell us what you think is meaningful to you, just beware that I feel a certain "Trojan horse" approach to your style of apologetics, so forgive me if I sometimes falsely say so.) In Part 2, the author criticizes the disciples for acting like they were upgraded to "Jesus class" while looking down on outsiders, citing Ephesians 2:14 "destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility". Critics often argue that LDS temples, the priesthood, or the concept of there being the "one true church" creates an elitist "in-group" vs. "out-group" barrier that contradicts New Testament grace. It heavily emphasizes undeserved favor (grace) and states that the woman had no "rights and privileges" yet was accepted purely through her recognition of Jesus. Another critique of LDS theology is that Latter-day Saints rely on obedience, ordinances, and personal worthiness to "earn" salvation, rather than relying solely on Christ's grace. "Great faith is relying solely on Jesus and no one, nowhere, and nothing else" in Part 4, could be a subtle jab at LDS reliance on living prophets, temples, and an institutional church as ones and wheres. The story highlights an outsider bypassing religious gatekeepers (the disciples who wanted to send her away) and going straight to Jesus. Critics use this narrative framework to argue that individuals do not need an institutional priesthood to access Christ. Notice that the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15 received physical healing as an act of mercy available to outsiders described as "crumbs from the table". However, immediately following this in Matthew 16-18, Jesus shifts focus exclusively to His inner circle, the Keys of the Kingdom (Matt. 16:19), ascending the Mount of Transfiguration for an endowment with only three apostles and commanding strict secrecy (Matt. 17:1-9), and conferring binding priesthood authority upon the Twelve (Matt. 18:18). Protestant devotionals often flattens God’s mercy and grace as freely extended to all (like the Canaanite woman), ignoring instances of covenants, keys, and temple mysteries entrusted progressively to initiated stewards who are prepared to bear them. If the Canaanite woman highlights how freely Christ extends mercy to outsiders, that’s true. What it leaves out is what Jesus does after to establish strict priesthood boundaries, secret teachings, and temple-style initiation for His inner circle. Jesus did not teach everything openly to the public. He explicitly told His inner circle, "To you has been given the secret [musterion] of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables" (Mark 4:11). Paul continues this exact framework, distinguishing between spiritual "babes" who only receive elementary principles (Hebrews 5:12–6:2) and the mature (teleios, "complete/initiated"). "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect [teleios]... we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery [musterion], even the hidden [apokekrymmenen] wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory" (1 Corinthians 2:6-7). In the first-century world, musterion and teleios were standard terms for sacred initiation into guarded rites not preached to the general public. Found throughout scripture. Jesus' endowment in 2 Peter 1:16-18, Peter writes, "We were eyewitnesses of His majesty... when we were with Him on the holy mountain." The Greek word Peter chooses for "eyewitnesses" is epoptai, the technical term used in ancient sacred rites for initiates admitted to the highest grade. Grace and mercy are freely offered to everyone who comes to Christ, just like the Canaanite woman. But the New Testament makes it clear that priesthood keys and the higher mysteries of God belong to entrusted and faithful stewards.

It is actually very popular amongst LDS. I don’t think it is reasonable. I really think if God felt strongly about it He should have just said so instead of doing a bit of childish winking and hinting about it.

Not something I am familiar with either. I am presuming the movie may indicate, that has the Magi travelled through Jerusalem on the way to Bethel. Herod asked for the gifts to be given. Unless there is any basis for this, then it may have been added to the script. 🤔

Sounds like a good movie! Does it say that in the bible? I've never heard that either.

Dan just put out a short video promoting two books, and one of them is the Mormonism in Five Minutes book I posted about above. And he's doing a giveaway the Mormonism book in case anyone wants to try for it Here's the link to the video: Two new books & a giveaway! #maklelan3558

No, I don’t. Thank you for your candor. I didn't ask if the construction/interpretation of the is popular, but rather if it is reasonable. Thanks, -Smac

That is my concern, yes. Denial: "It’s not happening at all." Downplaying: "Okay, it might be happening a little bit, but it’s no big deal." Rationalization: "Yes, it’s happening, and actually, that’s a good thing." Moral/Social Shaming: "You're a bigot/idiot/conspiracy theorist for having a problem with it." Looks like we're at Step 2. Slippery slope. Camel's nose in the tent. Actually, I think that is the question. Were it not an incremental step toward group marriage, I wouldn't care about it. LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-11-03/in-triad-foursome-west-hollywood-will-register-your-relationship "Complex" in terms of . . . what? Wehoonline: https://wehoonline.com/west-hollywood-polyamory-law-throuples/ Men's Journal: https://www.mensjournal.com/sex-relationships/california-city-now-lets-throuples-register-as-domestic-partners Thanks, -Smac

I honestly prefer the version in the Gospel of Mark.

No advice...sorry. I'm similar to you but no PhD, haha. I want to go back to church, but the reasons are purely for community and I did enjoy doing some service, and was a former temple recommend holder and active for many many years. I hope you get it figured out and welcome to the MDDB. 🙂

Loved, loved "The Best Christmas Pageant Ever". I had no idea how good this would be. Just happened to see it on Netflix and gave it a shot. I hope others here may want to give it a try with the holiday or Christmas festivities beginning. P.S. Because I watched this movie, why is it the first time I learned the gold, frankincense, and myrrh from the wiseman or "Magi", was because King Herod sent them??

No, I don’t. That is an implied reading that only became popular when the Church started really intently mimicking other Christians on the topic of abortion and went looking for prooftexts and couldn’t find one but you could sort of stretch that one verse to possibly be about abortion if you assume abortion is a lot like killing so they started using it as the best thing they had. It isn’t very good but doctrines have been established on much more shaky grounds both before and since. I do find it kind of silly since the LDS church’s stances on abortion have been very malleable and fall in line in each era with ‘what the world thinks’. Brigham Young was preaching Victorian norms on abortion and childbirth. Early Saints accepted the ‘quickening”. Then when the evangelicals got upset that the government was going to make them end segregation in their taxpayer supported schools and realized that abortion would make a good wedge issue to fight over and fundraise from since racism was becoming a harder sell they ran with it and the LDS Church jumped in line and followed. Also I hear all the time about how the Book of Mormon and D&C are for our day but it doesn’t seem very prescient about the issues facing our day. Instead the Church lurches with cultural norms from supposedly apostate Christianity and worldly mores. Where is the revelation?

If you can answer the temple recommend questions honestly in affirmative without prevaricating, I don’t believe you have to believe all the traditional beliefs. They aren’t specifying a certain set of details when it comes to testimony and there is nothing stopping them from adding those details if they felt it was necessary. There is nothing requiring a belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Sustaining does not equate to obeying and accepting everything last thing they say as inerrant. Kevin Christensen has posted on this in an insightful way on the board. A search on sustain should bring it up if any were in this last year, otherwise Google AI might be the easiest. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/26-temple-recommends?lang=eng Being honest and paying a full tithe might be the most difficult based on the circumstances you mentioned here If you are giving up on BYU, then the honest question could be resolved as long as you are honest with how much tithing you are paying. Added: I don’t know your views of the Atonement, the Restoration, etc. of course. I think a basic acceptance that Joseph was given priesthood keys somehow to restore the Church and these keys are passed down, currently held by President Oaks is necessary. I don’t see a requirement to believe God didn’t inspire others in similar ways even if our President is the only one authorized to exercise all the keys. What the temple recommend questions absolutely require would be an interesting discussion to have. Could God have given others some of the keys without a public hierarchy with the President of the Restored Church administering those keys, overseeing their use? Temple Recommend Interview Questions Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost? Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of His role as your Savior and Redeemer? Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ? Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local leaders of the Church? The Lord has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before Him (Doctrine and Covenants 42:41). Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior? Do you obey the law of chastity? Do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others? Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Do you strive to keep the Sabbath day holy, both at home and at church; attend your meetings; prepare for and worthily partake of the sacrament; and live your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel? Do you strive to be honest in all that you do? Are you a full-tithe payer? For new members seeking a recommend to perform proxy baptisms and confirmations: Are you willing to obey the commandment to pay tithing? Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom? (This question is omitted when interviewing a child or youth.) Do you have any financial or other obligations to a former spouse or to children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations? (This question is omitted when interviewing a member who is not endowed.) Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple? (This question is omitted when interviewing a member who is not endowed.) Do you honor your sacred privilege to wear the garment as instructed in the initiatory ordinances? (Read the “Wearing the Temple Garment” statement, included below, to each member.) Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance? Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?

So your problem isn’t with the law itself which just lets poly people get visiting rights in hospitals and prisons but that you think this could lead to “group marriage”? You realize that almost no one would have noticed this really minor ordinance until the media empire you feed from blasted this all over everything as a scare tactic and potentially to start yet another moral panic since the last ones have fallen flat. So the real question isn’t “where will this lead”. It would have gone nowhere except that conservative media outlets want to energize their base to fight yet another grave moral threat because the last few have flopped.

I don't think anyone is saying this. We are saying one should only go if you can answer the questions honestly. If you can, then go. If not, then I don't reccomend going, but recognize it is your choice, not mine.

Surveys and informal studies? What? Also the age 25 thing about full brain maturity is very badly misrepresented in popular culture far beyond what the data actually showed.

Not at all. If you can obtain a temple recommend by honestly answering all of the questions then that is what matters. But you've already said that you won't wear the garments as instructed (which is a temple recommend question) and also won't pay a full tithing (another temple recommend question). I'm not sure where you land on the other questions as you haven't mentioned your stance on those. You don't have to believe all of the beliefs or do all the things to go to the temple but you do have to believe and do the specific things required in the temple recommend interview.

I don't think that's a good reason. I'd also be surprised if your parents wanted you in the temple with them under those circumstances. I have a son that doesn't have a temple recommend and I'd much much rather he not go than lie so he could go. (no harsh tone intended in any of my posts)