All Activity

I have edited my previous post on this sleepless Thursday morning. The reason is that I felt that upon re-reading it, I could make more plain to Teddy and other LDS what I was trying to say. I will add here that it is almost necessary to at least somewhat "like" a teaching before giving any faith claim a fair hearing. If you read this Teddy, I appreciate your remark above that you liked the LDS plan "better". Do we know of anyone who believes reluctantly? Who knows of someone who is familiar with a belief system that they like better than another, but have forced themselves to embrace something for which they have less preference? I know I haven't done that. I came to believe in Catholicism only after I began to like it first. Over the years, I have become familiar with this passage somewhere in the Book of Mormon (BOM) which appears to assert that if Christians believe in infant baptism, it is because that means that they also believe that unbaptized babies will be damned to an unjust Hell. If that were true, who could like it? I understand opposition to such a cruel doctrine. Thankfully, it is a teaching that St. Augustine has had to retract in spirit prison or in Heaven! He taught that at one point in his life, maybe assuming the reasoning that appears in the text of the BOM, as the reason why in ancient America, infant baptism was practised. But everybody should recognize that it doesn't necessarily follow that infant baptism implies what Augustine once taught. The Catholic Church never accepted it, probably sensing that it would be impossible for anyone to love God and proclaim His goodness, if He approved of that to happen to dead babies. There is little said directly about the condition of unbaptized children in our deposit of faith, EXCEPT, that we are always to trust in God's goodness. God is definitely good. That is enough for the Church to reject Augustine's teaching, and that problem is resolved. We haven't talked about infant baptism for a long time. For some time now, whenever we have, I have suggested a solution to the dilemma that solved my indignation at being thought to hold that dead babies go to Hell, without declaring the BOM to be false in asserting what some in ancient America believed. Since the BOM is not considered a revelation of what was happening in present day America, I said it was plausible that such a horrendous teaching had taken root in ancient BOM America. At the same time, I also insisted that Latter-day Saints would be mistaken if they thought that infant baptism necessarily implies that a baby that is unbaptized necessarily goes to an horrible Hell. As I briefly explained in my previous post, the Catholic faith insists that God is not limited to salvation through the Sacraments. That solution I have offered does not enable us to believe the same things. But it seems to me like it can resolve tensions about whether the Catholic belief out side the historical BOM times and landscape, could begin to be thought somewhat likable, without despising it as evil, before we could even discuss it. I fear that what we have seen in this current thread is a similar situation where an LDS party, who is probably one of many, not knowing the Catholic teaching perfectly, are hindered from even considering embracing a religion that has a teaching that they find distasteful compared to what they already have. If one religion has a teaching so inferior to another as to perceive belief in a God that does not give everyone sufficient grace to be saved, one would be rightly inclined to dislike it, and refuse to even consider its teaching. If even one doctrine is repulsive, the whole religion is impossible to embrace. I will also say this with all sincerity. To be misinformed about another religion is not necessarily a culpable offense. It can be. But God alone knows. God will never punish anyone for hating horrible teachings that have been mistakenly attributed to whatever true religion there is. To sum up, I recognize that no one can embrace a religion that they do not at least like. I am not dogmatic about it, but I think most intellects are not so disciplined as to be capable of such an activity, and will almost always work out ways to find an unlikable proposition to be false. I do not merely like the Catholic faith in its totality. I love it. I believe that it is the best news that the poor children of Adam, could ever hear. It is better by far than if Adam had never fallen, and I think we sort of agree with LDS on this? Adam's fall, becomes in Christ, Adam's felix culpa, a "happy fault", for which we should rejoice continually in gladness, wonder, and adoration! I will appreciate and try to reply to any comments, unless I dislike them. J/K. Heh. Rory Disclaimer: I am not saying my attachment to the Catholic faith is superior to that of anybody in another religion. I am just in a moment of praise that comes irregularly. I do not compare likes and loves. But I think "like", after long years of meditation and life experience, may be properly expressed as love. Everyone's journey is unique. Perfect for a particular soul that God loves in a particular way. For me, it is because I have truly been such a bad Catholic, that I think I recognize now much more than ever, that my failure may have contributed to how and why my "like" has become love. No...I am not going to to try prove how bad I am. That is between my good God and me. He is perfectly wise and wonderful, and tender, and everything...and He knows us better than we know ourselves. I have to shut up. I need to take the grandkids to school pretty soon! What a wonderful life. May we all be saved and have more time to talk on an even better day.

Nor did the wives have the option to marry each other or to marry another man. It is because polygyny is misogynistic. You do realize that you ascribing licentiousness and embedded infidelity as an assumed motive and purpose for poly/enm is exactly what the rest of the US did about plural marriage right? There is no real difference there. Also that is not what poly is “mostly about”. And saying that sincere religious beliefs somehow makes it better is just asinine and you know it. The Mormon fundamentalists, Islam, and the growing (but still small) return to polygyny by some Christians does not somehow make what they are doing morally better or purer. Divorce rates are down and still falling. Why are you screaming about the sky is falling? Pregnancy is down but the biggest decrease has been in teen pregnancies. What is the problem? Do you just have a need to blame the gays or the asexuals or the poly people or the furries or the childfree or whatever outside of the mainstream weirdos your culture war masters tell you are the problem this time? If marriage is falling apart most marriages are cishet ones. Why are you targeting the “freaks” who have minimal impact? This is an ongoing pattern for you. To quote President Uchtdorf: “STOP IT!”

Yes. I think that could happen. Not sure it will. I don't think so. Polygamy was very different from polycules. The wives were not married to each other. I have elsewhere explained my difficult in viewing marriage as divinely instituted (though in the end, I do believe it). One is mostly about licentiousness and and embedded infidelity, and the other was not. One is not based in sincere religious belief, and the other was. I see a number of differences. I think much has been done to deconstruct and damage marriage as an institution. Severing sex from marriage. Severing sex from children. Severing marriage from God. Severing marriage from children. Radically re-defining marriage. Thanks, -Smac

That's a fair question. I think the members of the Church genuinely believed that they were following God's law. Eventually they stopped, but only after much pressure and tribulation and - in my view - revelation. I think that can be a reasonable inference, but I'm not sure I can competently speak as to God's expectations on this matter. I think God commands us to do, or not do, certain things. Broadly and overwhelmingly, these things are congruent with the laws of the land. There can, of course, be exceptions. Like most Christian traditions, Latter-day Saint teaching can perhaps accommodate the idea that if a civil law directly conflicts with a clear command of God, God’s command takes precedence (classic biblical examples include Daniel, Shadrach/Meshach/Abednego, and the apostles in Acts 5:29, and then there are the "Jews in the Attic"-style questions). This principle was explicitly invoked during the polygamy period, when Church leaders and members argued that plural marriage was a divine commandment that superseded anti-bigamy statutes until the 1890 Manifesto discontinued the practice. To my knowledge, there is no other comparable episode in which the Church as an institution promulgated or practiced a general divine command for members to disobey civil law. So polygamy was very much an outlier, perhaps comparable to Abraham's Sacrifice. Why not? Isn't this situation a moral dilemma? Obey God or obey the law of the land? If secular law prohibits a moral thing (hiding Jews from the Nazis), or compels an immoral thing (disclosing the whereabouts of Jews to the Nazis), then people of good conscience have and can run into this sort of problem. The Fugitive Slave Act. Jim Crow. Apartheid. Some good historical examples of this. Apart from polygamy, I can't think of a time when this has happened to the Latter-day Saints. Happy to consider examples. I think folks like you and Mustard often impute motives and sentiments onto me which I do not hold or harbor. I think disagreement is often construed as not "listening." I think nuanced answers and assessments are sometimes seen as evasive. Sometimes, though, the question suffers from the "complex question fallacy" (also known as the fallacy of many questions, plurium interrogationum, or a loaded question), which occurs when someone asks a question that builds in an unproven, disputed, or false assumption. A direct "yes" or "no" (or any straightforward reply) forces the respondent to inadvertently agree to the hidden claim. I think I try to answer directly and honestly and clearly in most circumstances. I have attempted that here. Thanks, -Smac

We really shouldn’t be giving you advice on your own spiritual experiences, even identifying whether or not it was spiritual or a result of biology, whether drugs or brain chemistry (I have had both spiritual experiences—no angels, but revelation—and chemistry caused, the medical one was very intense and left me terrorized). Maybe talk to your bishop about it or someone else you trust. If you have any medical issues, maybe talk to your doctor to rule out possible issues there.

Good morning everyone in the forums, I have recently recieved a revelation that i believe to have been from possibly an angel? It was terrifying and I hated it. Anyone else know about this? I am not sure if this one was an angel or maybe a devil? It was an very horrifying apparation to my eyes. Sorry for the confusion to my fellow LDS members, Thank you - I didn't want it (Drawing of my experience attached blow)

Define adamant. 🤣 Hes not going to return to answer this without a runaround. Why we try is a mystery to me.

I think in this day and age when we have had examples of polygyny on reality TV it’s obvious that it’s very complicated, more so than monogamy. I think LDS often had this image of a husband that can manage effectively however many relationships he has because his romantic relationship in each moment is only one woman, also committed to the principle, either isolated from the women and therefore experiencing marriage as pretty much a monogamous one with her husband’s attention fully on her, giving the family his all while there or living in a community of loving and cooperative women who take care of everything, including other wives’ children so they can have a career, with the husband’s contributions is making money, being a father to all his children in the home, and rotating nights through his wives…in both everything is well regimented, the husband never showing unequal affection, etc, because that wouldn’t be fair. There can also be a mix….but again everything can be agreed upon and balanced because the marriage relationships are predictable and ordered and it’s only one person moving from one spouse to another. Basically, it’s just a man who is in multiple traditional, monogamous marriages, the relationship between the women uncomplicated by sharing the same man, not much different than a group of sisters living with their families in a family home. Not saying there wasn’t recognition that there were issues for many, but that would be because they weren’t doing it right, not because issues are inherent to the system. I remember sharing very few details about daily life outside a superficial, pretty idealized version, but we were proud and excited because it made us different (not growing up in Utah) to have ancestors participating in plural marriage. OTOH, in my experience LDS imagined polyamorous relationships as a free for all, unpredictable and disorganized with expectations all over the place and therefore prone to conflict, jealousy, neglect, etc. The kids wouldn’t even know who their parents were or at least their father (paternity testing was already at 80% accuracy in the 60s and 70s apparently, so I guess that was more emotional knowledge that biological or maybe it was still expensive and hippies would never have enough money or care enough to test). It was also grouped into hippies and free love and seen as highly unstable, people coming and going. Onlookers can’t easily determine who belongs to whom….meaning for many which women and children belong to which man. Turmoil for adults, trauma for the kids. There is also the still existing nonsense bias that men are less emotional*** and inherently more rational, more clearheaded, big picture than women, so having multiple relationships won’t be overwhelming for him or unfair to the women while women at their core only want one deep, romantic relationship and as long as they have that, they are willing to sacrifice anything for it, including sharing their husband. So one man in many relationships with women can be workable, but allowing the women to have multiple relationships isn’t what they actually want or can handle and therefore is doomed to failure. Add in any homosexual hints and massive eewww factor in the past, which still hangs around for many. Perhaps some LDS still see such a significant difference between the two styles. *** as opposed to less socially expressive about emotions than women…except for when it comes to anger and aggression that is and then they are the ones that shine…at least in social, traditional relationships.

SMAC started this thread about a city that recognizes weddings to multiple partners and warning that it could lead to more legalization of group marriages and what he believes could be the possible outcome of such a law. I find this interesting given that the Church once commanded such marriages. I was simply trying to understand how he could be so concerned about multiple marriages, though slightly different, and his own beliefs about the nature of polygamy. Everything you brought up could have been expressed in his first answer. Instead he answers the question saying that polygamy was illegal at the time. (I think he could have realized that everyone reading my question knew that already. Personally, I find little daylight between group marriages and polygamy. I am trying to understand how a member of the Church could be so adamant against the possibility of a group marriage enough that he would start a thread about it and issues warning about what this might lead to.

Well at least you made an attempt to answer my question. It does bring up other questions that I would like your thoughts on. If it was against the law to practice polygamy and one of the basic tenants of Mormonism is to honor and obey kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates (do I have to reference the Articles of Faith here or do you know what I am referring to so you will know how basic that belief is/was?) When polygamy was against the law, why didn't the Church just stop practicing it since the Church expects us to follow the law of the land. Did God expect the members of the Church to directly go against the law of the land? Does God, at times, command us to continue to break the law? I'm not talking about lying to the Nazi hiding a Jew or other moral dilemmas. I am talking about a direct commandment that knowingly goes against an existing law of the land. Please try not to look for an answer that doesn't address this directly. I know it is a game you like to play, but it does erode trust that you are engaging in a good faith discussion like Mustard has pointed out.

Here I go again, and the current count is 249 channels. Something I have found interesting is that I started getting more such channels being recommended on YouTube after I pared down my very long list of channel subscriptions, eliminating most of those who post videos on political topics. I suppose this increase is due to my seeing more recommendations, with political ones being crowded out. I also started getting more anti-LDS channel recommendations, too!

My list of pro-LDS channels has now grown to 249 channels! Here's a recent channel discovery of mine: The Convert Devotionals, 109 videos, 860 subscribers. Host is Clare Thomas, whose spiritual journey started as a member the Church, left it, and came back -- then brought her non-member husband into the Church.

I was reading the list of posts and as I read the title of this thread I suddenly remembered a post in distant past by a man who hasn't been on the forum for several years. I can't quite remember his screen name, unfortunately. Though it may come to me later. Anyway, he's a member of the church who lives in a part of the world with a lot of religions, including Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and what have you. It seems like it is a country in southeast Asia. He posted once that he had been traveling on a subway route and on one of the platforms he found a man who had been seriously injured just laying on the platform and nobody was helping him. He went to the man to see what he could do, and did what he could to arrange transport to a hospital. While waiting for the ambulance, he spoke with the man who was in a great deal of distress, finding that he was a Muslim. Since the man was a believer in God, our poster asked him if he would like a priesthood blessing, to which assent was given. So he gave the man a blessing. I can't remember if in his post he said he knew the outcome of the blessing or the man's condition, since after he was taken to the hospital that was the last he saw of him.

'It’s time for us to move on’: Fairview mayor speaks on temple dispute as LDS church expands That's the title of the article, not mine.

A genuinely great person, who stepped up to the mark.

I can only imagine that. Sometimes all the hard things hit at once, don't they?

Dementia is heartbreaking for the caregivers (and for the family, but it’s so complicated emotionally when it’s in your head pretty much 24/7) Others with occasional contact may also see just the sweetness, childlike behavior with some sufferers, so they don’t understand the intense burden. The every day stuff is more likely to run into confusion, stubbornness, storytelling, childishness and more plus all the physical needs as well. Seeing the face, but not feeling the person is crushing in my experience. It was hard for me not to feel betrayed by this person who stole my mother. It felt like it happened overnight, like a changling. I hadn’t seen her much for a year or two before my dad died because we both had mobility issues and his death removed the mask she had managed even in extended phone conversation and pushed her off the cliff. Even 4 years of being the primary caregiver till she went into assisted living, I never could find my mom again. Your dad is a rockstar to take all those roles on and do it as well as it sounds.

My dad is awesome. My mom had dementia. He stepped into the role of full time care giver to her but also mom and dad for all his kids. It was so hard to have my mom there physically but not there mentally. That man is a rockstar.

But you do have Esau and Ishmael as violent hunters vs Jacob and Isaac as wise and faithful farmers. The Bible is not univocal, it would be surprising imo if it always portrayed hunting in a negative way.

There is only one passage in the Bible that directly depicts a lazy hunter, and even there, it serves as a literary illustration rather than a broad characterization of hunters. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs 12%3A27&version=NIV "The lazy do not roast any game, but the diligent feed on the riches of the hunt". This is a contrast, not a stereotype. The verse contrasts a lazy hunter with a diligent hunter, showing that hunting itself requires hard work and proper stewardship to be rewarding.

It's all been so hard on you. I'm glad your dad was there to comfort you.

In my opinion, we are absolutely puppets if God creates the change. God created life. Life creates change. We choose how we approach life and it affects who we become for better or worse. I accept that most people, especially in the church, believe that God intervenes. I do not believe this at all. But I do believe that he expects us to do our best with the dismal circumstances of our lives. Thank you for telling us this story. What a very difficult thing to endure- a pain that never diffuses. I watch people go through these kinds of losses and it’s heartbreaking the way some people navigate it, and in some ways, can it times be inspiring. Though I know nobody wants to sign up for that job to be someone else’s inspiration through pain. Thank you for sharing it

Thanks for this. Well said and thought provoking. Recently, we’ve been invited from the pulpit to share brief, Christ-centered testimonies (since, at times, some share testimonies that are neither brief nor Christ-centered) but what is shared is still a bit of a hodgepodge. As an attorney, “testimony” has a specific meaning for me centered around personal, firsthand knowledge. That meaning incorporates a level of personal truth. My testimonies tend to lean towards affirmations of scriptural promises shared with a personal experience of the fulfillment of the promise, e.g., I testify that God does reward those who diligently seek Him with comfort and direction… I know many others, both LDS and those of other faiths, could testify of that same truth and that the Spirit would confirm that truth to all who hear it with an open mind and heart.

The first paragraph on the LDS website about “Testimony” is as follows: “A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves His children; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s true Church on the earth; and that the Church is led by a living prophet today. With this foundation, a testimony grows to include all principles of the gospel.” I think I probably heard my first LDS testimony around 38 years ago. I may have heard hundreds since then. Almost all of them at some point in the testimony include a derivative of the word “truth,” something like “true.” There is a certain degree of similarity between the testimonies. They are something similar to a recitation that has a common wording or theme among Saints. It seems, according to this website page that there is indeed a certain form or format to what is included in an LDS testimony. This seems especially accurate when those testimonies are shared in a Sacrament service. This is an observation, not a criticism. Our former bishop gave me the ok to share my testimony in Sacrament service on more than a few occasions. I did so, perhaps more in a personal manner that is common among Evangelicals. I distinctly remember saying once in conclusion that I believed the LDS Church is a true church. No one ever rebuked me for my use of the indefinite article. My reason and question for starting this thread is to seek an understanding of what my LDS friends mean when they use the word “true” or “truth” in a personal testimony. I use the concept of a “personal testimony” because that is familiar to me. Along with that, I would suggest that the form of truth that is used in a public testimony is indeed a “personal truth”—true for the one delivering the testimony, but not necessarily true for all Christians. It appears that the LDS testimony is perhaps a statement of personal truth used in a communal sense. Does that make sense? Does it carry the modern sense of truth as “correct” or not “incorrect?” Perhaps the corollary question is then, is my testimony not truth in the sense that it is “incorrect” since I am not LDS, and not “correct?” Or is it better considered “revealed” truth? Truth as revealed to the testifier, which may not be revealed truth for me. Christ is the revelator. However, might He reveal differing truths to different people? I have also heard my LDS friends defend the singular validity of their truth by stating that “God is not a God of confusion.” That also seems to be a common learned concept. I guess we would have to dialogue about what needs to be the disagreement that arises to the point of "confusion." Somewhere, I remember hearing a talk on the necessary ingredients (my word) for a testimony to be complete. Is there a testimony that can be considered “complete?” I used “a” instead of “the” or “thee.” Did that make my testimony incomplete? Invalidate it altogether? Is the change from “a” to “the,” the more that the Saints want to add to what I already have and that which I bring to the table? Thanks to all for reading this and perhaps, responding as well. Navidad.

Thanks for the update Webbles.