All Activity

Context. What other meaning (metaphorical or otherwise) would justify using the word “virgin” here?

Why do you believe Doctrine and Covenants 132:61 refers to virgins as being women who have never had sexual relations?

Now that we have settled in, is the new program meeting the need? Reason I ask is the SS president cornered me after church to ask how I was doing with my calling (she’s pretty intense- so I kept it short. But I’ll expand here) My experience: 1. As a Sunday school teacher, prep is way easier for me. It’s also going well for my husband who is teaching deacons- mostly very autistic boys so the shorter time is a big relief. 2. My most significant observation is less evident emotion or depth. At my day job I’ve noticed in my therapy sessions that the real meat of the session begins at 40 minutes, as it takes about 10 settle in, 20 to separate from life’s distractions, and 30 to really start to open up. When I was a kid my mom always left RS with puffy eyes, I doubt that happens now in the 25 minute whiz class- I personally haven’t yet felt a big heart tug in class, Sunday school or RS. 3. I don’t find myself studying “more” than I did before mid week- that was the intent, as it was directed to us in our multiple trainings. Reduce the amount of time, put the emphasis on class discussion, expect people to become prepared. Which will require more study at home. As a teacher, I’m not experiencing the class coming any more prepared than they were before. The same people are showing up with comments. The class is basically run by the commenters. In my class, I take the final five minutes to share a principal because the comments in our class are generally people just sharing their random thoughts. I know I’m not supposed to “teach” anymore but I just can’t let the class be run by class members who just talk about their pets every week lol- Anyway- I’m not expecting anything to change. But after months of weekly training , which was excessive, here we are doing the thing and I’m wondering if it’s doing what it was supposed to do.

Odd that that Jesus never said one word about abortion. Not while alive. Not in an canonized modern revelation.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful answer. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your beliefs.

It, rightly so, makes us uncomfortable now but 'teenagers' as a concept didn't even exist until the early 1900s. You were pretty much an adult once you weren't a child anymore. The past was what it was and there isn't really any benefit to trying to fit it into our modern culture and current beliefs about minors. It doesn't change the past or how people in the past saw the world. We get more out of understanding the past correctly (so we can hopefully do better in the future) than we do trying to judge it.

He lied about his age because he was marrying so late (43 is very late to get married). And the book says "it does not appear that Arcadia's own youthfuless was the issue here". So her age was not the problem. Add a few more years to her and his age, and he would still be worrying about the age gap and his age at marriage (probably even worse since he would be near 50). The man does worry about ridicule, but not because of how young she is. Here's another quote from the book:

The Savior's More Sure Word of Prophecy gave Him the assurance that He was the Son of God. Peter, James and John received the assurance that they would have Eternal Life; receiving the Holy Spirit of Promise.

So, Jesus received the more sure word at baptism and Peter, James, and John received the same experience at the Transfiguration? They received the more sure word, the more sure word means being sealed unto eternal life in D&C 131:5, and Jesus went into the wilderness because He received this assurance? I'm not sure it all connects personally but maybe. Some of the psalm passages have a royal and temple-oriented framework rather than simply as isolated statements about Jesus' identity. Psalm 2 is commonly understood as a royal enthronement psalm. Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5, where Psalm 2:7 is applied to Christ is because he is also an anointed Davidic king. "Eyewitnesses of his majesty" is initiatory expression in 2 Peter 1:16 epoptai is a term associated with the highest level of initiation in the ancient Greek mystery traditions.It could refer to someone who had been admitted to witness sacred mysteries after passing through their own stages of initiation. I say, it was Jesus' endowment ceremony. Maybe not their own endowment, but a revelation of Christ's transfigured glory could force a transfiguration on to them and knock them out, like Daniel and John the Revelator passed out. They'd be initiated the rough way.

About Honour and glory: God's Honor is His Power. The Declaration from Heaven: (An Old Testament Messianic Prophecy) The Savior was probably aware of this verse from the Old Testament. (New Testament Fulfillment) The Mount was the Mount of Transfiguration. (Reference Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-9, and Luke 9:28-35) "We have, also, a more sure word of prophecy' The "also" in this instance means likewise. (Meaning that Peter, James and John received the More Sure Word of Prophecy on the Mount, while the Savior received it at His Baptism) The pronouncement from On High at Jesus' baptism was the first indication of The Father's personal acknowledgement of His Son. The Savior received the more sure word and prophecy and this knowledge sent Him fasting and praying into the wilderness. It should be noted that Lucifer's temptations begin with "If thou be the Son of God . . . ' (See Matthew 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-13)

Them being a fascist. Sometimes that could make them a hero so usually not as good a thing. Do I endorse shooting the guy? No. Do I endorse the statement as a way of rhetorically disarming a fascist and putting the pathetic twerp on the defensive? HELL YEAH! By being the kind of fascist that would use that as a response. She wasn’t doing this in a vacuum to a random person. This was a Christian nationalist fascist provocateur that came to her school to provoke a reaction. She hit harder than he expected. Good for her. “Talk ****, get hit” Like I said, the poem was pretty mediocre. It should have had another editorial pass. It is a passive aggressive rhetorical tactic to try to claim a moral high ground and condescendingly condemn the other person while pretending to be pious. You think that is “good”? Gross. That is what fascists do. It is part of their ideology. That they get so upset when they realize that abandoning civility and tolerance means they don’t get the protection of it anymore……that can be funny. No, not in just my view. He just is a fascist. His whole reactionary worldview and white supremacist rhetoric is classic fascism. It is just that a lot of people in this country don’t know what fascism is so they don’t recognize it. Or worse, they really really like it. Live by the gun, die by the gun. I do find it somewhat satisfying that a staunch opponent of gun control got shot that time instead of some school kid. In that sense he was much more deserving of it happening. Not fully deserved but more than a lot of the actual victims his rhetoric perpetuates. Add in the ongoing suffering that the fascists we are dealing with inflict on minorities at then hands of unaccountable government agents that runs on the kind of rhetoric Kirk spewed and I do not mourn his death. Nothing of value was lost.

Nope, make them a martyr (not saying I endorse any for of violence or even ridicule, just saying)

I have posted this to share insight into why Satan tempted the Savior by saying, "If you are the Son of God . . ." Too, I desire a knowledge to be had as to what the More Sure Word of Prophecy is.

I'd written a response but it got sent into the void. Rather than rewrite it here, I'll probably start a new thread soon about the Harris/Anthon meeting

Okay. So war with a fascist state is a prerequisite for killing fascists. Are there any prerequisites for physical violence against people you deem fascists? If so, what are they? Because fascism is a shallow ideology based on racial superiority and a tough guy aesthetic. I'm not sure I understand, but I'll leave you to it. Would killing a fascist also do that? At first I did not but then he did the “I will pray for you” bit and I decided he had it coming. By way of clarity and confirmation: Do you endorse this statement? Also, she made her comments, including that he was "brave to be out here with no protection, no neck brace," before he told her he would pray for her, so how did he "{have} it coming"? Also, from the article: Are there any parts of this woman's remarks that you do not endorse? I think it was a good response. I am troubled that there are so many people out there who endorse violence in response to ideological disagreement. So you would endorse physical violence against him? Because he is, in your view, a fascist? Do you think Charlie Kirk "had it coming"? Ah. Hadn't seen this. Thanks, -Smac

Some of us like to respond to posts by quoting each relevant part so you know what we are specifically responding to for that comment. Can’t do that as easily with an image, so my guess is you will get less responses, at least maybe less detail. Would you mind sharing why you posted this? I always like to know the context for posting a topic with posters I am not familiar enough with to know if it’s a special interest, hobby, or something else. Welcome to the board, btw.

Because we aren’t at war with a fascist state. Because fascism is a shallow ideology based on racial superiority and a tough guy aesthetic. Punching a fascist exposes the weakness of the fascist and opens them to ridicule from their own side. The poem is sadly pretty amateurish. The meter is off and the prose is very forced. Hopefully she is still in freshman level classes and can improve over time. At first I did not but then he did the “I will pray for you” bit and I decided he had it coming. Anyone who is that pathetically passive aggressive shouldn’t get upset over what other people say. Good response there bro! The guy is a fascist “debate me” type trying to take over for Kirk who was cut from the same cloth. He isn’t even as good at it as Kirk and that is a pretty low bar. He needs to be punched in the face. I didn’t say it was your stated position.

Incognitus, hey...good to see you. I am very much with you on wanting clarification on historical questions. Who killed Pres. Kennedy is one for my generation. It and everything else big and little will be disclosed. How? God knows. There will be a mechanism. Time is no problem. Study? My gut feeling is that it will be instantaneous to all. All the thoughts of all hearts will be revealed. Infused knowledge? The irrational animals have instincts that are remarkable even in this life. Does a spider go to school to "learn" to spin a web? But I have no doctrinal reason that I know of for denying that all humans, the just and the unjust, will need lecturing to be convinced that God is, has been, and always will, be good. But I tend not to envision courses of study. Study is a labor that allows failure or degrees of success. I think a big part of all this will be God's effective defense of the "problem of evil". Will those who disbelieve or disobey be required to study before they can see that God has been just and loving and merciful in all of his dealings with everybody and everything? I think everyone, just and unjust, will have an instantaneous vision of God's goodness, without taking classes. But we agree I think, that Heaven as well as "the Hot Place" would be amiss, if your last point, "most importantly", fails to show all to know the goodness of "lov[ing] the way God loves and recogniz[ing] the potential in everyone in the family of God and all of God's creations." I am biased in your favor, heh, but I think you are more Catholic than you might guess, InCog! God love you. Anyway, maybe I am more LDS than I know! I would be glad if both were so, along with those we go to church with. I hope we are much more on the same page than we have imagined.

That quote doesn’t help. He literally lied about his age to make it seem less bad and was embarrassed by the age gap and you still want to say that this kind of age gap and marrying someone that young doesn’t include social scorn?

The explanation that caught my attention is it started in 2022, a letter was going around concerning the Church's tax-exempt status. I have not been able to locate the letter. I would be careful about interpreting your bishop's announcement as meaning that the Church no longer wants members organizing Christmas charitable activities. So, I'd also ask whether members can still organize an independent giving tree.

1 - Yes, counsel always steps in. Didn't stop the initial action from happening though, obviously. 2 - An attorney withheld evidence then played gotcha games with me about it (the Judge slapped his wrist but didn't sanction him). Since I'd never seen it before, I'd say that was rather unethical. That same attorney then filed a motion in limine with fabrications regarding both my analysis and my testimony. What's worse, I had worked with that attorney a number of times prior to finding ourselves on opposite sides on this case and previously considered him a friend. This is but one example. 3 - No, I've never been deposed and then asked not to testify at trial. Nor has my testimony ever been excluded. I have prevailed in all motions in limine brought against me.

For the last several years, my ward has had a giving tree at Christmas. This morning, our bishop announced that that was no longer allowed. Is it the same in other wards? Anyone have a guess why such things wouldn't be allowed?

LMAO!!!!! Of course shooting fascists is wrong in this context. The morally correct thing to do would have been to just punch him in his stupid face. I have hoped that your ideological enthusiasm for violence against people whose views differ from yours has some constraints, such that while you strongly and enthusiastically endorse physical violence against people you deem fascists, you do not endorse actually killing them. That would be something. But then you included the caveat: "Of course shooting fascists is wrong in this context." This seems to be at odds with your comments about WWII and how killing "fascists" then was good and appropriate and necessary. If you really think that, and given that you so regularly accuse others of being fascists, why do you not endorse killing them now? Why is battery an appropriate response to speech you deem fascistic, but killing is not? In what "context" is killing someone you deem a fascist "{t}he morally correct thing to do"? I am also curious about your perspective on this story: Do you endorse what this woman said to Mr. Collins? I still don’t believe for a second that you want to take him seriously but just wish he was kinder to the Christian Nationalist traitors so you could do so. This is not my position. Thanks, -Smac

Things I'd like to see in the life to come… A functioning Wayback Machine, or some mechanism of observing various periods of the history of the earth, that would allow us to view, hear, and fully understand the way events actually happened. I think this would require some kind of bullet point summary view of the past, and a method of drilling down deeper into the details if desired, because it would be extremely tedious to see every minute and second of past events. If this would be done through some form of multi-media experience (instead of being a fly on the wall observer of the events as they happened), it should be 3-D, surround sound in iMax format or better. A way of assimilating information about the way things work and the complex reality of created worlds and how they function. (I suspect this would involve several courses of study over several millennia of semesters, but I'm all in! ) Most importantly, all of us seeing others in the way that God sees them, not in the sense that we know all of their thoughts and intentions, but that we love the way God loves and recognize the potential in everyone in the family of God and all of God's creations.