All Activity

Interesting ideas. The following will be entirely my opinion, so take it with as many grains of salt as needed: I agree with your depiction of us as radio receivers which need to be “tuned in” to the right station in order to be on the “wavelength” to perceive communication from the Divine. Assigning corresponding roles to the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Light of Christ seems like an unnecessary intellectual complication to me, but maybe it's helpful to some. Ime interaction with the Divine happens in the heart rather than in the intellect. I'm also not so sure about there being a “law of witnesses”. Maybe a “pattern of witnesses”, but I wouldn't use that as a litmus test. Let me elaborate: When we take a “checklist” approach to interaction with the Divine, we are in our intellect. And ime the Divine really isn't interested in communicating with our intellect; the Divine is characterized by Love and communicates with our heart when we show up “tuned into” the wavelength of perfect love (aka the Pure Love of Christ, aka unconditional love). This is where us-as-radio-receivers “tuning into” the wavelength of the Divine comes into play. Love in this context is a STATE OF BEING rather than simply a thought or an intention, but intention and deliberately-chosen thoughts can help us align to - "tune in" to - that state. We do not know the voice of God with the intellect; we can only FEEL the voice of God, and it feels like Love... yes, with a capital “L”. The kingdom of heaven is within, and within is where we can be aware of the Presence of the Divine, right now, in this moment, no "having-a-special-experience" required. It's a choice; a listening from a place of stillness; and a letting go of all the barriers we have placed which obscure our awareness of Love's presence. In my opinion.

I think the Lord defines virgin in a non-sexual context: 61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

And what is the name of the whole family? Interesting.

I finally got some answers. These women help the stake president with correspondences. This stake has been using this calling for a while as well. The previous stake president (who was released before I moved into the stake) also had these callings with women. I don't know what type of correspondences but it sounded like the women help write the letters. Kind of also sounded like they help with Christmas cards and other holiday cards. And Tools was recently updated and it indicates that these 2 callings are "Custom Callings".

In that case, the suffering of unsaved souls would also include Latter-day Saints who were not faithful in keeping their covenants or did not participate in all the temple ordinances.

Thank you 3DOP. You've explained it well.

Psalm 34:8 has always stood out to me. It says, "O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him." It is obviously poetic language, but the word "taste" stands out to me, because it is an experiential word. You can't explain the taste of a particular food to another person who has never experienced taste at all. They need to "taste" for themselves to know and understand. I included a note in my Gospel Library app attached to Psalm 34:8, with a quote from a Jewish commentary that I have that says: "'Taste', a significant word. More effective than theorizing about God’s goodness is the test of experience. Only by encountering it in one’s life can it be really known." (The Soncino Books of the Bible, The Psalms, 2nd Edition, p.100). There are similar verses elsewhere, like 1 Peter 2:3, "If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.", and in the Book of Mormon, in Mormon 1:15, "And I, being fifteen years of age and being somewhat of a sober mind, therefore I was visited of the Lord, and tasted and knew of the goodness of Jesus." Experience is required.

Thank you for posting this. I totally believe you. Someone wiser than me said: "Don't pray for outcomes. Pray for understanding." My limited experience as been that THAT is a much more productive approach than praying for the outcome I want. I've been surprised by how quickly the relevant insight shows up. Maybe insights have been showing up all along but in my default mode I am blind to them.

The still, small voice is the voice of our conscience by virtue of the Light of Christ. An analogy would be in order: (The Father is the Owner of the Radio Station; The Savior is the Chief Executive Officer and The Holy Ghost is the Radio Announcer who speaks to us via the Light of Christ which fills the Universe. We are the Radio Receivers.) The messages that we receive can be directly from the Holy Ghost or He may convey the message from the Savior or the message can originate from The Father. And, yes, we have to be in tune in order to receive the message. The MIND in terms of enlightenment and our HEART in terms of peace, will bear witness unto us that something is true. As the slide says, "There must always be at least two witnessed. Doubt / Uncertainty is a 'stupor of thought.' External witnesses are valuable when it comes to the bearing of testimony.

We are changed, we become while we learn. Would we be as likely to change if it was instantaneous? Seems unlikely, at least not in the same way. There is also the value we put on things we have struggled for…not in terms of wealth and possession, but meaning.

Interesting question. I'm sure you have a guess as to what the assumption is.

Pertaining to things I'd like to see in the life to come--I would like to fully develop my intelligence to be more like my Heavenly Parents: I would like to have the power to "translate" through time: forward and backward; dilate or compress (in order to make a moment into a century or make a century into a moment so that I could index to certain events.) I would like to "transcend" through space so that I could visit the least kingdom, as well as the greatest one. I would like the power to "transfigure" myself so that I could be an intelligence, or a spirit or a human soul or a perfected 'spiritual body.'

That would be nice to learn things instantaneously. But I get the idea that we need to learn things by experience, or otherwise why would we be having this mortal experience on earth? Or at least that's my basis for thinking that way. I mean, why couldn't we just have all the knowledge of this life and the experiences downloaded into our brains, the same as in the movie The Matrix when Neo "learned" jiu jitsu through a brain hookup? Experience has to be part of it, because even the Savior had to learn things in a similar way: "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered" (Hebrews 5:8), and "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Hebrews 2:17–18) There seems to be some big reason we need to go through the experience rather than just receiving head knowledge.

I don't read fiction much, and I feel like I miss out on a lot because of that, even though I really enjoy sci-fi and fantasy movies. I had to ask my wife about the book because she reads fiction a lot, especially Orson Scott Card. Hopefully my "Wayback Machine" idea in the afterlife won't have the same consequences .

You didn't really answer my question. Or maybe I should have clarified to included that if there was no law against polygamy and the social norm was only marriage between one man and one woman, do you think it was wrong or right for the federal government to go after the LDS polygamist marriages and put any leader practicing or teaching polygamy into jail?

This goes along so well with part of a book I am reading, Torn: Why People We Love Are Leaving the Church and What We Can Learn from Them, in fact the current spot I am in. Currently, it talks about the difference between obedience and fealty. That obedience can help us have good morals and be authentic, but fealty has us pretending.

I don't think anonymity is the problem. I think the problem is that we draw circles of exclusion rather than circles of inclusion. I think the problem is that we perceive and value and promote separation rather than perceiving and valuing and embodying the pure love of Christ. And I'm including myself in that “we”. Telling someone not to post anonymously does not call upon them to actually be a better person; only to appear to be a better person by putting themselves in a position where fear and shame can control their behavior. On the other hand, an authority figure reminding us that we are to be filled with the pure love of Christ, and to love our neighbor as ourselves (even online), just might help instigate a paradigm shift. Then no outward control would be needed to induce good behavior. In other words, rather than focusing on a way to control members' online behavior, maybe put into practice what Joseph Smith described: Teach correct principles and let them govern themselves. We are all emissaries for our paradigms, whether we intend to be or not. If my paradigm tells me that it's okay for me to hurt those who believe differently from me, the problem is much deeper than anonymity.

Thank you, Pyreaux, for your thoughtful reply. My remarks about LDS and their teachings about suffering were based on an anecdotal experience at this board. Maybe you were not around for that discussion? But I happily yield to one better instructed in his own faith in finding that LDS also see reasons for suffering, as we do. I hope you get some "thumbs ups" from your fellow LDS. Perhaps I misinterpreted what I perceived as negativism about the subject? Hopefully, I can give a more in-depth reply later. Thanks again. All the best, Rory

The Latter-Day Saint doctrine of the spirit prison really isn’t “remarkably similar in significant respects to the Catholic teaching about purgatory.” The purpose of the Latter-Day Saint spirit prison is to place the unsaved (as opposed to the saved) into a spiritual condition after death where they will be most likely be enabled to sincerely repent and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. Doctrine and Covenants 76 describes the spiritual experience that these unsaved souls will endure after the death as “the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God.” Simply put, while in the spirit prison and no longer in possession of a spiritually dead mortal body that deadens spiritual sensibilities, the unsaved are placed in a condition where they are able to acutely feel what it is to exist in an unsaved condition. Doctrine and Covenants 76 describes this state of existence hell, or in other words a place of separation from the glory and redemption of God, but it doesn’t have to remain permanent. There’s nothing unnatural nor unfair about this extremely trying experience in the spirit prison because these unsaved spirits simply have to live with themselves as they really are in their unsaved condition. There’s nothing arbitrary, violating or unfair about the suffering these souls endure because the spirit prison is a place of unalloyed truth where hard, cold reality must be encountered head on and dealt with. And it must be understood that the suffering these experience cannot in any way atone for their sins (only Christ can do that) but their suffering can have the blessed benefit of awakening them to the unalterable reality that life without faith in Christ and his forgiveness is a miserable way to exist. Eventually the vast majority of the souls in the spirit prison will have the opportunity to accept Christ, repent and receive a healing remission of their sins due to the fact that duly authorized and empowered missionaries from the spirit world paradise will be sent to minister to them when the time is right to teach them that they might receive the gospel of Jesus Christ. Meanwhile these spirits are perfectly free to remain in their unsaved condition if that’s what they choose to do because still have their moral agency. Again in Doctrine and Covenants 76 we hear the testimony that before the final judgement the vast majority of those who are consigned to the spirit prison will ultimately be saved through their acceptance of Christ as their Savior. They will then be blessed to receive a remission of there sins and obtain a glorious resurrection in one of the Father’s many heavenly mansions of glory. The relative few who will steadfastly refuse to accept Christ and his gospel are known as the sons of perdition, and it is they who will remain “filthy still. “These will get what they wish for because, as the Book of Mormon testifies, in their unsaved condition they would be more miserable in a heavenly kingdom of glory than to reside in hell. As we can see, purgatory is a place of further spiritual refinement for the saved, whereas the Spirit Prison of the Latter-Day Saints is a spiritual realm of mercy where the wicked and those who rejected the gospel while in the flesh will have the arm of God’s mercy extended to them that they might be everlastingly delivered from their unsaved state. Two very different places with two largely different spiritual objectives. The purgatory doctrine implies that the unsaved who don’t make it to purgatory are forever lost. I like the Latter-Day Saint’s plan of salvation much better because it’s precisely what a long suffering God who perfectly loves his children would do. 30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. 31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel. 32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets. (Doctrine and Covenants 138)

... killing beasts on their farms. Hunting in the forest or tundra is a type of work, whether it is the Lamanites, the white man, or the eskimos. Take for example the beaver trade in Canada. It was a massive commercial and economic enterprise spanning the 17th to 19th centuries, driven by the intense European demand for beaver felt hats.

Whether Christ's suffering was somehow insufficient or incomplete and whether human suffering can have spiritual value and participate in the redemptive work of Christ, Latter-day Saint theology can affirm the second without conceding the first. Colossians 1:24 "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church." The Catholic interpretation seems to often understand this through the concept of participation in Christ's sufferings. The church as his body can offer their own sufferings in union with Him. But notice what Paul does not say that Christ's atoning sacrifice was deficient or that Paul was making an additional payment for humanity's sins. Whatever Colossians 1:24 means by what remains of Christ's afflictions cannot casually be interpreted as requiring effectively another sacrifice for sin. Latter-day Saints absolutely recognize spiritual value in suffering, that suffering can refine, sanctify, humble, strengthen, and spiritually develop us. Not that pain is inherently redemptive or that suffering purchases forgiveness. Freely accepting suffering in service to Christ and others, can unite our experiences with His. What it does not teach is that human suffering is an independent sacrifice that satisfies divine justice in place of Christ. Catholic theology does not appear to officially teach that people in purgatory are independently atoning for their sins either. It teaches purification through God's grace. So there is more theological common ground here than we might recognize. Latter-day Saint theology has a well-developed concept of suffering as a means of character development and spiritual refinement. D&C 122, "All these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good." 2 Nephi 2:2 says God consecrates our afflictions for our gain. I think you'd be mistaken if you believe Latter-day Saints don't recognize the spiritual value of suffering. We absolutely believe suffering can build character, develop faith, refine our nature, and help us become more Christ like. I think we can agree with Paul that suffering can have a purpose beyond simply enduring pain, without concluding that Christ's sacrifice needed to be supplemented. If Paul rejoices in his suffering because it benefits the Church, is that suffering atoning for the sins of others, or is it participating in Christ's work through discipleship and self-sacrifice? 1 Corinthians 3:13–15 Paul describes everyone's work being tested by fire. Some work survives; some is burned away. Interestingly, he describes someone suffering loss having their works burnt, while nevertheless still being saved. Paul anticipates more than salvation for working, suffering or being persecuted while working, but rather to be rewarded a degree of glory. 2 Corinthians 4:17 "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." Romans 8:17–18, "Heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." As Jesus taught the greater rewards come by how hard a work is to get done. Matthew 5:43-48, "I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you... For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?"

I believe Elder Cook’s intent is well meant. Anonymity certainly contributes to much harmful online speech. But as others have noted, it can be beneficial and even necessary at times. There’s only one absolute principle in my book - charity. All others have their meets and bounds. Heck, the Savior himself goes in disguise sometimes. Consider His walk with the disciples on the road to Emmaus or his disguise at the feast of the tabernacles. Still, Elder Cook’s words gave me pause to consider whether my comments on this board would ever have been different if they were under my full name. I’m sure some of them would have. I’m planning to stay anonymous for now, but will continue to ponder whether the guidance is well placed for me alone. And in the meantime I’ll try to say only things I’d be comfortable saying if my identity were known by those I love and trust.

It was never reported as stolen according to records, so maybe not. To be convicted, the state has to prove she willfully did not return it. (NC law apparently). If the rental company sold the same car later, they got it back somehow. If she really was in the ICU and her kid in foster care, my guess is it was noticed by police or traffic people or maybe over stayed in the hospital parking lot, the rental company was called and it got picked up by them…which would explain why she thought it was resolved even though she owed the company money (if she didn’t do it herself, no confrontation with the rental people). They probably realized it would cost more to track her down (maybe it wasn’t in the hospital parking lot, I wonder if she walked into emergency or was brought by ambulance) and take her to court and and then track her payments, send her notices, etc as she couldn’t pay immediately anyway once they discovered she had been living in the car. https://www.aol.com/articles/dem-flipped-north-carolina-house-035231000.html PS: I make no claims about the overall morality of either party.

No idea. In my experience one side tends to turn on and remove dangerous and predatory people from their midst and the other does not.

Except is being homeless and in the hospital a character issue vs using an attack ad impugning someone’s character in this fashion? Also according to Chat, Moore, her opponent, was accused of having an affair by an estranged husband, using public power for personal or political gain, and engaging in political favoritism.