All Activity

here is the American continent (both north and south) . . . there is around Scandinavia (in the north, with the blood of Viking raiders propagated throughout Europe) . . . Finland and the Rus included . . .

Here's another gospel "truth" taught by former President George Q. Cannon: "The Indians contain a purer strain of Israelite blood than many members of the church. They will become a white and delightsome people. Here is Ephraim, but the ten tribes are there" (Gospel Truth, volume 2, chapter 8, page 98). What could here and there represent?

If there is an afterlife, I hope we can more fully enjoy physical activities without the wear and tear that I know my favorite sport of endurance cycling imposes on on my body. And I want continuous learning especially of the sciences, of which I am a neophyte on. And of course I would hope I can continue to associate with my family and friends in the same relationships I have with them now.

2 Nephi 2:23 says they did not experience joy in the Garden of Eden before the Fall ("And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin"). Apparently joy within marriage can only be experienced after misery comes first.

There are many attributes, that I would like to have had in this life. If there is anything that I would like to have in the next, it would be to be generally more artistic. At school, I enjoyed drawing, and painting, and also making things. Although, not very good at any of it, I enjoyed having a try. In recent years, I have turned my hand to gardening. Before her death, my mother used to take care of the garden at home. Only a small garden at the front and rear. In recent years, I have managed to keep it in reasonable condition, but lack artistic touch, to make the garden look great. So, for myself. It would be an artistic attribute.

This isn't a "life-to-come" thing, exactly, as much as it is a "Millennnium thing," but, I'd like to be like Daniel, and play with the nice kitties. See Daniel 6.

Most likely spam given the link. Will report

I have noticed that some couples seem to understand each other naturally, while others struggle with even small disagreements. It makes me wonder whether astrology can offer any insight into why certain people get along better in relationships. In astrology, factors such as zodiac signs, planetary placements, and birth charts are often considered when exploring relationship dynamics. Some people compare their birth dates to understand how well two people might match and explore their relationship compatibility through astrology. However, I believe communication, trust, and mutual respect are equally important for building a healthy relationship. Exploring astrological compatibility using the dates of both partners can be an interesting way to learn about potential similarities and differences, but I wouldn't rely on it alone to judge whether two people are right for each other. What do you think? Have you ever compared your birth date with your partner's to understand your compatibility? Did you find it interesting or helpful?

Same with LDS belief that everyone will be able to receive a perfect, eternal body, whether that means preborn bodies are enough or those who die anytime before birth get another chance in another body. Our debate as far as I can tell is around time the spirit links up with the body permanently. And since we have Jesus appearing as a spirit the night before he is born in scripture, that might happen at birth. I think the more common view is it happens not long before or at quickening, but I haven’t studied it. For those not familiar with the LDS official position…. I don’t think we think of it as a right as much as a responsibility (freedom to choose vs be accountable for one’s choices and the consequences), but that may just be me interpreting what others have said through my own filter. We haven’t in the past talked much of body autonomy, for example, but a lot about the responsibility of sexual reproduction and making responsible choices (which typically does not include safe sex if outside of marriage, so “responsible” for us likely means different from how it’s often used in discussions about sex). We do not have an official doctrine on when the spirit enters the body, so it’s not used as a justification against abortion in LDS official policy. My read on official policy is more the power of life is a magnificent gift from God, have respect for it. Avoid abortion if at all possible, but we recognize there are justifiable reasons (primarily of health) where abortion may be the inspired choice for someone. When growing up, that was typically limited to severe physical health issues in mother or child and rape and incest. Now significant mental health is considered as well. That might even include overwhelming stress from finances. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/abortion?lang=eng

Wow…where to start? Let me give it some thought.

Hi again, Cal. It is undefined, but I believe in love. God isn't going to punish a baby, or a fetus, made in His image. One of my daughters has only four lovable children that have been born. She laments her many miscarriages. Gabriel was big enough and old enough to have a name and to have been buried. My unborn grandson has a grave. No one can accuse me of denying the Catholic faith for believing that he beholds the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in heaven this very moment. I used to tend to believe that he would be in what we call Limbo of the Children. That might be also. Even that is a pretty great deal, if you will, for never even having the chance to sin. But I now tend to think that I will see him, and know him, and love him someday, unless I apostasize. Gabriel is okay. But according to our faith, that hope doesn't give anybody the right to cut our little ones short, who can't even make a choice, short of having a longer mortal life.

What happens to the soul when an abortion or miscarriage occurs? Is it the same thing if a baby dies shortly after birth? If so, how do Catholics visual the soul (this applies to other nonLDS as well)? LDS are taught the human spirit looks like a physical human body (generally with no imperfections, though what that actually means is undefined). We aren’t precise about what age the spirit is. With our spirits living eternally before mortal birth, we have the awkward version of an adult spirit fitting into an infant’s body…exactly how would that work? Shrink in size or be able to fold over and over like a large piece of paper being folded to fit into a small pocket? Or it simply morphs to look like the physical body it’s hooked up to. No teachings there as far as I am aware, but the last one makes the most sense to me…which means it might be possible to alter the way we look eternally at will if the spirit controls the body and the spirit can be morphed.

Hi calm. I don't know about your first question. The principle is that one always favors life both with regards to procreation and abortion. Catholics who understand these things (most of our bishops) that come up in our modern scientific world are always in favor of that which is healthy. This comes from the belief that everything that God created is good. First chapters of Genesis. If its good and works, leave it alone. The Church doesn't agree with anything that would "frustrate" good health. That means that we can't oppose nature. Nature is good. We are against abortion or sterilization unless it is the only option that allows for the most life. There are natural ways to limit pregnancies for many good reasons. We can't oppose nature. But we can use nature. But here is the problem. Unlike many Christians and virtually all non-Christians, Catholics believe that an immortal soul is supernaturally created simultaneously with natural human conception. So how can we approve of the destruction of a person with an immortal soul? Only be dehumanization. And I approve of that intellectual process! I don't believe that pro-choice folks believe in murder, praise God. There is no getting around it as a Catholic. But we would be wrong to think that secular folks who don't believe in immortal souls are guilty of murder. That makes it easier to love them. None of us are promoting murder. So we aren't in favor of sterilization either. But we are "stuck", if you will, with our theology, while loving it, and seeing it as good. We cannot approve of the destruction of healthy organisms (sterilization). Nor can we approve of any abortions that would medically result in certain anticipated deaths, unless we are saving one (the mother or child), for the sake of the other. If two are going to die without medical intervention, and one can live with medical intervention, then intervention is the good and moral choice.

The guilt thing. Should we be impartial in every day life? Say you hear a parent of your kid’s friend was arrested, but released for child molestation and you hear it’s because of not sufficient evidence to prosecute. Would you be okay with your kid still playing at their friend’s house or make the judgment to never allow that parent to be around your child without your supervision?

This is interesting to me. How can you tell that some of the conclusions are based on too much emotion (and what conclusions have you seen being made)? Sincere questions and not trying to argue and it's not a set up. I'm asking because I haven't really seen many conclusions on the Cornell case (though I've missed a lot of posts so they could be out there) but I have seen opinions on what people believe to be most likely considering the evidence that is now public. Are we looking at the same posts and reading them completely differently or are we seeing different posts so coming up with different perspectives on what is happening in the thread? In your view what is the difference between 'mostly likely considering the evidence' and 'conclusions based on too much emotion'?

No, I'm not implying this. Are some of the conclusions based too much on emotions? Yes.

If there is a life after this one…and not just a repeat, ugh….what attributes would you want to have? You can also venture into what you want to see in the environment…. I am into watching acrobatics (not the dancish routines, though some are nice, the more athletic ones) lately. I remember how my body felt when a gymnastic move went well. What a sense of rightness even though I was hardly more than a beginner. I want the kind of body that can do things that look impossible. I especially want to be able to play in a giant ring*** and do massive flips in the air. To spin and spin without getting nauseated. Want to be able to endlessly swim. Favorite feeling is being immersed in water, hate having to get out. Would love to do it days on end….and be able to swim in the depths as well and not be bothered by cold, pressure, lack of air. Just learnt of a condition (which drove me to post my wanna haves) where one has 4 types of cones in the eyes, so one sees millions more colors. One person said they didn’t understand why people called pebbled beaches grey because they looked like a jeweler’s window to them. I have a problem with Utah because the mountains are so often brown or grey. Sounds like that might solve my difficulty. Think of the world like that all the time. Would love it (I love color). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy Absolute need is no fear. So many things I did as a child that went away as I grew due to irrational fears (I was a climber as a baby and kid, I remember how good it felt to climb a rock hill outcropping in a neighbour’s yard, trees, and on the roof of our and my grandma’s house (out the window, over the balcony, and on up….until I got caught). I just knew when I was older I was going to be climbing bigger and bigger ones (Dad took us to Yosemite a lot, I was going to climb the mountains there.) Some reason around ten I developed a fear of heights due to dizziness, most likely a vestibular thing given what came later. ***Been dreaming about this since I saw this over a decade ago https://youtu.be/GLlpi-0_lB0?si=1n_MPE03CIDPJBJ4

I'm not sure I understand?

I am not stridently opposed to abortion because my views align with the church, which allows it under certain circumstances. But I would say that in terms of someone's use of agency, I would rather they choose to sterilize themselves than choose elective abortions. Except in cases of rape, cohersion, or incest, women are 100% responsible for their choices in this matter and I don't believe the government or the voters can remove any of that responsibility from them. (I'm heart goes out to women who do end up pregnant in horrible conditions or circumstances. I believe in God's mercy and I'm glad I don't have to judge anyone because I would be horrible at it)

Just came across this. I know there are some here who approve of strong limitations on abortion, even very strong (I believe Catholic doctrine allows it as a side effect of treatment, but not the primary goal…for example if a woman is pregnant, but has to have a hysterectomy due to cancer…that’s allowed, correct?). Do you see more sterilizations as a good result of bans, an acceptable unintended consequence, or a backfire? Or something else? If you could influence government policy, what would you see as best result for that policy? If that’s too political (I believe most see this as a moral issue, whether pro choice or prolife), then focus on cultural changes you would see as helpful. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2823625 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39761461/ https://publichealth.gwu.edu/study-reveals-rising-interest-permanent-contraception-after-roe-v-wade-was-overturned https://publichealthwatch.org/newsletter/the-watch-more-women-sought-sterilization-after-fall-of-roe-v-wade/ https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/acog/121103 This is the most recent one, I believe. I believe the strongest increases were in states that banned abortion, but need to doublecheck that. (Can’t help reading AI summaries when I google. It’s like having to read anything written on bathroom stalls or every last billboard on a road. Drives me crazy sometimes.)

Fair enough. Are you implying that other posters here are basing their conclusions solely on emotion and not on reasoned assessment or are you just clarifying your own perspective? (Just wanting to make sure that I understand)

In court or in everyday life?

I don't divorce my emotion about women being mistreated and my reasoned assessment about the case at hand. I object, however, to anyone's emotional assessment being conclusory about guilt because I am also emotional about folks having the right to an impartial judgement.

Objectively speaking…. Being “Black” is not the qualifying identifier of being a potential rapist here. Looking at a Black man and looking at a white man will not allow you to ignore the white guy as inherently safe, etc. while you still need to be cautious around the Black man. A gay man is attracted to adult males just as a straight man is attracted to adult females. Pedophiles are attracted to children. It’s more likely that a straight man (attracted to adult women) will also be attracted to children than gay men (attracted to adult males). It is true a man will be more likely to be attracted to boys than a woman. They are also likely to be more attracted to girls than women are. In the US, the most numerous terrorists historically speaking have been Christian, so focusing on only Muslims would indicate likely religious bigotry. I believe this distinction and what’s below have been mentioned before on the thread, so I wonder why you continue to act as if this is some relevant argument. Then there is the whole historical baggage of Black men getting too commonly blamed and punished for simply looking at white women, etc. where it was much more likely given it was whites who were typically the owners that it was white men raping black women. That adds a lot of context lacking in the general use of men as potential rapists. Is there there some too common historical injustice for men in general being systematically punished for false accusations of rape in similar ways I am not aware of? I am aware of the low rates of convictions and even low terms of punishment when someone was accused. Often in many cultures, punishment for men was to marry their victims. Which seems oddly inverted to me. In terms of violent crime, one is most likely to be assaulted by one’s own race. Therefore to focus one’s caution primarily on another race is irrational, which means there’s a good chance it is prejudicial.

Do the men who see men as playing the role of protecting women register what they have often been protecting women from over the centuries? Which is other men? Especially these days. It’s not too common in the here and now a man is called on to protect a woman from bears. We are begging them to help protect us from the bad guys though. In an intelligent way that we can easily recognize for it is. For example…. https://www.sace.ca/learn/bystander-intervention/