rongo
-
Posts
6,981 -
Joined
Posts posted by rongo
-
-
You don't have to reach back to Neanderthal, Cro Magnon, Denisovan, etc. for this "dilemma." Modern man during historic times (say, 4000 years ago) is in the exact same boat. For zillions of people, there is going to have to be revelation (direct, via angels, etc.) to do their temple work, because there isn't going to be any other way to know the names and other unique information for individuals. For those who believe that these people are all known to God, and that He will give us what is needed to do this (during the Millennium), this doesn't present a problem
2 -
1 hour ago, Rain said:
I've been thinking about that
I don't think you dedicate a grave if you aren't buried in a grave. One of the drawbacks to cremation? 🤷♀️
0 -
5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:
Do we get to again here how the violence is justified? I hope they listen to the President to keep things peaceful.
They will be "mostly peaceful."
People are reacting emotionally, but it isn't politically astute to rage and freak out when your causes, razor thin Congressional majority, and president are already facing tremendous headwinds. A "summer of rage" (which has already been called for) would tend to push people on the fence more towards "law and order" and away from the causes and politicians supporting (or refusing to condemn) the raging riots.
0 -
4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
No, they aren’t. The best thinkpieces that actually analyze the expected fallout and consequences disagree. There is a lot more volume in saying the Left were behind the leak but propaganda serves the people that pay their bills.
Fortunately they are idiots. They are destroying themselves before our eyes. It is now primarily a question of what will burn down with them.
Okay, I'll give you a friendly CFR for "the best thinkpieces."
Are any of the authors conservative or ostensibly "moderate?"
0 -
3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:
People are saying Roberts concurrence is a symbolic 5-4 but the official vote was 6-3. He signed with the majority.
Good ol' Roberts. The "gospel topics essays" of the Supreme Court.
0 -
4 minutes ago, bsjkki said:
It was 6-3. Roberts did provide a concurring opinion but voted with the majority.
I'm seeing both 6-3 an 5-4. Confusing.
Hauptsache ist . . . Roe was remanded to the states.
0 -
13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
We had this discussion already. The Right had far more incentive to leak than the left and pushing people to a hard stance was part of the prevailing theory as to why it was leaked. It didn’t backfire. More likely it did exactly what it was supposed to do.
Nobody but the far left believes this. It's no fair asking for sources, because the sources that say this . . . are all far left.
2 -
5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
It was 5-4. Roberts tried to strike middle ground by allowing a 16 week ban but would not have overturned roe
Thanks for the correction! My bad.
My view is that Alito's majority opinion is strictly correct from a constitutional standpoint: there is no constitutional right to abortion in the Constitution, and the 1973 decision made this up out of whole cloth because of political leanings rather than strict constructionism. This reverts back to pre-Roe and leaves it to the states, as it should have been all along (10th amendment). Those wanting a national law need to prevail upon their representatives in the legislative and executive branches to make and pass one.
I disagree with @JLHPROF that such a law will be passed post haste before the midterms. I don't think this evenly-divided Congress is physically capable of passing anything controversial --- especially with the midterm elections looming. Senator Manchin represents a state that gave Trump over 60% of the vote, and this vote alone would doom him in West Virginia. Democrat frustration with Manchin's stances habitually ignores this political reality.
1 -
I'm most surprised that it was 6-3, and not 5-4. I wonder if the leak backfired, and instead of upending the decision, pushed Roberts over to vote with the conservatives?
0 -
4 minutes ago, Rivers said:
And conservative parents can choose not to pay to see the movie. They can even choose to unsubscribe to Disney +. People vote with their wallet.
Or never having subscribed to Disney + (or Netflix, Hulu, HBO, etc.) in the first place.
There actually are some of us in existence.
We're often asked what we did with our kids to have them turn out like they did,and we tell them that they don't really want our life. Not really. They turn around and weep, for they have many possessions.
2 -
6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
Just not in my stake. I don’t think I would have got my current calling if my bishop and the previous bishop hadn’t gone to bat for me.
Maybe you're the reason for the policy.
💣
2 -
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
Not comparable. Every (or almost every) sexual assault comes about through human choice. People grow up without one or both parents all the time with no one sinning to make it happen. I gave an example already. Women die in childbirth. Either parent could die to disease or injury.
Your example proves your rule. Women dying in childbirth is an astronomically tiny reason for one parent families,compared to divorce or extra-marital sex. Those are almost always the reason why there is only one parent.
As others have pointed out,tragic death also happens in this fallen world,but where the breakup of the ideal family comes about through agency (and not tragedy), then there is culpability. Somewhere,if not with both parties.
0 -
1 hour ago, mbh26 said:
I was just surprised when I read an lds living article in which an openly gay man was serving on the high council. I thought you had to be married in the temple to serve on the high council but apparently not.
When we hear of "openly gay" this or that's (a prominent one was the missionary who made Facebook videos), it gives certain impressions that seem shocking. All it means (in your article, or with the missionary) is that they are attracted to men. Not that they are openly living a gay lifestyle (which is the impression that "openly gay" conveys).
I wish there more precision of language with this (cue @Nehor posting a gif of Katie Holmes from "The Giver").
0 -
16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
It just seems an odd thing to say someone is entitled to something but they only get it when circumstances do not deny it to them.
Are people entitled to not be sexually assaulted?
Why does God deny them this when it happens?
0 -
27 minutes ago, CA Steve said:
And this is currently officially taught where within the church?
Neither side of this (and many other questions) is officially taught anywhere in the Church today. The Church's official stance on most things is that there is no official teaching (gospel topics essays are exhibit A of this).
Which leaves members free to think, believe, speculate, and even teach that Adam was literally created out of dust, or that he wasn't. The Church isn't going to touch this (and many other things) with a ten foot pole.
1 -
41 minutes ago, bluebell said:
The handbook specifically says that high councilors can be single. So if a SP says that he won't call anyone who isn't married to that calling then he is going against the handbook.
"Can be single" makes it an option. It doesn't mean the stake president has to call single men as high councilors. Only calling married men as high councilors is not going against the handbook. Going against the handbook would be doing things that the handbook specifically says you can't do.
Like requiring white shirts.
0 -
12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
I find it hard to take the Proclamation’s stance that children are entitled to a father and mother seriously considering how often this doesn’t happen through no fault of the parties involved.
They are entitled to it, but often fall short of that because of the wickedness and selfishness of others' choices and agency. They are still entitled to it, and I like that strong wording.
13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:If God so often denies it to children on grounds that to us seem random how much of an entitlement is it?
Why do you claim that it is God who is denying it to children?
13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:Even in the Church the ideal nuclear family is a minority now.
CFR that the ideal nuclear family is now a minority in the Church. We're certainly heading in that direction, but I don't think we're there yet.
1 -
36 minutes ago, CA Steve said:
Which seems to be contradicted by the biblical account of how Adam was created.
BY also had the Adam God teaching included in the temple so he does not have a great track record when it comes to Adam.
Ironic, because the portrayal of Adam in the temple was transmitted **directly** through Brigham Young. There is no Adam-God in the temple (yes, I know you're referring to the Lecture at the Veil, which was short-lived and wasn't as blatantly Adam-God as people represent). What is taught in the endowment, and which was transmitted to us directly through Brigham Young, is very orthodox about Adam and God.
Brigham Young was clear that the story about Adam and Eve being made from dust or a rib was allegorical. We are all made of "dust" in the sense that we are composed of elements that were forged in stars, but literally, we were made through procreation. Adam and Eve were similar, according to Young:
"When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle worlds devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth."[1]
"Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say . . . You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please—that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child."[2]
"Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation. He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle."[3]
Brigham wasn't the only one. Erastus Snow, for example:
"Oh, says one, we are told that Adam was created, not born. This is something I am not disposed to dwell upon much at this time. You can think of this as you please, whether he was created or born, or whether a man, because he is born, is not created. I do not understand the term creation as meaning something suddenly made out of nothing. I believe man that is born is as much created as the thing which is made in a mould and turned out to dry, which we call an adobie. It matters not whether it takes a few minutes to make it, or a longer period—it is created or made. And the term create I understand to be synonymous with the verb to make, and what is made is created, and what is organized is formed. And when it is written that God formed man in his own image and likeness, it does not describe the time or manner, but simply the fact of having made or created man in his own image."[4]
[1] Brigham Young, October 23, 1853. Journal of Discourses 2:6
[2] Brigham Young, October 9, 1859. Journal of Discourses 7:285
[3] Brigham Young, April 20, 1856. Journal of Discourses 3:319
[4] Erastus Snow, January 20, 1878. Journal of Discourses 19:323-324
1 -
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:
Wasn't Adam (if you think he is a literal figure) created outside a womb?
Brigham Young taught that he and Eve were born on another world and brought here. According to him, there is no other way for life to be created. So, they did indeed have belly buttons.
He believed Adam was a literal figure.
1 -
25 minutes ago, Amulek said:
But isn't that just a current technological limitation? Say, in the future, we are capable of isolating and combining individual chromosomes then you could simply take 23 from each partner and randomize them to generate an authentic biological child.
Though, let's be honest, when bio-tech advances to that level we are totally going to be in Gattaca territory and people won't even be interested in having their own children any longer - they will all want custom designed super children instead.
I agree --- the march towards "Brave New World" is antithetical to the plan.
Depending on one's beliefs about how the pre-existence affects mortality (or is intended to impact mortality), this sort of meddling with the "fountain" can be seen as an abomination. It tends towards trying to have the milk without buying the cow (bypassing marriage and procreation and the things children are "entitled" to, per the Proclamation).
1 -
8 hours ago, Calm said:
I don’t honestly see much difference biologically between a man and woman deciding to have sex and getting pregnant as to a man with a woman or a woman deciding not to have sex and get cloned and getting pregnant. Both will result in an embryo that is biologically capable of life. Why would the cloned one not be capable of housing a spirit? It would have already been proven to be a fully functioning model since the person it was cloned from would be successfully living and with a spirit, correct? And it would be identical to that source.
I agree there are ethical issues. But there are ethical issues with getting pregnant.
The big difference as I see it is: if a couple produce a child through traditional means, or by in vitro or some other way, it still involves their contribution of gametes (23 chromosomes from dad, and 23 from mom). With cloning, the genotype/karyotype is identical to one of the parents (or a sole parent; no mom/dad required). All 46 chromosomes are the same as the one parent's.
I'm not saying a cloned human body isn't "capable" of housing a spirit. It seems to me that it might be venturing into "abomination" territory --- meddling with the plan of salvation (especially if the pre-existence plays a more vital role in earth life than you like to think). In that case, attempting to have spirits dwell in bodies they weren't supposed to would be a "bad" thing.
What are the ethical hold-ups to human cloning (reproductive, not therapeutic), outside of religious objections? Is it more about the "batting average" of embryonic success and chances of defects?
ETA: Biologically, if human cloning ever became widespread, it would be a weakening of the species, because it is the genetic diversity via mixing of parent chromosomes that makes us far, far less vulnerable to things. Cloning would put all our eggs in one basket, and if the generations that have that same genotype lose the lottery with a disease or environmental factor, then lights out.
1 -
13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
They have my blessing. The same blessing the rabbi recommended for the Czar.
Ha,ha! May God bless and keep the stake presidency --- far away.
0 -
44 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
We have cloned animals and they are alive. If it is true that animals have spirits as well what is the difference?
I think there are doctrinal ramifications, though, for human spirits being "called into" cloned bodies that makes it different from Dolly the sheep.
Was it God's eternal will that spirits XYZ enter mortality that way,or is the "pulling"of the spirit into cloned bodies completely at the will,mercy, and beck and call of people cloning?
It does raise ethical and theological questions for many.
1 -
4 minutes ago, Durangout said:
I believe in NDEs. I do have a couple of caveats when reading them.
My belief that one is true and not made up is in direct contrast to the level of detail and the length of any given experience. In other words, the longer it is and the more details that it has, the greater chance that it was made up. Sadly all LDS authors of NDEs have a greater likelihood of fabricating them than other authors (ex, Julie Rowe, Spencer, Chad Daybell, Sara Menet, Betty Ede …).
The exception to the LDS thing are the accounts that were not made for publication (e.g., journals, family tradition, etc.). I totally agree with you on the "rogue's gallery" above.
I highly recommend Crowther's "Life Everlasting." He heavily uses journal accounts, and the non-Mormon accounts in the newer edition are very interesting and inspiring in their own right.
https://www.amazon.com/Life-Everlasting-Definitive-Study-After/dp/1462120466
One of my favorite parts is the personal account of when Joseph F. Smith drowned on his mission in Hawaii. He saw his body down below on the beach, and hovered above it. When other missionaries anointed him with oil and laid hands on him, his spirit "snapped" back into his body. Many people (but not all) describe the spirit returning to the body as painful or unpleasant, while the spirit being outside the body is peaceful and pleasant.
3
Neanderthal temple work
in General Discussions
Posted
For the record, Mike, although it seems that most want to tiptoe using "Before Adam" logic (i.e., only Adam and Eve and after matter, anything that came before is irrelevant, etc.), I believe that Adam and Eve were the first people. I believe that remains from the Neander Valley, etc. came after Adam and Eve. So, yes,in my view they will receive their ordinances.