Teancum

I retract my statement. 😁

Certainly the passage can be extrapolated to include abortion. I really do not want to wade into an abortion debate. Personally, I oppose abortion and think the stand the church has is reasonable. As my politics have trended more liberal over the years I have struggled to reconcile my view on abortion with my support for more liberal candidates on the issue. My only reconciling factor is that the current GOP and their filed of candidates so repugnant that I have to hold my nose on the liberal candidates abortion provisions.

You may want to check that. Marrying age for women at the time was 20-25 years old.

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

Could you please clarify the bolded item above? I do not see the correlation.

It seems to me one always ought to be cautious buying into claims of some self anointed recipient of visions and revelations that grant that person some special insight. Especially when it blatantly contradicts the body of evidence.

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.

A quick thought. I used to think this way as well. That the only way we could learn to become a god and to be like Christ, was to suffer through all the awful suffering a life can bring, whatever that may be. I am still sympathetic to that if I believed that we actually do become a god like being.

I am quite fine with you or any others sharing their thoughts. This is a topic that is incredibly important I think, not just to me, but to all of us. It is a serious topic. And I have appreciated everyone's comments. I want to give some comments to this and some other posts. But I have to punt for a bit. I am still a part time partner at a CPA firm doing tax work. And the final deadline of 10/15 is almost here. And then I leave for a ten day trip out of the country. So, I promise to revisit this down the road. I just don't have the time to some thoughtful comments myself. Thank you all!

How is this different though from say a walk in the woods or a hike to a mountain top that generates a sense of peace and calm?

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I have more thoughts but I have grandkids here and pizza is on its way! 😁

I used to be able to do that. Radical acceptance. Abrahamic trials. It eventually broke for me.

I like the idea that not all events are attributable to a God being. But the idea that he sent us here to be tested while causing us to forget everything I find much more difficult to accept. Yet such tings are so grossly unfair. You and I were born into abundance and thank God for our food. Others, they were born into a place where food may be hard to come by. How is the randomness of fair is God loves all his children eqiually? I think your daed was born into a place where he could easily be a bit flippant about it. And I do not mean that as an insult. Good things if you want to continue to believe in God.

I used to love this quote. I came to feel differently about it. So my honest, and not taunting question to you is, why? Why would a loving God test and try us, intentionally intentionally, in such a way in order to inherit the celestial glory? Why? It seems cruel to me. Would any of us intentionally inflict such suffering on one of our children?

Seems like a lop sided relationship.

How do you distinguish this feeling of God's presence from any other emotional response? Is there something that makes what you felt different or special from normal emotional reactions?

The problem of evil and suffering have caused many thoughtful persons to question their relationship, beliefs and faith that such a being exists. As well as being about to trust such a being. And the comments you shared from this person in Instagram, well I don't find pithy platitudes and comments that somehow the suffering and pain in life is somehow the God's will for us. It is like telling a parent who lost a child prematurely that "they are in a better place" or "God has a mission for your child on the other side of the veil." Such comments poorly timed can be vary hurtful even if well intended. Nobody know what is some divine being's will for us, if such a being exist. The fac that any child is inflicted with cancer seems to beg off that such a thing is God's plan, will or its higher ways. And your last question you pose is one for you to ponder and conclude upon. And nobody else. This is a primary reason that led me I highly doubt a God that is taught in LDS and Christian theology exists.

Religious logic? What is religious logic?

Correct. Man invented hell. It as make believe as other after life torment club religions use to manipulate and control people. No. Hell is not inescapable able. Nobody needs to escape something that does not exist. While the LDS doctrine of hell is a bit more "compassionate-" One only suffers pretty miserable for maybe 1000 years or so, then gets some kingdom of glory, it still pretty horrible. And for the rest of Christianity, well hell fire and brimstone forever seems extreme don't ya think? And personally, I find a God being that threatened some sort of horrific punishment, short term or long term while at the same time requiring us to forget all we supposedly learned and agreed to before hand (I don't recall that do you really?) absolutely abhorrent and repulsive. Such a being should be rejected for the monster it seems to be. It is like going the 150 hours of college to qualify to sit for the CPA exam. Then after 5 years of education when I go to take the test, the proctor waves a magic wand and says "forget all you learned and go take the test. And if you don't get it right, sucks to be you, but you will suffer for it. Sorry. Even though you don't remember you agreed to it. And yea you agreed without sufficient knowledge to know what agreeing to it meant. But hey, have a happy life!" What utter nonsense really. Yet this is in essence what you think it God's truth. The idea that there has to be opposition in al things is also nonsense. But that is a topic for another day.

Is that your own spin on LDS doctrine and speculative myth?

Yet the Book of Revelation is not about the end times. But rather is addresses Rome under the rule of Nero. At least according to Bart Ehrman and other NT scholars.

It is a good thing that the idea of hell is a myth, and has no basis in reality. I recommend everyone ignore any threat of an after life of punishment for not following someone else's imagined rules. It is all myth and you treat every other mythical religion that way. You don't worship Zeus or Odin. Just take it one step further.

Fair enough.😁

Come on Smac. You know absolutely what @california boyis getting at. He isn't saying that missionaries are told to actively subvert parents authority. I know it has been a heck of a long time, but we always asked new members to refer and make introductions to friends and families and we did not filter based on age. We had opportunities to teach teen age investigators without parental approval/ More often that not it was a boyfriend of some young woman in the ward or branch. Of course parental permission for baptism was required even in 1979. The entire point @california boyis making is Latter-day Saints are quite fine in encouraging people to leave their church to join ours, but we bristle when others attempt to persuade members to leave the church. But I think you knew this really and just want to put on your attorney hat and split hairs. Ands it a double standard for sure,.

While not my style, I see nothing wrong with a disaffected or former member speaking out or criticizing the church on whatever platform they choose. And that if they are a member still, they have to know they put their membership at risk. And they should not feign surprise when the church acts against then as far as membership is concerned. Odd that you seem quite happy with he apologists that make a name for themselves but seem to frown at a critic doing the same. Why is that? That is the church's problem really. He is under no obligation to not speak about his church council. Seems to me that he is referring to restriction on speaking at church events. I don't imagine if a wedding is held at an LDS church he would be allowed to speak. Of premises, there would be no restiction. I think this is in reference to the outer darkness question. While I think that misconstrues LDS doctrine, I have run into many that think LDS apostates who had a solid "testimony" and leave are headed for outer darkness. And for priesthood holders, there is that Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood where it says if one turns away from said oath, there is no forgiveness in this world or the next. I agree this is a silly comparison. Indeed. I think the "how weatlthy they were" refers to the Church and not church leaders. At least I read it that way. I have listened to Nemo in the past. I think this a gross mischaracterization of the critical material he presents. He is thorough and accurate. Or rather the fruits of actually understanding that the claims of the Church in regards to it founding are false.