Jump to content

dirtius maximus

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by dirtius maximus

  1. For purpose of discussion any references/claims/accusation/denials including any synonym of the same concerning "blindly" following, made by LDS friend or foe, is a thread derail and I ask that you refrain from such comments. And yes, I deliberately edited out President Tanner comment on "blindly" following.

    Elaine Cannon Ensign Nov. 78

    We must secure those traditions which are sacred to good people everywhere. In each country as you hear this program by direct line, your course should become clear, your priorities ought to be known to you as a daughter of God. Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do. When the prophet speaks, sisters, the debate is over. So I urge us all to provide powerful unity as women for those things we can agree upon—family, chastity, accountability to the Lord, responsibility in the community, sharing the gospel.


    N. Elden Tanner Ensign Aug. 79

    Latter-day Saints should be able to accept the words of the prophets without having to wait for science to prove the validity of their words. We are most fortunate to have a living prophet at the head of the Church to guide us, and all who heed his counsel will be partakers of the promised blessings which will not be enjoyed by those who fail to accept his messages. Today there are many issues under debate as controversies rage all around us. It should be evident to all that we need divine direction, as men and women who argue their causes seem to be unable to come to workable or peaceable solutions. It is sad indeed that the world does not know or accept the fact that in our midst is a prophet through whom God can direct the solution of world problems.

    True Latter-day Saints have no such dilemma. They know that the messages of the prophet have come from the Lord and have the concurrence of all the General Authorities, who are men of vision and integrity, and who themselves try to keep in tune with deity.

    Observing discussions here and else where, on a few occasions it seems "the debate is over" when a LDS General Authority is quoted and proving of the claim made is not required because it was spoken by a General Authority of the LDS Church. I am torn on this issue. I would say concerning spiritual matters "the debate" is over when the Prophet speaks. Concerning temporal matters, I am not as accepting of what seems to be a common position of LDS members to take that being "because a LDS General Authority made the claim, the claim is true and the claim is proven by virtue of being spoken by a General Authority."

    I have heard the comment "the debate is over" from critics, I never knew till 20minutes ago, "the debate is over" is essentially Doctrine of the Church - by virtue of publication in the Ensign. In reading the quotes I wonder "Who can end the debate?" Does the debate end with the Prophet or can the debate end with the Apostles or other General Authorities? N. Elden Tanner suggests it is the Prophet "the messages of the prophet have come from the Lord and have the concurrence of all the General Authorities." Sister Cannon also refers specifically to "the prophet". I think the term "the prophet" commonly and most reasonably understood as the actual prophet i.e. for our current time Thomas S. Monson.

    For purpose of discussion any references/claims/accusation/denials including any synonym of the same concerning "blindly" following, made by LDS friend or foe, is a thread derail and I ask that you refrain from such comments. And yes, I deliberately edited out President Tanner comment on "blindly" following.

  2. It must have been some time ago because I took a class in ballroom dancing at BYU in the sixties. I hated it because they were always short of boys and because I was tall I had to be the boy. And young men wondered later why I always tried to lead. :pardon:

    just a bump to update. I read the comment about BYU or the LDS Church and dancing in the comments section of the Salt Lake Tribune, not the bastion of truth but a start to peek interest. So I finally found some things.

    According to Micheal Hicks in his book "Mormonism and Music: A History" (start on page 74) Joseph Smith had a unpublicly spoken disapproval to dancing, though, dances were held regularly in his house with Emma Smith as host, Joseph Smith would remain upstairs. But Joseph Smith tolerated the dances in his home so as to keep persons from going to the Steam Boats for dances. Hicks also states that many people of the time had an aversion to dancing due to religious upbringing. Brigham was also opposed to dancing or rather "round dancing" - haven't figured out what that means, but that BY also encouraged dancing on the trek West.

    Separately I found statements attributed to LDS about dancing and any negative statements about dancing concerned when dancing is used to simulate lustful desires, so the aversion to dancing wasn't blanket just an aversion to what could deemed inappropriate dancing - The Waltz being at the top of the list of dances that was often misused.

    So side story, about a month or two ago, I read some information about a wife of Joseph Smith. From her journal are statements about how she was angry that she was forbidden from attending dances. But given that Joseph Smith did not attend the dances and "said everything against [dancing] he could" to Emma (Mormonism and Music page 75; footnote 6 page 87 - Heber C. Kimball TS 5 (1 November 1844: 694)) it is not much of a suprise to me to that this particular woman was not permitted at the dances.

  3. Deborah thank your for your response. "Common sense would tell us this doesn't apply to the minimal amounts in medicines." ErayE would seem to disagree with you "Well it is harmful to brain cells."

    As it reads "any form" would include medicine. But if the statement is not mean to be so absolute, why not just say "Alcohol can harm your body". Better yet, why even make up reasons, just say "The Lord has commanded us to refrain from alcohol". Also as it reads, it would seem that yes, alcohol is always harmful to the body.

    As for the modesty statement.

    Consider bathing suits, I wear a speedo when swimming, I use to wear shorts that went to the top of my knee, I find those impractical now that I have wore a speedo. A speedo dries quickly, doesn't drip water every where like cotton blend long shorts. I don't wear a speedo for attention I wear one for piratical purposes. I just don't believe there are many statements about individual behaviour that can be so absolute, or a stated in such a way to appear absolute. A person is wearing something that LDS do not approve of, whether it is a woman wearing a pant suit or feminine slacks to Church, or a woman wearing a sleeveless top that leaves the shoulders exposed, it seems rather wrongly judgmental to say a person wearing something is wearing something for one reason and one reason only.

    For me there are times when absolute statements are correct and there are times when absolute statements are not correct. I think that the FSY has both.

  4. *TO BE CLEAR, I am not promoting that anyone engage in behaviours herein. I only wish to discuss the matter of spinning an issue whether from the Church side or from outside the Church directed at the Church.

    I happened across a few videos about one couples struggle with something. The man stated that the Church creates the problem by telling people how they should feel when they learn this particular thing has happened. The wife seemed to agree. I discussed with someone of the opposite gender the topic of the "webisodes" a few weeks ago. Our consensus was that outside of the Church people engage in this activity and those peoples lives are not consumed or ruined by the activity. So given that discussion and the video I found I started to wonder if there is any truth to what the man in the video said. Or is it just a spin from him. And does the Church spin an issue or only focus on the extreme of an issue? Is there anything wrong with spinning an issue. I could spin water to make it appear bad (a city in california came very close to banning water because of the spin they received i.e. dihydrogen monoxide is the primary ingredient to pesticides, kills X number of children a year, etc.) It does seem that some things are taught in the extreme. And only the negative extreme is focused on in some cases

    "For the Strenght of Youth" (FSY)

    Never lower your dress standards for any occasion. Doing so sends the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval and that modesty is important only when it is convenient.

    Is someone who wears a dress with no back or thin or non-existant shoulder straps using their body to get attention? Or could someone just feel "beauty" to themself in said dress and not want any outside attention at all? Is a "tankini" a lowering of standards?

    Also, do not drink coffee or tea, for these are addictive and harmful. Any form of alcohol is harmful to your body and spirit. Being under the influence of alcohol weakens your judgment and self-control and could lead you to break the law of chastity or other commandments. Drinking can lead to alcoholism, which destroys individuals and families.

    Is alcohol always harmful? And how many persons who drink alcohol in any amount become alcoholics?

    Another issue, sort of related, is that I have read that at one point in the history of BYU ball room dancing was a big no-no (of course I don't know reliable a SLTRIB commentary is), but now they have renouned ball room dancing program (when I considered BYU, I only said "I would go to BYU only for the ball room dancing so I could meet pretty girls.") I didn't go to BYU and I don't dance but I still meet a pretty girl.

    Some of the information from FSY I would say can rightly be said definatively, for example the several times "it offends the Spirit" or similar statements. I would say that the Prophet and Apostles could know with an surety. And that in all cases, vulgarity offends the Spirit.

  5. I don't think the issue is whether someone is born that way or not. I don't question that some are.

    Born one way or another is an important issue. Often heard is that "homosexuality is a choice", the persons making such statements do take the time to clarify. Is homosexual desire a choice or does the speaker mean engaging in homosexual conduct is a choice. So knowing if people are born one or another, would make the rhetoric quite different and more focused. Can I choose not the find the many many coeds in my neighborhood attractive, I doubt it, a person with sight can not help but notice what is around. However, can I choose not to lust, or act on the attraction, I surely can choose not too. I think all would agree that engaging in an activity is the choice but desire/attraction is quite a different animal will no real answer in sight.

  6. My sister lives near one, her attitude is "What better way to go. A bright flash and then its all over".

    What extra preparation could be had living near one? I suppose Iodine tablets, but more than that there does not seem there is much one could do.

  7. Seeing as the IDF will issue you a copy of the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, or Quran, forgive me for considering your post a little inaccurate. Having also been involoved in ordering material from the distribution center for our branch in Israel, I can say for a fact that there is no ban on importing scriptures belonging to religions other than Judaism.

    the general idea still stands, does Israel or any other Middle East Country allow active missionary work? My point is, and it is general true, the Middle East including Israel are not exactly the most friendly places for the non-State endorsed religion. There are Jews in Iran, there are Christians in other places, but that does not change the general treatment of non-State religions.

  8. Let me get this straight. . . We have a moral obligation to obey even wicked and tyrannical governments? Have you read the Book of Mormon lately? Do you know anything about the history of how this county was formed?


    The Articles of Faith would say so.

    The Book of Mormon would also indicate such.

    From what I recall the only example of defiance to a wicked and tyrannical government in the Bible would be in the Old Testament. Otherwise as indicated Christ said "Render unto to Ceasar".

    Can you put forth an explanation backed by Scripture, that there is an exception to the being subject to kings...etc.

    As for the founding of the United States, not relevant, as not every LDS is also a US Citizen, more importantly, the Gospel had not been restored at the time, thus the founders of the United States were not bound to what LDS are bound; i.e. the Articles of Faith

  9. I have convinced myself that yesterdays Conference should already be posted online. I have convinced myself that the Church created a beta website, whereon, the Church posted the Conference addresses on the same day or the next.

    This convincing of myself, is separate and apart from conference addresses being posted days afterward on LDS.org.

    Does anyone know if yesterdays is already available online?

  10. I have no idea what your agenda is, and based on the post don't care.

    you took offense at the suggestion or inference that US military actions are not always pure.

    Smedly Butler is a Medal of Honor Recipient, I provided his first hand account of his concern as a foot soldier that he was just a pawn for the Military Industrial complex, and as I stated who is pulling the string has been a concern of the foot soldier for a very long time.

  11. So we are just there for their natural resources, we as a people are that evil? Having served in the Army and knowing of our humanitarian efforts around the world I find the suggestion as a personal insult.

    you can be offended if you like, that is your choice.

    Did I say the United States was there ONLY for the minerals? No I did not.

    I only stated that who is pulling the strings has been a concern of the foot soldier for a long time. A US Medal of Honor recipient gave a speech about his concern of the military industrial complex, this soldier stated that immediately after the military had taken some ground somewhere there was a US Corporation right behind them to exploit the minerals - this speech was given in the 1930's I believe.

    I have talked with Special Forces in Afghanistan who have similar statements i.e. that after taken a hill a US Corporation is right there to exploit the minerals in the hill.

    Who is pulling the strings is a reasonable concern for the foot soldier.

  12. yes "we'll see" seems the prudent response. As I have heard virtually no country in the Middle East to include Israel, permits scriptures to be brought in other than the scripture of the State Religion.

    And we have yet to see what all these regime changes are leading too, how "tolerant" will new Islamic based regime be of non-muslims or those of different "sects" within Islam.

  13. How much oil does Afghanistan produce?

    I would say that is not the correct question to the statement "Do we need another war for oil".

    Afghanistan is rich in supply of minerals and other things that economies hold precious. Such untapped minerals reserves is a reason given by some that Russia invaded.

    Whether Afghanistan has untapped oil reserves is the better question.

    The military industrial complex being the man behind the curtain direct or encouraging some US Military engagements has been a concern of the American foot soldier since at least the late 1800's.

  14. The situation seems to give rise that the United States will hold to grudge and serve a very cold vengeance. It seems that way with Iraq and Hussein and it would seem that way with Libya and Pan Am flight 103. This is just one take on the issue.

    Another take is this.

    As I understand American Govnerment and such, treason can be seeking to overthrow the Gov. by anything other than Constitutional means. This would suggest that the American government would use deadly force in the event of an uprising in the States that sought a change in government by force. While I understand the interest of other nations in protecting civilians, I do not understand the interest of other nations essentially helping the none government side of a civil war. The only explanation I can think of is that the nations involved want a regime change, and will use their resources to assist in that regime change. Involving oneself in regime changes provides little to no credibility when it comes to future military involvement; the military actions become suspect as to true motive.

  15. American tele had a interesting show called "Engineering Disasters" - a clever double entendre. A common theme was cost savings contributing to the disaster. I believe that it was cost savings in New Orleans which lead to the levies being under built because New Orleans had not seen a category 5 storm before.

    Short a load of springs or hydraulic shocks, I do not believe much can be done to protect equipment in the ground when a 9 earthquake strikes. Though I agree, building at the shoreline without a barrier seems short sighted.

  • Create New...