longview

NO. Rigid grace is inflexible and unjust. No room for the process of repentance.

I actually did read of a homosexual male married to a straight woman. Both are LDS and committed to making the "basic unit" work. Yes, just WOW! With God nothing is impossible. The transformative power of the Atonement does reach BEYOND the carnal limitations of the fallen world and lead to the joyful fulfilment of the Plan of Happiness. And its endless generations forever.

Yet you think that surgical mutilation and chemical castration of children is a SPLENDID idea? NOT a good kind of evolution for a healthy society! Just sheer random fantasies for further radicalism for the sake of more radicalism.

At the very least, he has powerful artistic expressions. He appears to have great vim and vigor. His brain may be wired differently. He has great joy in crafts and fashion projects. If he is faithful to the Law of Chastity, will he consider partnering with a "faithful" lesbian just to take on the commandment for having a biological family reared in love?

I'm sort of ambivalent about this. If Hillary Rodham Clinton could mount vigorous campaigns in black churches and the First Amendment prohibits government from stomping on free speech rights or infringing on free exercise of religion, then I am ALL for the churches to engage in political dialogue anywhere including the public square. While the LDS church wisely makes it a rule for keeping politics OUT of meeting houses, it did from time to time ask for members to participate in "crusades" for important moral causes such as stopping ERA amendment back in the 1970s and fighting the dilution of basic marriage covenant in California. Would like to better understand this. NOT a good idea. From time to time, the government will use funding sources as a weapon against certain elements of society. Hillsdale College wisely refuses any government funding and will not accept students using government scholarships or loans. Just private sources. We seriously NEED to get government OUT of the education business. If there is a need for funding, then vouchers should be given to parents strictly without strings attached or bureaucratic mandates. This can be done thru private foundations and standards bodies. All without enforcement powers.

Where Christianity is "buffet style" or the "cafeteria approach" and the restored Gospel is a "House of Order" reflecting the consistency of God.

The "connection" was that I attended BYU Education Week. Most of the classes are presented one hour each of the five days. So there were many topics concerning Lincoln. The point is God had a hand throughout Abe's life. That angle is interesting but I don't remember the presenter mentioning the Library of Congress (at least he did not dwell much on it). He was referring to a much earlier time before Lincoln ran for office. I think he checked out of the local library where he was living. Another topic the presenter talked about was Lincoln wrote a big manuscript containing his religious thoughts. He handed it to a friend who was inebriated who dismissed it and tossed into the fireplace. A terrible loss to history!

Not of the BoM. I guess you missed the something else.

Many years ago I attended BYU Education Week. One class was on whether Abe Lincoln ever read the Book of Mormon he supposedly borrowed out of the library. The presenter believes Pres. Lincoln was to seal his testimony in blood as a sacrifice for making this major reformation for eliminating slavery and for preserving the Union.

Logjam? What are the rules for limiting the sizes of rosters?

I have outlined my observations and do genuinely stand by them. My convictions are honed by many years of overview and cross-referencing which do strengthen my perspectives. Sometimes you behave like a court jester in the court of king Æthelred the Unready. No way would the Seventy talk like an ebonics-speaking dolt. He would be MOST gracious for having been invited to meet with the black congregation and sharing many common experiences. Not likely would he sing at the pulpit but most certainly would sing WITH the congregation. For sure clap with them and even attempt at some "gyrations". I can easily imagine Hillary wanting to sing by herself or with the congregation just so long as she does NOT caricature or pretend to be part of the "victim class" or pander to the lowest common denomiator.

And sometimes faithless or intolerant or not willing to ponder the overarching care God has for the world and His Work. Throughout History.

This was the impression I was getting reading the "outrage" of Okrahomer and Nehor. I was wondering why couldn't ANY race emulate each other's traditions. In the case of Hillary, it was plainly obvious that she was "dumbing" herself down in order to ingratiate herself with the "victim class" but it crashed like a lead balloon. I have no doubt that the black congregation was silently embarrassed by her antics.

Very much so. For the reasons I outlined. That black congregation did NOT need to be talked down to in such a condescending manner. My distinct impression was that he was actually celebrating black culture and traditions. It was NOT cultural misappropriation. I have seen congregations consisting of all races joyfully singing together with full fervor, emotion, and dancing with unrestrained gyrations. That was a wonderful kind of unity promoting greater harmony and love. The Seventy may have mocked his own shortcomings in not being as savvy and as cool as the average black congregant. He is to be applauded for reaching out in admiration and good will. Wrong, banana nose. 🤣 Hillary was deeply cynical and manipulative. The Seventy was showing genuine appreciation for the contributions of black culture. Don't ALL races love and appreciate signing Amazing Grace? I know I do, with as much fervor as I can (in spite of my shyness).

A toothpick jabbed in the eyeball totally takes the fight out of the guy . . . 👀🧐

Back in 2016 Hillary Rodham Clinton made a campaign stop at a black church. She spoke with a heavy exaggerated ebonics-style voice. It was horribly embarrassing. It manifested the "soft bigotry of low expectations". Did her party react with outrage at this insult? If I remember correctly there were no backlash but the alternative media did express disgust at her pandering. Do you remember this incident? What were your thoughts then?

Ardent? Only in your twisted and unbalanced review of scriptures. There were many provisions in the Law of Moses that tried to mitigate various corrupt practices of human relations and point to a better way. One example was indentured servitude. When two parties entered into an economic arrangement for exchange of goods or services, it usually is completed with the expected outcome. If not, then the the party that was "shorted" will "bind" the other party to various kinds of menial servitude. The Law of Moses put a limit on the duration of servitude to 7 years.

You can't squirm out this. There are many things in the Bible that ARE textbook.

Nuanced or not, the serious student of the Bible should be able to make distinctions between the fickleness of Samson, Eli, King Saul, Jephthah, etc with the "steadfastness" of God's work and doctrinal purity. Mosaic Law was given to help Hebrews progress from the "carnal commandments" to the higher law of Christ.

Just because the Lord used him to serve as a "judge" to lead his people to victory over Ammon does NOT justify his foolish vow to "sacrifice" whatsoever should come forth in front of his house. That is NOT a covenant. God does NOT give covenants involving human sacrifice. (test of Abraham and Isaac notwithstanding). The Law of Moses already prohibited human sacrifice. When Jephthah came home he could have sacrificed any animal. When he saw his daughter, he should have considered himself OFF the hook for making an animal sacrifice. He did NOT need to consider himself obligated to sacrifice his own child (or any other human). His vow was "manmade" done without the acquiescence of God. This piece of history is clearly not in accordance with God's pattern of covenant making (whether doctrinal or not). When there is a covenant to be made, it is done only in accordance with God's Will. Your "whataboutism" is uncalled for. If the daughter was actually killed, then she should have known better and she should have appealed to levite priests.

It is beautiful literature in many ways: testifying of God's love for humankind, listing the MANY tender mercies and steadfast faithfulness of God, proclaiming the joys of redemption, and on and on. It is an amazing textbook documenting cause and effect on many levels of obedience and of disobedience, verifying the many prophecies that have been fulfilled in various stages of history, advocating for adherence to the many saving commands and wise counsels from God, achieving continual personal progression that occurs from walking with God, etc, etc.

Bring back the deluge of 1983:

Serious question - - - what style are the Oakridge Boys using?

Maybe the AI that is administering the survey became completely befuddled when you threw in references to the Hellenistic Fantasy.

I align with Bruce McConkie at 79% and least with Progressive Mormons at 49%.