Jump to content

halconero

Members
  • Posts

    2,566
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Soros-funded Ivory Tower

Recent Profile Visitors

4,944 profile views

halconero's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges

3.8k

Reputation

  1. I have, and I think it’s existence proves the rule more than anything.
  2. Incredibly sad and unfortunate. For what it is worth, I do not perceive Latter-day Saints as being any more susceptible to that sort of radicalization than other groups, and certainly less than certain other religious communities. If anything, I think there is a pretty strong moderating influence that Church teachings exercise on individuals, including conservatives.
  3. 1) I don't like slurs generally, so wouldn't use them myself. 2) That said, there is a distinction between a member of one race using a slur and a member of the "slurred" race using it. I come from a Jewish background. My best friend is an Indigenous Canadian. There are slurs used against both groups. When non-members of that group, say, a white person who is a gentile, uses the slur, they are usually using it with hostility and to exert their superiority over the non-white person. Many Jews, Indigenous people, Black people and others will sometimes use slurs that have been used against them in conversation with each other. It's a colloquial way of identifying with the shared history of oppression, trial, or difficulty among the group. It is also way of taking the words of those responsible for oppressing them (the Confederacy and other racist Americans, antisemitic European communities, etc.) and flipping them into a sort of honorific and form of recognition amongst fellow members of the group. Put another way, a white person using the n-word is using it to exert their superiority or reduce the esteem of a black person. A black person using it with another black person is a way of exerting the commonality of their history and shared experiences as Black Americans. That doesn't make it non-vulgar, nor does it mean that a black person using it is doing some without some level of casualness. It just comes from a different place. Like I said, it's not something I would do for a variety of reasons, but a Gentile calling me a "k**e" absolutely comes off to me differently than a Jewish person using it with me in casual conversation.
  4. Not enough detail to say. If the bishopric or stake presidency is specifically asking if members are vaccinated, and denying recommends to those are not, that is wrong. If a member is answering “no,” when asked if they sustain the President of the Church on the basis that President Nelson recommended vaccination, I think there may be some cases where denying a recommend is appropriate. If I were a bishop in the above case, I would clarify with the member that President Nelson urged us to get vaccinated, but ultimately left the decision in our hands, and that people who are not vaccinated can still sustain him as President. I would then ask them again, with more context, if they feel they can sustain the President of the Church. If they still said no, I would deny them a recommend. There are a number of members in my area that genuinely think President Nelson was off base with vaccinations, and therefore can’t sustain him as President of the Church. It would be entirely appropriate to deny them a recommend in those cases. Not because they aren’t vaccinated, but because they will sustain him as a prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. If there is any factual basis to your story above, I think it is equally plausible that people refusing to sustain the prophet in the recommend interview over vaccines is the actual issue, not the vaccines themselves.
  5. I believe this was reasonably confirmed as a cabinet secretary in some US presidency of the time. Some dude named Stuart. Helped by the fact that the name “Stuart” is carved in the bottom-right corner.
  6. From reddit, the 1842 painting of Emma Hale Smith vs. the 1845 daguerreotype. There’s little reason to demand exactitude between the proposed daguerreotype of Joseph Smith and his painting. Also remember when overlaying the death mask on the daguerreotype that you need to horizontally reverse the latter first.
  7. Maybe some day. My wife and I are in the process of moving to the UK for doctoral studies, we just found out she is expecting, and I'm trying to get some work across the finish line for the war in Ukraine. To pogi et al. I'll try to respond to you some time today, but it may take a bit - life's obligations and all.
  8. I really like the KJV for his historicity and contributions to the English language. The way it articulates certain passages is incredibly beautiful, but I agree, major concepts, especially those described by Paul, are butchered. I sometimes wonder the extent to which this is a function of the translation itself, or our language shift in the 400 years since it was written. Things like faith in the 1600s having a meaning more akin to the Greek "pistis" stand out as particular examples. I jump around depending on the context for my own personal study. I teach Elders Quorum and use the KJV there for consistency with others, but I supplement it with the New Oxford Annotated I have for personal study, which is really just the NRSV with extra footnotes and accompanying essays. One of my dear friends is Ukrainian Orthodox, and I work with St. Vladimir's right now in the context of Ukrainian resettlement, so it helps being on the same page (pun intended) as far as additional canonicity goes. It's hard to say. That is indeed a distinct possibility, but he just referred to it as his "German bible." I personally lean towards it being Elias Huttero's "Novum Testamentum harmonicum," published in 1602. Josiah Quincy and Wilford Woodruff noted that Joseph would often use a "polyglot" New Testament in his sermons, that included at least Hebrew and German, or a Bible of "various tongues." Thomas Bullock reports that Joseph had a bible "in the Latin, Greek, Hebrew and German." Elias Huttero's work is about the only that fits the bill there. As for why Joseph preferred it, Joseph was (imo) just as interested in finding the correct translation in the traditional sense of the word as he was in finding the most correct interpretation, through reasoning and the revelatory process. In fact, his King Follet Sermon combines all three aspects of this interest, turning to reason, translation, and revelation to expound on his view of God. We know he studied Hebrew and German, but know less about his studies into Latin or Greek, so his preference for the German New Testament might be motivated as much bit its quality as being the only higher quality translation he could comprehend compared to his available English translation.
  9. And yet the scriptures suggest this would not happen: And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. 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. Fulfilled. If the violating the commandment means death, that implies that keeping it means life. Someone who kept the commandment would be entitled to such. Imagine if that someone could be proxy for others. Christ does more than undo the consequences of a violation. The scriptures say that he "takes away" sin itself. In the celestial ledger there isn't a note of sins or transgressions with a note that says "forgiven" and "not forgiven." Instead, Christ says, "I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins." Christ not only atones for the sin, but then forgets them on behalf of the repentant such that they are "restored" to a state where the violation did not occur. In fact, I'm not sure you can separate the concept of redemption from removal of the violation itself. In other contexts, redemption is precisely the act of fulfilling something that someone else could not fulfill. In levirate marriage, the kinsman of the dead is called the "kinsman-redeemer" and their role is provide a child for the dead as if the dead had not died at all, thereby fulfilling laws of inheritance as if they had not been broken by death. The above is patterned in our own work in the temples. When we stand as proxies for others, and they accept it, it is considered as being as it if had been done in mortality. The scriptures call Christ the second Adam. Why? Because Christ, who was in violation of no law, whether sin or transgression, stood as proxy for Adam, and restored humanity to a state of immortality as if the violation of that law had not occurred. Not really. May I suggest D&C 117 and D&C 124:49 as companion studies to 1 Nephi 3:7? The first details the mission of Oliver Granger. He was commanded by God to return to Kirtland as the church's agent to sell church property there. And yet, the Lord adds this: Meanwhile, D&C 124 says the following: There is an apparent contradiction between 1 Nephi 3:7 and the above. One says that children of men don't get commandments without having a way to fulfill them. The other says that children of men can go forth to do a work in righteousness, and still be stymied. Which is it? Both. As the Saints found out, Zion can only be built through redemption. To go back to 1 Nephi 3:7 What if the way is literally "The Way." What if the only way Adam could fulfill both those commandments was by allowing another to recapitulate his choice by proxy? It is no coincidence that, in a very chiasmus-like style 2 Nephi 2:26-27 is contrasted by the verses that preceed it or that Moses 6:59-60 puts the transgression and the redemption together as context on how to "keep the commandment."
  10. Get in loser, we're going to the Adam and Eve thread.
  11. Would they have died if they had transgressed the commandment to multiply? Some. What if God made a second Adam that undid the violation of the 2nd commandment in the garden?
  12. If I were a betting man I would be willing to put money on Derek Joseph Smith or Richard Jacob Jessop having some connection to the Church. I grew up 10 minutes north of the Idaho border on the Canadian side. Church members represent a plurality by religious affiliation in Boundary and Bonner county, and are the 2nd largest in Kootenai county. Unfortunately, those same counties also host some of the most militant ultranationalist and racist groups in the United States. I'm not implying a correlation, but the large presence of both and the disaffection some members have had recently from teachings of tolerance in the Church mean its likely some members of the militia were also members of the Church.
  13. The sealer is careful to note that children born outside the covenant are sealed to their parents as if they had been born in it. Put another way, it renders them ipso facto born in the covenant. Elohim is clear at multiple stages that the commandment to not eat of the forbidden fruit is not a standalone mandate, but comes with a clause: "lest ye die." Can you think of any mechanism whereby the first commandment could be upheld while the violation of the second was undone as if it had not occurred?
  14. Question, pogi, have you ever witnessed the sealing of a child to their parents, either living or by proxy?
  15. There’s at least two believers in Adam-God in this thread alone, so have at ‘er.
×
×
  • Create New...