Jump to content

halconero

Members
  • Posts

    2,566
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by halconero

  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.
  16. In structure, not really. Growing up there used to be a bit of Protestant-flavouring to Latter-day Saint discussion of creeds, treatment them as bad things generally. I think the general consensus now is that statements or confessions of faith are fine so long as they're written and authorized under apostolic/prophetic authority. Using one of the First Vision accounts, for example, God doesn't say that He has a problem with creeds generally, but "their creeds" specifically. Historicity, more than anything. The Pearl of Great Price was not compiled until after the Articles of Faith were published, and the idea of the "standard works" had not fully been conceptualized. The revelations that comprised the D&C at that time were there, and a lot had been accepted by the membership by vote, but insofar as it was singular "scripture" vs. a collection of revelations it was more the latter. Sorta like how all the pieces were in place for the current Nicene Creed at the time of the 1st Council of Nicea, but they didn't get formalized until the 1st Council of Constantinople. I suppose the Presidency of the Church could update it to include the D&C and Pearl of Great Price if they wished. See above. The Pear of Great Price was not conceived as a stand-alone work at the time the Articles were written. I'm not sure why it would. The use of the Masoretic text for the Old Testament in the Catholic New American Bible of the New Jerusalem Bible doesn't imply that that Catholics accept Rabbinic authority on some level, nor does the early use of the Septuagint mean that Church Fathers accepted the authority of Alexandrian scribes. The Latter-day Saint conception of the apostasy doesn't mean other churches can't "get it right" when it comes to preserving, transcribing, and organizing scripture. Nor does it leave us beholden to their authority. A bishop can get it right on scripture, and get it wrong on other points of doctrine. To the extent that scripture is correct, we thank the early Catholic and Orthodox Fathers for their work and for heeding the Holy Spirit. I wouldn't say that. The "as far as it is translated correctly" clause is really a way of saying, "we believe the parts of the Bible that were prophetically authorized." I also happen to believe the same about the Book of Mormon. With regards to the D&C and Pearl of Great Price, those don't need to be mentioned in the Articles of Faith to be considered authoritative. The First Council of Nicea isn't rendered unauthoritative by later councils just because it doesn't mention monothelitism. The D&C and Pearl of Great Price have all been canonized through accepted processes in the Church. I prefer to look at the Joseph Smith Translation as an inspired commentary. Commentary isn't "less valid," it just means that you can read the original translations next to what Joseph Smith said and gain knowledge thereby. And yes, the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible was ongoing until his death. There is some reservation about publishing it as a separate text in the Church because a lot of the translation was not in our hands for a number of years, but held by the Community of Christ. Not an official list, no. Yeah, we talk about it in places like Sunday School. I think that's accurate. Most members seem content with the KJV. I'm the odd-one out in my ward, as I did a major in early Christian literature before taking a wildly different career path during my master's and now-PhD. I really do think Joseph Smith meant translation in Article #8. If you read some of his sermons, especially his later one, he's always talking about different translations. He really liked the German ones. Happy Friday!
  17. Agreed. I joined when a fresh-faced RM, just 21. There are still a lot of people around from that time, but there are others I miss. I'll be honest, I find most of the discussions less-than invigorating right now. When I joined there was a lot more discussion on doctrinal topics. I feel like most center on social issues, many of which I just feel apathetic towards or have no clear opinion.
  18. By definition the unemployment rate captures those who don't have full/part-time employment because of the reasons you cited, but are actively looking for it. Now, if you mean those who are discouraged looking for work due to transportation, health, family, age, work, or criminal issues or histories, then yes, I think that is reasonable. Add about 15% or so for the student-age population between 16-25 and you're able workout why unemployment can be around 2% while labour force participation is between 62-65%
  19. The answer is in the question. Low unemployment is correlated with labour shortages. Put another way, everyone who wants a job has one, so employers looking for additional workers can't find one. The inverse is also true - during periods of high unemployment there are generally no labour shortages (this is a bit of an over-generalization - it varies by sector) because there is a large pool of people looking to find work and employers can more easily find one. If it is a closed or mostly closed labour market (i.e. insufficient immigration) then employers will raise wages or they will mechanize their outfits.
  20. There are dozens of us already! Dozens! ------- This is an interesting anecdote, but an anecdote nonetheless. I did my undergrad in Toronto, which is probably one of the most multicultural cities in the world, up there with NYC. Something like 50% of the population was born outside Canada, and when you take 2nd generation, most of the people there have very recent histories in Canada. The Church membership there reflected this diversity. Going off memory, we had wards or branches available in 12 different languages or so, including some expected ones like Mandarin, Cantonese, French, Spanish, and Portuguese, but also a Farsi branch, Creole, and Hindi. In fact, I would say Indians were probably one of the fastest growing demographics in the Church while I was there. One interesting anecdote from that growth is that I never met an Indian member from the Tribe of Ephraim. I'm sure they exist, but everyone I met from India was either from Naphtali, Isaachar, Zebulon, or, to a lesser extent, Dan.
  21. Do you mind if I take two of your questions and respond to both with one answer? Specifically, if a lot (maybe even a majority?) of mental illness is self-induced and a subconscious coping mechanism. The answer to this is "sure," but you have to square "self-induced," which implies some level of agency, and "subconscious," which implies some limits on agency. It is absolutely true that mental health disorders can manifest in behaviours that psychologists, psychotherapists, and social workers describe as maladaptive. Maladaptive behaviours can start after major life events, or they can be habits that are picked up early on in life. These are behaviours that allow us to cope with or deal with a situation in a way that is harmful at worst, or generally unhelpful at best. We can behave in a way that certainly affects our anxiety or depressive moments. The big thing with a maladaptive behaviour is that the person doing them often has not learned the techniques to address that behaviour directly or address the situation that they address with their behaviour. That, or they have learned the techniques, received the medication, or gotten the help, but they are not yet applying it for various reasons, both good (e.g. they are new to and stumbling through application) and bad (they are unwilling to apply them). I don't think you'll find any serious mental health professional who believes that agency has no role or that mental health issues can't be coping mechanism (again, it's the whole concept of a maladaptive behaviour). When they seek to diagnose a patient and form a treatment plan they'll often use your medical history to determine the extent to which these behaviours play a role in your mental illness compared to enviromental factors, family history (i.e. genetics), etc. It's multifactorial and individual to the person at the same time.
  22. It's interesting to me that from an 1830s perspective, and using your "equality of outcomes" here, Joseph Smith's Vision of the degrees of glory was considered too "woke" to many of the Latter-day Saints. It was radically universalist for its day, and compared to many Reformed theologies in particular it still is. There were many members then who left because they felt God was overly merciful in granting almost the entirety of the human race a presence in His Kingdom. Honestly, we could make another thread titled "Is Heaven 'Woke'" and the Venn diagram of responses here would be a perfect circle - where the doctrine of Christ is a platform to discuss your mortal politics and social bugbears that mean jack all in the long-term. If I seem frustrated it's because I'm seeing these fights break out in my own department right now and honestly see most involved act idiotic over it. Is it woke to run a regression analysis of real estate prices over a dummy variable representing whether a neighbourhood was redlined or not? I dunno, but it's an interesting research question to pursue and the answer may inform zoning and financial service reform in a way that might seem woke to some. Is it "unwoke" to run an accounting exercise of labour productivity of able-vs-disabled immigrants entering Canada through economic programs? Again, I dunno, but the questions is interesting enough to ask for various policy reasons unrelated to the economic value of a person. All I'm saying is that, like my department members, ya'llz need to go touch grass.
  23. This has to be one of the weirdest threads I've seen on this board. Part of the problem, which is one that I see among students, colleagues, and faculty at other institutions, is we're not using a common language when speaking about issues of equality and outcome. Does God guarantee equality of outcome? Yes. We all get resurrected, which is granted to us through Jesus Christ. There are also no degrees of forgiveness. God cannot look up on sin with the least degree of tolerance, but neither can He view forgiveness with the least degree of differentiation. The child who is forgiven for stealing some bird seed from a store (me, at age 11) is just as forgiven as the one committed adultery. We also know from scripture that He considers the life circumstances in which one was born, and mercifully judges us based on the knowledge imparted to us in our various cultural, political, racial, and economic backgrounds. Does God guarantee equality of opportunity? Insofar as this means everyone will receive an equal chance, in this life or the next, to listen to and accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then yes! Insofar as we use our individual agency to interact with the grace of Jesus Christ and to work with Him to overcome sin and become sanctified, then yeah, our exaltation can hugely depend on individual factors. I don't know if that's woke, unwoke, or whatever. I think if you're looking to fit your political or social bugbear into the economy of Heaven you'll be disappointed.
  24. There are also the shared visions Joseph had in Nauvoo with others, most famously Zebedee Coultrin, wherein they laid in a field and looked up into heaven, wherein they say the Father and Mother. There is another vision that is almost identical in its description wherein he shows them Adam and Eve. Make of that what you will.
  25. There have been some interesting attempts to fit strict monotheism to those verses over the course of Rabbinic Judaism and Christian theology. The more boring one is to say that the plural Elohim is merely an expression of majesty, like the royal "we." The more wild one, accepted among some Jewish scholars even now and the Gnostics of yesteryear is that both Elohim and the original human he created here was androgynous or intersex.
×
×
  • Create New...