Jump to content

pogi

Contributor
  • Posts

    11,067
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pogi

  1. On 10/20/2021 at 5:57 PM, Teancum said:

    Mosiah 3:19:

    19 For the anatural bman is an cenemy to God, and has been from the dfall of Adam...

    This is all played out in the temple narrative and creation story.   Who is the "natural man" in this story?  The fallen Adam.   What did Adam do after partaking of the fruit?  He hid from God's voice calling out to him.   Adam was genuinely scared/terrified of how God might react to his disobedience.  Stan convinced him that he would be better off in hiding.  Satan convinced him that he was worthless after his fall and exposed in his fallen state "see that you are naked...hide!"  Satan convinced fallen Adam that he was safer in his presence than in the presence of God.  He was safer putting his own will before the will of God.  He embodied the sentiment of "my will not thine be done", which is the definition of enmity towards God.  Satan wanted him to know without a doubt that he was now a natural man and therefore unacceptable before God (kind of like how you are interpreting this verse).  God continued to call out in concern and love for Adam, hoping that he would hear his voice and soften his heart toward God, but God allowed him his agency.  Adam's heart was finally pricked and took the brave step of faith in standing naked and exposed before the all seeing eye of God - fully expecting God to strike him down ("though shalt surely die").  Instead, God preserved his physical life, extended his probation, and restored his spiritual life and wrapped him in the sacrificial skins of the atonement as a token of his love.   Not quite the welcoming embrace you would expect from one who perceives you as their enemy.  Fallen Adam represents all of us.  This is the story of the natural man and God's outreached arms, tender mercies, and love towards them.  

  2. 1 hour ago, Teancum said:

    What is the difference?  If I am an enemy to someone they view me as their enemy.  It says I am God's enemy not that he is mine.

    It could be read both ways, honestly.  When it says the natural man is an enemy to God, it may not be commenting on God's perspective of us at all, and may be more about our actions and behaviors toward him.  It could be interpreted, "the natural man is an enemy toward God."  "To" and "toward" are interchangeable in meaning. 

     

  3. 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

     

    I don't think the LDS view solves the problem of evil. It is an attempted answer, sure, and it can cover some instances, yes, but it cannot account satisfactorily for all instances of evil (bad things happening). I say this as someone who has spent some time academically studying this (I have a bachelor's degree in philosophy).

    The first and biggest flaw is natural evil. How do you account for Matthew, a bus boy at a restaurant I used to be a regular at, being killed by a lightning strike his very first evening in Missouri where he had moved to go to college? All he did was step out to get something out of his truck. He was 17 years old.

    Your answer to Matthew's death seems to be that those that knew him needed to go through the difficulty of his passing in order to grow. In other words, it wasn't actually bad that he died, but a good thing for everyone else that he did. If this is your view, I kindly point you to Voltaire's satire Candide and the idea of "the best of all possible worlds."

    The free-will theodicy that you also espouse (evil in the hands of each individual) also doesn't address natural evil. It also has it's major problems, too. It is a fairly common theodicy, so it has been deeply analyzed and criticized.

    You also claimed that there must be a balance, that we must know wickedness to know righteousness. But do we really need to have so much wickedness? Couldn't there be one less instance of wickedness? I mean, imagine if Mao had only murdered 44 million people instead of 45 million. Did we really need that extra million killed to have balance between good and evil? If so, then I point you again to Voltaire and that this theodicy is simply saying there really isn't evil.

    I am a faithful believer in God. I do not have an answer to the problem of evil. I am wary of those who do, because every theodicy I have studied has obvious flaws. I understand people losing faith over it. I thank God that it has not hurt my faith.

     

    I am not claiming that I have the answer to evil in general, but in this specific scenario while tragic, can such an event be called "evil"?  I think evil is characterized by immoral or unrighteous behavior.  

    Some may judge God's behavior to be evil/immoral for not intervening when he could, but I think that judgment is not attainable or defensible from our limited mortal perspective. 

  4. 1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

    Suppose someone said No at first but then showed no resistance whatsoever, no longer saying No and by body language indicating she was not resistant at all.  People often change their mind. Consider this case portrayed in a court of law.

    Oh yes, every woman's fantasy is for a man to not respect their wishes and attempt get physical with them against their will.  "No, huh?  we'll see about that!"  That would change any woman's mind! How could they resist such bravado? 

    Since this is a hypothetical, lets say that for whatever CRAZY and unreasonable reason that the physical aggression after she said "no" didn't turn her on or change her mind.  In that scenario, did/could the man take her virtue from her if she didn't physically fight?

    Whether she changed her mind or not, this is a dangerous man and should be taken off the streets.  To become physical after a woman gives no indication of consent (not physically resisting is not a sign of consent - it could be a sign of horror/fear/trauma) and who said "no" is a man that is a danger to society and needs to be taken off the streets.

  5. 30 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

    Why aren’t you and other people seeing that your only 2 options are to either resist or consent?  If you just say “No” that will be a sign of resistance, not consent, and you should resist when you don’t want someone else to do something to you. 

    This sounds more reasonable.   Just saying no is enough.  It is not a physically fight or lose our virtue dichotomy.   None of that - it would be better to die physically fighting than not fight - junk.  None of that BS about someone being able to take virtue from us. 

  6. 4 hours ago, Teancum said:

    Brilliant to create us as God's enemy and to punish us because of the nature GOd put in us?  Can you expand?

    I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the natural man is.  God did not create the natural man.  It is a choice we make.  The "natural man" is not what you are thinking - a human created by natural means.  In fact, essential to our nature is a spark of divinity - the light of eternity - the good.  Children are celestial beings.  We can live in and yield to the spiritual environment. 

    Quote

     

    “Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great mediation of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

    “And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;

     

    We can choose to act and live in/partake of the spiritual environment via the light that fills the immensity of space and is endowed upon every person and literally expands our capacity beyond the limitations of our physical bodies to connect with divinity and the mind of God.  Without that, we would truly be slaves to the natural world, without agency.  It is the window to the spiritual realm that frees us from the bondage of the fallen world where people can truly become slaves in captivity. 

  7. 19 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

    A would-be rapist can easily become an accepted sex partner simply by the would-be victim becoming a willing participant in the would-be sex encounter. 

    Do you think that is the equivalent of a women choosing not to fight back?  Even though they are not willing and never gave their consent, you think that they should be judged as a willing participant if they don't fight?

    Come on bro!

  8. 19 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

    Preserving your virtue is about preserving your right to determine your actions regarding your morals. Suppose the rapist doesn't have a weapon other than his own body.  Suppose you are physically fit and think there is a good chance you could win a fight.

    At what point do you choose to just lay down and have some would-be rapist have his or her way with you?  Would you chance it if you thought you would only get a few bruises and some chaffed skin on your knuckles? How much of a wimp would you be?

    A lot of times it is not a choice.  People can literally be paralyzed with fear. 

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201405/neuroscientists-discover-the-roots-fear-evoked-freezing

  9. 36 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

    I do not expect someone like you to understand, but trying to fight off a would-be attacker is better than just allowing that attacker to do whatever he or she wants to do to you.  The attacker could kill you even if you let the attacker rape you.

    But you go ahead and do whatever you think is best. 

    I don't think anyone here is suggesting that it is wrong to defend yourself.  I applaud people that fight, carry pepper spray, and even take defense classes if they so chose.   What we are saying is that no one really knows how they are going to react in a situation like that.  Without training, adrenaline and trauma can lead to freezing.  It is a natural and normal human reaction.  Nothing to be ashamed of.  What we are saying is that death is not better than the alternative.  No virtue has been lost. 

  10. 2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

    Updating with Nipah or a strain thereof as a possible contender, along with strains of Marburg

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Nipah+virus&iar=news&ia=news

    I am daily updated with infectious disease outbreaks across the globe.  Would you like me to keep you up to date with other good contenders?  We have a resurgence of Ebola in Beni, North Kivu Province.  We have a Group B Strep outbreak in Hong Kong.  There's cholera outbreak in Mali, Gao Region.  Oh interesting, in Malaysia there is a huge spike in alcohol contamination/poisonings - maybe the government will just poison our food instead of infect us with disease.  Seems easier to control.   I'll keep an eye out for more good stuff to assist in your confirmation bias. 

  11. 12 hours ago, pogi said:

     Lets talk about Covid side effects and the cover up with Marburg. 

    2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

    So you think that Marburg (which could potentially kill more than half of the population of earth if it became airborne or more infectious), or something else, is currently being engineered to cover up for adverse reactions to covid vaccine?  

    Would anyone in their right mind not fight for a hastily concocted vaccine if a strain of Marburg, which could potentially kill more than half of the population of earth if it became airborne or more infectious? Probably not. Have you ever wondered why people didn’t riot in order to obtain the covid injections? Surely you don’t think all those who are not yet injected are conspiracy theorists? That would be very conspiracy-theorist-type of thinking and, of course, perish the thought.

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/wMhMjLTVuR70/ - panel of doctors

    https://www.facebook.com/idahofreedom/videos/212746730593293/?fallback=1 – Dr. Ryan Cole

    You’ll need to do better than Google results from FactCheck which owns a significant amount of one of the Big Pharma Cartel companies peddiling the injections. Pfizer, I think,

    "Adverse reactions that covid injections will manifest"?  They already have. VAERS which according to Harvard captures 1% of adverse reactions.

    When? 

    At the macro level you may compare death rates YOY year over year according to your preferred cohorts (age, race, gender, location, etc.). What increase in that death rate would suggest something suspicious? That is the question.

    At the micro lovel, it’s all very formulaic but take: height, weight, age, race, gender, blood type, pre-existing conditions (obesity, diabetes, cancer, history of heart problems, parents, grandparents, hereditary genetic predispositions, etc.) of the target population you have in mind (fully vaxxed in the US perhaps, assuming google and the federal gov’t aren’t inflating the numbers, which they likely are). Then subtract the percentage that you believe/disbelieve received a placebo (I’ve read 30-50% though that seems high to me), and then compare death rates YOY. I’ve also heard that 66% of people who’ve been injected over 5 years will manifest significant adverse reactions, again due to the variance in age, weight, gender, race, health level, exercise, diet, environmental pollution, etc. YOY cohort comparison seems to be the most direct measurement.

    What kind of reactions do you anticipate? 

    Those which have already manifest.

    Myocarditis and Pericarditis After Vaccination for COVID-19 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782900#248009130

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34118375/

    Journal of Pediatrics: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/148/3/e2021052644

    https://www.skirsch.com/covid/All.pdf

    In this month’s issue of Pediatrics, Marshall et al report a case series describing seven 14- to 19-year-old male individuals who developed symptomatic myocarditis after the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine.1 The authors report that the symptoms began between 2 and 4 days after the second dose and that all 7 patients experienced rapid resolution of symptoms. This case series is published in the context of other media reports of myocarditis in young adults, mostly male, from the US military and from Israel2 as well as a recent increase in reports of myocarditis after serious acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).3 As such, this case series offers useful preliminary information on clinical and therapeutic details regarding myocarditis among adolescents.

    Deaths caused from covid injections – temporary removed by NIH (no reason given: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8483988/):

    A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products

    Jessica Rose 1Peter A McCullough 2

    Affiliations expand

    • PMID: 34601006

     

     

    Free PMC article

    Abstract

    Following the global rollout and administration of the Pfizer Inc./BioNTech BNT162b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccines on December 17, 2020, in the United States, and of the Janssen Ad26.COV2.S product on April 1st, 2021, in an unprecedented manner, hundreds of thousands of individuals have reported adverse events (AEs) using the Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS). We used VAERS data to examine cardiac AEs, primarily myocarditis, reported following injection of the first or second dose of the COVID-19 injectable products. Myocarditis rates reported in VAERS were significantly higher in youths between the ages of 13 to 23 (p<0.0001) with 80% occurring in males. Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group. In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent to dose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males. A total of 67% of all cases occurred with BNT162b2. Of the total myocarditis AE reports, 6 individuals died (1.1%) and of these, 2 were under 20 years of age - 1 was 13. These findings suggest a markedly higher risk for myocarditis subsequent to COVID-19 injectable product use than for other known vaccines, and this is well above known background rates for myocarditis. COVID-19 injectable products are novel and have a genetic, pathogenic mechanism of action causing uncontrolled expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein within human cells. When you combine this fact with the temporal relationship of AE occurrence and reporting, biological plausibility of cause and effect, and the fact that these data are internally and externally consistent with emerging sources of clinical data, it supports a conclusion that the COVID-19 biological products are deterministic for the myocarditis cases observed after injection.

    Keywords: COVID-19; COVID-19-Injection-Related Myocarditis (CIRM); SARS-CoV-2; VAERS; adverse events (AEs); myocarditis.

    Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.

    If the reaction doesn't fit the symptom profile of Marburg, how is it going to work as a "cover up" exactly? 

    Easy. Think of a Venn Diagram, the overlapping section in the middle. The symptoms of the Marburg strain will overlap with the adverse reactions of the covid injections, primarily due to polyethylene glycol, polysorbate, graphene oxide, and the mRNA which tells your body to create spike proteins to catch and kill the live, viral covid spike proteins when you’re exposed.

    If the reaction is cancer, we can't blame that on Marburg.  If it is blindness, again, not Marburg.  If it causes my innards to boil and explode, again, not Marburg.  You seem to think that any bug (despite having different manifestations) will work perfectly as a cover up for this supposed covid injection reaction that we are all doomed to have.   

    Some injections are designed to exacerbate underlying health problems. If exacerbating injections are deployed then, yes, we can attribute cancer, blindness, and boiling and exploding innards to exacerbating underlying genetic hereditary factors and predispositions. (Perhaps what you’re really trying to do is claim injections aren’t confounding or primary factors when they can easily be contributing factors and still highly, directly relevant.) That’s why the current injections restrict blood flow to certain areas while increasing it too much to others – due to the variance of the population’s existing preconditions. Would you rather have fewer people on earth and millions starving each year or would you reduce the population in a calm yet coercive fashion? You’re not that callous, are you?

    You’re not all doomed to have those side effects and I pray none of you have them. The real question is: how many grandparents, great aunts, great uncles, etc. need to die before it becomes suspicious? Especially when we’re all predisposed to say things like: They lived a good life. They’ve gone on to their glory. There’s a bigger group of people shouting them welcome than there are people here mourning their homegoing, etc.

    If you are so confident that there will be a reaction, you musts certainly know what will be the cause of the reaction. I know what contributing factors look like because of what has already been manifested.  Without a known cause (a particular ingredient in the vaccine), then you can't be certain of anything. 

     

    Also, if you are so confident that covid vaccines will cause a reaction so terrible that Marburg would be needed to cover it up, you must be beyond furious that our prophet who you claim to sustain is mandating that our children be vaccinated for their missions?  They don't get a choice if they want to serve as they are called by the Lord.  

    It seems presumptuous of me, were I missionary age, to assume I would be serving internationally. Submitting papers with a preference for any location, then after receiving the call, and if it was outside of your country, then sure, get vaxxed if you feel the risk and cost-benefit are appropriate for your risk appetite.

    More to your point – since it’s prophesied that all the missionaries will be called home – whether that means all missions are temporarily closed or whether it means all missionaries serve domestically, which we’ve already seen due to covid, I don’t know – why would I risk my health in exchange for the potential to serve in another country – after presuming I know better than the General Authorities as to where I will serve?

    Unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures. If the Prophet whom I sustain encouraged some of us to do things that would speed up the time when we go to our glory, why would anyone begrudge him for that? What do you expect him to do – advise against the injections? The Church handbook accurately discusses vaccines and says it’s best left to the individual and their physician.  (This might be due to the variance in the health of members of the Church but I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist)

    Let me guess, you are suffering it to be so...

    No, the Lord is and so is his Prophet. I’m not willing.

    I am hoping wonderful things happen to you and all of us, as the next few years will depend on little more than good will. If you think the shortages we’re facing now are inconvenient, just wait. Unprecedented times and all that.

    Instead of being inspired by all the other passages in the BoM and Bible that call the righteous to intervene against wicked designs, you are going to take the popcorn and recliner option to watch it all unfold?

     

    Yes. What would you suggest for someone w/ pre-existing conditions and a medical exemption- a FEMA camp perhaps? Or buy lots of guns and ammo?  Careful, pogi, sometimes you really flirt with those conspiracy theorist ideas.

    But wait, there’s more:

     

    A new Centers for Disease Control report shows 94% of people who died from COVID-19 in the U.S. had contributing health conditions. (https://www.axios.com/cdc-covid-deaths-contributing-health-conditions-3315196c-986f-4ae3-ba35-2075fd64bce1.html - This means 6% died from COVID and not contributing health conditions.  That's 36,480 out of the 608,000 US deaths due to COVID.) 

    --------

    The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) has released an update to their research on the fatality rate associated with COVID-19. The CDC first posted this data on May 20, 2020, with the understanding that the parameter values would be updated and augmented over time. This update, dated September 10th, is based on data received by CDC through August 8, 2020.

    A quick summary of COVID-19 survival rates is shown below. The summary is based on the CDC table provided at the end of this report.

    CDC COVID-19 Survival Rates

    • Age 0-19 — 99.997%
    • Age 20-49 — 99.98%
    • Age 50-69 — 99.5%
    • Age 70+ — 94.6%

    https://tallahasseereports.com/2020/09/26/cdc-releases-updated-covid-19-fatality-rate-data/ 

    --------

    But because of the significant number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic people with COVID-19, the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention estimates the number of infected people could be 10 times the number of confirmed cases.

    Using the current numbers, that means more than 30 million people could have been infected, which would make the infection fatality rate 0.4% -- meaning 99.6% of people survive the virus.

    https://www.clickondetroit.com/health/good-health/2020/07/16/why-high-covid-19-survival-rate-is-no-reason-to-relax-safety-measures/ 

    ----------------

    CDC says masks don't work (https://drugstorenews.com/otc/cdc-study-reveals-face-masks-ineffective-against-spread-pandemic-flu-due-americans-lack-use).

     

    Ummmm....why are you reposting this?  Why do you make me parse through all the fluff?  You could have simply stated "myocarditis and pericarditis".

    I am still at a loss as to why you think the US government would be willing to kill half the population of earth to "cover up" some acute cases of myocarditis that are self-resolving which are transparently being reported by the government, even you claim that we already know what the side effects are...SO WHY KILL HALF THE POPULATION???  This is truly bonkers!

    Quote

    Easy. Think of a Venn Diagram, the overlapping section in the middle. The symptoms of the Marburg strain will overlap with the adverse reactions of the covid injections, primarily due to polyethylene glycol, polysorbate, graphene oxide, and the mRNA which tells your body to create spike proteins to catch and kill the live, viral covid spike proteins when you’re exposed.

    CFR that graphene oxide is in any of the Covid vaccines.

    Here let me help you out with the list of all ingredients:

    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html#Appendix-C

    Polyethylene glycol and polysorbate are commonly used in other vaccines (like the annual flu shot) and other injectable medicines.  They have been used for years.  You are starting to sound like an antivaxer in general - not just with Covid.  It seems that is where you are getting a lot of your information. 

    I don't know what you are talking about with overlap.  Marburg doesn't cause myocarditis - which seems to be your biggest concern with the vaccine.  And the vaccine doesn't cause hemorrhagic death.  Not sure where the overlap is.  It would be pretty easy to tell who is infected with Marburg vs having a vaccine reaction.  There is also a test for Marburg, so it wouldn't be hard to rule out Marburg and identify vaccine reactions.  This is just really coocoo for coco puffs stuff here. 

     

     

     

  12. 2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

    You are welcome to not respond to my posts.

    Nah. 

    2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

    Out of 12 sources, you quoted from one. 

    I didn't see any other relevant information to vaccines or attempts to cover up vaccine side effects.  You like to distract from the topic with unrelated information. Lots of it!  I think you think that if you can throw enough junk at us, eventually something will stick. Actually, it just makes you look incapable of discussing your beliefs in a linear, good faith way.  Perhaps because you are afraid of what you might find - I'm not sure.

    You never answered my questions about the cover up in my last post.  Instead you send me off on another wild goose chase with "Blackrock".

    2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

    What specifically do you want to discuss from this link?  I like the cognitive dissonance part. 

    This link claims that 150K people have died from the Covid vaccine.  Do you believe that is true?  Later they claime 276,996 thousand deaths from covid vaccine in the US.  I am not sure which number to believe.  Which do you believe is true?  Either?  Neither? Why?

    It also makes the point that "the one thing every hospitalized COVID patient has in common: they didn't use proven early treatment protocol."  I'm not sure how they got access to HIPPA protected information of all hospitalized patients with COVID to confirm this, but lets pretend this is true...doesn't it suggest that early treatment isn't very reliable because people don't go get early treatment when it is just a mild infection.  Once it becomes severe, it is too late!  Hence the need for an effective vaccine. 

    I don't appreciate the machine gun approach.  One bit at a time please.  Lets talk about Covid side effects and the cover up with Marburg. 

     

     

  13. 1 minute ago, Navidad said:

    I am not sure where you get the idea that I am trying to convert folks? I believe in evangelicalism, but I am and always have been a terrible evangelist. When I was younger, in my twenties I would travel preaching in churches with my best friend. He was the evangelist, I was the Bible teacher. He enjoyed converting folks; I enjoyed teaching Christians about sanctification and growth in the Christian life. We had different gifts as I Cor 12 says we all have.

    I am not actively engaged in trying to convert anyone. I have attended an LDS church for four years or more. Never have I tried to make anyone there Mennonite or Evangelical. In my understanding of them, they are already Christians via the atonement. I would sure like to see a little more grace and a little less striving to be worthy, but I recognize that as a difference that is an appendage. My mission to Africa was what we call a service/ministry mission. I couldn't speak their language and there was no written language, hence no scriptures; hence no real evanglism. I planted cotton and yams, played the guitar, and worked in the mission hospital.

    Of course I believe my faith is exceptional as I believe is yours. As is that of my Catholic, Baptist, and Orthodox friends. My faith gives me confidence and assurance. It doesn't teach me certainty or onlyism. It teaches me that I don't have all the answers. It teaches me I don't have the unique and absolute truth. I do have confidence in my faith and am working on my trust. Oh, and I love my wife dearly. She is my north star that always leads me home whenever I am gone speaking somewhere.

    Do you also believe that Hinduism is exceptional?  Islamism?  You do freely admit that you believe in the evangelicalism.  You believe in the mission of evangelizing non-Christians to bring them into the one true faith and one true fold, correct?  You may not personally engage in it a lot and believe it is not your gift, but do you discourage it as an act of onlyism?  Do you suggest that your fellow evangelists with the gift should be more humble and question their certainty in their mission of evangelizing non-Christians?  Or do you believe that it is worth every effort?  You don't see a point in "converting" Latter-day Saints because we are already Christian, same with Catholics, and Baptists, etc.  but what about non-Christians?  Is there a point there?  If so, why?

  14. 1 hour ago, JAHS said:

    The handbook now says:

    20.5.11
    Unapproved Activities
    Church units may not sponsor activities that are not in harmony with the guidelines in this chapter. These include: 
    Activities that have a high risk of injury or illness (see 20.7.6).
    Activities that require unusual expense or travel (see 20.7.7).
    Exercise programs that have music, lyrics, dress, or other elements that are not in harmony with Church standards.
    If a bishop has a question about whether an activity is appropriate, he asks the stake president. Stake presidents may address questions to the Area Presidency.

    There used to be a prohibition on mask wearing in the above section and it is now gone from the handbook.
    I guess a Stake president could still rule against it.

     

    They probably removed it because they knew that anti-maskers would be making memes out of it and otherwise using it in inappropriate ways.  It wouldn't surprise me if it was in response to something stupid members have done to use it in their anti-mask campaigns.   Masks are not only approved now, but recommended. 

  15. 29 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

    if by asking forgiveness you mean pleading with God within the most innermost part of our soul to not hold our past performances against us as we strive to improve our performances...

    This sounds like an acknowledgment that what they did in this specific situation was wrong.  It sounds an acknowledgement of guilt.  Would you disagree?  If you are suggesting that we need to acknowledge guilt and ask forgiveness, than I agree.  Acknowledgment of guilt and a plea to forgive us for specific sins that we are aware of is required to receive forgiveness.  We also must change performance as you say and have a change of heart - but that is not all that is needed. 

     

×
×
  • Create New...