Calm

Only generally speaking. One is promised healing in some cases, but no specifics as in ‘you will be healed so you won’t have arthritis (or recover hearing and sight, mental acuity, no more high cholesterol or diabetes or whatever, etc) any more if you obey this law’; security and peace are promised in other cases, which many assume is financial security, but seems more emotional in my experience. This is how I see it. Obedience prepares us to connect with the Spirit and God’s power so he can change us, but he chooses how he goes about doing that, including anything in our environment that is needed.

I think Teddy gets the idea from the doctrine Jesus intentionally laid down his life for us. Jesus had power over life and death even before he died (Lazarus). Some people infer in my experience that meant that Jesus wouldn’t die if he didn’t want. He could have kept his spirit in his mortal body forever if he so chose. John 10:17-19 Also the wording of “gave up the spirit”. I can see how someone might assume that meant he was not subjected to the aging process. But he naturally aged to adulthood and it’s also say there was nothing in his appearance that men would marvel at, so the implication imo is he kept aging and would have if he hadn’t been killed. I don’t believe though I have ever heard anyone take it that far before, but the other option is Tithonus, so my guess is a lot might go there if they assumed Jesus’ body didn’t suffer from infirmities. I do remember someone saying Jesus wouldn’t have been able to get sick because his body was perfect when I was a kid, but don’t believe that’s doctrinal at all. Not exactly a human mortal experience, if so. I see Teddy’s overall comment as reasonable if you do assume some superhuman qualities about it, such as no aging, which is why I gave him a point, but I disagree with his premise that Jesus was immortal. Apparently there are some early Church fathers that believed Jesus was not subject to aging unless he willed it, so Teddy is not alone.p in this. My mind went to Highlander with Teddy’s comment and how all those immortals were unable to have biological children for some reason, I was thinking of making a comment, but clamped down on the impulse and pushed it out of my brain. I meant to ask for clarification on this, how teddy envisioned this happening and why it wasn’t mentioned Jesus wasn’t getting wrinkles or laugh lines. He was out in the sun a lot and even at early thirties, he would either lack the dewy*** face of teens and twenties because of aging or he would have been unusual in appearance, imo. ***younger skin is naturally more hydrated and more elastic, starts losing elasticity in mid 20s as collagen and elastin production starts to slow down. Cells start a slower turnover in the 20s, male hormones start declining early 30s, bodily functions overall start to slow down beginning early 20s. Rib cage muscles start to shrink around 20 years, etc. It’s all downhill after the 20s. https://functionwellsalem.com/timeline-of-aging

My go to for most things Catholic

Depends on what you mean by oppressive. They certainly remove choices, limit agency in some ways. People who are oppressed often learn to adapt and make the best of a limiting situation.

I would say an elephant. Definitions are the foundation of complex discussions, but are too often ignored as if unnecessary because we act as if we can mind read each other or ‘of course, everyone understands the words like I do’ because of assuming that everyone responds to the same stimuli in the same way…which is false. There’s this FB dad who shares conversations with his kids he feels lost in and then he shares how he finally figures out what they are talking about because he follows the connection they made. They took their 3? year old to the zoo for the first time and the kid was entranced, went up to each enclosure and said “peekaboo”…for every animal. Dad couldn’t figure out why until it dawned on him that the kid thought they were talking to the animals. Doublechecked with the kid. Yep, the giraffe, the monkeys, the bears, etc all say peekaboo according to the kid. Somehow the kid thought all the animals’ language was “peekaboo”, instead of the more typical “moo, baa, la la la”…. Later that night (possibly in the middle of his sleep, could be mixing it up with another such story) it struck him like a bolt. They have a lift the flap board book the dad used to read to the kid over and over where the animals are playing peekaboo. So the kid assumed that was all the animals say. The kid made connections not intended by the author or the dad when reading to them. My kid would hold hands for awhile because he thought his hands would pop off if we pulled too hard just like a toy he had. These mistaken interpretations are easy to uncover. More subtle ones, the nuances, complex ideas…those too often go undiscovered unless one really makes an effort to define one’s words.

So an expression of faith rather than you trying to prove anything here? (this is my position, so I may be projecting)

The whole ‘I am bound if you do what I say’ can be both inspiring and despair producing. If it doesn’t happen as expected/wanted or at all, it must be ‘something I did wrong’ and you can always find something less than perfect, so you try again…still doesn’t happen as far as you can tell, you either become a perfectionist feels like a failure again and again or for some, reject that God exists. Can be hard at times to find a healthy middle road viewing it as reassurance, but not setting one up for disappointment. Unfortunately some may interpret God as a vending machine of blessings if they go too much in that direction imo.

Depends on what outcome you are looking for. Just because the man in the relationships is possibly equally oppressed by the system, doesn’t mean women aren’t oppressed any more. And association is not causation. It more likely is the culture that smilies on arranged marriages frowning on divorce and official separation that leads to lower divorce….that and lower expectations of happiness and love in the relationship. I have known half dozen or so Hindi professors, all of whom had arranged marriages. All of them considered themselves still married, but hadn’t lived in the same city or even country in many cases as their wives and hadn’t for years. It was not seen as a temporary arrangement, but SOP for allowing the husband to take whatever job he wanted while his family had a stable upbringing or at times his wife pursued a different career path, some wives were also professors teaching at different universities. And all of them seemed quite comfortable with the arrangement. Most nonarranged marriage professors I knew who had spouses as professors or coaches, etc tried to at least teach close together so they could still see each other on weekends (we have one such couple in our ward right now).

Where did you get this idea? Catholic belief is like the typical LDS belief, we are resurrected with the same body, perfected. (I believe, Catholics here can correct me if I have interpreted the CCC incorrectly). https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/search/997-1001 Were you not a male when you were a child when you didn’t think about sex (assuming there was a time in your life before you understood and desired sex)? Were you not a male as a teen and possibly as an adult (don’t know how old you were when you got married, but assume you went on a mission, so at least early 20s) before you started having sex? If you lost the ability to procreate or never had it, would you be any less male than you are now (assuming you are still fertile)? Was all this nonsexual maleness meaningless?

So you are suggesting that it is impossible that the bee hummingbird could function as it does if there was no spirit adding to its brain function….and the evidence is its functioning? I believe that’s circular reasoning, a logic fallacy. Did you ask AI if a spirit was required because it seems to present the idea that even that small brain is sufficient enough not because it functions, but because of identified physical structures…as in sufficient numbers of neurons; efficient, specialized brain structures; and preprogramming so flexible thought, which would have to be able to explore possibilities is not necessary? Sounds like it’s pretty plug and play, not much circuitry needing to be dedicated to learning.

Nice find, Pyreaux

Lose the scriptures that use slavery as a metaphor and go with the child-parent version of Mosiah, imo. Why try to force a fit into an awkward, ill shaped garment and try to pretend it looks great with just some adjustment when God has provided beautiful ones for us now? I think there is a massive difference in the emotional baggage of the two. We are drawn towards God in love imo when we think of him as a father (those of us with good relationships with our parents, at least, and those who didn’t often are still able to see possibilities) while we have to make an effort to put aside or ignore the negative connotations and the things we see as immoral in slavery to make it an acceptable metaphor.

If people actually listened to what is taught about our responsibility towards the poor and the needy in the NT, life would be so much better for everyone (not perfect as there will still be selfishness and evil, but removing desperation would go a long way).

Don’t disagree with this.

I wasn’t picking on him. I just think given the modern context it is highly problematic to use slavery as a metaphor for relationship between God and man. There was a very different context/world view back then that we likely can’t even get our heads around to understand all the layers of meaning that were involved for them. It is not on Paul if we start to imply some forms of slavery are good, it’s on us. God has continued to give us greater light and knowledge. I see it as refusing the gift if we won’t use it for things like this. I think it’s a bad idea to try and liken scriptures to ourselves that come way too culturally baggaged and even involve criminal behaviour. In this case it is too easy to infer that God is okay participating in criminal behaviour. There are plenty of other scriptures we can use that won’t take us so far down a dangerous path. I feel the same way about scriptures that promote child abuse, such as using a rod to discipline children or being okay with stoning offspring for disrespecting parents. It’s okay imo to simply say whatever they were trying to say back then, we aren’t able to translate it in a moral to our time way, whether because of our lack of understanding or because God has taught us better paths in some ways.

Which was what? A guy who saw slavery as normal?

Slavery is a removal of agency. Even if one chooses rather than agency being taken from you to give agency up and let another be your ruler, I don’t think that’s what God wants, even if it’s him. He wants us to choose to follow him and to continue to do so to grow our agency, not abdicate it. Given the limitations of career choice, education, even limitations of food and shelter, slavery perhaps wasn’t a huge difference from being in the economic lower classes, subsistence living, so it’s understandable if it was easier in Paul’s day to rationalize slavery, but we should know better being able to experience more freedoms in our lives, especially for many of us, freedom from fear of starvation or homelessness (though even in this board there are those who have endured that and face the possibility of it happening again. Also Paul’s culture had a different world view than we do of relationships between classes, a patron-client community. There are some benefits from that type of relationship that we lack, but I believe God wants us to move past both types of community and all others of this fallen world into a celestial relationship of oneness.

That is unfortunate. On what grounds?

ESPN was willing to sue Notre Dame because they wanted to investigate incidents involving players, so not sure how shy they are at offending the school. Granted it was almost ten years ago. Perhaps attitudes towards ND have changed. https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/14980628/notre-dame-fighting-irish-police-department-operate-secret?utm_source=chatgpt.com

A search online (I am not familiar at all with this topic) shows allegations of prejudice at ESPN over race, sex (including harassment and comment about women provoking domestic violence), anti Muslim, Jesus and Notre Dame, Christmas, homosexuality, disability discrimination (one a skin condition, another hearing).

Lapse in professionalism, sure. Careless, sure. Kind of juvenile, yep. Not that funny, definitely. Not sure if indicative of a vicious strain of anti Mormonism. Would depend on what else he has done in the past and will do in the future. “Is college sport media and BYU's sport rivals creating a safe harbor for expressions of intolerance and prejudice against Latter-day Saints that would be unacceptable if directed at other religious or minority groups?” Generally speaking, if there is intolerance against one group, it is highly likely there is intolerance against another. What is notable is victims often don’t notice it because it’s not important to them or they accept prejudice in ways they refuse to when they or loved ones are targeted, unfortunately demonstrating their own prejudices, imo. I tend to wonder whenever I hear something along the lines of “is (fill in your own sensitive topic) the last acceptable prejudice?” Heard that or something close from LDS, Catholics (there is even a book on anticatholicism with that title), other faiths, minorities, whites, overweight community, disability communities, women, men….which seems to imply socially acceptable prejudices in general are alive and well and not winnowed down to the last one yet.

So you see AI as equivalent to some random guy on the internet offering different ideas? (Don’t have an issue with that, just curious) I use ChatGPT too, so not criticizing any use. I would never give it much weight though without doublechecking links to be sure they say what it claims they say (which they often don’t, it tells me all the time someone said something when it’s just extrapolated from my question or whatever it does) as well as having prior knowledge to be familiar enough with biases out there that might get imported into its programming. I find it out of place in a serious discussion though a random opinion is called for. Its use often comes across like someone is trying to appear educated when they don’t have a clue or are too lazy to do the work themselves. Better not to contribute, imo. (Saying this as I just used it to research a response to Pyreaux in a topic I was clueless on, but I did admit to being clueless and rather than an analysis, I was looking for examples of behavior I suspected were out there…and they were…allegedly). I find it useful as a research tool getting me started with links and using it when I am too lazy or unable to do the work myself but feel the need to respond quickly or just want to throw something on the page to show I registered their comments and was thinking about it…and I realize using AI to show I am thinking about something is the opposite of what I should do.

It’s not basic if the words are not defined. It’s shallow. It’s not a progressive development either. That would be starting out from a solid, well defined position and building on that. When you don’t define words, you re asking people to guess what you mean. This is mostly acceptable when all are familiar with words and the words are not representing complex ideas. However, if they do represent complex ideas or ideas that are undeveloped or widely vary among individuals or groups, this is problematic. You may have a strong sense of what a word means for you. Assuming others share the same understanding as well when complexity and uncertainty over meanings increase is foolish and leads to miscommunication.

Do you see this ChatGPT comment as an authoritative or academic analysis? Am wondering how you weight contributions from Chat.

It may be expectations and experience. My husband being a professor, I have known a lot of professors and academics. Ben’s comments mostly read as confidence in the content and his knowledge to me as I would expect in a college class lecture while teddy and longview come off as arrogant quite a lot because I think of conversations with them more like talking to someone at church or in a SS class and feeling I am getting lectured…which I don’t see as appropriate from someone who has no stewardship for this purpose. I admit I value academic analysis in these conversations usually more than I value personal opinions that I have no way of knowing were inspired or misguided (unless the Spirit gets involved). Part of that is because academic training teaches us (or should) to look critically at our own ideas and test them against not only what is already known, but others’ analyses. It’s much harder to tell if personal opinions have been similarly tested or just based on untested, unstudied first impressions. Bias is a problem for both, but my experience is without training to recognize bias in ourselves, more have a problem restraining it and accepting its presence in their own ideas. Thus they talk of plain or obvious or face value meanings that aren’t actually plain or obvious or face value, but loaded with baggage. And that reads as pretty massive arrogance to me. It takes some work for me to try and adjust my gut reaction to that type of perceived arrogance and I am not always successful. I should add that if an academic starts lecturing on a subject that they do not show they have studied in depth as they would their field or they also begin to talk of obvious readings, etc, I can easily switch to viewing them more like I view Sunday School lecturers and other amateurs/hobbyists while if an amateur shows an in depth familiarity with discussion surrounding a topic, I can switch into viewing them as more academic as I have a number of posters here over the years, though I will still reserve some skepticism if I am not familiar enough with the topic to tell if they are aware of the baggage surrounding it and take that into account or not.