Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Waylon

  1. Based on your post, your marital troubles seem to stem largely from contention.

    Have you ever considered just giving in and letting your wife win when you argue?

    I mean, I get it.  I don't like being walked all over either.  If I find my parents, friends, or total strangers try to argue with me, I will fight back with everything I have and not give in.  Part of the reason for this is I find the stakes in these relationships to not be that high.

    However, the relationship with my wife is a little different.  I love it when people make comments like me and my wife are no longer two people, but one person, and thanks to our temple marriage we will always be two parts of the same person.  With that perspective in mind, assuming my wife is not pushing for behavior that is morally wrong, who cares who is right and wrong?  Who cares who wins in an argument?  Isn't it a little like fighting one's self?

    I don't know what you are fighting about with your wife, but perhaps it is worth considering just giving in for the sake of having a happy marriage, that most issues become trivial when one realizes the awesome power of being sealed to another person for eternity.  Food for thought!

  2. 7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

    I served my mission in southern France. Prior to receiving my call the only place in the world I did not want to serve was France - did not have a valid reason, but for some unknown reason, it was the place I chose to avoid at all cost. Fortunately, God ignores the silly ideas of humans and called me to serve in the best mission in the world. The best, not because it was perfect, but because the people of France are so wonderful. My mission was interesting to me because of the people, the country, the culture, and the language. 

    The absolute strongest spiritual experience was while teaching a man and his wife, both Jewish Holocaust survivors, and while teaching about Jesus Christ, tears streaming down their faces learning and coming to know that he was their Savior and the gospel of his redeeming love was true. What is significant is that even with this powerful experience they chose to not go any further when we returned the next week. They did not want to change and the path offered to them was too far in their minds. Spiritual experiences can be overwhelmingly powerful, but it remains a choice to follow or not. 

    Knocking on doors was one of the most productive activities for me and my companions; however, after I became a senior companion we only went and continued knocking if we felt the Spirit.  Once we felt like the Spirit was not with us we stopped. Incidentally, I learned that if the Spirit is not present it does not matter how good or bad you think you are, the work will not be productive. 

    I learned that loving the people was a fundamental requirement if I was going to be useful/productive tool as a missionary. This was back in the 70s; our labor was very productive relative to the majority of missionaries. Though I never personally baptized a single person, my companionships saw families, single men and women, and couples join the Church. 

    I lived in an apartment in a building that built prior to Columbus sailing to the New World. 

    Nothing is better than French pastries, getting croissants hot from the oven in the morning to eat with hot chocolate, French bread, and pate with a little fruit and cheese makes one of the best lunches in the world. We made and ate six liters of yogurt each week (an apartment of 4 elders). 

    Our district formed a little singing group and sang in retirement homes and schools, hiked in the Pyrenees on P-day, visited Lourdes, went to midnight Mass at St. Front cathedral on Christmas Eve (Mission President encouraged us to experience the beauty of French culture), visiting with Catholic priests, there are too many - countless - cultural experiences yet always as a servant of Jesus Christ.  


    lol, I went to the North of France and had an almost exactly opposite experience!

  3. My mission was pretty awful.  It was totally knocking doors for ten hours a day, trying to get numbers, being micromanaged, etc.  I was deeply introverted, and never could figure out what to say to people or be effective (in retrospect, I could barely make friends in high school and certainly never had the courage to ask girls out, so of course I was ill prepared to excel at missionary work).  I had a couple of major fights with my mission president, a man who I don't think ever really understood me and who I did not feel comfortable around.  I didn't baptize a single person the entire two years.

    The best part about my mission was, when I got home, the experience made me take a long, hard look at the Church and how I truly felt about the Church, and to closely check out other religions as well (atheism, islam, protestantism, catholicism).  In so doing, I was very surprised when I found out the Church, the Book of Mormon, and the doctrines taught therein, really were all true!  I thought I had a testimony on my mission, but it is nothing compared to what I received afterwards, when I really did go through a period of deep questioning.  To get to this point, I did have to separate my feelings towards my mission with my feelings towards the Church, and approach my search for truth with an honest heart and an open mind.

    My Act 2 with the Church has been wonderful, as I have embraced Mormonism as a deeply personal religion I absolutely believe in.  However, I still have negative feelings about my mission, and my solution for that has been to just disavow the whole thing rather than try and look for any silver lining.  My mission was a failure, and while I am glad I showed up for the Lord, I am more than happy that the whole experience is behind me.  I guess I am proof that you can be a good Mormon but not a good missionary (and, based on some of the lives of my companions, the inverse holds true as well).

    I also know that my experience is not the usual mission experience, that most people have a much better time than I did, so I keep my opinion to myself a lot.  However, if my children decide to go on missions, I plan to have a long talk with them about exactly what my experience was.

  4. 30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

    It's also worth noting (and touched briefly upon in that blog post) that the New Perspectives on Paul movement tends to see most references to faith and faithfulness as tied to Christ and not the believer. That is it's Christ's faithfulness that justifies us not our faithfulness.

    I appreciate the explanation (and understand that these are not your personal beliefs), but man oh man does that sound like wresting the scriptures!

  5. 17 minutes ago, cdowis said:

    Assuming it is indeed inerrant, but that is moot until we have an inerrant INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

    Satan himself quoted the Bible and then Christ provided the inerrant interpretation.  Where do we find that today == from the theologians and scholars who debate even basic salvation questions.

    Did you know the "inerrant" King James Version originally contained the Apocrypha for its first 150 years?  You can Wikipedia it.

    If the KJV is inerrant, why did it include the Apocrypha for so many years?  Did God authorize the removal of the Apocrypha, or are Protestants just picking and choosing their scripture to best suit their doctrines?  Perhaps KJV inerrancy is yet another Baptist fairy tale?

    I just find it fishy when Baptists claim authority based off the Bible, when they don't even believe all of it and have picked and chosen their cannon for their own disingenuous ends.  But whatever.

  6. FIC has sent me a message privately which I believe should be responded to publicly:

    "You said "the words of Jesus fully support LDS doctrine".  The very reason I'm no longer a member is because the words of Jesus Christ do not support LDS doctrine.

    Jesus Christ plainly said in numerous sermons "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life".

    Can you show me were LDS theology supports this claim made by Jesus Christ that those who believe upon Him have eternal life?  I'll believe you if you can show it to me."

    I direct FIC to the entire New Testament.  If read as a harmonious whole without wresting individual passages, it supports the LDS position on faith, eternal security, baptism, predestination, the works!  Catholics agree.  Eastern Orthodox agree.  The First Century Christians, taught by Paul and the apostles, agree.  And most importantly, the Holy Spirit agrees.  I'm sorry, but Protestants simply cannot be correct here.  Their ideas are from Gnosticism, not Christianity.

    The problems are when you start yanking single verses out of context and applying "alternative" explanations to said scriptures, then you can quibble about what the definition of "hath" is (assuming such a verse is even translated correctly).

  7. 2 minutes ago, Free in Christ said:

    So, on the one hand, you claim I need to "seriously read the writings of the First Century Christians", but then you tell me that you can't believe what I'm saying because I'm "using fallible human logic".

    Fallible human logic is reason I DON'T read the writings of the First Century Christians.  

    Just read the words of Jesus Christ.  As-is, you will see they do not support LDS theology in any way, shape or form.

    BTW the words of Jesus fully support LDS doctrine.  It is wresting the words of Paul, saying baptism doesn't really mean baptism, enduring to the end doesn't really mean enduring to the end for believers, death doesn't really mean death, where you get into Protestant heresies.  Fallible logic of men in action!

  8. Just now, Free in Christ said:

    So, on the one hand, you claim I need to "seriously read the writings of the First Century Christians", but then you tell me that you can't believe what I'm saying because I'm "using fallible human logic".

    Fallible human logic is reason I DON'T read the writings of the First Century Christians.  

    Just read the words of Jesus Christ.  As-is, you will see they do not support LDS theology in any way, shape or form.

    Umm . . . This is a non-sequiteur.  The first century Christians were inspired and righteous men who had experience with the Holy Spirit and you in particular, my dear sir, could learn much about true Christianity from them.

  9. Just now, Free in Christ said:

    As a baptist, we believe that we only need to believe what He believes.  

    I bet you have no idea what the first century Christians believed.  Most Protestants don't, and those who do tend to see that their doctrines are modern, man-made innovations, wrested from scripture to ease Martin Luther's mental insecurities, and flee to Catholicism.  (They would be better served fleeing to Mormonism, an even more pure expression of first century Christian beliefs).  You should seriously read the writings of the First Century Christians and ask yourself, "why do these Christians, who were personally taught by the apostles, have such different beliefs from modern day Protestants".

    The thing that turns me off of Protestantism (at least as presented by you) is this - it is man made.  It is someone's tortured interpretation of the Bible, without claims of any sort of inspiration to back it up.  In a very real way, it asks us to put blind faith in what Pastor Bill claims the Bible means and to disregard prayerful consideration and inspiration.  Under this reasoning, using fallible human logic, I see no better reason to become a Protestant than a Catholic, a Jehovah's Witness, or a Muslim for that matter.

  10. Just now, Free in Christ said:

    Because, like modern revelations, the Apocrypha contain doctrines that contradict that which has already been revealed in God's word.

    But, ummm . . . how do you know that the Apocrypha did not contain the gospel of God?  Did Martin Luther have some kind of revelation saying the Apocrypha was false, or did he rely on his own reasoning?  And . . . what if he was wrong?

  11. 7 minutes ago, Free in Christ said:

    There is a baptism in water and a baptism of Spirit that happens the moment one believes.  That baptism is not the putting away of the flesh, but a baptism of the spirit through belief in Him.

    He is immersed within me and I am immersed within Him.

    Do you see?

    Born of water is the physical birth.  Born of the Spirit is the spiritual birth that happens the moment one believes.  This passage has nothing to do with baptism by immersion in water.

    There is a physical birth and there is a spiritual birth.  John 3:5 being a reference to baptism by immersion in water is wholistically an LDS concept read into the passage, but not what was said.

    So according to this passage, if I believe without being immersed in water, am I saved or damned?  Specifically what is it that saved me?

    Also important to keep in mind there IS a baptism that happens the moment one believes.  Just because the scripture says "baptized" doesn't mean immersion in water.

    All of the other scriptures used to support immersion in water also have another interpretation that does not support the LDS conclusion, but please share.

    You may wish to check these beliefs about baptism with the writings of the first century Christians, who clearly believed that actual water baptism was required for salvation.

  12. 11 minutes ago, Free in Christ said:

    In Psalm 12:6-7 God promised He would preserve His words perfectly from corruption.

    The spirit which you believe would have you believe that God was not capable of keeping his promise.

    Now you tell me, who will you believe: that spirit or the word of God?

    If you believe the bible is, and has always been, incorruptible, why don't Protestants believe in the Apocrypha, unlike Catholics?

    Isn't that kind of a tacit admission by Baptists that the Bible may not be incorruptible after all?

  13. On 7/18/2018 at 2:07 PM, cinepro said:

    In our lesson, when people started talking about where David made the first mistake, some suggested it was when he looked at Bathsheba on the roof and didn't put her out of his mind.  I pointed out that since David could take additional wives, there was no sin in seeing a beautiful woman and wanting to be with her, even if he was married.  The "sin" only started after he inquired and found out she was married (bringing up Joseph Smith's marriages to other married women would have been too much for me).

    That's when he should have discontinued the interest.=@

    I pointed out that David was already a wicked scumbag, that his actions towards Abigail and Nabal were abominable (compare to how Nephi treated Laban), that I don't entirely trust Old Testament scripture saying David was in any way favored of the Lord from the time of Nabal forward, and that I hoped Goliath would accept temple work because I would love to see Goliath exalted while David rots in the telestial kingdom.

    That raised some eyebrows!  

  14. 14 hours ago, katherine the great said:

     Being a stay at home mom is wonderful and noble, but it can also be incredibly isolating and sometimes mind numbing. Having a job that provides interaction with other adults, using our talents and actually getting paid for it is very appealing for many women. That 1950's model family was nice on the surface, but many of those women were deeply unhappy with it.

    Therein lies the rub regarding the SAHM model.  It only works if the economy is set up for single earning families, and our economy is increasingly set up for dual income families.  But, for the economy to be set up for single earner families, many women who do have beautiful gifts and dreams would not be able to pursue such gifts and dreams so the system would work (such as my wife, who is a very talented computer programmer).  What is the right answer?  I don't know.  

    I am retracting my statement about feminism.  I think that was unfair for me to say.  I appreciate and support all of the good that feminism has done for women everywhere.

    I kind of wonder something else about these prophetic warnings about working mothers from the 1970s and how they have dwindled over the years.  In addition to the macroeconomic issues I have brought up, were perhaps the warnings also due to the fact that back in the 1960s and 1970s the workplace was actually dangerous for women, both physically and spiritually speaking?  My understanding is, in the old days, working women were very often targets for harassment and immorality and were too often in the workplace seen as objects rather than people or professionals (think Hearts in Atlantis).  With anti-harassment laws in place, perhaps the warnings have dwindled as the workplace has become safer for women, and the risk of both assault and consensual immorality has decreased as men and women have become more used to working with one another side by side for hours every day?  Just an observation and a theory as to why the warnings were strong in the 1970s but have dwindled ever since.

  15. 4 hours ago, Meerkat said:

    If that is true, then someone please bring it.  Make the discussion interesting rather than aggravating.  Help us understand.  As Brigham Young said, "If you have truth, I want to embrace it as my own."  And "All truth belongs to the Lord's Church," or words to that effect.

    I talk about my Baptist neighbors, whom I sincerely love. I would have much to learn from them if they would share their insights with me.  But they are so bent on questioning motives and attacking our faith and foundations that we rarely get anywhere.  If my wife and I have had an interesting scripture study, she or I would love to discuss it with them.  We agree on so many things.  I know we do.   But when I try to engage in that sort of discussion, their eyes glaze over and their words and body language communicate we are spiritual adversaries. I love it when they want to share their scripture study or other insights with me.

    Finally, after years of visiting over the fence, our neighbor acknowledged "Well, I can see that YOU are a Christian.  But you don't know what those other Mormons believe."  That, when there is so much in the Scriptures to learn and share about the Grace of Jesus Christ, and how far He was and is willing to go for us.  It's all right there in the scriptures.  Words mean things.  If you don't agree with "things spiritually discerned," then address it with your knowledge and insights from the scriptures and even anecdotal evidence from your life.  Teach me so I can understand.  Come, let us reason together.  Please.

    If we are just dancing around semantics, which it seems to me we are in very many cases, let's break through that barrier so we can share knowledge and arrive at truth.  There is much to discuss about the things we learn from tragedy and sacrifice, things that sanctify us-- all people including Moslems, Jews, Christians and others regardless of their religious stripe.  There is much to learn about repentance and living a virtuous life.  There is much to love and learn.  I know many people are "True Believers" in their cause.  Great!  Share your passion.  But at least try to be pleasant, engaging and reasonable.  Wouldn't it be great to understand what each of us believes and why we believe it?

    In many ways, my Baptist neighbors are the kind of Christians I want to be.  But judgmental, looking down my nose with critical eyes at people, regardless of belief, who were made in God's image, is not one of them.  I enjoy dialogue-- finding points of agreement, clearing up misunderstandings.  Why always be on the attack?  I don't get it.  Do you?

    My experience is a lot of very devout Baptists, and other Christian Fundamentalists, bring into a discussion certain preconceived notions (sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously) that they have been fed their entire lives via anti-Mormon propaganda: 1) it is impossible for a Mormon to be a Christian; 2) Mormons are a cult; 3) Mormons are brainwashed; 4) Mormons cannot reason properly, either because they are brainwashed or because they are unsaved.  These notions color the conversations that many Christian Fundamentalists have with Mormons - they spew their party line, and if you, as a Mormon, disagree or bring up an alternative argument (e.g., "why did the beliefs of the first century Christians look so different than Protestant beliefs") rather than reason or stop to consider that they could indeed themselves be wrong or engage in meaningful dialogue, they just raise their voices and repeat the same thing, as if Mormons will spontaneously drop their beliefs and become Baptists if yelled at loudly enough or something.

    I don't have this problem when discussing religion with Presbyterians, Methodists, most Pentecostals, Anglicans, Catholics, etc.  My experience has shown me that most members of these Churches, even devout members, do not bring the above preconceived notions to the table, and consequentially it is much easier to dialogue with them.  One of my best friends was Presbyterian, and I remember discussing predestination with him and actually telling HIM Bible verses supporting predestination!   Conversations with these denominations is always far more productive and educational.

    Maybe, if Baptists really are worried about the souls of Mormons, they should hire the Methodists to do a blitz on Utah instead?

  16. 2 minutes ago, tulip said:

    if women are willing to sacrifice,  most can stay home with their children.   if they want new large homes, fancy large cars, and exotic vacations,  they will need to work.

    But how much sacrifice is too much, before the sacrifice undoes the virtues of being a SAHM?  Are you really doing your kids a favor by moving them to projects to retain SAHM status?

    As I have found out, not everyone, even those who are highly educated in supposedly "profitable" fields, has the opportunities in this economy to make the sort of money to provide even a lower-middle-class lifestyle for their families.  Perhaps that is why the Church has moved away from one size fits all answers in recent years.

  17. 1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

    Although I agree that the standard of living for most families does not greatly improve when mom works, why do you blame feminism for the rise in rent?

    Under my theory (and it is a theory, subject to disagreement), the feminist movement, for all of the good things it did, did pave the way for thousands of women to enter the workforce.  Since most of these women were married, it resulted in the average American family being flush with cash, resulting in a temporary bump in living standards before everyone started doing it and home renters and sellers raised the prices on housing, due to simple economics and the fact that they now could.

    I am sure the issue is more complex than I put it out, that zoning, etc. also played a role.  I also think feminism did lots of good things, or at least things that had good and bad effects at the same time.  I get it - I have daughters, and I see how it is wrong to pay them less for the same job (or not hire them) because they are women.  I also would never tell them they should abandon any dreams they have because their place is in the home.  There are lots of aspects of feminism that are great and positive changes for society that have nothing to do with labor and employment (e.g., changes in how we view crimes against women, etc.)  This also brings up some very difficult debates about women whose dreams of accomplishment were denied in the pre-feminist era - do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many, assuming the SAHM model is a "need"?

    However, there were effects that feminism had on American living standards.  I think that women entering into the workplace, as a matter of economics, may have caused the model 1950s family to become increasingly unobtainable, and it may permanently disappear in the next generation for all but the very wealthy.


  18. 20 minutes ago, Free in Christ said:

    Having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ doesn't mean I have a feeling in my heart.  I have His life within me.  He teaches me truth according to His revealed word every day.

    "Saved" was just a decision to believe His words.  That's really it.  From that moment the seed started growing within me and I believe differently about the scriptures I read, how I think, act, etc.

    Again, no spooky feelings or anything like that is available...or needed.

    Don't be surprised if not very many (if any) Mormons buy into this.  We enjoy receiving regular revelation, having Christ intimately involved in our lives, seeking His confirmation for all truth.  Going from that towards what sounds perilously close to blind faith in the theories and fallible logic of men (especially when said theories depend upon wresting the scriptures at every turn) feels to Mormons like nothing but a giant step backwards, a giant step towards the secular agnosticism that is currently sweeping America culturally, and away from the spiritual.

    But if it works for you, to each his own, I guess.

  19. While I am unsure that Free in Christ is explaining solidly Protestant doctrine, I think the problems he is having here are similar to the problems Baptists will have in Utah.  To a Mormon, Baptist teachings are simply not spiritually compelling.  Their doctrine relies on reducing the interpretation of the scriptures to word games to force them to fit the Protestant agenda.  It conflicts with the teachings of Jesus, Paul, James, the understandings of the First Century Christians, and the billions of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who have lived since and have read the same Bible, yet come to different conclusions.  There is apparently a movement towards discounting the spiritual in favor of logic, if FIC is to be believed.  Mormons can see what "cheap grace" has done to Christianity in America, how worship has too often become a crass and commercialized experience and discipleship is far too often reduced to saying the saved prayer and doing nothing to live according to the teachings of Christ, and we see the difference like night and day.  Most significantly, apparently unlike many Baptists (if FIC is to be believed), Mormons have experienced the love and miracles of Christ firsthand, and their testimonies are powered by confirmation by the Spirit.  

    (And if you believe that God does not have the power to protect sacred prayers by those honestly seeking truth from Him from false answers from Satan, well that's simply unbelievable and opens the door on all sorts of disturbing questions, such as if anything can be trusted (including the Bible and the teachings of Christ), if God really is all-powerful and stronger than Satan, if God really is good and really loves us, etc.  I don't buy this for a second and could never believe in a religion teaching such babble, that Satan can answer the prayers and provide false answers for those praying to Heavenly Father to seek his will).

    I'm sorry, but from my view, the case for conversion to Protestantism is simply not compelling.

  20. 11 minutes ago, Free in Christ said:

    Well, I read it.  That's about it.  

    This makes it sound like you don't really have a personal relationship with Christ. 

    Are you sure you are really "saved", even by Protestant standards?  Because my understanding is Protestants look for at least "Jesus coming into their heart" when they are saved, not just using logic with the scriptures.


  21. I think ETB's counsel was great for it's time.  In the late 1970s-80s there were enough single income homes that rent/mortgages were based on what a single income home could afford.  Dual income homes were the exception and unnecessary.  In the 1990s or so, it became the norm to have dual income households, and rent/mortgages went up to factor this in, the massive cash influx from working mothers being everywhere.  Now, we are working twice as many hours to pay the rent on the same houses for the exact living standard that once required one income.  Thanks, feminism.

    On the macroeconomic level, working mothers have been a disaster that has in the long term done nothing to improve the standards of living of american families.

    On the individual level, while SAHM is ideal, if you have to make a compromise here, do it and don't feel bad about it.  I get it, there have been periods of time where things were so unstable my wife has  had to work.  That's just life these days.  If you can be a SAHM, be thankful, in the current dual income economy you are very fortunate.  I feel like children have a better chance of turning out OK with two working parents than one working parent and living next to a crack house in the ghetto, etc.

  22. 2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:




    You have chosen probably the worst chapter in all the Bible to justify your position.

    Same chapter, four verses later:

    "14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?"

    Then later:

    "17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

    18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

    19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

    20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

    21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

    22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

    23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God."

     Andd the rest of the chapter continues in that vein.

    ... and still you have not provided a reason to believe in the Bible.

    When you are in a hole it's time to stop shoveling.

    Yes your ministry might catch a few uninformed Mormons. Good for you maybe they will in advance their understanding of Jesus Christ.

     But if you think you're actually combating Mormonism you haven't a clue. 

     All you have left is a trail of unanswered questions.

    Okay, I just got in trouble for laughing very loudly at work when reading this.  Worst chapter indeed!

  • Create New...