bluebell

Sounds like a good movie! Does it say that in the bible? I've never heard that either.

Not at all. If you can obtain a temple recommend by honestly answering all of the questions then that is what matters. But you've already said that you won't wear the garments as instructed (which is a temple recommend question) and also won't pay a full tithing (another temple recommend question). I'm not sure where you land on the other questions as you haven't mentioned your stance on those. You don't have to believe all of the beliefs or do all the things to go to the temple but you do have to believe and do the specific things required in the temple recommend interview.

I don't think that's a good reason. I'd also be surprised if your parents wanted you in the temple with them under those circumstances. I have a son that doesn't have a temple recommend and I'd much much rather he not go than lie so he could go. (no harsh tone intended in any of my posts)

I’m sure there are some people that post here who have questions about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. And I’m sure there’s people that go to church every Sunday that have the same questions. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with you being a part of the church with your doubts or current belief system. I just think that if you have to lie to get a temple, recommend then the BYU job is not the job for you. It’s not fair to them and it’s also not fair to yourself because you would have to give up your integrity to get the job.

I agree with Cal, it doesn't sound like it's the job for you as it sounds like you would have to be dishonest to get it.

Yes, the light of Christ, sorry for being confusing. When I read Manol's statement about this not being a mainstream teaching it caught me off guard so I had to go and look to see if he was right (because that's not how I remembered it). These were some of the first things to come up in the church's (horrible awful) search engine:

His spirit as in the spirit of Christ. At least that’s what it teaches on the church’s website. But as far as Holy Ghost is also a God, then yes God is omnipresent in that way as well in our teachings.

For me it’s a complicated yes

It was a stupid song.

Right. We teach that He is omnipresent through His spirit. Which is the same way that all other Christian religions teach He is omnipresent, if I understand right.

It is a part of mainstream teachings that God is omnipresent.

I think you are both right. There are times when it's relevant to judge the merits of the art itself and times when it is relevant to judge the merits of its message or intention.

It, rightly so, makes us uncomfortable now but 'teenagers' as a concept didn't even exist until the early 1900s. You were pretty much an adult once you weren't a child anymore. The past was what it was and there isn't really any benefit to trying to fit it into our modern culture and current beliefs about minors. It doesn't change the past or how people in the past saw the world. We get more out of understanding the past correctly (so we can hopefully do better in the future) than we do trying to judge it.

I really enjoy these kinds of videos from him.

Dan irks me on occasion as well, and I don't think it's because I have prioritized dogma over data. I think sometimes his online persona just annoys me that day for whatever reason. His videos are sometimes performative--which is not at all an insult, they need to be and they should be if he's going to find any success on social media--and his way of performing is not always my cup of tea or what I find useful. Again, not an insult because my feelings are not the standard for what actually is useful, even if my feelings on what I find useful are completely valid. Dan probably makes missteps as much as the next scholar and I don't think there's any harm in a respectful discussion on his public posts or videos where people disagree about his affectiveness or even discuss how his public views mesh with church teachings. I'm guessing that kind of stuff doesn't bother Dan at all or he wouldn't be so public. Smac and I differ because he tends to moralize his disagreements with people (as in, if someone doesn't say what he thinks they should say or believe what he thinks they should believe then he often implies that it's some kind of moral failure on their part) and I don't often think that is an accurate route to go. I don't believe that Dan is doing anything immoral in the way that he presents data or shows up online but I think that it's valid to discuss his impact on people's faith and I also think that it's valid for Smac to believe that Dan is doing more harm than good, even if I disagree with Smac on that. I've seen other very nuanced public latter-day saint "influencers" who are not at all dogmatic who have also had fair criticisms of Dan. Disagreeing with the way Dan does stuff is not a sign that someone doesn't like the best data that experts have put together.