bluebell

Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die The premise of the movie is this guy from the future who travels back in time to a random coffee shop and a group of people who he tries to recruit to go on a mission that night to save the world. He keeps traveling back over and over again to the same coffee shop, picking different groups of people trying to find the right combination that will lead to success. When the movie starts, he had already been to the coffee shop 117 times and was trying once more. The idea is really good in theory, but I don’t feel like it was executed very well. A lot of it doesn’t make much sense the further into the movie you get. I was disappointed because it has some really good actors in it and seemed like it would be fun if nothing else. It’s free right now on Hulu so you have Hulu you don’t have anything to lose, but I wouldn’t expect much.

Just saw this last night. I agree with your assessment. It was funny in parts, and I loved that it didn't take itself too seriously and knew it was cheesy as heck. But the CGI was a distraction, the dialogue was really bad (not in a good cheesy way), and the story line was way too predictable. You knew what was going to happen the entire movie. Casting wonder woman as the sorceress was a weird choice to me as well. Too distracting.

Could be.

If someone did equate the two, would it make sense for them to view your position as ironic? (I'm not using the question as a way to imply that anyone in this disagreement is right or anyone is wrong. I'm ambivalent on the subject personally. I'm just sincerely wondering if the disagreement is a difference of opinion or something else).

Such a fun topic! There is a series on the Church History Matters podcast that goes through all the iterations of LDS thoughts and beliefs on that subject over its history, and outlines different apostles and prophets ideas and beliefs on the subject. I love history and found the entire series fascinating! But my biggest take away is that there have been leaders who were pro-evolution and death before the fall and pre-adamites and leaders that believed that evolution was a 'damnable heresy' and both existed at the same time in the same quorum sometimes because of a difference in how they each interpreted scripture. So I think that's the answer to your question. With those topics where there has not been a revealed explanation, it all comes down to how someone interprets scripture through their personal ideas of reason and faith. (if anyone wants a link to the podcast just let me know. It has a great series on women and the priesthood and also one on the church and politics/slavery)

I think we give Satan too much credit for his ability to reason. In my experience, very intelligent reasonable people often do incredibly stupid and destructive things (to themselves and other people) because their hatred and anger override everything else. Unbridled hatred and anger turn even the smartest most reasonable person into an idiot.

The stuff about secret non-monogamy is pretty horrific. Therapy seems like it's getting scary, where not all every therapist has the goal of actually helping someone become better but rather, helping them justify their bad behavior. (Not all therapists of course! There are many wonderful ones out there)

It was kind of sad to see how many posters have stopped posting. I miss so many of them. Even the slightly obnoxious ones.

That could be. I personally don't have a stance on the idea and think that there are reasonable arguments to be made from both sides.

That’s so messed up.

I don’t have TikTok so it won’t let me see it. Can you explain what’s going on?

That could be. I think it could also depend a lot on whether or not someone wanted to live by celestial laws.

It’s an interesting question because of the existence of our agency. Can Christ succeed against another’s will? Some say that given enough time everyone would eventually choose to follow Him. I don’t know.

Probably a little of both.

None of them. Like I said, they taught it as doctrine.

I’d have more faith in the goodness of the people of Texas if it wasn’t always Latter-day Saints pointing out all the problems with Fairview’s accusations.

You misunderstood. I said they were comfortable teaching speculation or personal opinions as doctrine. Or maybe I’m not understanding your question?

Agreed. Sacrifice for sacrifice’s sake makes no sense.

Thanks for clarifying. Can you explain why you think that using truth to mean “correct” to be a misunderstanding and why a more philosophical approach is actually the right approach?

I wasn’t referring to we to mean Latter Day Saints. I used “we” because you did in the statement I quoted.

Sorry, I didn't mean it angry or snarky. I just wasn't sure if I understood you correctly and wanted confirmation. You said-"I just believe we (collectively) have virtually all missed the Hebrew and Greek, Arabic, and early Chinese, Swahili, and Old English concepts of truth and morphed it into something we individually or collectively own, therefore creating conflict with those who do the same." To me it sounded like--in that statement--you were saying that you believe we have an incorrect understanding of what truth is, and are therefore creating unnecessary conflict. If we understood truth in a similar way that you understand it, there would be less conflict.

It sounds like you are saying that you believe many of us have an incorrect understanding of what truth is, that you have the correct understanding of truth, and that if everyone believed the same about truth as you do, we wouldn’t have so much conflict in the world. Is that right?

It’s accurate to a point of time in one of the different iterations of the teachings (or assumptions) of the church and/or members. There were times in the past when leaders were much more comfortable with speculation and extrapolation, and readily taught such things (along with their personal beliefs) as doctrine and this topic fits well in that culture of church. But it is not our current culture, which is likely why there is more ambiguity and less focus than there was in the (sometimes not so distant) past.

Yes

I’m with webbles. To me faith is belief in something that is true but unproven.