bluebell

We also believe that everyone, regardless of where they lived or who they are, will have a chance to learn about the Gospel of Christ and choose to follow Him or not. If that doesn't happen while they are alive, then we believe that it will happen after they die, before the final judgement. Putting everyone--eventually--on an equal playing field (so to speak).

I think part of the reason that the first movie was so good is because they stayed true to the source material (Michael Crichton's book Jurassic Park). That is one of the best books ever written in that genre (in my opinion). The movie had a good script and a really dedicated director who used every practical effect in the book to tell a complex and sci-fi based story. Crichton actual wrote a sequel to Jurassic Park that was every bit as good as the first book (The Lost World), but the following movies didn't stick to his work or put in the time to develop the story. They were just money grabs. It still makes me mad to think of the opportunity they squandered. The reboot is just run of the mill CGI and actors reacting to tennis balls, with not much story and a lot of pretend action on screen. They kill off animals to try to get emotional reactions out of us because they know we don't care enough about the human characters to react if they died. They ruined the franchise as far as I'm concerned. This new movie takes us back to a deserted Island and has more character development, so they did try to do better. But these new movies will never fill the shoes of their predecessor (IMHO). CGI has cheapened the experience too much. (Seriously though, if anyone reading this likes science based fiction that has a hint of 'fantasy' like bring dinosaurs back from the dead, read these two books. They are so good. And Jurassic Park the novel has enough storylines and action that is left out of the movie that you should read it even though you probably already know the basic outline of the story)

Sorry to be confusing. I mean that often in classes (and probably over the pulpit sometimes and especially to the youth) we teach or were taught that the answer to the question of "why are we here?" is to gain a body and be tested to see if we will choose to follow Christ. But you only have to think about that for a couple of minutes before it breaks down because most of the people who have and will come to earth will never even hear the name of Christ, let alone have any kind of a legitimate chance to choose to follow Him. If that really is the purpose of life than either it's not working or it's not fair. If we focus on the idea that earth life is all about choosing to follow Christ, then a lack of direct revelation from God to everyone is a real challenge.

I can see what you mean. I can tell you my thoughts on it, but I don't know that they will be of any help to you with that challenge. From my perspective, it seems like God rarely (never?) provides revelation in a vacuum. It seems like we always have to knock first, so to speak, when revelation is given. I assume that that has something to do with the need for faith when communicating with the Divine. Not that faith is a good idea, but that it is actually essential and necessary. If that's true and the scriptures are right about that, then it's not really God withholding revelation but of Him working within the parameters of this fallen world. Those parameters make a lot of sense to me, because knowledge thrust at someone in a vacuum would be really hard to work with. It would have no context and come with no relevant experience to make it useful. People would end up being accountable for knowledge that they likely wouldn't be able to use or follow in their situation, and that would be unjust in my opinion. Since God does not condemn anyone for not knowing better (in fact, our teaching is that the Atonement automatically covers people who don't know any better), I don't personally find this issue to be challenging. I actually find it to be very loving and merciful. But I do think that a latter-day saint cultural tendency to focus on the purpose of earth life being to choose to follow the Gospel of Christ can make it challenging. I think correlation and popular teachings have caused us to misunderstand some stuff with that. I don't hear it from the top that much; I think it's one of those teachings that gets passed around without people thinking too much about it, because it was a bullet point in a primary lesson that never got fleshed out and given more context as we got older. I don't believe that is the main reason we are here, I don't pay much attention to that idea

My husband is out of town on a motorcycle adventure so the youngest kids and I splurged and rented Jurassic Park: Rebirth. Normally I don't touch the $20 rentals on prime with a ten foot pole but they both really wanted to see it so I gave in. None of the sequels have been very good, because the first one was beyond reproach. The first Chris Pratt/Dallas Howard was entertaining, but the story was still kind of dumb. The rest got worse and worse as they went along. For all of those reasons, I was not expecting much with this new offer. But I was pleasantly surprised. Still not as good as the original, the story wasn't as dumb or as focused on CGI stuff as the previous ones. The characters are interesting and the acting is good. You do basically know who's going to die and who isn't, but with the kind of movie it is, that's not surprising. They have a certain tone and generally stick with it. The D-Rex was super creepy, which was a nice surprise at the end. Less dinosaur and more monster.

I don't either. I would assume that any references to 'studying the scriptures' would be something akin to how Jewish people studied the Torah.

Given the short sermon that King Benjamin gave, would it take a year? We aren't talking about a bible, for example. Just a sermon here and there. I agree that there are many reasons to assume that there weren't a lot of readers running around BOM times. But they could have had more than the average group, since they come from a literate culture that valued the written word.

I agree that men shouldn't have sex with children. Full stop. As an intellectual exercise (and to speak generally and not connect it to polygamy), can we agree that our current definition of children (as everyone under 18) is a contemporary construct that is tied to our laws and currant culture and is not tied to biology or morality? For example, would there be any reason for a Sioux man in his 20s in the 1800s to view a post-pubescent female who is 14 or 15 years old as a child who it would be immoral to marry and have sex with? I can't think of any, but I'm open to your answers. I agree that there is no reason to withhold judgement on historical practices, but I do think there are many times (not all times, but many times) that we can withhold judgment on historical people who are just as much a product of their time as we are of ours. Your brain is working within the parameters of the culture that you were raised in, the information that you have had access to, and the people interpreting that information for you in authoritative ways you've accepted as authoritative. You have arrived at your morals the exact same way that the people in the past arrived at theirs. But often we are starting out from such vastly different starting places that the destination will also be vastly different. It is incredibly likely that both you and I are doing something today that a future culture will find immoral. They will ask "how could they not have known!". In that way we all have some hobbled moral reasoning. But, you and I can't know what we don't know. Same goes for people in the past. To be clear, I don't think that means that our morals cannot change. That we cannot believe something is moral and then realize it's not and no longer do that thing. All of us can learn and grow as we get new information or new insights. I also don't think it means that every historical person gets a pass on their behavior. Most of the time, immoral people are immoral despite their culture and environment, not because of it. In my experience this is true of people in all ages.

I’m so sorry that happened to you! And so glad you are both still here.

It could also be that we are misunderstanding what the author meant by “unwavering”. It makes more sense to me that he meant to be firm in our desire to seek the will of God rather than meaning we must have perfect faith.

That's a fun series, especially the first two seasons!

I agree there is a difference between those two things. But unless the spirit specifically answers "not yet" then they can feel exactly the same. But, my point wasn't really about how God is silent sometimes. It was how other people, from the outside perspective, can take the silence and the struggle of another and use it as a judgment of their standing with God (like Jobs friends did) or sign of their lack of seeking an answer from God personally.

I agree with you, it's baffling sometimes. I decided a while ago that our focus on mortality as a test in choosing 'the right' doesn't work very well. I think that very little of our experience with agency (and this life) is about testing us against the doctrines of Christ. I think that most of the reason we are here is to just have experiences with agency in general, and specifically in ways that will help us in the next stage of development (towards becoming like Christ). I'm sure other people probably handle it by believing something else.

I struggle with this part of the post. I have been in this position many times, where God did not make such things known unto me, but it wasn't because I was disabling two way dialogue. I was already praying morning and night. I was studying my scriptures every single day. I was consistently doing Come Follow Me. I was listening to a GC talk every day. Going to church every sunday, attending the temple, doing my calling, trying to do my ministering... And yet, lots of questions weren't being answered. Sometimes we can be like Job's friends in these situations: always ready to blame the person struggling for the deficiency or struggle they have in their relationship with God. But I don't think that's often a go-to position to assume.

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you correctly. Are you saying that since we are all held to different moral standards in the use of our agency than that is evidence that God doesn’t care that much about agency?

Agreed. I just assume that people contemporary to him heard him repeat the name, and then repeated it the same way when they said it. And then so on and so on, creating an oral tradition based on JS's original pronunciation.

I think it helps a little to think of history and moral judgments less about what is true (whether or not something is actually good or bad) and more about whether or not they should have known something was good or bad in the context that they lived, were educated, experienced life, etc. Sometimes they probably should have. Others, that's asking something that isn't fair. I also think the general idea about scriptures is that they are useful as a moral authority, not because they present perfect morals, but because they help us develop a relationship with God and He is where our morals should come from. From my perspective they also help us to see that we don't have to be perfectly moral all the time to be useful to God or to others. It's a merciful doctrine that the scriptures help illustrate because we can see ourselves and our dysfunctional families in them, and also see how God can take such dysfunction and weakness and use it anyway.

There is a pronunciation guide in the back of the Book of Mormon, but I have no idea where it came from. I'm assuming with the name Moroni that JS passed on the correct way to say it, since the belief is that Moroni actually introduced himself to Joseph Smith in person.

My time in Utah was pretty much all in the north. So maybe that made a difference. It could also be the ages of the people involved. My mom and dad definitely say crick instead of creek, and my mom even says torlet instead of toilet.

It makes sense that they wouldn’t want foreigners owning large chunks of their country. But some of their angst seems more emotional than practical. It reminded me of a local issue here, where a land developer bought land from a private seller outside of one of the communities so that he could put a subdivision on it. He’s from the area, born and raised, and has been building houses here for over 25 years. But a bunch of farmers and ranchers became angry with him because the land use to be farmland and I guess it’s pretty good farmland (and there’s not a lot of that in the area, it’s not a place you would typically think of for farming. It’s very dry and the soil has a lot of alkali in it). So they’re blaming him for the loss of farmland and an influx of out of staters buying homes here. I completely get their frustration, but it’s not his fault and it’s not a reason to be angry at out of staters or construction companies. It’s just changing times.

The amount of disposable income would definitely change, but the existence of it is still very much possible. and of course, it’s also true that there are plenty of people who do not pay, who have never paid tithing, and who also have very little disposable income. Tithing it’s not the cause of their lack of disposable income.

You’re right, I did talk about my wealthy friend. Because you were talking about buying somebody a $400 wedding gift, and that’s something that a wealthy person would do. Very few people, tithing payers and people who have never paid a dime of tithing in their lives alike, would give such a gift to the child of a coworker if they weren’t wealthy. Tithing or no tithing wouldn’t even be a part of the equation. Another reason that I used a wealthy example is because you did not differentiate between wealthy members and regular earners, though. You lumped all members into the same category: not having disposable income due to paying tithing.

I have a very wealthy, very active latter-day saint friend (best friend) and they have plenty of disposable income and also would never give such an extravagant gift. Not because they are cheap, but because they would not find such a gift for the children of a co-worker to be appropriate due to their world-view. Other people have different world views so would make different choices. But a lack of disposable income would not be the reason for the differences.

Thank you for letting us know. She was a special friend to a lot of us here and we’ve missed her contributions so much. I’m glad she can be with her Ray again.

I graduated in 1995 and in my stake we were taught that JS had 30+ wives in seminary. I don't remember it being a surprise for any of the kids in the class. I remember it because the topic has come up so often here on this board that I've discussed it often. Not because it was at all shocking or surprising to me.