Jump to content

OGHoosier

Members
  • Content Count

    418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by OGHoosier

  1. 23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

    Another instance where scripture was and still is interpreted incorrectly. 

    The correct interpretation should be "should be no" rather than "shall be no" because obviously often there are disputations and our Lord would not have said "shall be no" while knowing there would be.

    "Shall" can also be in the form of a command. Pretty much every standing command the Lord has ever given has been disobeyed so the usage stands. 

    • Like 1
  2. 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

    The word Gospel means "good news, good tidings."  The Bible contains lots of things, but the good news of Christ is that he paid the price for all our failures -- something even our best efforts cannot get beyond.  Everything else in the Bible is irrelevant compared to the great personal and infinite self-sacrifice by Jesus.  Justice requires payment, but that atoning sacrifice of Jesus pays justice in full, allowing God to be merciful and to hold out the hand of grace to all who seek Him.  Otherwise all of us were lost and forlorn.

    The locus classicus for this concept in the Book of Mormon is found in Mosiah 15:15-18, which is a progressive, climactic parallelism combined with a midrash on Isaiah 52:7 – in the words of Abinadi:

    15        And O how beautiful upon the mountains were their feet!

    16        And again, how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet

    of those that are still publishing peace!

    17        And again, how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet

    of those who shall hereafter publish peace,

                            yea, from this time henceforth and forever!

    18        And behold, I say unto you, this is not all.

                For O how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet

    of him that bringeth good tidings,[2]

                            that is the founder of peace,

                            yea, even the Lord, who has redeemed his people;

                            yea, him who has granted salvation unto his people;


    [2] The “good tidings” in Isaiah 52:7 (měbassēr tôb) is identical to the New Testament use of “Gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον) as “good news” (Mark 1:1), while “Salvation, Savior” (Yěšûʻâ) is the specific meaning and actual spelling of the name of Jesus: Yešuʻa (Luke 1:31,69, 2:21,30).  That the very name of a forthcoming anointed holy one might be provided well ahead of time may be seen also in I Kings 13:2 (Josiah) and Isaiah 44:28, 45:1 (Cyrus).

    It's good to hear from you again, Robert. 

    • Upvote 2
  3. 1 hour ago, Malc said:

    FWIW, I was responding to what I quoted of Teancum's post, and not to any earlier discussion.

    In spite of what you say, some members who consider themselves faithful seem to feel that it's their right to judge the no-longer-believing member's former state of faith or belief. Do you agree that they are within their rights to do so?

    Within their rights? Yeah. My general philosophy is that people are within their rights to make whatever judgements they may on any given topic. Given that judgements are essentially opinions, the assertion that people might not have the right to hold certain opinions doesn't sit well with me. I do maintain a distinction between the right to do something and the goodness or badness of doing that thing. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  4. This misses so many points. 

    29 minutes ago, Malc said:

    I expect that, up until the point at which a member became aware that you no longer believed, they would have described you as an exemplary member, strong and faithful, to be admired, etc.

    It's only after knowing that you don't believe any more that the current believer needs to retrofit an addendum to your description. And that likely includes priesthood leaders who knew you and never had cause to doubt you - an example of discernment gone MIA.

    Aside from the blatant condescension exhibited to believing members, none of this characterization is at all relevant. When we make judgements about how "exemplary", "strong and faithful", "admirable" others are, we do so based on characteristics which are visible and accessible to us. These are most often things like dedication, enthusiasm, kindness, serviceability, etc., as well as elements of orthopraxy like obedience to the commandments. Personal understanding of theology and doctrine are usually not among those unless the person we're referring to is being judged specifically based on their commentary on the gospel. Being viewed as exemplary and faithful is no guarantee that one has a proper understanding of doctrine in and of itself. Being trusted by your leaders isn't one either. And having once been viewed as exemplary and faithful (let alone viewing YOURSELF as having once been exemplary and faithful) is no guarantee either.

    And that's where the problem comes in. @Teancum made an argument regarding the concept of faith as taught by the Latter-day Saints. Others objected to his definition of faith, arguing that he was using a definition which did not apply. Teancum responded by asserting that he had been a faithful member of the Church and thus knew what faith meant. Well, being a faithful member of the Church does not entail an automatic knowledge of the minutiae of theology. Nor is such a dubious  "argument from authority" a satisfactory response when one gets questioned on their definition of terms. Frankly, I don't care about "former faithful member" credentials. You can't just strawman somebody's argument, impute to them beliefs they do not have, demand they defend them, and beg a personal grievance when you get CFRed. 

     

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  5. 3 hours ago, poptart said:

    If you want to read something a lot more on the fringes check out Ride the Tiger, it touches on Hermeticism quite a bit.  A lot of people, especially single men are to a degree going this route.  It's so easy to be ruined by someone thanks to social media so many men look for ways out.  This was another reason why I changed fields a few years ago, I can avoid a lot of the drama and move around fairly easily.  His book isn't popular in a lot of circles for a few reasons, I think.  He bashes both sides of the political spectrum and calls people out.  Christians, like a lot of people here stateside have lost their way and with the way things are I agree with him, the USA is in for some bad times.  Brigham Option?  Hmmm, ok.  I'll give the Latter Day saints many compliments, one of them being they turned a desert into a habitable city when they went to Utah, that and the city is so well laid out.  Also your food aid is simply a marvel to behold, your social aid period you do via LDS Charities/Deseret Industries is amazing.  You guys are lacking in the vestments/bring department but then again whenever I do post something Christian it's usually High church and almost always Catholic so I do have a bias. 

    I personally think we're going to end up like a lot of Latin American countries, islands of wealth surrounded by oceans of poverty.  Families here are a mess and I doubt that's going to change.  Being a decent person is a choice, one I think most anymore will not make.  US society makes it too easy to be a slimeball, we've seen it with how many children have to grow up in some very abusive homes.  Here's something that a lot of your typical American Christian can't even fathom, God may have had it with people here and plans to take away his favor.  People here have had it made and for a few generations now just stood by while things kept getting worse and worse.  I do think we're at the point of no return.  You see a lot more single men now who have to a great degree disengaged from society, for good reason.  Anymore people are looked at as nothing more than an exploitable resource and anyone who dares call anyone out for the amoral things they push may fall victim to things like "cancel culture" or doxing.  That and the values I see a lot of people here having makes me sick to my stomach.  I know a lot of people like to retort with statements along the line of "Don't judge!  Don't judge!"  They forget, after Christ forgave the woman who was about to be stoned to death he also said go your way and sin no more.  Things like that sure make concepts like "Ride the Tiger" and "The Benedict Option" look very, very attractive.  Fortunately, there are traditional communities popping up here in the USA.  We even have a Trappist monastery in the East Coast now that brews Trappist ale, something you really don't see outside of Europe. 

    I'm all for a collapse of sorts.  Besides having the life that I have had part of me is enjoying the chaos.  For once the privileged WASP suburbanites are getting a taste of what the other half has to deal with day in and day out.  I think having what security and privilege they feel entitled to stripped away would do them a lot of good.  Poverty does humble you and in my opinion there are a lot of people out there who not only don't deserve what they have, many people who did inherit wealth from hard working parents just squander it.  The Lord Gives the Lord takes is still a thing.  My understanding is the LDS faithful aren't as big on things like that as say, Catholics and other high church Protestants are.  I think soon none of us are going to have much choice in that matter.  Maybe people will pay attention this time, honor Christs Church, his commandments and love the least of these like their forebears did.  If not, they are not worthy of a country nor being stewards of the blessings God bestowed upon them, I think anyway.

    You're speaking my language. I have a rather eccentric British friend who told me to read Ride The Tiger. I haven't gotten around to it but I think he now fantasized about "riding the tiger" after everything goes to heck. I can't imagine God is super satisfied with the state of affairs in this place. As for traditionalism, I didn't even know places like St. Mary's existed, so that's kind of interesting. Everybody talks about polarization, the urban/rural divide, etc, but I think we're struggling to grasp the true meaning of these abstracts on our daily lives. We're essentially balkanizing as a people and the old structures that bound us all together have frayed or been replaced by tailor-made optimized consumables. We can basically choose our communities now and curate those whom we encounter through social media. The transient job market, where everybody moves, unseats people from a geographical and communal identity. I've lived in my little Indiana town for longer than anywhere else at this point and this place means things to me, but I'll have to pack up and leave soon because that's just how the market is. I'd say that all these costs were just the price for our near-Elysian material prosperity, but even then I served my mission in urban LA and that prosperity doesn't get to everyone. As a society we're clearly in some form of transition, we're imbalanced, and I'm worried about what must inevitably follow. 

    Also, for what it's worth, I've always appreciated that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. God's not some kind of vending-machine Pollyanna and I'm appreciative. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  6. 2 hours ago, rchorse said:

    I haven't heard an official reason either, but I suspect it's in large part due to the fact that those who would have to plan and execute such a service are volunteers with families of their own. It would be asking a lot of the bishopric and others involved to forgo time with their families on Christmas to plan a special meeting. Having been in those shoes, I doubt I could have handled anything fancier that a typical "Christmas Program" the Sunday before Christmas.

    Good point. I'm still an unwed college kid so that aspect of things escaped me completely. 

    • Like 1
  7. 3 hours ago, poptart said:

    There are traditional Parishes that are still very old school, SSPX does things the pre Vatican 2 way.

     

     

    Thanks for posting the old mass. I love Catholic masses, though I can't understand a word that's said (and given my theological commitments perhaps that's for the best). But I'll readily confess that Gregorian chants are criminally underrepresented on the Billboard Top 100. 

    3 hours ago, poptart said:

     

    Book you might like, the benedict option.  It addresses what you just mentioned and how some people are reacting to it.  A lot more men are staying single nowadays, besides selfishness a lot of us are very much sick and tired of how things are so they just opt out and live quiet lives.  One of the biggest gripes I've had with mainstream religion here stateside is just how worldly and consumerist it is.  A lot of the mainline denominations do nothing for the poor and/or elderly, no money in it.  A lot of people especially millenials have just upped and left organized religion due to politics and the hypocrisy that's so rampant.  Bright side is you're seeing the likes of SSPX just boom popularity wise.  In a lot of their churches the pews are packed with young families.  The men are in suits, the women wear veils just like you would see in a lot of Parishes in Europe.  Even schismatics like CMRI are quite popular now.  Who knows, maybe we'll see a return to that.  With the bad economic times coming I think we're going to see the end results of consumerism play out in a sad way. 

    Repeated application of the Benedict Option is part of my heritage. Of course, I'd call it the Brigham Option. 😉 I haven't read Dreher's book but I hope to do so. 

    Sadly, I think your assessment is quite right. I am left to wonder how exactly our furious consumption will play out: will the consequences come first in the guise of environmental problems or social decay? Will we see a return to tradition or a full leap into hitherto uncharted waters? I couldn't say. 

    2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

    Thanks for sharing the information on the Christmas program. Sounds like a good typical "protestant" (nothing negative meant by it) service. It's nice that service projects are included, too, since that's at the heart of the spirit of Christmas.

    Is there any reason given that there isn't a formal service held on Christmas Eve or Christmas day? Is it doctrinal or just a practice? Also, if there were such a service (and it's not on a Sunday), could sacrament (communion) be given? I'm just wondering if there are rules regarding LDS sacrament on days other than Sundays.

    What might such a service look like? (question for anyone)

    You're welcome. Indeed, like much of our Church's "four blank walls and a sermon" practice, our Christmas programs have a strong Protestant flavor. 

    I haven't heard an official reason given for why we don't have formal Christmas Day services, though when they cancelled the church service that one year they said it was to "let everyone spend the day with their families." Such thinking could go into the decision not to have a Christmas Day service, but honestly I think we don't have them because we've historically just met for church on Sundays and there's no special liturgy which would set apart a Christmas Day service, so it would only be different from your average Sunday service because of its focus. Sacrament could be given, it can be given whenever or wherever an appropriate authority (bishop or other presiding authority) permits. The Quorum of the Twelve actually take the sacrament in their weekly meetings because their Sundays are usually at stake conferences where the sacrament is not passed. 

    I don't know how different a special Christmas Day service would look from the standard Christmas program. I forgot to mention that the First Presidency do broadcast a worldwide Christmas Devotional each year, so it might have some global messages involved, but our Church meetings are generally pretty homegrown so I don't know how different a special Christmas service could be without instituting a new form of worship. 

    • Like 1
  8. 19 minutes ago, Chum said:

    I missed this the first time thru.

    About Frances' message; he isn't the first Pope to share it. However, that message isn't echoed by major Christian leaders in the US, not with any breadth or consistency anyway.

    My take that is we (the US) have created (and continue to create) a system where our welfare is tied to consumer purchasing. I don't see this changing. Meanwhile, the Church gives us guidance that equates to throttling consumerist tendencies, while understanding that we work in jobs that require broad and growing consumerism.

    The message would seem to be that we should draw what we need from this system, while contributing as little as is reasonable. I'm okay with this. If I ever add a signature here, it might say something like "A well-understood life is rife with disharmony."

     

    Our most prominent measure of successful governance is GDP, which is calculated using consumption. So long as neoliberal economic prosperity remains the measure of good governance in our society, consumerism is destiny. 

    I hate to say it but if we're going to shake consumerist philosophy and its externalities, we're going to have to shuck the idea that national and personal wealth is the measure of success. It's going to have to be a secondary concern or the Almighty Dollar's throne will be quite secure. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  9. 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

    There is the common phrase "let's put Christ back in Christmas" and that's kinda what I'm getting at here. I like to respond to that phrase with "yes, and let's also put the mass back in Christmas." One way to put Christ in the forefront is to practice religious observances. Liturgical Christians have wonderful religious traditions that we can use leading up to and including Christmas day (I personally go to midnight Mass and sometimes also dawn). How does the LDS church use services during the Christmas season? Do you think there could be more, like a service on Christmas eve or Christmas day?

    In my experience we only explicitly acknowledge the Advent on the last Sunday before Christmas Day, which is called the "Christmas program". We have the sacrament and then after that comes a presentation of "music and the spoken word", as we call it. There's usually a reading of Luke 2. Definitely a few Christmas hymns performed with vocals or a variety of instruments. Occasionally a brief Christmas message or two are shared. That's the only real formal celebration of Christmas in our services, at least in my experiences. Some wards will do Christmas service projects, the youth groups almost always have from what I've seen. My stake works with local philanthropists and the local coordinating council of Christian charities to curate a Christmas experience for the least of these in our community. 

    As for Christmas Day itself, there's no formal service if it falls on any day other than Sunday. I can only remember two years where Christmas fell on a Sunday. One of them, the ward cancelled services that week. The other, they did not. As a kid I liked the cancellation of services. As a man I am displeased. My family occasionally would go to a Midnight Mass or some other Christmas Eve service, and I endorse the practice and would like a special Christmas service. 

    2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

    I find that the ease of online shopping might be a detriment. I go to amazon, poke around, buy something, and have them wrap it and send it. It takes minimal effort and I never even see the gift. And it makes amazon lots of money. It seems pretty much like consumerism to me. Instead I want to try to buy more local, special, unique gifts that I wrap and send myself.

    If we buy and spend less, though, does the economy suffer? A lot of businesses rely on the holiday season.

    It would be a near fatal blow to smaller retailers. Unfortunately, however, given the disruptions of COVID-19, we may not have to worry about that too much in the immediate future. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  10. 41 minutes ago, PacMan said:

    I think you’re reading way to much into this. In any event, I doubt that Lehi lived in Jerusalem proper. Think London and greater London.

    https://bookofmormonevidence.org/house-of-lehi-found-near-jerusalem/

    To quote Chessman:
    “That Lehi lived in Jerusalem did not necessarily mean that he dwelt in the city of Jerusalem. The land of Jerusalem encompasses much more of the immediate area surrounding the city. We are of the opinion that Lehi’s property lay somewhere in the land of Jerusalem and not within the walls of the city.“

    https://rsc.byu.edu/book-mormon-first-nephi-doctrinal-foundation/lehis-journeys

     

     

     

    There's textual evidence within the Book of Mormon which corroborates that Lehi did not live within Jerusalem's boundaries but in the countryside. Lehi is described as having a "land of his inheritance" (1 Nephi 2:4, 1 Nephi 3:22), which implies rural property as opposed to an urban dwelling. In 1 Nephi 3:22 we are told that the sons of Lehi "went down to the land of [their] inheritance" from the cleft in the rock in which they were hiding outside of Jerusalem, which indicates that their property was not only outside of Jerusalem but at a lower altitude. 1 Nephi 1:4 says that Lehi "dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days" and 1:7 refers to him "returning to his own house at Jerusalem", which phrasing is interesting because Alma 7:10 says that Jesus Christ would be "born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers"; the exact same "at Jerusalem" phrasing is used yet we know that Bethlehem is not Jerusalem proper. So I'd say we have strong textual evidence that Lehi lived in the general vicinity of Jerusalem but not within the city. 

    Also I'd argue that those particular Bible verses are probably hyperbolic and in any case it cannot be expected that the author of Kings (who was probably a state chronicler as opposed to a prophet) would know the outcome of every piece of property and family in his nation's capital city. 

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 2
  11. 2 hours ago, smac97 said:

    I've always thought of cooperage as the skill of making barrels, buckets, etc. out of wood.  Metal may or may not be used in the manufacture of such things.  The Smith Family did have a "cooper's shop" on their farm, which was ransacked by thieves who were apparently looking for the Plates:

    As long as we're speculating about the cooper's shop, wouldn't the "mob" have likely found evidence of Joseph's efforts to fabricate the plates in it? 

    Also, Martin Harris described the plates as follows:

    Is working with iron (as part of the cooper's skill set) comparable to working with lead?  

    In any event, the YouTube video is substantively correct in stating that there is no evidence that Joseph had the ability to make plates.  Speculation?  Sure.  But no evidence.

    Thanks,

    -Smac

    I don't know of any way to make lead or iron appear golden or greenish, so I don't think that lead can satisfy witness descriptions even if it is comparable to ironworking. Coopers did use iron to make the bands for barrels, but the plates would require considerably more craftsmanship and probably a specialized set of tools. A basic forge and a hammer won't do it, you'd need specialized molds. Furthermore I think iron would be too tough to engrave the fine characters observed on the plates, and it would be too light to match descriptions of the plates. 

    • Upvote 2
  12. 24 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

    I said that I believe there is zero benefit to doubting in the literal flood and that I believe doing so is a taken a step towards losing one's faith.

    There are a lot of things that could be construed as "taking a step towards losing one's faith". What counts as "taking a step towards losing one's faith" depends on where you stand at the start and what you consider to be the ultimate definition of faithlessness. Is it not taking every last word of the scriptures to be literal that constitutes faithlessness? Does faithfulness depend on maintaining the iron separation between faith and science? I don't believe so and I do believe Joseph Smith when he says that our faith encompasses and adopts all truth. My belief in ongoing revelation demands that. 

    Quote

    The flood story is a bit more significant than some random census number, so this is not an apples to apples comparison. 

    Rejecting either as true does not mean you are about to reject the reality of Jesus Christ, but you are one step closer to this in my opinion.

    I agree, it is more significant, but I don't know why that significance demands that the flood was global. The only reasons I could see for that would be an insistence on literalistic biblical inerrancy (which we are doctrinally obligated to disavow) or adherence to the literal idea of  immersion-baptism for an animistic earth-consciousness. 

    Quote

    However, Joseph Smith believed in the literal flood. When he revised the bible he left the story in tact as historical fact. The Book of Mormon he brought forth also presents the flood story as literal. 

    Joseph Smith did believe in the literal flood from what we can tell. He left the story in the Bible, but that doesn't say anything more about it being historical fact than the story's original inclusion in Genesis does. If it is viewed as a sacred drama or even a subjective report aside from literalistic and anachronistic Western models of history (which did not prevail at the time that Genesis was composed), then its virtues would demand that Joseph Smith retain it regardless of its historical status. The Book of Mormon never implicates a global flood. It references the flood as an element of moral history in Alma 10:22 without referring to the flood as a global event - at most it demands a local flood, and frankly since it's just Alma commenting on the Flood as opposed to an actual direct exposition of the doctrine it could just represent Alma's understanding which is not binding. Ether 13:2 is ambiguous as the "waters receding off the land" could also very credibly refer to the waters of Creation, not the waters of the Flood. 

    • Like 1
  13. 29 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

    The one denominational, black and white character of the principle protagonists in the book. As an avid reader of historical books, I've never read a book of history with such thin characters. In other words there is no depth to these characters.  They feel, at least to me,  plastic and fictional.  That my opinion.

    I'm gonna be honest, I think this is an extremely unconvincing argument. Have you ever read Livy whenever the topic of Scipio Africanus is brought up? Or Fabius Cunctator? Or Marcellus? Talk about hagiography - and yet the one-dimensionality is clearly not a justifiable reason to believe that these characters were not real. Modern nuancebros love complicated characters and complex storylines - complexity as measure of quality. It was not always thus. Frankly I find more humanity in the guilty Nephi, the insecure Moroni II, the brash and aggressive Captain Moroni, and the penitent and remorseful Alma then I do in most of the ancient works which I am wont to read. 

     

    • Like 4
  14. 16 hours ago, california boy said:

    Roman ruins are scattered all thorughout Europe as far away as England and Scotland.  They are all over the Mediterranean.  I spent the last 14 years spending 6 months of each year sailing in the Mediterranean.  Some of the best Roman ruins I have seen are actually located in Turkey.  I think there are more Roman ruins in Turkey then in Rome itself.  In Pula Croatia, is one of the most complete Roman coliseums, and is still being used.  One night we were on my sailboat in the harbor close to the Coliseum and thought we heard Tom Jones singing.  The next day we go into town, and sure enough, posters all over the place advertising his concert at the coliseum.  On that same trip, we had on board a guy that specialized in ancient Christianity studies.  We were anchored in a bay south of Pula and were walking amongst some Roman ruins.  This guy identified a Christian baptismal font from according to him,  probably around 300ad.

    I have seen Catholic churches constructed with marble from Roman ruins.  You can see the Roman carvings on the stone going sideways and every other direction on the church walls.  They just wanted the marble left over from the fall of the Roman Empire.  I have also seen ordinary apartment buildings that have been around for hundreds of years still being lived in, built by marble from Roman temples.  

    Most people don't realize how vast the Roman Empire was and how long it lasted, well over 1,000 years and that is not even counting the Byzantine period after the Roman Empire split in two.

    All of that is phenomenally cool.

    I'm sad that Istanbul has sprawled over and largely flattened the monumental structures of ancient Constantinople (with the exception of the Hagia Sophia, of course). I've been told that good Byzantine ruins exist in Thrace which I might try and check out one day. 

    Touring these ruins with an expert would be a dream come true. 

     

    • Like 1
  15. 13 hours ago, poptart said:

    Ohh boy the USA has more than a few of em, more than a few high ups in the Catholic Church do not like the current pope.  Sad really but that's kind of how it's always been here I think. 

    Well, I mean, I'm not the happiest with the current Pope, though I suppose it doesn't matter so much because I am not a Catholic and my opinion means squat. That said, he's definitely the most globally prominent Christian (in the eyes of the world, at least 😉).

    • Like 1
  16. On 12/14/2020 at 2:34 PM, mfbukowski said:

    Don't know if they still do the "sound and light" presentation in the Forum but it is really an amazing experience. They highlight certain buildings with spotlights and do dramatic readings and quotes from people who spoke there, as in the Senate for example. 

    What the heck, I didn't even know they did that. I'm going to find out and if they still do that I will get there no matter what. 

     

    On 12/14/2020 at 3:27 PM, MiserereNobis said:

     

    I remember when the LDS temple in Rome was dedicated, there was a thread about it, and it turns out it was one of the few temples that had all LDS apostles attend the dedication. I teasingly made the argument that that was a tacit admission that Rome was the center of Christianity and the Pope was its head

     Honestly, I wouldn't dispute that the Pope is the closest thing there is to the leader of the global Christian community. Save Jesus Christ, of course. And anybody who would dispute that Rome is the historic heart of Christianity is bonkers. 

    • Like 2
  17. 12 minutes ago, rongo said:

    Which Washington mission? My son visa-waited for Norway in the Kennewick mission (six weeks in NE Oregon), and loved it. 

    It is frustrating and disappointing at first. The difference is the uncertainty with travel outside of the U.S. right now (no end in sight). I know missionaries who are halfway done with their missions on reassignment, and counting. Past that point, I don't know if it makes sense to go to the field --- they might want to just keep them in the reassigned mission. Especially for sisters serving 18 months, or elders more than halfway done. 

    She's going to Tacoma. Hopefully it'll be a good experience.

    My poor cousin was assigned to Tahiti and has spent around 10 months in Kentucky. A friend of mine from college was assigned to Russia and has spent around 10 months of her mission in Missouri. If she ever gets to Russia she'll only have a few months. Her mission will have been Missouri. My heart goes out to them. 

    • Like 1
  18. 5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

    The laws of physics may have nothing whatever to do with celestial glory. Most people imagine heaven to merely be a souped-up version of mortality. I'm convinced that it is so far beyond that, that we literally cannot imagine it. Well, we can imagine it, but our imaginary vision of heaven (any of them) is like trying to see something in a lightless cavern a mile underground.

    "souped-up version of mortality". That's a funny line and I approve. Actually that's how I've always viewed the telestial kingdom - souped-uo mortality. The celestial kingdom should not be considered in the same category. 

    Edit: I encountered a discussion on some other board about the laws of physics and the gospel and many Smart People™️ were posting and a consensus was that, since God is a physical being He has to obey the laws of physics as we know them. And because many Smart People™️ were going along with this I bought into it for a bit until I looked up and was like "wait why the freak should I believe that? I don't believe that. I don't think God is required to adhere our feeble conceptions of reality and I don't see any reason why I should believe that." 

    It was on that day that I was introduced to both philosophical skeptical theism and the fact that overthinking things doesn't stop with our high school final essays.  

×
×
  • Create New...