Jump to content

manol

Members
  • Posts

    206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by manol

  1. One of my eyes looks like that. In most photos it appears that one of my eyes is looking off to the side a bit. In my case the asymmetry is in the tissue around that eye, not in the actual direction the eyes are looking.
  2. Quoting the Arizona attorney representing the bishops and the Church: “These bishops did nothing wrong. They didn’t violate the law... " The court may end up agreeing with him, but I disagree with the implication that "the law" is the highest authority on matters of "right and wrong." Quoting Hymn Number 237: "Do what is right, let the consequence follow."
  3. Of course we will see them again! Our associations in the next life are based on Natural Affinity. Nor need you wait until then to be present to Bennie. You remember what his presence feels like, his "energy" if you will, right? Align your energy (your feelings, your felt sense) with that, and you will be in the same "space" as him to some extent, even though you (probably) won't see him. "Presence" on the other side is not so much "geographic" as it is "energetic" in nature. "Presence" is more about tuning in your intention, your spirit's "antenna" if you will, to the person or group or state of being or level that you desire to experience, rather than about physical proximity. Go into the highest and purest and most no-strings-attached love you are able to at this time and that's where you can "tune in" to Bennie or whoever or whatever you desire, to the extent that it is possible at this time. Down here the closest analog I can think of is unconditional love plus focused intention. Some aspects of the Endowment Ceremony, towards the end, can be interpreted as pointing in this direction. In my opinion.
  4. I am so sorry you lost such a close friend Rod.
  5. That is probably the case. Also, I think a person is more likely to make note of how a word is used in the Bible when it's part of the name of their religion. For instance, my guess is that a Baptist is likely to notice when their word pops up, which admittedly is not nearly as often.
  6. Why would you even ask that? Are you implying that we all look alike to you?? ;o) Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously, I'm pretty sure my avatar photo is of a Pallas Cat named "Eve". I didn't realize I was gender-bender-ing when I chose the photo. The Pallas Cat is also called the Manul, and the more obscure Mongolian version of the word is Manol. And that's just about my favorite video on YouTube.
  7. I was a convert, and lived most of my life in communities where the membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a tiny minority. It seemed to me that, outside of the membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the connotation of the word "saint" is dominated by the Catholic usage of the term, to such an extent that to outsiders it seems pretentious for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints refer to themselves at "Saints", even moreso with that capital "S". Neither Merriam-Webster nor Oxford list "followers of Christ in the New Testament" among the definitions for the word, at least not online, so I'm not sure that connotation is really common knowledge: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/saint https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/saint I took the usage of the term as just another part of the package deal of being a "peculiar people", and in practice explaining the usage of the term in the name of the Church was arguably a rather friendly, no-pressure missionary opportunity.
  8. The epiphany happens about six seconds in, but keep watching.
  9. I have always read that verse differently: "a man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and [it may or may] not tarry with him." Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are reading it as "a man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and [it does] not tarry with him." I think either reading is arguably valid, from the standpoint of what the wording could imply. If it works that way, if the Church as a whole is what has the permanent connection with the Holy Spirit, then why not for the early (and subsequent) Christians as well? I'm pretty sure the Holy Ghost would have no problem whatsoever "staying" with a welcoming Telestial host who placed no barriers to its presence, but I don't know enough to confidently use the word "permanent" here. Yes! Imo "proper spiritual attitude" is a very good description of something that our language doesn't really have the words for. It's like you deliberately turn on the Light, and you deliberately keep the Light on, which means that you monitor and adjust your attitude to return to the Light whenever you notice you are not in it. It requires enormous awareness and focused effort at first, but can become your "default" mode... so I THINK it is at least theoretically possible to walk with the Spirit. A friend of mine thought so too, and wrote a song about it, link in @rodheadlee's "Music Thread" in Social Hall. Ime the "proper spiritual attitude" is indistinguishable from love, but not the romantic type.
  10. manol

    Music Thread

    Here's one called "Walking with the Spirit" by a friend of mine, the late, great Coco Robicheaux:
  11. I disagree with the author of that paper. He wrote: "... this exegesis shows that the phrase “Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us” rather than referring to the literal indwelling of the Holy Ghost in each individual Saint, which Joseph Smith’s teachings indicate is not possible, actually refers to the fact that the Holy Ghost dwells in “us” as a body of Saints, or in the Church membership as a whole." I disagree that the Holy Ghost dwells in "a body of Saints", rather than in individuals. This based on my experience with said Holy Ghost, such experiences having been personal and individual rather than institutional. The way I read verses 22 and 23 of Section 130, it sounds to me like the reception of, and indwelling of, the Holy Ghost is an individual event: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him." Also, the bestowal of the Gift of the Holy Ghost on a person implies that the companionship of the Holy Ghost is an individual event, and not a collective one, just as priesthood authority is something which an individual either has or has not. Relegating the companionship of the Holy Ghost to a collective event removes individual responsibility for being a clean and receptive temple for the Spirit of God to dwell in (Helaman 4:24). (And if the Holy Ghost is a collective event, then why not also faith, repentance, and baptism? Do you see how much that line of thinking waters things down?) Joseph Smith seemed to emphasize separation rather than oneness when it comes to God and Christ and the Holy Spirit and us. I can easily see how separation was something which needed emphasizing to get Telestial world people actively engaged in the work of individual progression, but clearly there is an emphasis on oneness in the teachings of Christ. Let me repeat a couple of scriptures from my previous post, these are the words of Christ so let's not let them get overlooked: "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." John 14:20 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." John 17:21 So assuming that Christ is the higher authority on the matter, imo any explanation which does not give full effect to the relevant teachings of Christ is at best incomplete. Let me try to illustrate, this won't be an exact correspondence: From Thumb's point of view, Pinky is a separate entity, the two have no apparent connection, and often seem to be opposed to one another. And Head is a totally different creature, who might as well dwell on another planet. But there is a higher reality which reveals that Thumb and Pinky are not really separate, and that higher reality is called Hand. And there is a yet higher reality which unites Thumb, Pinky, and Hand with Head... In other words I do not think the emphasis on separation put forward by Joseph Smith is painting a complete picture. It may well be a very USEFUL and EFFECTIVE picture from a motivational standpoint, as evidenced by the disproportionate and impressive amount of industry and effort towards eternal progression found among active Latter-day Saints, but to the extent that it fails to encompass the teachings of Christ on the subject, I think it may be incomplete.
  12. That makes sense, at least from where we are now (in the Telestial world), but could there be more to the nature of God and Christ than we currently perceive? Is the nature of God and Christ compatible with these teachings?: "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." John 14:20 "God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." 1 John 4:16 "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? ...for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." John 17:21
  13. Jesus told the Parable of the Good Samaritan in response to the question, "Who is my neighbor?" (the context being, the questioner having acknowledged the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself"). So Islander, if I understand you correctly, this Parable is only intended to have meaning for the audience Jesus was speaking to then and there, and any other meaning we might ascribe to it is "bad theology". Is that correct? What do you think the answer is today to the question, "Who is my neighbor?" Could your neighbor be someone you disagree with on an internet forum? If so, we've all got lots of neighbors here!
  14. Agreed. My recollection is that there was at least one shoving-match/fight (culminating in shots fired by Joseph) at the door before the final assault that breached the door, and a nose injury could have occurred then. Regarding the death mask, the jaw muscles would have relaxed so the lower jaw could have dropped relative to its normal position (like when someone falls asleep in a recliner), de-emphasizing the chin and accentuating the cheek bones. The guy in the photo rocks that hair-do much better than the guy in the portrait does. That's not a hair-do most men could get away with, and I never thought the guy in the portrait did. I grew up in a household with someone who looked a lot like the guy in the photo so I have a positive association with his appearance, but can understand your reaction as well.
  15. Apparently he hasn't logged in since June 14th, I hope he's okay.
  16. I'm also what could be called "non-denominational", with an LDS background. I get the impression there may be a few others around here, though of course there is an enormous amount of variation under the "non-denominational" umbrella.
  17. manol

    Hi, I am new.

    I think you are absolutely correct! ""The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind." - Matthew 13:47
  18. Not that I have any expertise in anything relevant, but the right earlobe in the Rogers oil painting is significantly different from the right earlobe in the Larsen daguerreotype. But the Larsen earlobe and ear shape seem to match the Scannel daguerreotype. The philtrum (indentation above the upper lip) also matches up on the two daguerreotypes, but again the portrait is different. IF the timelines for the daguerreotypes make sense then I think they could be of the same individual, but it is not obvious to me that that individual is Joseph Smith, based on the discrepancies with the portrait. Or maybe it is Joseph - seems to me that off-center furrow at the top of the nose is an unlikely feature. The altercation which led up to the death mask being made could have included an injury to the nose, as well as other facial injuries.
  19. Thanks for your advice! I don't know of wording that really fits what I'd like to convey, but should have been more mindful of where I am and who I'm "talking" to. The electromagnetic spectrum is the closest this-world analog I can think of, with "darkness" at one end and "light" at the other, in which case the word "frequency" might have been better, but probably not by much. I'll try to remember to stick with "light" and "energy", unless perchance wording which conveys well sans baggage occurs to me. Again, thanks.
  20. Imo the teachings of Jesus vastly transcend the teachings of both Paul and James. If we don't dilute the teachings of Jesus with the paradigms of well-meaning (though vastly lesser) men, the distracting debate over grace versus works doesn't even show up. Imo what Jesus does in the Gospels is, he gives us teachings which are of the highest value if we are supposed to, and if we INTEND to, become the same manner of men (and women) that he is. The words of Jesus work on two levels. First, they convey correct and uplifting concepts and principles to our minds. Second, they elevate the light or energy or vibrational state of our spirits, and thereby entrain our spirits to a higher level: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63
  21. YES!! There is an enormous amount taught in these few words: "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40) So let's look at the First Great Commandment: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." In other words, we are to love God completely and without reservation (I could get into more accurate translations of the words, but that's the gist of them either way). Would Jesus give us a commandment we cannot keep? Of course not. That would be cruel, and Jesus was not cruel. Therefore it must actually be POSSIBLE for each of us to truly love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. Let me ask a follow-up question: Can you love that which you fear? Well you're probably remembering some adult from your childhood whom you feared, but you still loved them. So let me rephrase: Can you love that which you fear "with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" - in other words, completely and without reservation? And of course the answer is no. So the ONLY way we can reasonably be expected to obey the First and Great commandment is, if we have absolutely ZERO reason to fear God! That's the only scenario under which we can truly obey the First and Great Commandment. The Father condemns no one, and Jesus did not come into the world to condemn it. So we do not need "saving" from condemnation because neither God nor Christ waste their time and energy on condemning us. But they DO want us to progress, as the verses I quoted in a previous post indicate, and THAT is why Jesus' teachings are the most important teachings we have, by far. The Second Great Commandment is "like unto the first", though how so is not readily apparent at first glance, and I don't have time to do a deep dive into the Second Great Commandment right now, but briefly it calls upon us to do three things: Love one another without reservation; forgive one another without keeping score; and see one another through a lens we never would have thought of on our own. That lens is described in the parable at the end of Matthew Chapter 25, and here is the pivotal verse: "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." In other words, we are supposed to see and treat others as if they are the Christ in disguise! The teachings of Paul about grace are GREAT if you believe that you are under condemnation, as they give you a path out from under that condemnation. But the higher truth is that you were never under condemnation to begin with! Rather, you and I and everyone else are called to BECOME like Christ (and we are free to do so insofar as we reasonably can), and by far the best collection of teachings on the subject are the words of Jesus as found in the four Gospels. In my opinion.
  22. That's what Paul taught. What did Christ teach? Did he teach that we are all under condemnation and need to be saved by grace? No, that was Paul. What did Christ teach?
  23. I never said you don't worship Jesus. But whose teachings are you actually following?
  24. Imo one problem with labeling the entire Bible as "God's word" is that doing so elevates those parts which are the words of this or that man to a status they do not merit, while simultaneously diluting the importance of those parts which really ARE "God's word", such as the teachings of Jesus Christ. Much as I like some of the things Paul said, in my opinion the Words of Paul are not in the same category as the Words of Christ. That is what Paul teaches. Are we to be disciples of Paul, or disciples of Jesus Christ? The Christian world is largely focused on believing that salvation comes from believing something ABOUT Jesus Christ, while Christ himself taught that salvation comes from ACTUALLY BELIEVING his words and ACTUALLY DOING them. Jesus' idea of what "believing" in him entails is shown by these words: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21 "If ye continue in my word, then ye are my disciples indeed." John 8:31 Again, who are we to be disciples of? Of Paul, or of Christ? And Jesus is teaching us how to really progress because what he envisions for us is absolutely incredible: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48
  25. Thanks, sounds like I have some homework to do to get up to speed.
×
×
  • Create New...