Stargazer

This is the story of that group, New Horizon:

This is from the mid-1970s. A group of LDS missionaries in South Korea organized a K-pop group, called New Horizon. They did this to provide greater recognition of the Church in Korea. They were apparently fairly popular. Their music was in the Korean language. Here's one:

I do agree that we can assess and determine morals and ethics on our own, without an absolute external standard (e.g. God). But what do those assessments and determinants really mean? How valid are they, all in all? To one for whom there is no absolute external standard, Western Civilization is just as valid as Sharia, the former Japanese Bushido, Sparta's warrior state, and the ancient Mongol tribal society. This means that, ultimately, where there is no absolute standard, a society which permits polygamy is just as valid as one which doesn't. Which seems to torpedo a moralistic and ethical resentment over polygamy as a standard. You can't have your cake and eat it, too, to employ a cliché. And just because you don't like it, too bad, so sad, get over yourself. It's laissez-faire all the way. Full speed ahead and damn the torpedos!

Some are pleased that people are leaving the church, as it confirms their prejudices. I'm very familiar with this, because once in a while my wife finds out that I am right about some fact that she didn't initially believe. I sometimes get a smug feeling out of being right in these cases. It happens less often than I would prefer. As for what the church says, I don't really know. I think it varies greatly by region, too. I don't have any stats on it. The only retention rate I really care about is the rate of my own retention (which is pretty good right now), and that of those whom I love and care about (which isn't as good as I would like).

In German-speaking areas, full-time missionaries don't use the German word for Elder, which is Ältere, likely because it is more strictly an age-thing. The word which they would use, due to its New Testament use, is Älteste (see 1 Peter 5:1), which is literally "eldest". Instead, the male FTM use "Bruder." I was given the impression that the reason "Elder" isn't used is because the Germans are very title-conscious, and "Älteste" seems to confer a larger rank than the position merits.

Chandler made a serious mistake in his seatbelt decision (or forgetting). But I think I'm going to remember him for his stalwart defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Here's a newly uploaded video featuring him, concerning the Book of Mormon vs the Bible.

They are, aren't they! Where do you think I get these "broad brush comments"? I watch a few ex- and anti-Mormon YouTube channels, and on occasion they are definitely thrilled about how the church is dying because members are falling away in droves (they think). And they are very smug and pleased about it. They love it! It's precious validation to them. There are ex-members and there are ex-members. There are members who are kind of ex-members. For the most part they just lead their lives, mostly still members on paper, and don't bother about the church one way or the other. I know a few. Except for your posting here, you seem to be among their ranks. I only just heard of this book. Probably won't read it. But I take it you did read it? When it comes to understanding your situation, for me it is very difficult. From my first contact with my very first Mormon at age 13, I sensed that the Church was true. I'm now 74, and that testimony has grown steadily. Nothing I've ever read or heard has damaged that testimony. To me, the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the CoJCoLDS being His church is now as certain as it can be, I think. So never having been in your position, I cannot fully understand how you feel. At best I can try to empathize how I would feel if it turned out that it all was a farce. And I am sad for you. I wish it were otherwise. My "loyalty" to the Lord, or the Church, or whatever one might want to call it, is not because I think the church is totally without fault, or that there aren't problems in its history, or that there haven't been leaders who fell far short of who they should have been. I make allowances because the church is a human institution, and the only way to make it perfect is to get rid of all the humans. I feel that the Spirit of the Lord has guided me throughout my life, and I have had many experiences that assure me of His reality. I don't always get what I pray for. Despite prayer and blessings my late wife still died from cancer. So did my brother. But they died unafraid, knowing that the Lord Jesus Christ is their Savior. I've run into a few folks online who say that they desperately wanted (or still want) the Church to be true. And they cite things similar to what you've written here. But I probably cannot say anything to you that you haven't already heard that could help you overcome the lack. Unfortunately, the most profound spiritual experiences that I have had, that convince me as to the reality of the things I have learned, are things I cannot vaccinate you with. I wish members of the church would have more compassion for those who have difficulty with faith. I try to have that compassion. But there we go with the human aspect again.

The trickster Loki? As I mentioned earlier, our missionaries were recently teaching a man who seemed happy with what he was being taught, until he was taught the Word of Wisdom and about tithing. Then he was gone. Is there something wrong with those two things? I remember a new convert in my mission who stopped attending because of something that was taught in that year's priesthood manual (back in 1973). It must have violated his sense of morality and ethics. Should the Lord give up on his "tricks"? The commandments of God are full of things that people just can't handle. Morally and ethically repugnant? By whose morals, and whose ethics? Jesus started teaching something in his mortal ministry that caused many of his followers to leave him. After the feeding of the 5,000 he began to be followed by huge crowds, who were no doubt waiting for the next mass miracle. He entered a synagogue in Capernaum on the Sabbath (John 6:59), and taught the following to the Jews and disciples gathered. "I am the living bread, which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is even My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world . . . Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves" (John 6:51, 53). Those assembled to worship God were shocked and offended at what they heard (John 6:60). They were well aware that God commanded ancient Israel to not eat blood even if it was in a clean animal killed for food (Leviticus 7:26 - 27, 17:10 - 15). They also knew that God promised to punish, severely, those who knowingly broke this prohibition. They were morally and ethically offended at Jesus's teaching. Word of what Jesus said in the synagogue quickly spread to others who had followed him into Capernaum. They too found his statements absurd, unbelievable and offensive. Their lack of understanding led them to leave, to no longer associate with him or acknowledge he was the Messiah. "Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?" Even the Apostles were shaken by this. Jesus detected this and the following ensued: "Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." [John 6:67-69 Why did Jesus do this? Was he simply exercising his Loki side? No. It appears that the Lord chose to make his statements when he did because he knew it would winnow out those who did not have their minds open to the truth, who would ultimately reject his message. Those who heard Jesus' statements completely misunderstood his words. They interpreted them in a literal fashion, believing he was crazy for condoning what amounted to cannibalism! Are you going to winnow yourself out because of your preconceived morality and ethics? Will you allow the Lord to take you only so far, but no farther?

My stake president served his mission in Russia, but not near where this occurred. He spent most of his time in Siberia.

I'm sad to hear that you can't attend! I would have loved to attend myself, but it isn't quite worth an 8 hour airplane ride. For the past few years I've bought the streaming pass to the conference, but I was not able to remember to watch them live. Add to that handicap the fact that I'm 7 hours ahead of it, and some of the talks happen very late for me here in the UK. But this year I made myself remember to watch at least a couple of them live. So I watched Dan Peterson live for the first time in my life! I do have to say that the streaming was very well done this year. In some prior years it was difficult to access, and there were technical issues with the audio. But this year was excellent.

I had a very scary experience that taught me to always wear a seatbelt. It was in 1979 when I was in the Army at Ft. Lewis. I was driving my Ford Pinto on post, alone on a totally clear road. I decided to change the station on the radio I was listening to. I reached over, started twiddling with the radio dial. Something made me look up, and there stopped in the road was another car I had not seen, about to make a left turn. There was no time to slam on the brakes -- or so it seemed. By reflex I got both hands on the steering wheel and zagged around him off the road (there was no curb). Completely zonked out, I drove just a bit further to a gas station, pulled in, and had a quiet panic attack. I had not been wearing a seatbelt. If I had hit him at the speed limit, 30 mph, I probably would have died. From then on I never, ever, never failed to put on my seatbelt. A number of years later I was driving up to the Seattle Temple, and an older brother in my ward was going to be traveling with me. He got into my car, and I waited for him to put on his seatbelt. He didn't. I asked him about it, and he said the stupidest thing I could imagine in this circustance, which was he didn't believe in them, and if we had an accident he would prefer to be "thrown clear" of the wreck, not trapped inside. I told him that if he didn't wear a seatbelt in my car, he could find another ride, or walk. He grumpily did so.

I have finally found where JFSjr got the "no blood in immortal bodies" thing. Two places in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith: "God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. "Our God is a consuming fire." When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood in this tabernacle." "As concerning the resurrection, I will merely say that all men will come from the grave as they lie down, whether old or young; there will not be "added unto their stature one cubit," neither taken from it; all will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood."

I'm glad that you can at least admit that much. And what scripture would this be? I can't count myself as well-read in scripture as many others, but I don't believe I've ever read anything that corresponds to what you are saying here. And on the contrary, the Book of Revelation seems to say otherwise. To him who overcometh, Christ invites him to sit with Him in His throne, even as He is set with the Father in His. Sounds precariously close to a direct denial of what you have written here. Rev. 3:21

I agree. In saying this, Jesus was addressing his apostles at the Last Supper. Did mansions only apply to the Apostles, then? Yes, but it's not "cross," it's "crown." Typo? "79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God." Yes. Where you get that from? Don't get too wrapped around the axle about lack of "fulness." The verse in question goes: "77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father." If you have the presence of the Son, you have the fulness of the Son. I know that this is all nonsensical from the point of view of someone who holds the Athanasian Creed as truth. The god who is described as "one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance" cannot possibly separate itself into three parts to minister to three different eternal destinations. Yes, but is that what the original Greek term means?

When I got my drivers license my dad said to me: "You now have a license to kill." He was of course referring to the danger to self and others in regards to bad driving. But of course, you know me, I had to argue with him. "It's not a license to kill!" I replied. "A license gives permission do a thing that would otherwise be illegal." Blah, blah, blah. Yes I knew what he meant, but couldn't just let him have the point.