Jump to content

Nofear

Members
  • Posts

    2,018
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nofear

  1. There is a difference between evidence and scientific evidence, certainly. Historians most definitely do use textual commentary as "evidence" for their investigations. But, that's a rabbit hole for another time. I'm not too worried about trying to persuade you. The doctrine concerning has been clearly laid out and I rather think you understand what is being said. Temple work is only done for Ben adam. If anything changes, we'll be sure to let you know.
  2. The is a LDS pro-choice take on the matter: https://bycommonconsent.com/2022/06/26/asking-the-right-questions-four-theses-on-framing-the-abortion-debate/ I do not represent that position in my own opinion. I think it misses the mark in many respects. On a slightly different note, I state that I am personally quite in favor of the Church's position. I also do not think that everything that is moral should be legislated. A society's ability to tolerate moral law is something to be considered (e.g. alcohol consumption is objectively bad for society in its present form, but neither will we tolerate prohibition so we try to mitigate the harms (somewhat ineffectually)). The point being that I think it is reasonable to be pro-life and yet tolerate some degree of pro-choice. Curiously, with the overturning of Roe v Wade, many on the pro-choice side would expand the legal countenance of abortion well beyond what Roe v Wade allowed.
  3. The scriptures for one. But, there's lots of things in the scriptures that are rather ... inflated. That doesn't make everything untrue. I think the conference meeting at Adam-ondi-Ahman will provide some significant insight on the matter. Until then, we work with what we got.
  4. I very much suspect your comment was intended to be ironic. Yet, there is something reasonably profound in it for those that have eyes and ears to understand*. https://www.edge-of-knowledge.com/edge-blog/2021/6/7/astrophysicist-explains-gravity-in-5-levels-of-difficulty PS: There are several on this board, but mkbukowski is good example. I say this even though I don't see exactly eye to eye with him on several things.
  5. Yes. And the Church is very much concerned with being helpful to the life and well-being of the mother. Social services, ward support, and other mechanisms are in place.
  6. Very much agreed. Not all solutions need be legislative. I would go so far to say that cultural norms and mores with respect to men would be the single largest factor in reducing abortions. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/dramatic-increase-in-percentage-of-births-outside-marriage-among-whites-hispanics-and-women-with-higher-education-levels
  7. Indeed, his essay that you quote is largely informed my comments. Thank you for the quote. Elsewhere (same essay I believe) he asserts that civilization started when we started keeping family history (again, with Adam and Eve).
  8. The quote seems to be from here: https://ldsforbidenharris.medium.com/we-must-trust-women-and-protect-access-to-abortion-87e56e3e65be
  9. "When the ordinances are carried out in the temples that will be erected, [children] will be sealed to their [parents], and those who have slept, clear up to Father Adam." -- Brigham Young (DBY, 399–401). My previous comment remains. I don't know about others outside Adam and Eve's posterity. God has not revealed any such information to me and the prophets haven't taught anything of such that I know of.
  10. Agreed. I even almost wrote a caveat indication such might be possible but chose to be simple. But good for bringing up.
  11. I was deliberate in my use of the phrase "children of Adam and Eve" and not the word "humans". Whatever there was or wasn't, those two are they that I recognize as the first progenitors of my familial line.
  12. Immortality and eternal life of our species may be God's work and glory, but that doesn't mean it is His only work and glory. I'm sure God has plans for them and it is very good. Whatever it is, we children of Adam and Eve don't seem to have a part in that plan.
  13. Caring for women is helpful to society, that is true. But not making everything free isn't the same as not caring (hence false equivalency). Indeed, there are many cases around the world where trying to make everything free has made things worse. I'll grant she can't go into such subtleties in a short quote and it's quite possible she's intelligently informed on such issues. /shrug
  14. Leila Cohen-Miccio screen writing projects have been popular so that must add weight to the words and we can overlook statements that suggest a lack of understanding of economic theory and/or represent logical fallacies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
  15. That is very true. Hence the discussion of enumerated rights and unenumerated rights. But, the question *still* remains on where to put the dividing line when woman's bodily autonomy ceases to outweigh viable fetus's right to life. If you want the Supreme Court to decide that, would you be content if they shifted unilaterally the line granting fetal life greater weight than bodily autonomy? All I'm asking for is logical coherency in the dialog.
  16. In essence the are two competing rights. A) A woman's right to control her body and B) a fetus's right to life. On one extreme there is the position A) always trumps B) … a position that allows for an abortion for any reason up until birth. Then there is the other extreme that B) always trumps A), a position that forbids all abortions of viable fetuses. Most fall somewhere in between the extremes and are willing to define an arbitratry point were B) starts to outweigh A). That is exactly what Roe v Wade did. The Supreme Court has now said the Constitution doesn't demark that boundary and returned it to the states to do so. To me, that doesn't seem like a horribly egregious outrage but pretty reasonable. States can push that A)—B) line either way and eventually, probably, society will come to some kind of consensus (e.g. like we did with the legal drinking age). I might be wrong, but I doubt you are extreme position A), but like juliann, put the dividing line somewhere in between. I think it helpful to clearly state one's position and not resort to sound bites that may inaccurately suggest one's position (or misrepresent the other side).
  17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
  18. Given the fundamentally transformative nature that some experience after a deep NDE, "not as intensely" may be an gross understatement.
  19. Nonetheless, the spirit material will exist in reality, space, and time. We can't exclude the idea of extra dimensions. We can, however, exclude the idea of spirit matter just being a different frequency and/or energy state. That doesn't work on many levels. There are quite a few puzzles to work out. One is the relationship between our mind and memory. It seems that all my earthly experience is recorded in my brain and yet, when I lose access to that brain (e.g. through death) I still have the memories. Is it that the memories are simply copied to the spirit body's brain? Maybe, but it also seems somewhat inefficient. A curious alternative has been proposed where the brain is more of a "connection" to our mind which is... elsewhere. The idea dovetails nicely with most interpretations of LDS theology, but there are still lots of questions that remain. https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/your-brain-is-not-a-computer-it-is-a-transducer
  20. Brigham Young taught that the Spirit World was essentially co-local with the temporal world. While living, our spirit bodies aren't interacting with that world (imagine driving down a road and the road passes through a spirit world mountain -- our spirit bodies clearly don't slam into it). The thought is that after death, our spirit body will then enter and start interacting with that spirit world. Sounds reasonable enough. But, it's not instantaneous. Suppose a bunch of individuals in the spirit world are pleasantly chatting as they take a short break from the work they are engaged in. They happen to be in a location that coincides with a nice forest in Minnesota. But, a mortal hiker happens to be passing through that exact same spot and has a heart attack and dies. Imagine the surprise of the group when this individual suddenly pops up in their midst! ... Point being, this literal take on things can have too many complicated, but quite plausible, scenarios. For me, I think there is a transitory space between the mortality and death -- a time when our mind and spirit body can prepare for re-entrance to that realm. Think of it as a virtual reality experience. In that scenario, the experience is tailored to mitigate the shock of transition from one realm to the next, both the perceptual and mental shock. And different individuals could very well experience different things. Sometimes relatives could join the "VR" experience, other times not. Sometimes it would mimic the physical reality where their now deceased physical body is, other times it could be a tranquil glade. Sometimes they are just as they are when they died, other times they are younger, or a glowing sparkly dot. Sometimes vocal communication is used, sometimes "telepathic". Basically, I think of the transition as: physical world -> death -> ["VR" experience of the mind] -> spirit body -> spirit world Near death experiences would basically be of the VR experience phase. I don't think there are but a very, very few (if any) who entered the literal spirit world with their literal spirit body. The positive and negative of this position is that I can believe or not believe pretty much anybody's account as real. But, it also means that I can't really use them to inform doctrine or any such thing (which we shouldn't do anyway).
  21. That how I taught it yesterday when I subbed for a youth sunday school class. I did emphasize that repentance is wonderful and we all have to do it and we should be extremely grateful for repentance. Nevertheless, obeying in the first place so as to not need repentance is still better.
  22. It isn't the "orthodox" opinion, I admit. But to me it is the only real one that makes sense. Were our Heavenly Parents to enact a plan on countless worlds that required at least one of their children to rebel each time and damn themselves for all eternity ... well, that goes beyond simply not making sense to being something worse than nonsensical. Add that our scripture explicitly states that our world is on the fringes of "normal" (see Moses 7:36) there is no good reason to suppose that our particular instance of the Plan went down the way that most other worlds did.
  23. They transgressed because they partook prematurely when it was forbidden. Adam and Eve could have chosen to leave the Garden at some future time when God did not forbid it because they had been taught, prepared, and were ready to Fall.
  24. Opposition in all things merely entails the possibility that an alternative exist, not that there must be an active agent providing opposition. Lucifer opposed the Plan of Happiness in the Grand Council of Heaven and in his rejection he got a bunch of others to follow him. But it was a choice that we all had and there was no particular punishment associated with the exercise of that choice (just a loss of blessings by the refusal to take the opportunity). As such, Lucifer still had the autonomy to go where he would go. It was always part of the Plan that Adam and Eve would choose to leave the Garden, but the plan was for them to be properly prepared first. With his autonomy, Lucifer chose to go to the Garden of Eden and seek to actively disrupt the Plan of Happiness by getting Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit before they had been properly instructed and prepared and thus hoped to derail the Plan by messing up the timeline and getting things off to a bad start. What Lucifer did was a deliberate act of sabotage* and consequently part of his punishment was that his travel privileges were revoked and he was confined to this earth ("eat dust all the days of your life") lest he attempt his shenanigans on later worlds. * God knew it was going to happen, but he doesn't punish us for things we haven't done yet even if he knows we will do them.
  25. "...most people believe cohabitation should improve one’s odds of marital success. Rosenfeld and Roesler’s work suggests this may only be true very early in marriage [1st year]. Otherwise, not so much" https://ifstudies.org/blog/is-cohabitation-still-linked-to-greater-odds-of-divorce https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/06/key-findings-on-marriage-and-cohabitation-in-the-u-s/
×
×
  • Create New...