mnn727 Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Stick to the manual has ruined more potentially decent discussions in Church than anything.Sticking to the manual prevents a lot of myths, false traditions, and speculation from getting passed along to others. 3
pogi Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I have a few teens left if you are interested. Of course the deal is you have to bring them back when the complete college so they can support me in my old age. Who said anything about college? If you get them back, I have no vested interest in their future...they will be my slaves in the garden until it is tame and mature. You can have them back after that. The only thing that having children demonstrates is that you have functioning hardware and know how to use it. My wife and I are considering foster parenting (but waffle back and forth), the existence of which is further proof that it is not about trust. 1
teddyaware Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I still hold out that Jesus might have been married... but I wouldn't share it over the pulpit. It has no bearing on our salvation and isn't official doctrine. So I guess even though the ordinances of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost were incumbent upon the Lord in order for Him to set the proper example and fulfill all righteousness, for some inexplicable reason, unlike the first two ordinances, it was not incumbent on Him to set the proper example and fulfill all righteousness by obeying the law of the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage, even though that ordinance is absolutely essential in order to obtain exaltation. "Neither is the man without the woman, neither is the woman without the man in the Lord." Paul
ksfisher Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 The no photography thing. Is that always in the chapel or just Sacrament? Does anyone know the real policy? I'm tempted to have my son's Eagle court of honor in the cultural hall so we can have the OA Drum Team and photos. 21.2.10 Photographs, Video Recordings, and Broadcasts in ChapelsTaking photographs or making video recordings in chapels is not permitted. Meetings and other events that are held in the chapel may not be broadcast over the Internet or by any other means (see 18.3.1 for an exception). https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.2.10 1
Buckeye Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 So I guess even though the ordinances of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost were incumbent upon the Lord in order for Him to set the proper example and fulfill all righteousness, for some inexplicable reason, unlike the first two ordinances, it was not incumbent on Him to set the proper example and fulfill all righteousness by obeying the law of the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage, even though that ordinance is absolutely essential in order to obtain exaltation. "Neither is the man without the woman, neither is the woman without the man in the Lord." Paul I guess it depends on what you mean by "setting the proper example." Nephi and Matthew thought the example of baptism was important enough to write down. No so with marriage. Granted, if I had to take a stance I'd say Christ was married too, but it does seem a little odd that this marriage is not part of scripture if his example is so important on that point.
ksfisher Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) I guess it depends on what you mean by "setting the proper example." Nephi and Matthew thought the example of baptism was important enough to write down. No so with marriage. Granted, if I had to take a stance I'd say Christ was married too, but it does seem a little odd that this marriage is not part of scripture if his example is so important on that point. Baptism, as performed by John, was not part of the Jewish tradition, so it was mentioned. Marriage, on the other hand, was part of their tradition, so the gospel writers may have considered it to be something that "goes without saying." Edited February 18, 2015 by ksfisher
KevinG Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 So I guess even though the ordinances of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost were incumbent upon the Lord in order for Him to set the proper example and fulfill all righteousness, for some inexplicable reason, unlike the first two ordinances, it was not incumbent on Him to set the proper example and fulfill all righteousness by obeying the law of the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage, even though that ordinance is absolutely essential in order to obtain exaltation. "Neither is the man without the woman, neither is the woman without the man in the Lord." Paul Don't look at me... I believe Brother Brigham when he said the Lord was likely a polygamist. I just said I wouldn't teach that over the pulpit. Beliefs about His marital status does not directly affect our Salvation today. 1
KevinG Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 Who said anything about college? If you get them back, I have no vested interest in their future...they will be my slaves in the garden until it is tame and mature. You can have them back after that. The only thing that having children demonstrates is that you have functioning hardware and know how to use it. My wife and I are considering foster parenting (but waffle back and forth), the existence of which is further proof that it is not about trust. I do loan them out for gardening. Some of the area's widows have excellently manicured lawns. They keep insisting on giving us money, but we use that for Scout Camp and YW activities.
KevinG Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) I guess it depends on what you mean by "setting the proper example." Nephi and Matthew thought the example of baptism was important enough to write down. No so with marriage. Granted, if I had to take a stance I'd say Christ was married too, but it does seem a little odd that this marriage is not part of scripture if his example is so important on that point. Edited to say "Ksfischer said it better..." I've heard both sides - and the answer to my prayers was a distinct silence on the issue. If I could imagine God rolling His eyes that might be a good characterization of His answers to many of my more curious prayers. Edited February 18, 2015 by KevinG
teddyaware Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Baptism, as performed by John, was not part of the Jewish tradition, so was mentioned. Marriage, on the other hand, was part of their tradition, so the gospel writers may have considered it to be something that "goes without saying." If baptism wasn't part of the Jewish tradition, why do you think the Mosaic Law practicing Nephites performed baptisms and taught that the ordinance was essential to salvation? 1
teddyaware Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Don't look at me... I believe Brother Brigham when he said the Lord was likely a polygamist. I just said I wouldn't teach that over the pulpit. Beliefs about His marital status does not directly affect our Salvation today. I challenge you to teach it the next time you give a talk in sacrament meeting. 1
Rock_N_Roll Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 That a bare shoulder is somehow immodest for non-endowed females. Check out any pre-80's pictures of LDS girls dressed for Prom. It wasn't a big deal until sometime in the 80's. 4
ERayR Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 My father n law was very uncomfortable with my unorthodox views and wanted me to be a orthodox believer. Trying to show him that prophets are not infalliable I told him JS and BY mentioned people living on the sun and moon. Rather than acknowledge that they might have been wrong, he chose instead to validate that people might live on the sun and moon. Well They might.
HappyJackWagon Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 If baptism wasn't part of the Jewish tradition, why do you think the Mosaic Law practicing Nephites performed baptisms and taught that the ordinance was essential to salvation?I don't want to threadjack this fun thread but this is a good question. Does anyone have a reference about whether or not Jews practiced baptism? Obviously John the baptist did but was that a relatively new ordinance for the time or was it ancient?
KevinG Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 Well They might. IN the 60's they all fled to the suburbs when the earthlings started moving in. "There goes the neighborhood zphbrx!"
KevinG Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) I challenge you to teach it the next time you give a talk in sacrament meeting. They always give me safe topics like Salvation, Faith, Obedience... Its really hard to work in polygyny in the New Testament without some serious wrangling, and by then my time is up. Edited February 18, 2015 by KevinG
ksfisher Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) If baptism wasn't part of the Jewish tradition, why do you think the Mosaic Law practicing Nephites performed baptisms and taught that the ordinance was essential to salvation? They did have a ritual washing, but that was different from John's baptism. If is was the same then what John was doing wouldn't have been noteworthy, you could just have the village priest baptize you and not need to go to John. Nephite practice of the Law of Moses was 600 years and an ocean removed from how the law was practiced at the time of Christ. Josiah's reforms and Lehi holding onto faith traditions from before Josiah may have had something to do with that. Kevin Christensen could answer that question better. Edited February 18, 2015 by ksfisher
KevinG Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 That a bare shoulder is somehow immodest for non-endowed females. Check out any pre-80's pictures of LDS girls dressed for Prom. It wasn't a big deal until sometime in the 80's. If nothing else makes me want to slap someone - pointing out little girls in sundresses as immodest (not temple worthy) gets me very close. That is probably something I should not admit. 3
ERayR Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 We've discussed this on other threads, but the "more generations in the church" imparting some kind of special authority or power. Boy have I got power and authority then. My ancestors were some of the very early members. That is a good one to know. 1
Brian 2.0 Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Has the idea of garments being a PHYSICAL protection moved into false tradition now? 2
ERayR Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 That the Lord trusts us enough to care for his children. I hear this in almost every testimony meeting...have any of you seen Maury? It has nothing to do with trust! Perhaps I am a little sensitive as we can't have kids. I can't be trusted I guess. So sorry to hear. Some people turn their mouth on before they do their brain.
ERayR Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Clean shaven = Worthy What does a 2 day stubble mean?
Brian 2.0 Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 What does a 2 day stubble mean? It means you are lukewarm. God would rather us be clean shaven or have a beard.
DBMormon Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Thanks. Somewhere there is a story of someone getting carried away that led to that hard line. which is strange because recorded audio is permitted in Sacrament meeting and otherwise... so yes I want to hear THAT story
Recommended Posts