Ham Clam Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 What does a 2 day stubble mean?It means you have a scratchy instrument of the devil.
DBMormon Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 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." Paulit is performed on the other side for him by proxy!
DBMormon Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) What does a 2 day stubble mean?you get less romantic kisses from those you want to kiss Edited February 19, 2015 by DBMormon
ERayR Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 it is performed on the other side for him by proxy! Or not but was performed by him when he was here.
DBMormon Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Or not but was performed by him when he was here.they call them jokes 1
teddyaware Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 it is performed on the other side for him by proxy! Doubtful. Jesus was resurrected very shortly after His death and His emotionally traumatized disciples were basically clueless about most things pertaining to the kingdom until after His resurrection.
Tacenda Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Funny story about that, when my wife and I were first dating I went to Church with her, we passed a number of convenience stores on the way and she suddenly pulled into an apartment complex. She pulled up to their office building where there was a Coke machine. She wanted a Coke but didn't want to break the Sabbath by making someone work.Been there done that!
Tacenda Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 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.Right there with you, I think it sexuaulizes them. 1
JLHPROF Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 no photography in the chapel even outside sacrament meeting. This was in the handbook last I knew My grandmother just had her funeral in a chapel. My family used their cell phones to surreptitiously record the services since video recording wasn't allowed. Lowered the audio quality on the video but it still turned out pretty good.
JLHPROF Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 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 Ooh, I like this reasoning.But then, I too believe (pretty firmly) that Christ was married and lived polygamy. But I also wouldn't proclaim it from the pulpit. I just let those who think Christ was single for no particular reason go on being mistaken.
JLHPROF Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Has the idea of garments being a PHYSICAL protection moved into false tradition now? I still think they do. Not the material itself, but that physical protection is a blessing granted to many who wear the garments.There are too many anecdotes and too much folklore for me to dismiss it as false completely. 4
JLHPROF Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Sticking to the manual prevents a lot of myths, false traditions, and speculation from getting passed along to others. Also limits progression to a great degree. 1
JLHPROF Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 - Jesus didn't drink wine but non-alcoholic grape juice That one always makes me chuckle. How about "we only lived polygamy because there was a shortage of men due to all the persecution".That always makes me cringe. 2
teddyaware Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 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. Stop making excuses and start teaching the mysteries. We're counting on you, Kevin. 3
bluebell Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) 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. I graduated in 1995 and it wasn't a big deal then either. All of my prom dresses were off the shoulder and strapless, and i had some sleeveless shirts that I wore to YW activities (even a temple trip!) and i was not unique in my wardrobe choices. I'm not exactly sure when it became forbidden. Edited February 19, 2015 by bluebell 1
DBMormon Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Doubtful. Jesus was resurrected very shortly after His death and His emotionally traumatized disciples were basically clueless about most things pertaining to the kingdom until after His resurrection.this was a joke... you know were I say something funny and you chuckle.
DBMormon Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 That one always makes me chuckle. How about "we only lived polygamy because there was a shortage of men due to all the persecution".That always makes me cringe.ughh i get that one a lot still.... c'mon people read the essays 1
Teancum Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Be nice - if this turns into a doctrine and practice bash I'll close it. However, I was thinking of some myths that have been built up as Saints have been over eager to enforce rules generally that apply specifically to certain circumstances. For example: when someone takes the prohibition on certain instruments (drums, guitar, brass) in Sacrament, and assumes we cannot use drums, brass or guitars in the cultural hall and chapel during special events. My old Stake Center used to perform Handel's Messiah with full orchestra every Christmas season, so I know that one is a false tradition. Another is the use of face cards. One of my favorite stories is when I was playing go fish with an autistic boy, and a busy body sister told me "Brother Brigham said we shouldn't play with face cards". I replied "Brother Brigham also said we would be damned if we didn't accept polygamy". She never tried to correct me after that. She rarely spoke to me either. There are some examples of things that are not doctrine, but are practices. For example we wear white shirts out of reverence, even though it isn't doctrinally required. I'm not looking for these. Just the silliest stuff we perpetuate that doesn't really have a basis in reverence or doctrine. What are some of your favorite cultural false traditions in the church?Whoever said we even should wear white shirts out of reverence? 1
Stroopwafel Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I still think they do. Not the material itself, but that physical protection is a blessing granted to many who wear the garments.There are too many anecdotes and too much folklore for me to dismiss it as false completely. You mean also like for the Virgin Mary? Thread contribution: did any mention beards yet?
teddyaware Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 this was a joke... you know were I say something funny and you chuckle. Generally speaking, you're an awfully serious and intense guy, DB, So it's hard to know when and if you're joking. From now on I'll keep in mind you have a sense of humor and will keep a sharp eye out for subtile signs of comedic content. I'll try not to make the same again. 1
SmileyMcGee Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Sticking to the manual prevents a lot of myths, false traditions, and speculation from getting passed along to others.Assuming there are no myths, false traditions, or speculations contained within the manuals... 2
sdc999 Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Has the idea of garments being a PHYSICAL protection moved into false tradition now?This made me think back a couple of weeks to the guy who was nearly crushed between the semis. His quote, “I can’t express enough gratitude to the Lord for His protection in a time I felt so alone,” he says. “It has reaffirmed my faith in God, the power of a prayer, the protection that he offers His children, and the power of the garment and the priesthood which were all helping to protect me. I play the scene over and over in my mind and I can never see the situation ending the way it did without divine intervention.” Now for the flip side. I have a dead neighbor as of a week ago; probably ever bit as devout as this man (my personal opinion). Garment wearing, temple going great all around guy. Great father, great husband. Wasn't so lucky with his encounter with a semi. 1
Ham Clam Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I graduated in 1995 and it wasn't a big deal then either. All of my prom dresses were off the shoulder and strapless, and i had some sleeveless shirts that I wore to YW activities (even a temple trip!) and i was not unique in my wardrobe choices. I'm not exactly sure when it became forbidden.It was definitely there by the 2000's. Changes to the FTSOY booklet could be compared (?)
rongo Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Another is the use of face cards. One of my favorite stories is when I was playing go fish with an autistic boy, and a busy body sister told me "Brother Brigham said we shouldn't play with face cards". I replied "Brother Brigham also said we would be damned if we didn't accept polygamy". She never tried to correct me after that. She rarely spoke to me either. I was at Scout camp and playing "Scum" with some Scouts from our ward (using a standard deck of cards). Another leader from our stake (we had several wards camping together) told us that playing with face cards was against Church policy. I told him that it isn't, and that there is nothing in the handbooks, Ensign, or anything else that states this. He was bothered, because I was a bishop at the time. Does anyone know where this notion started, or when the most recent iteration of it in Church literature was? 1
rongo Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I still think they do. Not the material itself, but that physical protection is a blessing granted to many who wear the garments.There are too many anecdotes and too much folklore for me to dismiss it as false completely.I fully agree. I have my own miraculous anecdote, and it is known to my wife and children. They saw my destroyed and shredded blue jeans and unscathed garments. I was cut all the way down to the bone and felt searing pain, but neither my garments nor my leg had a scratch on them. Yeah. I really roll my eyes at members who scoff at the idea that garments can provide physical protection (those who wish that we unibrowed, knuckle-dragging simpletons would quit being embarrassing and give up any notions of the supernatural). 4
Recommended Posts