Jump to content

Salt Lake Tribune article on LDS and Protestants in Utah converting to Orthodoxy


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Calm said:

"I retract, sorry. There are too many churches.  
By the way, they rarely give me a reference when I ask for a CFR. It appears that I am the only one that needs to follow the rules."

Report them then.

If I have ever missed giving you a CFR, please point it out and I will answer it now.

(bold mine)

Well there was that time... ;)

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

(bold mine)

Well there was that time... ;)

I recognize this is meant to be teasing and I am not offended in the least by it, but if there was a case I missed, please show me so I can correct it.  I intend to try and answer all CFRs that are possible to answer and be clear on reasons if I do not (such as clarifying it was an opinion or the person misunderstood my comments and I was not making that claim, I don't believe people should be required to defend claims not made).  I can't tell from the joke if you believe I missed some or if it is just pure humor.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If I ever lost my testimony in the lds church, and managed not to become an atheist like so many do, I would gravitate towards orthodoxy or Catholicism I think. 

I can't see myself ever believing in the priesthood of all believers, and authority is important to me, so Protestantism holds no appeal. Besides that though, my personality craves tradition, beauty, ritual, and solemnity in religious devotion. 

I love the doctrines of the lds church and I'm a member because of the experiences I have had with God in this church and with this doctrine but our model of worship is difficult for me because it rarely helps me feel connected with God on Sundays, other than taking the sacrament. 

 

My personal opinion is that people really become atheist to the gods that the various religions created.  True atheism, as some have pointed out, requires the proof of a negative and that is difficult to do.  Agnosticism is probably the better route.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

True, I should eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow I die.

 

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

As a bit of a tangent, I've always thought that the common interpretation of this scripture was not quite right.  God doesn't want us to be puritans, eschewing pleasure simply because it is pleasure.  The pleasures of eating and drinking and being merry were given to us by God.  I am glad that He has blessed us with good food and good drink and a sense of humor.  Natural pleasures come to us from God.  It is their misuse that is a problem, or, in the case of this oft quoted scripture, the wrong sense of priority.  If we are giving ourselves to God, there is no problem with enjoying the beautiful wonderful things that God has given us in this life.  The problem is when we think that these natural pleasures are all there are and an end unto themselves.

A good meal and good drink (wine for us Catholics, root beer for you Mormons) and hearty laughter, partaken of knowing that they are from God, bring us much good and, dare I say, make God smile.

Paul was using the phrase to try to communicate the attitude of those who do not believe in the resurrection. He was saying they party hard because they believe there is no afterlife. Of course Paul was disputing that, and says "why are they then baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not?" The whole time Paul is making a case for the literal resurrection of our Savior, and so throws baptism for the dead in there too. Apparently it was a rite the rest of the church at least knew about.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I recognize this is meant to be teasing and I am not offended in the least by it, but if there was a case I missed, please show me so I can correct it.  I intend to try and answer all CFRs that are possible to answer and be clear on reasons if I do not (such as clarifying it was an opinion or the person misunderstood my comments and I was not making that claim, I don't believe people should be required to defend claims not made).  I can't tell from the joke if you believe I missed some or if it is just pure humor.

Teasing! Sorry to have mislead you. :(

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 I asked you several direct questions which you have not chosen to answer, instead throwing out more questions. Whatever else such an exchange may be called, it's not a "dialogue."  As surprising as this may seem to you, I don't feel an overwhelming urge to answer your questions to me if you do not reciprocate.  To me, that seems the equivalent of you watching me chase my tail, and, while that may be amusing to you, I don't exist solely for your amusement.

Mr. Kenngo, 

You concluded that I don't "understand, much less to accord any respect to, a faith-based paradigm" without knowing me. 

I am sorry I didn't answer all your question, but I believe I did answer most of them, I am also talking to others. my previous post is long enough. So let me finish answering all your questions. 

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And?  What does pattern recognition have to do with formulating cogent, coherent answers to the "terrible questions"; with making sense of things which it is impossible to make sense of by relying only on the mortal mind, on human reasoning, and on other, similarly-limited tools; and so on.  

I wrote, "Our brains are very good in finding patterns... many believe in dowsing, rabbit's foot, reincarnation, reiki, haunted houses, witchcraft because of that." Of course we need human reasoning and our minds, but sometimes our brain detects patterns that don't exists and we make the wrong conclusions. It happens everywhere, including in court. 

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 You probably attribute such things to dumb luck (some good, but most bad), to chance, to randomness, and so on.  Fine.  More power to you.  Vive le difference!  Conversely, I take comfort in Isaiah 55:8-9, in 1 Nephi 11:17, and so on, and believe that eventually, I will understand things I cannot now comprehend (see Mosiah 4:9).  

No need to respond to this, I already said, "unless scientists find the cure for death. Some scientists like Kaku believe biological immortality is a good possibility. To clarify I don't have a position on the existence of God or gods. 

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Those scientists sound like morons. People using biology to be immoral is an established historical fact and not just a possibility. You should not listen to these hack scientists.

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay I am sure you know I misspelled immortality.  In case you missed my question: Some people say they feel ghosts, Reiki energy, evil spirits, aliens... you believe them? Why? or why not? Please  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Teasing! Sorry to have mislead you. :(

You didn't.  I was just overcautious because it is important to me to do things I have committed to and this is something I have done that for.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Mr. Kenngo, 

You concluded that I don't "understand, much less to accord any respect to, a faith-based paradigm" without knowing me.

Well, with all due respect, Sir, I think a persuasive case can be made that one is what one reads.  So if one is persuaded by a book called The God Delusion or suggests that others read it and/or that they might be persuaded by it, the conclusion that the person making the suggestion believes that people of faith are delusional is not entirely without foundation.  

I am sorry I didn't answer all your question, but I believe I did answer most of them, I am also talking to others. my previous post is long enough. So let me finish answering all your questions. 

I wrote, "Our brains are very good in finding patterns... many believe in dowsing, rabbit's foot, reincarnation, reiki, haunted houses, witchcraft because of that." Of course we need human reasoning and our minds, but sometimes our brain detects patterns that don't exists and we make the wrong conclusions. It happens everywhere, including in court.

My question still stands unanswered: What does pattern recognition have to do with formulating cogent, coherent answers to the "terrible questions"; with making sense of things which it is impossible to make sense of by relying only on the mortal mind, on human reasoning, and on other, similarly-limited tools; and so on.   

No need to respond to this, I already said, "unless scientists find the cure for death. Some scientists like Kaku believe biological immortality is a good possibility. To clarify I don't have a position on the existence of God or gods."

I suppose the only thing that will convince you of life after death is your own surprise at not having ceased to exist entirely after you shuffle off your mortal coil. That's fine.  We'll see who's right.  In any event, it's not just the religiously devout who have struggled with questions of the meaning of life and death, whether we existed before we were born in physical form, whether we will continue to exist in some form after death, and so on.  Poets, philosophers, and other people of like stripe (both religious and not) have struggled with such questions for millennia.

If someone finds meaning in Reiki, in paranormal investigation, or in the other phenomena you mention, who am I to argue?  That person's frame of reference is different than mine.  It doesn't mean that I'm better and that anyone else is worse, or vice-versa.  It simply means that we see the world, not as IT is, but rather as WE are.  As much as I appreciate your implicit assertion that I must attempt to legitimize my own point of view above all others and/or to delegitimize others' points of view, I think such a venture is pointless and unproductive.  

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay I am sure you know I misspelled immortality.  In case you missed my question: Some people say they feel ghosts, Reiki energy, evil spirits, aliens... you believe them? Why? or why not? Please  

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay on the misspelling.

You need to be more specific in your question. Are you asking if I believe they believe it? If I believe they had some kind of experience they say is something? If I believe they met aliens? What? In any case you are asking me to give a specific answer to a collection of general cases as if I can give a single answer that will consistently apply to every UFO watcher, demonologist, ghost hunter, etc. I cannot.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Well, with all due respect, Sir, I think a persuasive case can be made that one is what one reads. So if one is persuaded by a book called The God Delusion or suggests that others read it and/or that they might be persuaded by it, the conclusion that the person making the suggestion believes that people of faith are delusional is not entirely without foundation.

You also said, "I don't expect you to understand". It is okay to have faith, you have the right to have faith as long as your faith doesn't harm others. I myself see no reason to have faith, but it doesn't mean faith is wrong or pointless, we don't know. 

52 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

hat does pattern recognition have to do with formulating cogent, coherent answers to the "terrible questions"; with making sense of things which it is impossible to make sense of by relying only on the mortal mind

Nothing, but I was replying to this statement "And while I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides the most complete path to God, I also believe that many paths will get one most of the way there." 

Pattern recognition leads us to make conclusions like concluding that the LDS church is the most complete path. 
 

55 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I suppose the only thing that will convince you of life after death is your own surprise at not having ceased to exist entirely after you shuffle off your mortal coil.

Two things would convince me 

1. Evidence

2. Feeling the Holy Ghost. I have never felt the Holy Ghost, or at least nothing that isn't normal. However, 1. it must be in a time when I am NOT feeling sad, hopeless, or in despair. 2. When I am older I must make sure I am mentally healthy without any minor brain damage or stroke. 3. When I am older I must make sure I don't have high sugar level. 4. It can't be when I am falling asleep or waking up. 5. I must make sure there was no suggestion (psychology). 1-5 to make sure I am not hallucinating.  

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You need to be more specific in your question. Are you asking if I believe they believe it? If I believe they had some kind of experience they say is something? If I believe they met aliens? What? In any case you are asking me to give a specific answer to a collection of general cases as if I can give a single answer that will consistently apply to every UFO watcher, demonologist, ghost hunter, etc. I cannot.

Do you believe people feel Ghosts? Reiki? alien telepathy? demons? mind controlled by the CIA with telepathy tech? Or are they just hallucinating?  

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

You also said, "I don't expect you to understand". It is okay to have faith, you have the right to have faith as long as your faith doesn't harm others. I myself see no reason to have faith, but it doesn't mean faith is wrong or pointless, we don't know.

You have "faith" in a lot of things, you simply don't call it that: I prefer, for example to take the operation of the Law of Gravity largely on faith rather than attempting to gain firsthand knowledge of it by testing it by stepping out of a sixth-story window.  Seconds before impact on the way down, a la a Gary Larson Far Side cartoon: "Well, whaddaya know!  There's something to this 'gravity' thing, after all!" ;):D 

[In response to my query as to what pattern recognition has to do with how one chooses to confront the "Terrible Questions" and so on] Nothing, but I was replying to this statement "And while I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides the most complete path to God, I also believe that many paths will get one most of the way there." 

Pattern recognition leads us to make conclusions like concluding that the LDS church is the most complete path.

I'm sorry.  I'm sure it's my limited intellect ;) but that still seems like a non sequitur to me.  You're certainly welcome to connect the dots further so that even my simple mind can grasp whatever concept you're attempting to convey, if you like. :)

Two things would convince me 

1. Evidence

Here's the thing: When it comes to matters of faith, we're all our own "Triers of Fact": Each of us, individually, decides what the "Rules of Evidence" are, and, by extension, what evidence we will admit as tending to show the existence of a Higher Power/Supreme Being, what evidence we will exclude as tending to show such a Power/Being exists, how much weight we will accord to any given exhibit of evidence we choose to admit, and so on.  I'm sure that what I find persuasive, you probably don't, and vice-versa.

2. Feeling the Holy Ghost. I have never felt the Holy Ghost, or at least nothing that isn't normal. However, 1. it must be in a time when I am NOT feeling sad, hopeless, or in despair. 2. When I am older I must make sure I am mentally healthy without any minor brain damage or stroke. 3. When I am older I must make sure I don't have high sugar level. 4. It can't be when I am falling asleep or waking up. 5. I must make sure there was no suggestion (psychology). 1-5 to make sure I am not hallucinating.

Saying you haven't felt the Holy Ghost is one thing: Saying that you've never recognized it as such would, perhaps, be more accurate, but I'll leave that matter between you and God. :) 

 

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 I'm sure that what I find persuasive, you probably don't, and vice-versa.

True, but if we (as humanity) want progress we need more agreement, not more disagreement. In the real world we work together, in teams. For example a big problem in Wash. is that is is very divided. Another example, imagine doctors during surgery disagreeing about what to do.  We can't afford "it's true for me" on everything. 

55 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 You have "faith" in a lot of things, you simply don't call it that: I prefer, for example to take the operation of the Law of Gravity largely on faith

It depends how you define "faith", but I do have many good reasons (non-wishful thinking) to trust what scientists and doctors tell me. Yes, I know doctors and scientists are human and make mistakes, but  it would be unwise not to trust them.  I haven't found good reasons to believe in god or gods.  

55 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 Saying you haven't felt the Holy Ghost is one thing: Saying that you've never recognized it as such would, perhaps, be more accurate, but I'll leave that matter between you and God

How can I tell the difference between the Holy Ghost and some hallucination, coincidence, or false pattern recognition?  

55 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 I'm sorry. I'm sure it's my limited intellect ;) but that still seems like a non sequitur to me. 

Why do you believe the LDS church the most complete path to God? What if the most complete path to God is science and technology? Imagine if science finds the cure for death or aging,

Edited by MormonVideoGame
Link to comment

I will attempt a flawed analogy. Suppose you are lost in a desert and come upon a road which soon splits into three trails. You can see down each trail that there is a tent. You also see that the trails head off toward the cooler mountains. Unbeknownst to you all the trails eventually lead to a main trail that must be followed to reach a pleasant valley and fresh water etc. Also unbeknownst to you , two of the trails wander around for miles through dangerous cliffs and shale paths with bandits and wild animals.  You head down one trail to the tent in which you find a guide . You ask the guide if you are on the correct trail. He says he is pretty sure you are as the rocks are familiar and it seems to be going in a way that lines up with the stars. Unsure you back track to the second trail and find the guide in his tent. You ask the same question and he says that this trail is as good as any so just follow it, no need for a map or any signposts. Still unsure you go down the third path and query the guide there. You ask about the trail and he says, yes, it is correct and the shortest least dangerous way and that he has traveled the trail many times and will provide you with a good map and even a satellite phone if you need it. There are folks who pick a trail and never backtrack. There are folks who backtrack once and go with which ever they choose next, There are those who just can't make up their minds and so go sit on a rock at the place where the trails split. There are also those who, when seeing the three paths, turn around and go back into the desert .

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

True, but if we (as humanity) want progress we need more agreement, not more disagreement. In the real world we work together, in teams. For example a big problem in Wash. is that is is very divided. Another example, imagine doctors during surgery disagreeing about what to do.  We can't afford "it's true for me" on everything.

LOL! :D  Funny you should pick that example.  While it's true that the disagreement occurred before and between operations rather than during them, I've told the story many times hereabouts of having one failed hip reconstruction, continuing to trust the doctor who performed that operation, then having another failed hip reconstruction, then seeking several other  opinions before finally finding a surgeon who was willing to try something other than what had already failed ... twice.  (Personally, I'm glad he DISAGREED with that consensus!)  You've already said that your litmus test is whether my faith harms anyone else.  It doesn't.  Now what? ;) 

It depends how you define "faith", but I do have many good reasons (non-wishful thinking) to trust what scientists and doctors tell me. Yes, I know doctors and scientists are human and make mistakes, but  it would be unwise not to trust them.  I haven't found good reasons to believe in god or gods.

OK.  To each, his own.  I don't think that faith in God, on the one hand, and faith in science, on the other, necessarily are mutually-exclusive propositions.  I happen to think I have pretty good evidence for believing that God guided the hand of that second surgeon, not just once, not just twice, but on three separate occasions.

How can I tell the difference between the Holy Ghost and some hallucination, coincidence, or false pattern recognition?

What are the fruits of your experience?  Did it lead you to do good, to be well-disposed toward others, and so on?  If so, then, "Whatsoever is good cometh of God" (whether we recognize His Hand in our lives or not).

Why do you believe the LDS church the most complete path to God? What if the most complete path to God is science and technology? Imagine if science finds the cure for death or aging,

Science may be able to explain how and why the world goes 'round, but only such things as art, music, philosophy, poetry, literature, faith, and so on, can make the trip worthwhile.  While I'm sure science will continue to make great strides in improving health (and while I'm sure you'll disagree) I'm not holding my breath for any great scientific breakthroughs.  I don't think anything will be able to improve upon the resurrection. ;)  (Not to worry: It's God's free gift to everyone, whether you believe in it or not! :D)  While I realize your paradigm is different, to each his own, and Vive le difference!

 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

LOL! :D Funny you should pick that example.

 See. I would have thought it was the gift of discernment. That is one of the ways revelation worked for me when I was a believing LDS.  That is how General Conference "speaks to me", that is how pattern recognition works. 

37 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

What are the fruits of your experience? Did it lead you to do good, to be well-disposed toward others, and so on? If so, then, "Whatsoever is good cometh of God" (whether we recognize His Hand in our lives or not).

What is "good"? and do I need the Holy Ghost to be good? 

As for my question about false pattern recognition, the all powerful Wikipedia ;) gives a brief summary , "Apophenia figures prominently in conspiracy theories, gambling, misinterpretation of statistics and scientific data, and some kinds of religious and paranormal experiences. Misperception of patterns in random data is called pareidolia."    

39 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not holding my breath for any great scientific breakthroughs. I don't think anything will be able to improve upon the resurrection

Why have more faith in the Resurrection than in science and technology? Some scientists do believe immortality is possible, and even more think living up to 200 years will happen eventually.  See belief in human immortality  

394313at.001.gif

Link to comment
11 hours ago, bluebell said:

If I ever lost my testimony in the lds church, and managed not to become an atheist like so many do, I would gravitate towards orthodoxy or Catholicism I think. 

I can't see myself ever believing in the priesthood of all believers, and authority is important to me, so Protestantism holds no appeal. Besides that though, my personality craves tradition, beauty, ritual, and solemnity in religious devotion. 

I love the doctrines of the lds church and I'm a member because of the experiences I have had with God in this church and with this doctrine but our model of worship is difficult for me because it rarely helps me feel connected with God on Sundays, other than taking the sacrament. 

What does help you feel connected with God? Do conference sessions do any better? I am exploring this, because I have rarely felt particularly connected with God in any type of service, so I don't know if we could do better or not as LDS. I believe I have felt a sweet spirit in sacrament meeting, but I feel the Church's new emphasis on limiting testimonies in fast and testimony meeting is really limiting - it seems it will purge personal experiences of people which lead to their strengthening of their testimonies. We just had the letter read to us again today. I don't know about others but listening to short 60 second testimonies for an hour just seems broken somehow. It's just not my idea of promoting the spirit and growth. I find myself tuning out people as it gets a bit repetitive. 

I have been in many different churches - the Roman Catholic, the Baptist, the Presbyterian, the Methodist, the Lutheran, the Unitartarian, the Christian Scientist, the SDA, the Unity, the Church of the Nazarene, the Church of God, the list goes on. Some made me feel downright uncomfortable. None seem particularly more spiritual. I find LDS services to vary. Sometimes they are uplifting, and sometimes they are dull. I can say the same for Baptist, and some other services. What could we do that would help you connect with God?

Link to comment
6 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Two things would convince me 

1. Evidence

2. Feeling the Holy Ghost. I have never felt the Holy Ghost, or at least nothing that isn't normal. However, 1. it must be in a time when I am NOT feeling sad, hopeless, or in despair. 2. When I am older I must make sure I am mentally healthy without any minor brain damage or stroke. 3. When I am older I must make sure I don't have high sugar level. 4. It can't be when I am falling asleep or waking up. 5. I must make sure there was no suggestion (psychology). 1-5 to make sure I am not hallucinating.  

Do you believe people feel Ghosts? Reiki? alien telepathy? demons? mind controlled by the CIA with telepathy tech? Or are they just hallucinating?  

1. There is evidence. Just not enough to convince you.

2. Do you check yourself for all five conditions before you reason out every decision?

Ghosts? No, not usually. Reiki? No. Alien Telepathy? Unless you count the Holy Ghost and angels as aliens....no. Demons? Yes, but most people do not realize it. Mind control? Nope, I wear my tinfoil hat.

Why do you assume the only other option is hallucination?

Link to comment
20 hours ago, RevTestament said:

What does help you feel connected with God? Do conference sessions do any better? I am exploring this, because I have rarely felt particularly connected with God in any type of service, so I don't know if we could do better or not as LDS. I believe I have felt a sweet spirit in sacrament meeting, but I feel the Church's new emphasis on limiting testimonies in fast and testimony meeting is really limiting - it seems it will purge personal experiences of people which lead to their strengthening of their testimonies. We just had the letter read to us again today. I don't know about others but listening to short 60 second testimonies for an hour just seems broken somehow. It's just not my idea of promoting the spirit and growth. I find myself tuning out people as it gets a bit repetitive. 

I have been in many different churches - the Roman Catholic, the Baptist, the Presbyterian, the Methodist, the Lutheran, the Unitartarian, the Christian Scientist, the SDA, the Unity, the Church of the Nazarene, the Church of God, the list goes on. Some made me feel downright uncomfortable. None seem particularly more spiritual. I find LDS services to vary. Sometimes they are uplifting, and sometimes they are dull. I can say the same for Baptist, and some other services. What could we do that would help you connect with God?

I think part of the problem (for me, i won't speak for anyone else) is that church right now, because of kids and callings, is about 90% service and 10% worship.  

I would appreciate more time on Sunday, in church, focused towards devotion and being taught by the Spirit.  I know that serving others during church does not preclude devotion or being taught by the spirit but, for me, it does limit it quit a lot because service (and wrangling kids) is just a lot of work, logistics, handling meltdowns and snacks, etc. and those are activities that are very draining.  There is nothing in church that refills me to the extent that it drains me-making church hard.

I need time to reflect and just breathe, to use my senses like sight, sound and hearing, to connect with the experience going on around me.  My favorite times in church are when we are able to sit in the chapel, with the lights dimmed, just as during temple dedications or stake conferences (we get the feed directly in our chapel), and it's more quiet and contemplative.  Those are also the times when my two youngest (4 and 3) stay home because they live for nursery and sunbeams and making them sit for two hours and then go home without the payout just seems mean.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think part of the problem (for me, i won't speak for anyone else) is that church right now, because of kids and callings, is about 90% service and 10% worship.  

I would appreciate more time on Sunday, in church, focused towards devotion and being taught by the Spirit.  I know that serving others during church does not preclude devotion or being taught by the spirit but, for me, it does limit it quit a lot because service (and wrangling kids) is just a lot of work, logistics, handling meltdowns and snacks, etc. and those are activities that are very draining.  There is nothing in church that refills me to the extent that it drains me-making church hard.

I need time to reflect and just breathe, to use my senses like sight, sound and hearing, to connect with the experience going on around me.  My favorite times in church are when we are able to sit in the chapel, with the lights dimmed, just as during temple dedications or stake conferences (we get the feed directly in our chapel), and it's more quiet and contemplative.  Those are also the times when my two youngest (4 and 3) stay home because they live for nursery and sunbeams and making them sit for two hours and then go home without the payout just seems mean.

OK. I gotcha. I served with my wife in nursery for a little while, and it does seem to take you out of "the loop." We had "a three year old" for about 5 years, and they could sometimes be a bit much, and very distracting although our middle one was fairly content to sit quietly and color, etc. Although kids do take a lot out of ya, enjoy them, because before you know it, they are grown up. We instituted a "chip system" and if they were good in Church they could earn 2-3 chips. A chip for brushing teeth, making beds, doing simple chores, and more chips for harder chores, doing homework, etc. When they reached 30 or more chips they earned a night out at a buffet, or a game place, or a movie, etc. This seemed to help a lot in Church as it was the beginning of a new week, and they were chip hungry. Still sometimes we had to sit between each of them. I think our persistence did help them to learn to pay attention at earlier ages, and free us up to enjoy sacrament meeting. God bless. 

Link to comment

The best way to teach a kid to be quiet and play or sit without fussing is to take him to a singles ward where it is so quiet if he makes a noise, it is heard everywhere and he may expect everyone in the chapel to look at him which is a bit intimidating (unless your kid is a show off).

No bad habits to learn from other kids.  Generally smothered by love and attention from the rest of the ward as well.  Otoh, no nursery.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

This is one of the advantages of a Catholic cathedral, it being open for most of the day apart from mass times. One is surrounded by religious symbols and there is time to contemplate. Our temples can provide this but even then there is a hurry to do the sessions etc. Our buildings are utilitarian and well serve their purpose for classes etc. , but unless you want to show up an hour early to the first ward in service, you won't get much meditation time there. The scriptures suggest we use our closets. I need  a bigger closet. -_- 

Link to comment
On 6/4/2017 at 6:59 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

Why have more faith in the Resurrection than in science and technology? Some scientists do believe immortality is possible, and even more think living up to 200 years will happen eventually.  See belief in human immortality  

394313at.001.gif

A lot depends upon who you poll. A more recent study found different results. If you look at Nobel Prize winners you get different results with a lot of chemists who are Christian. Among elite scientists you get the following

Ecklund-table2.2.png.2e93a9cb1cdc680143b53d021c9e76ce.png

Still a vast majority are agnostic or atheist but higher than the figures you posted. Again though this tends to be scientists at elite schools like Yale or Berkeley and so are biased. Working scientists at labs for instance are excluded.

Link to comment
On 6/3/2017 at 5:49 PM, boblloyd91 said:

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2017/05/utah-mormons-protestants-finding-new-spiritual-home-ancient-orthodox-church/

 

So this article has been making the rounds lately which I have found interesting. Apparently there has been such a large amount of growth (from conversions) that they are working on building a bigger church. I will share more of my thoughts soon, but in the meantime I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this.

By Biblical comparison alone, the LDS Church is already THE Orthodoxy.

Link to comment
On 6/4/2017 at 9:29 PM, The Nehor said:

1. There is evidence. Just not enough to convince you.

Please share. It's not like I don't want there to be a god. Would be nice if a heavenly father gives me immorality and heaven. 

On 6/4/2017 at 9:29 PM, The Nehor said:

2. Do you check yourself for all five conditions before you reason out every decision?

No, I am not perfect, but it would be unwise to make an important decision when 1 - 5 apply. 

On 6/4/2017 at 9:29 PM, The Nehor said:

Why do you assume the only other option is hallucination?

There are many possibilities, but let me clarify that I don't believe in ghosts, evil spirits, haunted houses, reiki, aliens playing games with humans, dowsing, witchcraft, rabbit's foot, psychics, reptilian aliens controlling the government, faith healing.   

It is amazing how our brains are quick to detect false patterns. You disagree? 

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Still a vast majority are agnostic or atheist but higher than the figures you posted. 

Yes according to your table 62% are atheists or agnostics, compared to 6% of the general population. Only 9% of scientists believe without any doubt. 

It is interesting that Atheism and Agnosticism seem to produce more scientists than Theism. Why do you think that is? 

Edited by MormonVideoGame
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...