Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

No priesthood session April


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Don't be mean to Tacenda, she probably used a triple combo and thinks of it as one big book... ' cause it is. 

They didn't seem to have a problem noting down the restoration of the Aaronic , but PJ&J show up and all is forgotten. 

Oh my I'm an idiot! Thanks for giving me a break, maybe that is why I thought BoM. For some darn reason I thought it was in the BoM. But like I've always said, I am a horrible scriptorian. I was an Ensign reader front to back for years, but struggle to this day with scriptures. I thought it would help to read chapter form from the 1830 version. But of course the FV isn't in that edition or any edition of the BoM! Total, dumb attack!

 

Posted
52 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry.  Isn't that the game?  A biting little remark in passing? 

Honestly, you know I like you Tacenda and enjoy your posts.  We've had some good discussions over the years. But on the bad days the little digs you make against the Church or its beliefs can get to me.

They aren't helpful.  A sincere question or opinion or even an honest disagreement, even one against the Church, leads to better dialogue.

Right after posting what I did on this thread and hearing back from you about "tone", I started thinking of what I've been doing for so long. And then thinking I needed to give it a rest. Going to work on myself and work on how I come across. If it was on the other foot I wouldn't like the feeling of someone cutting my faith down. Hopefully this will be a new start, and I won't revert back. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, hearserve said:

Tacenda, remembering the meaning of your screen name has kept me from posting a lot of things that might have caused offense.😀

Don't you know it! 😆

Tacenda are things not to be mentioned or made public—things better left unsaid

Posted

Avatar, sorry for the derail from my comments. Back to the subject at hand. I do enjoy these times in the church with so many changes and transparency. Looking forward to more things to come, and whatever is going to be celebrated in the spring. 

Posted
1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

What I'd like to know is which edition of the Book of Mormon contains an account of the first vision???  :) 

In fairness to Tacenda, I will note here that the Church’s published edition of the Book of Mormon does include as part of the front matter an excerpt from Joseph Smith’s testimony, although the excerpt only covers the visit from Moroni, not the First Vision. For that, one must go to the fuller rendition in the Pearl of Great Price. 
 

Perhaps Tacenda was confused by the excerpt bundled into the Book of Mormon edition. 

Posted
46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Oh my I'm an idiot! Thanks for giving me a break, maybe that is why I thought BoM. For some darn reason I thought it was in the BoM. But like I've always said, I am a horrible scriptorian. I was an Ensign reader front to back for years, but struggle to this day with scriptures. I thought it would help to read chapter form from the 1830 version. But of course the FV isn't in that edition or any edition of the BoM! Total, dumb attack!

 

Had a bishop in Springfield, Mo that would frequently say "There's a scripture out there that says...", and then quote anyone from Shakespeare to Ben Franklin.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:


Also, we do not even know where the LDS Church was first organized, April 6, 1830.  The official version is that the organization took place at the Peter Whitmer farm in Fayette, NY ( https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/founding-meeting-of-the-church-of-christ?lang=eng).  However, all revelations issued that day are specifically from Manchester, NY, where the Church was organized at the home of Hyrum Smith.  See 1833 Book of Commandments, 17-21.

I’m familiar with the argument against the official account (Fayette) and in favor of Manchester, but I don’t find it compelling. The two locations are close enough that Joseph could have been at both on the day the Church was organized. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is it not broadcasted or carried on the internet where you live? 

Dear Scott just another sad attempt at humor for the 21000 attending the conference center in person.  

Edited by Metis_LDS
correction
Posted
52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m familiar with the argument against the official account (Fayette) and in favor of Manchester, but I don’t find it compelling. The two locations are close enough that Joseph could have been at both on the day the Church was organized. 

That's a lot of activity to posit in two separate locations about 30 miles apart by rough road.  There was a large crowd of both family and neighbors, baptisms took place in the nearby creek.  History is messy and subject to a variety of later interpretations by those who were actually there:  Where?  Who knows, and how would we prove it?

Posted
47 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

Dear Scott just another sad attempt at humor for the 21000 attending the conference center in person.  

Didn’t mean to seem humorless.

I wonder if cherryTreez was joking as well. 

Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That's a lot of activity to posit in two separate locations about 30 miles apart by rough road.  There was a large crowd of both family and neighbors, baptisms took place in the nearby creek.  History is messy and subject to a variety of later interpretations by those who were actually there:  Where?  Who knows, and how would we prove it?

I’m talking plausibility. A strong horse or team going 10 miles an hour could cover the distance in three hours. Organizational meeting at Peter Whitmer’s farmhouse in Fayette in the morning. Baptisms in Manchester in late afternoon or early evening. Could happen. 
 

I’m sticking with the official account for now. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted
11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Oh my I'm an idiot! Thanks for giving me a break, maybe that is why I thought BoM. For some darn reason I thought it was in the BoM. But like I've always said, I am a horrible scriptorian. I was an Ensign reader front to back for years, but struggle to this day with scriptures. I thought it would help to read chapter form from the 1830 version. But of course the FV isn't in that edition or any edition of the BoM! Total, dumb attack!

 

I actually read blog post that pointed out that a version of the First Vision is actually in 2 Nephi 27:24-26.  The post is https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2019/10/joseph-smiths-first-vision-in-2-nephi.html?q=first+vision.

Posted
14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Too often modern Israel isn't far removed from ancient Israel ... despite having the Book of Mormon as an impeccable warning and guide.

Its frustrating

Posted
7 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Tacenda, fwiw I appreciate your self reflective style and the way you choose not to bite back. 

You are a good example for me.  ❤️

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In fairness to Tacenda, I will note here that the Church’s published edition of the Book of Mormon does include as part of the front matter an excerpt from Joseph Smith’s testimony, although the excerpt only covers the visit from Moroni, not the First Vision. For that, one must go to the fuller rendition in the Pearl of Great Price. 
 

Perhaps Tacenda was confused by the excerpt bundled into the Book of Mormon edition. 

7 hours ago, webbles said:

I actually read blog post that pointed out that a version of the First Vision is actually in 2 Nephi 27:24-26.  The post is https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2019/10/joseph-smiths-first-vision-in-2-nephi.html?q=first+vision.

Thanks guys! ❤️

Posted
On 11/22/2019 at 6:39 PM, bluebell said:

Is it possible for you to just watch it from home?  That's what we'll be doing.

maybe. The younger ones tend to be busy and me sitting to watch something guarantees that they will want/need me. It tends to be useless to try when I am at home alone with them.  

It's okay. It's small season of my life and I worked hard to have these little ones. I am okay just being their momma right now. I can read about the stuff later.

Posted
On 11/22/2019 at 2:32 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Is it not broadcasted or carried on the internet where you live? 

Will kids under the age of 11 have to leave the room if we watch it at home?

Posted
On 11/22/2019 at 5:39 PM, bluebell said:

Is it possible for you to just watch it from home?  That's what we'll be doing.

Kids under the age of 11 will have to leave the room, no?

Posted
On 11/23/2019 at 6:46 PM, cherryTreez said:

maybe. The younger ones tend to be busy and me sitting to watch something guarantees that they will want/need me. It tends to be useless to try when I am at home alone with them.  

It's okay. It's small season of my life and I worked hard to have these little ones. I am okay just being their momma right now. I can read about the stuff later.

Why would you have to be alone with them? Why would anybody, including your husband, have to leave the house? 

Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Will kids under the age of 11 have to leave the room if we watch it at home?

Why would they?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted (edited)
On 11/23/2019 at 12:05 AM, hearserve said:

Had a bishop in Springfield, Mo that would frequently say "There's a scripture out there that says...", and then quote anyone from Shakespeare to Ben Franklin.

I have a friend who would always include quotes from his favorites artists/musicians in his talks/lessons.  He would state “as the great prophet once said...”, then he would quote Bob Marley lyrics.  This was always intentional though, not sure about your Bishop.

Edited by pogi
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why would they?

The meeting is for 11 and older, no?

If you attend at the stake center or the Conference Center you need a babysitter because you leave the kids at home, but if you stay at home and view it on the tube, the kids can be there? Why make the distinction?

Just trying to figure out the logic and the logistics.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Posted
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have a friend who would always include quotes from his favorites artists/musicians in his talks/lessons.  He would state “as the great prophet once said...”, then he would quote Bob Marley lyrics.  This was always intentional though, not sure about your Bishop.

Are we in the same ward? We have one of those, too.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The meeting is for 11 and older, no? Why make that distinction?

Just trying to figure out the logistics.

These questions etc. are making me wonder why the 8 year olds aren't invited as well, since the 8 year old girls are now going with their moms to the women's meeting. Boy it's getting younger and younger these days, but children are more mature nowadays too.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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