The Nehor Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Ahab: I prefer just to let my pet aardvark roam free. Questioner: Why do you call your dog an aardvark? Ahab: Because I use language differently than you do. Thumbs up. Pretending to misunderstand based on word choice can be humorous but Ahab never does it right and seems to think he is actually advancing a point when he does it. 1
JAHS Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: IF abortion is considered murder by God and his laws (regardless what man thinks or the law says) this should terrify anyone who ever performed, participated in, or condoned abortion. We can debate the issue of abortion till we're blue in the face but if we're on the wrong side, it's an unforgivable sin. Worth the risk? (I know, Pascal's wager, but worse I think). Yes it should terrify them. However, the church has determined that a person can possibly be forgiven for being involved in an abortion. The following statement made by President David O. McKay and his counselors, Stephen L Richards and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., represents the attitude and position of the Church: “‘As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.’ Edited January 25, 2020 by JAHS 3
Popular Post The Nehor Posted January 25, 2020 Popular Post Posted January 25, 2020 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: If gaining votes and popularity were the president’s sole or even his prime intent, I should think there would be surer and safer ways to do that than by speaking at the March for Life rally, which stands to alienate at least as many potential voters as it pleases. I would love to hear from some person that heard that and was alienated from the President by it who was previously considering voting for him. The risk is ridiculously miniscule. Most candidates try to expand their base. He does not seem interested and prefers to agitate the base he has. It is the part he likes. That is why he has been campaigning at his rallies pretty much non-stop since the election and prefers it to governing. Some people seems to like his demagoguery and he basks in the adulation. 6
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: IF abortion is considered murder by God and his laws (regardless what man thinks or the law says) this should terrify anyone who ever performed, participated in, or condoned abortion. We can debate the issue of abortion till we're blue in the face but if we're on the wrong side, it's an unforgivable sin. Worth the risk? (I know, Pascal's wager, but worse I think). There is only one unforgivable sin and that is not it and I would even contend that the unforgivable sin is technically forgivable but the commission of that sin is the death knell of that spirit. They have at that point killed the impetus that could lead them to one day repent and there is nothing left to guide them out of the dark. The atonement is infinite and can cover anything but some spirits are so corrupted that they have cut off the ability to take seek it out and take advantage of it. Edited January 25, 2020 by The Nehor 2
JLHPROF Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 13 minutes ago, JAHS said: Yes it should terrify them. However, the church has determined that a person can possibly be forgiven for being involved in an abortion. The following statement made in 1972 by President David O. McKay and his counselors, Stephen L Richards and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., represents the attitude and position of the Church: “‘As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.’ I don't think they get to overrule scripture. They are right, as it stands the Lord hasn't positively identified abortion as murder. However he did state that murder is unforgivable. So again, IF the Lord considers abortion murder, it is unforgivable. Whether he has specified or not. (Slothful servants etc).
Duncan Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 19 minutes ago, JAHS said: Yes it should terrify them. However, the church has determined that a person can possibly be forgiven for being involved in an abortion. The following statement made in 1972 by President David O. McKay and his counselors, Stephen L Richards and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., represents the attitude and position of the Church: “‘As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.’ I think you mean 1952, in 1972 all those brethren were dead and probably playing golf against the Three Nephites🏌️♂️🏌️♂️🏌️♂️
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: What Republican has introduced legislation for a constitutional. Amendment to reverse Roe v Wade. How about for a flag burning amendment. Hypocrites. Abortion is race war. Best for the Church to continually condemn it as gross sin and excommunicate doctors who perform them. Can't stop sin but they can be shown the door. Women too but that is harsh. Politics is generally about the possible. Many Republicans have introduced amendments to ban abortion. Many times actually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Life_Amendment There were also attempts to circumvent Roe v Wade using just legislation of incredibly dubious constitutionality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act The reality is that they did not have a chance so introducing these amendments and bills was, at best, symbolic and, at worst, pandering and grandstanding. If you find these attempts meritorious (since you consider their absence some kind of scandal) I hope this helps. A flag burning amendment was passed by the House several times but did not make it through the Senate so it was never sent to the states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Desecration_Amendment I am curious how anyone could consider abortion and flag burning comparable. One is a grave sin and the other is symbolic at best. I have personally participated in burning two US flags. Both times it was part of a Boy Scout activity and the flag was respectfully destroyed with some solemnity and everyone with hand on heart. Would it have been preferable to toss it in a dumpster? Also, we cannot discuss flag burning amendments without including this:
JLHPROF Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 17 minutes ago, The Nehor said: There is only one unforgivable sin and that is not it and I would even contend that the unforgivable sin is technically forgivable but the commission of that sin is the death knell of that spirit. "And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come." (D&C 42: 18) We can't change definition. God said what he said. Quote They have at that point killed the impetus that could lead them to one day repent and there is nothing left to guide them out of the dark. The atonement is infinite and can cover anything but some spirits are so corrupted that they have cut off the ability to take seek it out and take advantage of it. I agree with you on spiritual death. I also think we really like to doubt the literalism of uncomfortable scripture. Like Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Does this apply to the atonement? Brigham felt it did, but blood atonement has been disavowed by the Church. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I just watched President Trump give a stirring speech at the March for Life rally in Washington. It’s the first time a U.S. President has spoken at the annual event, long overdue, say I. Positioned prominently behind him on the stage was Mike Lee, the senior senator from Utah and a Latter-day Saint. I’ve never been prouder of Lee, or of any of our Utah senators, for that matter. Utah politics as usual. But after all, that IS the purpose of this board right? I guess there must be insufficient Utah political news available to the citizens. Glad we can be of service!
mfbukowski Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: We can't change definition. God said what he said. Seriously? Now we believe in scriptural inerrancy? And literalism? All God breathed without ambiguity? A Bible a Bible we've already got a Bible. Glad you let me know. I never heard them canonize that.
JAHS Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 20 minutes ago, Duncan said: I think you mean 1952, in 1972 all those brethren were dead and probably playing golf against the Three Nephites🏌️♂️🏌️♂️🏌️♂️ Right. I was quoting a statement from the 1972 First Presidency who quoted that earlier presidency. I fixed it. 1
let’s roll Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 4 hours ago, JAHS said: These children will never be tempted because, for some reason that only God knows, they don't need it for their salvation; they only need a body. We need to rest secure in the knowledge that God knows what is best for each of us, be we child or adult, and that He will bring to pass those conditions that will maximize our growth and further our opportunities for exaltation Our premortal life was a full one. What happened there likely explains, to a large degree, how some of God’s children passed the tests, and matured spiritually there, to the degree most of us are allowed to try again to do in mortality—spiritual repitrage so to speak. Thus for them, the purpose of mortality for them, is narrower than for most of us...they are here to receive a mortal body and to give use a glimpse of heaven. In the context of explaining why children who die in infancy inherent the Celestial Kingdom, JFS taught, “the spirit of every child born into this world was mature in the pre-existence. We lived in the presence of our Eternal Father. We were taught his laws and obeyed them. We had knowledge and understanding far beyond anything we gain in this life. Naturally that which we gained by obedience in the pre-existence will in the next world be restored to us. ATGQ 1:59
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: "And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come." (D&C 42: 18) We can't change definition. God said what he said. That statement is restricted to church members. On my mission I submitted the name of a man to be baptized who had committed a murder. Never found out what happened. I am guessing it was years before he got First Presidency approval if he ever did. You also have contradicting scripture in the Book of Mormon: "For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness." So is there no forgiveness or it is just "not easy"? As a general policy though if you are considering whether to murder someone I would go with "don't". 3
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I agree with you on spiritual death. I also think we really like to doubt the literalism of uncomfortable scripture. Like Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Does this apply to the atonement? Brigham felt it did, but blood atonement has been disavowed by the Church. It is not uncomfortable. Again you dismiss the Book of Mormon saying the atonement is infinite and favor Paul saying there is no sacrifice for that particular sin. Which is true? My reading reconciles them both and has the same practical effect and isn't more comfortable. It is actually scarier. It suggests there are sins so severe that you can literally choose to destroy at least a portion of your own agency. I could be wrong but your hyperliteralism does not reconcile seeming contradictions any more neatly. Edited January 25, 2020 by The Nehor 4
JLHPROF Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Seriously? Now we believe in scriptural inerrancy? And literalism? All God breathed without ambiguity? A Bible a Bible we've already got a Bible. Glad you let me know. I never heard them canonize that. What is the rule of Interpretation? Just no interpretation at all; Understand it, precisely as it reads. - Joseph Smith I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught. - Joseph Smith But also I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; - Brigham Young 😉 Edited January 25, 2020 by JLHPROF
JLHPROF Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, The Nehor said: It is not uncomfortable. Again you dismiss the Book of Mormon saying the atonement is infinite and favor Paul saying there is no sacrifice for that particular sin. Which is true? My reading reconciles them both and has the same practical effect and isn't more comfortable. It is actually scarier. It suggests there are sins so severe that you can literally choose to destroy at least a portion of your own agency. I could be wrong but your hyperliteralism does not reconcile seeming contradictions any more neatly. I actually generally agree with you Nehor. I'm just pointing out gambling on whether God considers abortion murder is an incredibly risky gamble, not a "beat us with a few stripes" one.
mfbukowski Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: That statement is restricted to church members. On my mission I submitted the name of a man to be baptized who had committed a murder. Never found out what happened. I am guessing it was years before he got First Presidency approval if he ever did. You also have contradicting scripture in the Book of Mormon: "For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness." So is there no forgiveness or it is just "not easy"? As a general policy though if you are considering whether to murder someone I would go with "don't". Strictly speaking- which is apparently what he is advocating - he uses the word "kill" and not "murder". That is exactly the problem with literalism. As a former bishop I have counseled a returned military man who was a Viet Nam veteran who's military assignment was to be a sniper- and now 40 some years later he saw himself as an executioner who could not find forgiveness- who was obsessed with remembering the lives he had taken and what he took to be their "murders" which he committed. He knew what it was like to have eye contact with someone and then kill them, and yet he felt it was his duty to do so. I cannot imagine how horrific that would be and how it would haunt me if I did what he did. The interpretation of a single word can make huge differences in people's lives, and that has nothing to do with what God "really wants". We believe the scriptures "insofar as they are translated correctly" and brilliant linguists like Royal Skousen says there is no such thing as a perfectly exact literal translation of anything. If you know any languages that should be clear- odd idioms often are nonsense when translated literally. Islam teaches that there IS no such thing as a "translation" of the Koran- and I think they are right to do so- they correctly will term any attempted translation an "interpretation" of the Koran and never use the word "translation" or its equivalent. You only need to know one language to know that! 2
mfbukowski Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: What is the rule of Interpretation? Just no interpretation at all; Understand it, precisely as it reads. - Joseph Smith I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught. - Joseph Smith But also I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; - Brigham Young 😉 It is my opinion that this does not help your case. What languages do you know?
mfbukowski Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: What is the rule of Interpretation? Just no interpretation at all; Understand it, precisely as it reads. - Joseph Smith Straight Islam - OR then is it "insofar as it is translated correctly- and there is no such thing as a perfectly "correct" translation. So how do we resolve this paradox? Obviously it is up to our INTERPRETATION. Why even have that article of faith?? Was Joseph contradicting himself?? It cannot be avoided. See my thread on "damned" vs "dammed". Edited January 25, 2020 by mfbukowski 1
The Nehor Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 4 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I actually generally agree with you Nehor. I'm just pointing out gambling on whether God considers abortion murder is an incredibly risky gamble, not a "beat us with a few stripes" one. I have seen too many people forgiven to believe it is murder. Then again, they were all converts so maybe it is easier then. I do not know.
sunstoned Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 13 hours ago, cinepro said: It would mean more to me if I thought Trump cared at all about abortion. Trump cares about one thing, and that is Trump. 1
sunstoned Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Is Mike Lee and the LDS church going to take the next logical step and push for banning abortion in the case of rape and incest? The life created from rape or incest is still a life and has done nothing wrong to deserve to be aborted. If people are going to protest and argue that an unborn fetus is a life (pro-life rallies!) then they need to extend that to all unborn fetuses. I find the LDS position here illogical. If the response is that carrying the child of a rapist would cause great trauma to a woman than we are admitting that the woman's emotion/psychological health is of greater importance than that of the life of a child. This is conceding a pro-choice premise but only changing where the line is drawn. If, in the case of incest, the argument is given that the child has a greater chance of deformity, then we would have to allow abortion in the cases of down syndrome and the like. Why does the LDS church hold the position that aborting children is ok in these instances? Because it is men that are making these decisions. Perhaps we should let the women make the decisions about her life and her body. 3
sunstoned Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 10 hours ago, Judd said: The number of traumatic deaths caused by murder pails in comparison to the number of traumatic deaths caused by God. Not when you factor in god drowning every man, women, child, baby and all cats, dogs, kittens, puppies and everything else in the world except Noah. 1
sunstoned Posted January 25, 2020 Posted January 25, 2020 6 hours ago, JLHPROF said: "And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come." (D&C 42: 18) We can't change definition. God said what he said. I agree with you on spiritual death. I also think we really like to doubt the literalism of uncomfortable scripture. Like Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Does this apply to the atonement? Brigham felt it did, but blood atonement has been disavowed by the Church. God's definitions in the D&C have been changed before. There is residence. The WoW "not by way of commandment" was totally reversed by Heber Grant.
SteveO Posted January 26, 2020 Posted January 26, 2020 (edited) On 1/25/2020 at 1:25 AM, sunstoned said: Because it is men that are making these decisions. Perhaps we should let the women make the decisions about her life and her body. Very “woke” statement. Of course, you also think the opinions and values of women only matter when they align with your own. Edited January 26, 2020 by SteveO
Recommended Posts