Jump to content

What Exactly Is This Meme Saying?


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Ahab said:

I am wondering why you thought you were talking about some other way than the way I was talking about.

Without the Holy Spirit, aka the Spirit of Truth, communicating with us, (I believe) there is no way we can know what the truth is.

Uh, it's called "agreeing with you."

Link to post
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Ahab said:

Maybe someday we'll advance in technology to the point of making the truth more obvious to all people. 

At this point we can type words that are true and have the truth appear in books or on the internet, but that still isn't enough for some people.

The truth isn't demonstrated by technology. It is found in the lived lives of God's people. While no one wants to judge. We each must realize that in this day and age we as Christians are the Light of Christ (used in the shekinah sense)  to each person, group, or movement that crosses our path. In my experience,  people who are thirsty for the truth really don't find it offered by an organization or even a scripture. They find it in individuals. They measure the truth claims of an organization or institution (of whatever kind) in the lived lives of its members. Sometimes we may even be a sample of one - therefore we must take that role very seriously. The shekinah glory of God is today only found in one place - in the soul, words, and actions of those who claim to be His followers. That may make each of us uncomfortable in some way, but it is the way it is. The Spirit indwells individual Christians. While many groups have edifices they call by different names, God's word tells us that in this age He dwells (resides, lives over time) in us in that wonderful passage in I Cor. 3:16 - "Know ye not that ye are the temple (naos - part of the temple where God dwells)  of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth (oikei - resides, dwells, lives) in you?" What an awesome responsibility and privilege!

Edited by Navidad
Link to post
43 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

He did through prophets who are foreordained. Starting from the ground of preconceived notions doesn't get you very far in understanding God. His word is a much better source.

Now you're just testifying of what you believe, nothing wrong with that but it fails to answer my or Navidad's question.

If you want to have a discussion, you might set aside the notion that your beliefs should be the starting point for others.

Link to post
29 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

If you want to have a discussion, you might set aside the notion that your beliefs should be the starting point for others.

I like this sentence a lot. I forget this a lot of times! My beliefs are my truths; but they may not be anyone else's. Thanks for the reminder!

  • Like 2
Link to post
On 7/1/2020 at 3:02 PM, stemelbow said:

Maybe that's the great fears here.  Nelson has said that if you don't have the constant companionship of that HG, then you will surely die, spriritually.  HOw does one maintain a constancy?  Is his message to suggest without the ordinance of confirmation people won't survive, or is he specifically telling members that it is their duty to always have the spirit, if they have a moment of complacency, as you put it, then they will surely die, spiritually?  

Actually, he's not saying "spiritually die". The actual quote is "survive spiritually".  I suppose the two terms are similar enough to be confusing as to interchangeability.  But I don't see that a "moment of complacency" is necessarily spiritually fatal. And what is "complacency" when it comes down to it?  I can go for days without thinking about spiritual things, but upon reflection, I've noticed that I seem to be in a state of peace regarding pretty much everything. This might be the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost.  Or part of it. On the day my late wife passed away, it was brought to my attention that this peace was still with me in my grief.  I'm very grateful for this.

My wife's son has gone into a period of what could be called "spiritual twilight". He hasn't attended church for something like a year now, and this is a result of having run into anti-LDS material online that he couldn't reconcile himself to, and counseling with his bishop and stake president didn't seem to have helped. He won't speak of it with his mother, or me.  I'm not sure why -- because he doesn't want to burden us? because he finds the whole topic to be too depressing to discuss? I don't know, but I feel restrained by the spirit from bringing it up with him. I'm relatively new in his life, so perhaps that is why it might be best for the time being. But the thing is, he seems to still have the companionship of the Holy Ghost. I have the strongest impression that his testimony, though weakened, is still very much with him.  For that reason, I feel that while he may be in a kind of twilight, he is still in a state of relative spiritual safety.

The constant companionship of the Holy Ghost seems to be a multifaceted thing. I remember once, ten or so years back, my wife and I were leaving the stake center after the Saturday afternoon adult session; we knew that a new stake president would be called the next day.  As we walked out of the building with a number of other people, we turned to walk down the sidewalk when she stopped, turned, and looking at a particular man who had walked out more-or-less at the same time, but who had walked straight out the door, she said quietly to me, "He's the new stake president."  I knew who he was, but she didn't; she had never seen him before.  I told her his name, which she didn't know, even from reputation. And the next day he was sustained as the new stake president.  That would seem to be part of the operation of the Holy Ghost, to confirm the operation of the Lord's church; I've had that happen to me at a significant level twice so far.  And quietly a few other times.

I've been both a ward and a stake clerk, and involved in deliberations at the bishopric and stake presidency level.  One thing I've noticed is that frequently -- not always, but frequently -- when deliberations about matters have concluded with a decision, that there has been a quiet feeling of confirmation, that this was the right path.  

I suppose it's easy to look at these things from a position of non-involvement (not having been there) as confirmation bias or something similar. There is, I suppose, a desire to "explain things away", so as to avoid any kind of threat to a decision. Or non-confirmation bias, if you will.  "It was just coincidence! Wishful thinking! Self-fulfilling prophecy!"  I try to perform self-checks on these kinds of things. But there are a number of experiences which I have had that are extremely hard to attribute to coincidence -- that one would have be very willful to so attribute. If I told you about them, you would no doubt ascribe them to coincidence -- but you weren't there, so your ability to understand is very suspect.  But they were very convincing, and still are.  I would have to strongly choose to disregard them.

On 7/1/2020 at 3:02 PM, stemelbow said:
Quote

The interesting thing about this is your "not believing much in this stuff" and yet worrying about how low a view you think I have of church members. From your point of view, if they do feel they have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, then they are delusional. Or a pack of liars.  That, dear Stemelbow, is a definite "low view", wouldn't you think?

 

The either/or may be accurate or at least appear to be.  But I think to see things in less black and white ways.  It's not either delusional or liars...its always somewhere on a spectrum of misled, misunderstood and all of that.

Black and white isn't necessarily black and white.  I allow for gray in the middle -- though I am not sure that Heavenly Father does, He having the best view of it all.  

As for the "all of that", and the allowance for gray, I suppose there must be on your spectrum some allowance for "I was wrong after all, and misled myself about being misled"?  Or are you totally "black and white confirmed" now in your disbelief?  You needn't answer.  I am, necessarily, totally black and white confirmed in my testimony of God, Christ and the Church, having had what are to me extremely convincing experiences, so it would take a lot to push me the other way.  Can one doubt as strongly as I believe?  I suppose it must be possible.

Link to post
On 7/1/2020 at 5:18 PM, Navidad said:

I like this sentence a lot. I forget this a lot of times! My beliefs are my truths; but they may not be anyone else's. Thanks for the reminder!

That's something I have to remember, too.

Link to post
On 6/30/2020 at 7:34 PM, Paloma said:

And now we've come full circle, and find that LDS believers do not consider us as true Christians. 

That would be an incorrect conclusion, I think. If there are perhaps some few LDS believers who have such a belief, oh well, but in all the discussions I've seen between LDS believers about the question "Are Mormons Christians" as raised among certain Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, not once has anyone I'm aware of turned the table around so as to claim that they, on the other hand, were not Christians.

If you know some LDS believer who has come down on that side, let me just tell you that they are wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to post
46 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

That would be an incorrect conclusion, I think. If there are perhaps some few LDS believers who have such a belief, oh well, but in all the discussions I've seen between LDS believers about the question "Are Mormons Christians" as raised among certain Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, not once has anyone I'm aware of turned the table around so as to claim that they, on the other hand, were not Christians.

If you know some LDS believer who has come down on that side, let me just tell you that they are wrong.

Although, @Paloma, it might be the case that some contentious soul, having gotten well and truly fed up with being told that he or she was not a Christian, based on some carefully crafted "definition" that neatly excluded Latter-day Saints, has crafted his or her own careful "definition" that does the same, but on the other side.  

I wouldn't worry about it. Christ knows whether you're a Christian. Nobody else's definition means a thing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That would be an incorrect conclusion, I think. If there are perhaps some few LDS believers who have such a belief, oh well, but in all the discussions I've seen between LDS believers about the question "Are Mormons Christians" as raised among certain Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, not once has anyone I'm aware of turned the table around so as to claim that they, on the other hand, were not Christians.

If you know some LDS believer who has come down on that side, let me just tell you that they are wrong.

Hi Stargazer,

I appreciate your response here.

Though it's rare, I have been told by a couple of LDS folk that we non-LDS Christians are not "true" Christians.  One occasion was about 20 years ago when I was taking a small group of missionaries out for lunch on their Prep day.  (I think there were 5 of them ... two companionships, with one group being a group of 3 temporarily.)  I had come to know two of these missionaries very well, and they knew me.  As we were talking about our faith in Jesus Christ, one missionary whom I had not met before took exception to my being part of this conversation.  He looked at me and said point-blank, "you're not even a Christian".  That took me by surprise!  And I must admit that it led me to some soul-searching where I thought to myself:  "Is this what I've thought in my heart about Mormon believers? Now I know how it feels!"  

I have never told anyone, including LDS believers, that they are not Christians ... but there have been times in the far past, where I've considered others as not measuring up to my own "true Christian faith".  Over the years, I've changed ... for many reasons.  I spent almost 15 years as a missionary in Africa, where I confronted my own ethnocentricity and egocentricity.  I've read books like Clark Pinnock's "A Wideness in God's Mercy".  I've heard my Systematic Theology Professor at a post-grad biblical seminary start the year with:  "We're all full of a thousand heresies, so what we need most is humility."   etc. etc. etc. But perhaps more than anything, I've had deep friendships and deep conversations with other believers, including LDS Christians, where I've seen, heard and felt their commitment to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.  

Whereas I think there are a few LDS Christian friends who know me and my heart so well that they believe (or so they've expressed) that "nothing more is necessary" for me to have full salvation and relationship with our Heavenly Father and Jesus, along with the indwelling Holy Spirit, in this world and for all eternity, I do realize this is not LDS belief.  My LDS friends need to hold what they believe about "keys" and "authority" and "exaltation" in limbo for them to be able to accept me as fully, truly "Christian".  (I see this as a testament to the power of love and unity in God's Spirit.)  I don't ask this of them,  and we don't continue to talk about this, but I'm thankful that it's just "there" as a precious part of our relationship.

Even on this board, there are people whose way of speaking in "exclusive" terms would put my back up, if I allowed myself to feel that way.  And there are others, like you and Calm  and others, who speak with an inclusive, gentle, humble and open spirit that's refreshing. I understand that beliefs are what they are, and that they cannot be compromised (though for some of my friends there's a dissonance!),  but it makes all the difference how they're expressed.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Paloma said:

.  My LDS friends need to hold what they believe about "keys" and "authority" and "exaltation" in limbo for them to be able to accept me as fully, truly "Christian".  (I see this as a testament to the power of love and unity in God's Spirit.) 

I don’t see why that would be necessary myself. Someone who is fully committed to living a life of a disciple of Christ to the best of their ability and knowledge is fully, truly Christian and I have known plenty of Saints who don’t and plenty of nonLDS Christians who do. 
 

Accepting and participation in our authorized ordinances will provide you with additional knowledge and ways to express your commitment to Christ and it might deepen it even, but you were a seeker before and that wouldn’t change. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 7/3/2020 at 11:21 AM, Stargazer said:

That would be an incorrect conclusion, I think. If there are perhaps some few LDS believers who have such a belief, oh well, but in all the discussions I've seen between LDS believers about the question "Are Mormons Christians" as raised among certain Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, not once has anyone I'm aware of turned the table around so as to claim that they, on the other hand, were not Christians.

If you know some LDS believer who has come down on that side, let me just tell you that they are wrong.

HI! I can assure you there are many LDS Christians who believe as a matter of church doctrine that non-LDS Christians are not "true Christians" in the sense of being complete Christians. We are "sort of - kind of" Christians with no hope for the gift of the Holy Spirit, the fullness of the Spirit's guidance and direction, no hope of the everlasting life with Christ that John 3:16 promises us, and no role in the millennial Kingdom of God. Other than that, we are brothers and sisters! The only solution for us to achieve all that is to become LDS in this life or the next. The key then to become a true Christian is to become LDS. So no, for the majority of faithful Mormons I have met, non-LDS Christians are not true Christians. Am I wrong? I hope so! 

Oh, and I think this is why it is disruptive at times to have someone like my wife as a faithful non-member in the ward. How do they reconcile their firmly held beliefs with what they see in her day after day, month after month and year after year?

 

Edited by Navidad
Link to post
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Navidad said:

HI! I can assure you there are many LDS Christians who believe as a matter of church doctrine that non-LDS Christians are not "true Christians" in the sense of being complete Christians. We are "sort of - kind of" Christians with no hope for the gift of the Holy Spirit, the fullness of the Spirit's guidance and direction, no hope of the everlasting life with Christ that John 3:16 promises us, and no role in the millennial Kingdom of God. Other than that, we are brothers and sisters! The only solution for us to achieve all that is to become LDS in this life or the next. The key then to become a true Christian is to become LDS. So no, for the majority of faithful Mormons I have met, non-LDS Christians are not true Christians. Am I wrong? I hope so! 

Navidad, I expect that the LDS posters here cannot say anything other than that we (non-LDS Christians) would need to become LDS in this life or the next.  Sometimes, as I read their responses to you, I sense exasperation from some, and quiet hopefulness from others, among the LDS posters on this board.  But it does come down to people like you and me (devout non-LDS Christian believers) still needing the "something more" that they believe only their church, their religious system, can offer.  I understand that it can be no other way, because that's at the core of their belief in "the restored Gospel".

This is where I understand what must be anguishing for you in worshipping with people week in and week out with LDS believers with whom you share so much joy and life and common faith in Jesus Christ ... and yet, you and your wife are not fully accepted as true believers made completely whole in your relationship with God through your faith in Jesus Christ.

Oh, and I think this is why it is disruptive at times to have someone like my wife as a faithful non-member in the ward. How do they reconcile their firmly held beliefs with what they see in her day after day, month after month and year after year. 

I can't help but think there are some people in your ward of LDS believers who believe you and your wife (here you speak especially of your dear faithful wife!) are true Christians.  I think that as we know each other in real life and experience the faith and goodness in each other, "deep speaks to deep".  Perhaps It hasn't been expressed, but I expect there is true unity of the Spirit for your wife and you, among some of your close friends in the LDS community.

 

 

Edited by Paloma
  • Like 1
Link to post
31 minutes ago, Paloma said:

Navidad, I expect that the LDS posters here cannot say anything other than that we (non-LDS Christians) would need to become LDS in this life or the next. 

Rather we all need to accept the Atonement and his gift of Exaltation to become God’s Heirs.  Exactly what that all entails we do not know yet. It certainly includes the ordinances and eternal principles of the Restored Gospel, but given the vastness of the universe and the knowledge it contains, the Powers of God must be much more extensive then what we are currently aware of in the Restored Church in my view, so I see no reason to assume it is solely the Restored Gospel that is the standard we must all accept.  There may be much, much more; perhaps on this world, perhaps on others, most likely in my view both.  
 

I see no reason why God with so much to work with would just make use of a small percentage of his children to achieve all of his work, even if that were possible.  Instead I see Saints as the salt of the earth with God, the grand chef, working on a glorious feast for us and his dish is also full of herbs and spices that add so much more enjoyment and satisfaction than simple, too often lonely, very necessary salt would do.  So someone, some group out there is likely the pepper, another thyme, sage, etc.  If Saints refuse the dish because the tastes are unfamiliar, we will not be fit for Exaltation any more than someone who finds the salt of the Restored Gospel unnecessary or even distasteful and therefore rejects the feast.

But it has not been revealEd to us who those authorized in a different stewardship workers are not how in the end we will work together if my speculation is right.  So I can only point to the vastness of it all and consider how God intends to fill it with his work  and say it makes sense to me.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Rather we all need to accept the Atonement and his gift of Exaltation to become God’s Heirs.  Exactly what that all entails we do not know yet. It certainly includes the ordinances and eternal principles of the Restored Gospel, but given the vastness of the universe and the knowledge it contains, the Powers of God must be much more extensive then what we are currently aware of in the Restored Church in my view, so I see no reason to assume it is solely the Restored Gospel that is the standard we must all accept.  There may be much, much more; perhaps on this world, perhaps on others, most likely in my view both.  
 

I see no reason why God with so much to work with would just make use of a small percentage of his children to achieve all of his work, even if that were possible.  Instead I see Saints as the salt of the earth with God, the grand chef, working on a glorious feast for us and his dish is also full of herbs and spices that add so much more enjoyment and satisfaction than simple, too often lonely, very necessary salt would do.  So someone, some group out there is likely the pepper, another thyme, sage, etc.  If Saints refuse the dish because the tastes are unfamiliar, we will not be fit for Exaltation any more than someone who finds the salt of the Restored Gospel unnecessary or even distasteful and therefore rejects the feast.

But it has not been revealEd to us who those authorized in a different stewardship workers are not how in the end we will work together if my speculation is right.  So I can only point to the vastness of it all and consider how God intends to fill it with his work  and say it makes sense to me.  

Calm, I identify with your attitude of knowing so little in this vast world and eternities to come, where God is infinite and both our part and our understanding is tiny and finite.  (If I've mischaracterized what you said or intended, I'm sorry.)

And in this time and space, amidst the unknowing, I feel that we share an assurance and an inheritance based on our faith in Jesus Christ.

I love how your mind works ... expansively and scientifically, it seems to me.  Very often, I'm simply content to rest in Jesus, content that I'm our Father's child, and trusting that all will be well.  

After writing and posting the above sentence, I realize that it could sound as if I'm thinking "It's all about me, and as long as I'm ok, that 's all that matters".  Not at all!  That's the opposite of the Gospel (both Moses and Paul, as recorded in Scripture, would sacrifice their own security and well-being for others).  So I do hope and trust that, while I rejoice in belonging to Christ, my entire hope and prayer is for others to be secure in that love and assurance as well, through coming to faith in Him.

Edited by Paloma
  • Like 2
Link to post

Hi - I have a question that is a bit off topic - I am the OP so I guess I can do that . . . . When one "hearts" a post, does that mean "I really agree with what you said," or "You really said that well!" Is agreement taken for granted in the heart? Thanks!

Link to post
On 7/3/2020 at 12:13 PM, Stargazer said:

Although, @Paloma, it might be the case that some contentious soul, having gotten well and truly fed up with being told that he or she was not a Christian, based on some carefully crafted "definition" that neatly excluded Latter-day Saints, has crafted his or her own careful "definition" that does the same, but on the other side.  

I wouldn't worry about it. Christ knows whether you're a Christian. Nobody else's definition means a thing.

I love how you termed the phrase "some carefully crafted "definition" that neatly excluded Latter-day Saints. You are so right and this is a predicate of much of my teaching when I speak about inter-faith stuff. Non-LDS Christian fundamentalists have been doing that very thing for years. Its whole purpose is to exclude. Well said!

BTW, do you know of any wards in the Canterbury area? I will probably be going there this fall (quarantine permitting) to lecture and take some exams. If I am there on a Sunday, I would love to visit a ward. Is it ok to just show up at a ward to visit as a non-member? Thanks.

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Navidad said:

HI! I can assure you there are many LDS Christians who believe as a matter of church doctrine that non-LDS Christians are not "true Christians" in the sense of being complete Christians. We are "sort of - kind of" Christians with no hope for the gift of the Holy Spirit, the fullness of the Spirit's guidance and direction, no hope of the everlasting life with Christ that John 3:16 promises us, and no role in the millennial Kingdom of God. Other than that, we are brothers and sisters! The only solution for us to achieve all that is to become LDS in this life or the next. The key then to become a true Christian is to become LDS. So no, for the majority of faithful Mormons I have met, non-LDS Christians are not true Christians. Am I wrong? I hope so! 

Oh, and I think this is why it is disruptive at times to have someone like my wife as a faithful non-member in the ward. How do they reconcile their firmly held beliefs with what they see in her day after day, month after month and year after year. 

Ah yes, the "No TRUE Scotsman" fallacy rears its exclusionary head.

Have you read Robinson's "Are Mormons Christians?"  He catalogues all the various arguments against LDS being considered Christians, and answers them quite well, I think.

The thing is, exclusionary definitions like these that are crafted to exclude others are a dime a dozen, and I am not sure why those who promulgate them do it.  Do they think that their definition will convince Christ that their target is not worthy of heaven?  It's a form of insult that is nothing short of petty.  Does a true Christian accuse another Christian of not being a Christian? What is a Christian, anyway?  Is it even biblically possible to answer this?  "Christian" was the name given to Christians by the pagans who didn't like them.  And then the Christians start arguing with each other about whether this one or that one is a Christian?  It's ridiculous on its face.

Christ makes clear that simply calling oneself a Christian will not save one.  Matthew 7:21 - "“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."  Nor, obviously, will denying another the appellation of Christian will not keep him or her out of heaven.

In other words, You and I can call ourselves Christian all the livelong day, but calling ourselves such will not save us. The only qualification for heaven is having done the Father's will. 

A rose by any other name is just as beautiful. A stinkweed by any other name is just as smelly.  😄  I call you a Christian, and claim the same for myself. But that isn't what saves us.

I conclude with the words of The Preacher: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." Eccl. 12:13

  • Like 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I love how you termed the phrase "some carefully crafted "definition" that neatly excluded Latter-day Saints. You are so right and this is a predicate of much of my teaching when I speak about inter-faith stuff. Non-LDS Christian fundamentalists have been doing that very thing for years. Its whole purpose is to exclude. Well said!

Thanks!

Quote


BTW, do you know of any wards in the Canterbury area? I will probably be going there this fall (quarantine permitting) to lecture and take some exams. If I am there on a Sunday, I would love to visit a ward. Is it ok to just show up at a ward to visit as a non-member? Thanks.

 

To answer the last question first: yes, of course! That's why a sign saying "Visitors Welcome" appears at the front of every meetinghouse.

There is a ward in Canterbury; it meets at 10 am with Sacrament meeting first.  Here's a link to the relevant page in the Meetinghouse Locator: Canterbury Ward

This is actually a question you can answer yourself at any time you wish for any location you wish.

And then just use the search tool according to the instructions!  It's nifty!

Meetinghouse_Locator.png

 

Edited by Stargazer
Link to post
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Is it ok to just show up at a ward to visit as a non-member

It better be, or you could not have been showing up at your ward for all these years ;)

Just know that you will be seen as an "investigator" ;)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Thanks!

To answer the last question first: yes, of course! That's why a sign saying "Visitors Welcome" appears at the front of every meetinghouse.

There is a ward in Canterbury; it meets at 10 am with Sacrament meeting first.  Here's a link to the relevant page in the Meetinghouse Locator: Canterbury Ward

This is actually a question you can answer yourself at any time you wish for any location you wish.

And then just use the search tool according to the instructions!  It's nifty!

 

image.png

I believe one has to be a member to use that? Did you have to log in?

Link to post
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi - I have a question that is a bit off topic - I am the OP so I guess I can do that . . . . When one "hearts" a post, does that mean "I really agree with what you said," or "You really said that well!" Is agreement taken for granted in the heart? Thanks!

I think so, except it is rather hard to tell.  I've occasionally "hearted" posts I didn't necessarily agree with, but felt that they were well expressed, or thought they were good responses. But mostly because I was just trying to say "I like this post". For whatever reason.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I believe one has to be a member to use that? Did you have to log in?

Nope. I made sure, by logging out and trying it while logged out. You see the image I provided?  It has a "Sign In" button because I wasn't logged in, so it doesn't know me from Adam.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi - I have a question that is a bit off topic - I am the OP so I guess I can do that . . . . When one "hearts" a post, does that mean "I really agree with what you said," or "You really said that well!" Is agreement taken for granted in the heart? Thanks!

It means what you want it to mean...

For me, it means I appreciate the effort into the post because I find it interesting or funny or heartwarming or thought provoking or just nice to see because it has been awhile since they have posted. I may “like” a post I almost completely disagree with because it makes me consider something new. 
 

If there is something I really disagree with, I am unlikely to heart it, but even there I think there was one or two occasions I gave such a post a heart because it was in-depth and thoughtful.

  • Like 3
Link to post
6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Thanks!

To answer the last question first: yes, of course! That's why a sign saying "Visitors Welcome" appears at the front of every meetinghouse.

There is a ward in Canterbury; it meets at 10 am with Sacrament meeting first.  Here's a link to the relevant page in the Meetinghouse Locator: Canterbury Ward

This is actually a question you can answer yourself at any time you wish for any location you wish.

And then just use the search tool according to the instructions!  It's nifty!

Meetinghouse_Locator.png

 

Just for fun, I'd like to mention this for everyone, that you can get a view of all the meetinghouses in the world (with the possible exception of People's Republic of China) by going to the Meetinghouse Locator, and having found a map display of your selected location, just zoom out and you can see, potentially, all meetinghouses!  It's nifty.

  • Like 1
Link to post
18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It better be, or you could not have been showing up at your ward for all these years ;)

Just know that you will be seen as an "investigator" ;)

 

Eegads! Not that! I only asked because customs differ, hospitality practices differ as well in different places. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...