Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The uniqueness of the LDS Church


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

:)

Thanks!

See, I have never HEARD of Sam Young, or his "thing"  

But honestly "Utah things" really ARE a "thing"  Everyone in CA knows what a Utah Mormon is, and we kind of chuckle about it.

SLC even has a whole newspaper that creates Utah Things out of thin air! ;)

It's ok. It keeps even MORE California Mormons from moving there, and keeps your housing prices lower! ;)

 

Too late! 😑 We are basically where California has been in the past.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

:)

Thanks!

See, I have never HEARD of Sam Young, or his "thing"  

But honestly "Utah things" really ARE a "thing"  Everyone in CA knows what a Utah Mormon is, and we kind of chuckle about it.

SLC even has a whole newspaper that creates Utah Things out of thin air! ;)

It's ok. It keeps even MORE California Mormons from moving there, and keeps your housing prices lower! ;)

 

Too late for the housing prices.  Housing in the Salt Lake and Utah Valley has hit unaffordable levels.
Average mortgage payment on a home requires about a six figure income now.  Most young families can no longer afford to set up homes in the area.
It's going to have a seriously damaging effect on the area in the future as young families are forced to move elsewhere.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Too late for the housing prices.  Housing in the Salt Lake and Utah Valley has hit unaffordable levels.
Average mortgage payment on a home requires about a six figure income now.  Most young families can no longer afford to set up homes in the area.
It's going to have a seriously damaging effect on the area in the future as young families are forced to move elsewhere.

Well obviously if houses ARE SELLING at that price, someone is buying them. 

Inflation, that's all. Print enough money, and it will be worthless.

But the MEDIAN price of a home in LA county is $795,000. That's the MIDDLE price of all homes sold- not the average -from the slums to Bel Air mansions.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-11-04/what-l-a-countys-median-home-price-795-000-buys-in-six-areas?_amp=true

In Salt Lake City it's $500k. That's what it was in LA 5 years ago.  Of course gasoline is $5 bucks here too.

Sell a nice house in LA and buy a couple of rental fixers in SLC

I know folks doing that, VERY well! ;)  But Houston is even better, then Indianapolis

 

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well obviously if houses ARE SELLING at that price, someone is buying them. 

Inflation, that's all. Print enough money, and it will be worthless.

But the MEDIAN price of a home in LA county is $795,000. That's the MIDDLE price of all homes sold- not the average -from the slums to Bel Air mansions.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-11-04/what-l-a-countys-median-home-price-795-000-buys-in-six-areas?_amp=true

In Salt Lake City it's $500k. That's what it was in LA 5 years ago.  Of course gasoline is $5 bucks here too.

Sell a nice house in LA and buy a couple of rental fixers in SLC

I know folks doing that, VERY well! ;)  But Houston is even better, then Indianapolis

 

 

 

Prices are going crazy here in Texas. The rumor is that all the people from the West are coming in and creating bidding wars that are driving up prices. It’s really a supply and demand thing here. Plus new homes are being sold at a premium because of higher than normal lumber costs. 
 

“The value of a typical home in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area cost just over $275,500 at the beginning of 2021, according to the real estate firm Zillow. By the end of the year, that home would set you back nearly $345,000. That's more than $69,000 in price growth over the year, a 25% increase.Jan 21, 2022”

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Prices are going crazy here in Texas. The rumor is that all the people from the West are coming in and creating bidding wars that are driving up prices. It’s really a supply and demand thing here. Plus new homes are being sold at a premium because of higher than normal lumber costs. 
 

“The value of a typical home in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area cost just over $275,500 at the beginning of 2021, according to the real estate firm Zillow. By the end of the year, that home would set you back nearly $345,000. That's more than $69,000 in price growth over the year, a 25% increase.Jan 21, 2022”

Californians drove Utahans to Texas. ;)

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Peacefully said:

“The value of a typical home in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area cost just over $275,500 at the beginning of 2021, according to the real estate firm Zillow. By the end of the year, that home would set you back nearly $345,000. That's more than $69,000 in price growth over the year, a 25% increase.Jan 21, 2022”

Yep. And that same house in CA would be $700k +!!! Plain old 3br 2bath in a decent, safe middle class neighborhood, nothing fancy

No kidding, I know the markets in CA and Texas well!

Supply+Demand+Worthless Dollars = Chaos.

Any tangible assets are going thru the roof relative to printed paper being printed like confetti, and this is just the beginning.

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Peacefully said:

 

Lol!

 

Next stops: Arkansas, Indiana, Carolinas

Seriously.  Buy low, sell high.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep. And that same house in CA would be $700k +!!! Plain old 3br 2bath in a decent, safe middle class neighborhood, nothing fancy

No kidding, I know the markets in CA and Texas well!

Supply+Demand+Worthless Dollars = Chaos.

Any tangible assets are going thru the roof relative to printed paper being printed like confetti, and this is just the beginning.

 

Yep, we had a couple from church with a beautiful 750000 lake house with pool. They moved to California for a job and I don’t think they were looking forward to what 750000 would buy them there. 

Link to comment
On 2/2/2022 at 1:12 AM, InCognitus said:

We are all children of God in a literal way (God is the Father of spirits, we are his offspring), but we must 'become" his children (by adoption, because of sin, through receiving Jesus Christ) in a figurative behavioral sense of the word.  But Jesus has been the Son of God since the beginning, from before the creation of the world.  

Do you believe God is the Father of spirits and that we are his offspring? 

Thank you for the references by McConkie.

No. I don't believe we are procreated spirits of heavenly parents.

What is your understanding of this passage in the Religion 430-431 Doctrines of the Gospel Student
Manual?

"That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural
law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of
supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure through mortal maternity, was of right to be called the
Son of the Highest
.” 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, theplains said:

What is your understanding of this passage in the Religion 430-431 Doctrines of the Gospel Student
Manual?

"That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural
law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of
supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure through mortal maternity, was of right to be called the
Son of the Highest
.” 

Sounds right to me.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, theplains said:

Thank you for the references by McConkie.

You're welcome.  His statement that, "Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false", leaves no room for doubt on what he teaches on the virgin birth, don't you think?   

5 hours ago, theplains said:

No. I don't believe we are procreated spirits of heavenly parents.

That's not what I asked.  I asked if you believe that God is the Father of spirits and that we are his offspring.  These are biblical teachings, so I'm surprised that you would respond that way.  (See Hebrews 12:9 and Acts 17:28-29.)   Do you believe that God is the Father of spirits and that we are his offspring?

5 hours ago, theplains said:

What is your understanding of this passage in the Religion 430-431 Doctrines of the Gospel Student
Manual?

"That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural
law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of
supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure through mortal maternity, was of right to be called the
Son of the Highest
.” 

My understanding of this statement from James E. Talmage, as quoted from his book, Jesus the Christ, is exactly the same as my understanding from what Bruce R. McConkie said.  All miracles are accomplished through the highest manifestation of natural law, and Jesus is literally the Son of God (God the Father is his Father, and Mary is his mother).  But if you think this quotation is teaching that this was done through a physical interaction, then you do not understand what Talmage was saying anymore than you understood what McConkie was saying, because Talmage also clearly taught that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.

Here is the quotation in context from Jesus the Christ, Ch.7, p.81:

Quote

His message delivered, Gabriel departed, leaving the chosen Virgin of Nazareth to ponder over her wondrous experience. Mary's promised Son was to be "The Only Begotten" of the Father in the flesh; so it had been both positively and abundantly predicted. True, the event was unprecedented; true also it has never been paralleled; but that the virgin birth would be unique was as truly essential to the fulfillment of prophecy as that it should occur at all.  That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the "Son of the Highest."  (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Ch.7, p.81)

In the next chapter, Talmage also referred to the conception as "miraculous":

Quote

The Spirit's witness to the divinity of Jesus was not to be confined to a man. There was at that time in the temple a godly woman of great age, Anna, a prophetess who devoted herself exclusively to temple service; and she, being inspired of God, recognized her Redeemer, and testified of Him to all about her. Both Joseph and Mary marveled at the things that were spoken of the Child; seemingly they were not yet able to comprehend the majesty of Him who had come to them through so miraculous a conception and so marvelous a birth.  (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Ch.8, p.97)

And in multiple places he teaches that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.  The quotations below are from the chapter in Jesus the Christ titled, "The Babe of Bethlehem - The Birth of Jesus"

Quote

Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth of Galilee, far removed from Bethlehem of Judea; and, at the time of which we speak, the maternity of the Virgin was fast approaching.....

It was while she was in this situation that Mary the Virgin gave birth to her firstborn, the Son of the Highest, the Only Begotten of the Eternal Father, Jesus the Christ.  (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Ch.8, p.91-92)

You seem to be misconstruing the "celestial Sireship" concept with a physical interaction, but clearly such is not the case.

What is your understanding of the genetics of the man Jesus who was born of Mary?  Where did he get his Y chromosome? 

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
On 2/1/2022 at 10:12 PM, InCognitus said:

We are all children of God in a literal way (God is the Father of spirits, we are his offspring), but we must 'become" his children (by adoption, because of sin, through receiving Jesus Christ) in a figurative behavioral sense of the word.

I believe this is incorrect.

Where / when does sin enter the picture?  Sounds like original sin to me!

What do you mean that we are adopted?  What do you mean by "receiving Jesus Christ"?

What is "a figurative behavioral sense of the word."?

Sounds Protestant to me...

Link to comment
10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false", leaves no room for doubt on what he teaches on the virgin birth, don't you think?   

What makes that "modernistic"?

I have no clue for what that means. So no contemporary teacher teaches the virgin birth?

Link to comment
12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I believe this is incorrect.

Where / when does sin enter the picture?  Sounds like original sin to me!

What do you mean that we are adopted?  What do you mean by "receiving Jesus Christ"?

What is "a figurative behavioral sense of the word."?

Sounds Protestant to me...

All good questions.  My statement was a very abbreviated version of what I had in mind, so a more elaborate explanation is warranted, and I apologize if I will elaborate too much :).  

I made a post on this topic a long time ago on ZLMB, so much of what I'm posting here is an adaptation of that prior post.

First, I need to provide a definition of what we mean by "child of God" or "children of God" or "sons of God", and what we mean by the word "Father", since these can have multiple meanings in the English language and in scripture.  I'm going to color code and number the definitions to help keep things straight (and hopefully I won't cause people to go blind with all the color shifting).  The American Heritage Dictionary defines “child” this way:

Quote

child
n., pl. chil·dren. Abbr. ch. 1. A person between birth and puberty. 2.a. An unborn infant; a fetus. b. An infant; a baby. 3. One who is childish or immature. 4. A son or daughter; an offspring. 5. Often children. Members of a tribe; descendants: children of Abraham. 6.a. An individual regarded as strongly affected by another or by a specified time, place, or circumstance: a child of nature; a child of the Sixties. b. A product or result of something specified: “Times Square is a child of the 20th century” (Richard F. Shepard).

The relevant definitions of “child” to this discussion would be numbers four, five, and six.  Both four and five denote a literal parent/child relationship, literal offspring or genetic descendants. While number six has a figurative meaning, suggesting that one thing (an environment or individual) influences another, resulting in an end product. The thing, or person of influence (the “father” or “parent”), produces a “child” that mimics the same characteristics or behaviors of the “parent”.

I'll also number these definitions as follows:

Definition #1: Child = Literal offspring, seed, genetic descendant.
Definition #2: Child = Result of behavior or devotion, the product of that which we serve.

A very good example of the use of these two distinct definitions can be found in scripture in John 8:33-44. In these verses Jesus is talking to some Jews who had evil in their heart.   

The Jews begin by proclaiming that they are “Abraham’s seed” (v33), using definition #1 to state (correctly) that they are literal genetic descendants of Abraham. Then Jesus responds by using a classic example of definition #2: "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin" (v34).

Jesus then acknowledges that the Jews are indeed literal genetic descendants of Abraham (definition #1), “I know that ye are Abraham's seed" (v37), but he juxtaposes that fact against their behavior (applying definition #2), "but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you" (v37).

The Jews respond by appealing again to definition #1, "Abraham is our father" (v39). Jesus counters by saying they do not behave like Abraham’s children (using definition #2), "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." (v39) He continues (with definition #2), “Ye do the deeds of your father" (v41).

The Jews retort (using definition #1), "we have one Father, even God" (v41). Jesus answers them by again demonstrating that their behavior (according to definition #2) is not consistent with one who should be the product of the goodness of God: "If God were your Father, ye would love me" (v42). And finally Jesus uses another classic example of definition #2: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." (v44).

So here we have Jews who are the literal children, the seed of Abraham by definition #1, but they do not do the works of Abraham. Thus they do not qualify as “Abraham’s children” by definition #2. And because their works are evil, they have for their “father” the devil (by definition #2). They are thus the product of that which they serve as demonstrated by their behavior.   So we can see some of the different meanings of “child” or “father” used in scripture all within these few verses.

Now, let me restate what I was thinking in the prior post with a little more context:   Our doctrine teaches that we are all born as “the children of God” (by definition #1 above, literal sons and daughters), but as we reach the age of accountability we all sin in some way (there is no original sin but we must be redeemed from the fall), and therefore none of us accountable folks are worthy to be called the “sons of God” by definition #2 without some kind of intervention. We must therefore be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, just like it says in John 1:12:  “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name”. Those who believe in Jesus Christ have the “power to become” sons of God (by definition #2) because it is only through Jesus that our contrary behavior (sin) can be forgiven, thus making us clean and worthy “products” of his atonement. By believing in Jesus Christ (receiving him) we are to serve God the Father and Jesus Christ instead of sin.  This same concept is also taught in Moroni 7:26, Doctrine and Covenants 11:30, 35:2, 39:4, 42:52, and 45:8.

A verse that I think illustrates the duel definition of the child/father relationship as explained above is in Matthew 5:45. In the preceding verses Jesus indicates that we must “love our enemies” and “do good” to them that hate us. He says we must do these things so "that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven".  Jesus says God is “your Father”, but we must act like our Father so that we “may be” his children. In other words, God is our literal Father already (by definition #1). He is the “Father of spirits” (Heb 12:9). But we must behave like our Father to be called “his children” (by definition #2).

As for the word "adoption", there are probably better ways to describe it, but I had in mind the concept taught in Mosiah 5:7, where it is said we are "spiritually begotten" through Christ, being called the "children of Christ".  It is by that means that we are reconciled to God the Father, and brought back into the heavenly family (being heirs of God).

Does that make sense, or did I make everyone color blind?  :) 
 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What makes that "modernistic"?

I have no clue for what that means. So no contemporary teacher teaches the virgin birth?

Another good question.  We'd need to ask Elder McConkie what he had in mind there.  I don't think he was saying that none of the contemporary teachers teach the virgin birth, but that there are some modern teachers that definitely do that.  I don't normally quote from McConkie, but the prior post quoted him and I wanted to provide a context to his teachings.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

...but as we reach the age of accountability we all sin in some way (there is no original sin but we must be redeemed from the fall),...

All great points, well and thoughtfully presented!

I am still wondering about that point I quoted, in an LDS context, but it is something I had not really considered much.  Why must we be redeemed from the "fortunate fall" that stumped Satan?

And what's that about

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."?

I am not getting why we must be redeemed from the fall?

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

All great points, well and thoughtfully presented!

I am still wondering about that point I quoted, in an LDS context, but it is something I had not really considered much.  Why must we be redeemed from the "fortunate fall" that stumped Satan?

And what's that about

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."?

I am not getting why we must be redeemed from the fall?

Even little children need a Savior to be redeemed from the consequences of the fall, as all of us need to be redeemed from death:

"Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them".  (Moroni 8:8)

And a few verses later:  "For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent"  (Moroni 8:22)

Maybe I'm not understanding your question?

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."?

I am not getting why we must be redeemed from the fall?

We would be punished for his transgression without the redemption by dying, no resurrection.  It is Christ’s redemption that protects us.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

All great points, well and thoughtfully presented!

I am still wondering about that point I quoted, in an LDS context, but it is something I had not really considered much.  Why must we be redeemed from the "fortunate fall" that stumped Satan?

And what's that about

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."?

I am not getting why we must be redeemed from the fall?

You mean why must we be redeemed if "original sin" isn't on us?

Because we still partake of the effects of original sin.  We are sent into a fallen world.
This is an interesting principle - we may not be punished for others sins but we may well need saving from the effects of them.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

You mean why must we be redeemed if "original sin" isn't on us?

Because we still partake of the effects of original sin.  We are sent into a fallen world.
This is an interesting principle - we may not be punished for others sins but we may well need saving from the effects of them.

I like it!

Gotta think about it.

Clearly we get there ultimately by grace, after all we CAN do.

Reminds me of initiatories and the difference between men and women's nature, but enough of that

Yep, that may be a good extension of the paradigm ;)

 

 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Calm said:

We would be punished for his transgression without the redemption by dying, no resurrection.  It is Christ’s redemption that protects us.

Well we certainly had to be brought up a notch or two.

At least for men.  J.  😆

Link to comment
14 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Even little children need a Savior to be redeemed from the consequences of the fall, as all of us need to be redeemed from death:

"Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them".  (Moroni 8:8)

And a few verses later:  "For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent"  (Moroni 8:22)

Maybe I'm not understanding your question?

Nailed it, between you and Calm.

I have skimmed those quotes a million times before you showed me they applied to children and other innocents.

Wow, thanks, I get it, and how this relates to the temple and priesthood, which I won't go into other than it does 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Nailed it, between you and Calm.

I have skimmed those quotes a million times before you showed me they applied to children and other innocents.

Wow, thanks, I get it, and how this relates to the temple and priesthood, which I won't go into other than it does 

Great.  Now all we need here is a member of the Catholic church to explain why their church baptizes little children.  I think maybe they think little children will not be redeemed by our Savior unless they are baptized, because they are still also under the curse of the fall just as we were before we were baptized.  I think Catholic church members have good intentions and just don't realize our Savior redeems little children without any need for them to be baptized, not until our Lord later holds them accountable for any sins they commit.  After little children grow older and reach the age of accountability.  They don't know or believe that doesn't happen until children become 8 years old.  We likely wouldn't know either unless the Lord had told us when that time comes.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, James 1 5 said:

Great.  Now all we need here is a member of the Catholic church to explain why their church baptizes little children.  I think maybe they think little children will not be redeemed by our Savior unless they are baptized, because they are still also under the curse of the fall just as we were before we were baptized.

Yes they believe that.

Articles of faith say we are not punished for Adam's transgression, hence my confusion.

We were never under "Adam's curse", we are baptized for our own sins, after we reach the age where we know right from wrong, around age 7 or 8.

Around that age Catholics have their first confession and first communion, indicating they have had enough time to have sinned on their own. Confession includes absolution from sin, a requirement before communion/ receiving the Eucharist.

A little later, around 13, they are confirmed, indicating being a full fledged member of Jesus' church, ready to stand up and defend the church, around the age our boys receive the Aaronic Priesthood 

I received a full Catholic education until I was half way through High School. :)

Articles of Faith 

"2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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