The bare minimum.

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

I don't believe a bunch of jews crammed a ton of stuff inside submarines that had glass windows then rode them all the way to the America's. Do you believe that actually happened?

Your characterization of the story of the Jaredites seems intended to ridicule the book. 

The Jaredites were not Jews.  The book never claims that they were.

Not a mention of a submarine. 

No glass windows.  In fact, the Lord specifically tells the Brother of Jared that this won't work.

I believe that what the original authors of the book wrote from their personal knowledge is true.  I believe that later redactors and/or abridgers may have made unintentional errors, in fact the book itself holds out this as a possibility.  

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

That's the point! There's nothing wrong with failure. Actually, failure is more important than success. 

There's nothing wrong with failure, but it seems cruel to require someone to perform a task or duty with zero chance of success.

 

8 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

Of course. Am I missing something here? 

I think you are.  I don't think God would ask anyone to do something unless He would really like them to do it. 

 

10 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

Common sense.

"Common sense is very uncommon."

Horace Greeley

 

 

 

[Jerry Atric]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am going to be blunt and say that sounds abusive to me. 

Some parents are more fun than others. 

So let me ask you. If one of your kids takes horse riding lessons and gets banged up from falling time after time for the first few months, is that abusive? What if a kid loves boxing and comes home on a regular basis bruised and beaten. Are you saying you would tell that kid to give up on his or her passion? Let's say your daughter was a softball pitcher and kept getting hit by balls coming back at her while she's standing on the mound, do you tell her to quit? Lastly, what if one of your kids was interested in the art of fire spinning and while taking lessons kept coming home with burnt hair or burns on his or her arms, would you make that kid stop following his or her dream?

[Jerry Atric]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

nothing wrong with failure, but it seems cruel to require someone to perform a task or duty with zero chance of success

Failure today is success tomorrow. 

[Nofear]

31 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

... There's no way God needs our help while we're here on earth. He can handle heaven all by himself.

True as that may be, God is also a really, really good multitasker. The work for the redemption of the dead is not just for the dead.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

Some parents are more fun than others. 

So let me ask you. If one of your kids takes horse riding lessons and gets banged up from falling time after time for the first few months, is that abusive? What if a kid loves boxing and comes home on a regular basis bruised and beaten. Are you saying you would tell that kid to give up on his or her passion? Let's say your daughter was a softball pitcher and kept getting hit by balls coming back at her while she's standing on the mound, do you tell her to quit? Lastly, what if one of your kids was interested in the art of fire spinning and while taking lessons kept coming home with burnt hair or burns on his or her arms, would you make that kid stop following his or her dream?

Kids choosing to do things on their own because they want to, because it has great value to them personally and therefore they are accepting the risks and the pains by choice is very different than a task demanded of them by others. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

Failure today is success tomorrow. 

Not for all.   And not failure after failure. A mix of mostly successes and some failures (failures that are reasonable and not setups) is probably the best ratio. Haven’t researched this in years, so not up on current stats. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Calm

[Jerry Atric]

14 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The Jaredites were not Jews

What were they? 

[ksfisher]

Just now, Jerry Atric said:

What were they? 

It's not stated. 

[Jerry Atric]

Just now, Calm said:

Not for all. 

There's always success tomorrow! Always. 

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

So let me ask you. If one of your kids takes horse riding lessons and gets banged up from falling time after time for the first few months, is that abusive? What if a kid loves boxing and comes home on a regular basis bruised and beaten. Are you saying you would tell that kid to give up on his or her passion? Let's say your daughter was a softball pitcher and kept getting hit by balls coming back at her while she's standing on the mound, do you tell her to quit? Lastly, what if one of your kids was interested in the art of fire spinning and while taking lessons kept coming home with burnt hair or burns on his or her arms, would you make that kid stop following his or her dream?

This just seems like a whole lot of injuries 🙂 

[Jerry Atric]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It's not stated. 

I thought it was stated. I'm not sure where, but I think the BoM says the Jaredites are from the lineage of Ham.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

There's always success tomorrow! Always. 

Not if you are always giving them tasks that fail. Years of failure with no success doesn’t teach expectation of success. I think it is highly likely if your kids haven’t given up in despair over failing that you are overstating the role failure played in their lives while ignoring the successes. 
 

There needs to be a balance, a meaningful balance and not something artificial that is created by whims. The ability to trust is damaged when parents are arbitrary in their requirements and discipline. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

I thought it was stated. I'm not sure where, but I think the BoM says the Jaredites are from the lineage of Ham.

The Jews are from Judah, not Ham.  And the Ham bit was speculation, not scripture. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Calm

[Navidad]

How do my LDS friends interpret the Sermon of Stephen in Acts 7. There he gives a clear history of God's special work in history. He assures his listeners that the "most high - (hupsistos of Glory to God in the "highest") doesn't dwell in sanctuaries made of hands. Therefore the Holy Spirit does not dwell in temples, synagogues, cathedrals, tents, chapels, or little capillas by the road. Today the person of the Godhead who has most interaction with humans dwells in the humans who have accepted the work of His fellow member of the Godhead - Christ. Who was sent to earth by another member - the Father. Anything there you disagree with?

Second, I believe the first temple was stripped of the presence of God in the 600s BCE when God withdrew His shekinah glory or presence (Holy Spirit?) from the ark in the Holy of Holies. That presence ascended back into heaven (as centuries later would Christ) and there was a complete absence of God's presence in the temple and possibly on earth until the incarnation of Christ. Throughout the second temple period when the High Priest went into the holy of holies, it was pitch black. Christ then, immediately prior to his ascension promised another (second) comforter who came in a physical manifestation (Pentecost) after Christ ascended. From then on the Holy Spirit has been the presence of the Godhead on earth as he indwells, convicts, comforts, and ministers to humans. Anything there you disagree with?

Once upon a time after a Sunday School class in our ward, there was a bunch of us standing around chatting. The folks were talking about having to clean the temple (I think the next day). I listened interestingly and then commented that at that particular time (hour, minute, and day) I did not think the Holy Spirit was present in that closed, locked, and alarmed building up the hill (our temple). I commented that I thought that when the folks went into it to clean it, then the Holy Spirit would be back in it because there were Christians in it in the person of the Saints who were there to clean. Wherever two or three are gathered together - there is the presence of the Godhead in the form and person of the Holy Spirit. Anything there you disagree with?

The reaction to what I said was rather interesting. Some looked at me and nodded affirmatively. Other looked really surprised at my comment that the Holy Spirit dwelled in them and therefore only in the temple when there were Christians (LDS-Christians obviously) inside. It seems that was a new concept. We didn't pursue the conversation, but I have often thought about it.

All this talk in this thread about sanctuaries, cathedrals, temples, synagogues, etc. made me think of that conversation again. Any thoughts or comments about what I have said? Thanks.

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

I thought it was stated. I'm not sure where, but I think the BoM says the Jaredites are from the lineage of Ham.

It doesn't say that.

Incidentally, the bible says the Jews are descended from Noah's son Shem, not Ham.

Might I very kindly suggest that before you dismiss the Book of Mormon as non-historical you read it more carefully.

[Jerry Atric]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Not if you are always giving them tasks that fail. Years of failure with no success doesn’t not teach expectation of success. I think it is highly likely if your kids haven’t given up in despair over failing that you are overstating the role failure played in their lives while ignoring the successes

It's my opinion that parents should always give their children task and let them fail miserably. 

Life is lived through failure. The people who figure out how to handle failure without falling apart are the people that succeed in finding true happiness. True happiness is inner peace. Inner peace is understanding and accepting life is full of failure. 

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Once upon a time after a Sunday School class in our ward, there was a bunch of us standing around chatting. The folks were talking about having to clean the temple (I think the next day). I listened interestingly and then commented that at that particular time (hour, minute, and day) I did not think the Holy Spirit was present in that closed, locked, and alarmed building up the hill (our temple). I commented that I thought that when the folks went into it to clean it, then the Holy Spirit would be back in it because there were Christians in it in the person of the Saints who were there to clean. Wherever two or three are gathered together - there is the presence of the Godhead in the form and person of the Holy Spirit. Anything there you disagree with?

Seems like your kind of saying that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it that it doesn't make a sound.

In your example if no one is there to feel the Spirit then it isn't present (is that a correct understanding of what you mean?).

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by ksfisher

[Jerry Atric]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It doesn't say that.

Incidentally, the bible says the Jews are descended from Noah's son Shem, not Ham.

Might I very kindly suggest that before you dismiss the Book of Mormon as non-historical you read it more carefully.

Didn't the prophet tell us the BoM isn't a book of history a few years ago?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

Didn't the prophet tell us the BoM isn't a book of history a few years ago?

A book not being a history text doesn’t mean it is not historical.  It is a religious text, it tells of a people’s religious history with enough secular history for it to make sense, it is closer to journals imo than a history text. 
 

Your memory is highly selective. 
 

“There are some things the Book of Mormon is not,” President Nelson said. “It is not a textbook of history, although some history is found within its pages.” (Bold in source)

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2016/6/30/23214366/the-book-of-mormon-is-a-miraculous-miracle-says-president-russell-m-nelson-at-2016-seminar-for-new-m

Edited August 26, 2022 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

35 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

I thought it was stated. I'm not sure where, but I think the BoM says the Jaredites are from the lineage of Ham.

The term Jews was not used until after Jacob's death Around 1644 BC. The jaredites left the old world for the new world in approximately 2,200 BC. That terms Jew encompassed three tribes. They were from the country Judah after it was separated from the other 10 tribes. Those 10 tribes were considered Israel. There are 13 tribes because the House of Joseph was split into two tribes. I suggest you read Genesis around chapter 44 or so to get the blessings that Jacob who became Israel gave to his 12 sons.

Edited August 26, 2022 by rodheadlee

[Jerry Atric]

29 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

The term Jews was not used until after Jacob's death Around 1644 BC. The jaredites left the old world for the new world in approximately 2,200 BC. That terms Jew encompassed three tribes. They were from the country Judah after it was separated from the other 10 tribes. Those 10 tribes were considered Israel. There are 13 tribes because the House of Joseph was split into two tribes. I suggest you read Genesis around chapter 44 or so to get the blessings that Jacob who became Israel gave to his 12 sons.

https://youtu.be/VIZfiZ4gL50

 

Check this guy out. Tell me what you think. He seems to think the jaredites were from the lineage of Ham.

Edited August 26, 2022 by Jerry Atric

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

https://youtu.be/VIZfiZ4gL50

 

Check this guy out. Tell me what you think. He seems to think the jaredites were from the lineage of Ham.

The video is and hour and sixteen minutes long.  Is there particular part that where he speaks about this?

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

https://youtu.be/VIZfiZ4gL50

 

Check this guy out. Tell me what you think. He seems to think the jaredites were from the lineage of Ham.

If you are getting your BoM material from people like Wayne May, you might want to rethink your study habits given he promotes known forgeries as BoM artifacts.  I have never been impressed by the quality of his work.  It appears to me to be more about selling books, etc than trying to find truth.

Edited August 26, 2022 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

23 minutes ago, Jerry Atric said:

https://youtu.be/VIZfiZ4gL50

 

Check this guy out. Tell me what you think. He seems to think the jaredites were from the lineage of Ham.

Probably true but it doesn't make them Jews. According to the Old Testament all humans were descended from Shem, Ham and Japeth. Jews were from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi.

Edited August 26, 2022 by rodheadlee