Birth control

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

An argument from “My Turn on Earth”. This is getting weird.

Actually, the clips are from Saturday’s Warriors. You can’t quote a greater authority than that. 

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Actually, the clips are from Saturday’s Warriors. You can’t quote a greater authority than that. 

Zero population is the answer my friend.

[Meadowchik]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

Ultimately, I agree with you that we have to make our own decisions and practice our own spiritual discernment, and not just follow blindly and take their word for it.  That is actually something the prophets have taught me.   In regards to the bold - I have been uplifted, taught, edified and inspired enough by these good men to know that they often have more insight than I do.  Practically speaking, I have tested many seeds and know they are good.  I will forever be grateful for those seeds and the fruit they bear.  I will give credit where credit is due.   I have much to learn from them.   I think it is unwise to think that we have nothing to learn from other perspectives, even when we disagree with them on occasion. 

Can you show me leaders from any organization/institution that is 200 years old or older without "many mistakes"?   Should we dismiss all instruction from these institutions as "pretty much worthless/useless"? 

I think the fallacies here is that

1)we must find a leader for instruction

 and

2)that the merit of advice can be based on authority.

Human history is full of advice for us. We can value advice based on intrinsic merit. We don't need to prioritise some advice over all others because someone is in a leadership position over us, or even more extreme we don't need to believe that the only valid advice comes through them.

...

And sometimes there are new frontiers and we have no reliable advice and have to use our own faculties completely.

 

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Actually, the clips are from Saturday’s Warriors. You can’t quote a greater authority than that. 

I know it's a joke but SW was used as shorthand for church teachings re birth control. Countless times in church I heard people speak of those spirits waiting for an earthly home we're meant to try to provide for them.

Edited January 1, 2023 by Meadowchik

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think the fallacies here is that

1)we must find a leader for instruction

No person is an island unto themselves.  We can’t grow well without outside influence/instruction.  I never said we need “a leader”, or that there can only be one true leader/teacher.  We can receive instruction from so many different sources and we don’t necessarily need to consider them “leaders”.  But generally, we all gravitate to at least a few key figures in our lives who inspire us that we consider leaders.  My point was that they all make mistakes and that it would be folly to dismiss them all as “mostly worthless” because of a few mistakes and misjudgment.  
If I was to compile a list of all prophetic teachings/principles - it would be overwhelmingly mostly of great worth and valuable for instruction/happiness.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

 and

2)that the merit of advice can be based on authority.

I didn’t say anything about basing the merit of advice on “authority”..  I was quite clear that we need to use discernment and ultimately decide for ourselves what is right based on our experience of practical benefit of their teachings/seeds.  We test them for ourselves.  I don’t trust the prophets based merely on any claim of authority, but because of personal practical spiritual experience.  I have learned that they are very reliable.  Not perfect, but I have found them to be a reliable source of bountiful fruit after application of Alma 32.  

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Human history is full of advice for us. We can value advice based on intrinsic merit. We don't need to prioritise some advice over all others because someone is in a leadership position over us, or even more extreme we don't need to believe that the only valid advice comes through them.

...

And sometimes there are new frontiers and we have no reliable advice and have to use our own faculties completely.

You are right, we don’t NEED to prioritize some teachings/teachers over others, but we all naturally do that.  We gravitate to a few influential figures in our life for instruction.  They aren’t always in a leadership position, but we usually view them as a leader to us - parents, teachers, professors, local church leaders, employers, influential authors, public figures, historical leaders/figures, scriptural figures, I don’t care who it is, we all rely on imperfect and fallible humans for inspiration and instruction/leadership.
 

For someone to try and convince me that prophets are “mostly worthless” because of such and such blunder, is like trying to tell me that peaches are mostly nasty because sometimes they have worms or decay.  There is something wrong with that kind of thinking, especially when they try to convince me that I am better off without peaches and are completely dismissive of my own personal experience with peaches.  In fact, they don’t even ask, do you like peaches? They just try and convince me that they are all mostly nasty and I would be better off without them.   That tells me something is off in their paradigm.

Edited January 1, 2023 by pogi

[MustardSeed]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I know it's a joke but SW was used as shorthand for church teachings re birth control. Countless times in church I heard people speak of those spirits waiting for an earthly home we're meant to try to provide for them.

In My Opinion:

SW was HUGELY influential culturally.  People confused the movie lore with doctrine a whole lot in the 80s because of SW.  

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I think you are so reading into that by believing he meant they were condemned only if they always used birth control and was okay with couples using birth control sometimes.  Have you read the history of birth control and the reactions to it back then?

I think you would agree that in principle, which hasn’t changed between “then” and “now,” the “natural man” prevents the birth of children befitting a carnal, sensual and devilish nature. This does not mean such a “sword” cannot be a “plowshare” under proper circumstance and with God’s guidance (the “sub-principle” or “exception” – neither being a “contradiction” to the principle). Similarly, in principle, “Thou shalt not kill” and “Kill Laban” are not contradictory commands.

I am suggesting that some read and still read (those are past and present tenses) into this quote an absoluteness that I don’t. As to what he really meant: of course, he meant it the same way I take it!  Plus, we can “thoroughly repent” by using the practice under proper circumstance and with God’s guidance next time, if we haven't been previously.

[Chum]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think you would agree that in principle, which hasn’t changed between “then” and “now,” the “natural man” prevents the birth of children befitting a carnal, sensual and devilish nature.

The natural man may also be responsible for conceiving children one can't afford. I'm bringing that up because the inability to afford children is a rapidly growing trend.

[Pyreaux]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

An argument from “[Saturday's Warrior]”. This is getting weird.

... Or perhaps one of the consequences includes simply your own happiness, as argued from "The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus", the song "A Child" at time 7:07

That is the song that in recent decades is now cut when it airs on TV, as it dares suggests that childlessness is the cause of depression and is the piece missing in our lives. As Jordan Peterson says, having a family is a solid 1/3rd of the meaning of life, you aren't going to be happy unless somehow the other 2/3rds are just so good that it makes up for it

 

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

And no disrespect in any way, but to the bold, you have not presented on here as someone who has a lot of happiness or peace in their life.  I don't think that you can promise me a more enjoyable life than what I have right now.

Well that is disrespectful and judgmental.  And rude quite frankly.  You do not know me, my life situation and so on.  You see a very small slice of my life and the part that is focused on an organization which has caused a lot of pain in my life and IMO has lied to its members consistently and still does.  My comments are mostly negative and an organization that you still value.  Your comment is pretty bold really and I think steps over a line that is proper.  I would not presume to judge a persons wholeness on what they have to say here.

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

Can you show me leaders from any organization/institution that is 200 years old or older without "many mistakes"?   Should we dismiss all instruction from these institutions as "pretty much worthless/useless"? 

Any men or women who claim to be God's spokesperson on earth and that they have God's word to us should be held to a higher standard than other organizations that make no such claim.  

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't know where you get this stuff.  It is no longer 1850.

I get it right from the LDS Leaders mouths. I don't get how you ignore it.

[Chum]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Actually, the clips are from Saturday’s Warriors. You can’t quote a greater authority than that. 

I had to look up what Saturday's Warriors was because I live east of the Great Plains

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's just as easy (and just as valid) to say that your "LDS leaders are pretty worthless for life issue directions" claim is what you need to do to make your new beliefs work for you though.

My only point is that "all or nothing" is not the only option.  It's the only option that seems to work for you right now so I can see why you consistently land there, but it's not the only option available to choose from.

And no disrespect in any way, but to the bold, you have not presented on here as someone who has a lot of happiness or peace in their life.  I don't think that you can promise me a more enjoyable life than what I have right now.

One more comment.I know I can be blunt and strident.  At time to much  so and I have been on this thread. So I will dial it back. I do not mind that being pointed out.  But to carry it where you did I think it not proper.  And sure you life may be just grand as it is so I supposed something I should not have as well.  I am actually quite a happy fellow, Especially when I ride my bike.

[Pyreaux]

The value of an authorities' word is more to me than their mere correctness, it is more to do with me and God. It's either correct and/or inspired or not. If it's not, it's his responsibility and his condemnation, and not ours if we obey. We might even be blessed, even if it wasn't from God, I leave it in God's hands and be grateful it's not my responsibility. If I were sick, and thought an unworthy priest were to attempt a priesthood blessing, it is not my concern to object, I will trust God to bless me away and let him deal with the priest himself.

One engaged couple walked with arms around each other's waist and were chastened by a comment from the Bishop as they passed by each other in the hallway. They later fumed to me and their friends because they were nearly wed and so started to plot to continue openly doing so. I was able to pacify them. Saying, surely, he meant them well, yes? So, though he might have he spoke beyond his authority, what harm is it to simply obey his council? Will you not be blessed for it? What do you think to gain from rebellion? They agreed and plotted no more.

Edited January 1, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So sad that you were apparently taught this kind of nonsense.

Honestly if you do not understand what the LDS CHurch leaders have taught and do teach about following what they say I hardly know what to think.Would you like to explore this a bit?  I Have a great podcast for you to listen to if you are interested.

 

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Moroni 10:4+

Alma 32.

I am quite familiar with these passages.  How do they dispute the idea of follow the brethren and the  prophet and that message being emphasized over and over again?  Moroni 10:4 is there for the BoM and praying about it specifically.  Yes I now the part about the HG and knowing the truth of all things. 

 

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You don't see one iota of the sweetness available. Please try to see it in a new way.  Your way is the total opposite of the joy I feel knowing God loves me and wants to gently guide me.

You assume like others here that I have no joy.  My life is actually more joyful without having to plug into a god which may not even be there.

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I hope you will see the light and not only darkness. I think you and I are much alike, yet see it from different perspectives.

Perhaps we are. I would love to talk about these things with you in person.

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I see the whole idea of getting one's own testimony as a breath of fresh air.  I do nothing just because some earth bound person tells me; everything must come from God, or fergitaboutit.

I am glad that give you joy and happiness.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

... Or perhaps one of the consequences includes simply your own happiness, as argued from "The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus", the song "A Child" at time 7:07

That is the song that in recent decades is now cut when it airs on TV, as it dares suggests that childlessness is the cause of depression and is the piece missing in our lives. As Jordan Peterson says, having a family is a solid 1/3rd of the meaning of life, you aren't going to be happy unless somehow the other 2/3rds are just so good that it makes up for it

 

I have a simple rule about people who rise to prominence by peddling transphobia: Ignore everything they say.

It works for most “(fill in the blank)phobes” in general.

[Pyreaux]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have a simple rule about people who rise to prominence by peddling transphobia: Ignore everything they say.

It works for most “(fill in the blank)phobes” in general.

Well, good thing I didn't reference any. If you weren't so busy ignoring him, you would know Jordan Petterson claims he is not transphobic and his reputation as one has to do with him publicly objecting to Canadian law mandating the use of preferred pronouns. He personally used preferred pronouns, he only refuses to when the law dictates that he must, or if he felt someone was trying to manipulate him. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Chum said:

The natural man may also be responsible for conceiving children one can't afford. I'm bringing that up because the inability to afford children is a rapidly growing trend.

Absolutely. I can see this being a possible trend in the mid-19th century also. Elder Cannon didn't seem to be addressing that particular principle in this particular quote, though I have a hunch/recollection that 19th century prophets warned against a dereliction of duty to provide for offspring (legitimate or not), to both multiply/replenish and subdue the earth, each action sustaining the other.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

claims he is not transphobic

My response to said claim:

He also compared transgenderism to “satanic ritual abuse” on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

Or if you want a simpler version of why you shouldn’t listen to him you can just point out that he voluntarily went on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

Edited January 1, 2023 by The Nehor

[CV75]

On 12/31/2022 at 2:53 PM, mfbukowski said:

Which is what they teach. Get your own testimony.

I don't know where you get this stuff.  It is no longer 1850.

That's the thing I'm seeing play out in this thread: fretting over how Church communication (content and style but not basic principle) changed since 1850 to promote living a more enlightened life than their fallibility allows is like fretting over how it will change after I am dead.

Someone once brought up in our class the fact that Church leaders make mistakes, but when I asked for examples and names, they wouldn't share. The class thought I was joking, which I kind of was. But why does social propriety take such priority over speaking one's truth? (Answer: either they realize their truth isn't worth the risk, or they know they can't express themselves acceptably). And maybe it was a social faux pas that I asked for examples!

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

My response to said claim:

He also compared transgenderism to “satanic ritual abuse” on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

Or if you want a simpler version of why you shouldn’t listen to him you can just point out that he voluntarily went on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

I'm no Jordan Peterson expert, but what exactly did he mean? Or did you only read the critical headlines? Does he mean the willingness to push youths into unnecessary surgery is a fervor comparable to occultic mutilation? It's entirely possible for one to be both pro-trans and be critical of the industries that have been pushing surgical transitions with a questionable obsession equal to their conflict of interest, like money they'd make.

Jordan Peterson's popularity has come from the fact that people always mischaracterize what he says.

   

Edited January 2, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Rain]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That's the thing I'm seeing play out in this thread: fretting over how Church communication (content and style but not basic principle) changed since 1850 to promote living a more enlightened life than their fallibility allows is like fretting over how it will change after I am dead.

Saying that a woman needs to repent about the "devilish art" or wickedness of using birth control is not content and style.  It is literally saying she has sinned/committed iniquity and will be punished for it.  It is totally about different principles because instead of saying to council with the Lord if it is right for you or not it aligns the woman and her husband with the devil.

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Someone once brought up in our class the fact that Church leaders make mistakes, but when I asked for examples and names, they wouldn't share. The class thought I was joking, which I kind of was. But why does social propriety take such priority over speaking one's truth? (Answer: either they realize their truth isn't worth the risk, or they know they can't express themselves acceptably). And maybe it was a social faux pas that I asked for examples!

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Honestly if you do not understand what the LDS CHurch leaders have taught and do teach about following what they say I hardly know what to think.Would you like to explore this a bit?

It’s probably important to remember that (at least for me) all the crazy stuff I learned at church came from parents (who’s parents, grandparents, great grand parents etc were members), seminary teachers, institute leaders, and tons of youth leaders. As an adult convert with an outlook on truth that is orthogonal to pretty much every church leader I’ve ever interacted with, I’m not sure Mark is typical. 

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, Rain said:

Saying that a woman needs to repent about the "devilish art" or wickedness of using birth control is not content and style.  It is literally saying she has sinned/committed iniquity and will be punished for it.  It is totally about different principles because instead of saying to council with the Lord if it is right for you or not it aligns the woman and her husband with the devil.

"The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet."  (Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, Ezra Taft Benson, 1980)

What was said in the past was right for those people at that time. What the prophet says now is for us in our time.