- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
nibbler wrote:
..we retain our race for eternity or a message that some will be assigned a different race at some point in the future/afterlife… as if one race were preferred over the others?
It’s funny to think this was doctrine, once upon a time.
Thanks for the historical context OON. I didn’t know that about W.W. Phelps.
dande48 wrote:
Was W.W. Phelps, who wrote the song, a racist? Probably.Did W.W. Phelps believe that race (by modern definition) is eternal and has no end? Probably.
Does the hymn contain a LOT of speculation, that may or may not be true? Absolutely.
Was the hymn more concerned with invoking the spirit through poetry and rhetoric, than objective truth? Absolutely.
1 – Depends how you define it. By the strict definitions of today, maybe he was, but by his own time’s standards probably not.
2 – Hard to say. I don’t think the priesthood ban had much end in sight.
3 – He probably believed it all to be true.
4 – The verses “there is no end to…” always seemed to me an artistic cop out I’m afraid, as if he had padded out the work with these verses and lines. The first verses are poetry, the later ones seem like hackwork… although if he had written the entire hymn that way then it might work for me artistically.
I don’t know anything about Phelps’ life.
I’ve always took it as “human race” and there is no end to the eternal family. We don’t have problems thinking of the 12 tribes of Israel and our place in families that connect us together. I would think that is all we are talking about, ideas on how we might be organized, not literally race, although I tend to think we’ll all look the same after the resurrection…only because I can’t conceptually think of anything else.
Our society (justifiably) is hyper sensitive about race…I’ll steer clear of that discussion, and stick to we are all a part of the human race, all a part of God’s family, and there is no end to Eternal Families.
Here’s an interesting part of the hymn…
Quote:There is no end to youth
What does that mean? Youth is defined as: “the period between childhood and adult age”…how can there be no end to that?
Heber13 wrote:
Here’s an interesting part of the hymn…Quote:There is no end to youth
What does that mean? Youth is defined as: “the period between childhood and adult age”…how can there be no end to that?
You’re never allowed to drink, smoke, watch rated R movies, or buy a nudie magazine.
Heber13 wrote:Here’s an interesting part of the hymn…
Quote:There is no end to youth
What does that mean? Youth is defined as: “the period between childhood and adult age”…how can there be no end to that?
That we always stay fresh in the eternities and don’t sag, bulge or lose our memories?
SamBee wrote:
Heber13 wrote:Here’s an interesting part of the hymn…
Quote:There is no end to youth
What does that mean? Youth is defined as: “the period between childhood and adult age”…how can there be no end to that?
That we always stay fresh in the eternities and don’t sag, bulge or lose our memories?
Maybe…but that seems to be young adult, like our mid 20s…not “youth” …we’re not going to be 16 in our perfect form.
Or would we? Is there stake dances in the eternities we’ll be going to?
I did have hair then. I got remarried at 46. My wife now has never known me with hair…she thinks in the resurrection I should request no hair…she likes me better this way. All she knows.
My kids want me to be eternally 45 also.
But “there is no end to youth” rhymes with truth. Even if it must mean younger and vibrant, not teenager.
SamBee wrote:
Isn’t 30 the supposed ideal age?
[img=https://www.reprodart.com/kunst/victor_mikhailovich_vasnetsov/savaoph-god-the-father.jpg][/img] Does this look like any 30 year-old you’ve ever met?
dande48 wrote:
SamBee wrote:
Isn’t 30 the supposed ideal age?
[img=https://www.reprodart.com/kunst/victor_mikhailovich_vasnetsov/savaoph-god-the-father.jpg][/img] Does this look like any 30 year-old you’ve ever met?
That’s not Mormon.
😆 Is it Alma? 
It is a song. It rhymed. Sometimes, we think too much.
Why are there 14 Fundamentals? Because he needed alliteration and started with “Fundamentals” – and he couldn’t give a GC talk about only 4 simple statements. 7 steps of Repentance? Alliteration. The Great Plan of Salvation/Happiness? It couldn’t be just an average, ordinary plan. 3 degrees of glory? Sun, moon, and stars were all they knew back in Biblical days – and 3 meant complete at the time.
Convenience, linguistics, and practicality are behind most things we want to be complicated, straightforward, and ethereal.
Old Timer wrote:
Is it Alma?It is a song. It rhymed. Sometimes, we think too much.
Why are there 14 Fundamentals? Because he needed alliteration and started with “Fundamentals” – and he couldn’t give a GC talk about only 4 simple statements. 7 steps of Repentance? Alliteration. The Great Plan of Salvation/Happiness? It couldn’t be just an average, ordinary plan. 3 degrees of glory? Sun, moon, and stars were all they knew back in Biblical days – and 3 meant complete at the time.
Convenience, linguistics, and practicality are behind most things we want to be complicated, straightforward, and ethereal.
Just for the record, the FF was not a GC talk, it was given at BYU. It was later reprinted as a FP message in the Ensign. But the alliteration thing still counts.
It wasn’t originallya conference talk but was referenced twiceduring the October 2010 general conference. The alliteration and the fact that it came up twice during the same conference solidified and elevated the “doctrines.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/our-very-survival ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/our-very-survival I think the 14Fs even came up again during a more recent (than 2010) general conference, but I can’t remember.
People mention them
all the timein my ward. In fact they were featured during a recent SM talk. I don’t think they would have received any attention at all if not for those two general conference talks. Now it’s canon. nibbler wrote:
I don’t think they would have received any attention at all if not for those two general conference talks. Now it’s canon.
I agree, it’s canon. Or at least all those fundamentals are treated as canon. It’s too bad I only agree with #13 (but lets face it, did that
reallyneed to be said?). As for the rest, it makes me want to give the Church the middle finger. Thank goodness I haven’t heard them mentioned in quite a long time. Feeling sorry for Nibbler.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.