Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Kirtland banking scandal – I’d like an essay that explains why a lot of people were justifiably upset, and how the scandal contributed to leaving Kirtland I spend quite a bit of time there. Reddit is really what you make of it. It’s segregated into a whole bunch of subreddits (such as reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints) which you can subscribe to. The main page then shows posts from all of the subreddits you’ve subscribed to, or you can go directly to the subreddit to see the posts from that sub. If you want a great experience, look for subreddits that interest you. My wife doesn’t do reddit, but she does occasionally browse /r/quilting. Here’s a recent thread with a bunch of lists of people’s favorite subs:
http://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/1v9zca/reddit_is_what_you_make_of_it_here_is_a_list_of/ It seems that reddit’s biggest demographic is the educated, geeky, 20-something male. It does have an atheistic bent, but there are a lot of religious people and religious subreddits as well.
I’m not trying very hard to be anonymous, and I wouldn’t really mind openly discussing things IRL with somebody who is open to discussing things. If I recognized a friend/family member/somebody I liked here, I’d send them a PM to verify it’s them and I’d be pleased to make that sort of IRL connection.
The actual AMA thread hasn’t been posted yet, and probably won’t be posted until it’s scheduled to start. In any case, it will probably be stickied. If you just go to http://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaintshttp://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints” class=”bbcode_url”> You’ll probably like it. I went the other direction and bought the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible, and it is excellent. The HCSB and the NOASB are both good choices (and both use the NRSV and include the Deuterocanon). I’m aware of a few quotes stating that we believe in all truth, even if it comes from Hell, including this one: Quote:I want to say to my friends that we believe in all good. If you can find a truth in heaven, earth or hell, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it; it is ours; we claim it.
I’m not aware of any quote indicating that sincerity earns salvation even if you’re in the church of the devil.
I’d like to add one thing. We can’t “comfort those who stand in need of comfort” (Mos. 18:8-9) if we hide all of our problems and wear a mask. wayfarer, I can really relate to your daughter. This has been the number one question that has occupied me for the last few years. I’ve read many books, and thought many thoughts, but I’m still stuck at this: if my religion is not literal, is there still enough there to make it worth it? I don’t know.
Do I feel good about teaching this to my children?
I don’t know.
Can I make it work and find spiritual power there?
I don’t know.
Forgotten_Charity wrote:I tried to talk to the bishop about it but he just told me to pray and read scriptures and to smile and not let anyone know of my problems and pretend all is well. He also told me not to frown or show any sadness as to not let others feel bad by seeing a frown.
Ouch. I believe that this is a harmful, but all too common, aspect of church culture. Wearing a happy mask can make you more miserable, and it can also make everybody who is hurting inside feel alone.
You don’t have to complain to everybody and tell them the story, but you don’t have to pretend either.
cwald, you have some very good points. I suppose that we just have to have faith that the early church chose the right books to include in the Bible. I believe that we can trust that they cared about getting the best books in and rejecting false doctrines, but trusting that they did their best isn’t the same thing as believing that they were perfect. I believe that if the early Christians had had anything actually written by Jesus that they would have treasured those and that we would still have them today. As it is, it seems that what we have is multiple versions of oral traditions written down decades later, with some of the books being revisions of others. It is somewhat troubling that some of the decisions on which books made it into the canon seemed to be based on how well those books agreed with their Christological views or on whether the books supported views of the heretics, but we have what we have. I kind of think that if they had decided not to include Revelation (which was the last book they decided on, near 400 AD) that we would be in a much better state. It seems that every sect that gets some crazy new interpretation of the gospel has largely based it on Revelation.
cwald wrote:I believe it has some good concepts and valid teachings for our time. But is it “true”? Well, we all have our own answer to that question.
It also has some concepts that are dangerous and should be disregarded.
😈 mom3 wrote:Now if you have had a lot of experience with other scholarly studies on scripture you may be quite suited to the book. And even for my husband he did find that he sees new positives he’d never noticed in the BofM before. For him new characters became heroic, and experiences took on a more human aspect.
This is a lot of what I get out of it. He focuses a lot on the different narrators (Nephi, Mormon, Moroni), and what they do for the book. He explains their motivations, does some reading between the lines, and helps us understand what could be going on with the Book of Mormon. I enjoyed it, but I did start skimming a bit as I got near the end of the book.
Heber13 wrote:What’s another example of a doctrine that started as common practice?
An interesting one I read about a week or so ago was Deacons passing the sacrament. If you read D&C 20, you’ll see that Elders are supposed to administer the sacrament, and Priests are supposed to fill in and administer the sacrament only when an Elder is not present.
Near the beginning of the 20th century, some church leaders started allowing Deacons to participate in passing the sacrament, justifying it by saying that passing was not administering. By that logic, is there any reason why young women shouldn’t be allowed to pass the sacrament?
SamBee wrote:Quote:The very essence of the English word Atonement is “at one ment”, meaning at one moment (together, united, connected, etc).
This is a very common explanation, and almost a cliche (no offense), so I decided to look this up…. and amazingly, it actually DOES come from “at one ment”, it’s not just another “folk etymology”. It’s an Englishing of “adunamentum”, which means “at-one-ment” in Latin.
Just a tiny nitpick, I don’t think that “at-one-ment” translates to “at one moment”. I’m pretty sure that the “ment” suffix is meant to turn “at-one” into a verb. “at-one-ment” is reconciliation with God–becoming one with Him again. “at one moment” doesn’t make any sense to me in this context.
