[amertune]

doug wrote:

Who does it matter?

I’m not trying to be flippant or disrespectful. I just really wonder what the value is in pursuing these lines of reasoning. These are merely labels the we use to describe that which is indescribable. Sort of another topic, but it’s a just bit silly to me to think that using these labels (the meaning of which most people never even bother to wonder about) means that we understand God.

I think that it does matter. It seems to be something commonly used to foment an us vs them mentality. If people realized that the differences were smaller than they seemed then maybe they would be better able to get along.

[amertune]

KimiKiwi wrote:

I have too many strong feelings about what I know is true to feel extremely swayed by other issues. I guess I choose to ignore some things sometimes. Maybe I’m just naive and childish, but it how I think and feel.

It’s not childish to believe in something when you have reason. It might be naive to believe in something that you haven’t sufficiently thought about and tested, but I think that that means that everybody is naive to some degree.

[amertune]

First of all, I don’t think that it’s fair to him for you to expect him to convert so that you can marry him. You’ll have to decide whether you love him enough to marry him, or whether your dream of marrying in the temple is more important. I’m not saying that he’ll never become LDS and take you through the temple, but please don’t try to make him do it for you. It is absolutely not selfish of you to let him take responsibility for his beliefs.

Mixed marriages can and do work. They just take communication and mutual respect (just like all other marriages).

[amertune]

Heber13 wrote:

amertune wrote:

It’s probably a good thing that we didn’t canonize everything Joseph Smith taught. 🙂

Amen.

Kind of a bummer we canonized the polygamy revelation. I wonder…can you uncanonize something?? :problem:

You mean like they did with the Lectures on Faith? I’m pretty sure that they could if they wanted to. Maybe they could restore the anti-polygamy section that was replaced by 132.

[amertune]

Heber13 wrote:

I guess the other difference is we don’t have a revelation in D&C about avoiding doctors.

It’s probably a good thing that we didn’t canonize everything Joseph Smith taught. 🙂

[amertune]

That certainly makes sense. I’m certainly glad that we don’t have to rely on 19th century medicine.

[amertune]

Cadence wrote:

The bible we studied growing up is not less divine than the original text, if anything it is more divine.

I’ve always taken a literal approach to scripture, but that has been radically shifting lately. Now I see scripture as inspired or inspiring instead of factual. From what I’ve read from biblical scholars, a lot of the Bible is oral tradition, myth, fiction, and forgery. Still, there is a lot of truth and beauty in it.

I think that you are right, and that many of the additions to scripture have made them more meaningful. It’s possible that the people adding to scripture were just as inspired as the people who originally told the stories or wrote them down.

I’ve been reading Karen Armstrong’s “The Bible: A Biography”, and one concept in there is a description of the way that scripture used to be read. She said that the Jews read scripture as a way to get inspiration. I get the feeling that it was never intended to be taken literally, and that the literal viewpoint is a more modern invention.

[amertune]

Scientology is the newest notable religion that I can think of, and I believe that it’s at least 50 years old now.

[amertune]

A lot of my personal prayers tend to include the phrase “if you’re there.” It’s really hard for me to feel like I’m actually talking to god instead of just pouring out my heart and thinking things over in my own mind. Public prayers are especially awkward for me. I don’t like saying them, but I have an even harder time saying no.

Honestly, I don’t believe that there’s a certain way that a prayer should sound. Prayer is a conversation with god. Say whatever you feel like saying, whether you’re praising, thanking, asking, or just telling.

[amertune]

SamBee wrote:

Quote:

4. That we expect females to wear dresses or skirts, rather than slacks or dress pants.

Hmm… They still get it much easier than men in the dress code. They have far more leeway.

I think that pants are not flattering to women’s butts – they make them look too big, but there you go…

I also think there should be more kilts in church.

Yes, I was always jealous of the female missionaries that were basically wearing t-shirts, while I had to wear a white shirt, tie, and suit-coat (at least in the winter or to any meetings). Don’t get me wrong, I think that it’s great that they had that much freedom, and I think that it’s even better with the recent changes. I just wish that the guys could have a little bit more choice. There’s a reason why they all (mostly all?) love ugly ties.

[amertune]

Tom Haws wrote:

amertune wrote:

It would probably be a lot healthier for me to switch to coffee, but for some reason I’m still drinking Pepsi.

Yeah. Daily black coffee by the pot is no good. But surely daily Pepsi by the pack is worse.

At least in my case it’s daily Pepsi by the can, not by the pack.

[amertune]

doug wrote:

Welcome. And welcome to the world of not knowing anything. For me, not knowing anything beats the heck out of knowing stuff that doesn’t quite add up.

This definitely explains my life so far. The more I learn, the more I learn that I don’t really know anything. It keeps me humble.

[amertune]

I preside in my home. My wife tells me to pick someone to say a prayer, and I pick someone to say a prayer.

[amertune]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

“if you think you might be guilty (of ‘sin’), you probably are”.

🙄 🙄 (Sometimes, there simply are no words . . .) :wtf:

This, I believe, is a philosophy that encourages people to invent new rules to add to the rules they already have to live by. This is why Coca-cola is still frowned on by many mormons. I’m sure many bishops could recall many people who came in broken-hearted to confess something that isn’t even bad. Just because you feel guilty about something doesn’t mean its bad.

Some people just have a hyper-active guilt reflex.

[amertune]

cwald wrote:

I think you make a good point amertune.

As far as tobacco is concerned – I read an article just yesterday that “claimed” that studies of twins, there is evidence that the twin who “smokes a pipe in moderation” outlives the twin who never smokes a pipe. (of course, that does not hold true when it comes to cigarette smoking.) I’m guessing it has nothing to do with smoking and everything to do with less stress – which is a benefit of pipe smoking.

Energy drinks —- I find it very disturbing when I talk to orthodox mormons who criticize and label those who drink coffee and tea and beer, as “unworthy” and unfit to go to the CK and get a TR — and then overindulge in sugary soda and energy drinks. This is nothing personal to anyone here (and I don’t think you do this Heber) but I really do find that kind of thinking to be VERY Pharisaical. Seriously – I have NO problem with those who choose to imbibe in the whole soda pop or energy drink – as long as they allow me the same luxury when it comes to coffee, tea or beer. In the church – that does not happen, because we are following outdated traditions and man-made commandments – and putting a hell of lot of “spiritual worth” and collateral to them as well. Makes no sense to me.

This is my problem. I drink Pepsi on a near-daily basis. It doesn’t help that they keep the stuff stocked at work. It would probably be a lot healthier for me to switch to coffee, but for some reason I’m still drinking Pepsi.

[Author]

Posts