[johnh]

Thanks for the feedback. I have heard good things about Eckhart

[johnh]

Dax wrote:

I have been reading the various threads/posts on polygamy and appreciate what has been stated and expounded on.

I feel though regardless of the church’s past statements, lack of current statements or the church’s view that “well we don’t know but it will all work out in the next life” that if it continues to teach DC132 then it is causing harm to the women of the church!

I agree

Dax wrote:

If you are a modern day man how can you read that statement and not have a part of you not feel that:

1.Polygamy is your RIGHT if not now then someday.

2.Women really do need to listen and follow men regardless of how they may feel on any subject or their eternal souls will be endanger.

3.I am more important and special to God then women.

No man can possibly agree with 1, 2 or 3…even though 132 does imply what you say. It sucks….either Joseph or Brigham was listening to something besides teh spirit.

Dax wrote:

Yes yes I know that is not what the church means to say, but if they continue to teach DC 132 in Sunday school without any explanation other than “well we don’t know and it will be worked out in the next life”,

It will continue to cause serious harm to the women of the church!!

Not just “Yeah!” but a resounding “Hell Yeah! Keep on telling the truth!”

Dax wrote:

Great, then why Mr.Priesthood holder are you upset about polyandry? You are not even being taught about it in sunday school or having it be a central theme that you have to accept. You are also not bieng threatend doctrinal in the scriptures with the damnation of your soul, at least not publicly the way DC 132 does when continued to be reinforced and taught the way it is now.

I think if there was a scripture worded the way DC 132 is about polyandry, whether in this life or the next,then the guys might start to get a little understanding of what women feel in the church.

Personally, I don’t find the idea of voluntary polygamy/polyandry offensive as long as everyone has their free agency. They way it was done in the church is not that. It was in no way doctrinally defend-able and involved in most cases the loss of free agency in some way shape or form.

[johnh]

HSAB wrote:

That is an interesting and actually really logical theory. I like it.

It rings well to me too. I can’t imagine becoming God based on one brief lifetime. The complexity of human existence is such a mish-mosh of of social and financial status, society you live in, epoch of time you live in, race and gender. How can a god say “I have descended below it all” if he/she has not actually “been there”?

John’s theory of surviving for eternity:

1 You come down, you live, you gather experience based upon your race, gender, finances, social status, yada yada.

2 You die. As the bible says you have a perfect remembrance of all your sins and good stuff too as well as you pre-existence

3 You spend some amount of time contemplating your time here and how it adds to what you already understood.

4 When you are ready again you return for another shot, taking a new life and circumstances that you feel will best help you to gain the further light knowledge you desire.

You forget your pre-existence so you can truly learn from the perspective of the circumstance you are in and to determine the depth of your true nature.

This at least helps me think that I could survive a long time in eternity without becoming completely bored with eternal existence as it provides continual learning opportunities.

I still do hope for the great and eternal intergalactic cuisinart being available so that if I become eternally bored I can just end it all…maybe sharing the essence of my accrued knowledge on my way out.

[johnh]

I appreciate the tone of this discussion. Mostly reading as I am not as learned as I should be. I wish there was a Sunday School class for those of us trying to work things out where discussions like this could occur. I would actually go to class then rather than attend “Hall class” where I must admit to having a few of these types of chats

[johnh]

SamBee wrote:

It makes me laugh…

…Did you know Marco Polo might be a fraud? Not only is there no Chinese record of him, the internal evidence is shaky too.

What? The book the BoM was copied from might be about something that didn’t really happen? Egad…there goes my testimony!

Sorry…just seemed funny considering the thread. The part I really want to read is that he claims to have “decoded” Lucy Smiths record and found a cleverly disguised confession to the whole scam. I really want to see how he comes up with that…..I know…it would stretch credibility but I do like the occasional Weekly World News article…..Who knows…maybe Cher did have bigfoots baby…SamBee has a picture as his avatar

[johnh]

church0333 wrote:

My wife and I got some icecream the other night. She order moca icecream and I teased her for breaking the WOW and she smiled and said that icecream is not a hot drink. I love her.

that was just a nice thing to read. Egad but I am getting maudlin in my old age

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[johnh]

Wow…amazing thread.

I this comes up a lot in the disenfranchised lds space. I think it is our inner teenager coming out asking all the questions repressed Mormons are afraid to ask.

In the few open conversations I have had most have agreed on a few things.

1 porn can be addicting. Most users worried they were addicted while they were tbms. Most used it as an aid to masturbate. Most still had normal sex lives with spouse…this was just a balancing mechanism..

2 much shame and guilt came with porn use. Worry about how to stop the addiction tended to consume thoughts. White knuckle, then fall off the wagon. General use amount? 1 to 4 times a month.

3 after losing faith, most accepted occasional porn use as normal. Masturbation too..just don’t neglect your spouse…keep that relationship healthy. Generally it is a safety valve for when the real thing not convenient or possible.

4 once people lost the guilt and shame, must professed an immediate drop of of desire for porn and masturbation. Thinking about it, worrying, etc…dropped off or disappeared.

I found this to be the case in my own experience. Now that I don’t deem it as a deep moral flaw to worry about..I can say…nah…not really my thing.

I thought this really strange until reading up on it. Turns out the “shame cycle” is a know psych issue that the church pretty much builds on.

Apparently some lds mental experts are trying to get the church to reverse its previous stand on masturbation as it currently creates a lot of mental issues.

Now without the shame I personally can think about the women involved as people…without the compulsion my human side can say ” I don’t want to contribute to degrading women” and find it simple to walk away from images that are clearly demeaning. On the other hand I write enjoy looking at that hot little reporter in “house of cards” ….though she is not ever completely naked.

Church should teach principals and leave application to the people. God cars less about individual actions then our general direction. Have beer cwald…just don’t become an alcoholic..ok? Why? Because we love you man…don’t want to see you suffer through that and you are a nice guy who cares about others. A beer doesn’t stop you from doing good in the world…being an alcoholic probably will.

This make sense? Sorry for the ramble

Ps: nowadays I stay up late reading church related discussions on the internet! That’s more embarrassing than porn! At least people see the attraction to porn.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[johnh]

Talking with a friend and his wife and she believes that’s what happens. How can God emphasize and fully understand without having been there? It’s a 70 year trip to earth enough to be a just God? She says multiple lives here in various genders is required. Gay people are near the end of their trips being this time ready to deal with being cast out and different.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[johnh]

Tempted to buy it. But my gut feeling is that it’s bogus. The few reviews sound a bit like infomercials. I mean if you want to make a few bucks seed some Mormon groups with fake reviews about your groundbreaking information.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[johnh]

I still remember how strongly I felt the spirit as I read the last battle as a teenager. I really wanted it to be real…enough so that the right charismatic leader might have got me to follow him/her

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[johnh]

Roy….thanks for your summary thoughts…love it when others figure out what I was trying to think for me :clap:

[johnh]

Wow…can’t think it through eh? Didn’t say they were the same. The point is that everyone has a religious belief of some type. So let’s say this…everyone also has a brain so brains cause all war. The fact that everyone has downing common has no direct correlation with the evil they do. Most conscripts in war fight because they are pressed into the service.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[johnh]

Funny thing is the BofA got me into this crisis and now it is one of the smallest issues

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[johnh]

Stalin starve 20 million for communism…puts the ideology folks way ahead. Add Chairman Mao and Pol Pot and it will take a while for the religions to catch up on the slaughter scale.

Hitler…he did not use religion as a basis for the jews. If you are going to somehow say the fact that “most wars are fought by people who were raised in a religion” as some kind of pertinent fact then you might as well say “most wars were fought by people with shoes”.

Nearly everyone in modern history (lets just say 4000 years or so) have been associated with some type of religion (counting paganism and the ideas of Emperor/Gods)

[johnh]

Wow…talk about subject drift….

I think the “Most wars are about religion” is one of those knee jerk comments without merit…..now if you want to say most wars are about ideology then you would be accurate….

Religious wars: Crusades, Irish/Catholic conflict, Iran vs Iraq, Israel vs {insert arab country here}, a few other small conflicts.

Ideology: Chairman Mao’s little china uprising, Civil war, Revolutionary war, WW1, WW2, Gulf War 1 and 2, Vietnam, Korea, Serbs vs croats, Afghanistan vs Russia, USSR vs Europe, French Revolution, etc

[Author]

Posts