Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The fact that there are dinosaurs in the Manti Temple does not prove a belief in evolution. Creationists have no problem with dinosaurs. There is a great deal of myth about dinosaurs and creationists in the evolutionist camp. I think that when the true history of the world is known, the theory of evolution will rank as the greatest, most ridiculous fraud ever foisted on mankind. When you step back and think about it, the theory is laughably absurd.
I have yet to encounter an evolutionist who can explain how “natural selection” would have selected components to perform functions that did not yet exist and when those components provided no “advantage” because the function they would perform did not even exist yet. Or, try getting an evolutionist to explain how consciousness and sentience would have evolved. The story of the frog and the prince is more credible than evolution.
Well, if anyone thinks the Three Nephites and John the Revelator are myths, then they obviously don’t believe the scriptures or the accounts of latter-day apostles and others who have encountered the Three Nephites. If you take God and Satan out of the discussion, you have already lost the battle because you are ignoring the very real spiritual aspect of the issue. The “practical” arguments against early sexual activity, if approached from a purely secular standpoint, are subjective and can be pretty easily refuted. For example, one could make the point that if nature did not intend for pubescent 12-year-old girls to have sex, why are they pubescent? Furthermore, one could note, in previous eras it was considered normal and acceptable for young pubescent girls to marry and have children. Additionally, one could observe that many 12-year-old girls are more mature and wiser than some 18-year-old boys. So, from a purely secular point of view, one could make a credible case that pubescent 12-year-old girls should be allowed to explore sexual activity.
The statement seems perfectly sensible to me. As a constitutionalist, I have no problem with a state establishing a health care program for its citizens. Instead of the monstrosity of Obamacare, which is already costing far more than was advertised, we could have state-level programs tailored to the circumstances and dynamics of each state. Plus, as nearly everyone would admit, state-level programs are easier to fix or abolish than federal programs.
Heber13 wrote:I am not sure if the God of the Universe will require suffering to meet His justice or make things fair to all laborers of the vineyard.
I like to think the unrepentant will not have changed their hearts, making them miss out on the joy that comes by living righteously. And by missing out, there will be a suffering from what could have been. Symbolically, that suffering would be compared to the pain of pressure on the body enough to make it bleed out pores of skin.
Whichever interpretation works best for you, literal or symbolic, the message is similar….repenting and becoming more Christ-like is the end goal. I can respect mikegriffith’s view on it, and think it leads to the same type of lesson for us in this life.
In the verse under discussion, the Lord says that those who do not repent will have to suffer as he suffered. I just don’t see much wiggle room there. And I don’t think it’s that God will “require” suffering to satisfy the demands of justice but that the eternal laws of justice and agency will prohibit him from exempting the unrepentant person from suffering.
I take the verse at its word. I think Christ was trying to warn the unrepentant about the suffering they will have to endure if they do not change. I think the verse means what it says and says what it means. I further believe that there will, naturally, be degrees of suffering, since not everyone will have sinned to the same nature and amount. Some may suffer a little, while others will suffer a lot. The amount of suffering will be on a case-by-case basis. I think the evidence for the Book of Mormon’s historicity is far stronger than the evidence against it. Take the DNA case, for example. When you consider all the facts, that argument collapses as either irrelevant, overly speculative, or both.
https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence/Responding_to_critical_claims I think the easy answer to that question is that same-sex marriage is not valid marriage in God’s eyes and that therefore sexual activity in such relationships is immoral. And if someone believes that same-sex marriage is acceptable to God, then they are not only declining to accept official Church teaching on the subject but also disbelieving what the Bible says on the matter. In other words, this isn’t simply a matter of what the Church teaches but also what the Bible pretty clearly teaches on marriage and homosexuality.
<<< We recently had a YW Leader meeting to plan an activity on being a lady. Leaders were saying we needed to teach the girls to bend down properly so that men would not have view of their behinds. --because our men and YM find that to be sexual. Also how they shouldn't sit “Indian style” even in pants because it could be inviting. Those and other comments were made. I was boiling. >>> I think the advice that was given at that YW leader meeting is perfectly sound and reasonable, and I don’t think it implies that young men get a pass from their responsibility when it comes to modest conduct.
There was no reason for this sister to be boiling over the sensible counsel that was given. Apparently the bad experience that this sister had in her youth has distorted her view on the issue of modesty.
Teaching young women that bending and sitting improperly could be sexually stimulating to some young men does not mean that young men have no responsibility to control how they look at young women. Shall we say that young women can walk around in miniskirts and even bikinis because young men should not be looking at their chests and bottoms anyway? Of course not–that would be the opposite extreme of saying that it’s all up to young women when it comes to modesty and that therefore young men are free to leer at young women all they want.
We do not allow young men or men to go shirtless at church sporting events, even if they’re playing basketball or some other intense sport. Why? Because most women find the sight of a man’s bare chest to be sexually stimulating. This doesn’t mean that it’s all up to the men to practice modesty.
Young women certainly should be taught to bend and sit and dress modestly, and young men should be taught to righteously regulate how they look at young women. I am certain that everybody else at that YW leader meeting had this balanced approach in mind.
Roy wrote:mikegriffith1 wrote:Some “feminists” seek a middle way? I don’t think these women are “feminists.” Rather, I think they are women who have a misguided view of womanhood and of the Church. I’ve talked to a couple of these ladies, and both times the bottom line was they put their own wisdom over that of the prophet’s. When push came to shove, they were unwilling to acknowledge that the President of the Church is guided by revelation. And in both cases, women and the priesthood was not their only “issue” with the Church.
Am I to understand that women should seek understanding of “womanhood” from an elderly white male prophet???
I think your question says it all. Do you think God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ have a good understanding of womanhood? I think they do. In fact, I think their understanding far surpasses yours or mine.
In the end, it all boils down to your view of the Church: Is it led by a prophet of God or is it not?
I don’t know why my response was “fightin words” in some folks’ eyes. I related my personal experience with a couple so-called Mormon “feminists,” and I expressed my view about those women who presume to counsel the General Authorities. My experience has been that women who reject the current role that women play in the Church also have other issues with the Church.
Some “feminists” seek a middle way? I don’t think these women are “feminists.” Rather, I think they are women who have a misguided view of womanhood and of the Church. I’ve talked to a couple of these ladies, and both times the bottom line was they put their own wisdom over that of the prophet’s. When push came to shove, they were unwilling to acknowledge that the President of the Church is guided by revelation. And in both cases, women and the priesthood was not their only “issue” with the Church. I think the context makes it crystal clear that polygamy is permissible if God allows it. However one wants to micro-analyze the phrase “raise up seed,” the intended meaning is very clear: If God commands plural marriage, it is acceptable; otherwise, monogamy is the rule. Old-Timer wrote:Mike makes a good point.
The gnostic gospels are reasonable evidence. Although they aren’t conclusive, it’s hard to dismiss entirely how many of them mention Jesus being married.
Also, as a number of scholars have noted, if Jesus had not been married, his Jewish opponents would have made a very big deal over this. This would have been a prominent criticism of him, both during his ministry and after his death. The fact that no early Jewish critic ever suggested that Jesus was not married is revealing.
I disagree with the attacks on polygamy. I am not a polygamist and would not think of practicing it unless it were legalized and unless the Church then resumed the practice. But I do not believe that polygamy demeans marriage or women. The LDS women who practiced plural marriage with the proper spirit and attitude found it to be a wonderful blessing and very rewarding. [
Admin note: Some did; some didn’t. That is obvious from their own writings. In this forum, we don’t malign large groups of people who stayed in the Church under polygamy but viewed it as an Abrahamic test, for example, as not having “the proper spirit and attitude”. Generally speaking, we try to avoid judging other people’s worthiness or faithfulness, even as we discuss some situations and cases that require us to explain our sincere perspectives about those things. Sweeping generalities tend to be removed, but I am leaving this one in place so all new participants can be reminded of our practice here.] Given how reluctant Joseph Smith was to tell others that the Lord had revealed to him the doctrine of plural marriage, I think the idea that that he simply made up the practice in an overzealous effort to restore the primitive faith is implausible and illogical. The doctrine ran against everything he had ever been taught about marriage and morality. But he knew it came from God, and as he pondered and studied the matter he came to see the scriptural case for the doctrine.
