Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hmm I don’t think stating that the reasons for the ban were unknown is totally honest. It begs the question, what else is done for uncertain reasons?
Canucknuckle wrote:I’m sure at least 1/3 were repeats, if not more. In regards to the fast, our Bishop sent out an email to the ward last week so maybe it’s just a stake thing (unless you are in the Calgary West stake, then it must be a ward thing).
It has been interesting to hear from my in-laws who live in the Edmonton region. Apparently a number of saints in the north are disappointed/bitter that their temple doesn’t have the same high level of decour (i.e. a room with a mural, sealing rooms with 12ft stained glass windows, etc) as the Calgary temple. Having lived in both Edmonton and Calgary, this whole intercity rivalry is just ridiculous.
Well, sorry to resurrect an old thread, but Edmonton’s temple is a product of the McTemple building spree. I guess people get wound up on the optics. It still serves the same purpose. The buildings I have attended on the last ten years aren’t lookers either. Poor design, crummy HVAC, stained burlap walls. But I’ve also had church meetings in places that had no building, so we met in a rented hall or someone’s living room. I think it helped me to understand that church isn’t buildings and humongous conference centers, reams of manuals and all that stuff, it is the people, the community.
I was a little embarrassed hearing the missionaries shrug off comments on how much money the church spent on the temple during the open house. The visitors would comment that such a vast amount of money would really help the poor.
The missionaries would say something like: yeah it is a lot of money, but that is how we show our dedication to God.
Roy wrote:But isn’t it interesting how quickly we change our perceptions of God to fit with our current practices. When the church was practicing polygamy – Jesus, Elohim, and the pre-mortal Adam, suddenly were all polygamists. We seem to crave to worship something that is similar to ourselves. Something that can be familiar in some ways and understand us more fully. Someone had the tag line that if triangles worshipped God – he would be described as triangular. I believe that is the true strength of the HM, to give women and others that are seeking a more feminine/maternal divinity an option to express that yearning.
Absolutely. Read the church’s bible stories book to your kids, and suddenly everyone in it is a Mormon. In movies and comic books they call it retcon, or retroactive continuity.
As humans we have to personalize and humanize the stories to find justification and something we can relate to. As Carl Sagan said, a god that is limited to the sum of the forces and laws of nature is not emotionally satisfying. It is more difficult for Mormons, who personify God as basically a Zeus figure, as opposed to those who feel God is a cloud or a presence, to not try and categorize him as being like all the other ideal Mormons. Married with children.
The idea of God as single parent for example, is probably repugnant to many. Contrast that with those that cannot relate to a male authority figure, to them, a strictly male God is unsatisfying and fundamentally flawed.
Ray, I do agree with you, and I think the Temple makes a vague emphasis to your point. Adam and Eve are the human race. The same approach can be taken with God or the council of gods, a simpler term to represent a more complex idea. Much like the symbol for infinity.
Unfortunate for most, the concept of Heavenly Mother falls into the category of: I don’t think we teach it, I don’t think we emphasize it. No one is going to talk about it at GC. Whatever the truth of the matter is, I think we do yearn for a connection, a counterbalance to God the Father, and it drives curiosity and debate, such as this, and others such as wondering if Jesus had a wife, (or wives, as some would support) and what is her status now.
Well, the story doesn’t have Adam hanging out with Eve, Bernadette, LaFonda, and Julie. He only gets one wife to set the example. Lilith notwithstanding. I do not feel polygamy is a principle that has any merit, godly or earthly.
The family proclamation states that we are created in the image of God and are the spirit children of heavenly parents. It indicates nothing that there is a female parent. It also states that our spirits are eternal, so I don’t know why we needed to be created if we already existed.
I think the concept of a separate heavenly mother is a result of speculative and comforting theology. Maybe she exists, but she could be a plant for all we know. Also, consider that God never made a distinct statement of gender. ‘God’ could refer to both.
God created man in his image, male and female.
Isaiah 66:13 As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.
Along with other bible references that pop up, God as a mother hen, God as a mother eagle, God as a woman who held her tongue, but will not any more.
We are the ones who decided God is basically a cross between Zeus, Santa Claus, and Gandalf.
Rooibos tea, hot chocolate, throat coat tea, Henry Weinhard root beer, occasionally a red bull, home made vegetable juice. Red Bull does nothing though, as far as I can tell, other than taste a bit weird.
This to me is the style of inspiring music. If 1600’s English is the language of scripture, then this must be the voice of worship. http://http://youtu.be/Xu67Q10arlshttp://http://youtu.be/Xu67Q10arls” class=”bbcode_url”> I don’t know. I can’t imagine The Lord, were he here, donning a suit and walking up to doors saying: hi, I’d like to share a message with you about the Church of me. It just seems that in the ministry stories about Jesus, he didn’t go about soliciting followers, taking their information, hounding them, challenging them, committing them. He didn’t even baptize them. They followed merely because of his charisma and teachings, word of mouth, the fruits of his labours, the clarifications he gave to the law and questions.
The church is preoccupied with expanding, like there is some imperative that growth means success. Quality takes a back seat to quantity. Even baptismal services get out of hand, becoming overlong recruiting events rather than focusing on the person in white.
Strictly speaking, from a standpoint of business, all the extra missionaries in the world will not mean that there will be twice as many people willing to buy in. The market is not there.
They don’t need more missionaries, they need more people who will believe of their own accord that this church is worthwhile. That is done by being marketable, not relying on acceptable losses.
Medical advances are keeping people living longer too. Mind you, just breathing isn’t always living. I think it would almost be an unfair curse to have a centenarian trying to act as prophet to the general body of the church, he would probably feel very much like Bilbo, thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread. It would be an act of kindness to have emeritus apostles, who can go out with dignity, and not have to be held up at the pulpit as poor elder Wirthlin a while ago. cwald wrote:Gerald wrote:Frankly, I’d prefer the Young Men’s program in the Church to de-emphasize scouting and focus on other things. Agreed.
Or, to actually do Scouting, not some halfway, mutant, convoluted, needlessly complicated interpretation, of it, where Eagle/Chief scout awards are just expected by the parents, like priesthood advancement.
The boys are supposed to really work at it, doing self-driven self-improvement projects and loads of community service, not get it because they are turning 14 and stacked some chairs at stake conference.
As far as the LGBT issue, I think it flies in the face of the principles of scouting to exclude their worthwhile contributions. I don’t think most gays are out trying to convert other people to be like them, unlike some other group I can think of.
I was referring to the emphasis to procreate. Was that part of a temple sealing the same back then, and if so, it might shed some light on the issue of whether or not the marriages had sexual relations. Perhaps the time frame is incorrect. Was the sealing ordinance the same as it is now? If so, surely a prophet would have a resolute and unyielding need to have marital relations. Good responses. I was wondering if anyone had some obscure quote or snippet of doctrine on hand to approach the subject. If temple work goes on for another few hundred years, I imagine things will be quite different than they are now, as available records of the deceased will eventually trail off at some point.
But hopefully they have made new films of the temple drama by then.
I reference to the Sacrament prayer, I was referring to the exact same stresses, tense, and emphasis on the syllables. It always sounds the same, like reading lines. It’s only the wording that needs to be rote, not the expression, other than being reverent. We focus so much on doing it right, and less on the meaning. Wait here, stand there, right hand.
I await a bishop who says: do it again, with feeling.
