Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Roy wrote:
Maybe feeling the spirit has much more to do with humanity than divinity. There is still plenty that is wondrous, awe inspiring, lovely, virtuous, and praiseworthy about the human condition. Shall we not still seek after these things?
Yes, definitely.I think science will eventually show that all “spiritual” feelings are nothing more than the effects of brain chemicals. This will explain why depression and/or anti-depressants seem to mitigate the “Spirit” for some people. I believe the same reward centers would light up if people from all sorts of religions were put in that MRI machine – not by watching a First Vision, but by being exposed to material from their respective religion.
I believe science will eventually show that “spiritual” feelings are not significantly different from feelings I experienced when watching “Gladiator” and “Braveheart.”
This is sad to me.
Everyone, thank you so much for your comments and support. I was thinking last night about how my wife and kids will repeatedly hear references to a “worthy priesthood holder” and “eternal families” at church. I will be supplanted as the father figure in the family. I thought about my baby girl who will turn 8 next September.
I was visibly upset so my wife asked me what’s wrong. I told her I don’t want someone else to baptize our baby girl, but I’m not going to do it. I said our marriage just can’t work. She said we will plan on me moving out after the holidays. But we talked more later and decided I’ll say. Rough day.
DarkJedi wrote:In my ward they did the whole thing but the congregation joined in the last two verses. Not me, of course, I had a urgent restroom need that couldn’t wait until after the meeting.
🙂
I would have walked out too! I like your bathroom break idea.By the way, the kids sang that song in the Primary program a couple weeks ago. I was hoping they wouldn’t sing the second and fourth verses, and they ended up singing the first and third verses. Interesting. Maybe they just picked two verses to sing, or maybe someone said “Let’s skip those verses that bring up the Oath of Vengeance and Blood Atonent.” She replied:
Quote:We are singing the books of the New Testament in the tune of praise to the man. Would that be too upsetting? I understand if so. We’re just short staffed this Sunday, but I can find someone else!
Haha! I feel stupid. So I’m going to do it. I told her I don’t mind the tune. It’s an old Scottish tune I believe.Thanks for the response, DJ. I don’t think they really need my help, but I also don’t think they are trying to give me a job. Jane is cool.
It won’t be a regular thing. I already quit my calling and I definitely won’t miss out on any “fulfillment or edification.”
I just decided to send her this: “I would be happy to do it as long as the kids don’t sing Praise to the Man. I’m not comfortable with that song.”
This is also from the “Marriage” section of chapter 25 of Rough Stone Rolling:
Quote:We might expect that Joseph, the kind of dominant man who is thought to have strong libidinal urges, would betray his sexual drive in his talk and manner. Bred outside the rising genteel culture, he was not inhibited by Victorian prudery. But references to sexual pleasure are infrequent. Years later, William Law, Joseph’s counselor in the First Presidency, said he was shocked once to hear Joseph say one of his wives “afforded him great pleasure.” That report is one of the few, and
the fact that it shocked Law suggests such comments were infrequent.
Bushman left out something important. Here is a more complete quote from William Law taken fromThe Law Interview, Salt Lake Daily Tribune, 31 July 1887:
Quote:Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed. I told him it was horrible to talk like this.
The same man Bushman quotes to support the idea that “such comments were infrequent” actually said “Joseph was very free in his talk about his women.”Bushman does present a lot of problematic things, but he seems to excuse Joseph Smith too much and ultimately lead the reader toward belief. This is from the “Marriage” section of chapter 25 of Rough Stone Rolling: Quote:Before the marriage revelation, women were in the shadows in Joseph’s theology, implied but rarely recognized.
Now they moved to the center…. The marriage revelation redressed the balance of the political and the familial, shifting emphasis from the corporate to the personal. While
women gained by this shift, the revelation also relieved the loneliness and burden of male autonomy. Men would not become gods alone. Through the continuation of seed, husbands and wives passed by the angels and became gods together—and only together. Women—in partnership, not as individuals—were at last represented in Joseph’s theology…. The marriage revelation culminated the emergence of family theology.
More than any previous revelation, this one put family first…. The revelation was about bonding, not dominance; its concern was to preserve familyinto eternity.
He seems to argue that the revelation on polygamy somehow benefited women and made families stronger.By the way, I have Rough Stone Rolling in text format, so I can post any part of it if anyone is interested. I won’t post all of it, of course.
I recently realized that Rough Stone Rolling is an apologetic work. Bushman is just much more tactful than FAIR. a talk at Women’s Conference[/url] ![/size] Check out the References:
2. Hebrews 11:1, New International Version (1984).
3. 1 Corinthians 2:14, New International Version (2011).
12. Hebrews 11:6, New International Version (1984).
14. Deuteronomy 1:11, New International Version (2011).
After the talk about Joseph Smith (the third or fourth speaker), I had heard enough and went mountain biking to seek peace. I listened to Israel Kamakawiwo`ole during my drive. Check out my pics from Diamond Fork, Spanish Fork Canyon: Ray, I was studying the 19th century teachings regarding marriage and discovered Nelly and Abby. It summarizes many things that were taught and I found it very interesting so I decided to share it. It could be used when discussing current marriage issues. I imagine a conversion like this: Bob: I can’t believe gay people think they should have the right to get married. The Church will never get on board with that. They can suffer from same-sex attraction without acting on it. They just have to keep the law of chastity like everyone else and then they can be active in the Church and bla bla bla bla. Me: Well, Bob, I have come to the conclusion that the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people. Hence I see the wisdom of God in not tolerating any such system among the celestial worthies who are to be kings and queens unto God for ever. But dear friend, the great question is this—will we unite with the plurality Order of Ancient Patriarchs, or will we consent voluntarily to be doomed to eternal celibacy? Bob: WTH? Me: Oh, I was just saying what used to be taught about monogamy and polygamy. But I’m sure what is taught by the Church about gay marriage today will never change. What about from D&C 121:34-40? Quote:…the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we…exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man….
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
