Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s possible that support for other languages needs to happen organically in other places rather than under the umbrella of existing English language communities. It’s not sustainable to expect translations, I think. Es posible que apoyo para otros idomas debe llegar a pasar naturalmente en otros lugares en vez de bajo la sombrilla de comunidades existentes de habla inglés. No es sostenible esperar que siempre haya traducciones, según yo.
On the other hand, maybe Google translations, Sí.
Candle, I think you did great at telling your story.
CandleLight25 wrote:He told me about the “leave it on the shelf” theory, in which I found little comfort.
Worst theory in the church, in my opinion. If nobody, literally nobody, in the church has a soul-satisfying answer to a question, and God hasn’t given it to you directly yet, better go look elsewhere until you get the answer. It would be dishonest and proud for me to claim “I don’t have a shelf.” But I sure don’t hope to have one. “Ask and you shall receive. Seek and you shall find. Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”
Regarding a mission, that is a real tough one. Are you strong enough to follow the revelations of God to you directly in spite of possible social and institutional consequences? It may be that you feel called to go on a mission with your eyes wide open, knowing that many missionaries and leaders succumb to the temptations of 1) looking at non-members as conquests, 2) using the tactics of the business world to sell the LDS Gospel, 3) considering the LDS Message uniquely essential for everybody on earth. If you can go out with a pure vision to serve Heaven and Humanity, to build bridges between the Latter-day Saints and the Other Saints, and take all the good that is out there and use it to build the Kingdom of God in your own heart, then I would wish you Godspeed, good Apostle Candle. Memorize the Sermon on the Mount and a few favorite Parables from Luke and enjoy your mission.
Is the United Order the same as Socialism? Well, really nothing is the same as anything else, so no, they aren’t the same. But as I read the definition of socialism and bring to my mind scriptures from Doctrine and Covenants, I am leaning toward saying that the United Order is a form of Christian Socialism. Utopia happens every once in a while, with increasing frequency, in my own heart and home. There the new heaven and the new earth appear, and the fallen state of things is left behind. There I let go of all things. There I demand no capital, no insurance, and no security. There I rest peacefully in the bosom of the Father.
In the big scheme of things, I agree with Brown and Ray. To me, personally, on the average day, the matter of offspring doesn’t really matter because of what Brown said. When, however, my Dad asked about it, it got me to thinking. I still may post a bunch of pertinent source quotes. Roy wrote:As much as I would love for us to all live nearby and hang out together, I could also see where this could reach a sort of critical mass where it really could become a problem for the local church leadership. Perhaps that is what makes the internet such a perfect medium for those that wish to “stay.” We can get support and encouragement to continue to meaningfully participate in the Church, but without the local critical mass that might tempt some to try to change the local church environment. It can be a delicate balance sometimes.
Roy, there is a lot of insight in your observation, I think.
Tom
SilentDawning wrote:Tom, how does getting rid of the money for the sake of getting rid of the money produce happiness? Wouldn’t getting rid of the money for the sake of self-actualization (being a selfless person) AND knowing your funds are being put to a productive use that is meaningful to you accomplish the same thing, but on an even grander scale? (By the way, I ask this question simply to understand your perspective, not to challenge it).
Well, I think you are pretty much in agreement with Jesus in what you are driving at in your proposition sentence. Where I see a potential pitfall is in my getting attached to the idea of accomplishing something with money. Jesus clearly said (assuming we have the record straight, and if we even care what he said) that 1) it doesn’t take money (the widow’s mite was the biggest gift), 2) it isn’t about the poor (his rebuke of Judas cranky gripes about the treasure spent on expensive ointment in an alabaster box), 3) if you sell all and give alms you will have eternal riches. My take away is that giving to the poor is commendable mainly because 1) they are very good at making money disappear and 2) it is slightly preferable to burning the money.
Again, the danger is in attachment. Am I attached to my possessions? Am I attached to the “strings” of my giving? Am I attached to “helping”? Am I attached to “results” and “stewardship”?
doubtingthomas wrote:James 1:27 states that pure religion is to help widows and orphans.”
Not to quibble, DT, but I think it’s significant that James doesn’t say help. IMHO, it’s about ministering/visiting (maybe even “serving”) and not about “helping”. This is easy to be misunderstood, so I’ll say in the same breath that we are condemned when we retain our goods from the widows and orphans.
SilentDawning wrote:… the rest of the world is out to keep us on the fringe and marginalized, in spite of our efforts.
I think this is a dangerous and paranoid idea that comes from a part of us we ought to examine closely.
SilentDawning wrote:I’m ruminating on your idea that you don’t have to necessarily believe in the restoration to be a member of our Church.
Right. You don’t have to believe in “the” restoration to be a member of our Church. But I think all spiritual people on earth believe in the principle of “restoration” and “revelation”. And to be a member of our Church, it helps to explore deeper meanings of “the” restoration. What are strengths and weaknesses of the LDS religion? How are they related to Joseph’s ministry? What did Joseph’s ministry bring to his associates and to himself (both good and bad)?
Old-Timer wrote:…I believe in tithing.
I absolutely would prefer that someone tithe for a good cause than that they not tithe at all – and I think someone who stops paying a tithe (or making some sort of significant, sacrificial donation) just because they no longer feel like supporting the LDS Church financially probably practiced the program of tithing without ever understanding and embracing and internalizing the principle and symbolism of tithing.
Ray, I agree with these sentiments about tithing. Obviously, I don’t have quite the appreciation you do for the “structural church”, but that’s okay too.
SilentDawning wrote:This would preclude me fom having a TR..
SD, I’m not sure why you feel that way, but I do believe it’s important to act with integrity. I continue to pay a generous tithe that is mostly directed away from the LDS Church. I share your admiration for the LDS welfare program efficiencies and your ambivalence about the strings that are attached. Sometimes LDS people (and people in general) have a hard time with “live and let live” or trusting the motives of others or “letting go and letting God.” The whole point is to get rid of the money, not to “maximize benefit” or to “help” others. So if somebody says he needs his rent paid, and I have 40,000 in savings, if I draw down my retirement fund to pay his rent, the kingdom of heaven is mine. Any time I draw down my retirement fund and give alms, the kingdom of Heaven is mine. That’s how it really works. That’s why, for me, the “structural church” has less value; it’s something that by nature resists being drawn down and given away.
My, are we older folks up early, George (though of course you are earlier and more “experienced” than I am)! At the rate SD is going, I am sure he will surpass me rapidly. I think I started here about three months after the forum began, so I’m a bit of a straggler. I found some information on this yesterday. I may paste some of the direct quotes. curt wrote:Destroys the idea that JS was some kind of lecher and could even account for Emma’s refusal to believe he practiced polygamy.
Actually, the historian consensus is that Emma knew about polygamy, witnesses some of the weddings, occasionally made peace with Joseph over it, and at other times was (appropriately, IMHO) was positively and vocally indignant with Joseph about it.
The public face of Emma was consistently one of denial. But Joseph and Hyrum and Brigham (and others) knew she knew.
To me, the most troubling aspect of polygamy/polyandry (off the topic of this thread) was that Joseph consistently lied about it through the entire ten years, and never repented. That’s not good religion.
For me, the right motive, on one level, is simply to let go. Beyond that, we could probably list “pure motives” at several levels. I’ll give it a first try: [list][*]God demands it. He will bless you if you pay and curse you if you don’t.[*]Do it as a means of sacrifice to bring the blessings of heaven.[*]Do it because you owe dues as a member of a church.[*]Do it because you believe in ungrasping and simplicity.[*]Do it because it will give you a better attitude about money.[*]Do it to affirm you can live on less.[*]Do it to force yourself to rely on the mercies of Heaven and the World.[*]Do it to weaken your reliance on false supports and hasten your awakening.[/list] I think any of these motives could be pure.
Cwald and Jwald, maximum respect. Possibly if you back away from the church for a time you won’t need the support of StayLDS. I hope you find nice spiritual upliftment and growth as “the gods” guide you. Maybe your LDS-ness can come later. You are okay. With love,
Tom
You are excused from that part of the discussion, then, I guess. 
Regarding DNA tests, I accept them, and it seems to me that even if there is a DNA match on one or two possible JS polygamy offspring, it still is very scant to account for 30 +/- marriages. Shouldn’t we see a handful of children at least? How many pregnancies did it take in those days to produce a grandchild? Maybe I need to go read In Sacred Loneliness.
Wikipedia lists five possible children, I see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr Abortion is a possibility, but birth control is less scandalous. Just to get everything on the table, we don’t have to stick to the extremes, we can cover everything on the spectrum too. What were contemporary attitudes and practices on birth control? Any Nauvoo stuff about that? But where abortion is concerned, I wish I had some sense of the general sensibilities of that day, and of Joseph Smith, regarding it.
Things just aren’t totally adding up for me about the whole polygamy/polyandry affair. And I’m wondering if there may be some sliver of data that somehow I have missed. I’ve read about John C. Bennet’s mention of abortion, but why nothing about birth control? And why no conclusive DNA tests or photographic resemblances to indicate children? Joseph wasn’t sterile, and neither were all his wives. What was life like back then? What was going on?
Should we maybe gather here the key original sources?
