Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Roy wrote:
Pro Satan: An aunt relayed to me that her family had a number of challenges that caused trouble and discord in the marriage. A short time later thay discovered that my Uncle was being called to an important calling. They decided that Satan was trying to keep them from this important responsibility.
So, Satan has the gift of prophecy where he can see into the immediate future and know what callings good people are going to get and strives to derail that to serve his on purpose and to oppose God’s? Why would God grant Satan a gift like prophecy? Or how could Satan take that gift under his own power to use for evil purposes where God supposedly gives the gift of prophecy to his righteous children to aid them in making his purposes unfold? It doesn’t make sense to me. I believe Satan is a construct to serve a specified purpose within a mythos just as other stories that have been created and maintained over time to serve narrative purposes to influence the story recipient to act or believe a specified way that the teller desires. That is just my opinion.
Does wearing or not wearing a pair of underwear with symbols on them make me or not make me a good person? If I don’t wear the symbolic clothing, does that make me a bad or unworthy person, excluded from grace or a higher degree of happiness? I have a hard time believing this. I agree with what the symbols represent in of themselves and to each of us as a person trying to be a good or better person. I just don’t know that my not wearing them on my underwear reminds me enough to change my behavior unless I am on the cusp of engaging in immoral behavior (read adultery or fornication) and I have to go through the “reminders” to commit the improper act. Otherwise, I think my desire to be a “good” person is just as strong if I don’t feel a piece of clothing against my skin that is supposed to make me remember to be “good” all the time by virtue of my wearing it but only seeing it when I get dressed or undressed. Is my promise or personal commitment to be good not as strong if I don’t wear the articles of clothing defined by my religion to show an outward-yet-inward display of my faithfulness? Interesting questions to ponder.
Forgotten_Charity wrote:Believe it or not people as a whole are growing more intelligent by about 3% per ten years.
I question who and how this is quantified? Source?
When it comes to temple recommends, I think it used to be the principle of the thing that made it desirable for everyone to have one whether they had a temple that they could attend or not. For the longest time, there were only a few temples around the globe and most members would want to qualify for a temple recommend despite the fact that they couldn’t actually attendthe temple except once in their life having saved up for a temple excursion like able-bodied Muslims do in making their one haji to Mecca once in their lives. Now that temples are much more accessible for the average church member, having a recommend is perhaps more practical than it used to be since many more members (I know, not ALL) can actually use their recommend now. But still, I think it has become a cultural thing for everyone to have a recommend (considering they didn’t even EXIST in J.S.’s day) and is not found in scripture that everyone should have one regardless of their ability to attend or not. rebeccad wrote:We had a planning meeting this week, and several things have changed from the email that was sent out. They couldn’t get permission to do lots of stuff.
So we are camping in the same place every night, and just doing out and back loops for the handcarting.
The camping location is near a lake that is a popular beach hang-out, half the walking will be on asphalt, and some of it through residential neighborhoods.
šÆ The youth were told to bring swimming suits.
This is going to be a strange trek.
Begs the question of why even incorporate aspects of “trek” when not doing “trek?” What’s the point?
Just to reinforce what I was talking about in my previous post, KSL posted this article today entitled “ Mormon Malian presidential candidate becomes modern pioneer.” http://www.ksl.com/?sid=26125173&nid=757&title=mormon-malian-presidential-candidate-becomes-modern-pioneer&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-13 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.ksl.com/?sid=26125173&nid=757&title=mormon-malian-presidential-candidate-becomes-modern-pioneer&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-13 It starts off like this:
Quote:SALT LAKE CITY ā As we approach the 24th of July and reflect on the intrepidity of our ancestors, it is worth considering the bold journey of a modern pioneer ā Malian presidential candidate Niankoro Yeah Samake.
Not only is Samake Mali’s first LDS presidential candidate, he is Mali’s only LDS member (aside from his wife and two children). The starkness of this singularity cannot be overstated. In a nation where an estimated 95 percent of the population is Muslim, Christians in general raise eyebrows.
More remarkably still, Samake has a fighting chance in this Sunday’s election. A recent informal poll conducted by Jeune Afrique placed the 44-year-old candidate in third of 28 candidates with 17% of the vote. At a time when Mali has been ravaged by corruption, a coup and a territorial takeover by Islamist militants, Samake’s experience and vision offer a distinct opportunity for the nation’s recovery.
These are the kinds of pioneers I think we need to be emulating and recognizing for our youth, not just the handcart variety.
There is nothing wrong with honoring the past, but we also have a great future to look forward to.
Yes, the pioneers made sacrifices, both spiritual and physical, while crossing the plains. Yes, there are many stories that can teach us about perseverance, courage, faithfulness, obedience, and other positive attributes from the lives of those who had to experience this part of our history. But it seems to me that we Western United States Mormons see these events as something we want to keep passing on to the upcoming generations as if there aren’t other members and non-members who have equally encouraging stories from around the world to tell and lessons we can teach and learn from them as much as those few thousands who hauled their belongings in wagons and handcarts. In other words, does the teaching and providing a growing experience for our youth have to be through a contrived “trek” experience – aren’t there other ways to get good experiences into our youth for the messages of a modern world we want them to learn? Do we have to haul all our kids out into the Wyoming wilderness under a blazing sun with little food and water and make them physically uncomfortable to teach them important life-lessons to make them more faithful to the church? What about the members in non-Christian countries who still maintain their membership and their faith in the face of incredible opposition from friends, family, and strangers who persecute them for their decisions and their beliefs when it would be so easy to stop and give in to the peer pressure? Why must we visit 19th Century history to get a sense of how people respond to challenges in their environment and choose whether to stay or to leave in response to the difficulties they face? What if the “bloom where you are planted” doctrine had been in place in the 1840’s rather than “leave the world and come to Zion?” What if those pioneers had used their bravery to withstand persecution and build up the church and their families where they lived rather than leaving the boundaries of civilization to be able to live their religion (i.e. polygamy) in peace? There would be different stories to tell I think, just as there are stories today that we hear from G.A.’s in conference, talks in church, articles in church mag’s, etc. about people today who are examples of bravery and courage. Faith promoting rumors and stories from our “history” are not well standing the test of time as many of them are checked out and found to be lacking in truth or accuracy in some cases.
I just don’t see the efficacy of pointing our kids to one or two decades of a specific area of the world where these activities took place while at the same time great dedication and sacrifice was also taking place in Great Brittan, countries in Europe, and other places where one-by-one people would respond to the message of missionaries and sacrifice everything to go be with the “saints” in Zion. Does hauling a wooden handcart help teach our kids to be better members of a GLOBAL church, or just reinforce what great-great grandma and grandpa’s parents did when they came to Utah (what about all those who are members of the church now who had no connection with the pioneer migration and don’t feel the connection any more than a historical recreation of a Civil War battle or revolutionary war recreation on the East Coast that so many people there participate in just like a trek today)?
Trek and handcarts are “a” way to teach the youth. If there are better ways (someone suggested different kinds of youth conferences), shouldn’t those be pursued as well or more than something that is increasingly dated in growing in irrelevance in the being part of a global church with global challenges? That is the kind of activity I would like to see my kids be part of. They can get sunburned and water parched pretty much anywhere else, not just on a trek.
Personally, I see trek as being akin to stake road shows. The time will come where their efficacy will be questioned and finally dropped because the benefit they provide is not as real as the effort being put into them to make them happen.
rich wrote:You`ve set my brain off on a whole stream of culturally relative justifications now. I`ll ponder this some more when I go home for my tea tonight…
That just jogs a thought for me – why are the British so attached to tea? For most of Britain’s history, tea probably wasn’t available. But when we get to the East India Trading Company times in the Elizabethan era, then tea from the East would have been available for common consumption and the national desire for it increased based on exposure to it, but for those of you Britts out there, can you explain to the Yanks what is so incredibly desirable to the national consciousness in having a cup of tea “every” day for most all people? Sorry to go off topic – if this needs a different thread, I’ll be sure to make a new one. I don’t think this conversation will take more than one or two posts, however, if our friends across the pond are able to provide some food (or liquid) for thought on this question. Thanks!
I have been unsuccessful at searching the board on the following, but I’m wondering if anyone has found something that works: The garments are in evidence under peoples’ clothing and it is sometimes referred to as “the eternal smile” (because the cloth is in a semicircle under the neck and shows under some shirts). This is not as much an issue as the garment design has changed to more closely reflect standard undershirts for men that just go to the collar level. I have heard stories of members who do not wear garments who have felt discriminated against because other members feel that their not wearing their garments is evidence of apostasy or something wrong with the person. To get out from under condemnation without giving in to wearing a piece of clothing that has religious symbolism that the wearer may no longer feel comfortable with, I have heard that some people have found regular underclothes (undershirts, underwear) that simulate the appearance of the garment without committing the wearer to the religious significance if they are not up to that.
Has anyone found any regular undergarments that fill the role of the garment without the baggage that comes with wearing symbols that may not be part of one’s faith anymore?
I find the tops and bottoms of the garment decently comfortable, but have a hard time knowing what else I could wear if I chose to that wouldn’t put me too far from the feel of the garment if I didn’t want to wear the garments themselves. Any shopping advice (could also help the OP possibly too)?
GodisLove wrote:I love Primary. . . I also don’t feel like I am indoctrinating.
Sorry, but I have a different opinion about primary and indoctrination. I look at the text for all of the primary songs and think there is a LOT of indoctrination going on that bubbles up in the “testimonies” that kids bear every fast sunday in my ward that goes exactly like this, word for word, and yet I don’t know of anyone who TELLS them to repeat this formula, so the kids must be getting it from the other kids:
“I’d like to bear my testimony. I know the church is true. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. I love my mom and dad. . . ” then some variation before the closing.
The formulas come from somewhere. Is this how missionary work is supposed to work too?
Brown wrote:Two: Nature plays a role here. It’s been proven that men are more visually stimulated by the opposite sex than women. It is the same reason pornography users are 97% male. We get turned on by simply looking at women and the more a women accentuates her body, the more we are drawn to look. Yes we can exercise self-control, and the vast majority of men do, but nature is nature.
I wonder how
globallytrue this is. In “Western” culture, men are very visual and the appearance of women is accentuated by certain articles of clothing or items that will make a woman more visually desirable to men during the years that she is interested in this kind of attention. Other parts of the world (Central Africa, Islamic countries, possibly parts of China or other parts of Asia) are not necessarily so focused on the visual aspect in their search for a mate perhaps because it is not emphasized as much as it is in our culture. I haven’t seen studies pertaining to this, but I don’t think a blanket statement that “men” are visual in a sexual sense is a necessarily defensible statement. It is just what we see around us in the areas that we live in. Would it be appropriate to put remarks that appeared in another thread here from what the current pope was telling catholics that Jesus died even to save the athiests and they should be loved too as well as the saved in “the church?” If this is the case, this type of belief lends itself to a more “family friendly” and “ peopleare good people” frame of reference that everyone can build on, even secularists and evangelists, TBM’s and ex-mo’s, to see “PEOPLE” as the focus of what is good, no matter what flavor or packaging they come in from different religions, cultures, or countries around the world. SilentDawning wrote:…like when BY said “any two people can have a successful marriage provided they live the gospel”. If you want to white knuckle your way to a marriage that simply doesn’t dissolve, and descends into toleration — then take BY’s advice.
Considering at the time of BY polygamy would have been fairly common, perhaps it would have been a more accurate quote to have him say then “any two-through-twenty people can have a successful marriage provided they live the gospel [and judiciously rearrange facts that would lead the law enforcement officials to conclude that there was a multiple-spouse marriage going on]!”
šÆ š I remember in the 80’s when the instructions coming over the pulpit were “every member a missionary” and “every young man should prepare himself to serve a mission.” Over time, that emphasis has changed and there is less pressure on “EVERY” young man to serve a mission. Unfortunately, I can’t say that there is “no” pressure from the church, parents, families, or friends for every young man to get ready to serve whether it is a good idea for him or not for personal, emotional, maturity or physical reasons, but it seems there has been some progress from the way it was before when I was a young man hearing those expectations. Unless there is a severe regression that would affect the young men as well, I don’t think the young women will experience the same kind of pressure to serve a mission as historically the young men have had to endure. Just my opinion.
