trubludru

Members
  • Posts

    88
  • Joined

  • Last visited

trubludru's Achievements

  1. There is nothing that clearly connects modern geography with anyplace mentioned before the time of Noah in the Bible. Adam who lived for hundreds of years could have easily traveled the world several times over. Just because Noah and his descendants settled near the middle east doesn't mean that everyone prior to that lived there.
  2. Having worked for a company who has worked on church structures before, I can assure you that there is slim profit margins at least on the actual structure (concrete, steel) of the buildings. I don't think the inside finish is outrageously expensive for what the end product is which is very nice.
  3. Reading the story as it is written in the Bible, it doesn't imply masturbation. Onanism has been made into a euphemism for masturbation but that isn't what the story says happened. Er dies and Judah commands Onan to take Tamar as his wife to raise up seed in behalf of his deceased brother Er. Onan complies but it says when he went in unto his brother's wife (implying that Onan and Tamar have sexual relations) he spills his seed on the ground, lest he should give his brother (Er) seed. It seems Onan wants to enjoy having sexual relations with Tamar without the responsibility/burden of getting her pregnant and raising offspring that would be considered Er's children instead of his own. I presume that when the Lord is angered because of this it is because Onan is not fulfilling the responsibility he agreed to by taking Tamar as his wife, but is still trying to enjoy the benefits. Although the details are sparse so it is tough to know exactly what the situation was.
  4. I think the point is that we shouldn't be looking to find fault or discredit church leaders simply because of their personal opinions and experiences which lead them to say or do things that aren't totally correct from time to time. However, they doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that they do make mistakes in things they say or have personal opinions that we may mistake for doctrine. I think the key point in the quote from Elder Anderson I shared is that as a whole we can recognize the doctrine by what the Apostles preach as a whole. Despite things Brigham Young said that we may consider rascist in our time, I don't think he or the other leaders of his time devoted a large portion of their preaching about slavery or race. Wouldn't the truth be closer to that the topic came up from time to time and Brigham Young said things that were typical for his day and age that we can realize now were perhaps more opinion than doctrine? Now if Brigham Young mostly spent his time telling people that blacks were inferior or suffering from the curse of Cain rather than preaching about baptism, repentance, authority of the priesthood and the atonement, etc. then I think there might be a problem.
  5. :digowngrave: I am loath to jump into this fray...but I'd be cautious with this argument. What I infer from part of your argument is that you think the Prophets and Apostles are infallible in all of their thoughts and actions. Some of them may of well had some racist ideas or tendencies. Some of them have certainly had issues that led to excommunication (see Oliver Cowdery, Thomas B. Marsh, Matthias Cowley). Others have certainly mentioned that they were aware of their own faults and frailities (Mormon, Moroni). Elder Anderson said in the Nov 2012 Ensign that "A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men." (emphasis by me) I am not saying that the Prophets and Apostles aren't really good and righteous men or that we shouldn't respect and honor them. I just think sometimes they get put on the pedestal of being entirely perfect when we know they are not. Accoding to FAIR, Ezra Taft Benson seemed to be of the opinion that the Civil Rights Movement was a front for communism while Hugh B Brown greatly supported it as a good thing. They both made public statements supporting their opinion, which one was right? Is it possible that Ezra Taft Benson had personal opinions that may have influenced his perception of something else? Maybe Brigham Young sometimes had personal opinions that influenced his perceptions about race.
  6. What is that quote.....something along the lines of "Satan's biggest victory is convincing the world that he doesn't exist." I think he doesn't openly show himself largely because people won't fight against an enemy that doesn't exist. If there is no evil, then is there really good? Therefore you can do whatever you want and there are no real consequences, precisely what Satan wants people to think.
  7. Hmmm, interesting thoughts. I think there are some ramifications here that not everybody is considering, somewhat similar to the Equal Rights Amendment. It would seem to me that if the definition of marriage is changed from a man and a woman to include homosexual relationships then ultimately there would basically be no restriction on who could get "married" to who to receive any of the benefits of being in a marriage or it would be discriminatory. I think arguing that people will get married to animals is a bit of a strawman at this point....certainly there would be a few that would try....but not too many yet I hope. In the DOMA case, a lady is claiming she shouldn't have to pay estate taxes because she was the "wife" of her deceased "wife" and a wife doesn't have to pay estate taxes when receiving a husband's assets upon his death. So say somebody is married to somebody rich and the rich spouse dies. The surviving spouse could then perhaps "marry" one of their adult children so that when they die, their spouse/child would also inherit without paying estate taxes....that would be a pretty good loophole. Or maybe they could divorce and the "spouse" could get half the assets without paying the estate tax. I'm not sure what other things might happen, but it would certainly throw many of our financial laws into disarry.
  8. Their are still activities committees in singles wards, but they did remove them in family wards. And I agree, many of the singles I've met even starting around age 28 or 29 on up, tend to get a little stand offish and cynical about actual dating. But I think it is partly to protect themselves (you can only go through not being asked out or being rejected for so long before it starts to eat at you, or they have some unrealistic ideas like the perfect person is just going to come along without any effort on their part.
  9. Also, many seem to think God and church are the same thing. That is not true. There are a myriad of church programs, activities, and callings you could spend all your time on, that doesn't necessairily mean you doing what God wants you to be doing. You do have to find balance, yes family is important and should be a high priority, but there are also duties and responsibilites in the church that should be a high priority as well. It is a matter of finding the proper balance. Suppose there is a Gospel Doctrine teacher who is an older retired lady, I am sure she could spend hours and hours preparing for each lesson she teaches. But she has the time to. Does that mean that another ward member who also teaches Gospel Doctrine and is a mother with 4 young children should be spending the same amount of time preparing a lesson? No, clearly more of her time needs to be spent caring for her children. But hopefully she can find some time to prepare her lesson because she still has that responsibility, but clearly she probably wont be spending 6 hours preparing a lesson like the retired lady might be able to. I think the same applies to Priesthood leadership or really most callings in the church. An older brother serving in the Bishopric may have more time to spend in meetings or out visting because he doesn't have a family at home. But if there is a younger brother in the Bishopric, he is still going to be spending an awful lot of time on his calling but hopefully he would not be out doing visits or other things quite as often as the older brother. I am also of the opinion that God will bless those who try to both serve faithfully in the church and maintain a balance with their family. There is also the point of parents setting an example for children that serving the Lord thru various church callings is important so long as it doesn't become an excuse for ignoring other parts of your life.
  10. Er hem.....President Faust died in 2007. He became a member of the 1st Presidency in 1995.
  11. Hmm, I had a weird run in a few weeks back with this law; it seemed like a patrolwoman trying to make her quota but she couldn't pin anything legitimate on me, so I got off with a warning about this law. Conditions: dark, occasional very light patches of fog/mist and very light rain enough to make the road just a little damp. 4-lanes I think, moderate amount of traffic. Quite a few vehicles gettting on and off in right lane with some slower moving vehicles and semis in the center right, steady traffic in center left and relatively sparse left lane. Posted speed limit 65 mph. I was cruising along in the center left lane going probably 69-70 mph most of the time, (as were most other people, yep we were all speeding). Came to a bit of a bunch up of cars in the lane probably 5 or 6 cars long where there was a pickup at the front going about 65. So I decide to pass on the left and briefly hit 76-77 mph (which attracted the attention of the patrolwoman a couple of cars back in the center right lane) as I accelerate before settling back down to around 75 mph which is how fast some of the cars in the left lane seemed to be going. As I got near to clearing the pickup in the center lane, its driver realized that they were going a a little slow compared to everybody else and hit the gas speeding up to around how fast I was going at 75. The car behind the pickup didn't speed up as fast so I decide to ease off to about 70 and wait to change back to the center lane after the pickup moves ahead. Well the pickup decides to drop back down to around 70. So I hit the gas a little and get back up to about 73 and pickup speeds back up a little (probably out of reflex). So I sort of give up trying to pass it and decide to cruise along at around 70 in the left lane for a little bit. At this point there was a car in front of me about 6 car lengths going along about the same speed (70ish) and there is nobody right behind me so no big deal. Well after a minute or two a car moves in behind me (happened to be the patrolwoman but I didn't notice it was her right off) and gets what felt like right up behind me. So I am sort of looking to get over but there still isn't an opening and the car in front of me is still going along at about the same speed so I sort of figure oh well, I got a tailgater, I'll try and get over and I ease off probably to about 68 to try and let the pickup get ahead and so I can slide in behind it. So at that point the patrolwoman flips on her lights and pulls me over. She asks me why I got pulled over and I of course say I have no idea. She says, "Well I noticed you got up to around 77 which I thought was a little fast but then you slowed down to around 68, is that because you saw me?" I told her, "Well I had seen you a little earlier but I hadn't paid close attention to whether you were still over there on the right or had gotten off, I didn't know it was you behind me." Her:"Well, I pulled you over for blocking the left lane, you were only going 67 or 68." (Mind you the speed limit is 65 and while the conditions are not horrible they are not ideal) Me:"Ok, did you see that I was trying to pass that pickup and that he sped up when I got next to him, so slowed down a little bit to try and let him get ahead." Her:"You were blocking the passing lane, you should have moved out of it if you weren't going to pass him." Me:"I understand that, but it didn't seem like I was slowing anybody down and I didn't feel like there was a good opening to move back over." She runs my info and of course finds nothing. Her:"So I am going to give you a warning for blocking the left lane. It is for passing, if you aren't passing then you need to move out of it." Me (pretty sure in my thinking that she wanted to pull me over for speeding when she saw me go over 75 but it was only for a couple of seconds and she can't really prove exactly how fast I was going since she was a not right behind me and was a couple of lanes over when it happened and so I am not going to bring up going too fast for nighttime road conditions, with some wet spots and appropriate driving speeds and getting pulled over for going "too slow" despite being around 3 over the speed limit) :"Alright, I just want to clarify what I should have done in this situation; should I have slowed down even more to 65 since I couldn't get that pickup to let me by?" Her:"You just need to use the passing lane for passing." Me:"Ok, I just want to know what I should do if I try and pass someone and they speed up so I can't pass them." Her:"Just don't block the passing lane." Me (Not wanting to push my luck any further and seeing it is clear that she can't explain what I should have done differently): "Ok I'll try and be more careful about that in the future." It would be nice if traffic laws were enforced consistently, but I-15 in Utah, if you aren't going 5 over you are holding up traffic (often even if you are in the right lane). And you better be going at least 10 if not 15 over in the left lane. Of course I see the Highway Patrol often driving these same speeds even when they aren't pulling someone over. And now with a law about a lane, they have their choice, pull you over for speeding or for obstructing traffic (even if you are over the speed limit). Sounds like a good way to get some extra revenues. Obviously common sense and courtesy should dictate that you drive reasonable speeds and get out of the left lane if you are going slower and/or creating a backup, but why have speed limits if they ignored except when the police want to pull you over?
  12. I'm not sure you are grasping the purpose of sealings ordinances and covenants in general. Here are some of my thoughts to your issues. I'm glad you don't want to get married and sealed in the temple "just because," you should want to do it because you are worthy to and desire the blessings of a sealing covenant with a man who is worthy and also wants those blessing with you. And if you don't want that then please don't get sealed in the temple. But you should understand that your choices in this life have consequences. And ultimately you get what you choose. Some people don't want a temple marriage that is fine, but members of the church should understand that no marriage is binding or valid in heaven unless it is sealed by the Priesthood (read D&C132) That doesn't mean you can't have a happy marriage in this life or that you won't have happiness in whatever kingdom of glory you attain come judgment day, (and that could still be part of the celestial kingdom) but my understanding is that you will not have same opportunities and blessings as someone who has choosen to be sealed. There are certain blessings attached to ordinances and the covenants we make when performing those ordinances. When we get baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, we don't get an unconditional promise to have any sin we commit washed away and be entitled to have the Holy Ghost with us if choose to continually and deliberately sin. No we are promised to have our sins forgiven as we repent and take the Sacrament and we are promised the Holy Ghost as keep the commandments, take Christ's name upon us and always remember him. If we are faithful to those things, then we get the blessings. Same principle applies to covenants made when getting sealed.
  13. My thoughts on the matter, I don't think most people at school will notice or care whether or not your daughter is LDS. I don't imagine that she would have less opportunity for things like school orchestra or at other school functions or activiites. That being said, realistically, for many LDS church members in Utah a lot of social life can revolve around church functions and groups. So it is not unheard of for people and especially teenagers who are not part of the church to feel excluded to some degree by others in their neighborhood. Of course your daughter should be welcome to participate in church activities with local girls if she wanted to, and hopefully others will be friends with outside of church anyway, but it is just one of the things, where people may be unintentionally excluded. But it really just depends on the particular situation and area, hopefully you find a good neighborhood with good neighbors. Utah county probably has the highest density of Mormons in the urbanized part of Utah (the Wasatch Front) compared to Salt Lake, Davis, Weber counties etc. And in my opinion and many others I know in Utah, Utah county is known to have a unique culture even compared to the rest of Utah. Not saying that it is necessairily bad or anything, but I imagine it will be quite the change and cultureshock coming from a different part of the country.
  14. A couple of years ago I used to let a room in my house out to a friend before he got married. A source of friction was that he always seemed to be able to afford a nice smartphone but always struggled to pay rent. He didn't understand why I wasn't ok with him being behind on rent when he had a new phone that cost several hundred dollars with a bill that was probably at least $60 a month. There is a bit of a disconnect with some people as to what is affordable and important to have.
  15. I have generally good feelings about seminary and institute along with the instructors who teach them. They are generally well meaning, well studied individuals that can help others gain Gospel knowledge and perhaps help others strengthen theor testimonies. (I have a cousin that is a full time seminary teacher and I think he is a pretty good guy). I also fully enjoyed my experiences in the CES progams. The only hesitancy I get is that there are some members of the church that do regard the programs and instructors as infallible and seem to hold a certain extreme reverance towards them. I think these would be the type of people who I met as a college student that think if 1 institute class a semester is good, 2 must be much better and 3 will almost assuredly gain them a spot in the CK, and who would be prone to think others who don't share their zeal for Instutute as heathens. This to me seems to be the makings of a "Pharisee" (for lack of a better term) type class in the Church. I don't know that it is really a widespread problem in the church. But I see problems with placing undo importance on what CES instructors may teach peripherally in connection to a subject over the doctrines taught in the scriptures and by church leaders and officers set apart by the laying on of hands. Like I said though, I think generally CES is uplifting and a way to add to spirtual knowledge and testimony and that most CES instructors are good at teaching truth and not speculation or hearsay.