Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bluebell

  1. Definitely. The point wasn’t that the church couldn’t have saved it if they had wanted to, only that they left it in the hands of the DN to keep it if they wanted. Those aren’t the actions of a group of people trying to stop the almanac from being printed in the DN. Every indication seems to be that church leadership was neutral. They did not do anything to keep the almanac in print but they also didn’t do anything to stop it from being printed.
  2. I used to live in the Billings MT temple district (1 1/2 hours away from the temple) and it was nothing like going to the temple here. It was rarely busy, and typically only ever so on Saturdays. When we were in the Bismarck ND temple district you could pretty much have the run of the place whenever you wanted. The only place I’ve ever had a similar experience with temple business like Utah was in Idaho. It takes about 25 minutes to get to the Bountiful temple from where I live but if you go at the right time of day it’s not usually worse than that, thankfully. But I'm very thankful to live somewhere where the temple is close. 😊
  3. Number 1 is the only quote that is kind of relevant, but still isn't all that relevant. BH Roberts isn't calling orthodox Christians pagan, he is only referring to their doctrine (which I'm guessing he means the doctrine of the Trinity). Number 2 does not say anything about the members of those Christian churches, and numbers 3-5 are actively taught against in the church (McConkie even got reprimanded for trying to pass them off as official church doctrine when they weren't, which I'm guessing you are aware of since you've been a member for so long).
  4. True, however I think only one of those possibilities actually has evidence to back it up. I think the fact that the DN would have continued to print it if someone had taken the job actively disproves the argument that church leadership didn't want the data publicly available. If Scott had taken the job, it would have continued to be printed. It was Scott, not the church leadership, that made the difference. If the church had not wanted the data to be publicly available anymore, then Scott would not have been the deciding factor.
  5. What if the church didn't care one way or the other if the almanac continued to be printed? Have you considered that possibility or is 'they did not want it to be printed' the only reasonable interpretation of these events in your view? From my perspective, I don't think we can say that because the church didn't step in to pay for the almanac then that means they didn't want it to be printed. That seems like an assumption that is not well supported. However, I think we do have support for the idea that the church didn't care either way and let DN do whatever they thought best with it. This is supported by two things: The DN was going to try to keep printing it and offered that job to Scott (and the church did not intervene in that-which shows that they were fine if it continued to be printed) The DN could not find anyone who would take on the job (and the church did not intervene in that-which shows they were fine if it stopped being printed) Your argument seems to be that the evidence we have clearly shows that the church had a negative feeling about the almanac's continued presence (otherwise they would have saved it) but from my perspective, the evidence shows that the church was neutral on the topic (which is why they did not nothing to stop it and also nothing to save it).
  6. It's going to be a little crazy. Our temple is the Bountiful Temple and last month both the SLC and the Ogden temple was closed for a while and oh my goodness, it was a mad house. Patron's were parking in the driving lanes in the temple parking lot and it took us 3 1/2 hours for 6 kids from our youth program to get to do 2 names each for baptisms. We walked out the door at 9:45 PM and there were still people in the waiting room for the baptistry waiting to get in so they could wait some more in the baptistry. The workers were running ragged but were dedicated to getting in every single person in who had come, regardless of how late they had to stay open.
  7. I saw that. I loved how he said "Is that the first mistake I've made today?" (or something to that effect). I wonder how this is going to affect temple square missions?
  8. I watched the first 20ish minutes, exciting stuff! I was so confused about why we were talking about the renovations if they weren't going to be started until December 2029.
  9. Maybe it only get's applied to one country because only one country actually has the term "of America" as a part of its official name?
  10. Pres. Hinckley never said you couldn't, which was my point. He wasn't making a false distinction, you are just misunderstanding what he was saying. Whether or not you like or agree with the answer does mean it wasn't answered. I think that's also where you are getting hung up. I disagree (and your analogy doesn't make your point, from my perspective). Perhaps on this issue it's time to agree to disagree. I'm not sure what you are saying exactly. It sounds like you are saying "I don't agree with Hinckley so there is no reason that LDS shouldn't be using the Cross as a symbol too." If that is what you are saying, then that's fine, we all have our opinions, but it is just an opinion and I don't find it convincing or relevant to my views as a member. If you are saying something else, I'm going to need you to clarify because I'm missing the point, sorry. Yes, it definitely could, but we choose not to. It is a part of the story, just not the part that we choose to focus on. We choose to focus on the living Christ more than the crucified Christ. We understand that the crucified and dying Christ are very much a HUGE part of our theology and doctrine, but we still choose to focus on the resurrected Christ. We understand that a symbol doesn't have to represent the whole faith in order to be used, yet we still choose not to use the symbol of the cross in our worship. I understand your argument, I just don't find it convincing or relevant to Hinckley's point or our beliefs as members of the church. We see things differently and I'm o.k. with that.
  11. Yes, it’s in the Ensign May 2018 magazine (the conference edition is always in May, not April). It’s also available on the gospel library but you have to be looking In the Ensign, not using the GC short cut.
  12. How can we tell? They stopped reading it in conference in April 2018 and said it would be in the Ensign. This is the first April since then and the Ensign conference edition hasn't been released yet, has it?
  13. What does it mean to be a part of the body of Christ? Where can I find the definition of that term? For the bolded part, I use the dictionary to define what a Christian is, and see it as anyone who professes to believe in Christ. There is no checking out someone's morality or how they feel about the trinity or whether or not they are actually a gang member running drugs, etc. It's a simple dictionary definition and applies to everyone who falls into that dictionary definition. But it's harder for me to even try to define who is or isn't a part of the body of Christ because I'm not sure what definition of 'the body of Christ' you are using. That one doesn't have a dictionary definition so it's automatically more complicated. Would a gang member who is running drugs across the border, but does believe in Christ, be a member of the body of Christ? I would probably say 'no' even though I would consider them to be Christian. Just like I would say that a member of the church who believed in Christ but was actively committing adultery and leading a ponzi scheme is a Christian but not a member of the body of Christ. How would you categorize a person like that? Christian? Body of Christ? For me it doesn't have anything to do with hesitating to be harsh.
  14. That could very well be. I'm 42 so while I remember well Pres. Hinckley's teachings on the subject, he is the only leader that I remember ever hearing even bring it up.
  15. Yes, no doubt they each, do to their different circumstances, cultures, and experiences, have different perspectives about the best way to teach about the Atonement. Because of it's use in history, religion, theology, and even pop culture, the cross is, in a lot of ways, a different symbol today than it was in Paul's day, and I think that Pres. Hinckley's view of it has been greatly informed by all of those things. I don't think either way of teaching about the Atonement is wrong.
  16. My friend from Mexico brought us Posole for dinner last night. Good stuff!
  17. Does everything need to be a conspiracy theory? This is all they said about the change so it's all we have to go off of. Anything else is just someone's guess based on their unsupported opinions. "We note that the statistical report which has traditionally been presented during this session of April general conference will now be published on LDS.org immediately following this meeting and will be included in the conference issue of the Church magazines." My personal guess based on unsupported opinion is that they didn't want to use up conference time with the statistical report anymore (like how they've been asking us not to use up sacrament meeting and class time with announcements that can easily be announced other places).
  18. Hinckley taught- “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.” Pres. Hinckley clearly said "for us" (meaning the church as a whole, especially pertaining to adorning our buildings or decorating with the cross because he was answering a question asked by a Pastor about why there were no crosses in a newly constructed temple) to view the cross this way. He acknowledges that others view the cross differently, and therefore because he is not saying that one cannot view the cross in many different ways he is not created any false distinction. That's obvious. Pres. Hinckley never said you couldn't. I think you might be looking for things to disagree with in his statement that aren't actually there. That we choose not to does not mean that it's not possible. Yep. There wasn't anything in depth about my points. It's basic stuff. We use different symbols than other Christian religions do and have chosen not to use the symbol of the cross. If you want to interpret that as a refusal to use the symbol of the cross in our worship of Christ that's fine, it doesn't really matter. I own his book, it's a good one. I have a degree in History and love that stuff and I agree that it's incredibly obvious that our history with protestants and catholics impacted our views of the use of crosses as a symbol of Christianity, no doubt. But our history does not generally impact how individual members view the use of the cross as a symbol of Christianity today. When you read the comments on the members on this thread about their personal feelings about the use of the cross, it becomes very apparent that the historical reasons are just that, history. They impact but they do not control our understanding of the cross today. (Per the bolded part is a good example of why your lack of understanding of LDS doctrine leads you to some erroneous conclusions about how we should feel about things. In LDS doctrine the resurrection is an integral part of the redemption. It is our doctrine that there is no redemption without the resurrection. And choosing not to integrate crosses into our worship does not mean that they are not welcome.)
  19. Lds doctrine is that the atonement occurred in the garden, on the cross, and in the tomb. 😊
  20. There is nothing in your words that I disagree with. Well put.
  21. It probably depends on how you look at it. While I wouldn't say those things are the symbols of our faith (no one in my family has a CTR ring or any symbols of the Angel Moroni as decoration and we're not unique), they actually do make sense as symbols of the living Christ from a certain perspective. Moroni is a symbol, placed on top of our temples, that denotes the blessings of eternity and specifically the second coming of Christ. "Choose the Right" is a symbol of following the resurrected Christ above all else.
  22. I'd be interested in hearing why you feel the article was so horrible, especially from the point of view of someone who has never been a member of the church and the article is on LDS understanding the concept of continuing revelation.
  23. Oh this is so true. This year's MET Gala theme was just horrible.
  24. I don't think we have to choose, but I do think that as humans it can be difficult to equally mourn Christ's death and celebrate His resurrection at the same time. One emotion seems to cancel out the other. I think that's probably why so many members do choose to focus on what they see as the final result of the Atonement rather than the entirety of it.
  • Create New...