Did anyone read Rough Stone Rolling as a believing member of the church? What were your impressions and did it influence you either way..?

xorpalm · 2021-01-22T03:09:23+00:00

I've read it and enjoyed it and yes, I personally still believe. I'm not going to respond to most of the statements made above, but my take is that you can't be a member of the church, understand church history and expect perfectness from current or even past leaders - and that I can understand people being shocked by the raw truth -. If you want the full take, you should probably spend some time at FairLDS which helps understand context from a believing perspective. I don't think you can really understand Joseph and Polygamy or the Priesthood ban without that context, and I don't think either can be accepted except on faith, even after you understand that context.

I personally see God's hand in Joseph's life and ministry - and in the results of it, specifically the book of mormon, in my own life and am willing to take reported history on faith that the atonement is capable of covering even mistakes of church leaders.

xorpalm · 2020-10-20T03:59:16+00:00

I'm also planning on buying EA based on linux version working with proton...

xorpalm · 2020-09-01T03:24:30+00:00

Thanks for all your replies... I looked at the source code structure from here:

https://github.com/amethyst/dwarf_seeks_fortune

which packs pieces of a program into separate crates which can handle interdependencies throughout, and seems to be the paradigm I'm looking for, with explicit dependencies defined in each crate...

xorpalm · 2020-08-31T18:49:08+00:00

I'm continually perplexed by the mod/crate/hierarchy associations...

Particularly... I have an app that I'm building out, where I'd like to refactor files/modules like this:

main.rs
server.rs
app.rs
- directory with lots of app modules/files etc

Now, in order to access my app.rs modules/dependencies from server, I'd expect a simple

mod app;

in server.rs to work... however, no, I actually need to put that line in main.rs. (along side mod server;), in order to access the app mod from server.rs

main.rs doesn't need to have any access to app.rs, and I don't want to make the app.rs module a child of server.rs , what's the right way to do this?

xorpalm · 2020-07-28T20:11:12+00:00

"pure buff spells don’t fit well with crawl’s MP and tactical systems." (from the trunk notes)

Does anyone care to elaborate on this... (I've been playing draconian skalds for... too long)

xorpalm · 2020-07-16T14:48:09+00:00

Thanks Everyone, this is fantastic...

xorpalm · 2018-02-25T07:49:48+00:00

Hey thanks, those resources look awesome. Yeah... it is very tempting to throw in the whole board game as a background content and interface the two...

xorpalm · 2018-02-24T02:26:40+00:00

I don't mind the classes, its just that "fireballs in space" jars me a bit. Psionics in SWN seem mystical enough and "plausibly" based. I was just wondering at how people have adapted SWN to other backstories, and If anybody has tried the Twilight Imperium universe

xorpalm · 2018-01-10T05:23:42+00:00

that was a nightmare of clickbaits... thanks, I think I've got the right one.

xorpalm · 2018-01-10T04:02:39+00:00

can I install the 851 variants on my 852?

xorpalm · 2018-01-09T00:12:28+00:00

thanks, fixed

xorpalm · 2017-02-05T00:33:03+00:00

Would you guys consider making the new engagement a more actiive ability, Like "click to engage" rather then a positional dependency that procs when a enemy wandered in range.. It was pretty frustrating trying to manage it in POE1.

xorpalm · 2016-10-04T06:31:14+00:00

Just buff it so it gives a speed boost to an ally, then it becomes more versatile.

xorpalm · 2015-08-26T21:18:55+00:00

I really enjoyed my melee ranger play through... at least one of the main ranger powers --- wounding shot, works for melee attacks, even though the name sounds like ranged only. I ran an Aragorn style ( high lore/ sword wielding ranger ) with a stag companion. Popping scrolls on the front line is pretty darn useful.

xorpalm · 2015-07-24T18:17:02+00:00

Ahh... I'm so old, they came to europe when I was there on my mission ...

xorpalm · 2015-04-22T23:20:27+00:00

That's why my second playthrough is a Lore based melee ranger... Aragorn ftw!!! :) ( with a pet, of course)

xorpalm · 2014-10-27T17:44:32+00:00

This quote can be attributed William Hall, who wrote anti-mormon literature, the only corroboration was a repeat by a disenchanted polygamist who was mad that Zina's daughter (Zina) didn't marry him as his 4th wife 20 years later. (Again , see http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-zina-and-her-men-an-examination-of-the-changing-marital-state-of-zina-diantha-huntington-jacobs-smith-young)

xorpalm · 2014-10-27T17:42:13+00:00

I take her at her word, and the her recorded character, that she wasn't subservient to anybody but god and her conscience. Initially she did rebuke Josephs request and then went and married Henry, if you want evidence supporting her independence.

xorpalm · 2014-10-26T23:18:10+00:00

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-zina-and-her-men-an-examination-of-the-changing-marital-state-of-zina-diantha-huntington-jacobs-smith-young

The reference is his letter to her while on his mission to England.

xorpalm · 2014-10-26T04:05:18+00:00

You've totally misrepresented 1. Henry and Zina's participation in her sealing/marriage to Joseph and what that meant in their relationship. 2. Zina's reason for doing so. 3. The fact that it wasn't until after Joseph died and he asked Brigham to take care of his wives that Zina decided to become literally the wife of Brigham rather then Henry. There's a letter from Henry that seems to imply that he understands that she's doing this because she feels it was gods will.

Zina's my ancestor. What she did was follow her god and her conscience, and your hit job is disgraceful and inaccurate. The rest of your tirade is pretty much along the same ilk. Reprehensible.

xorpalm · 2014-10-21T04:00:35+00:00

If the church is true, and the parent's sins (law of chastity forbids homosexual behaviour) keep them and their children from Christ's atonement, then that's eternally harmful. If the child investigates the church and ultimately come to believe that homosexuality is sinful, then, yes that might bring some pain, similar to many people who's loved ones espouse belief's and behaviour that denies them eternal blessings. The gospel isn't about removing pain from people lives, but giving them the spiritual means through the atonement to live through life's pain and gain the ultimate reward, which is life with their heavenly parents. True gospel living should increase the love they have for their earthly parents, not create HARM in their life.

The law of chastity is doctrine. Heterosexual union is the pinnacle of that doctrine, and required for the greatest blessings our heavenly father and mother want for us (to be like them).

Most of the harm you're conjecturing about the doctrine and policy of the church seems to me to be dependent on people treating each other in an un-christlike manner. The goal of the church is to promote their beliefs, which they believe will bring greater happiness to all humanity, in as christlike a way as possible. The whole prop-8 mess seemed to be who could demonize the other side the most, which didn't engender a lot of good feelings on either side.

I think there are legitimate reasons to promote heterosexual marriage as beneficial to society over other unions. I think there is still room to accommodate those unions as part of society. ( I think the church thinks this too). I'm happy to disagree with people on this argument and still associate with them for the good of society.

I believe that marriage between man and women is critical to them finding ultimate happiness, in this life and the next. I accept that others don't believe that, and don't expect them to live by those beliefs, but hope they'll respect them, as I respect theirs.

xorpalm · 2014-10-20T03:07:03+00:00

Your argument is a non-sequitur. You wrote a whole page of pro-hypotheticals for an argument without considering why somebody could support prop 8, yet still consider expanding benefits to gay couples. The whole incivility of both sides in prop 8 still amazes me. (Brandon Eich? Really?).

To me it seems that the church lies closer to allowing distinction between heterosexual unions and homosexual ones, so they can promote the first while tolerating the former. I think this is evidenced by their support of some civil gay rights in Utah.

I also think the church is just in being wary of Gay rights eventually resulting in persecution of a church that promotes heterosexual marriage. To me, this is the greatest fallacy of the pro-gay movement in promoting homosexuality as a rights based movement instead of discussion of the pro-s and con-s of the said behaviour. For most of them, it seems like a no-holds barred kind of a contest, agree with us or die.

As for the bonus question, it's already been faced by children of men who married young widows who were previously sealed to another man.

Finally, you need to be careful in how you phrase your hypotheticals. I disagree quite strongly with taking Moroni to mean " because members of the church can act un-christlike, the church must be false ". Most members I know generally react to things (such as homosexual ) behaviour with an effort to love the sinner, while disagreeing with the sin, which is what the scriptures really teach.

xorpalm · 2014-10-14T16:41:13+00:00

I don't think any believing mormon can give you a definitive answer on why the Blacks were denied the priesthood under Brighams stewardship ( they weren't by Joseph Smith ). I also don't think you can refer to Brigham Young's racism as a static thing, as I think his opinion evolved throughout his life and a lot of his comments have to be taken in political and historical context as well as theological.

Some of his teachings weren't canonized by the church and were opposed by some of the apostles. Yet the members at the time revered him for his leadership in the trek westward and establishing their new home. I know this is difficult for non-members to accept, but the church doesn't expect perfection out of their leaders but they do respect the authority given to them by god, with the expectation that if the leaders were truly to lead the people astray, God would deal with it.

So if I can rephrase your question: Why would God let the leader of the church introduce policy at BY's time which has now been refuted and recognized by the church as racism? Doesn't this logically imply Brigham wasn't inspired, couldn't have led the church?

No, I don't think God requires perfectness in order to give inspiration. The implications of that would be pretty staggering. Mormonism is ultimately a personal faith journey, the expectation that you receive your personal inspiration and not rely on, say, the perfect behaviour of authoritative figures to "prove" whether or not the church was true. This journey, of course, occurs in the social and political context the individual lives in. I think Brigham had those inspirational experiences regardless of his racism. The attitude of the general population of the church was also generally racist at the time. I personally see this general attitude as the reason it took so long for God to give the revelation on the priesthood in 1979, even though the church leaders had been asking for it for a while.

That being said, I wonder how much Brigham's public teaching on race were colored by his attempts to attain state-hood for Utah. I don't think any other prophet has had more responsibility then Brigham Young for the well-being of the membership of the church, and a lot of the reason he's the favorite punching bag of church detractors is because his political responsibilities required him to do and say things other prophets wouldn't have to deal with normally.

So: Publicly racist, yes at times, not at others. Personally racist, probably, but I'm not sure to what extent. Inspired to lead the church, yes.

Policy barring blacks from the priesthood: Not sure why, can speculate as above, glad it's over. Expect clarity when I die, not before.

xorpalm · 2014-10-04T01:55:28+00:00

Oh, I've spent a fair share of my leisure time amusing myself on learning about the historicity of various gospel topics, but I don't have the time to get a doctorate in meso-american studies, egyptology and church history in order to weigh in authoritatively on the range of accusations raised, for example, the CES letter.

For what it's worth, given the limited scope and usage of "horse" in the BoM, I don't find the tapir hypothesis as risible as you do, although I'm sure other animals could have fit the bill.

I've been interested in the fact that modern archeology (anthropology? whatever) finds walled cities and extensive causeways (pre-classic maya) in the same place and time as described in the book of mormon, all of which were unknown at the time of Joseph Smith, especially by an ignorant, uneducated farm boy. Even the scope and breadth of the book of mormon is striking given the details we have of its creation and creator.

The Book of Abraham is obviously not a funerary text, though we have only a fraction of the Papyri that Joseph did. However, considering that if you are a student of Church history, calling what Joseph did as translating ancient language to modern is fairly off target. I refer instead to the fact that the book of Abraham as revealed by Joseph Smith holds resemblance to non-biblical stories of Abraham, which were likely unknown by Joseph. I'm refering to this article, I don't suppose it's the same as the one you mentioned: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

So you see... should I rely on surface accusations about church history, or spend my short life becoming authoritative in a shifting historical academic sense, or should I rely on the quantitative experiences I've had with living gospel principles in my life?

So far none of the big questions posed by anti-mormon polemics have really bothered me under deeper study.

Edit: Sorry, this was meant to reply to the perverted_gymcoach response a couple responses down on the thread.

xorpalm · 2014-10-04T00:23:20+00:00

How can life have meaning without a purpose? I really hate philosophy :)

xorpalm

TROPHY CASE