Leaderboard

I see no reason to even think about "I never knew you" - first, it's clearly wrong, and second, Joseph Smith said it's supposed to be "ye never knew me". This leaves us with two primary points of focus: 1. The previous verse says they prophesied, cast out devils, and did many "wonderful works" in Christ's name. And yet Christ said they worked "iniquity". The faith-only Christians will wave this away with words about the characters having tried to work and earn their way into heaven and not having faith. But consider "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" - it has become common for folks to understand this not only as using God's name as a vulgarity, but also using it as a facade for evil, or using it without authority (that is, without permission, without having been called and ordained / set apart). The verses combined lend support to @Traveler's theory as to what the Lord meant. 2. Continuing with the JST rendering, how do scriptures tell us we come to know Christ? With variations on this theme: Whatever the folks were doing in Matthew 7:22, they weren't doing what Moroni 7:48 describes - this must be the case, or Christ is a liar, and we know Christ isn't a liar. "Ye never knew me" and "I never knew you" and "I never authorized you" (aka "you used my name in vain") all fit with Moroni 7:48 - they didn't pray, weren't filled with charity, weren't true followers of Christ, had not become the sons of God, were not like Him, and did not even see Him as He is (which is why they were like, "but wait, we did all these great things in your name, what do you mean, 'depart'?").

1. Sure. It’s just a question of how seriously they take the idea of temple covenants. 2. I [would like to] think that most mature, reasonably-well-adjusted LDS folks can reconcile the ideas that a) a lot of what passes for “happiness” outside of LDS circles, actually isn’t; b) people outside the LDS Church can nevertheless be genuinely pretty happy folks; and c) LDS covenants and precepts, properly lived and applied, nevertheless do offer a superior opportunity for sustainable stability and health and happiness to what is generally available outside of the Church. And while statements that “there’s no place for x here” is dangerously and probably overused as a general principle—I nevertheless feel reasonably comfortable in saying that there is no place for a sense of entitlement to a sexual relationship, in the LDS Church.

Looking at the passage: I think it's referring to people who say they believe in Christ but don't practice what he taught. If only those who enter into the kingdom of Heaven are those did the will of the father, surely "I never knew you" means something closer to "I never saw you following the commandments". Somebody may trick themselves into believing they did follow Christ because they didn't truly understand Christ, which is why the JST says "you never knew me." My mind is drawn to Harold Camping, who tried to predict the end of the world twice and managed to drum up quite a bit of international support in the early 2010's. He prophesied in the name of Christ. He's likely done many wonderful works. Likewise, The many mega church phonies like Kenneth Copeland pretend to cast out demons in the name of Christ also. But does Christ know them as his true disciples? I doubt it. This is just my interpretation of course, but given this passage transitions into the parable of the wise foolish house builders. It seems to me a passage about how obedience deepens your relationship with Christ, not something with legitimises authority in the eyes of Christ.

The knee-jerkiness can (and in my experience, often does) go both ways. Take all these LDS military veterans who you seem to suggest were driven out of the Church because active LDS women wouldn’t marry them. I’ll bet those young men had no problems imposing a number of criteria on their would-be wives that had nothing to do with those women’s current righteousness temple-worthiness. Maybe they wanted wives who had a high school diploma; or who didn’t already have kids from a prior relationship; or had certain career plans; or who were virgins. And they probably considered women who didn’t meet those criteria as being “unfit for marriage”. Women, like men, have a right to set standards for their future spouses. It’s interesting to me that nearly twenty years ago LDS young men were warned that the bar for missionary service was being raised—and now, changing Church demographics are showing that due to a surplus of men and shortage of women, the bar for LDS would-be husbands is also being raised. LDS young men would be well-served to figure out early in life that LDS women do not owe them a dadgummed thing; and if an LDS man is going to precondition his continuing Church membership on the sexual availability of an LDS woman—my response to him would be “brother, I love you, but the door is right over there”. Church demographics are changing. We have a surplus of men now; and the days when LDS suitors can browbeat LDS women into lowering their standards through the threat of lifelong spinsterhood are over.

That just as easily applies to you. My problem was your use of the word "translation." But I may have been hasty in my reaction. So, I apologize. I'm not saying that the meaning you provided (authorized) is completely absent in the statement. I'm saying that "authorized" is a corollary, not the primary meaning. If I never knew you, how could I have authorized you? Likewise, if you never really knew me, how could you say you were truly serving my interests?

That goes back to what I've noted before about how the "gifted" label was often a cursed gift. A great many of us who were called "gifted" back in the day were in fact high-functioning autistic. Parents were encouraged to hold us "gifted" kids to often impossibly high standards, with autistic tics, autistic tells, and signs of autistic burnout all being regarded as personal failings on the part of the "gifted" kid who was, clearly, slacking off and not living up to their potential. Cue a great many "gifted" kids burning out completely in their twenties and thirties, to the point that a few years ago one could find "Gifted Kid Burnout Bingo" cards floating around online as a way for people to retroactively recognize how much damage the label had done to them.

I have been thinking on some very similar items recently. I've come to some conclusions. Justice is not fair. Justice is not necessarily good. It's not bad, but it's not good either. Justice can be incredibly unfair. Justice can be incredibly inequal. When people talk about justice, many do not mean that. They do not want justice, they want equality or they want something to be fair. However, there's nothing fair about justice in our lives, or at least sometimes justice is invariably unfair. This is why we MUST have mercy, because without mercy, life would not be fair. Some would have far better chances then others in receiving rewards. A prime example. A man is starving and his children are starving. He has no job because he was fired for no reason. He is willing to work, but no work is to be had. He goes to the grocer even though he has no funds. He steals 1,000 dollars worth of food. He gives it to his children. He then is arrested. He is charged. His children starve to death. He goes to prison for committing a felony. Another man works at the store. He is a manager. He dislikes the man mentioned above. The man above is the hardest worker in the store, but because he is disliked by the manager, he is fired. The manager then decides he wants to steal 1000 dollars from the store. He gets arrested and charged. His father is rich and has connections. With the best lawyer, and tweaking those connections, he gets off with a minimum sentence and fine. The both committed a felony. They both did the crime. Even with equal justice, both should serve a jail time and pay a fine. There are those in society that would say that this is not fair. I would be one that would agree it is not fair. How is it fair that children should die because their father was fired for no reason by a petty man? However, Justice is blind, or should be. Society operates because Justice is applied in this way. It doesn't matter whether you are rich or poor, powerful or not, Justice will be served. In this life we have those born into comfort and wealth. They have every blessing one could desire. They have the blessings of the gospel. Others are born into the most severe poverty. They are tormented by the horrors of this world at every turn. They never receive the gospel. That one goes to the Celestial Kingdom and one does not if they both do not sin, is justice. However, many would say that is not even close to being remotely fair. It's not fair because the situations are not equal. This is why we must have mercy. This is why there needs to be mercy, because this world is inherently unfair, and justice without mercy can be a very unfair thing.

Faith can also be seen as believing something that is true. In that same light, if something has not occurred, but you believe it will, and it will occur as you think it will, and then you act upon that belief, then this is faith. A prime example. Your arm is on a desk relaxing. You believe that you can lift your arm up. It has not happened yet, but you have enough experience and reliably feel that you can lift your arm if you wish to. You then lift your arm. You have practiced your faith. You may do this without even thinking about it, and yet, if it has not happened, but you basically know it will, it is still faith, as it is something you believe will happen that has not actually occurred. In this same manner, the Lord can act in faith to make worlds and to enact various ideas that he fashions via his power and authority.

The other problem we run into with the covid conversation is the manipulated statistics from the healthcare workers. There will never be a way to know how much that influenced the numbers.

I believe that sometimes the message gets lost in the messaging. When Pres. Kimball declared that "every young man is to serve a mission," it seemed pretty clear to me. But when pressed about it, I reworded it that "all young men are REQUIRED to serve a mission." And that was clearer, but not quite accurate. When I heard Pres Nelson's wording, it seemed a lot clearer to me. "For young men, it is a priesthood responsibility." That made a lot more sense. It pointed out how important it is that we do this. But it also leaves some room for exceptions. Medical/financial hardship on the family is certainly an exception. So is physical or psychological handicap. Let me be clear. I disagree with your wording that you were "not a good fit." There is no "good fit" for a mission. We're simply to be instruments. That was something that I didn't learn until the very end of my mission. Now, to address your core issue... What seems to bother you is not the "requirement" or "responsibility." It is the reaction that others had/have towards you for not serving a full-time mission. IT'S NONE OF THEIR FRAGGING BUSINESS!!! Tell them to go phillips themselves. Whether you were an exception or not is between you and the Lord and no one else. If you were an exception, then the Lord knows your heart. If you just "made up an excuse" then you'll have the Lord to answer to, not these yahoos who don't know a thing about you.

Growing Pains There is no comfort in our growth When feeling cruel progressions They often yield sorrows that Leave lifelong lasting impressions There is no growth in our comfort Where lies abound in soothing thought Banal efforts die a feckless death While culling pearls is seldom sought Adversity and consequence Tenderizes obstinate hearts These overwhelming challenges Provides a wisdom to impart Bittersweet experiences Will teach us lessons if we heed The positive or negative Essential attitudes we feed Aeglyn Sept'2022

Hey I live in San Antonio. BTW, when I lived in Utah, there was a lady in my ward who also played the organ for one of the local Catholic churches. She did it during their Wednesday night masses.

To update the issue noted in San Antonio, some members of the church were not comfortable about the hiring of a Latter-Day Saint. But Bishop Lopes said that reviewed the teachings of their church, and it was allowed. Bishop Lopes is supporting the Latter-Day Saint and ignoring any complaints from the Catholics. Not sure how this will end up, but interesting to see a bishop of the Catholic church take this stand.

What do you mean by the demands of justice being properly fulfilled first, given that the atonement of Jesus Christ was established before the foundation of the world in anticipation of the justice that would otherwise be executed upon God's accountable children? The death of the innocent is not just, but it is offset by the merciful atonement of Christ. Where is the plan of justice (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025/04/33rasband?lang=eng)? This indicates that in order for there to be justice, the gift of mercy must properly be fulfilled first. The Fatherly guidance in every estate is merciful. as long as there are conditions set for the execution of justice and the extension of mercy, it seems that both principles are perfectly reconciled, balanced and interdependent in Christ according to the principle that there is opposition in all things, in this case, complimentary opposition. For example, the interplay between justice in the premortal world would be expressed as devils being cast down and the rest of us given bodies. None of us had the stature of Christ, so mercy is shown in the opportunity for exaltation rather than to justly continue at our personal level of nobility and greatness. The plan of mercy preempted and bypassed that outcome entirely.

Once I was discussing our ADD with my brother and he said, "Remember when we were kids and it was just called being bad?"