TruthSeekerToo
-
Posts
279 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TruthSeekerToo
-
-
i'm lucky to get all the wash done at all. lol i try to separate the colors and whites like a good molly but sometimes i can't, it's all i can do to stay on top of the wash as it is. i can live with dingy undies. i don't think i'll be struck down for it. if you can wash them seperate go for it, if you can't don't lose any sleep over it. but that's just my approach. lol
Truer words...
Yeah, were talking laundry here. You're gonna get 16 different answers.
I have 2 bins (whites, colors) and I seperate "lights" and "darks" with my colors. Yup, I'm anal.
-
Whites together (seperate LOL) will keep them looking nicer longer, IME. Everyone I've seen who mixes have dingy G's. But that's just me. :)
-
The difference is who's asking you to do the killing. If God is asking you to bring His judgement upon a wicked nation, that's a far different thing from your grandpa sayin "kill me before the cancer does, you whipper-snapper!". You're trying to compare 3rd grade flag football to the Tet Offensive.
We still haven't overcome the hurdle of the innocent people being killed. They cannot be part of the "wicked" so they can have no judgement upon them. Since they are not being killed in judgement it has to be a different reason. I cannot think of a just reason to kill innocent children.
I'm wondering how many people here have had the whisperings of the Spirit before and acted on them, only to discover (or decide) later that it was wrong or it was more of the desire of their own heart?
Yeah, I admit that was a tiny bit of a stretch to draw that conclusion - hence why I included the caveat "I believe". However, I do believe the scriptures I already quoted fully support my claim, so it's your turn to find a reference :) So what do you think happens to those kids? If they aren't given to another family, who's gonna raise them since their Earthly parents obviously can't? Or are they 2 years old throughout eternity?
That's ok.
What Joseph actually taught was that a mother would receive her children exactly as they died in the resurrection. So they would be resurrected to their infant/child body and then grow until it reaches "the full stature of its spirit."
So, what he taught had nothing to do with the M. And he did say they would be resurrected to "celestial glory."
I went and reread your scripture (love that one btw) and have to point something out. I wish to point out that children will NOT be judged by what they would have done/believed or anything.
Check out these references over on lds.org regarding little children.
Little children obtain salvation through the Atonement of Christ. That is it. They are covered by his grace, they are not tempted by Satan, they are without sin.
And we read in D&C 45:58 that the children raised during the M. reign of Christ will "grow up without sin unto salvation." Sounds pretty golden to me!
I feel like a total threadjacker, sorry.
-
"To tell the truth I disapprove of suicide more than anything." - Vash the Stampede
But if you're going to kill yourself, at least have the decency to do it yourself. Asking somebody else to do it for you is just pathetic.
Besides, suicide is sinful. I can't imagine having somebody else kill you for you is any better.
A: Satan will be bound by the righteousness of the people that he will "have no hold upon the hearts" of the people - he won't be tied up and gagged, he'll still be out there tempting - trying his darndest (and failing! w00t).
B: Part of the purpose of sealing the whole human race is so those children born to wicked parents will have a family to raise them during that time.
So, it is not okay to kill someone in great pain or who truly desires to die. BUT, it is okay to kill someone who really, really does not want to be killed (I think you used the words "loving" and dying is not that big a deal but maybe that was another poster).
Do you have a scripture or prophet that says all the children who died before accountability to wicked parents will be raised in the M. by righteous ones, because I have not ever heard that before. Sincerely. Thanks!
-
Nobody has a golden ticket. What we're discussing here is Doctrine and Covenants 137 and verses 7, 8 and 9, I believe, still apply to children (verse 10). That is that "7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; 8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;
9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts."
Or in simple terms - even babies that die still get judged on whether they would have accepted the Gospel if they had lived. No free rides.
Also, parents who lose children will receive them in the resurrection "just as they laid them down": LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Words of Hope and Consolation at the Time of Death giving those children an opportunity to exercise their agency during the millenium.
So the parents that were supposedly so wicked that God commanded them killed will get to finish raising their children during the Millenium?
Satan will be bound during the M. reign and so I don't see how that will change their chances for salvation anymore than being killed as a child. Children are not tempted by Satan-children cannot sin. During the M. no one will be tempted by Satan (bound) therefore.....no sin seems like the logical answer.
-
puf, do you believe in assisted suicide?
-
Yes, the rule is we are here for that and many other experiences.
It just may also be true that some of us do not need more then a body and
very little experience if any.
The men doing the killing I believe are also in a position to be judged in
how they carry out this gruesome task.
"It sounds a lot like predestination to me."
No, God's foreknowledge has nothing to do with predestination.
I have had many experiences where I was very accurate in my foreknowledge of what my children would do under certain circumstances.
God has a lot more experience.
Bro. Rudick
Well, I looked up the definition of predestination just to make sure I knew the real meaning. And, yes, this falls under the definition perfectly.
You are saying that God made sure those souls were taken from the earth before the age of accountability which guarantee's them salvation. It took away their agency and gave them a golden ticket to the CK.
Knowing what his children will do in certain circumstances does not mean he sends certain souls predestined for salvation.
-
So we don't have to feel bad about the Inca, or Mayans, or the Cherokee or slavery. Duh. Guilt is one of the primary causes of PTSD. Eliminate the need for guilt (by making your killing God-sanctioned) and your soldiers stop going nuts on the battlefield. It worked for the crusades :)
LOL See, you do understand!
I think you are exactly right. We pin it on God to make ourselves feel better.I think war and killing is so sad. Your example of PTSD is a perfect example of why killing (even if justified by the law) is not without consequences.
Johnny, I can appreciate your thought. It sounds a lot like predestination to me.
The truth is, if believed literally, men went out and took babies and killed them. The scriptures state these babies couldn't atone for their parents sins and were without sin themselves. So there still is no justice in this genocide. Were we sent here to exercise our agency or not?
If killing can be loving and death is no big deal do you all believe in assisted suicide?
-
Except that your point lacks any eternal perspective. Life is a vacation, death is going home. If your kid went over to a friend's house and got into trouble, tell me you wouldn't call him home?
It show's God's love for us that he gives us a chance to make things right before making us come home and be disciplined for our trouble-making. But he's said many times if we cause too much trouble: "The Lord slayeth the wicked.."
You addressed my opinions (things the Spirit has taught me about God that I can't prove). But you didn't address any of the scriptures. You're analogy is bad because God does not make us die physically when we make mistakes. Apples and oranges.
Is it justice for a baby to be killed because its parents are idol worshippers? NO. A baby is sinless, therefore it is UNjust to kill a baby. Could you show me where the innocent children had a chance to repent-oh wait, children have nothing to repent of. All children are born with the Light of Christ.
Alma 34:11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.
We actually have a lot of evidence that God allows very wicked children to stay on the earth.
The days of Adam were extended so that he would have an opportunity to repent IN THIS LIFE. Cain was spared from the death penalty. In the example of Adam we see that God wants us to have the opportunity to repent before we die (Adam is symbolic of all mankind). And with Cain we see that God doesn't just "take out" bad guys.
Jesus taught love. It is not loving to kill. He forgave his killers. He did not come with an army to slay the wicked.
Why is it so important (to some) for genocide to be righteous?
-
FWIW, Jewish law says that in order to fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply a family should have at least one girl and one boy. The traditional Old Testament blessing of "May your quiver be full," meant five children (a quiver held five arrows). If neither of those is helpful, prisonchaplain has three daughters and is done...
Wow, that would be hard to fulfill the gender law! I know people who have had 10 boys and heard of another with 12 girls. They all decided to stop trying for the other gender!
Does that mean they weren't fruitful under Jewish law? Yikes! -
That's not the issue here. Certainly scripture does not have to be written a certain person. We don't know who wrote most of the Bible. However, the issue here is that someone(s), not Paul, wrote letters and then fraudulently attached his name to them.
It was a common practice at the time in order to lend more weight or credibility to the material, but regardless of whether other people did it, it's not honest or true.
That is just the question that popped into my mind in respose to your post.
So, these letters were circulated while Paul was living with his named forged on them? I did not know that. Then, of course, the interpolations were added to his real letters later on. Then they made their way into the accepted canon of the orthodox church. Or were the changes made later on? (I'll go back to see if I missed the answers to these)
Joseph wasn't necessarily correcting the text of the Bible back to it's original state but rather re-engineering it to be in line with his modern, inspired understanding of doctrine.
Never thought of it in that way. I like it.
Or, it could be that Paul's radical, progressive, equal rights views made the ruling classes mighty uncomfortable so someone tried to water it down.
Very likely. There were a lot of things seen as heretical movements in early Christianity that needed to be squelched. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if someone used this method to do the squelching.
Oh, and I ordered From Jesus to Christianity, too (under $5 w/shipping!). I'm looking forward to reading it.
-
Thanks for those references! It is basically discouraged to buy "luxury articles" or wait for the perfect job, finances, etc to start your family.
That said, if you, your spouse and HF decide that you should wait *for whatever reason* then that is that.
-
-
Here are some of the things lds.org has to say about the Atonement and how we are saved.
When the Savior carried out the Atonement, He took our sins upon Himself. He was able to "answer the ends of the law" (2 Nephi 2:7) because He subjected Himself to the penalty that the law required for our sins. In doing so, He "satisfied the demands of justice" and extended mercy to everyone who repents and follows Him (see Mosiah 15:9; Alma 34:14–16). Because He has paid the price for our sins, we will not have to suffer that punishment if we repent (see D&C 19:15–20).
The Savior satisfied the demands of justice when He stood in our place and suffered the penalty for our sins. Because of this selfless act, the Father can mercifully withhold punishment from us and welcome us into His presence. To receive the Lord's forgiveness, we must sincerely repent of our sins. As the prophet Alma taught, "Justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved" (Alma 42:24; see also Alma 42:22–23, 25).
We are saved by the mercy of Christ. When we repent we lay claim to Mercy.
-
Maxel, yes, it is only through Mercy that we are saved. You are spot on!
Christ pays the price of justice and extends us his Mercy. We only get punished when we don't repent.
In the OT the law of justice was "an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth." That is equal, fair, justice. Are you trying to argue that our Eternal Father doesn't want what is fair and equitable-he wants more severe punishment? Excessive punishment?
No, he does not. He wants us to accept his great Atonement and come unto him (in repentance). Then he will pay for our sins (he pays justice) so that Mercy lay claim to us. Mercy supercedes justice. Else why did our Savior suffer? Do you believe you need to suffer for all your repented sins?
Is it justice for a baby to be killed because its parents are idol worshippers? NO
Alma 34:11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.
Even in the OT is was not just and lawful to have anyone else atone for the sins of others. The old law was also full of injustice. Death to disobedient children, adulterers, blasphemers and Caananites. Those are examples of excessive punishment.
Why did Jesus not have the woman taken in adultery stoned? That was the law. It appears that Christ is much more forgiving than some make him out to be. He didn't punish her at all. He extended mercy.
I think HEP's definition of justice is the same as the church uses. You wouldn't want to say justice is doing the wrong thing, would you? When we look at the dictionary we see that justice is righteous and fair.
Here is what lds.org says about justice. (emphesis mine)
When the Savior carried out the Atonement, He took our sins upon Himself. He was able to "answer the ends of the law" (2 Nephi 2:7) because He subjected Himself to the penalty that the law required for our sins. In doing so, He "satisfied the demands of justice" and extended mercy to everyone who repents and follows Him (see Mosiah 15:9; Alma 34:14–16). Because He has paid the price for our sins, we will not have to suffer that punishment if we repent (see D&C 19:15–20).
-
When my children make me angry and disobey me, I do not have them killed.
Our Father, who has an even more perfect love for us, would never command us to be killed. His ways are so far above our ways it takes my breath away. It makes me so sad when people use that saying to pin extremely human and beastly behavior on God. He is not so unknowable that we can't go to him and understand if he commands killing or not.
The scriptures are proof positive that the Eternal Father allows us the agency he promised. And he laid down his life that we might believe on him and live.
I have a much easier time believing that prophets lie (or that stories are symbolic) than believing that my Father in Heaven is unjust.
The Old Testament is not a shining example of how we should be living. Joseph Smith said: The priesthood of Levi consisted of cursings and carnal commandments and not of blessings and if the preisthood of this generation has no more power than that of Levi or Aron or of a bishhoprick it administers no blessings but cursings for it was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
When you are at church tomorrow find a baby. Look at that babies face and think about whether justice would be served by killing such a perfect, beautiful child. Would you really be cleansed from such an atrocity in only 7 days?
-
You may have notices that though 1 Corinthians is an authentic Pauline epistle, there are verses that order women to be silent in church (14:33-36). Those verses are obvious interpolations - later insertions or corruptions to the original text. Scholars understand that the verses are interpolations because they meet the criteria for such.
Understand that more than just the genuine Paul wrote the epistles it helps makes sense of the contradictory messages in the various letters but it prompts the question: How can it be considered scripture if it a forgery?
Does scripture have to be written by a certain person (set of people) for it to be such? I would define scripture as any inspired writing. However I only call canonized inspired writings "scripture." I think realizing that things are not literally as I thought helps me let go and take on the Spirit as I read. I'm not convinced that the primitive Christians took who wrote what literally.
Another fascinating thing to look at is how some epistles, books, gospels were written specifically to refute or prove certain ideas. I think knowing that can help shape our understanding, too.
Joseph Smith did make inspired changes to 1 Cor. 14. He changes the words "speak" to "rule." Which gives a different meaning, though not much in total. One might ask why he didn't chop that whole part out.
I see several possibilities with this passage-although it is very interesting to know it was added later.
*Women were being loud and disruptive in meetings (I've heard that speculation)
*Women are symbolic of a group of people rather than the gender (perhaps the uninitiated)
*It was written by a man who was misogynic
*It was passed on being a tradition of their fathers that they couldn't shake
I guess one could also ask if passages that are about the running of various churches should be taken as literal commandments. I would say no. Those things can and do change over time.
-
The passage you cite refers to one law, a universal law I think. If there was one law upon which all blessings were predicated what would that be?
I'm thinking:
You reap what you sow.
I think that we are "sowing, ever sowing" every moment of our lives. I don't think most of us even understand how or what we are sowing most of the time. It is a power that we understand very little about, IME.
If we look at the story of Job we learn that all the things he feared came upon him. I think from this we might learn that fear is powerful and can sow undesirable seeds. Our thoughts are perhaps more powerful than we give them credit for.
What blessing do you desire and what steps can you take to "sow the seeds" of that blessing?
-
II: President Benson's fourteen points (paraphrased):
1) Only the President speaks for the Lord in everything.
2) The living prophet trumps the standard works.
3) The living prophet trumps a dead prophet.
4) The President never leads the Church astray.
5) The prophet may speak or act on any subject or matter regardless of training and credential.
6) The prophet can skip "Thus saith the Lord" to give scripture.
7) The prophet tells us what we need, not what we want.
8) The prophet can ignore the political/philosophical morals of the day.
9) The prophet can function as a prophet on any topic, religious or otherwise.
10) “The prophet may be involved in civic matters.”
11) The proud, rich and/or educated in particular, obey the prophet with the most difficulty.
12) The prophet can spurn worldly popularity.
13) The First Presidency is the highest quorum in the Church.
14) Follow the first presidency and be blessed; ignore them at your own risk.
I have always loved this set of guidelines. It is evident many other members of the forum are familiar with it. I think it is a handy guide to know what the prophet and his councelors are free to do. I think many people would love to put the prophet in a box (particularly apologeticists, skeptics, and other scholars).
~snip~
2) The living prophet trumps the standard works.
D&C 35:23 And inasmuch as ye do not write, behold, it shall be given unto him to prophesy; and thou shalt preach my gospel and call on the holy prophets to prove his words, as they shall be given him. [holy prophets=scriptures]
“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine” ( Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203). Joseph Fielding Smith
4) The President never leads the Church astray.
D&C 107:32 And in case that any decision of these quorums [First Prez, Twelve, Seventy] is made in unrighteousness, it may be brought before a general assembly of the several quorums, which constitute the spiritual authorities of the church; otherwise there can be no appeal from their decision.
13) The First Presidency is the highest quorum in the Church.
D&C 107:23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling. 24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.
[brackets and bold by me]
-
Here is a recent thread many pages long on this topic. HTH
http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/21284-believe-works-faith.html
-
"No man nor set of men without the regularly constituted authorities, the Priesthood and discerning of spirits, can tell true from false spirits."
To me, this appears to be saying that an individual man must have the PH and gift of discerning of spirits. A body of men must have all three. Men could be used in the generic way meaning all men/women, but it is unclear here. That is why I wondered what you guys think it means. I went and read it in context and it seems to mean the body of the church.
Determining truth must come through revelation. If there is no order to the revelation, with duly ordained Priesthood authorities, how do you know one revelation is of God and another is of Satan?
Without a standard it is impossible to know.
What is the order to personal revelation?
All humans have the Light of Christ. The LoC is given that we may know truth.
Having never received a revelation from Satan, I guess I can't be positive I would know the difference. However, having the Light of Christ and gift of the HG I feel very confident that I would be able to tell the difference. Plus, God will tell us if it is from Him if we ask.
There is a standard available to all.
Do people during all times of apostacy still have the Light of Christ given to them? Yes. So what is the purpose?
So, during the time of this statement members of the church were claiming revelation contrary to JS, convulsing with "the spirit," finding their own seer stones, following a ball of light off a cliff, etc.
JS then writes an article to the people about how to discern spirits. These were among the specific false spirits he spoke of.
If I lived at that time and witnessed one of these events, would I have the right and ability to know which spirit is came from? Would an unbaptised person?
How come only some have the gift of discerning? That MUST be different than being able to tell if a revelation is from God. Otherwise, I would have to go to my bishop to verify every tingle I'd ever received.
We can have the gift of discerning of spirits. George Q. Cannon has called the gift of discerning of spirits “a gift that is of exceeding value and one that should be enjoyed by every Latter-day Saint. … No Latter-day Saint should be without this gift, because there is such a variety of spirits in the world which seek to deceive and lead astray” (Gospel Truth, sel. Jerreld L. Newquist, 2 vols. in 1 [1987], 156–57).
I like this quote because that is how I feel about it. All people should have access to and strive for this gift. It is so, so important. And it isn't good enough to have to rely on someone else to tell you if something is true or false.
Those without this gift will be deceived.
I'm not sure if I'm conveying my thoughts and concerns well. I'll sum it up by saying my main concern is that people will read that statement and think they don't have to "try the spirits" if it comes from someone whom they *think* has all 3 of those qualifiers. Or worse, they'll think they don't have access to this gift for themselves.
-
Actually, some areas will post photos and names of men who do that in the area paper! Looks like maybe Nevada...
But, you're right, it wouldn't have had it's own headline if he didn't have 10 minutes of fame.
-
LOL!!!!!!!! Thanks for the smile.
-
Wow, so Hemi, you suppose that Hagoth and his crew were also translated? That was an interesting keyword search.
Disbelieving the Scriptures.
in General Discussion
Posted
No, no, no. That's Mother Nature!