• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Anddenex last won the day on July 12

Anddenex had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Anddenex

  • Rank
  • Birthday August 8

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Religion
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Recent Profile Visitors

5863 profile views
  1. Anddenex

    Eternity, infinity, and limits

    When thinking about progression and the eternities I love the following verses of scripture: Doctrine and Covenants 77: 3 3 Q. Are the four beasts limited to individual beasts, or do they represent classes or orders? A. They are limited to four individual beasts, which were shown to John, to represent the glory of the classes of beings in their destined border or sphere of creation, in the enjoyment of their eternal felicity. Doctrine and Covenants 93:30 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. In both verses of scripture we are informed ( @JohnsonJones hinted to this also) that all of God's creations are able to progress according to the "sphere" which God has placed them within. According to scripture, as it stands now (until more is revealed), the telestial, terrestrial, and lower stations of the Celestial kingdom have their limits. As scripture is clear, "he cannot have an increase." These kingdoms though are subject to the "sphere" God has placed upon them in each kingdom. Each kingdom will have their ability to progress throughout eternity. They can reach whatever point, height, available in each kingdom. At that point, there isn't any increase. So, I would agree with the following statement, if I am understanding asymptotic correctly, "And I'm beginning to wonder if that is so in the lower kingdoms as well." Appears to be accurate according to the sphere the lower kingdoms are given. I'm not sure though I agree that we are asymptotic though in this life. I would say Christ's life proves that we could have achieved it, but through Christ it still can be achieved but the refiner's fire isn't all to appealing to become what Christ became in this life through him.
  2. Anddenex

    Alma 30:7-11

    @Fether I am thinking this might add to the conversation from Ezra Taft Benson, "Never before has the land of Zion appeared so vulnerable to so powerful an enemy as the Americas do at present. And our vulnerability is directly attributable to our loss of active faith in the God of this land, who has decreed that we must worship Him or be swept off. Too many Americans have lost sight of the truth that God is our source of freedom —the Lawgiver —and that personal righteousness is the most important essential to preserving our freedom. So, I say with all the energy of my soul that unless we as citizens of this nation forsake our sins, political and otherwise, and return to the fundamental principles of Christianity and of constitutional government, we will lose our political liberties, our free institutions, and will stand in jeopardy before God."
  3. Anddenex

    Alma 30:7-11

    These are good questions. My first thought is there is a difference between "voting in" and "voting against" a law. We should vote against any law that would bring the nation closer to God's judgement (i.e. that would have us become ripe in iniquity). If we vote in laws, then as members of the Church we will have an accounting for the laws we helped initiate or vote for that were against God's laws. We can defend them as much as we want in this life, in the next, the defense is going to be poor. I, personally, don't want that. I would personally love to see a law against adultery. It breaks homes up, and it can cause lasting damage to children. There is a scripture in our Book of Mormon that I think is helpful to this discussion. The whole chapter (Alma 42), in essence, describes what we are discussing, but let me focus on a few verses of scripture: In Zion, I wouldn't be surprised if there are laws against all major sin (i.e. adultery, fornication, murder, stealing, etc...). We already have many laws that match the kingdom of God. Bearing false witness can be looked at as "fraud." And there is punishment for fraud (varying degrees). These verses highlight the following points: 1) Without law there is no sin. In Zion, we are following God's laws and these laws have already been given. And they are just laws. 2) Look at how rampant fornication is, and it is rampant because there is "no law" against it. Which bring up the second point, "would [humans] be afraid," to sin if there is no punishment? No. We already know the natural human, until he is enlightened by God (either the Spirit of Christ or through the Holy Ghost witness) the natural human will not be afraid to commit sin if there is "no law" against that sin. Our world is evidence for that. So any law must have some form of punishment in order for it to be a law. Every law that is broken must then have a "way out" or mercy. We already have laws that punish for lying, this is fraud. Depending on the degree of fraud depends on the punishment (i.e. Under penalty of perjury). I don't know how many times I have read a government document I have signed, or financial loans, where it specifies that if I purposely give false information I will enjoy the penalty/punishment of the law. I wouldn't have any issue with voting in a law that punished fornication or adultery. Fornication has lead to how many abortions? The murder of innocent human beings because they are unable to protect themselves. For that alone, I would be willing to vote in this law. We have around 56 million abortions per year worldwide, and probably more due to fornication rather than rape or the mother's life in danger. We have laws to protect people, unless you are an unborn, then we have law "voted in" that is against God's laws, not due to differences in morality, but due to a lack of morality. (Which is where I would agree with @Traveler that, "I am of the opinion that the only "things" that can be legislated into law are what-ever is believed to be moral.") I wouldn't have any problem with a law against gambling. We already have a bit of that in Utah. I am good with it. I also wouldn't be surprised if in Zion there is a law, strict law, against homosexuality. The Lord is very very clear and plain pertaining to homosexuality. This though is even harder in our day because people liberally use the word "rights" for everything now, and what is moral. How do you make moral laws in a society where good is being called evil, and evil is being called good? How did Sodom and Gomorrah come to a point that a group of men could stand outside of another man's home and tell him to bring his guests out so that they may "know" them? Little by little, with allowing whatever morality a person feels is good or right. I mean we already have news outlets talking about leniency for pedophiles as a sexual orientation. 😮 I guess a question is what way do we want to go, possibly. Do we want to go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah with open laws that appear to allow almost anything. Or do we want to go with laws that will bring us closer to Zion? And I am honestly not sure how to go about that without becoming another "Law of Moses," (or what would look like it from the outside) but something needs to happen. One thing I think though, the more moral (actually moral, Godlike) the less laws a nation will have. People will be able to govern themselves, but there will still be laws. Strict laws, such that people who don't want to abide by them will leave.
  4. Anddenex

    Alma 30:7-11

    If we live in a nation where many are on the LGBTQ spectrum and differing views on sexual morality, would it be against the laws of G*d to vote in laws that prevent others from living according to their belief? The simple, but not so simple, answer would be no. No, it would not go against the laws of God to vote in laws that prevent others from living according to their belief. The three kingdoms of Glory give evidence to this. There are laws in each kingdom. A person abides by the law of the kingdom, or they don't live there. If a person believes a law restricts them from living according to their beliefs these individuals have the freedom to 1) seek to change the law, 2) choose to abide by the law and adhere to it (repentance so to speak), or 3) move to a different society that would allow them to live according to their "chosen" morals whether these morals are right or wrong. Would it be against the laws of G*d to vote for laws that allow those of opposing belief to break commandments? Yes. If God says murder is against his law, then we shouldn't vote for any law that allows "murder" or anything like unto it. Zion will be a place where the morality of God will be adhered to. Zion will have God's laws and morality. In order to achieve Zion, there will be many laws that will oppose a person's beliefs (especially those with evil hearts, wicked), and which will not allow them to live such beliefs without consequence/punishment for breaking the law. There is a subtle irony to this scripture. There is no law against a human's belief, but there are laws (eternal laws) that if they live according to their beliefs (which are against God's laws), and are "ripe" in iniquity there is punishment for belief that lead to actions. Sodom and Gomorrah are the perfect example. The Nephite civilization before Christ came is another perfect example. So to speak, believe as you may, but in the end and to some degree now your belief could lead to an earthly destruction/punishment. The world is already heading that way. Have your belief, but watch your actions. Rarely do people believe something that they don't act on. I was debating with a friend of mine that bill in CA that “legalized pedophilia”. Now it doesn’t do that, far from it actually. But the reality of the bill is still not moral. It allows consensual sex between a 14-17 year old with someone that is less than 10 Years older than them. I would disagree with the first and second paragraph. If a male twenty-three year-old sleeps with a 14 year-old (less than 10 years) it is statutory rape. Statutory rape (depending on age gap) is pedophilia. So, if a law is passed that allows a 23 year-old to consensually have sex with a minor (14) without punishment the law has successfully legalized pedophilia. This is no different with heterosexuals. If a 23 year-old woman (let's say a teacher) has sex with her male student consensually who is 14, she will be charged and put on the sex offenders list. This is pedophilia. It appears pedophile is loosely defined also. Some dictionaries simply refer to it as "prepubescent" children, and yet other articles refer to pedophilia even with 13 year-olds. In that light, one could then say this law is legalizing statutory rape of a minor. As as 22 year-old who has sex with a 14 is statutory rape. In our modern age, our modern time, and the knowledge we have with human development this is an immoral law and it is wrong.
  5. Anddenex

    Resurrection Question

    I may be misunderstanding scripture; however, as to my current understanding I don't believe it is the resurrection that "leads" us back into God's presence. I would liken resurrection to finishing a test, a chain of events. With some tests, we enter the testing center (hell 😉 ). Until we have finished that test we are no longer in the presence of our teacher. The moment we have finished our test we are then able to visit (classroom) with our teacher to discuss the results. Although we can't leave the testing center until we are done with the test, the testing center doesn't prohibit a teacher from entering the center. The teacher is able to come and go as they please, if they choose to do so. Personal desires and righteousness are what lead us back into the presence of God > even in this life. A translated being (not resurrected) is able to enter the presence of the Lord. A transfigured being is able to enter into the presence of the Lord. For the wicked (or less valiant), it appears resurrection is the path that leads to the father because the time has now come and the test is over (so to speak). I could be also confusing what you are asking and hoping to receive.
  6. Anddenex

    Becoming like God

    If you would like a good read pertaining to Lorenzo Snow's couplet, "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be," this is a good article to gather more information. In this article I find Joseph Smith's words confirming: I will admit, this is s second hand witness from the son of Lorenzo Snow specifying what Joseph Smith said. Personally, I take the couplet to be accurate and doctrinal. There are two possible meanings to the couplet as has been shared: 1> The couplet explains a divine truth pertaining to God the Father and God the Son. 2> The couplet only pertains to Christ (who indeed was a man (flesh and blood), that can't be argued) The second is without question. We know Christ was born of Mary, a virgin. We know he grew up according to the grace of God (which is most interesting because in our Bible Dictionary the term grace is defined as Christ's bounteous love and mercy). Whose/what "grace" then did our Savior wax strong by? In that light, it lends thought toward #1. The grace our Savior experienced was his Father's. However, pertaining to #1, Gordon B. Hinckley answered this correctly on live TV. When asked about the Father his response was something to this nature, "There isn't much said about the Father." This is accurate, and as has been said there is no official statement currently from the Church; although, a person only needs to have the Spirit and by the Spirit the truth of ALL THINGS can be known. As pertaining to other Gods, I am not sure why this potential doctrine has been threatening/hedonistic to mainstream Christians/Catholics. The gospel of Jesus Christ is best understood when we look through at the most basic unit of our human societies -- family. In our families there is a father and a mother, and without a father and a mother's seed and ovum there can be no offspring. Offspring are made in the image and likeness of their parents, after their own kind. Parents often have multiple children. These children grow up and become fathers/mothers. Do my uncles somehow deny the existence of my father, or in any way lessen who my father is? No. If we are the offspring of deity, which our Spirits are, then what does this say about our divine potential, and how does a son becoming a father threaten his father? It doesn't, unless of course you are Cronus. Mutable is an intriguing word to use when pertaining to God. There are members on this forum who would say without a doubt that God is mutable. The most common statement of a mutable God is when I hear members say, "The God of the Old Testament is not the same God who gave us the New Testament." I have even heard mainstream Christians use this same theology/belief. The God of the Old Testament was harsh, strict, mean, jealous, but the God of the New Testament is merciful, loving, changing (they are not the same God). Yet, scripture is clear, there is no shadow of changing with God -- immutable. People appear to forget how merciful and loving God was actually in the Old Testament (i.e. Joseph in Egypt who spared Israel and many other stories). And that same God will come again with fire, previously it was a flood. Pertaining to God being mutable again would be in what is being described. God, Jesus Christ, was born and had body of flesh and blood. After his death our Savior appeared with a body of flesh and bone, not blood. In that essence, yes, God is mutable or he at one point changed from one state (physical) to another state (spiritual). That again can't be argued, unless a person wants to deny scripture that is written in plainness.
  7. Anddenex

    Is Baptism required for exaltation?

    On the Church's website we have the following statement from one of the articles: The excerpt provides this as the source:
  8. I'm a little confused by your last statement. Not sure if you are specifying that I implied it's OK to rape them, or if you are responding to the recent news outlets inquiring if pedophiles should have our compassion/sympathy. I simply was saying I am not sure this Netflix movie is coincidental, or if it is trying to decrease the potential outrage toward Epstein's Island and pedophiles.
  9. Well, I assume this should be no surprise as we are incessantly being told we can't help who we are attracted to. Is this movie's timing coincidental to subject talks of: whether or not pedophiles should have compassion/sympathy as a sexual orientation, and Epstein's Island (which could bring a lot of people in the pedophile light who are prominent men)?
  10. Anddenex

    Book of Mormon white supremacy??

    As I have read the Book of Mormon, I am convinced the Book of Mormon correctly identifies (is plainly taught) the purpose of the words used. True, cancel culture will (better said, already has) attacked the Book of Mormon with regards to its use of color. Anti-The Church of Jesus Christ, have been using this already to bludgeon the Church. When I seek to understand the plainness of speech (according to their personal weakness (i.e. Moroni is pretty clear)) I try to understand from three points: The Father's / Christ's point of view, the authors, and the Spirit of revelation. First, I don't think we should deny or try to interpret scripture according to our modern world view. Second, if we seek the view from the vantage point of our Father in Heaven (as he is no respecter of persons) the plainness is more clear. Third, God has clearly given us a Revelator who is able to plainly teach what is correct/true. The Book of Mormon is plain in that color is used figuratively and also literally. The fruit likened to our Savior is "white" and "most sweet." It shouldn't cause any alarm or issue unless someone wants to stir the pot as the Pharisees did with Christ. Christ was plain in speech, and yet the Pharisees would "seek" out opportunities to call out error where there is no error. We see that with the Book of Mormon today and post topics like this. From our Father in heaven's perspective, what is the easiest way to distinguish two brothers? At this time DNA wasn't known (at least from the records we currently have). What human sense then is the easiest and most plain way to separate two brothers where you can identify a son from one brother and a son from another? To change the hue of their skin. This isn't racist as they are the same race (also why I don't believe in many race, but one race -- human). From the Lord the Book of Mormon clearly teachers that that if the Nephites did not repent that the Lamanites skin would be whiter than yours as the time of judgement. I don't think anyone needs to apologize for an easily understood metaphor. This metaphor could even be used today as we know we have brothers who skin are darker, and who could easily be more "white" (obviously meaning clean and pure) than yours (whose skin is already lighter). This is also evidently a teaching that if you think you are better than someone due to the color of ones skin you are in the wrong, as God definitely looks to character. White is already a color that has been used to represent something that is clean and pure. Black represents something that is not clean and pure. We live in a day where all things are becoming a "compound in one," (no male or female, no right or wrong, no truth or error, etc...) and that is surely a scary thought. It even claims Mary was white and the nephites were white when he know that can't be. We don't know this can't be, that is an interpretation. My wife would tell me stories of about how tan she could get. I didn't believe her because since I have known her she can tan but never really dark. It wasn't until we were meeting with some of her friends and the first thing out of her friends mouth was, "Wow, I have never seen you so white." I had to chuckle a little because in comparison to me my wife isn't "white" and yet she was told she was white. The next thing was that she usually was as dark as a Native American. I then realized, well, I guess she has been telling me the truth. White is commonly used to describe a variety of color hues. So, yes, Mary easily could have been "white" and "exceedingly fair" while having darker skin (as my wife). It's amazing how I just used "white," "dark," "Native American," and "variety of color hues" to describe someone who is Caucasian. The opposite is also true. How easily it is then to use "white," "dark," and a "variety of color hues" to describe someone who is African American depending on how literal, figurative, or symbolic I want to be. I can tell you this, our new bishop is "fair" for someone of black ancestry. Imagine that.
  11. Anddenex

    Domestic Terrorism

    True, and if the jurors were based in fact, lawful and unlawful behavior, it wouldn't be hard to convince all twelve. That is the catch 22 of any time we are dealing with jurors who can be swayed from the facts, lawful and unlawful behavior. I would be surprised in the state they are in that they can legally open carry a pistol, while threatening lawful behavior. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Protests become irrelevant. If I want to protest something I lawfully/legally do not have any right to walk in the middle of a street with a gun in my hands and then point the gun in the direction of a passenger because the car might be dangerous to my health. Well of course it is, that is why we have laws.
  12. Anddenex

    Domestic Terrorism

    Yes, a valid point, if protestors haven't been shown to be aggressors, which they have in many cases: breaking into cars, setting cars on fire, breaking car windows with whatever is in their hands, burning buildings with children inside, etc... Consider the following argument in front of a jury: "I was walking down the street when a man (who blocked my way on the sidewalk) raised a gun (at me) mid high. When I proceeded to move around the individual he stepped in front of me and once again pointed his gun in my direction mid high. At that moment, I feared for my life and pulled my concealed carry and shot him to stop the threat on my life." Consider the following argument without a gun in front of a jury: "I was walking down the street when a man stepped in front of me with fists clenched at his side leaning toward me. WhenI proceeded to move around him he stepped in front of me and then moved his clenched fists in front of him a little below the waist. As I needed to get to my destination I hit him as he threatened me twice." We can consider the following argument also, "I was driving down the road -- legally -- when I was obstructed from progressing from protestors who were brandishing a gun. The position of the gun was pointed in my direction. The gun out and the protestors posturing were evident he was going to use the gun. I tried to move around the protestor when he ran back in front of me taking the same position with gun pointed in my direction ready to use. Insert examples of protestors firing at cars "legally" driving on their way to work, family, etc..." Video evidence will prove the truck driver tried to move around the protestors to get where he was going. It will also prove the guys with guns (not just one, but from the video there are at least two) moved once again assuming the same posturing, which means they have now once again threatened the life of the truck driver. They don't have the gun out to protect their life. They have a gun out as a threat to the vehicles, if you move in my direction I will shoot you. That is obvious. It isn't self-defense when you are the agitator. Let's take another story as we are arguing the height of a gun is important. If a person walked into a store and started brandishing a gun, mid-height, pointing in the direction of the store clerk. What would your thoughts be? Who is legally in the right? Who is legally in the wrong? What options does the store owner have? The height of the gun is irrelevant when posturing is obviously in a state that it will be used, when obviously the person holding the gun is the aggressor. You have my vote if the car wasn't going about his business on a legal street. He did nothing to threaten a life. The protestors the moment the gun is out in the open, and in a easily firing position, they have now threatened a life.
  13. Anddenex

    Domestic Terrorism

    The moment they raise a gun is the moment a life is threatened. Anyone who thinks this is OK is no better than Satan who thought his rebellion was OK. It is also ironic to hear people say, "Don't be stupid," while protesting in the middle of the street pointing a firearm at people. The chances are more likely to that these people talk trash about the NRA. These people are why the NRA exists (in light of the 2nd amendment also).
  14. Anddenex

    Pastor with Prophetic Vision

    There appear to be three parts to this scenario: 1) Non-members 2) Visions 3) Accuracy of prophecy The first is true. The testimony of Jesus Christ is the Spirit of prophecy. A testimony of Christ is obtained by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. The Lord doesn't withhold his Spirit from his children if they are not members of his Church. As related to #1, visions aren't withheld from non-members either. I don't remember whose friend it was, John Taylor's, or someone else who had a dream similar to Lehi's vision. Where he was able to view the tree of life but not partake of it in this life, but would in the next. He died before the Church was restored, or a little after. Dreams/visions have brought non-members to the truth. Accuracy of prophecy is related to their stewardship. If a stake president, was being serious, shared this type of prophecy/vision I would have a hard time believing it to be true. If a stake president sent me this and I wasn't sure I would first clarify his text with a question, and hopefully he would answer without being snarky or cheeky. I have a family member that is really hard to know how he feels because he can be very snarky and cheeky. If the Lord wants to reveal a truth, which hasn't been revealed yet, he will reveal this truth through his servant the prophets if the Lord wants the collective body of the Church to know. We can also know all things via revelation, but we also need to recognize if the Lord has revealed something to us that has not been revealed by the prophets then we should keep that revelation very sacred and never reveal it until it has been revealed by his servants. It isn't our place/stewardship to reveal new doctrine.
  15. Anddenex

    Bull-crap Indoctrination about Bull-crap.

    I don't know, probably not though.