Anddenex

Members
  • Content Count

    5979
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Anddenex last won the day on September 12

Anddenex had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Anddenex

  • Rank
    Intelligence
  • Birthday August 8

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

8304 profile views
  1. Anddenex

    Biden's Mandate may be a tad too far

    Thought this was funny in light of this thread and others, begin at 4:45 minutes:seconds in.
  2. Anddenex

    Free will

    First, it is this type of YouTube video that makes me cringe. It is someone who doesn't know but rambling on as if he knows because he read research. There is plenty of scientific articles that support Free Will, and I have read how a professor used the same article and findings to support biological behaviorism (no choice, our genes dictate our choice). There appear to be misunderstandings of the Church's doctrine surrounding "moral agency." First, is that our "free will" (moral agency) isn't "on loan" from God. Moral agency is a law in heaven, and without it we have the following verse of scripture, "And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away." If there is law, if their is righteousness, if there is goodness, if there is punishment, if there is wickedness then moral agency (not necessarily free will) exists. If a law that never existed until a society was created and a person can obey or disregard, then you know you have choice. Free will I believe is different from moral agency. Free will, technically, is action/choice without accountability. Moral agency is action/choice with accountability (thus the dichotomy of Heaven and Hell). Second, it is semantics but an important distinction. God didn't choose the latter course. The course was already laid before us, it wasn't like Satan presented an opportunity before God the Father. Satan presented an opportunity for our choice, our choosing. The Father simply move forward with the plan that was already laid out. Third, Jesus wanted to do the will of his Father and to obey the Father's plan. Jesus wasn't "wanting" God the Father to give mankind moral agency. Jesus was honoring the Father who understood the necessity for moral agency. Jesus was obeying and desiring -- as in life -- the will of the Father, "Thy will, not mine be done." The first is a fallacy. Our actions are subject to our: knowledge, our appetites, our passions, our dislikes, and our experiences. The second bullet is a fallacy also. In what way do we not have control over our wants? Any concept or idea is suppositions. So, I have to agree/accept (a choice) -- the irony -- with the bullet to accept their is no freedom to our wants. When I was 11 I had walking Pneumonia. At that time, this medicine was freaking horrible tasting. I wanted to throw up and gag every time I took it. I didn't "want" to take the medicine. There were many days I didn't take the medicine because it was disgusting. I "wanted" to get better without taking the medicine, and I got better even though I didn't take the medicine everyday like I should have. If two wants exists -- guess what -- you have a choice between the two wants. And the concepts of choosing the want which is the strongest is faulty also. Are we able to act against the stronger desire? Yes, indeed we are. We see it with drug addicts whose desire -- the strongest want -- is to take the drug. But they stay their hand. Driving down "free will" to one concept -- want -- is myopic.
  3. This is my take. The bishop (nor any leader) doesn't dictate how personal or general a talk should be. The leader only dictates the topic, and seeks to ensure correct doctrine is given over the pulpit. Follow the Spirit dear brother! Allow the Lord to inspire you with what you feel is necessary, and what you feel is not necessary (or to personal). This is one thing I have come to know through the Spirit and talks. If you sense any confusion (as God isn't an author of confusion) cut it out of the talk. When speaking if something comes to your heart and mind that is too personal. Cast it out. If it is important the Lord will bring it back to your remembrance again, and if you don't feel any confusion (maybe some anxiety but no confusion) share it. My personal rule of thumb: 1) Cast out first impression if personal. 2) Cast out second impression if too personal. 3) Pray in my and heart, "Father a personal experience has come to my impression twice. I'm not yet confident it is from you. If it is, bring it back to my remembrance, and I will share it with confidence." 4) Impression comes I share it with confidence. I have been surprised at how many times I have had this happen and the thought never enters my heart and mind again, and when I am about to sit in my seat the impression returns. I sometimes think, "Oh I forgot that!" And then I remember my silent prayer, and it becomes a thank you to the Lord. I'm sure you will do well.
  4. Anddenex

    Biden's Mandate may be a tad too far

    I recognize it wasn't your argument, I was more specifying a known argument about, "My Body, My Choice," that's all. Sorry that was confusing. My decision would be the same. The government shouldn't have any right or authority to make any mandate on private organizations. That's beyond it authority without the consent and vote of the people. However, Ebola with a 50% to 90% potential death rate if you are diagnosed with it does give more credence to a potential mandate. The argument for protection I would say is faulty. We don't get vaccinated to protect others, we get vaccinated to protect ourselves. That is the main purpose of the vaccine. If the vaccine guaranteed that you couldn't pass any mutation or variation of the virus, then we might have a solid argument for the protection of others. The Covid vaccine though, according to some research (shared by @clwnuke in another thread) that vaccinated persons are more likely to spread the Delta variant to unvaccinated persons. If so, a person with the vaccination is now more dangerous to me than an unvaccinated person -- which sadly has a tinge of irony. This is why I personally think, if a virus was shown to kill more than 10% of the population you would see more people volunteering and asking for the vaccine. One percent chance for death isn't something to force upon people, nor mandate. People can choose for themselves. Personally, I think if you are high risk you should get the vaccine, unless a doctor tells you otherwise.
  5. Anddenex

    Biden's Mandate may be a tad too far

    Great question, I believe though it was answered in my post above. Similar to Small Pox with the Native American Indians (death rate 90% or higher) Ebola from what I just read specified a 90% death rate, but according to JAG he specified around 50%. This high of a death rate the government wouldn't need to mandate. You wouldn't be hearing any satire videos of 99% survival rate. The population would recognize that this hasn't to do with any government control, as 50-90% of the population is dying. Let me provide a different scenario. Population of China is 1.4 Billion. If a virus as deadly as Ebola came through China first (as with Covid) we would have seen (if statistics and spread is fast) 700 million Chinese citizens die (assuming no vaccine). This would have set fear of death in the heart of every person watching the news. We then would have seen a similar happening across the world as it spread. The majority of the surviving citizens would be anticipating a vaccine with that high of death rate. A mandate would be unnecessary. I wouldn't vote for, and it would be disturbing if the government forces because it then creates a slippery slope with humans who desire power and control. If a person chooses not to get the vaccine and want to risk the death rate, that is their choice. What is the argument, "My body, my choice," except with vaccines it actually is their body and not the body of an innocent human being. I would get vaccinate as quickly as possible with a disease that has less than a 50% chance of survival, and I wouldn't worry about people who haven't been vaccinated because I am vaccinated. I would think if Covid, actually was a vicious disease, even with a 15% chance of death rate you would see more people requesting the vaccine.
  6. Anddenex

    Biden's Mandate may be a tad too far

    To be expected. Right and one person is a great comparison -- no, it is probably more a flimsy argument. Why does that surprise you? If you don't take a vaccines with that high of a death rate you are more likely to die from it. You still didn't add anything. I'm OK if you think it is a flimsy comparison. It doesn't change the reason for the mandate. Right, and Covid is only a threat if you have it (it is "active" in you), and if you have it (for argument sake) you have a 98% chance of survival, unlike with Small Pox. So, not a big deal. You are more likely to survive Covid without a vaccine, especially if you are asymptomatic, which thus says the whole argument for being vaccinated for Covid is flimsy at best. You seem to call out the smokers as flimsy, but unable to see the flimsy argument for Covid.
  7. Anddenex

    Biden's Mandate may be a tad too far

    No, not at all. If a disease was bad enough you wouldn't need a mandate. People would be asking for it. For example, Small Pox is estimated to have killed 90% of the Native American population (whereas we have a 99% survival chance with Covid). In some sources I read they even estimated it killed up to 95% of the population in the areas it spread. You wouldn't need a mandate if Covid was actually a vicious disease. People would readily ask for it. People who want a mandate for a disease that has a 99% chance for survival are more interested in power and control. Mass immunity will come naturally with a disease with 99% survival rate. It more humorous though with Fact Checkers now you are trying to say its actually 98.2%, as if that is a huge difference. It isn't. So, let's compare Small Pox to Covid -- 10% chance of survival (at that time for some) in comparison to (for arguments sake) 98% chances of survival. I remember, my brother being part of the hysteria, in the beginning, with the saying a chance of 10% death rate (4-10%) -- not even close. A truly dangerous disease will need no mandate. I would rely heavily on the citizens intelligence rather than government authority -- control and power -- to limit freedoms. This then brings the question, we know smoking kills people, and that second hand smoke also can kill people. Are you OK with a mandate that prevents smokers from obtaining a job if they don't quite smoking?
  8. Anddenex

    Judgement and attributing motives

    That's a great question, and these are my thoughts to your question: 1. Is the friend truly being manipulative and attention seeking? If so, then I believe it needs to be called out. I don't think it is in any way good to allow manipulative behavior -- no matter how kind we are. If it is merely attention seeking, then that is different. 2. Who is the person closest to this friend? At times like these the closest friend can open up both points of view -- not take a side -- but open both points of view. I had this with someone I love. If there was any disagreement, the person would take that as a sign of disrespect. In working on that relationship, I discovered that if I pointed out first all the things that were good the individual would drop all guard. After the guard was down, I would then point out I could understand the other perspective (if the other perspective actually had legit aspects). 3. If friend is being sincere, then the other person needs to be called out also -- in private. 4. Has there been any heart to heart with the one who believes they are crying out for help, or the one that believes they are being manipulative? Why does the other friend think they are being manipulative -- what is their history and experience? Why do some believe it is a cry for help? There has to be some reason, some catalyst, as to why the other friend thinks they are being manipulative or attention seeking or both. I just finished up with a lesson on "correct principles" and I assume there are correct principles to follow in these situations. I think removing our beam before trying to judge a situation is a great principle. I think reproving with sharpness is a great principle if we have sufficiently pulled the beam from our own eye. If the friend is being sincere and crying out for help, then the other friend needs to remove his/her beam. Thus the thought about their history and experience. Something is triggering the other friend to call out the behavior as manipulative. What is it? Why is it? Is it correct? Now, for clarity, I'm sharing things that are easy to type, but in these situations I am usually the guy in the middle, or the one that doesn't want to say anything so not to create waves.
  9. Anddenex

    The Holy War

    @mirkwood's new profile pic:
  10. Anddenex

    Judgement and attributing motives

    There are scriptures that come to my mind when considering the core question: 1. Matthew 7: 3-5; Luke 6: 41-42 - Judgement is more clear when we first remove the beam from our own eye, and sometimes there is no mote to remove. 2. Doctrine and Covenants 64: 11 - Explaining the concept that we are to let God judge between us. The core concept is that God is not judging from an imperfect knowledge of things, but a perfect knowledge of things. If our knowledge was perfect, neither of the two judgements would be seen as positive or negative as the judgement would be just and true either way. This then induces the question, is one more appropriate then than the other? If one's mercy is wrong and it is enabling, is it then more appropriate than calling out the behavior? I think the world we live in induces this dichotomy -- Don't judge -- you be you -- and I will be me. This is in part why we see what we do today. If no one is willing to call out a behavior as -- bad, not OK, wrong -- then anything goes. Has our Father in heaven created a world where anything goes, or are their rules, laws, and order? 3. In light of #2 - Knowledge - The depth of knowledge, or our closeness to Christ, will ultimately allow us to see things as they really are. Jacob 4:13 4. I think you have already highlighted the next part with are we not all beggars -- mercy can't rob justice, and justice can't rob mercy. If we are unwilling to show mercy/grace -- when it is due -- then I would think this is pride and pride is sin. 5. Doctrine and Covenants 121: 43 -- Sharpness I was told means -- before it is too late. If we aren't willing to invite, chasten, encourage, etc... it might then be too late and the person develops a habit. The scriptures are interwoven, thus this verse correlates with everything else previously shared. It is not an isolated verse of scripture. I'm sure there are other scriptures, but this suffices.
  11. Anddenex

    Biden's Mandate may be a tad too far

    It would be kinda hard to use one's religion as a reason to not be vaccinated when the leader, the president of the Church, is vaccinated. One can't really say, "It goes against my religion," like a Jehovah Witness could say, "It's against my religion to have a blood transfusion." I think @clwnuke provided a good example with a mandate for drinking coffee. In that scenario we would have a leg to stand on as it pertains to being a member of good standing.
  12. Growing up I hated this phrase, but now understand: "You may not like what I'm going to say, but I'm going to say it anyway."
  13. Its business, nothing personal.
  14. We believe in the restitution (restoration) of all things, which then induces the question, "Was polygamy already restored and then taken away"? If polygamy is seen as already having been restored, then it is less likely the Church will move forward with authorizing polygamy. If polygamy isn't seen as being restore then there is a higher probability the Church could move forward and authorize it once again. The purpose of polygamy is to raise a righteous seed. The Lord's kingdom could easily benefit from more righteous fathers rearing more righteous children who are taught, in their youth, to love and serve God. The hardship though, is think upon how many priesthood holders have left the Church, and if they were polygamists then that means more children would lose out on these blessings.