• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Anddenex last won the day on July 12 2020

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

7075 profile views
  1. Anddenex

    In the phrase "Hear Him"...who is "Him"?

    Let's review the doctrine we already know and which you have mentioned: First - The Godhead which is comprised of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost (Article of Faith #1). Second - which I would say there is a misunderstanding regarding Jesus Christ as our Elder Brother. The information in your post appears to only place Christ as our Elder Brother (which indeed he is, and by which apostles and prophets have referred to him as). Jesus Christ is all three: the Father, the Son, and the Second Comforter (in that sense a Trinity). We learn from scripture that Christ has spiritually begotten us, thus making him the Father. Notice the following word phrase given in Mosiah 16:15, "Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen." (Other scriptures: Alma 11: 38-39, TG God the Father, Jehovah, Mosiah 15:4) I may have misunderstood above, and you can clarify my misunderstanding of your words if that is so, but if we see Christ only as our Elder Brother then we are missing a very important principle in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Third - "Hear Him" reminds me of a time in the beginning of the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. A time where a young boy prayed and in answer to his prayer he was visited by the Father (God the Father) and the Son (God the Son), and the only words God the Father spake, "This is my beloved son, hear him." Hear Him I think is really simple, we are to hearken unto the words that have been given by Jehovah/Jesus Christ since the beginning of the Fall. When we pray we are to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ and hearken unto the still small voice -- the Holy Ghost. We hear Christ by coming unto Christ through yielding unto the enticing of the Holy Spirit, which brings all of God's children to Christ, and by which Christ returns us to the Father. Hear Him equals hearing the Father (God the Father) and hearing the Son (God the Son) through whatever means they see fit to communicate to us. As Christ and the Father are "one" if I were to hear an audible voice from the Son, wouldn't that voice be the same as the Father? And the Father (God the Father) always points us back to His Son.
  2. Anddenex

    Asking for trials?

    I don't think I will add much to what has already been discussed but another witness. I don't think it "wise" to ask for a trial, unless of course, a person is truly inspired by the Spirit to do so. The reason for asking for trial will come from at least two sources: 1) Pride, and 2) the Spirit (there might be others, but those will be the main sources). If the request comes from a state of pride, then a person may not be ready for the trial that will come. If the requests comes from the Spirit (the mind, will, voice, and heart of the Lord), obviously, the Lord knows what the individual is ready for and is ready for the trial to come. This is one thing I don't appreciate when I have heard leaders say the following at a youth event, "I am praying that something hard (a trial) will come upon these youth so they will have an opportunity to grow." Why would any leader following the Spirit pray for such a lame thing? Life is already difficult, why pray to increase that difficulty for someone? The more wise prayer would be to pray and thank God for the given opportunity the youth have at this event, and to pray that they may learn what they need to learn, or receive an experience that will benefit their lives. Help them to know the Father and his Christ are aware of who they are and their existence. Leave it to the wisdom of God as to what that experience will be. Life will present enough circumstances for growth. We simply need to pray that we may have the faith to conquer whatever comes our way.
  3. Anddenex

    What is charity?

    A simple example would be the adversary, who indeed did have valuable talents (i.e. gifts), but lacked charity. That is one example of how a person can have and still be nothing.
  4. Anddenex

    What is charity?

    The reason I delved a little more into charity is directly correlated with this verse of scripture, "And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work." Why did the Lord separate "charity" and "love" in the same verse, when essentially they are the same thing? The reason, because they aren't the same thing. The key is in the definition of charity, "pure love of Christ." The scripture that you mentioned previously explaining how the Father bestows charity upon "true followers" of Christ gives added insight. The application, demonstration, of charity can only be offered by those who glorify God, otherwise, it is simply love. As with Christ, everything he performed glorified the Father. All he does, glorifies the Father. In the end, Christ will once again glorify the Father in front of us all.
  5. Anddenex

    What is a burning in the bosom?

    What is a burning in the bosom? When a person has described the burning the in bosom it has always been the same each time I have heard. The individual may use different words but the essence is the same. It is an overwhelming feeling of peace, originating within the heart. My father, when he joined the Church, described the same feeling of peace with an additional description of pure love for anyone and everyone. The burning in the bosom removes all guess work, it is undeniable. I have never felt this burning in the bosom, but would like to at some point have this additional edifying witness. Doctrine and Covenants 8:2-3 describes the witness I have with the Spirit. Joseph Smith's quote regarding "pure intelligence" flowing through the mind and heart describe the Spirit in my life. After my mission I read an article from a general authority Seventy. I really appreciated his article because his experience -- witness -- closely related to mine. He mentioned how he had never felt the burning in the bosom. One day he felt like he needed to have a heart felt talk with his Father in heaven regarding this witness. This witness he desired to have. As he prayed, he decided to do something he never thought of before. At the end of completing the task, he knelt down again, and prayed that Heavenly Father would grant him his plea. The plea was answered, and he received the burning in the bosom.
  6. Anddenex

    Doctrine and Covenants 7: 5 - 6

    Verse 7 pertaining to Peter, is where the initial thought of Peter ministering to John and James, "And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James;" You can find it difficult, and that is OK. Peter ministered unto Joseph Smith, there isn't any reason to think Peter is unable to minister to John the Beloved as a ministering angel. As I initially stated, "it appears," doesn't mean this is factual just an option from the given scripture and not really difficult to fathom. Prophets minister unto those they serve with. There isn't any reason why President Monson, President Hinckley are unable to minister unto President Nelson. It seems reasonable, as Brigham Young was ministered unto by Joseph Smith if I am recalling history correctly and words from Brigham Young. The analogy works fine, if you don't think so, I can't do anything to change your mind and I'm OK with that. Work can be service, I would say you are mincing words. Either word works fine. The word "work" is used because that is the word used in the scriptures you shared. So, not sure why the word "work" would have any issues. Service and work can easily be interchanged depending on the need. In this verse the Lord used "work" rather than service. Service though works fine also as John is still serving his brethren while performing the work of the Lord. The scripture that comes to my mind is the joy of one soul you bring unto me in the Kingdom of heaven. It is a work and it is a service, either works fine.
  7. Anddenex

    Doctrine and Covenants 7: 5 - 6

    That is a good question, and I think verse four adds more to the conversation. John the Beloved's desire, "he desired of me that he might bring souls unto me." Peter's desire, "that thou mightest speedily come unto me in my kingdom." If we are looking at the desires, it would be similar to the twelve disciples of the Nephites and how three desired to continue to serve God -- in this life -- to bring souls. In this light, the desire to continue to bring souls in this life means -- temporally -- the time of "rest" is not yet for them. Life after death, although work, is still a time of rest (think of scriptures pertaining to paradise) -- so to speak. The Lord tells Peter it is a good desire, yet, John has desired to do even a greater work than he has already done. It appears also that Peter is a ministering angel unto John and James. I would liken this unto a Father who is working in his vineyard. An agreed upon time for the work to be completed is given to two sons. At the end of that time, one son says to the father, "Father, I would like to continue working with you in your vineyard." The other son says, "Father, I would like to go home now." The agreed upon time is completed, both have served faithfully. One desires further to work with the Father, and continue to perform a greater work. The other desires to go home, as his work is also finished -- according to the decree given by the Father. Verse eight is nice also, giving more clarity, "ye shall both have according to your desires, for ye both joy in that which ye have desired." As their work, time period, is finished the Lord finds joy in their joy that they have desired. Neither are wrong. One simply wants to continue -- temporally -- working with the Father in his vineyard and in his work.
  8. Anddenex

    President Nelson vaccinated

    Well, yes, that was what I mentioned in my very first response -- underlying conditions -- and in each response afterwards. How many people are counted with Covid who had underlying conditions -- as you say -- on their deathbeds, or were extremely old with critical underlying conditions. If you are going to count underlying conditions with Covid deaths, surely one should do the same thing with vaccinations if they are to remain consistent, honest, and with integrity. It is intellectually dishonest to discount/excuse "underlying conditions" with vaccines, while spreading fear with underlying conditions for Covid deaths. The link you provided is for Norway that correlates with the link that has already been provided. You still didn't provide the report -- link -- of 35 deaths total for 73.1 million vaccinations. The link previously provided doesn't provide people who had been adversely affected. At least from me typing in deaths, or reviewing the article. It just gives the amount and when the next are coming. It appears the vaccine seems to follow the virus itself. People over 75 are high risk, especially if you have underlying conditions. The majority of Covid deaths are people over 75 who were in long-term care facilities. Not only that they counted a man who died in a motor-cycle accident as a Covid death, but this article did mention they actually took the time to remove it. I wonder if they removed it because of the heat, rather than being intellectually honest. Sadly, I believe the former is probably more accurate.
  9. Anddenex

    President Nelson vaccinated

    That seems odd. This would mean Norway has had a disturbing number of deaths for countries affected adversely by the vaccine (with underlying conditions). I doubt that to be the case. If that is the case, then Norway should reconsider the vaccine as they, according to your search, have 33 of the 35 deaths. That is alarming.
  10. Anddenex

    President Nelson vaccinated

    I think it was pretty obvious the numbers I was using with regards to the article, which showcased 42,000 vaccinations given in that region with 32 deaths. As with any statistic it all depends on the numbers used. I'm no mathematician either, but I'm sure if you take the percentage of the numbers from the article (given again for your benefit) I think you will come up with the same percentage from that "pool" of people. Also notice the general statement -- "Let's say this remains static..." Using, once again, the pool of 32 out of 42,000, which again should have been obvious. I understood there have been more vaccines. Where did you get your number of 35 deaths? I hope you weren't using 35 for 32 for your 71.3 million statistic. Remember that 32 given was from that report of 42,000 vaccines. Surely, since you gave that number 35 you can show the report that specifies 35 deaths out of 71.3 M vaccinations for your math? EDIT: and my numbers are off by one it was 33 not 32 out of 42,000. I'm pretty sure Covid and the vaccine have about the same risk to my life, so not to worried either way. And the point of my message above wasn't the statistic, which obviously was using a pool of people from the article with a higher death possibility than the one you have given. It was this: "This is why I place very little trust in the arm of flesh. Underlying conditions were seen as Covid deaths (all last year), but now with the vaccine they are giving excuses it isn't the vaccine, they had underlying conditions. It would be nice if things were simply reported accurately, rather than spewing the fear one way, while denying it the other way."
  11. The concept of a "unified" nation will only be accomplished when the denizens of the nation care more about truth and morality, and less about money and power. When the citizens do not, then you have compromise on items that should never be compromised. The easiest examples since the origination of the American Constitution would be slavery and abortion. In the United States' founding documents we proclaim that all men/women are created equal, and yet the founders compromised on slavery. In the United States' founding documents we all have the right to the pursuit of happiness, unless you are a child within the womb. Thus, compromise results from individuals who want to push a narrative/agenda, rather than focusing on truth and morality. There shouldn't be any budge against truth and morality, but as we have seen, people who care more about narrative/agenda, power, and money they will push and push until they get their way. We should peacefully present and fight for (uh oh, I used the word "fight" -- I might be starting/inciting a riot on ThirdHour) true God given rights. Say next month, congress votes in a bill that makes abortion legal at all points, free, and provides $5000 in “emotional/physical recovery” for everyone who goes through it. What would the appropriate “unified” nation response for those who disagree? Work through the avenues that have already been given in our founding documents. We are to peacefully act and fight for (there is that word again -- fight) "rights" that are given to all. If we have done all we can, then we leave it in God's hands. We would address our senators with our concerns (i.e. the sanctity of life, and where is this $5000 coming from). If we act like the rioters (BLM and Capitol) we are no longer a "unified" but a destructive front. Would it be inappropriate under a “unified” nation for a republican owned senate and presidency to push through a bill that allows all Americans over the age of 21 to get a free handgun following an in-depth background check and firearm safety course? Yes, it would be inappropriate under our form of government. It isn't the governments responsibility to provide guns for the people. It is only the responsibility of the government (our government) to protect our rights. Once again, how would the government pay for this? Government should ensure its denizens are able to protect themselves. Or is it the responsibility of a “unified” nation’s elected leaders to acknowledge that half the nation disagrees with a certain change and negotiate a middle ground despite the party’s ability to push through whatever they want?  No, it is the responsibility of the government to protect and honor the rights bestowed upon us by our creator, and through the Republic established. If we are negotiating a middle ground (upon rights) we are already showing to have a lack of unity. If a government is pushing agenda and power they aren't a unified front, but they are establishing dictatorships. Easiest example of pushing a narrative/agenda is "gender terms." This already shows a lack of a unified front. Any stem away from truth and morality is evidence of a lack of unity -- resulting from the desire for power. Middle ground should be sought after within different avenues. Easiest example is dealing with the poor and homeless in our society. These individuals also have the right to pursue happiness. How might the government best help? Does our government seek out thoughts and opinions from its citizens and citizens who own profitable businesses? Plans will be discussed, which some will agree with and some won't. In light of the government we are blessed with, options should be provided that do not destroy that government. In this case, compromise will probably need to happen.
  12. Anddenex

    President Nelson vaccinated

    This article is the type of backwards talk that has been inconsistent since the beginning of Covid. In this article, it is interesting how they minimize the death correlated with the vaccine with "underlying conditions" but since last year they have been reporting "underlying conditions" and Covid as -- Covid is the worst virus ever. Imagine if they treated these death correlated with the vaccine as they have treated other deaths with underlying conditions? I mean, if the article (once read a while back) was correct they applied a Covid death of a man who was killed in a motorcycle accident. Also, if you calculate 32 out of 42000 death that gives you 0.00076% chance of dying from the vaccine (correlation). In Utah we have a population of 3.2 million, with about 1600 deaths total in roughly a year now. The total death percentage and likelihood of death from Covid is 0.0005%. That's not very comforting. Let's say this remains static, and everyone in the world decided to give in and obtain the vaccine. This potential deaths would lead us to 5,600,000 deaths correlated with the vaccine. More than what has died in the first year from Covid. Just using the same principle that started with Covid in the beginning of this pandemic. At first I heard it had a 10% death rate. If 100 people were found with Covid 10 would die. Then my brother was all about all the research and family texts of 4-5% (fear, run, scare). Now, with actual statistics it is much, much lower. Should we treat these correlated deaths with the vaccine as they treated Covid correlated deaths in the beginning? This is why I place very little trust in the arm of flesh. Underlying conditions were seen as Covid deaths (all last year), but now with the vaccine they are giving excuses it isn't the vaccine, they had underlying conditions. It would be nice if things were simply reported accurately, rather than spewing the fear one way, while denying it the other way.
  13. Anddenex

    The Shame of Elder Renlund

    The first question is odd. The second question is already answered in the quote. Read the quote again and you will probably have your answer to both questions through a humble and sincere read of what he said.
  14. Anddenex

    Wokeness in schools

    The easiest way to control a generation is by what they are educated with, and depending on how things are going will depend if we pull our younger children out of public education. The prolific "Media Bias" sheet/doc that people constantly show is biased (irony) also. The easiest example is CNN, which is hyper-left media. Politico is also hyper-left, and others are showing to be hyper-left. This sheet isn't convincing, but funneling people to sources, by which you hear on Facebook people say, "Unless you can show me an "unbiased" source like I have provided I won't accept it." The key word "unbiased" as-if there is any such source. Forbes is skewing left from the articles I have read, not the middle. Another example is look to how these media outlets took to Trump and Russia and how they handled Biden and China. Some say its a good place to start, but I don't think something that is already incorrect as a good place to start, but definitely an easy way to force "opinion" as fact, because "these" are the only sources that are fair or minimal bias. I put very little weight in documents like these.
  15. Anddenex

    The Shame of Elder Renlund

    You and I agree. There isn't anything wrong with the metaphor unless someone is wanting to stir the pot -- so to speak. It is a great metaphor.