Anddenex

Members
  • Content Count

    5357
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Anddenex last won the day on December 24 2018

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

5309 profile views
  1. Anddenex

    Perished if they had remained

    This is the type of post that causes me to ponder the sincerity of your questioning. I already know Jim isn't sincere. In what world is a people impacted by another until the invasion? There were still rich people in Jerusalem (who were enjoying their riches) before they were once again destroyed. So, yes, it is quite obvious they would have been enjoying what wealth they obtained before they left, and they would have enjoyed it up until the invasion. Moot point. You use Laman and Lemuel as an example, who were rebellious and wanted to go back to their wealth, as they didn't believe their father as he was a "visionary man" in their eyes and a foolish man. What is the purpose of the questioning? Are you hoping you will find loopholes, that somehow two stories have to match up perfectly in order for both stories to be true? The point of these stories is not a history lesson of exact times and dates. It is a statement, as given in the first chapter of the Book of Mormon pertaining to the tender mercies of the Lord upon Lehi's family. 1) Lehi was a prophet who prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem. Straining at the word "immediate" is childish. Immediate is interpreted as "not so many years" before the destruction of Jerusalem. Often used to say the exact time is not given, but the event will occur. 2) Lehi and family were spared from the destruction of Jerusalem. Again not a history lesson, but a statement of how the mercy of the Lord was upon them. 3) We know Lehi and others received witness (both temporal and spiritual) of the destruction of Jerusalem. The exact time and date again, not important to a story that is highlighting the tender mercies of the Lord sparing a family due to the father's desire to serve the Lord. So, what is your point exactly, and why are you hung up on simple terms? The sincerity of your questioning is wanting.
  2. There are two main aspects that have caused disobedience to the Patriarchal order: Feminism and Chauvinism. The article you provided highlights misunderstandings of the Patriarchal order from the male perspective and culture when he talked about the young woman and what her fiance said. That was/is a common misunderstanding of the Patriarchal order. Our modern day feminists desire to equal (same as) their male counter-parts as they ridicule "gender roles." I agree with others in the sentiment that modern day feminism is a cancer, combined with male chauvinism, has resulted in far too many infants to loose their lives while in the womb. Modern day feminism is definitely not in agreement with the order of hierarchy of God's kingdom. I would also say modern day chauvinism that misrepresents the Patriarchal order is also not in agreement with God's hierarchy and how the Patriarchal order is to be practiced and applied. I find it very telling how a perfect, glorified Mother in heaven, chooses to be "unsung" in our lives. Yet, earthly daughters (feminists) are seeking to deny, not partake in, and even to demean other women who choose to honor the Patriarchal order. Our modern day feminists are not like our Heavenly mother. They desire power, fame, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, and much more. Modern day feminism and chauvinism is the reason why according to a website since 1980 the number of abortions have been over 1 billion, and that the US alone has had over 60 million. I would be curious to know if these are accurate statistics. Man and women who are unwilling to protect the newborn is evidence of a nation, people, who are denying the Patriarchal order. No, feminism is not the antidote to overcoming chauvinism. Truth is the antidote to conquering error. Sadly, even members who have the Spirit given them choose to deny principles of truth for power, glory, fame, lovers of themselves, etc... In saying that though, Chauvinism is just as much a part of denying the Patriarchal order as is modern day Feminism. No, the Patriarchal order is not dead.
  3. Anddenex

    Bogus collections claim. Thoughts?

    If this is a sub-contractor from the builder, then the builder is the one to pay sub-contractors (unless you specifically hired the sub and not the builder). I wouldn't be surprised if the builder and sub-contractor had a disagreement and now sub-contractor is trying to get money from you.
  4. Anddenex

    The covenant land

    The easiest one is the children of Israel and the land that was covenanted to them, which they had to travel to. The simple fact that Lehi was provided a promised land is reason enough to believe that the Lord would have covenanted with others in sending them to a different land also. There is no record, at this moment, of Australia being a covenanted land to a specific people; however, as the Book of Mormon mentions Christ did not just come to the American continent and visit after his death and resurrection. He went to other sheep, and other sheep could have easily have been people in Australia and other islands, we simply do not have their record yet. We know God though has covenanted land. Why only America? It hasn't been only America so it is safe to make the assumption other islands, continents, could very well have been covenanted.
  5. Anddenex

    Conference Rumors

    The intention was to point how how Maureen constantly misrepresents other posters and what they are actually saying. My response was in result to Fether's initial thoughts on what he doesn't believe someone who is elect will do, and what he believes someone who is elect will do. Maureen responded with an inaccurate interpretation of his response. Fether defended that response, Vort piped in specifying Maureen's inaccuracy, and JAG also pointed out her misrepresentation of Fether's comment also. At this point JohnsonJone's defended Maureen's comment specifying that her comment matched up very well, when her comment didn't match up to what Fether was actually saying. I simply pointed out that Fether's list isn't about being robotic. Fether's response wasn't providing superficial, by which Maureen's initial statement specified, "Your list of do's and don'ts seems superficial, there's no humanity or love behind either. " I simply pointed out how intriguing it is that someone would defend Maureen's last comment that Fether's list is superficial and there is no humanity and love behind either, which is why I ended with the following: Maureen's comment is obviously a misrepresentation of Fether's comment. And well, to be blunt, how silly it is and a person must have a lack of spiritual discernment to think Fether's list was 1) Robotic, 2) Without humanity, and 3) Without love. The irony I would say, the individual whose comment is without humanity, without love, and robotic is Maureen's who for some reason chooses to misrepresent people. I would bet, that Fether would actually agree with your post. If someone is thinking his list was a matter of perfection, they are missing the point.
  6. Anddenex

    Conference Rumors

    It was hard to read any further after reading the given statement pertaining to @Fether's list: 1) Break the sabbath -- Last time I checked how we treat the Sabbath does in fact bear witness to our level of righteousness. Unless, you think that the person who only attends church twice a year (April and December), who parties on the weekend is just as righteous as the individual who faithfully keeps the Sabbath. I don't think breaking or keeping the Sabbath is superficial. 2) Reject callings - this has been said multiple times by living prophets that we do not say "no" to callings. This does show how righteous or unrighteous a person can be. There are obvious outliers (i.e. a story I read about a woman who would not accept a calling and did not accept a calling for 50 years because she had an abortion and did not feel worthy to have one). On the general those who genuinely accept a calling and serve are more righteous/faithful than those who don't. No different than the faithfulness of Nephi in comparison to his brothers. 3) Are checking Social Media during church - This isn't superficial. We have been asked by GAs to turn off our cell phones because people are not truly worshiping their God/Lord during the sacrament. Yes, this does show you a person commitment to the Lord and their personal faithfulness. This isn't superficial. It is a problem in the Church. 4) Gossip EVER - Seeing we are commanded not to gossip, this isn't superficial and does indeed show our faithfulness to the Lord. A person that doesn't gossip is definitely more righteous -- in that thing -- than a person who continually gossips in the ward. Gossipers are a hinder unity. 5) Fail to do FHE - Yes, this is a commandment and good counsel. A person that keeps the Lord's counsel is definitely showing more faithfulness than one who does not; although, if a person thinks they must be 100% (well, none of us are perfect). 6) Fail to read their scriptures and pray regularly -- A huge one that isn't superficial and surely does have an effect on the righteousness/unrighteousness of individuals. This is a commandment. 7) Never lie, steal, or pirate material -- Elder Bednar talked about pirating material and stealing. It is a commandment. This isn't superficial. A person who steals constantly in comparison to a person who doesn't -- well yes, this definitely is a good highlight toward righteousness vs. unrighteousness. 8 ) Attend the temple less than once a month (when within a reachable distance) -- Yes, this does show a difference of righteousness vs unrighteousness. The caveat is important. The Church has even pointed out how youth who regularly attend the temple are less likely to fall away. 9) Desire callings, assignments, and positions of glory -- I am not sure what he means by positions of glory, but a servant of the Lord desires to serve the Lord. He/she will desire to serve the Lord in whatever capacity and if they desire the Lord will call them. This isn't superficial. This desire is why Abraham became a Father of many nations, a prince of peace. 10) Aspire to Godhood -- This is no different than saying -- Calling and Election made sure. This isn't superficial, and a person (i.e. like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) who desired to know God -- which is Eternal Life -- which is Godhood as we are heirs isn't superficial. Yes, a person who is following the path toward receiving a calling and election made sure in comparison to individuals who are luke warm or don't care, yes they will tend to be more righteous and those who don't will be less so. 11) LOVE the scriptures and LOVE prayer... -- Well, yes, this isn't superficial either. A person who loves the scriptures and loves prayer will definitely become more righteous than the person who doesn't care about scriptures and doesn't care about prayer. That should go without saying. And so I am confused by how you think her comment matches up to anything, particularly this part of her statement, "Your list of do's and don'ts seems superficial, there's no humanity or love behind either." Intriguing, there is no humanity or love behind "[loving] the scriptures and [loving] prayer? There is no humanity or love behind not gossiping? There is no humanity or love behind keeping and not breaking the Sabbath? There is no humanity or love behind desiring to serve the Lord in whatever capacity the Lord calls (the elect of God hear the Lord's voice -- they choose to be chosen)? There is no humanity nor love in attending the temple more than once a month (or once a month) when the temple is in close proximity? There is no humanity nor love in desiring to KNOW God (which is eternal life) aspiring to be like him, as the Lord commanded us to do? We here have come to expect Maureen's misrepresenting comments, but honestly not sure how you are thinking that her comment matches well to anything.
  7. A bishop doesn't need to go around looking, remember, the article is referring to a temple recommend interview. It is very easy to recognize manner of dress when a person comes to a temple recommend interview.
  8. I am sorry your "way of thinking" has a hard time discerning between "unnecessary" and its connection to a rebellious apostate movement. I am a little dumbfounded your "way of thinking" has a hard time discerning between coming to church to worship or to use a sacred worship service to make a point. It really shouldn't be that hard to understand.
  9. You have obviously, once more, used selective reading and didn't pay attention to what I actually said. Go back, reread slower, and actually understand what was said. You're fixated on your own opinion of what is being said, not what is actually being said.
  10. I know its hard to understand why someone might think/feel she is being rebellious, "As a woman, referenced in this article from December 2012 said, “When a rule is this pointless and this scary to break, it NEEDS to be broken.” If in every ward, a woman feels this uncomfortable using agency to express herself, there is a problem. And if this problem prevents people from feeling safe and accepted at church, we should do all we can to fix it, right? And so they did in 2012, and in 2013. Maybe they’ll do it again. And maybe, dear Reader, we’ll all understand a little more and react a little differently." And, I remember reading this, but can't find it in the article anymore @Vort's first response, ""I think it's a wonderful idea to use a sacred communal worship service in memory and recognition of our Savior and his Restored Kingdom as a platform to air my social opinions."" When you use an obvious rebellious/apostate movement as a platform, when you say a sacred communal worship is good to air social opinions and rebellious natures, and then saying we should understand the rebellious movement and think it OK, it shouldn't be hard to understand why some see her as rebellious.
  11. Selective reasoning, reading, and hearing is still strong with this one. EDIT: not you MG.
  12. True, and she is familiar with the following question, "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"
  13. Yes and no. If jeans are truly Sunday best for "anyone" than come as you are. A young man whose shoes have holes or only has sneakers (due to a lower social economic status -- i.e. the Church video in the Self-Reliance curriculum) come with your shoes that have holes. If all a young man has is torn shorts and a black t-shirt then come as you are and worship, as that is his Sunday best. The principle is Sunday best. I find the principle very simple, clear, and plain. The easiest explanation, as an adult/young man, I know the principle and I know what is taught in the Handbook and by prophets. I have the money, or my parents have the money, to afford a white shirt and tie. I purposefully choose not to wear such, am I in my Sunday best? If I were in Japan, what is considered Sunday best, again a principle that is simple, clear, and plain. What are my motivations? Am I coming to worship Christ in my Sunday best, or am I coming to church to implicitly say, "Stick it"!
  14. This is something I have found to be extremely ironic in our Church (particularly with religion and secularism) and how we treat lightly counsel regarding what we wear. The principle, which even an apostle of our Lord once again specified, Elder Holland, "We are to remember in as personal a way as possible that Christ died from a heart broken by shouldering entirely alone the sins and sorrows of the whole human family. Inasmuch as we contributed to that fatal burden, such a moment demands our respect. Thus, we are encouraged to come to our services early and reverently, dressed appropriately for participation in a sacred ordinance. “Sunday best” has lost a little of its meaning in our time, and out of esteem for Him into whose presence we come, we ought to restore that tradition of Sabbath dress and grooming when and where we can." (emphasis mine). Sunday best has been the principle taught for a long time now. I am honestly unsure why this principle seems hard, fuliginous, for some. I believe for the many here (who are saying wear whatever you want - despite the principle given by our Lord), if there sons or daughters were to be in a play, a sport game, a dance recital, or any other event they would properly dress their child in the attire recommended. If they brought their son to a basketball game in jeans and a t-shirt would their coach allow the child to play? Would they get mad or upset or offended if the coach said, "Sorry son, you don't have the proper attire, so you will need to sit this out"? My guess, they would completely understand, and there wouldn't be any day established by any group to "wear pants and tank-tops" to play the game. We have parents who will attend a scouting flag ceremony and make sure their children are in the proper attire. But, when given a principle of Sunday best, with an invitation of what that means, we have parents who don't care about their child's attire at church, but will make sure they have the proper attire for a scouting event. Personally, once again, this is another sad item that makes me all the more realize why the Lord still calls us his "little children." Then, do we need to wonder why we are loosing so many youth to the world? Parents will make sure they are at every game -- on time (or close to it) -- they will make sure they have the proper attire (clothing) -- if the coach disciplines them through proper means (whether by voice or by extra laps) the parents (more than not) tell their children to buck up. But, heaven's no, tell my child to wear his/her Sunday best -- forget you! Oh the irony in those who profess to belong to the Church.
  15. Anddenex

    Figurative vs Literal

    I am honestly dumb founded that someone who served a mission could make the emphasized statement. Let's review what we have: 1) Bible 2) Book of Mormon Let's remember that both of these books represent a witness from two nations and their experiences with Jehovah/Jesus Christ. Wait, what do you mean by only two "biased" resources? They are biased because they speak of Christ? They are biased because they come from a nation? Are you really thinking through this statement, "just two biased resources"? Let's check your facts: 1) Doctrine and Covenants, particularly the following verse of scripture, "And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!" 2) All other prophets since Joseph Smith, there personal witness and testimony. President Snow who said the following, "‘Wait a moment, Allie, I want to tell you something. It was right here that the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to me at the time of the death of President Woodruff. He instructed me to go right ahead and reorganize the First Presidency of the Church at once and not wait as had been done after the death of the previous presidents, and that I was to succeed President Woodruff.’" 3) The 12 additional witnesses. OK, so you taught from the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, and any other Church resource, and yet you specify, "If Jesus was real I would have had more resources than just two biased books..." Guess what brother Jesus is real, because you had more than two resources. Think.A.Little.Harder.And.More.In.Depth.Please.