• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Anddenex last won the day on June 20

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

8197 profile views
  1. Anddenex

    Tolerance vs inclusion.

    Yes, that is correct, and I didn't mention it because I thought it was self-evident from your original response; however, your clarification might be good for others who are reading through the thread. The official Church thoughts is why I mentioned the concept of Zion where the righteous dwell and the wicked flee from (Is that inclusive in light of what Elder Cook mentioned?). It is also why I mentioned the kingdoms of glory which is official Church doctrine. We are discussing the concept of inclusion, while the most inclusive being (glorified being) will ultimately judge his offspring, his heirs, and they will be divided into kingdoms. According to the worldview, as Vort mentioned (and the OP), this isn't inclusive at all. Official Church doctrine is that we are to call sinners to repentance. In our worldview, modern age, to call a sinner to repentance is an act of intolerance and a lack of inclusivity of a person's chosen lifestyle. This is also why I mentioned I am confused as to the boundary of inclusion within the Church, and in the world we live in. If we truly love our children we will do all we can to keep them on the covenant path. That means we call sinners to repentance, which isn't tolerant or inclusive according to the current worldview.
  2. Anddenex

    Encouraging Temple recommend renewals?

    Meant to respond to this thread sooner. This is one I have mixed opinions on even when I was in the bishopric during this time. I, personally, thought doing temple recommends -- while the temple was closed -- unnecessary. If the temple is open, then yes, I find it very necessary. If the temples were all of a sudden shut down (all of them), and you couldn't attend would a temple recommend be needed? No, because there is no temple to attend, and I am still worthy. If the temples were open, and I couldn't attend the temple I would still go in for a temple recommend because the temple is open. It is available, and should my circumstance change for a day (even an hour) I would go to the temple with that active recommend. With that said, I kept my active regardless because I knew at some point the temples would be open. But admit, for the first six months when the temples were closed I didn't see the value in it. The Lord isn't going to ask for my temple recommend, but whether or not I am worthy. Yes and no. Some are some aren't. I know I was still performing temple recommend interviews while in the bishopric. I would be more concerned if this remains when the temples are back to fully being open again. Right now, I can see people being apathetic, especially if they are living worthy lives still.
  3. Anddenex

    Tolerance vs inclusion.

    When I hear the word tolerance I am reminded of this talk from Elder Packer, "These Things I know," and the following quote from it, "Tolerance is a virtue, but like all virtues, when exaggerated, it transforms itself into a vice. We need to be careful of the “tolerance trap” so that we are not swallowed up in it. The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate legalized acts of immorality does not reduce the serious spiritual consequence that is the result of the violation of God’s law of chastity." Yes, I agree that we are no longer hearing about tolerance, but inclusion -- unless you're religious and you adhere to the doctrinal truths (as God sees it). There appears to be two types of "inclusion" in our world. The one @Vort portrayed, and the one @Suzie portrayed. God, and His Son Jesus Christ, are the most inclusive beings in this world, and yet as the most inclusive beings in this world there is an Outer Darkness, Telestial Kingdom, Terrestrial Kingdom, and Celestial Kingdom (which kingdom has three separate levels itself). There are laws which can't be broken, or as Elder Packer suggested, "serious spiritual consequences," and being inclusive doesn't change the laws given by God. So, to be frank/honest, I'm not sure the boundary of inclusion. I have read that Zion will be a place for the righteous and the wicked will flee from it. Is that the same inclusiveness spoken by Elder Cook? Note the scripture shared and highlight the point given, "come unto me." When people come unto Christ -- they repent, which means they repent of anything that is contrary to the will of God. We are so inclusive now that women (as ONLY women bear children) are now deemed as "birthing people." In order to be inclusive, should I now refer to my wife as simply a birthing person, so that women who want to be men (as it is a choice) can feel included? So now, my children should call -- mom and dad -- birthers. Talk about a confused world we live in. EDIT: This is what bothers me about the canceling of priesthood general conference. Was this accomplished in order to try to be more inclusive to a ever 'whining' crowd, or was this something truly done because God inspired it. Remember, not everything a prophet and apostle will do is because it is the right thing. Sometimes God takes away something because of sin, or because of some other matter. God doesn't want to lose the wheat among the tares, so to speak, and thus a decision is made.
  4. Anddenex

    Light of Christ and faith in Christ

    My first thought was "yes," but the more I think about it my answer would be "no." Faith is a choice and a gift. When we exercise faith we are "acting" for ourselves and not being acted upon. In this case, an atheists is being "acted upon" by the "light of Christ" without them even knowing it.
  5. Elder Porter visited my mission in San Antonio and spoke at a conference. He provided the following scenario due to recent kidnappings and ransoms. He said, "President Hinckley asked the following question, 'What would you do if I am kidnapped and a ransom was given'"? He answered his own question with, "Nothing. You do nothing." He then said, "This goes the same for you." It was under the impression that if any of the leaders of the Church were to be kidnapped and a ransom paid, then it would only encourage/entice more kidnappings and ransoms. I thought the story was interesting.
  6. Anddenex

    Faith vs Knowledge

    How does this statement of truth fit into what you are thinking/pondering, "I know God answers prayers. I then know God exists because he answered my prayer(s). If God did not exist I would not have received a direct answer to my prayer. My knowledge though of who God is, what it means to be perfect, and many other things about God -- well, my knowledge is not perfect." I don't think there is anything wrong with a brother/sister feeling uncomfortable with saying "I know," and not saying it themselves. I would call this intellectual honesty. If a person does not feel they can say "I know" then they honestly shouldn't (my opinion). Then stick with what you feel until you feel you can honestly say "I know." This then comes back to the question, "Is the witness from the Holy Ghost knowledge"? If so, then that witness is either "knowing" or it isn't. At the same time, not every witness from the Holy Ghost is knowledge, but a feeling to increase or to stretch us to pursue what we yet do not know -- until we know it. The Holy Ghost will entice, and then when ready the Spirit will then bear witness -- knowledge. That is a good question, and sadly this is a human trait in a fallen world. How often in my youth did I "know" my parents loved me, and then when I received a harder discipline then expected I doubted their love? This entails our imperfect knowledge (why we still act in faith, although we may know "a thing"). If our knowledge was perfect (in all aspects like God) we would have no reason to doubt. We would accept what is and move on. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is so interwoven with other principles it can then easily branch into a new topic. What we are discussing here is now opposition -- tests and trials. This is why I like this verse of scripture, "Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other." When the Holy Ghost bears witness of a truth, we can ultimately expect some form of enticement rendering the opposite of the witness. As our knowledge isn't perfect we can expect at times we will "act" toward our doubt, rather than our faith. Faith and knowledge are complimentary. As we act in faith, we gain knowledge (witness from the Spirit for spiritual truths, and through study and hard work for temporal truths). Our knowledge isn't perfect, which means we can choose to doubt, or we can act in faith until further light and knowledge is received. I think @Carborendum touched further on this, and hopefully I simply provided further thought. This is different levels of knowing for sure, and it is also the world in which we live in. I would think this highlights how we can know something but not have a perfect knowledge of something. There are aspects he knows, which is why he will say "I know." But as our knowledge isn't perfect a safeguard statement satisfies our "ego." I used to use this terminology, especially when debating on YouTube. I don't anymore because of what you have shared. Either I accept what has been witnessed, or I don't. Personally, if the Church weren't true I wouldn't be a member of it. I don't see any point in staying in any religion that has been identified as -- false. Not trying to play devil's advocate, but simply creating a thought. Remember it was by the "words" of God that the earth and all other worlds were first created spiritually before they were temporally. Remember the words of Nephi that if God commanded him to say to the mountains become a valley, or the valley become a mountain it would be done. Thoughts proceed words. The thoughts that became words is why we have all that we see. Right, because in "a thing" the existence of God, we would know it. But isn't it interesting that an angel declared unto Laman and Lemuel that God had delivered Laban, and they immediately looked to the power of Laban rather than the "word" of God -- as given by his servant (Clarification -- I am not likening you to Laman and Lemuel -- just so that is clear). Even if we see God face to face we can still deny "who" He is. Satan knows Jesus Christ is God/Savior, but when Lucifer presents himself -- who does he present himself to be (although he knows otherwise). Simply stating, we can act contrary to what we KNOW -- would you agree?
  7. Anddenex

    Faith vs Knowledge

    This is a topic I have studied. I have thought through. And I have come to my own conclusions. I wish I could find a talk that addressed this concept thoroughly, but this one at least gives it a good go from Brad Wilcox: If we pit knowledge and faith against each other, then my mind draws itself to the following phrase of scripture, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (emphasis mine) If salvation is received through "knowing" God and his Son Jesus Christ, how are then we to be saved -- if we can't say "I know"? Faith must have three components for it to be faith: 1) It must be true. 2) It is not a perfect knowledge. 3) It is a hope for things not yet seen. The idea of not having a perfect knowledge does not negate some form of knowledge (something we know). Not a perfect knowledge, is not an absence of knowledge. This is why I like the verse you have already shared, "And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know." People for some reason also become fixated with #3 (not seen) while forgetting about 1 (it exists) and 2 (some form of knowledge/evidence is required). Our knowledge becomes perfect in a thing, and that thing must be true. The purpose of the Holy Ghost is to bear witness of truth. We are informed in scripture that if we ask we can "know" by the power of the Holy Ghost. The Lord has said that a witness from the Holy Ghost is the ability to "know" a thing -- the knowledge in that thing is "perfect knowledge." That is the purpose of the Holy Ghost, otherwise God becomes a liar, and has said something that isn't true. I prefer to trust in the Lord, and his witness from the Spirit of truth. The "knowledge" of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come. The easiest example of not having a perfect knowledge, but a perfect knowledge in a thing is answers to our prayers. I know the Lord answers prayers, and yet my knowledge about prayer is imperfect. I am still learning. I am still studying. Yet, I know, the Lord answers prayers. If a person wants to say "you can't say I know" you only have faith, then I would say they do not understand scripture that is taught in plainness. The Brother of Jared story is a perfect example of not having a perfect knowledge, but by ones faith he saw the finger of God. It was through his faith, an imperfect knowledge (but knowledge none the less), that enabled him to see the finger of the Lord by which he responded in a shocking way, "I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood." The Lord, at this time, did not have a body of flesh and blood, he was Spirit. And the Lord then says, "Because of thy faith thou has seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood." This is an event not yet seen, but is true. Then the question, if the Lord did not show his full body unto the Brother of Jared would he not have knowledge? Would he not be able to say "I know" because his knowledge wasn't perfect? No, he definitely could say "I know" because his knowledge was perfect in a thing, and that knowledge would increase through faith.
  8. Anddenex

    Matthew 11:29 - 30

  9. Anddenex

    Original Mission

    Hi Comp, My son is in a similar position as your son, and I am a little late in viewing this thread. My son was out 9 months when he returned home due to Covid. He was originally serving in Mexico. In the beginning I told my wife that come January if he hasn't been reassigned back to Mexico then he will most likely stay where he is currently serving. Come January my son was still in his current serving area, while missionaries he was on the plane with going home are now back in their original mission. In January, the moment my wife told me that he was starting to show some despondency -- which is perfectly normal and understandable. I sent him an email specifying the reasoning I think he has remained, and it is really simple. Think about missionaries when it first started. Any missionary with less than 6 months (I think it was 6 months) were sent home, there mission ended. I believe it is the same. All the missionaries that are now back in their original mission have more than 6 months. My son has less than six months at that time. It is more profitable (not necessarily money, but more as time and service of missionary). If a missionary has less than six months is it more wise to keep them where they are -- the answer is yes. I'm sorry for your son, it is heart breaking for these young men/women. My son was just getting into the language, he was so looking forward to going back to Mexico. Remember, the Church did give the option to wait and then be reassigned back to their original mission. My son, didn't want to wait, and with not waiting came the possibility of not going back. He is now good, he understands, and is working where he stands. Wish the best for your son, especially in overcoming any form of despondency and disappointment, which is all too real for someone in that circumstance.
  10. Anddenex

    Beware your “Mormon Therapist”

    While attending BYU I was really shocked with how many members were willing to indulge is boderline methodologies. One of which was sticking a kid in a sleeping bag, causing the kid pain (either by sticking an elbow in his chest (pressing as hard as you can), or something that would cause physical pain), and then when the kid is at the moment of despair and hurt they open the sleeping bag and then immediately give the kid to his parents. This was mainly for kids who were adopted. The concept -- the sleeping bag represented the uterus -- and thus birth, when the sleeping bag or bag was opened. It was the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, and yet it was considered a logical and rational practice. So, yes, just because they are members does not mean they will be inline with gospel principles. I could go on, just from BYU, and it amazed me. Rather than strengthening testimony therapists would be depleting it. With that said, are their good, really good, therapists. Yes. One of my single ward bishopric members was a therapist and a successful one in Utah. I asked him about his practice and why he thought it was successful. He said, "The main principle/practice I have stems from the Book of Mormon, and that is why it helps people."
  11. Anddenex

    Salem Witch Trials and Current Events

    And this is why I don't trust Fact-Checkers (talk about one of the most biased sources and manipulators). Here are the excuses: If not, then where did she earn her money from to purchase 4 properties up to almost 3 million dollars. It is really a pitiful attempt to hide facts.
  12. Anddenex

    President Nelson vaccinated

    Isn't this guy now advocating (or has been advocating) to wear two face masks for protection? It almost feels like it was a test just to see how many people they could get to blindly follow.
  13. This is an interesting thread. I, personally, feel people should follow their own conscience (the Spirit and Light of Christ) pertaining to coming unto Christ. We know the Lord may inspire one of his children differently, as he deals with each of us on a personal level. My experience with fasting has always been 24 hours, except for one time where I fasted and prayed for 48 hours. My experience is that I would never do it again (in light of prophetic counsel also). This is just for me though. At the end of 48 hours my whole lower body cramped with extreme pain. The moment the cramps set in I broke my fast, and grabbed a PP&J and milk. The experience didn't result in any uplift of Spirit (from my purview). On my mission, I read one time where a leader of the Church counseled multiple 24 hours fasts, one or two times a week. I found that to be more beneficial (this is just for me). I think the key to any fast is what you said in your conclusion and retrospective here, "I need to be single-minded in my fasting, not worrying about trivia and nonsense."
  14. Anddenex

    When do I teach my kids anti?

    This is the main reason why I have looked into anti-Church material. I want to be able to answer questions, or simply be aware. I, personally, wait for my children to ask questions, but as @Carborendum if I can get them to know the Spirit, then anti-Church material won't bother them. They will be like me. Some history will shock them, but they will do as President Nelson said, paraphrased, "Take their concern to the Lord and trust in him." Trust in what has already been witnessed. People who fall to anti-Church material (like my brother) are individuals who have lost the Spirit in their lives. If people want to leave, like John Dehlin, they will find their personal reason to justify their disobedience and their desire for the great and spacious building. So, as you are studied, take your thought to the Lord, converse with your wife, and make a decision. And as you already know -- watch milk before meat.
  15. Anddenex

    Demands of Justice

    So is what you both are saying is that if someone rejects the atonement then justice will reject Christ's payment for their sins? That is an interesting way of phrasing the question, and in the manner you have phrased it I would say to a degree the answer is correct. Only the Sons of Perdition receive the full measure of justice, which mercy can't rob, but I'm not sure "reject" Christ's atonement would be an accurate wording for justice. Christ's Atonement satisfies the demands of justice and mercy. The one receiving the Atonement either rejects or accepts the Atonement. Justice acts upon the individual (when law is broken), while mercy is received by acting for ourselves. As all are saved, this would mean that to some degree the Atonement satisfies the demands of justice to a degree, even for the unrepentant sinner. Telestial glory and Terrestrial glory are glories by which to some degree a "sinner" did not repent. If not then why in hell (literally speaking 😀) is justice still exacting it's demands on the unrepentant sinner if it has already accepted Christ's payment on their behalf? This again is why I like Elder Packer's metaphor of "The Mediator". We enter into an agreement with Christ (Covenant), by which the demands of justice can be satisfied. The satisfied demands of justice are only good if we maintain our covenant with our Mediator. If we break that covenant, we are left unto ourselves and the original law is now once again placed upon us. Again to a degree the demands of justice are satisfied, Immortality is a free gift to all (except sons of perdition), and even the Telestial kingdom (Immortality, but does not overcome spiritual death) is a gift that satisfies to some degree justice's demands. The demands of justice are only satisfied if we maintain covenant with our Mediator. I also would point to the Lord's words, paraphrased, "I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive." I also like the parable of the workers in the field and how all are paid a penny no matter the time they started. The agreement is given, the conditions are set, and if a worker would have left before the day was done would they have received a penny? No. Is the payment ready to be given? Yes, and only if they work the agreed upon time. The payment (which satisfies justice) is according to covenant, the conditions of that covenant are faith and repentance.