Anddenex

Members
  • Posts

    6317
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Anddenex last won the day on February 24

Anddenex had the most liked content!

About Anddenex

  • Birthday August 8

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

11047 profile views

Anddenex's Achievements

  1. When I think of this scripture a few things come to my mind. The first is when Christ said to Peter, paraphrased, "Before the cock crows thrice you will deny me thrice." The hour or time for this to come wasn't known but it did come quickly. In the moment, Peter could have easily seen what was happening, but it wasn't until the third crow that the prophesy did prick him. This highlights that members of the Church who are not read (prepared for) the signs of Christ coming will come as a thief in the night. Also, Peter did not believe this would be the case, so when the cock was crowing his mental state dismissed the first and the second. For some, they will dismiss the signs because they do not believe these are the signs. The second is that we are aware of a general assembly that will happen. We understand Adam will preside (if I'm remembering correctly) and Christ will come to his people at this assembly. These people will not be surprised as to the day and hour the Lord will come again. This brings back to my remembrance the words of Nephi when they were in a time of need and the Lord said, "Tomorrow I come into the world." (paraphrased) If we believe in the signs, if we have studied the signs, we will be watching and we will be prepared. The Spirit, like with Nephi, will bare witness of the Lord's return to those who are listening. To those who are not, it will be similar to the Nephites at Christ's first coming to them. The Spirit spoke (or the Father here) and they comprehended it not. Or like Amulek, who said something to this nature the Lord did call but I did not listen.
  2. This is the type of question, at least to me, that doesn't change the fact that God said no, and then said yes ( @laronius beat me to it). This happened also in the Old Testament when the children of Israel asked for a King. The prophet and God said no, but after time God finally said give them what they want with further light and knowledge as to what would happen, and it happened. The original version still answers the questions just fine.
  3. The glory of God is "Light and Truth". I take this verse to be both figurative and literal. Our bodies are wrapped in glory (light), even such that it has the ability to kill a mortal body unless that body is quickened -- light increased.
  4. I think this is a great question. I think these type of questions allow us to ponder truth a little more as we seek further light and knowledge. I would take a different approach and simply say focus on these aspects within their sphere of truth. I really like this teaching in the Doctrine and Covenants where it teaches us the following, "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." (emphasis mine) Let's review this independent truth, "the only true Church." This is a very important truth that shouldn't be replaced by the "most correct," which is pointing toward the Book of Mormon in reference to other scripture (Holy Bible). Within its independent sphere of truth it should never be compromised to "most correct." There is no other way back to the Father, except through Christ and his Church. If we were to solely focus on "most correct", then it could lead some to remove themselves from the Church because it may be the most correct but there are still other paths that are correct. This would result with some members making a choice to follow a forbidden path, letting go of the iron rod. As truth is a sphere, independent, spheres of truth are also interwoven with each other. Remember, we believe the "restored" Church of Jesus Christ, and as President Nelson has made clear that restoration is still very much occurring. This is also taught in our Article of Faith #9. We believe that God will continue to reveal truth to his Church. This revelation may result from another church's teachings. This is why I find Mason theory from anti-Church individuals to be humorous. If the Lord preserved a "truth" for his restoration through another faith or culture, then the Lord has every right to bring that truth back into his Church -- without question. All truth is Christ's -- for he is the way, the truth, and the light. As we properly focus on each of these two truths, "most correct," and the "only true Church" we will profitably grow quicker. If we focus on one more than the other we will lose that independent truth and eventually look beyond the mark. It needs to be announced unapologetically and unequivocally that this is the only true Church. This is the straight and narrow path. There is no other way to the Father, and this is why we have work for the dead (as you know). We also need to keep aware that the Book of Mormon is the "most correct," because this allows the right and privilege of the apostles and prophets to make updates, corrections, or clarifications to scripture.
  5. So here are the questions? "Continuation of the lives", what does it mean? My understanding of this verse currently, is that it simply means that our lives will continue beyond of the grave as exalted beings. It does open the idea of a continuation of God's work and glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of the sons and daughters of God. Speculation of course. When did Jesus Christ enter into his exaltation? Before the pre-mortal existance? After the atonement? He is already there. There was never a time where he was without the Father (so to speak). My thoughts entertain Christ's baptism. Some things just need to be done, but he was already there baptism didn't change his glory, his body. Curiously, I don't think that Able entered into his exaltation yet. I'm inline with other thoughts in this thread. Able probably was not the first to die of Adam and Eve's sons and daughters. It's humorous to me that I never really thought about the first person to die and being alone in the Spirit World. That had to have been a very interesting experience, seeing how often I have read and heard from others how they are looking forward to the family/friend embrace once they pass on from this earth life. Able, at my current knowledge, would be no different than Adam, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Nephi, Sam, Lehi, and any other righteous saint. I believe it is doctrine that all who were righteous (kept their first estate) would have been resurrected after Christ was resurrected. We know that Able was a righteous man, the Lord appears to make that known to Cain. There is no reason to think Able wasn't resurrected as with others, and that he is currently doing what others are doing also who died before Christ and his resurrection. If Cain still walks the Earth, he would be the obvious source of secret combinations. That is an interesting thought regarding Cain. I don't have much to say with regards to Cain. I'm more inclined to believe the apostles experience as noted in the Miracle of Forgiveness. What an awful punishment, but for one to introduce murder and other things it doesn't seem to bad either.
  6. The answers you are looking for are found within 1 Nephi 8.
  7. I'm a big fan of the American Heritage dictionary, and I find these definitions with regards to estate to be helpful to your question: In relation to #4, we have our first estate. If we keep our first estate it then gives way to our second estate, and if we continue with this one might say the second estate gives way to the final estate meaning a kingdom of glory and increase. In relation to #5, this seems fitting also because of the wording here, "and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever." If we keep our social position/rank, then we receive a higher position or rank. If we think about scripture, those with bodies have power over those without bodies. Let's take Joseph Smith's teaching for this one: “All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not. The devil has no power over us only as we permit him. The moment we revolt at anything which comes from God, the devil takes power” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 181). (emphasis mine) Our social rank/position increases if we keep our first and second estate. If we keep not our first estate than our social rank and position decreases as we have no glory and no increase. In my opinion, this fits well with why estate may have been used rather than another word.
  8. Thank you for the insight regarding the Canaanite woman. I'm in agreement with your interpretation, it is how I have interpreted it and understood it. The OP's question though wasn't if Jesus went after Gentiles, but more along the lines did he offend them: Can you think of any time he offended non-members? Offense is often personal perception. I don't think Jesus went after the Pharisees, Scribes, or Saducees either. His response in their direction was in direct response of them going after him. His responses were for them to think, become more aware, and then hopefully repent. With what little we have of what Jesus said, the unknown, we can't really say what he said to every Gentile or non-member he met. If a Gentile came after Jesus like the Pharisees I don't think he would have had any problem giving a similar speech to them also. It wasn't just the Pharisees Jesus was strong with words toward. I mean he even told his first and foremost apostle Peter to "Get back Satan." I mean, that isn't a compliment. I can't think of any scenario where Jesus, from the scriptures we have, were he went specifically to go after and attack/offend any Jew.
  9. If we are strict with interpretation, the Canaanite (not considered a member) woman was not a member and most people would be offended at being likened to a dog at a master's table. But she took no offense, accepted the metaphor, continued with the metaphor, and her daughter was made hole. I'm thinking, most people would be offended at this type of straight forward analogy.
  10. As far as we know, the only threshold was accepting Christ. We can also see how polarized humans can be with topics, policies, and decisions. With our given moral agency, the outcome was for sure -- stay with Satan remain as you are -- or choose Christ and have the "potential" to become like the Father. I'm amazed with the assured outcome for Satan that people followed him, but as in this life, we have people who will make a choice for the blessing that is seen, and deny the blessing that is not see (faith). The earthly reward is seen, so our true nature can be shown (what we always were in the beginning) not what we professed it to be. So, I agree with you.
  11. Every time I read this verse, I have interpreted it the same way @mikbone that its referencing Cain's proclivity in the pre-mortal life. The connection is Satan being the father of lies and Cain being the father of "his" lies (I understand his to be Satan's lies). We know from scripture that Satan was a liar from the beginning (pre-mortal). I see the dual meaning: 1. You were just like all of us existing before this world 2. Like Satan, you were a liar in the beginning and his proclivity lead him to be Perdition (which could also mean he always had the heart of Perdition if the right circumstance resulted). "was also" what? "before the world." The verse is speaking about lies (a liar) and Perdition, so the "what" for "was also" makes sense it is referring to our pre-mortal life and Cain's tendency toward lying and Perdition. I'm good with either interpretation or both, because it isn't fully clear, but someone will say, "Oh its perfectly clear," and give their justification and that is fine also. I'm just more saying he isn't the only person to interpret it this way. I have heard this interpretation given by multiple people also.
  12. I really like the scripture verse you quoted from regarding "sphere" of truth. I think that is the best way to describe truth. First, I find it humorous when anti-_____ try to use statements from previous leaders in order to prove contradictions within the Church and a specific principle. Second, we also know that every apostle and prophet were men and were given the intelligence (just like us) to think upon and try to discover truth. I personally love how open they were able to speak. How open they were able to share their ideas that they felt were true. This is unlike today, where our apostles and prophets are very conscientious of what they say due to anti-____. We have so many people now who are looking for anything and everything to make an attack -- to make an offender for a word/phrase. The whole concept of "eternity" (neither created nor made) and eternal progression (the capabilities of our next life) are as you have shared at the end, "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it." There are three concepts that appear to contradict in these quotes (at least in the context provided): 1. We are all going to continue learning 2. The Gods had all knowledge and would not need to continue to learn and progress. 3. The sons of perdition will dissolve back and lose their identity The teachings from #1 and #2 seem to contradict at face value; however, we already know that when we die we will continue to progress and learn into the eternities. This though does not mean those who are already Gods (i.e. God the Father and Jesus Christ). I doubt when I die that I will have come to the same knowledge God the Father already has. I think I will be learning well into the eternities. This seems to give evidence for #1. God the Father gives evidence for #2, and Joseph Smith quoted by Joseph Fielding Smith would be evidence to how God progresses (and potentially how we will progress also at some point). Or we will progress both ways at the same time. Number 3, is the only one that is new to me. I have never read this before regarding the sons of perdition. Always some new principle in the Journal of Discourses that makes you go "Hmmmmm". LOL What I wish I could do is have a good one-on-one with these previous leaders and asking them more in depth questions so they could expound on these teachings. I would love to pick their brains further, because I know I have thoughts as to how and what I currently perceive to be true or potentially true. I just wish I could hear more of these type of thoughts from our current apostles and prophets, but unfortunately, we live in another day and time where anti-____ are looking for anything they can -- even when they say its their opinion -- the monkeys come out on that "shista" real quick and start flinging. As you, I don't see any contradictions. I would love more context to the quotes as stated in the previous paragraph.
  13. This is one of the aspects in the gospel I find intriguing. How the same principle can be defined in different ways, and in ways that seem to contradict. I assume though, this is why we grow grace for grace, line upon line, and precept upon precept so we can more fully understand correct principles. Belief is to Faith/Hope as Knowledge is to Wisdom. Our belief is a declaration of what we accept as true or false. I agree with your first sentence regarding belief, that people will have outward belief's that are not consistent with what they really think (inward belief). This is the crux of those who endure a "faith crisis." It might be better said that what they "really think" is their actual belief while their religious belief is what they are unsure of but hope it to be true. I would also say, we don't know what we really believe (or have faith in) until a trial that conflicts with or tests the nature of that belief. I would disagree with the totality that if you believe in truth you will never tell a lie, because it depends on the heirarchy within a person's belief system. I believe in "self-preservation" and I believe in truth; however, if telling the truth would interfere with self-preservation then I will tell a lie. What your statement reminds me is the words from Socrates, "To know good is to do good." I might add, their is a difference between temporal belief and knowledge that results from a spiritual witness. The evidence is Christ's words to Peter when he said flesh and blood did not reveal it unto you as to who he (Christ) was/is. Hope/Faith -- I'm not sure that people confuse faith with hope. Faith and hope are interwoven. We know from scripture that without hope you cannot have faith, and without faith you cannot hope. I would say the relationship between the two is the confusion. The idea presented between "leap of faith" vs. a "leap of hope" confirms this. As we cannot have faith without hope, a "leap of faith" is the correct term as it combines both hope and faith in the same phrase. Hope is a potential idea, a potential truth, that we are willing to believe. We show we have faith and hope due to the action of that belief; the combination of hope and faith. Without faith, a person would never get on their knees, because we can "believe" without taking action. I can believe reading books betters one's life. I can have hope that if I read this particular book it will better my life (i.e. Book of Mormon). The reading of the book is the combination of hope and faith. My belief is truly shown when I act in faith/hope of that belief. I'm in agreement though as to the relationship with hope and faith is that hope is the first act, and then faith becomes evident by our action. Then the cycle continues, to increase in faith our hope is first increased toward a new goal, a new height, and then we act (faith). Knowledge -- At the moment, my understanding of knowledge is what you have shared. This is why I'm bothered by members who say, "You can't know anything, thus you can't say 'I know' in testimony." It is clear from scripture that the witness from the Holy Ghost is knowledge -- knowing. It is clear from scripture the more knowledge we obtain, from the spirit, the more it can condemn (if we act against it) because we no longer merely believe a truth we were given knowledge of that truth. This is why to "know" God as one knows the "sun" at noon day is damnation if one ever rejects it (son of perdition). If we didn't know a thing, then we can't be held accountability to the fullest extent of the law. This is why we are supposed to "trust" or have confidence in the knowledge we have received from the Holy Ghost, and to increase in knowledge that is higher than the ways of this temporal (telestial) earth. The "faith crisis" for many is that they are willing to believe/accept telestial truths over heavenly (celestial) truths. They want the heavenly to be diluted to earthly. They want heaven to bend, rather then their willingness to submit to ultimate truth, real truth.
  14. I'm not sure if you are looking for talks about God is good, or complications with pregnancy, or just trials in general. My wife went through about 7 miscarriages, like this article she feels she lost twins with one miscarriage -- and God is still good. One talk that allowed the Spirit to teach and change my heart is Elder Hollands talke, "Cast Not Away Therefore Thy Confidence" -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2000/06/cast-not-away-therefore-your-confidence?lang=eng#title1 Here is another article that may deal with what you are requesting: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/10/but-if-not?lang=eng#title1 Joseph B. Wirthlin, "Finding s Safe Harbor," https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/04/finding-a-safe-harbor?lang=eng There's a start of readings that would fit what I think you are looking for.