Anddenex

Members
  • Posts

    6092
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Anddenex last won the day on October 11 2021

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

8734 profile views

Anddenex's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (4/4)

3.4k

Reputation

  1. Thank you. It definitely should be pointed out, but then again I'm not surprised especially with regards to how the riots were treated also.
  2. In my studies, both teachings are correct. At least for me, I separate the conditions of the world from the righteousness of the Saints. The conditions of the world do not need to meet any standard for the Lord to come the second time. God's kingdom/Church, on the other hand, will need to have a people ready to receive him. Yes. Not everyone in the Millennium will be members of God's kingdom/Church. I believe there will be Atheists who may not believe in God, but recognized the safety that will be among the Saints before Christ comes. They will honor the laws/rules of this body of people. There will be good Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, and many other people who live "good enough" lives to be spared. As God doesn't force anyone to accept or believe his strait and narrow path, this means they will die according to their beliefs but will have lived a Terrestrial law, thus receiving a terrestrial body/glory. I think this is the type of question that creates a conundrum of sorts. Sorta like when growing up my Christian friend would ask me, "If God is all powerful could he make a rock that he can't destroy"? Does "evil" stop existing because God is perfect? Yes and no, I suppose. If God always chooses "good" and never would choose evil, then ultimately "evil" doesn't exist -- and yet evil does exist -- it is simply no longer present. In the Millennium, I am thinking there is to some degree "the natural man" because not everyone will "choose" the strait and narrow path. If the Millennium were the "Celestial" law and kingdom, then the natural man would not exist (paragraph above). Yes, as to same sex attraction -- in time. The mortal body will be perfect, thus any deviation from that (any ideology of the world) will be resolved. At the same time, it may not be because same sex attraction is a choice (I understand the world doesn't like this thought -- it tells them to behave and control their thoughts), and any choice could remain. The difference in this place no one will be raising a "rainbow" flag -- a telestial ideology.
  3. This sums it up nicely. We can see this concept with the popular "ideologies" of our day.
  4. I'm unfamiliar with this teaching, and I find it very interesting. I'm in agreement though with @Just_A_Guy in that a translated being isn't going to die. John the Beloved is to have been plunged into boiling oil and no harm came to him. If no harm came to a translated being from boiling oil I have a hard time believing then any human could destroy their translated flesh -- fulfilling the prophecy that these two died and then were resurrected. We learn from the Book of Mormon that a translated being will feel no pain and will not die (as to our temporal death experience). In order for this to be true concerning Moses and Elijah or Enoch and Elijah, then the promised blessing of becoming a translated being would have to be removed. I mean, it could be possible that -- voluntarily -- either of these individuals would give up such immortality to fulfill another purpose, but I would highly doubt it.
  5. @clbent04 I'm late to the answers, but here are my thoughts. Why did the universe demand Jesus Christ have to sacrifice and die on our behalf to save us from sin? Do you suppose it’s a universal law that we as imperfect beings can never have eternal life without a Savior interceding on our behalf? Yes, this is a higher law -- according to the Father's knowledge -- that allows our Father in heaven to remain perfectly just and merciful. Yes, if we choose to sin, a way must be prepared. We learn that clearly in our temple ceremonies, and the Book of Mormon highlights this pretty well. The relation between our agency and our Savior. Did a law in the universe crack when Adam and Eve committed the first sin where all hope was lost without a Savior? I’m trying to conceptualize why the universe demands sacrifice for us to reach certain levels of progression and if it's necessary for our existence. Have you had the chance to read or listen to Boyd K. Packer's analogy/parable "The Mediator"? If not, I would recommend listening to it, as it breaks down a more complex doctrine into smaller bits that are more easily understood. If not, this link -- The Mediator -- will take you to it. In relation to that, this is a great seminary video (very 80's) that helps break down agency. How we explain a concept is important. Nothing "cracked". If someone breaks a law, even a simple law, the law acts upon that individual. When Adam and Eve committed "sin" the law now "acts" -- not cracks -- upon them. Sacrifice is required because we are unable to recompense the law on our own. If I steal I can return what I stole. If I break a neighbors window I can repair that window. If I "sin" how would I recompense and make myself clean? How do you make something unclean, clean? Thus, reiterating why Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the only way to the Father. If we are eternal and have always existed and always will exist, and if the atonement never happened, how do you suppose we would exist after this life? This question is already answered in scripture. We would be like the devil and his angels who rebelled against God. Does God’s plan work without sacrifice? An interesting question. The Lord was perfect, he chose to be perfect. Was there any sacrifice for him? Sacrifice is part of God's plan, because we choose to sin. If we loved God like our Savior loved God no sacrifice would have been required. In that light, our Savior is the center of the gospel. Because we do not love God (look at today how many sons and daughters of God know more than God and his servants the prophets) like our Savior does, and we choose to sin, thus a sacrifice was necessary. The easiest modern day "love of the world" rather than "love of God" is how clear God has said he made "male" and "female." Yet, despite the plainness even the "elect" fight to say otherwise. If sacrifice and suffering are meant to continue in the next life? We hardly grow in this life without suffering, so why would that formula change in the next life? If we are considering "sacrifice" like our Savior, no, at least for us. Suffering, what do you mean by suffering? We have perfected bodies, so there is no suffering with mortal ailments. We are immortal. Animals are immortal. Once immortal (spirit and body joined) there is no more death. So the suffering of death is no more, swallowed up in Christ. If we are exalted, this highlights a different perspective in life. If we are not "exalted" then we know to some degree their is a form of suffering -- a type of hell. In scripture we are told that even our Savior learned obedience via the things he suffered. What is possible for us to suffer in the next life though? Is God the Father suffering? He sorrows for the sins and decisions of his offspring, his heirs. He even cries due to their decisions that he knows do not bring eternal and mortal happiness/joy. And along those lines, why does human life need to be sustained by less intelligent animals such as chickens, cows, and pigs...? Eternal concept here to our eternal existence needing to be sustained at the expense of less intelligent life forms having to die for us? It doesn't. The word "immortality" -- no death -- should be sufficient to answer the next question.
  6. Yes, I agree with these thoughts from Joseph. I also believe the Savior, who is "one" with the Father, knows when the day and hour he will come again the second time. I find it odd actually when people/members say the Lord doesn't know when he will come again. He knew the day of his birth, he knows the day of his return. I agree also with the second to last sentence. The last sentence one shouldn't think to hard. It simply states the Lord will reveal to his servants when he will come, if not, it is not yet the hour he will come. Similar, a city will not be destroyed unless it is revealed to a prophet and that prophet or servants cry repentance unto that city -- a forewarning is always given. If not, the city will not be destroyed. God is both perfectly merciful and just.
  7. I would say the "it" before the "it" you mention are referring to the same thing -- every tree.
  8. The tree existed mainly for -- opposition. There was a tree of "death" (and knowledge). There was a tree of life. I can understand your puzzlement, and yet in your response to Carb you mention Alma 12:26 which pretty much says that. If they partook, then they would have been miserable forever, the plan would have been frustrated, and the word of God void -- and this is the kicker -- "taking no effect." And yet, the whole concept of "one" man (Jesus Christ) -- the bread of life -- with "one" sin (a single choice) could have also made all mankind miserable forever, the plan would have been frustrated, the word of God void -- the atonement taking no effect. Both the tree of life protection and the Atonement of Jesus Christ were according to the foreknowledge of God. A way was already prepared in both cases. The option that something, even a single choice, could frustrate the whole plan of Heaven appears to be plausible by more than one account. As of right now, according to my current knowledge and understanding of things this is accurate. We agree, that opposition already existed outside of the creation of the earth. Satan is evidence for that. However, remember, we are discussing a specific time period in relation to the spiritual creation of the earth and its fall. We are looking at a point, where Adam and Eve were provided a choice -- opposition -- between eating of the fruit of other trees while being counseled not to partake of a specific trees fruit. They didn't have much opposition other than that that we know of from scripture -- at least what has been revealed. So, if we go with what has been revealed, that becomes clearer. Until more light and knowledge is provided, the concept (my opinion) is clear.
  9. The first and foremost idea that presents itself is -- opposition. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was "death": physical and spiritual. The tree of life, while in the garden was "life": spiritual. It was a tree they could freely eat of previously. If Adam and Eve partook of the tree of life after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil it would have overcome "physical" death, but not spiritual death. There would have been no resurrection. There would have been no Savior, as death or the great sacrifice could never have occurred if they were immortal. This means, both man and women, would have been lost forever and ever, and to forever remain in their sins. Thus, a protector was placed to protect Adam and Eve from partaking of the tree of life. Immortality was already achieved in the Garden with Adam and Eve, but not in the same sense as a resurrected body with glory. Eternal life/exaltation and immortality (Moses 1:39), on the other hand, can only be achieved through death of the body -- whether that means through translation or actual death (a time of separation of body and spirit). Once again pointing to some idea of the "Fall" had to have occurred.
  10. I would say, not becoming a son of Perdition is a great advantage of faith over knowledge (in this scenario for sure). There is one aspect I think is very important to "faith" given in the book by Joseph Smith that faith is the power and action of all intelligent beings. Knowledge and faith form a symbiotic relationship of principles. We may have the knowledge of how to build a house, but the action to build that house is accomplished through faith. At times, the desire for knowledge is the reason why there is no action. I won't move until "I know", as doubting Thomas is a great example of this. Another example, think of Laman and Lemuel who said, paraphrased, "God has made no such thing known to us." In contrast, Nephi acted in faith, faithfulness, and as a result of his faith he gained knowledge -- the Lord softened his heart toward his father and made things "known" unto him that Laman and Lemuel did not because Nephi acted with faith, while Laman and Lemuel were "waiting" for knowledge. Abraham 1:2, is a great verse of scripture that highlights faith leading to obedience which leads to more knowledge. So, I would say the biggest benefit of faith is "action." Knowledge doesn't always lead to action, as has already been mentioned with Satan and his minions who followed him. They know, but do not believe in the Father's plan and fight against it. A marriage works through faith, and more so it works even better where there is faith in Jesus Christ or in true principles. I would make mention again, the greatest gift/benefit of faith is the power to act -- action. Without action there isn't any faith, it is either knowledge or belief. With faith there is action, or wisdom. Wisdom being who we place our trust in, and who we act for.
  11. Semantic...no. Abraham couldn't have been a Jew. Jew is from Judah. Judah is the great grandson of Abraham. Abraham wasn't a Jew as Abraham followed a "higher law" not the lesser law which was given through Moses to the children of Israel. So there was no Judaism with Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob as all followed a higher law at the time. Judaism is represented of the lesser law. The point of the question, was to highlight the difference between Judaism and Moses (who obviously wasn't part of Judaism). It would be similar to saying Catholics today are no different than the Protestant Christians of our day. Catholics were the first Protestant Christians? They weren't. Or even more highlighted, Catholics today who say the Apostles were the first Catholics. Were they? So no matter what we "hold" as true, doesn't make it accurate as with saying Abraham or Moses (who were both higher law followers, Moses himself subjecting to the will the Lord followed the mandated lesser law although fully capable and probably did follow the higher law as well. If records are true, which I can't see why not, that he eventually was translated). It wasn't "Judaism" that Moses instituted, otherwise, do you consider the Nephites to be part of the Judaic religion?
  12. Judaism is only called Judaism because they were the remaining tribe that kept the records in that part of the world, and the tribe our Savior was prophesied to be born and raised in. Judaism being "good enough" for Christ is an awkward question that is flawed. Good enough meaning....? Judaism was the only religion, people, who would crucify their God. Is that what this question means by good enough? It was "good enough" because they crucified him? Judaism is the same religion followed by the Nephites and Lamanites (or at least should have been without apostacy from the children of Israel). So, was it Judaism that was good enough? Did the Nephites and Lamanites call their religion "Judaism"? Or was it the teachings of Moses from the Lord who wasn't a Jew that the children of Israel (not just the Jews) were to follow? Was it Judaism when Moses created the laws that the Israelites were to follow? As already pointed out the Lord came to fulfill the law, and fulfill it he did. The scriptures are clear also, after what name should "Christ's" Church be known? Judaism? No. After his name. So to say, Judaism was good enough once again is an inherently flawed question.
  13. Correct, and that was the point of the question. Saying Judaism is good enough for Christ, why not us, is inherently a flawed question to try to prove a point.