Anddenex

This line of thinking is so very odd for any bishop to suggest. Dating men is a homosexual act. He isn't just going out with friends. I wonder if his bishop would say to a married man the same thing if he came to him saying, "I love my wife, but I'm going to start dating other women. It isn't adultery, as I'm just dating other women I'm attracted to." I still don't understand how easily some people seek to split hairs when it comes to a decision with homosexuality. It is as clear as the day light is from the dark night. It is as clear as a married man deciding to date other women -- although technically not adultery. The debate is there due to people listing to obey the wrong spirit.

I'm not sure "limitations" is the right word; however, there are bounds set according to the knowledge, mercy, and justice of our creator -- Heavenly Father. We know from scripture, and modern day prophets, that all are saved -- except for -- the sons of perdition. The atonement of Jesus Christ covers: 1) Telestial glory 2) Terrestrial glory 3) Celestial glory (and its kingdoms) We know that only one tier in the Celestial kingdom is able to receive all the Father hath. Our brothers and sisters who will be in a lesser degree of glory are there due to the atonement which continues throughout eternity. This doesn't change. We know there is some form of progression in each kingdom of glory, only possible through the atonement of Jesus Christ. We know that even after judgement we are still accessing the atonement to become perfected like God and his Son well into the eternities (Celestial kingdom). In that sense, the atonement is limitless, there is no bound, for the Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial beings/glories. It continues forever and ever, it is everlasting. One might say, the only limit, is the sons of perdition, but then again is there a limit on something a person fully rejects? In that sense also, it appears the atonement of Jesus Christ does also have a boundary by which the atonement won't cross or can't, much like the justice and mercy of God -- which can not be robbed. Is it then limited? Is mercy limited? Only as far as it can not rob justice, and justice is limited only as far as it can not rob mercy. Needless to say, as others shared, its limit (so to speak) is due to our personal choice.

I agree with your whole thought. In context Nordic was specifying the ambiguity might only be in English, whereas the original interpretation was in Greek.

The member of the Church who introduced this, who shared this, used the Greek version to seek to prove the interpretation.

First, are you in a work position that makes you privy to some changes that might be happening, or might be addressed this weekend? As to why the Church chooses to use, and still uses the KJV, I think this article is a pretty good thought as to why -- "400 years of the King James Bible." The end of the article shares the following, "the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than recent versions." This has been my understanding of why we have held to the KJV. I would also think, like others have shared, its connection to the Book of Mormon and words pretty much quoted from the same books. As to the second question, this is a great pondering question, but I have no clue. The next edition looks like the current edition is my best guess.

As the world ideology becomes more apparent, and as it appears to be the natural man's ever changing canon (as often as modern morals change). I was just introduced to this "itching ear" interpretation from a historian who is a member of the Church -- obviously being promulgated by ex-members with an itch or who like to kick against the pricks. "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." I have read this scripture multiple times and have never included Andronicus and Junia "among the apostles." It's pretty clear here that "note" means the following, "to notice or observe with care." They are "noticed and cared for among the apostles." Much like my children "who are of note among the bishopric in my ward." Does this mean my children are in the bishopric and called to the bishopric -- No. It appears the adversary has been very clever once more to get people to wrest scripture to a modern ideology in order to have others be miserable like unto himself. Have you heard of this interpretation before?

The primary doctrine in the gospel of Jesus Christ is agency; however, intertwined with the agency of man is another very important doctrine and that is the "foreknowledge" of God which takes into account the agency of his sons and daughters. In scripture, I find how Satan seeks to overthrow God's work, but then we read how according to the foreknowledge of God no one is able to stop the work from progressing. And yet, that progression even takes almost two millennia to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ. In this light, we are able to see then how perspective is vastly important, and why the Spirit is very important because it helps us to see things as they really are, were, and will be. As to the Lord's perspective and the Father's perspective no unhallowed hand will stop this work from progressing. They aren't seeing with natural eyes. We only have to look at the beginning of the Church, church history, to see how the transgression of the Lord's covenanted people can hinder the work, but the work of the Lord still progresses in the direction his foreknowledge takes. The fact we are not living the law of consecration right now is evidence to the transgression of the Lord's people that stop "a" work from progressing, but not the work in totality. Right now, as members of the Church we to some degree are hindering the work from progressing as fast as it could be. Those who have left the Church, due to transgression (all of them), to some degree hinder the progression, but they do not stop it no matter how hard they try to convince themselves they are now doing the right thing in fighting against the Lord -- kicking against the pricks. The most important detail though, as to my knowledge (right now), we are the only generation to receive a promise that the Church will never apostatize ever again -- collectively. So, in that light, no unhallowed hand will stop the work from progressing, because there will always be a generation (even if a fourth of the covenanted members) who will continue the work forward -- always.

I'm glad to read the 90% rate of success for your treatment. As to "lot" in life, it is one aspect of this life I completely do not understand where God's mercy/justice, fair/unjust, or curse/blessing meet and do not cross/rob each other. Reminds me of Ammon and his brethren whose lot (the brothers) fell among a more hardened Lamanite society. This Telestial world brings with it laws and mortality that are confusing, sorda like a child being diagnosed with Lukemia when they only thought it was a tough cold. Reminds me of the young husband who lost his wife in a horrific car accident and the only consolation he found was from a widow who said, "I know people want to be faithful and say faithful things, but let's be frank this really sucks"! I can't offer anything worthwhile except what you petitioned and that is prayers and a listening/reading ear through this time for ya.

I doubt he is bluffing, but at the same time it could be simply a threat that hopes will detour any conflict outside of Russia and the Ukraine. Simply put, Putin appears to be no different than the mind of Hitler. If Hitler had nukes, I'm pretty sure he would have used them. Putin seems to be saying, if you attack I'm not going to lose without heavy damage on both sides. But I agree with @LDSGator, I'm hoping he realizes that if he did it would be a very bad decision as to then how many nations would then retaliate with greater force than he has.

This, so to speak, is equivalent to the Jews when Christ lived among them. They believed in the scriptures, they taught the scriptures, and yet they couldn't recognize when the Savior walked among them. We have modern day spiritualist who believe in all scriptures, or in anything that teaches a better way of living; however, although they believe in scriptures (truths they feel are important) they deny the existence of Christ as Lord and God. They accept Christ as a great teacher, and that is as far as it goes. Deist so to speak could easily fall into this realm. They believe in a Supreme being. They believe the teachings that are taught in the scriptures, but do not believe in the deity of the scriptures themselves.

I honestly believe in this life that is the case, and when we immediately return after death we carry with us our same desires and thoughts. In that light, yes, there are people who will initially think "nah." In the end though, when light and knowledge is given (the purpose of our creation known) I believe these individuals will recognize what they missed and how ignorant that belief was. This is part of the "burning" in hell so to speak. Looking at what could have been and knowing that you (general) rejected it.

The only thing we know for sure are these items: 1) We dwell with the Father and receive all the Father hath 2) We remain "bound" (sealed) to our eternal companion 3) We have the continuation of seed 4) What Christ said in mortality remains true in immortality, what the Father doeth we do. (This is the only ambiguous statement regarding eternal life, exaltation)

In the MTC on my mission when Elder Holland he spoke, he addressed this concept with these words (paraphrased as I don't remember his "exact" terminology), "I understand some of you are concerned here in the MTC if you could qualify as a son/daughter of perdition. To put your minds at ease there is probably only one in this room who could qualify." To become a son of perdition, seems pretty small, and even Judas who betrayed Jesus Christ is not solidified that he became like Cain as there are different quotes from prophets that highlight a different meaning.

I'm inline with the thought that this means the Abrahamic covenant. It refers to Jacob's seed, relating then to a covenant that is associated with Jacob. We know Abraham received the covenant, and then Isaac sought to receive the same from the Lord, and then Jacob did also. I find it also interesting that in scripture I don't hear the same terminology with these three individuals (although it could be used) as with others, "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." We don't hear, "The God of Adam, Seth, etc..." However, scriptures tend to have more meaning than just one at times, and thus this could mean even the covenant of our first estate. I don't think it is as it specifically refers to the seed of Jacob. The second covenant could easily mean the promises given to the children of Israel. They were Manasseh's children, thus giving them the covenant/promises within being son's of Joseph and that particular branch.

This is one of the reasons why I love the movie "The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd" put out by the Church a while back. At one point the son says, "Why are you not happy for me?" To which the father replies, "I am happy for you, because you are happy. But I am sad because your happiness can not last." We indeed can respect the "agency" of another while morning their decisions (which are against God) that will not bring lasting happiness.

I understood what you wrote, that isn't the issue. That's fine you don't have to see it reflecting anything. I wasn't quoting or referencing the scriptures you shared.

That explanation is how I understand these concepts currently.

The scriptures already answer this question, and quite plainly (Moroni 7:16-26). Whatever persuades the sons and daughters of God to do "evil" is not from Christ/God. The other, if I am having to justify my thoughts, I know for myself I am not following God's will. I am indeed twisting things to make myself feel better, and to give a reason why I am doing something I shouldn't be or not doing something I should be. The other, follow the brethren. The Oath and Covenant of the priesthood makes it clear regarding the feelings of the Lord toward his servants. If you accept my servants then you accept me (Jesus Christ), and if we accept Christ, we are thus accepted by the Father. If in any way I am rejecting the prophets, the path the Church is moving, I can then know I am twisting things for mine own purpose. It comes down to a simple question, "Is Christ leading this Church (is he at the head or not)"? For me, it is really this simple, plain, and clear.

"As a people we are expecting the day to come when Jesus will descend in the clouds of Heaven; but before this day comes we must be prepared to receive him. The organization of society that exists in the heavens must exist on the earth; the same condition of society, so far as it is applicable to mortal beings, must exist here." 1. To what extent is this true? Is this the purpose of the New Jerusalem, a sufficiently righteous society, or is it required of the Church membership in general, or something in between?  In my minds eye, the meaning behind this is more a dual nature. For example, we are told in scripture that we are less than the dust of the earth, and we are also told we are of great worth, our souls. Our Father in Heaven already has a plan, no different than the birth of our Savior. The Savior's birth was at a given time, and the Savior's return is also at a given time. In that light, the quote is true. This is what we know from within scripture: The Lord will come when there is a society who is ready to receive him. This will be Zion or New Jerusalem. The Lord will come at a time where a people are still looking for his first coming, a baby being born, who aren't ready to receive him. The Lord will come at a time where people are fully wicked seeking the destruction of an entire group of people The first bullet point allows us to know that a people will have, through their own personal choice (faith unto repentance), the faith to receive him. This definitely will be the purpose of Zion. This though is already taught to everyone, so the body of the Church (its members) have already been commanded to receive him, or be prepared to receive him. So, it is required of all who have been baptized and received the Holy Ghost for sure. 2. How much progress are we making towards that goal? Is each succeeding generation more righteous than the one before? Collectively, I think we are far off. Individually, there are already members who are ready to receive him. President Nelson confirmed the statement that the Lord is sending strong spirits into the Church at this time; however, any spirit can break depending on their upbringing and their personal choice. If we want to know how ready we are to receive the Lord, look to the ministering efforts of the wards. In each ward, there is probably a handful of members who are ready to receive the Lord already. They are living a life of faith and repentance. They magnify their callings. They minister faithfully unto their brethren. As we become better ministers, that in my opinion, is the key indicator/sign of who is ready to receive the Lord and who is not.

Every decision we make begins with personal choice, and we have agreement that persons will seek to soften guilt, pain, and reasons to repent when it comes to personal lifestyle choices. The statement I provided doesn't have anything to do with the scriptures you have shared. This would be a semantics argument which aren't really helpful a lot of times. Its OK if you do not see it, and not to be rude; however you tend to not see things that are often plain and clear -- for whatever reason -- which is your personal choice.

I'm honestly not sure why, when we have the light and knowledge we do (what has been revealed to the Church collectively), this is really such a hard argument. I'm not sure why "homosexuality" is some how put into a different category than the sin of adultery. One could easily say, who is an adulterer, that they received a revelation that God made them that way. They are both a sin of desire and predisposition. The natural man, even taking it from an evolved species, has always (in the primate species) not been monogamous. Yet, we are commanded to be with only one woman, and if we step out that is sin. Do you feel the same way about adulterers as you do homosexuals? If a unrepentant adulterer, were coming to Church (and we all knew he/she was unrepentant) how close would you keep that individual to your spouse? How tolerant would you be when he decides to sit by your spouse or try to visit your spouse when you are not home? These are general questions, not particularly pointed in your direction. The adulterer could easily say, and it would be more true, that he was born that way. Yet, being born a certain way doesn't disregard the commandments of God. Remember, God accepts all his children for who they are. He has even prepared a place for all his children who choose to live according to "who they are" (naturally) rather than according to who they are spiritually. God accepts his sons and daughters who live a life fit for the Telestial kingdom. God accepts his sons and daughters who want to live a life only for Terrestrial glory. What God is hoping and trying is that we rise above the natural man, and return once again to live with him. Sadly, our world's society and acceptance is making something gray that is actually black and white, or as the scriptures say, that which we can tell as the daylight at noon day from the dark night.

Hmmm...that interesting, what year was that? JUST KIDDING!!

If true mental illness, then yes, if a person needs time to recover, recuperate, then yes. At the same time, a person is being employed for a job. If they aren't performing their job, then sadly a hard discussion needs to happen between the employer and employee. I think there are always exceptions, thus I also provided "true" mental illness.

Understood, and this is one area we will probably have more disagreement with and that is OK. I recognize the idea of not being able to choose (it's valid); however, as a "private" home owner who chooses to rent there are laws against prohibiting or not renting to individuals who drink and smoke (I know smoke for sure, drinking maybe not but I believe it is accurate). Smoking and drinking are personal choices that we have laws against that you can't discriminate, which makes sense. In the beginning, when going through Loan Officer training and trying to understand all the laws in place. I used to think you should be able to deny renting to smokers and drinkers due to personal choice. Then, as I thought more about it, worse case scenario, if everyone who rented denied smokers and drinkers a place to live they would be homeless and that would not be just, nor right. In that light, knowing my own mind, the law against that is good and right. No matter what freedoms we think we have we don't have the right/freedom to deny someone a place of shelter for their personal choice of smoking and drinkings. I don't see this any different with the concept of being vaxxed and employment. Its the same category/principle. A person needs a job to provide for himself/herself and family. If every place of employment (as with renting a private home) decided to not employ that would cause a person the inability to do what is one of the most important options in our day -- providing. It would be unjust and not right.

I don't find anything wrong with "policies". For example, if you have tested positive for [insert sickness] the policy is to stay home until better. Dress and grooming are all policies that anyone can adhere to and it doesn't require anything "into" the body. My brother-in-law is a Oral Surgeon. Part of the policy is if you have tattoos on the arms you have to wear long sleeves. I wouldn't agree though with a policy/mandate/rule that said you can't be hired if you have a tattoo. I'm against any rule/mandate/law that specifies something I have to do to mine own body in order to stay employed or work there. I may not agree with tattoos but it would be unjust as a business employer to fire someone over a tattoo. Or vice versa, an employer saying to current employee base if you don't get a tattoo of our company brand symbol you will be fired by this date. I understand there are outliers to almost anything, as I am speaking in general.