Anddenex

Yes, you have heard of anti-discrimination clauses right? Is a employer able to not employ a gay person just because they are gay? No. Does an employer have the freedom not to employ women because they are women? Or will there be a lawsuit where the employer will pay out for the discrimination? The same way an employer is not able to make a decision and demand knowledge if you have an STD and if you do he/she is not able to say sorry you can't be employed here. The same way, if you rent your house you can't say to someone who drinks or smokes that you can't rent my house because you drink or smoke -- although it is your "private" home. The same way a loan officer is not able to say to a Latino, or someone of a different culture, I can't serve you because you are [insert culture], but if I do I will charge you 2% more for the cost of the loan. If a business, private, had the freedom you say to serve none of these laws would exist. If you agree that an employer has the freedom to not employ a gay person because they are gay, or any of the above scenarios are OK and should not be regulated by law, then I will acquiesce my thoughts -- pertaining to your thoughts -- because you are consistent.

No, it isn't wrong to push back; however, I would say the push back would be more a support. These are the last days, and according to prophecy we will live in a time where individuals are lovers of the flesh and themselves. This is why there are so many voices against truth. I would say it is totally acceptable to encourage someone to stay strong; however, expect the natural man response of attack. No different, than the Adversary's wailing and gnashing of teeth. I hope we aren't in a time where members are feeling they are better off outside of the Church. That could only come from the Adversary's heart and mind. I personally think, we are concerned for our own welfare, or we simply don't want a fight. I used to comment more on Facebook, but received more backlash, and so now I stop. Not because I don't care, but I don't want to deal with people who want to fight and call names. Satan isn't going to win in the end. So, I think the best way for us to stick up is to simply live the gospel, and if we are asked for our thoughts to share them honestly and boldly without apology. If it is a open forum, I will typically avoid (unless a forum like that that is geared toward the Church) in order to avoid the hate from people who always say "its about love."

Well, now you at least know one person NT.

Not really, you sure a baker could not sell or open their doors to black or latino persons? How long do you think that will last? The baker doesn't have anything under him saying he has to bake a cake with a theme, the same way a jewish baker could deny making a cake theme, "The Holocaust never happened." I don't think the baker has the right to deny someone who is homosexual to purchase a cake, just as you can't deny a black person access to a bus or tell them where they have to sit. So, no, Lol. A business should not be able to deny employ to a person who isn't vaxxed, just as a business is not able to deny service/employ if they are a certain color. Its stupid, and only people with control and power issues would do so, as we see with our great President.

Sadly, we live in a time where this trial will be one of the hardest to bear, because of so many opposing voices that tell you to "sin" rather than keep your covenants (even members of your faith -- which is the saddest part). I don't believe there is really anything you could say, but love him. Ultimately, salvation is an individual choice. I hope he can avert the "finger of scorn" from the Great and Spacious building and continue to live according to the gospel truths.

I'm inline with @laronius in the sense that whatever theory comes closest to, or is inline with, things as they really are is the approach that is more likely to be inline with God's powers and dominion. @MrShorty has pointed out, which I used to be inline with the concept of "being subject to" but I'm not sure about that anymore. For example, am I subject to the Law of Chastity (acted upon) when I know it true and I would never act outside of it (agent unto oneself). I'm of the nature now that they are complimentary. God understand the laws of the universe at the finest detail. Not only that, but for some reason, as with the priesthood God can command the elements to act. The question then, as with water to wine, when God commanded I would specify there was nothing magic about it, but that God commanded and the elements then worked their way through according to the natural laws that would compose wine. This inline with the notion that every miracle performed has been accomplished through laws we do not yet understand.

On a further note, not vaccinated, look at where some nations are starting to debate: The ignorance is still getting worse.

The Giver The Count of Monte Cristo (All other Classic Books) 1984 The Chronicles of Prydain Good to Great Immanuel Kant's books

Is what is "strange" hearing the words "I know" and then what they know? I'm personally not fond of the statement, "I know the Church is true," because what does that actually mean. In comparison to "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet," is pretty specific and easily defined. The only time this causes any form of puzzlement is when a child says "I know" -- especially if they are parroting mom or dads words given to them in their ear. I'm grateful for the leaders of the Church requesting members to teach children testimony at home if they are not able to speak for themselves. At the same time, "I know" that the lord speaks to little children with his voice. If that term of speech bothers someone, then they need to check within themselves. In the beginning, when I started sharing my testimony I didn't like using the words "I know", but in time I recognized the main purpose of the Holy Ghost and that is to testify of truth that we might "know". The scriptures are clear and plain, "that you may know by the power of the Holy Ghost..." When Jesus asked the apostles who he was and we come to Peter's response the Lord responded, "Blessed art thou...for flesh and blood" hath not revealed this to you, but the Father which is in Heaven. The Lord praised/blessed Peter for his witness. At this point, Peter could have and did testify that he "knew" who Christ was -- does that bother in any way your Pentecostal upbringing? Honest question. At the same time, I can understand -- from the outside -- why some would say it could appear cultish due to our modern philosophy and other teachings that we are unable "to know" anything. Here are some talks that I like on this topic: 1. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2013/04/these-things-i-know?lang=eng 2. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2013/02/strengthen-your-testimony/you-can-say-i-know?lang=eng 3. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2014/11/priesthood-session/i-know-these-things-of-myself?lang=eng

This is the one that concerns me the most. In the beginning of 2021 I read an article that estimated one to possibly two million deaths as a result of the supply chains and people in specific areas not getting access to food that they have been used to receiving. I hope this will be more alarmist than factual.

As to my studies and experiences here are items my mind's eye ponders: 1. Is this really a right or wrong scenario, or can both be right? 2. The contrast depend on the doctrine. 3. What have the scriptures taught regarding contrasting revelations? 4. What is the written counsel in comparison with verbal counsel? The first is simply recognizing that both can be right, especially when the Prophet -- at this time -- is the Prophet for the whole world. In that light, he gives counsel to all members who are within socialists and other forms of government. I think the Prophet, in our day, is in the most peculiar situation than any other prophet. We teach the Article of Faith #12 and the Church abides by this, especially for members in Communist countries. The second is recognizing what counsel/doctrine does personal revelation contrast? If a person received revelation that SSM is good (just an easy doctrine to contrast), the doctrine is pretty clear on that. It doesn't require a deep poignant thought to recognize where that personal revelation came from. It isn't the Lord. In another thread another easy one is the personal revelation that the Book of Mormon isn't the word of God, which is in clear contrast/opposition to what the Lord actually said he would do. If a brother said they received revelation that having sex before marriage, with future wife the day before wedding, was his will...well, again, we can clearly see that isn't going to be the case and the personal revelation was not from God. The third brings up Nephi and Laban. If our personal revelation truly appears to contrast doctrine/counsel from the prophet, then like Nephi, we have every right to further witness from the Lord to know that our witness is truly from him. As imperfect beings, we are all still learning the principle of revelation and our revelation is not always perfect. I remember receiving a revelation that something would happen 9 years from that date. It is 5 years past that date and nothing happened. I never told anyone because I wasn't sure myself. I just kept it to myself. But as sons and daughters of God we have every right to request further light and knowledge, further witness like Nephi, in these situations so we can move forward with confidence -- while ignoring the finger of scorn of others. As with President Nelson's invitation/counsel, it compliments and contradicts the Handbook. What is written, verses what is verbally spoken. The Handbook specifically tells us to take the matter to the Lord, personally revelation. In that light, they compliment. The invitation is to take the vaccine and the Handbook says to make it a matter of prayer and personal revelation. As this is something that can actually harm my body (its not the same as the Word of Wisdom), and it reacts differently to each individual, the counsel for personal revelation trumps the invitation if God says, "Don't, it isn't for you." The invitation/counsel in the Handbook pretty much follows Doctrine and Covenants 9:8-9.

In light of a previous conversation SpiritDragon, this type of bill that appears to have been removed, due to the backlash received, is in part why I contemplate if President Nelson's vaccine invitation is for this type of government action also (an attempt to keep the members safe): A.416. The vague definition of "temporary" and other factors within this bill are truly scary and how easily the natural man (corrupted man) could use this for evil purposes.

Thank you. As I'm in Software Testing, my first thought of "systems" leaned me to thinking it was like a module in a software program. The modules are the systems that run the programs, and the programs are developed for a specific end goal.

@Fether Can you describe the difference between a system and a goal, and an example of what that might look like? Right now it appears like a great idea but more a semantic paradigm.

I don't believe there is any moral issue at play here. I, honestly, don't see it any different than determining the amount of kids you want to have; however, twins or triplets are not easy on the females body. It's one thing when it happens naturally, and another when the likelihood increases through doctors assistance. I understand though, at least from what my friends have said from their doctors who have gone through this procedure, is that most doctors won't even consider it if you can conceive naturally just fine.

The first part of your statement is the crux of all the data. Data, stats can be easily manipulated toward narrative. I place little trust in statistics with regards to a pandemic that has been politically and narrative motivated. There isn't many places you can trust, as you read the article and the bias comes outwardly clear. Similar to Joe Rogan and how the media and many others, even on here, followed narrative rather than recognizing the treatment that helped. But the narrative and vax (although people are still dying with the vax) is more important than treatment.

That's a valid point.

We take the opposite "likely" outcome, that's all. You specified (you can correct if wrong), that it was less likely pertaining to desires for sex and chastity. I take the other side that is is probably more likely, and the other way is less likely. That's all.

We will have to agree to disagree pertaining to chastity only being a "temporal" law. It is more likely chastity is a spiritual and temporal law. We don't disagree that chastity is a law for our carnal desires. As to procreation, we will again agree to disagree. The doctrine that all things were spiritual before they were temporal seems to provide more plausibility that the physical union between husband and wife will still continue. We can be naked in a locker room with people we are sexually, physically, attracted to. The other option, which I'm not sure I agree with is the teaching regarding Mary and the Father. I personally don't adhere to this understanding, but if so, that kinda gives more evidence to a physical union. It also makes the assumption that it would somehow be messy, and only a "fallen" method. It also makes the assumption that physical union is just a "fancy". Why? That's fine if you think so, but I would say it's silly to think that eternal intimacy is somehow bad, fallen, messy, inappropriate for glorified beings. God made our bodies in his image. I don't see how physical or spiritual intimacy make either one silly? We also don't have any idea as to why they do not have the ability to procreate -- telestial and terrestrial beings. I am more inclined to believe it is a result of obedience to laws. We are informed that the same desires we have now will exist when we die. So, it makes the assumption that "sex drive" is the only reason for this desire, which our desires exist beyond this earth life. It makes the assumption that all of a sudden a person who has desires for sex will now no longer have that desire -- it is removed from him/her. I would say that that ideas is less likely. Again, in this we will agree to disagree. I find it more plausible that our bodies are perfected. I can't find anywhere in scripture or words from prophets that says they are perfect except for.....fill in blank. I tend to follow that reasoning. I'm good with whatever is truth. If truth is revealed we don't have physical union, then fine. I'm good also with it being so, but I definitely don't have any pretense that it would be messy, only for fallen mortals, etc... If it exists, which I would say it does, it will be even better then than now.

I have been thinking upon this principle for a bit now. The only principles that come to my mind are obedience to law, and the time of "Faith" is over (as to God's laws and choice). If people want to remain in the Telestial glory, or any glory, they are now bound by obedience to the laws of the kingdom of Glory. Chastity will still be a principle of truth in all kingdoms. If not, then they would lose the ability to remain in that kingdom. Obedience is the first law of heaven. So people who are not able to will not because they will be obedient to the laws of their kingdom of glory.

In your thoughts, what would be the reason you feel this is problematic? No one is "stuck", as they are in the place they chose to receive.

The reality of this question is the minimal amount of scripture we have that provides further understanding, and yet what we do have does provide us with a good foundation. This verse in our Doctrine and Covenants, "And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy," is a good place to start. Here are other foundational points within scripture: Doctrine and Covenants section 76 1. The telestial receive the "Holy Spirit" via ministering from the terrestrial, and receive ministering through angels (which is an interesting addition pertaining to what we understand angels to be). 2. The terrestrial receive the "Holy Spirit" via ministering from the celestial (adding Holy Spirit as it seems accurate from scripture wording) 3. The celestial appear to receive from the Father, God the Father Growing up I was taught that any kingdom heirs could minister to any kingdom go glory lower than their glory, which then I was taught that if you are in the Celestial glory that you can minister to those in the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdom, but the scriptures above appears to make what I have been taught growing up possibly false with Celestial ministering unto all kingdoms and I can't find anything on the Church's website to confirm. What then is the "sociality" here that will exist among us there? We also have the following doctrine that all things were spiritual before they were temporal, so in that light, the sociality that existed pre-mortal life, is the same sociality we experience here, and will exist afterwards: 1. Husband and wife bonds (for those Celestial exist) 2. Although I'm in a separate city as my parents, we are still together, and travel will be much easier after this life then now. I love my parents, but I have "mine own" work to do, and thus I'm OK with not seeing them all the time. 3. Time will not be an issue, so we won't be like, "I haven't seen [insert family member] in years. I need to visit them." I assume we will visit. 4. I'm curious as to the councils in heaven and if they will still continue. Sorda like a General conference for all celestial beings to be ministered unto by the Father. We can think of other things but that is a good place to start.

This appears to be a personal interpretation from the notion that if you are in the Telestial kingdom you won't be able to visit the Terrestial or Celestial kingdom. In that sense, barred, thus they are able to mingle with others of the same glory; however, higher kingdoms of glory are able to minister to those in lower kingdoms. The same would go with the Terrestrial kingdom. It is said, the only kingdom which is able to minister to all kingdoms of glory are those in the Celestial kingdom.

I believe the scripture quoted answers this question already. The unclean equal, in this verse, those who "sought to do wickedly in the days of [their] probation." I would then recognize the more important question is what does it mean to seek after wickedness? Cast off would mean anyone who is not able to remain in God's presence in the next life. This then would include those who are in the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms.

As to the first question, I would agree with the thought that God will look upon his children's souls who will not be with him in the eternities with more sorrow than fiery indignation. I think the verse is also looking from the sinner's perspective, as it state that the souls of the wicked will be looking for the fiery indignation from God upon them. I think this will be part of the wailing and gnashing of teeth as these children learn how much God loved them, how much he did for them, and how his plan was perfect. Thus, the term "Thy ways are just." If we take what Alma was writing, in light of the restoration (when we only had the Bible), this is a truth that was lost during the Apostacy, which means it would not be a truth we had more as of today. I would agree though Alma was writing according to what he knew to be true as revealed by an angel. Without the restoration, having only the Bible, Alma knew more than the people did at the time of the beginning of the restoration. Same as above. The glory of the telestial wasn't something know at the time of the beginning of the restoration.