Anddenex
-
Posts
6331 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by Anddenex
-
-
@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.
- SpiritDragon and LDSGator
-
2
-
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.
-
On 12/20/2021 at 3:49 PM, Traveler said:
As I understand the stats you have provided - they are for the duration of the pandemic. I am more interested what has happened since the vaccine(s) have become available to the entire population and how that compares with those receiving treatments of monoclonal antibodies but have not received any of the vaccines. What I am hearing as of today is that monoclonal antibodies is more effective in treating the virus than the vaccine(s). I have yet to see any data that demonstrates that the vaccine is more effective than the monoclonal antibodies.
I am becoming skeptical that this country (at the federal level) is making a real effort to solve the problem and is more likely to respond to profits being made in big pharma.
The Traveler
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.
-
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Btw, I'm not suggesting chastity isn't an eternal law. It's a question of application. Like having a law against murder among resurrected beings. The law would still be, theoretically, eternally true...but you can't murder a resurrected being. So....sure. Still a law. Just not really applicable.
That's a valid point.
-
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
I'm not sure what you think we're actually disagreeing on. My only point was that we don't know. Do you think we do know?
My other thoughts were entirely what-if, maybe, who knows, speculative sorts of thoughts -- so there's really nothing to disagree with me on.
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.
-
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
A few thoughts I had in response to having read the above comment. It seems to me that.....
Chastity is a principle that is directly related to the carnal -- it is to control the carnal within the bounds of the Lord's law. It exists because there is a sex drive. The sex drive is a result of our physical, mortal bodies. A lot of our mortal drives are the carnal that we must overcome. Hunger, fatigue, the drive for sex, etc. These things, as best I understand, will not be part of a perfected resurrected individual's needs. I know many fancy that some sort of physical eternal sexual mating is part of Celestial Glory. I think that's silly. Why would that be the case? It's hard to put into explicit detail without being too...you know...explicit... but... why would the creation of spirit bodies by perfected physical ones be the same messy, mortal, fallen method that is the means of procreation in mortality? First, it isn't like to like...meaning it's flesh and bone creating spirit. Second, certainly the rest of the mortal, physical process of procreation is not the same. Mortal procreation is a painful, toil-filled, harsh experience. It's part of our fallen nature. I don't know how things will work...but I don't think it's going to be carnal coupling leading to 9 months of gestation and then physical birthing of children. Will physical sex even be something needed? I dunno.
Anyhow, chastity only applies because of the drive for sex and procreation. You can be naked in a locker room where you aren't sexually driven to procreate with the other's naked there without breaking the law of chastity in doing so. Etc. etc.
Whether resurrected bodies have a physical, chemical, hormonal drive to procreate is an unknown, of course. But I see no reason to presume that we'll have the need for such a drive, even in the celestial kingdom. And I most certainly see no reason to presume Terrestrial or Telestial beings will have the need for such a drive, being as we know they won't have the ability to procreate. Why would creatures that have no ability to procreate have a sex drive -- or even the physical means of procreation at any level.
Am I suggesting those in the lower kingdoms won't have genitalia? Well.....no. I'm just asking the question. But who knows. It's entirely possible though. But a sex drive? That seems unnecessary and unlikely to me.
Anyhow...just spring-boarding off your comment.
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.
-
7 minutes ago, Fether said:
Yes… but what is stopping them from living together as if they are married. Nothing I assume?
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.
- Still_Small_Voice, Traveler and Fether
-
2
-
1
-
6 minutes ago, Fether said:
It’s lines like this that are problematic. Is this some sort of “your stuck on the desert island for eternity” thing?
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.
-
On 12/19/2021 at 8:56 AM, Fether said:
What does all this mean? What does this actually look like? Do we have any sources that qualify this a little more beyond those phrases? What do we know and not know?
I have met MANY members (current and former alike) that understand it all to mean that if you don’t go to the celestial kingdom, you will be barred from seeing your family, but you can still hangout with everyone else in your respected kingdom.
I have always taken the approach that we don’t really know what eternal family means beyond those few lines. I’ll sometimes point the Doctrine and Covenants 19 where it explains that the word “Eternal” simply means “belonging to God”, so “eternal family” is just “God’s family” that that not being an eternal family does not mean that God is going to bar you from those you were raised by, but rather, eternal family means to eternally live in an ever growing family setting…however, as nice as that sounds, the context of what is said and the feeling of the wording doesn’t always support that, but rather seems to support the cultural understanding many members have.
Does anyone have any insights on this? Any references to words of the prophets or scripture?
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.
-
7 hours ago, Grunt said:
Interesting. I have NEVER heard anyone say this. Is this a Utah thing?
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.
- Still_Small_Voice, Fether and Traveler
-
3
-
7 hours ago, romans8 said:
Who are the unclean in this passage:
"Wherefore, if ye have sought to do wickedly in the days of your probation, then ye are found
unclean before the judgment-seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore,
ye must be cast off forever" (1 Nephi 10:21).Is 'cast off' a designation for the terrestrial and telestial inhabitants?
Matteo
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.
- person0, romans8 and mordorbund
-
2
-
1
-
On 12/4/2021 at 4:35 PM, askandanswer said:
My scripture reading took me to Alma 40 this morning and as I read, the following two questions came to mind:
Alma 40:`14
Now this is the state of the asouls of the bwicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, cfearful looking for the fiery dindignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this estate, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.
This verse comes from what has been described as the most correct book on earth, with no translation issues. Would it be even more correct to say that God will look upon the souls of the wicked with more sadness and sorrow than with fiery indignation? Or can we conclude that Alma was writing according to what truth he knew then, but today we have more truth?
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.
On 12/4/2021 at 4:35 PM, askandanswer said:Alma 40: 26
How consistent is Alma 40:26 with Doctrine and Covenants 76: 89?
26 But behold, an awful adeath cometh upon the wicked; for they die as to things pertaining to things of righteousness; for they are unclean, and bno unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God; but they are cast out, and consigned to partake of the fruits of their labors or their works, which have been evil; and they drink the dregs of a bitter ccup.
89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding;
Might this be another example of Alma writing according to what he knew and of we, in the latter-days, now knowing more?
Same as above. The glory of the telestial wasn't something know at the time of the beginning of the restoration.
-
4 hours ago, Vort said:
Christ's condemnation toward those who "should cause one of these little ones to stumble" is, in context, speaking in regards to those who would offend the Saints, who are Christ's "little children". Not that I disagree with your larger point, but the "little children" verses are often taken out of context and applied to small children and minors. I have done so many times in the past. Just clarifying that I believe that is not the immediate literal meaning of the passages.
I would say the literal meaning was both and intended for both, as seen here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2001/06/behold-your-little-ones?lang=eng
-
-
The first part of your questions aren't really making any sense that I can grasp. I'm not sure the comparison you are making with sports and choosing baseball, or fruit with vegetable. The second Article of Faith is simple in my eyes:
1) We aren't punished for Adam and Eve's decision to partake of the fruit. Simply put, when I stand at judgement the Lord will not require at my hand the deeds of Adam. The Lord will only require my decisions, my desires, and my words at the time of judgement.
2) Although we are not punished for someone else's sins we do have to live with their decisions, but no matter where we are born or where we are raised the decisions we make are our own. A child born to a drug addict will have to endure the life's beginnings of living with a drug addict. The child born to a millionaire will endure the life's beginnings of living in prosperity. The child born to two hard working parents, but poor, will endure the life's beginnings of whatever those may be. In the end, the child born to the drug addict will not be punished for their parents' decisions, but will be judge by their own decisions. The child born to the millionaires will not be punished for their parents' decisions, but will judged by their own decisions, and so on with the hard working parents who are poor.
As a result of Adam, we live in a fallen world, but in this world it will be our own choices: our thoughts, our words, and our desires that will condemn or exalt us -- not Adam and Eve's decision.
3) Victory over death through our Savior, Jesus Christ. Death was brought to pass by both Eve and Adam; although, it is clear that without Adam's willingness to obey all of God's commandments there would have been no Adam and Eve who had offspring (us). The quote given (specifically this quote), with regards to our Savior, the term "sin of Adam" and "Adam's trangression" are synonymous. Without our Savior we are all fallen and lost, due to our own individual sins.
- NeuroTypical, Colirio and Just_A_Guy
-
2
-
1
-
1 hour ago, mirkwood said:
Spoiler alert: there’s always going to be another variant.
Yep, just as there is always another variant of the Flu. Sadly, this is the first time in my life time to see how easily particular narratives are using this as if a variant is something new. The Flu shot won't ever eradicate the Flu. Vaccines and boosters won't eradicate Covid. The worst part though, if Covid is truly the result of human failure -- which means all the lives lost are due to human's playing with things they still don't understand, which could have been avoided.
-
4 hours ago, marge said:
I didn't say you said I wasn't a Christian, I was simply stating not believing in the book of mormon doesn't make me more or less of a Christian than you are. I didn't put any words in anyone's mouth.
The issue I have here is that the only answer an LDS person will accept to Moroni's promise to know if the Book of Mormon is the word of God is the one they themselves agree with. If I don't come to that conclusion then apparently it wasn't the Holy Ghost? The Holy Ghost is a testator of truth, but only your version of it? And you are using scripture from the very book I'm praying about to know if its scripture as evidence of that? Thats circular reasoning. Interesting.
For the record I really did want it to be true for me, I love the LDS church and the life you live being part of it. I did not come to my answer through anything other than the witness of the Holy Ghost I told you about, but according to most of you, that couldn't have been the Holy Ghost at all. I hope I am still welcome to stay here on the forums, but I can't deny the spiritual experience I had, just as you can't deny yours. I would never tell you yours was the wrong answer or not the Holy Ghost or not a valid experience though.
Let's not play a victim here. Were you planning on doing something that would ban you from this forum? If not, why wouldn't you be welcome to stay on the forum? I am just as capable of being banned from this forum as you would be if we decide to break the rules of the site.
The scriptures, both Bible and Book of Mormon, are clear as to the purpose of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost clearly will not bear witness of opposing tenets (as both being true which they can't be), which is what you are sharing with regards to your witness.
The Holy Ghost is a testator of truth, there isn't a "version" of it as you are describing. It is truth. The Book of Mormon is either the word of God or it is not. The Holy Ghost will not bear record of opposing tenets. He will not say to one person, "It is true," and to another, "It is not true." So, the outcome is just as it is -- one is true and one is false.
You appear to be confusing circular reasoning with additional witness. You have said the Holy Ghost said it is not true. I provided the witness and testimony of another person in the Book of Mormon that will be given at the last day. This witness is either true or false, there is no in between. Either at the last day it will be true, or it will be false.
I don't know enough about you to say one way or the other as to your efforts. I do know your witness wasn't from the Holy Ghost. It doesn't mean it wasn't experienced, it just wasn't the Holy Ghost. I have beaten the dead horse enough. It is a simple principle of truth, opposing truths can't both be true --- there isn't a version of it as they are opposing. Again, it would be similar to someone saying, by the Holy Ghost, they were informed that Christ was not the Savior of the world but a good prophet. And then someone else saying the opposite, by the Holy Ghost I know Christ is the Savior of the world. Which is the "version"of truth you are presenting. It can't be both, no matter how many times someone says it can, it can't.
I still wish you all the peace and happiness in this world.
-
8 hours ago, marge said:
I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, I believe in the Holy Ghost, I believe the bible is the word of God. My answer that book of mormon isn't true, that doesn't make me not a Christian, that doesn't make you more of a Christian than me. I believe Gods words, we just have a different witness of where to find those words.
The Holy Ghost gave me a different answer than he gave you. But to assume that I did not receive my answer from the Holy Ghost because I got an answer you can't accept. I think that's really naive.
I'm glad you believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. I'm glad you believe in the word of God. I never said you weren't a Christian, please don't put words in my mouth; it is a naive way to make a statement. The answer you feel you received wasn't from the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is a testator of truth (John 14:26, Moroni 10: 3:5) not of lies or error.
To think, or believe, the Holy Ghost will tell, show, or witness someone something is not true when it is true is naive, and clear evidence you have a misunderstanding of the roll of the Holy Ghost from scripture.
Recognizing your answer isn't from the Holy Ghost isn't an assumption, its a reality. I accept you received an answer, it just wasn't from the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is a testator of truth. That is clearly defined in scripture -- not of lies or error. The Holy Ghost will not, and cannot witness both to be true. They are in direct opposition. It will be similar to someone saying they received witness from the Holy Ghost that Christ is not the Savior. I don't need to assume anything. I can call it out for what it is.
Thus we have the following scripture:
Quote10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.
11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day;
- person0 and askandanswer
-
2
-
1 hour ago, marge said:
You see I would not discount the Hindu's experience as misinformed, or assume they did something wrong. What makes your spiritual experiences any greater than theirs? What makes the Hindu or the Buddhist or the Jew wrong? Why is it so hard to accept their experience as genuine? Or that you might be wrong? Only one third of the world is Christian, and Christianity only spread as far as it did at the tip of a sword.
I don't think we can ever know for certain that we are right in our belief system.
Socrates once said ' I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is I know nothing'
That's fine. I'm perfectly fine with others and their personal belief system, but this isn't what we are discussing. God is not an author of confusion, and if He says Jesus Christ is his son, and then someone says, "God told me Christ isn't his son." Both witnesses can't be true. One is right, and one is wrong. There is no way around it.
If God says, "You shall know by the power of the Holy Ghost these things are true." And a person says God told me it is false. They both can't be true. What make a spiritual experience greater or of more value. The answer is simple -- truth. If as a Christian you think a person saying God said, "Christ is not his son," is the same as the witness that Peter received of the Messiah -- than we are fooling ourselves into believing all Spiritual experiences are the same. They are not in this regard.
I choose to believe God's words. That we can know with certainty of truth and our belief system. If you don't choose to believe such, then that is fine. You can believe as you wish. If we are unable to know for a "certainty" then what's the purpose of the Holy Ghost or answer to prayers?
I do enjoy a lot of quotes from Socrates; however, do you think Christ "knew" he was the Son of God, or do you think it was a mere belief system? I would specify he knew for certain he was the Son of God. He knew for certain what he was about to accomplish on Golgatha. I prefer to believe in Christ's words when it comes to his gospel.
-
1 minute ago, estradling75 said:
As a general rule I agree... But there are too many examples in the scripture where even the prophets themselves ask why the Lord is not responding (Take Joseph Smith and Liberty Jail for example) and there are many teaching in the church how blessing do not always instantly follow obedience. (Nor punishment instantly following disobedience). Thus expecting instant answers, once we have done our part is not something we should expect, but often do.
Many times in my own life I have had to take that leap of faith, and step out into the darkness with nothing but faith, hoping that the Lord will light the path once I am committed to it. Once I've done that... then the many of promised answers have came, but some I still wait for... knowing that they will come.
This is where I believe we are looking at two different concepts. The one you are mentioning is simply seeking and asking questions according to our circumstance. The other is an actual witness from God pertaining to a specific promise.
You can see from Marge's response that her answer received from God, "no, its not true." This is in direct opposition against what God said he would do. They both can't be right. It would be similar to someone teaching someone about Christ (let's say someone who grew up Hindu -- with no Bible background and is not a Christian). That person then saying they devoted their lives to learning about Christ, reading the Bible, and then coming away with the following, "God spoke to me and told me Christ is not his son." Did this person do something wrong? I think we probably would both come to the same conclusion.
And your last statement is exactly what I am referring to. Once you "committed", done your part, the answer or witness came. I agree whole heartily with the concept of waiting. Sometimes we need to learn line-upon-line before God can bring further witness.
But in this sense, we are talking about God saying I will give witness by the Holy Ghost that these things are true, and the individual saying God said the opposite. God isn't a liar, and that would make God a liar to say something opposite of what he said he would do.
I think we are both on the same page though; however, my mission experience taught me that I never met one person who met the requirements not receive witness. -
8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:
In matters like this... we tend to forget that the Lord will keep all his promises... in his time... That last bit is kind of important. For example if we are talking to a faithful and true member who desires the blessing of being sealed... we have no problem believing that it will happen, but the timing might not be for a while or even in mortality, but the Lord will work it out and keep all his promises.
Yet when we hear someone who is not getting a testimony of the Book of Mormon... we assume they are doing something wrong.. and while that is a good thing to check... We also have to acknowledge that the Lord is in control, and it will happen on his schedule, in his timing. While we might not understand the delay we do need to accept that it is for a wise purpose.
Right, which means the witness will come, especially if they meet the requirements. The responsibility falls upon us, not God. God is always ready to give witness.
EDIT: And you are making an assumption that it is just the Book of Mormon. You will notice from my comment I also addressed those who received witness that Christ was the Son of God while he was upon the earth and those who didn't. Did the people who didn't receive witness while Christ walked the earth and spoke, is it not their fault? Yes, it is. The sole responsibility is ours. If a person sincerely, with real intent, and faith in God followed Christ or heard Christ speak for two years and still did not receive witness of his divinity -- yes I would not need to assume anything it is clearly manifest. The same for the Book of Mormon. What Father would withhold witness from any of his children if they are meeting the requirements -- none, especially if they are perfect.If we don't receive witness, as in such a direct statement from the Lord, then yes, it is easy to see we are doing something wrong on our end not to receive a witness.
-
9 hours ago, MrShorty said:
@person0 It seems a bit presumptuous (coupled with some hubris, IMO) to assume that your testimony MUST transfer to others or they have obviously done something wrong. I, too, have a testimony of the Book of Mormon from the Holy Ghost, but I'm not entirely certain I agree that my testimony means that ALL others are expected to receive the same testimony.
In some ways, I think some of this "all or nothing" thinking is part of why many people leave the Church. They come to look at some of the difficult, contested issues, decide that the Church's position on that issue is not true and, because they believe it is all or nothing as we have been taught, their entire house of cards crashes. I don't fully understand how it all works, but I find myself shying away from some of this all or nothing absolutism that characterized my older faith.
I would agree with you if the promise we are discussing were to be coming from "man" and not from God. Within the promise provided the Lord provides conditions and stipulations to receiving a witness from him:
Conditions:
1) Remember how merciful the Lord has been to his children
2) Ponder these things in your heart
Stipulations: Ask with
1) Sincere heart
2) Real intent
3) Faith in Christ
Promise:
* You will receive a manifestation from the Holy Ghost that these things are true.
If a person has fulfilled all of the above and has received no witness then this would make God a liar, and we know God is a God of truth and cannot lie. As such, the default then falls back upon us, and always will fall upon us. It will never fall upon God.
In these cases, if a person remains without "witness" which we know wouldn't be true if they followed the given conditions and stipulations, they will one day (if at judgement) see every witness God gave by the power of the Holy Ghost by which they were past feeling. Otherwise once again, God would be a liar.
This goes back to Christ living among the Jews. Why were there some who received witness that he was the Son of God, the prophesied Messiah, and why were those there who did not receive the same witness? God's fault, or does the responsibility and accountability fall upon us? Is God unable to provide according to his promises? No. Then the default is always at us -- individual accountability and responsibility.
This isn't arrogant, nor does it have any hubris, because we recognize God is a God of truth and cannot lie and it is his promise.
- askandanswer and person0
-
2
-
47 minutes ago, Grunt said:
Funny watching people blame this kid for the deaths of violent rioters that assaulted him.
Right! All this could have been avoided if the rioters would have stayed home and just smoked their weed instead.
- Just_A_Guy, Vort, Still_Small_Voice and 3 others
-
6
-
7 minutes ago, Fether said:
We understand it the same. I agree with this completely. My qualm was that when we talk about charity, the vast majority of the time it is done by talking about epic acts of service, that somehow those acts are what we need to focus on.
I find that those epic acts of service are, often times, far easier to do than the little ones.
I think, rather than focusing on those acts, we should focus more on the small day to day acts. Our opinions of others, gossip, developing empathy. The things we do when no one is watching, or when we are surrounded by like minded people, is a better sign of our level of charity.
We are in agreement also, especially pertaining to gossip, back biting, forgiveness, and other small but important principles interwoven with Charity.
New Years Resolutions vs New Year Systems
in General Discussion
Posted
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.