• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Anddenex

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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)
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. That explanation is how I understand these concepts currently.
  10. 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.
  11. "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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Hmmm...that interesting, what year was that? JUST KIDDING!!
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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."
  20. Well, now you at least know one person NT.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. On a further note, not vaccinated, look at where some nations are starting to debate: The ignorance is still getting worse.
  25. The Giver The Count of Monte Cristo (All other Classic Books) 1984 The Chronicles of Prydain Good to Great Immanuel Kant's books