• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Anddenex

  1. 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. 2. 3.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. @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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. I would say the literal meaning was both and intended for both, as seen here:
  18. This is the only forum I have been apart of, so I wouldn't know one way or the other. I think here is a great place to ask questions. You can always direct message people and have a great conversation.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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:
  23. 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.
  24. 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.