Anddenex
-
Posts
6325 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by Anddenex
-
-
I'm more inclined to accept it is the symbol in the parable and the allegory. They both represent an actual event, a truth, that is likened to good and evil. I don't think this detail is meant to be a contrast, but a reality of what happens to all of us individually and collectively.
The allegory and parable both represents the world and the Church. It can be anyone who moves to Utah surrounded by those who have the gospel. It can be someone who moves to California among members of the Church. It also could reference missionary work among different villages, cities, states, and countries. It can be a member of the Church who moves to Afghanistan for work, as they are grafted in the weakest part of the vineyard.
Even among the "elect" there are tares. At the moment, I have a family member who appears to be a tare, but who still might be wheat, as he could change/repent and come unto Christ once again.
I see the wheat and tares similar to a non-ripe olive fruit. Can you tell a good olive from a bad olive before they are ripe? I'm not a vineyard keeper but I would think it is much like a green tomato. Some turn red, while some remain green (which do not produce any fruit). But if we were to simply start picking (from human judgement) the green ones we think are bad, we may loose some good fruit.
The parable and allegory are showing the mercy of the Lord in a different way, and his justice.
-
2 hours ago, askandanswer said:
Which is more merciful: to grant mercy without conditions, or to grant mercy subject to conditions?
My thoughts follow the lines of can there be mercy without conditions; however, I would change conditions to laws. Can there be mercy without laws? Mercy is extended when justice is demanded (at least in part). Justice is the condition for mercy to be offered, and mercy is the condition for justice to take an account.
This follows the line of 2 Nephi 2: 12-13. If all were perfect like Christ mercy would not need to be extended. A "condition" or "law" must be known for mercy or justice to be extended. Otherwise, how does one know if they offered mercy?
Is it merciful to pay someone's hospital bill, if they were in no position of need? If I'm a millionaire, and I have a doctor bill of $1000 and someone offers to pay my doctor bill? Is that merciful or charitable? To some degree, there are times where it would be charitable but not merciful.
-
I'm inclined to accept your thoughts pertaining to our society. This is a result of specific movements in our society. In the Church, I am more inclined to say it isn't the Church. It is a result of those who profess to belong to the Church.
In part, I believe what we are seeing is the prophecy of Isaiah coming true -- at least a portion. I believe their are multiple reasons for this prophecy by Isaiah, "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." (emphasis mine)
In the Church though, as pertaining to the Church, I don't see any evidence from the Church as to men unable to be men.
-
My question is, if Satan is already a son of perdition, perhaps perdition itself, what more can really happen to him? Why get upset? Had he not already fallen as low as he can get?
Here is a modern day analogy/example. We have brothers/sisters, due to their individual choice, who are sentenced to "life" in prison. This is an "eternal" (as to human life) sentence with no hope for parole; however, even within this life sentence there is still "agency." Even if the agency is captivated -- so to speak.
If you have ever worked with someone in such circumstance, I understand when they seek to exercise their agency (in what they feel is right for them), and that agency is chastened/reprimanded they will often throw a fit -- gnash their teeth.
Although, they have received such a sentence they still get angry when anything "removes" any other form of "agency" they have. Satan, although a son of perdition, still had some form of power. He abused that power, so to speak, and was further punished. What he still had was reduced.
Another idea, when people do not feel they are "wrong" they will get angry at anything that tells them they were -- well -- wrong.
-
46 minutes ago, Chainsaw said:
Go back and read what I said again. I never stated I have suffered what the Savior suffered. I’m talking about the penalty imposed on all of us for our sins. We all would suffer never ending separation from God without an atonement.
Please read my response slower. I was being general and direct. You made the following statement, which I was referencing, "he didn’t suffer what we would have suffered."
Your next statement specifies, "So exactly how did he pay the price if He didn’t endure what we would have had to endure?"
In relation to this last paragraph I asked a relative question according to what "you" said, "What have you suffered that you think his condescension didn't suffer?" You, being general or specific.
So, I will ask again, What do you think he didn't suffer or endure that you think we have suffered/endured that his condescension didn't cover"?
You have specified that he didn't endure or suffer what we have suffered or endured, what exactly are you specifying?
EDIT: The following, "I never stated I have suffered what the Savior suffered." I never said you did either, it is without question that none of us have suffered or experienced what he suffered, endured, and experienced. -
14 hours ago, Chainsaw said:
So we are told Christ paid the price…however from my view (which I concede is extremely limited) he didn’t suffer what we would have suffered. So exactly how did he pay the price if He didn’t endure what we would have had to endure?
What do you mean by he didn't suffer what we would have suffered? What have you suffered that you think his condescension didn't suffer?
- Just_A_Guy, mikbone, Carborendum and 1 other
-
4
-
This reminds me of President Uchtdorf's general conference talk when he related his experience during physical training. He kept the word of wisdom with specific promises and yet there were so many people running faster and who had more strength, how so?
The Great and Spacious building outwardly appears to be finding happiness in sin. Except when the building falls.
I'm inline with the two other thoughts provided already. We have to look at the meaning of "restored," and look at the possibility of some degree of happiness even in the Telestial kingdom.
The concept of restoring is returning us to our innocent state we had before this life. This correlates with his other thoughts that corruption become incorruption. One thing to remember, is that these individuals who inherit the Telestial kingdom are no longer in their sins. Remember, they are placed in a situation where they must repent, once they have fully repented they are received in the Telestial kingdom, but can no longer progress beyond the Telestial kingdom. Their sins did not bring them a fullness of joy, which is what Alma in these chapters are referring to. Yes, they may find happiness, but only after they have suffered for their sins. So wickedness never was happiness.
- Just_A_Guy and askandanswer
-
2
-
This is an interesting question in that this can be interpreted/viewed from multiple angles. When I contemplate an individual's faith (particularly mine own), the prime example is Jesus Christ. In the scenario with Heber J. Grant, if I replace HJG with the Lord what would the Lord have experienced? If he wouldn't have experienced any stress or worry, due to his trust in his Father, then I could say this is a direct reflection of one's faith.
The biblical story of the apostles in the boat and the tremendous storm correlates with this question. The Lord responded to their fear, stress, and worry with the following words, "O ye of little faith." Then Jesus calmed the storm.
In answer to the question, I would give the vague answer of -- it depends. If the Lord is able to call out his apostles for having little faith when on a boat in a big storm, then we might conclude that HJG was also of little faith if he was experiencing worry, stress, and fear.
At the same time, I'm sure the centurion worried about his daughter's health, and stressed over his daughter's health. He went to the Lord, his daughter was healed, and the Lord applauded the soldier's faith.
To some degree, just like doubt, stress, worry, and fear are direct evidence of our lack of faith.
-
On 8/27/2022 at 1:32 PM, Carborendum said:
As an exact definition, I'd agree. But what you're describing is actually far too vague in its potential application. Such broad application of the word / concept cheapens the idea where EVERYthing can be an individual covenant. When the alarm clock goes off, and I agree to get out of bed, that is a covenant? Yes, this is an extreme example. But there has to be some meaning to what a covenant entails other than an agreement that the Lord sets the conditions for. Everything is governed by the Lord. So, EVERY aspect of life is a covenant? He created the functioning of our bodies. So, is our waste elimination process a covenant?
Again, it goes to defining what a covenant is. One might say (in fact someone once told me they believed thusly) that any time the Lord gives a commandment, he is offering a covenant. When we decide to obey that commandment, we've basically accepted a covenant. As I said before, this type of mentality cheapens the very concept of what a covenant means. Does God's very speech establish a covenant? Is that the nature of God and covenants respectively? We can then forget the story of Pres McKay laughing in the temple.
I'm not sure how recognizing the doctrine of first and second estates, and a potential covenant within those being vague, and that it would cheapen the word -- covenant. Keeping our first estate results in specific promises. Keeping our second estate (and the blessings attached) is also encompassed in covenants. If our second estate results in covenants it seems plausible our first estate also is the result of covenants.
It doesn't cheapen the word covenant. It doesn't make "EVERYthing" a covenant just because God governs everything. Would you be able to identify the ordinance God specifically did with Abraham for the Abrahamic covenant to be the Abrahamic covenant? There are ordinances within the Abrahamic covenant, but those ordinances also existed before Abraham. What ordinance are you aware of that Abraham specifically received for the Abrahamic covenant?
-
The outcome of the second estate, from keeping our first estate, is a promise (covenant) between the Father and his sons and daughters. Part of a covenant meaning defined (Bible Dictionary), "God in His good pleasure fixes the terms, which man accepts."
One could then include "The Plan" as given by our Father in heaven is covenant based. We agreed to the terms as outlined by the Father, thus we are here seeking to keep our second estate.
-
These are items I ponder when considering the neutral stance of Church leaders regarding the location of the Book of Mormon:
1) I once read in a book that Joseph Smith once said that the Nephites and Lamanites spanned all of North (including Canada) and South America. We know a group of Nephites sailed, returned and sailed again never to return. So, there could be many places that could be seen as the "right" spot for the Book of Mormon.
2) Are they neutral because the Lord has not given them permission to specify? I can see this for a couple reasons. The first would be the Lord is trying the faith of his sons and daughters. If the Lord doesn't want it revealed, the prophets/apostles will not be able to reveal it -- ergo -- neutral stance.
The second would be anti-Church and ex-members who are looking for any opportunity to discredit the Church while calling themselves "critical thinkers" and "trust seekers." When in reality they are looking for any reason (even if it isn't a complete truth) to remain in their stance. The Lord could reveal. Then "evidence" could be found that it could be another place (refer to #1), and then these individual use this "evidence" to discredit the Church, uprooting wheat with the tares.
We could probably think of plausible reasons other than these two as to why the Church remains neutral and continues with what has always been done.
..........
Where does that picture come from regarding the Hopi?
- JohnsonJones and Vort
-
2
-
18 hours ago, askandanswer said:
I wrote these notes a few minutes ago while reading Alma 39. Any thoughts and responses are welcome.
Christ's atonement is retroactive in that it provides a way to pay for the sins of all those who sinned prior to the atonement being undertaken. My question is whether or not there was a debt owed to justice for all those sins that had been committed prior to the atonement. By who or what or how was the weight of these sins being carried prior to the atonement? If a person before the atonement truly repented of their sins, did the penalty or the weight of those sins go unpaid until the atonement was performed, because it was only the atonement that produced the currency required to pay for those sins? Sin has a price which must be paid, hence the need for the atonement, but what happened to that payment which justice demands before the atonement took place? Did the demands of justice go unmet for thousands of years? Is there some acceptable method of delayed payment? Was justice content to wait for thousands of years until the atonement happened?
By who or what or how was the weight of these sins being carried prior to the atonement?
By who: Christ. A statement in the Book of Mormon (paraphrased), that I love, is that the Lord spoke as though his "work" had already been accomplished. We also have the doctrine of "proxy." From the time of Adam to Jesus Christ sacrifices were made in proxy of the atonement. Justice was owed and justice received his due through animal sacrifice. This correlates with the doctrine of the great and last sacrifice.
The concept of "translation" gives credence that the atonement was working and satisfying the demands of justice the whole time. The city of Enoch is another example of how the atonement was satisfying the demands of justice and mercy, otherwise this city could not have been taken up to God.
Yet, the concept of a "Spirit World" where the saints were even held before Christ was resurrected gives evidence to justice holding its dues -- so to speak. The door was not yet opened, and yet even in the Spirit World we are informed of the different states (two states) that exist. Those who know they are damned and those who know they are "alive" in Christ.
If a person before the atonement truly repented of their sins, did the penalty or the weight of those sins go unpaid until the atonement was performed, because it was only the atonement that produced the currency required to pay for those sins? (rest of the question fall within this question)
It was paid, the atonement of Jesus Christ is infinite. In the eyes of God, it was already performed. All things are present before him: past, present, future -- might correlate to the Buddhist thought: there is no past, present, or future. There is only present past, present present, and present future. A different way to say all things are "present" to God.
-
I would say all of the above. We are informed in scripture that our reward will be based upon the Spirit/spirit we list to obey. If we are listing to obey the wrong spirit, then that spirit could increase our understanding toward anything false. We may have a foundation of some truth, and then they by small and simple mean form/create a new concept within that foundation.
We all are given the light of Christ to know good from evil. This means we already have formed, by the light of Christ, a knowledge of good and evil. Depending on what we call -- good or evil -- the foundation then can be changed.
Easy example -- "God doesn't make mistakes." The statement by itself is true, but look how this statement has been used to fall away from truth and start living a lifestyle that is obviously sin -- against God.
-
1 hour ago, Vort said:
I admit that I don't really get the lionization (here literally) of Trump. I believe it's largely a reflexive reaction to the media's unceasing drumbeat of hatred toward the man. I myself, no huge fan of Trump, have felt the itch to get behind the guy and support him much more than I normally would, just because the leftist hatred of him is soooooooooooo far overboard. My rational faculties are hoping that Trump does not run in 2024, but some vindictive and grudge-holding part of my being secretly wants to see it as a way to give a big middle finger to those who despise Trump supporters.
We appear, in this thing, to share the same thoughts. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016. I did vote for him because I started gaining sympathy/empathy for a man:
1) Who wasn't a full time politician. Who actually worked in the workforce all his years before running for president.
2) Who was targeted by "all" media (even those who were considered "neutral" outlets). When I looked into every case I could find facts upon it was easy to see a bias, not truth, or twisted truth.
3) The continued assault to impeach him with no evidence but simply to seek to find anything and everything they could to remove him. When people are misrepresenting, fault finding, trying to dig up anything and everything they can against someone -- my mind thinks -- there is something this guy is doing right otherwise the "liberal" side wouldn't keep attacking him.
4) The guy brought out one of the most heinous pedophilia syndicates, and we know all about his visits (but no charges). YET, for some reason the list of people on who visited (excluding Trump -- maybe some others but I don't know) -- are being totally hid from the public. They should be scrutinized just as much as Trump and we should be seeing court dates of those involved that they know were potential "statutory rape' cases.
I could go on but this is enough. I would probably vote for him also again, because if the Dems hate him so much he must be doing something right for America -- constitutionally.
- Vort, mirkwood, Still_Small_Voice and 1 other
-
4
-
The more I see Trump investigated, the more it is going to be hard to believe if anything "really" comes up. Trump called out Epstein. Trump probably has more knowledge on the despicable nature of many of our rich elites and politicians.
Imagine if Hillary and Bill were treated in the same way the Democrats have gone after Trump. We already know the FBI is weaponized, assuming it is accurate that the FBI was used to retrieve a journal of the president (hmm....what was in that journal if the FBI were used to break in?).
Trump was assisted by Russians....crickets...but it appears the Clinton's had more ties with the Russians (irony a little).
There are signs of tyranny for sure, and this would be one of them. We already know the IRS has been weaponized also, and now (shocker) we have a bill to increase the number of workers -- who is going to be investigated with scrutiny? The signs are all there, we are seeing the same result with Nephi after his prayer on the tower. The one's in fault, and knew they were in fault, were pinning their evil works on Nephi. We are at this point or nearing this to a further degree. Those who were truly evil, excited the minds against Nephi.
I'm not likening Trump to Nephi/Moroni (that was the worst thing Arizona governor/senator?? could have done). I'm simply saying those who are truly corrupt/evil will turn their angst against someone calling out their ploys and excite the public mind against them such that they even begin to believe someone who is innocent is guilty, and those who are guilty are the victims.
-
2 hours ago, Fether said:
Are the JSTs meant to be correct translations of the Bible, or commentary on what maybe be a correct way of understanding it?
Are we suppose to view the JSTs as being more accurate and differ to them whenever possible?
First Question:
This is from the "Content" of the JST from the Church, "The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the King James Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding....Joseph’s translation was more revelation than literal translation from one language into another."
Second Question:
If the Lord inspired Joseph Smith to "restore truth" then yes, we technically should differ to them within our wards and callings.
-
On 7/19/2022 at 12:43 PM, Backroads said:
This is often touted as one of the great blessings of the Atonement. Yet in practice, how is this done?
In some ways, I wish this were as easy as Spencer W. Kimball's quote, "Do it." We are informed in scripture to take the "yoke" of Christ upon us. We have wonderful poems, analogies, that say when you see only one set of footsteps it is because the Lord was carrying you at that time. We come up with other analogies to comfort, or try to comfort, our hurting souls.
In practice for us to fully practice this we must be "fair dinkum" -- fully committed. This correlates with with what Omni said, "offer your whole souls as an offering unto him." This is why it is also hard, because the majority of us, in practice, do not fully commit and give our whole selves unto the Lord. We seek to maintain - self. To cast fully our burden on him, means we lose "self."
When we look over scripture we can see highlights of how this looks in practice (even in not in perfection):
- 2 Nephi 4
- Alma the Younger who remembered the words of his father about a Savior
- Stephen upon being stoned who saw the heaven's open
- Nephi upon being tied by his brothers allowed his suffering to be caught up in Christ
- Alma and the Nephites when seized upon by the Lamanites
- And many others
I'm writing this, full well, knowing I'm not yet 'fair dinkum' -- at one point I felt like I was fully committed -- until I had some experiences in life that shifted many thoughts of mine. The shift is all do to the word "self".
If we take Lehi's counsel, invitation, to Laman and Lemuel to be righteous like unto the river they past flowing continually into the sea of righteousness. As we look further into the analogy, when the river flows into the sea are we able to tell the difference between the water in the sea and the water coming from the river? No. But if we seek to maintain "self" then we ultimately seek to maintain our ways, our truth, and our life.
-
-
On 7/30/2022 at 10:29 PM, person0 said:
I think it is important to consider that (despite the fact that adherents may deny it) in reality, secularism and its modern associates are religions. These religions are proselytized by their members.
I think it is not too farfetched to assume that Nephi intended the word "church" to include religious adherents, which would have included the worship of false gods and idols (in the myriad forms in which they present in society).
I think that the influence of the church of the devil is found wherever the philosophies of men are mingled with scripture. It is most evident and explicit when such a mixture is used aggressively against the truth. One way we frequently see this is when individuals (especially secular adherents) recite the passage, "Judge not, that ye be not judged"; while they may invoke scripture, usually, the true intention is to justify and coerce acquiescence to sin and evil.
Consider the parable of the ten virgins. All ten knew of the bridegroom, were looking forward to his coming, and wanted to join him. How could it be that, despite all being aware of his coming, only five of the virgins knew to have the oil and the other five didn't? They all knew enough to have a lamp in the first place, enough to be there waiting, and even enough to recognize the call to go out to meet the bridegroom. If they were aware of all that, it seems to me the only thing that could have impeded their preparation would be an "eat, drink, and be merry" attitude. In the end, from the perspective of the bridegroom, would these five foolish virgins have been of the Church of God, or the church of the devil? Who do the ten virgins represent?
Perhaps, sadly, members of the church of the devil, and its influence, can be found everywhere in society, even mingling among the members of the Lord's Church.
Yep, a specific site that wants members to "think" are just this type of individuals. At least the ones who are in charge of the site. They are a prime example of this meme.
-
14 hours ago, scottyg said:
I would be very curious to know why this restriction was put in place. The only thing I could dig up was the following website. It wouldn't surprise me if instead of clearing up the backlog, they just got rid of it.
Same. It makes absolutely no sense to restrict where a person can work if they come into the US. This is a subtle attack against religion -- to be frank by the great and abominable church.
-
@scottyg - Here is another example of the attack against religion that is happening. My daughter works at the MTC. She has befriended a wonderful Korean girl who is from Korea. She can no longer work at the MTC because of a new rule that has been implemented this fall semester. If you are on a Visa they prohibit you from working for a religious organization. There is no logical or good reason for this restriction. If a person comes to America on a Visa they should be able to work anywhere that offers a job.
The devil works by small and simple means. We will see how this unfolds also.
- scottyg and NeuroTypical
-
1
-
1
-
13 hours ago, scottyg said:
We sadly have multiple families/individuals in our ward who have been to the temple, and for all intents and purposes were "fully active" members; who now, have not been to church in over 2 years since the church won't "authorize" homosexuality. They fly the pride flag proudly on their homes, and tell all they meet that the church will be changing soon...that they will soon 'embrace love' and 'accept everyone as the Savior would'.
A great deal of pressure will come from within just as much as from the outside.
Yep, and something I never saw (at least from this brother) has already removed me from his life. He initiated the setting on Facebook where I can't see him anymore nor any post even if we post on the same message. He even told our mother that it was either him or me, and he now has blacklisted her because she chooses both (the shame of her to love both sons). It's sad (oh well, his choice) but this is exactly what we have been warned about. The devil will rage in the hearts of men in the last days, and he will pit them against their brother/sister.
This is because I don't adhere to the ideologies of mammon with regards to the LGBTQ.
- Carborendum and scottyg
-
2
-
4 minutes ago, scottyg said:
The following is another example. In coming days their rationale will shift to Christianity. How will the saints react when not just a state, but individuals are targeted?
Yep, this is a perfect example, and yes, if we look at the Bible and the Book of Mormon we know before Christ came the first time those that believed were targeted by those that did not.
What will be even more concerning is the members of the Church who are in support and do support such actions. We will see this also, and already are seeing this to a point.
- Carborendum and mirkwood
-
2
-
I'm going with, Hyrum.
Wheat and tares process
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
I agree. Reminds me of the Tree of Life vision. I thought I had learned all I could from it. Then I decided to memorize the whole chapter. Upon doing so I learned six new principles of truth. Needless to say, I don't say anymore I have learned everything I can from it.