Anddenex
-
Posts
6345 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Posts posted by Anddenex
-
-
Interesting world, and idealogy in America, we are now living within now. Somehow Kyrie is having to pay/donate $500,000 due to a tweet that showed a book that is sold on Amazon. It's also interesting that he is the one being attacked, but not so much. He is outspoken on topics he believes and doesn't let certain things control him. So, it's not surprising.
How does a person get into a difficult situation with a tweet, while Amazon remain unscathed? It's pretty obvious.
Also, from what I could tell the OK sign is now racist and a sign for white power, which is also the same sign used to sign the number 9 in sign language. Some white power in the "deaf" culture now. It will be interesting to see how more closely we will follow 1984 in not so many years.
-
On 11/1/2022 at 10:59 AM, MrShorty said:
@JohnsonJones I've seen the same kinds of questions around this. Are the old standards still in place or not?
I think this question is pretty clear to know the answer. If prophetic advice has not changed, for those of us who have heard the counsel, that counsel (guideline or rule) remains in force. I do find it interesting how some members think that a new edition of something, if not explicitly mentioning something, that this somehow negates previous counsel.
Overall, with the FSY, we need to remember that we are a world-wide Church with many different cultures. Are R rated movies now OK because we no longer hear about R rated movies? No. The counsel still remains for those of us who have heard the counsel, and for those of us who live in a culture that has the rating system. There are other countries though that don't have the same rating system for movies. In that case, it is wise that the Church then doesn't specify a rating system as it can not be applied across all cultures, countries, the Church is among. Easy example who a young man from Norway, who watched all these movies that were R rated. When he asked if the girls in the room had watched them they replied, "No, those are R rated movies. We don't watch R rated movies." The young man's response was, "What's an R rated movie"?
In this case, proper guidelines and principles are the best route. This also then puts the onus back on parents. The Lord puts the onus on parents to teach their children proper guidelines and rules regarding principles of righteousness. The scriptures regarding a parents responsibility are now made more clear. What rules or guidelines do we set in our own home, which coincides with what you said -- we need to be able to teach such that our children can feel the Holy Spirit and gain the conviction themselves.
My oldest daughter loved this change, but that is because she sees herself as a responsible individual who can pray and make decisions for herself. That may be true, but we still have guidelines. Example, one night she came downstairs and was about to watch a movie. It was R rated. Both my wife and I simple said, "I'm sorry you can't watch that in our home." She was not pleased. She had done all the research. She knew why it was R rated. She knew some PG-13 were worse. She made her plea, by which both of us said, "Sorry, no." She was not pleased. I explained to her, we believe in the Lord's Church. We believe in his prophets. This is counsel they provided. We keep that counsel. The counsel has not changed for those of us with the movie rating system. We also said, once out of our home you will need to make that decision for yourself, but while in our home these are the rules.
- Carborendum and JohnsonJones
-
2
-
I'm reminded of my reading with regards to Hebrew teachings, or at least what I read. It is common in the Book of Mormon, especially, with regards to exaggeration (or what may have been according to who wrote the words at that time).
In the Book of Mormon, how often do we read the following type of phrase pertaining to the number of deaths in the war, and then the next war something is said, and then the next war something similar is said -- exaggeration pertaining to the current war.
This could be true according to the time, the view of the author. This could be according to the generation also. In that generation, this was the case. Or simply a phrase to draw attention to the magnitude of the casualties, rather than trying to pin down an exact number.
When I read this statement, I think it is the same. Adam obviously saw the Lord again and was brought back into his presence. This would mean he would have seen the Lord the same way as the Brother of Jared.
As already mentioned though, we don't know if anyone when watching something that the Lord was doing that they saw the Lord to a degree. So, in that sense, the record could easily mean exactly what it said. As far as we know, those who saw the Lord saw him. There was no partial vision. This highlights the power of faith, that if we have enough faith -- the veil becomes thin. Remembering the words of the Brother of Jared -- if you "touch" these stones. His faith was strong, and equal to knowledge (so to speak) that the finger of the Lord was seen -- just the finger because that is what he requested.
Or simply another Hebraic exaggeration to make a point.
Let's look at the English language. The word favorite. Literally, a favorite means a favorite, but how often do we use the word favorite for multiple items. I was one day teaching a seminary class and mentioned how this is my favorite scripture by which a student then said, "You have a lot of 'favorite' scriptures." I laughed and said, "Yes, I do."
- SpiritDragon, laronius and JohnsonJones
-
2
-
1
-
6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
If the church offered double the going rate of elsewhere and looked for the best expertise no matter what an individual's church involvement was (just how trustworthy they are from their work history [well researched in this instance] and other checks), and focused more on getting the BEST talent out there anywhere, I think I'd have more trust in the church's computer system security than I presently do.
This is a lot of assumptions here. Offering less doesn't always mean you will not get the Best talent. There are a lot of people who apply for jobs that open with the Church due to Church stability, especially in the tech field.
If someone came up to you in Church and said, happy birthday, they could have been notified by someone else who knows it was your birthday. You are making the assumption it was through the Church online. The average lay member doesn't have access to private information like that. If they have it, it is because they are in a position that allows them to view birthdays. I use to be able to view the birthday of my home teaching/ministering families. I am unable to do so anymore. So, if I know there birthday it is because I have asked them, or asked someone who knows the family more than I do (especially if it is a family that never opens the door).
Let me provide you perspective with the Church's talent and position in the tech field. When I applied for the Church I was applying for a tech II position. As I interviewed, a tech II position in the Church is more like a tech III position anywhere else. They have enough pull, and engineers applying that people are willing to take a lesser pay for the security and a good atmosphere to work in. Needless to say, at that time I wasn't even seen as a candidate for the position but anywhere else I was.EDIT: Also, if you have given your number, year of birth, etc... (what we call private information), if you are part of any social media platform and do not click the button (if available) "Do not sell my personal information" -- understand all these platforms are selling your private information to third parties (especially if they are affiliated with any other group). I doubt, but could be wrong (as I don't know the ins and outs of this with the Church), but I doubt they are selling our personal information to third parties.
-
16 hours ago, laronius said:
Alma 12:22 Now we see that Adam did fall by the partaking of the forbidden fruit, according to the word of God; and thus we see, that by his fall, all mankind became a lost and fallen people.
If it was true that there was absolutely no other way for Adam and Eve to have children other than to transgress God's commandment then how is it proper to state that the fall caused all mankind to "become" a list and fallen people? Yes, Adam and Eve were the original mankind but I'm pretty sure it's use in this verse is not limited to them. So, if "became" implies another possible state of being other than fallen then why does Eve specifically state that is was only through transgression that it was possible?
My first question, does Eve say "it was only through transgression"? I believe Eve says something a little different than "it was only through transgression..."
I believe our Lord's perfection implies another state, otherwise he also would have been "lost and fallen" due to being the son of someone that was fallen. We could argue his Father allowed for the other state, but can a fallen person produce anything else besides being "fallen" -- in this regard (this verse)?
I'm one that personally believes, transgression was not the only way to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of God's children.
-
10 hours ago, mordorbund said:
Will it be a global burning or a local one?
Local of course, because there is no way fire could cover the whole earth, I mean look at all the "water!"
-
True statement. We must keep our eyes open, and our ears toward heaven. These works will start to become more obvious for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.
-
That's an intriguing quote I have not come across. I'm not a believer that the world will be covered by "fire" as we know it, like a camp fire or forest fire. What type of "fire" will the glory of God create? That is more the fire that will come.
Would like to know about the clarification provided.
-
-
6 hours ago, scottyg said:
I think of the miracles that we have read about in the Old Testament this year, and it gets me excited to study the New Testament again next year so that everyone can remember the various miracles the Savior performed in the flesh. How many saints will have instant miracles of healing take place, have their food storage not run out, and be able to cast out devils? Will some hear reports of the weather being changed, or of persons being raised from the dead?
Christ has done some amazing things, and if we are to see even greater manifestations, I can only assume that some of the other things He did in the past will also follow the faithful. I believe this to be because their faith will be so great, and that will also enlarge the power of the priesthood. Their faith will have to be that strong to oppose the coming opposition and wickedness of the world.
This is what I am wondering also. Is the manifestation a manifestation of more miracles in the individual lives of members? Could it be connected to what @laronius mentioned also. Will an increase in temple attendance increase our ability to have miracles in our lives?
-
8 hours ago, laronius said:
The thing that immediately comes to mind is the promise that those who go to the temple would come out "armed with power" and would you know it, coincidences of all coincidences, we have prophet trying to build a temple practically in everyone's backyard and telling us we better go often.
That, I would say, is a major source of that power. Now how that power becomes manifest is something that isn't quite as clear.
That is a great point. Then is part of that "power" an increase in revelation -- hearing the voice of the Lord?
-
1 hour ago, laronius said:
It makes me think of the law of opposition. As the power of Satan increases in the world, the power of God must of necessity be increasingly manifest in the lives of the faithful. Not only will this serve to strengthen His people but it will allow them to become lighted "cities upon the hill" to which others can look. I think the Lord wants to force the issue of choosing between Him and the world but that can't happen if all people see is darkness. There must be a clear choice and the lives of the saints must clearly reflect what God has to offer.
That's a great thought. What do you think will be in the "increase" of the power of God in the saints? Righteousness will increase?
-
What comes to your mind regarding the following from President Nelson,
Quote"In coming days, we will see the greatest manifestations of the Savior’s power that the world has ever seen. Between now and the time He returns “with power and great glory,” He will bestow countless privileges, blessings, and miracles upon the faithful."
-
9 hours ago, Carborendum said:
It was figurative. I meant that it was a clear and blatant fulfillment of the traits & actions of the Anti-Christ.
That is what I was wondering. I was reading the article trying to find what he said or what he did that made you feel he was announcing himself as "the Beast."
9 hours ago, Carborendum said:Yes, as I said...
I knew what you said, and I was agreeing with that part. I would identify him as a puppet of "the Beast."
9 hours ago, Carborendum said:I'm not talking about weaponizing government agencies for political purposes. It's a long explanation. You have to understand who / what the Beast actually is. There is a meaning to the number 666 that is more figurative and more literal than we even consider.
Although I do my best to research history, I admit there is always more out there that I haven't read and alternate interpretations of "what happened". That said, I believe this is the first time that any US President has weaponized a government agency to persecute Christians for being "out" about their Christianity.
The arrested man in question was guilty of the lowest level of "assault". The civil lawsuit against him was thrown out of civil because the "victim" was the one who started it. But this father/pro-life activist in no way violated the statute that the warrant indicated. And such a violation is in no way a violent crime. Yet an FBI SWAT team was sent to pick this guy up at his home in front of his wife and kids. How on earth is that justified?
You may think it is just a politically motivated show of force. And on some level, I'm sure it is. But the underlying message that is so easy to overlook is that if you're a faithful Christian, you're on our hit list.
I'm not studied enough to really draw a conclusion as to who/what "the Beast" is. At the moment, I accept "the Beast" to be part of the great and abominable church and the mother of harlots. The main identifier would be those who fight against the "saints" of God. In this case, weaponizing a government agency in the manner shared is in fact a sign of "the Beast" and the great and abominable church. That I also would agree with. I also agree that it is a subtle threat to those who oppose, or would oppose, the desires and actions of the great and abominable church (particularly against "Saints").
9 hours ago, Carborendum said:Over-reacting? Possibly. But I believe that over time, we'll see much worse with more and more blatant episodes. I pray I'm wrong.
I don't disagree with you. I believe, personally, we are coming to a time where we will start seeing -- once again -- Church leaders being attacked in a similar fashion. The Church will need to continue teaching truth -- the laws of God as defined by God. These truths are in direct opposition to the whore of all the earth. As this organization gains more power we will sadly see things -- as you describe -- much worse.
Another sign, as already discussed in a previous thread, are those involved in January 6th. If the reports are correct and accurate, the constitution is being broken (the law which is to protect) with how they are dealing with these individuals. Biden fully coming out and saying MAGA supporters are the greatest threat to our "Republic" (he even used the right name) should also be a subtle sign.
We can go into more over the past two years with Covid and see the signs there also.
-
2 hours ago, Carborendum said:
Here, Biden clearly announces he is the Beast. Or at least, he's the puppet that the Beast is using.
For the record, I was told by many parties that Obama was the beast. But as I looked through Revelation, I couldn't find anything that would lead me to believe that it was so. Since then, I've been paying attention to every major national leader. Putin showed some promise. I believe that Xi Jinping certainly satisfied many of the requirements. But now Biden is bringing it here to the US. Because of that last fact, I'd say it's Biden.
We're going to be in for a bumpy ride.
What are you referring to regarding the "announcement"?
If anything, he is more a puppet. The guy can't even think straight. Hard to be the beast when you truly can't act like one. He definitely is part of the great and spacious building, the mother of harlots, etc... Weaponizing government agencies, against political opponents, would definitely be a sign for this organization.
-
On 9/17/2022 at 4:44 PM, Carborendum said:
And it will be legal because it is all private industry doing it, not the government. Private industry puts their hands in the cookie jar, then hands over all the information to the government without a warrant. Perfectly legal. Doesn't violate the Constitutional rights of the individual.
We already see this with Big Tech (Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc...). Facebook, you can only hold any view "Facebook" esteems as right. If not, flagged, suspended, etc...
Google, no more talking about the ineffectiveness of mask wearing, and many other things. Even if you are presenting logical facts from research that shows otherwise. Nope, you can't talk, you can't share, we control the narrative of what is right.
Facebook in cahoots the FBI that Zuckerberg revealed regarding potential misinformation. Wasn't it the government, Biden's entourage who said they are working privately with Facebook and getting information -- or something to that nature.
-
13 hours ago, laronius said:
JST 1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding they shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.This is the JST version where it says they instead of she. Does anyone have an opinion on the meaning of the underlined part? While childbearing is definitely a big part of the gospel we generally don't preach it's necessity for salvation.
Seems to me it follows "And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming”.
-
1 hour ago, laronius said:
Yes, while often there may be a central message to a parable/allegory I think there are yet many truths that can be learned depending on it application.
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.
-
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, Carborendum, mikbone and 1 other
-
4
Kyrie Irving Tweet -- 1984 Type Scenario
in Current Events
Posted · Edited by Anddenex
The fact that he is even thinking he needs to pay for a tweet $500K is 1984 type scenario. Whether I agree with this speech or not, doesn't require him to pay $500K. He is only paying because of the woke outrage. So, in this case, we will have to agree to disagree.
Definitely in agreement with the other list.
I understand what 1984 was about, and this is a good sign of it. When a person feels they need to feel sorry for a book they tweet, such that they need to pay $500K, yes that is a form of oppression. It is controlling what you say, which ultimately controls what you think, and then what you feel you can say and do.
EDIT: He is now being suspended because his "apology" or non-apology wasn't good enough (he $500K donation wasn't a good enough sorry)? This is exactly what 1984 is about, and the same with your posts about banks. If you don't fall inline you can't bank with us. PayPal trying to get away with the $2500 fee for misinformation -- or what they claim as misinformation (Biden's son laptop comes to mind with FB and Twitter). This woke society is getting more and more ridiculous.
To add to this the Brooklyn Nets statement, "We have decided that Kyrie will serve a suspension without pay until he satisfies a series of objective remedial measures that address the harmful impact of his conduct and the suspension period served is no less than five games.” If this isn't 1984 in action...then I assume we can agree to disagree.