Anddenex

Members
  • Posts

    6136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Anddenex reacted to mirkwood in Can you lose temple recommend over too much diet coke?   
    Is it okay to swallow some water after brushing my teeth on fast Sunday.  I just hate the texture of toothpaste post brushing.
  2. Like
    Anddenex reacted to pam in Church re-evaluating Scouting Program   
    Here is an article that came out in the DesNews yesterday:
     
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865633343/LDS-Church-relationship-with-Boy-Scouts-in-doubt-may-create-new-international-program.html
     
    It mentions the church may come out with an international program to replace the BSA.
  3. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Capitalist_Oinker in where does it say "the prophet cannot lead us astray"???   
    I don't have time to delve into the main discussion here, but I do want to address one aspect of it---- The Adam/God Theory.
     
    First, it should be pointed out that in President Kimball’s conference talk he used the word "alleged" when referring to the Adam/God theory having been taught by some General Authorities.
     
    Second, let's get a couple of things straight about the J of D from where the Brigham quote was lifted.
    The Journal of Discourses is NOT a source for official Church teachings and most Latter-day Saints don't study it for doctrinal understanding. It is NOT considered part of the Church curriculum and it is NOT used in Sunday School classes or any other LDS instructional venues.
     
    Third, quotes from the Journal of Discourses and other journals from that time period are simply NOT reliable (which is why we don't rely on it for instruction). There were no recording devises back then. The talks given in the J of D are nothing more than what the recorder claimed was said. Some of those doing the recording had training in shorthand, others did not, and in many instances they got things wrong. Many of the entries were even based on second hand reports. Brigham Young corrected numerous entries when they were brought to his attention, but it would have been impossible for him to correct them all since many were never brought to his attention, and many more weren't published until after his death.
    Also, almost everyone has had the experience of saying something that was misunderstood by those who heard it. The words "that's not what I meant" have most likely been said by every adult in the entire world at one time or another.
    It's deceptive at best when someone takes an isolated quote by Brigham Young and then ignores a hundred quotes that contradict the first. Considering the number, isn't it a reasonable possibility that the one isolated quote was either misquoted or misunderstood?
     
    Point of fact:
    Here are a several other quotes by Brigham Young in the J of D regarding Adam.
     
    "So I [brigham Young] disagree with you, Mr. B., in the first point we have noticed, for you believe that God is without body and parts, while the Bible declares He has a corporeal body; that in His likeness, precisely, He created Adam."
     
    "Suppose you were rolling in wealth, and perfectly at your ease, with an abundance around you; you might have remained in that condition until Doomsday, and never could have advanced in the school of intelligence, any more than Adam could have known about the works of God, in the great design of the creation, without first being made acquainted with the opposite?”
     
    "The first revelation given to Adam was of a temporal nature. Most of the revelations he received pertained to his life here."
     
    "The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, "we are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of."
     
    So, from above quotations, we learn several important things regarding Brigham Young's views on Adam.
    First, God created Adam.
    Second, since Adam did not understand the works of God and received revelation from him, then God has superior knowledge to him.
    Finally, Adam was one of God's children
     
    It should be obvious that Brigham Young believed Adam and God are not only separate and distinct personages, but that Adam has a lower station than his Father in Heaven.
     
    I could quote a great many more statements just like these by Brigham Young regarding Adam, while there is only one quote by him referencing Adam and God as the same being. In a ministry lasting over forty years, he only talks that way once (possibly twice, but that quote was third hand); so isn't it entirely possible that:
    A. He was misquoted
    Or
    B. We just don't understand what he was trying to say?
     
    It seems obvious to me that weighed against scores of other quotes similar to the ones I mentioned, the isolated Adam/God statement falls into one of the above categories.
  4. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in Just a matter of time - plural marriage challenge   
    My gut tells me that Collier won't win this one--if only because he's a white male.
    The case that legalizes polygamy will come from a Muslim man, a polyandrous woman, or free-love swingers in a group marriage. It won't come from a white Christian male.
  5. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in Boy scout executive committee approves gay scout leaders   
    I just hate it when I'm right.  From the Salt Lake Tribune:
     
    The BSA's deference to religious organizations was criticized by Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT-rights group.
     
    "Half measures are unacceptable and discriminatory exemptions have no place in the Boy Scouts," Griffin said in a statement. "It's long overdue that BSA leaders demonstrate true leadership and embrace a full national policy of inclusion."
  6. Like
    Anddenex reacted to estradling75 in For LDS: Is a wealth a personal blessing for being righteousness? Is poverty an indication of personal wickedness?   
    There is no contradiction if you understand the perspectives of those answering.  There are really two questions being answered. Lets break them out
     
    Can you judge a persons righteousness based on their material wealth?  The answer is "Absolutely not"  That judgement is not ours to make and wealth/poverty is not reliable indicator even if we should/could make that call about someone else.
     
    Can a righteous person be blessed by God with material wealth?  Yes it is possible.  Who are we to limit God in any way.  God will do whatever he feels is best.  But see the above question about trying to make a judgement based on it.
  7. Like
    Anddenex reacted to mordorbund in For LDS: Is a wealth a personal blessing for being righteousness? Is poverty an indication of personal wickedness?   
    BlueSkye, where did you find this 20+ year old talk? I did a search on lds.org to see how often it was referenced (I imagine that would be a pretty good indicator of how foundational this sermon was for us) and only saw links to the talk proper. Compare that with a talk given just 6 years earlier which has really resonated and influenced the saints, and I think you'll see that you're focusing on something that most LDS don't focus on.
     
    If you're really want to learn what the modern Church has to say about temporal wealth and the kingdom of God, you can familiarize yourself with the materials on this site (providentliving.og -> family finances). You can start with a resource in the right rail entitled "Temporal Wealth and the Kingdom of God".
  8. Like
    Anddenex reacted to rameumptom in Wayne May — Book of Mormon Archaeology in North America   
    I think he was saying that different truths are of varying levels of importance.  Truths can also be interpreted differently. Are we interpreting what the BoM says from our own perspective, or from the perspective of Nephi or Joseph Smith? Or God?  World views differ depending on how a person defines her world.
     
    For me, Zion and "Promised Land" are all of North and South America, because that is what Joseph Smith told us. 
  9. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Average Joe in Why was it revealed to JS that 'all other creeds are an abomination?'   
    This may be too much information but I think it bears on the subject if not about creeds specifically.
     
    Let’s see what the LDS scriptures say about this.
     
    D&C 18:20 - Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil. (June 1829)
     
    This scripture makes clear that not all churches are of the devil. However, D&C 18:20 seems to go against what the Book of Mormon says at first glance.
     
    1 Nephi 14:10 - And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. (The Book of Mormon was published in March 1830)
     
    Looking at this verse it would seem that if you weren’t a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints you were a member of the church of the devil. The Book of Mormon was published in March 1830, the Church wasn’t established until April 6th 1830. Let’s look to the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) again for clarification.
     
    D&C 10:52 - And now, behold, according to their [The Nephite’s] faith in their prayers will I bring this part of my gospel [The Book of Mormon] to the knowledge of my people. Behold, I do not bring it to destroy that which they have received, but to build it up.
     
     53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.
     
     54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;
     
    55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.
     
    56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom [church] of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center. (Summer 1828)
     
    These scriptures, written almost 2 years before the publishing of the Book of Mormon and establishing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints clearly states that the Book of Mormon isn’t to destroy that which they have received, but to build it up…[not] to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church. So who were these who were “his church”?
     
    Here are two examples of the Lord building up "his church":
     
    I. In October of 1830, missionaries from the Church visited Rigdon while traveling through northern Ohio. After two weeks of studying about the Church and reading the Book of Mormon, Rigdon announced that he believed the Church was true. In November, he was baptized and ordained an Elder in the Church. More than a hundred members of his congregation also converted. Ultimately, nearly 3,000 Campbellites would join the Mormon Church.
     
    II. In the mid-1830s, a group of approximately 600 Primitive Methodists led by Thomas Knighton left the Primitive Methodism movement and established an independent religious organization they called the United Brethren. The church was divided into many small congregations scattered among the Three Counties, with 50 designated preachers for the group. In 1836, the United Brethren built a chapel in Gadfield Elm, near Ledbury.
     
    In March 1840, Latter Day Saint missionary and apostle Wilford Woodruff was brought to Hill Farm, Fromes Hill by William Benbow, a recent English convert to Mormonism. Benbow introduced Woodruff to his brother John Benbow, who was a member of the United Brethren. Woodruff received permission to preach to United Brethren congregations, and in the first 30 days he had baptized 45 preachers and 160 members of the United Brethren into the Latter Day Saint church. By December 1840, 300 members of the church had been converted to Mormonism, and ultimately all the members of the United Brethren except one became Latter Day Saints.
     
    This is in addition to the many individuals and family of the world’s churches who having received a testimony of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s work in the restoration have come into the fold.
     
    The church of the devil remains…”they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil.”
  10. Like
    Anddenex reacted to skippy740 in In light of SCOTUS decision etc...   
    Here's the link to the Ensign 1979 article of that speech given in 1978:
    https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship?lang=eng
  11. Like
    Anddenex reacted to pam in LDS in the Terrestial and Telestial Kingdoms   
    The term new and everlasting covenant is used frequently throughout the Doctrine and Covenants. President Joseph Fielding Smith gave the following definition of it:

     

    “The new and everlasting covenant is the fulness of the gospel. It is composed of ‘All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations’ that are sealed upon members of the Church by the Holy Spirit of promise, or the Holy Ghost, by the authority of the President of the Church who holds the keys. The President of the Church holds the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood. He delegates authority to others and authorizes them to perform the sacred ordinances of the priesthood.

     

    “Marriage for eternity is a new and everlasting covenant. Baptism is also a new and everlasting covenant, and likewise ordination to the priesthood, and every other covenant is everlasting and a part of the new and everlasting covenant which embraces all things.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:65.)

  12. Like
    Anddenex reacted to bytor2112 in I am being released...   
    I have served as Elders Quorum President for just over five years and will be released this Sunday. I am happy......and sad all at the same time. I taught Gospel Doctrine a couple times lately and lot's of folks told the Bishop how much they enjoyed my lessons. I jokingly told my wife that I would be released soon and called as GD teacher....well, sort of jokingly. I had the feeling that it was going to happen.
     
    Sunday, our Bishop asked how I felt about being called as.....Gospel Doctrine teacher. I of course said, whatever the Lord would have me do Bishop.
     
    As I ponder my stewardship of the EQ....I am feeling kinda blue thinking about being released. Anyone else feel that way after being released from a long time calling?
  13. Like
    Anddenex reacted to bytor2112 in In light of SCOTUS decision etc...   
    Thought this quote from Elder Maxwell is spot on:
     
    “Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. (See 1 Kgs. 18:21.) President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had ‘never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life’ (in Conference Report, Apr. 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ! We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.”
    “Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. M. J. Sobran also said, ‘A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it’ (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 58–59). This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.”
    “Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel. There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself. Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves, ‘summer is nigh’ (Matt. 24:32). Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat!”
    Elder Neal A. Maxwell
     
  14. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in can murderers hope for anything above the Telestial kingdom?   
    Doctrine and Covenants 42: 18, "And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come."
     
    It appears pretty clear there are those who murder whom will not obtain forgiveness in this world, and in the world to come.
     
     
  15. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in can murderers hope for anything above the Telestial kingdom?   
    I would disagree. In Luke 15:12 we are told that both sons were given their inheritance on the younger's demand that the estate be partitioned. Father's assurance in verse 31 confirms this arrangement--whatever the Father has left, is actually part of the "faithful" son's inheritance. (That's what makes the son's outburst so repugnant--he acts as though he has been serving (Greek: "slaving for") the Father all this time; when in fact, he had no problem taking his own portion of the living when it was offered. He has been at least an equal with his father from a materialistic standpoint and, like his brother, has basically been buttering his own bread. See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2015/05/new-testament-gospel-doctrine-lesson-18-luke-15/ for more on this). In the father's conversation with the older son he does not justify giving the younger son another inheritance; rather, he justifies a one-time celebration for the return of the lost soul (the same sort of rejoicing we see in the preceding parables of the lost money and sheep).
    I dunno. Would Hitler's exaltation cheapen that of Anne Frank?
    Even assuming, arguendo, that it wouldn't: All analogies have their limits, of course; but to argue that the parable of the prodigal son doesn't support the idea of the prodigal's being denied a second inheritance, is essentially to make a collateral argument that the parable doesn't support the idea of his having been granted one. Strictly speaking, of course, the parable is primarily about the rejoicing that happens on the recovery of a lost son, coin, or sheep; not about whether those items' absences caused any irreversible consequences.
  16. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in can murderers hope for anything above the Telestial kingdom?   
    Yes, let's not. 
     
     
    I like this a lot and am inclined to agree with it--but the bare text of D&C 76 poses some real complications to this view and I've not been able to find a satisfactory, scripturally-based workaround.  I would love to hear anything you'd like to add on this.
     
     
    Well, Jesus Himself wasn't above a hellfire-damnation sermon or two . . .
     
     
    But note that in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the Father also concretely stated that all his possessions now belonged to the (relatively) faithful son.  The prodigal had been redeemed and liberated from the prospect of eternal slavery, all right--but that couldn't change the fact that his inheritance had been irrevocably and irretrievably spent.  The prodigal was back in the family as a dependent, not an heir.
  17. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Vort in can murderers hope for anything above the Telestial kingdom?   
    Ram, though I agree with much of what you wrote, I vehemently disagree with the above statement. I think it's plain false, and I am very glad we have no such "rule". (I'm even more glad that the Church membership seems no longer to be getting much of its doctrinal understandings from books written by GAs, but that's another matter entirely.) The idea that we are so much more enlightened than our ancestral Saints of past generations is untrue and potentially very dangerous.
     
    Yes, in certain narrow areas, we do indeed have more light and knowledge -- the Priesthood issue is a good example of that. Also true is that our leaders emphasize things that are important for US in OUR generation, so that e.g. we might hear more of an emphasis today on grace. And it is my observation, shared by many, that our current leaders try perhaps to stick more closely to revealed doctrine instead of speculating on various matters in public venues, even General Conference. On these matters, we probably see eye to eye.
     
    But the larger idea that we should ignore prophetic teachings from a generation ago or more, as suggested by your words quoted above, goes way too far. I am very confident that the overall understanding of the plan of salvation and of God's work in our lives as held by the apostles and prophets throughout the restoration greatly exceeds my own (and your own), regardless of individual items that, in retrospect, we might recognize that they got wrong.
  18. Like
    Anddenex reacted to The Folk Prophet in can murderers hope for anything above the Telestial kingdom?   
    I dunno. Personally I'm not planning on committing adultery and then murdering the husband to cover it up.
  19. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in can murderers hope for anything above the Telestial kingdom?   
    I think Paul makes the point that to violate any element of the law is essentially the same as violating the entire law--I don't remember off the top of my head if he compares it to murder or not. 
     
    It's certainly a valid point in the context of Paul's larger argument--that it's impossible to obey perfectly and therefore impossible to save ourselves, and therefore we all need Christ's saving power.
     
    But I think those who cite Paul's words for the proposition that God doesn't think that torture, murder, or rape are any worse than stealing a fifty-cent stick of gum, are stretching things mightily.
  20. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from The Folk Prophet in can murderers hope for anything above the Telestial kingdom?   
    Psshh...you just read my last paragraph and then stated it differently 
  21. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Backroads in can murderers hope for anything above the Telestial kingdom?   
    I do suppose my question wonders at its core if murderers can have exaltation.
  22. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in can murderers hope for anything above the Telestial kingdom?   
    I suppose that when one puts a lot of time into apologetics, one gets used to taking McConkie's statements about pretty much anything with a grain of salt. 
     
    But, given the section of D&C to which Anddenex cites as well as near-unanimity by prior GAs on this matter all the way back to Joseph Smith in conjunction with the lack of an explicit contradiction by the current GAs, I'm disinclined to set the idea aside just yet.  To say that a "murderer" (again, using God's definition rather than man's definition for that term) will not have the privilege of spending eternity creating new worlds, populating the same, and using his absolute discretion to determine when the mortal existences of each one of those created beings will end; is not to say that this murderer is not still far better off with Christ than without Him, or to deny that the murderer has still been "saved" from an infinitely more horrific fate.
     
    We know, from the Book of Mormon, that there are some sins with eternal repercussions--procrastination of repentance, for one (Hel 13:38 and Alma 34:33), and counting on God's mercy to excuse sin and complacency, for another (2 Ne 28:8, 21-22).  We obviously can't save ourselves--but apparently, we're more than capable of sending ourselves to Hell. 
     
    Having established, then, that that there are at least some sins that permanently close the door to exaltation--why can't murder be one of those sins?  Is the murderer standing at the bar of the Third District Court in Salt Lake, any less penitent than the procrastinator or the libertine will be when standing at the Bar of the Supreme Court at the final judgment?  I think not.  Rather, it is the show of penitence that moves us with compassion and the hope that full restoration will be possible; and since we can already see the fruits of repentance in the imprisoned murderer it is him that we pity and it is for him that we hope the Plan of Salvation offers a loophole for exaltation.  That's a noble, even divine, desire--to a point.
     
    On the other hand--"compassion" was a major selling point of Lucifer's offer to save everyone.  It was a beautiful idea, with the only problem being that it just plain wouldn't work.  And in this case, when we get too Universalist in our eschatology, we can't help but deny any absolute nexus between what we do in the here-and-now and the qualitative reward we receive in the hereafter--which in turn fundamentally nullifies the importance of proclaiming the Gospel, temple work, "hastening", "rescue", Christlike living, and pretty much every other initiative or injunction we've received from our Church leaders past and present.  We also make elements of the Plan of Salvation redundant (if you're going to give the recalcitrant multiple chances at an earth life until they attain exaltation, then no need for perdition, Telestial, Terrestrial, or the lower levels of the Celestial kingdoms.  If perdition, Telestial, Terrestrial, or the lower levels of the Celestial kingdoms are just training ground for exaltation, no need for an earth life.) 
     
    The power and genius of the Atonement is that it satisfies both justice and mercy; not that it strong-arms the one into submission to the other.
  23. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in can murderers hope for anything above the Telestial kingdom?   
    All the conference talks isn't going to change Doctrine & Covenants 132: 39 regarding King David falling from exaltation.  I don't see how anyone can interpret this scripture any other way, and this scripture definitely doesn't "limit" the atonement, and we know it was the murder of Uriah as the catalyst to his down fall.
     
    Unless someone can provide an accurate, believable, alternate interpretation of the meaning of exaltation.  I know of only one true definition of exaltation -- Exalted with God the Father, receiving all he has with Christ.
  24. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Saint Peter in can murderers hope for anything above the Telestial kingdom?   
    All the conference talks isn't going to change Doctrine & Covenants 132: 39 regarding King David falling from exaltation.  I don't see how anyone can interpret this scripture any other way, and this scripture definitely doesn't "limit" the atonement, and we know it was the murder of Uriah as the catalyst to his down fall.
     
    Unless someone can provide an accurate, believable, alternate interpretation of the meaning of exaltation.  I know of only one true definition of exaltation -- Exalted with God the Father, receiving all he has with Christ.
  25. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Backroads in can murderers hope for anything above the Telestial kingdom?   
    All the conference talks isn't going to change Doctrine & Covenants 132: 39 regarding King David falling from exaltation.  I don't see how anyone can interpret this scripture any other way, and this scripture definitely doesn't "limit" the atonement, and we know it was the murder of Uriah as the catalyst to his down fall.
     
    Unless someone can provide an accurate, believable, alternate interpretation of the meaning of exaltation.  I know of only one true definition of exaltation -- Exalted with God the Father, receiving all he has with Christ.