Anddenex

Members
  • Posts

    6131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Finrock in Nephi saw that there would be few church members in our day but that the church would cover the earth   
    This is one question that has pondered my mind over the past year or so; initially, my mind accepted the idea that Zion was only members of the Church -- the covenant people of the Lord.
     
    Over the past year, my mind and heart have been swayed to believe that Zion is both, covenant people of the Lord, and those of other faiths who are pure in heart and accept the laws within Zion.  It is my understanding that this will be one way people are converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  As they live among the Saints, they will ultimately receive an invitation to join the Lord's covenanted people.  Zion, the pure in heart, then will begin to multiply and grow exponentially.
     
    When the Lord returns will only his covenant people be spared his vengeance?  No.  The pure in heart will be spared whether LDS or not.  I imagine, and would not be surprised to even see Atheist among Zion during its genesis.  I can't imagine Zion turning any honest heart away, who wants to live in peace where there are no rich, no poor, and who are willing to live the laws established in Zion.
  2. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Traveler in Can families be together forever?   
    The answers above are correct and we should understand that in the resurrection the time for entering into a marriage covenant has ended.
     
    Please consider another scripture also from Matthew chapter 16 verse 19
     
    The context of this scripture is the power Jesus gives to his Apostles - in particular Peter, concerning the Kingdom of heaven or the Church of G-d.  This scripture in it context is both a prophesy and sign of G-d's kingdom and Church on earth as well as those authorized to officiate in the ordinances of the G-d's Church.  In short the covenants they bind on earth - including marriage - will be bound in heaven.  And if you consider what is given in other verses in this same chapter - the binding power will be the very foundation of the G-d's Church and will withstand even the powers of hell or the gates of hell (meaning death) so this is the only power among mankind that can extend beyond the grave.
     
    If this truth is not taught and power exercised in the church or congregation where you meet - If I were you - I would very carefully and prayerfully seek divine guidance as to where you can find a church with such power and authority.
  3. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Capitalist_Oinker in Can families be together forever?   
    And on a side note, the question indicates that the Sadducees (while they didn’t believe it) recognized the belief in eternal marriage; otherwise there would be no reason to ask whose wife she would be in the resurrection.
  4. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in Can families be together forever?   
    Assuming you are referring to Matthew 22:30: Mormons would say that yes, you're misinterpreting it. :)
    The key here is that Jesus is replying to a question that was posed by the Sadducees, who did not believe in a resurrection and who had framed the question as a deliberate attempt to mock the whole idea. Jesus' reply is geared towards defending the reality of the resurrection, not with describing whether or how marital relationships operate after the resurrection. Verse 30 is textually accurate in that there are no marital rites performed during the resurrection and that any questions as to who shall be married to whom will have been resolved by that point; but we don't read it as stating that previously-created marital relationships are bound to dissolve. The thrust of Jesus' answer, and what silences the Sadducees and is the reason Matthew and other Gospel writers think it noteworthy, is His affirmation of the resurrection in verses 31-32--of which He Himself will provide irrefutable proof less than two weeks later.
  5. Like
    Anddenex reacted to pam in Mission service: Culture, or canon?   
    I see it as  Priesthood responsibility not a cultural thing.  That being said, there are justifiable reasons why some young men can't serve missions.  One is not "because I don't want to fall into the cultural trap."
  6. Like
    Anddenex reacted to mirkwood in The Second Civil War   
    lol
  7. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Vort in The Second Civil War   
    I was able to grasp the concept being shared Vort.  This then should exponentially restore your faith in humanity.  Let me give you the math JAG^5 = 0.JAGfaithinhuminatiyrestoredJAG (line over the top of G).
  8. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from askandanswer in Combining boys and girls in Valiant 10/11 class?   
    Since I have been married this class has always been together, co-ed.  Not sure the need, and definitely not mandated within the Church Handbook of Instructions.
     
    We don't split 12/13 (14/15, or 16/17) Sunday School classes; however, if there were enough boys and enough girls and enough teachers, this is really a call by the bishopric and primary president.
     
    I see more an added benefit to have them together as the class is pertaining to gospel doctrines, which are not gender specific.
  9. Like
    Anddenex reacted to mordorbund in struggling wearing my garments   
    It's okay JAG, I don't hate judgmental people just because they sin differently from me (am I using that right?).
  10. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in struggling wearing my garments   
    I am not judging jbgirl33 about her garments, because I'm far too busy judging Vort about his wedding ring.
  11. Like
    Anddenex reacted to EarlJibbs in struggling wearing my garments   
    I know you didn't ask whether or not you should wear them, but I say wear them. Wear them all you can. Make sure you dress in a manner than allows you to wear them. 
     
    Now then, my other two cents. Are you breaking covenants by not wearing them? Yes. What is another covenant you made? To be baptized. Would you go to the rest of church and not go to sacrament? Skipping out on what may seem trivial could have eternal consequences. I think that is your biggest concern, breaking a covenant with God. Which we know from Moses, Joseph Smith and others that didn't do as instructed or agreed upon, God is serious about his side of the promises made and if we break them, he is serious about the consequences. 
     
    Will you be excommunicated? No.
    Can you still go to church? Yes
    Can you still have a calling? Yes
    Can you go to the temple/renew your temple recommend? No
    Are you to be sent to a lower kingdom as someone may have suggested? I am careful not to tell people they will or will not go to any which kingdom as it is not my place. But could you? Yes. 
     
    My sincere suggestion is that you write down the promises God has made you. Write down the promises you made God. And then write down the cons of deciding not to wear the garments. In the end it is your decision, but I do believe that in the end if your only reason is that you don't like them, take a longer harder more spiritually guided look at your priorities. Can you still be a wonderful person? Yes, absolutely. Can you still be blessed by doing well and doing good for others? Yes. Be and do your best and let God do the rest. 
  12. Like
    Anddenex reacted to The Folk Prophet in ROBERTS: If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue could marry him and Tom can't. Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?   
    Homosexuality and all explanations, justifications, grievances, and motivations surrounding it are perpetuation of a root lie.
     
    It is, flatly, a counterfeit of Satan. And all the twisting in the wind one wants cannot take away from this plain fact.
     
    Homosexuality stems from the natural man and therefore any engagement therein, and I mean ANY, makes one an enemy to God.
     
    When people buy into this core lie, then all the outlying descriptions of experience, thought and feeling become a half truth at best.
     
    This is how most of your posts read to me Soulsearcher. I do not doubt your sincerity or claim you are intentionally misleading. But the argument, at it's very most core, is based on falseness, and ergo, nothing that stems from this falsehood rings quite fully true.
     
    Of course, those who have bought into this cannot see it. And I do not expect you to see it. But wickedness never was happiness, and never will be.
     
    Should anyone beat a kid up for a friend mentioning the word "gay" (assuming we take your second hand report at face value)? Of course not. Does that mean if this didn't happen, all his friends and family gladly accepted his homosexuality, and that there were no ramifications of judgment or even perceived judgement whatsoever in all the world, that this kid would then be happy in it?
     
    No!
     
    Of course that doesn't justify vicious hateful behavior. And it never will. But the existence of fringe lack-of-Christianity does not diminish the value and truth of correct, righteous Christianity.
     
    It's as if you expect us to believe that without the father's violence the kid wouldn't be touching the drugs and alcohol and everything would be right in his life.
     
    As to the "experimenting" idea, you're twisting things to suit an argument. It's been fairly well concluded and accepted that marrying straight to get over the gay is a wrong-headed idea.
     
    What we as Christians, and specifically as LDS, are asking everyone, including gays, to experiment upon is righteousness. It is our contention that there is only one path to joy and happiness, and that path is to follow in the footsteps of our Savior and the words He taught and teaches through apostles and prophets. We advocate experimenting upon this -- namely by obedience -- and contend that only in doing so will one become as one should become, and be what one must be. We advocate that obedience will change people's hearts, souls, minds and very beings. We advocate that such "experimentation" will lead to joy, and all other acts, experimental or not, will lead to sorrow.
     
    I reiterate: Anything beyond the truths of Christ and His gospel is a perpetuation of a lie.
     
     
    This is a prime example of the only-partial-truth of your posts. This is a small part of the big story, and the fringe extremists on both sides, while perhaps adding fuel to the fire, do not typically drive the overall path of politics. What does happen is the fringe happenings are being exaggerated, blown out of proportion, used as tent poles in the political arena, and made to be seen as mainstream instead of fringe.
     
    Moreover, repeating again, homosexuality and all who sustain and support it against the honest exercise of religious liberty are standing with the devil's kingdom against God and perpetuating falsehood. The fact that some few on the side of God's kingdom are mistaken in their approach and tactics does not validate the lie of the other side or justify war against the liberties of all to worship, believe, speak, and act according to their free conscience.
  13. Like
    Anddenex reacted to askandanswer in Excommunication Letter   
    I think that, subject to the laws of the land, any organisation has the right to set its own rules and decide who it will admit as members and whom it will disallow. I was disappointed recently when the blue foot club kicked me out when they found out that my feet are actually green. I think this is an example of blatant discrimination against people with green feet and shows a complete lack of acceptance, respect and love for green footed people. Maybe this rule is based on outdated stereotypes of green footed people, but they are the rules, and the rules of the blue foot club clearly state that only people with blue feet can be members. It may be that at some future time, the rules of the club will be changed to allow green footed people to be members, but that's not what the rules say at the moment. Until that time, I'll do my best to continue to follow those aspects of the club that I enjoyed and found to be appealing even though I no longer belong to it. And I'll do my best to to accept that my right to live as I want is just as valid as the clubs' right to do what it wants and not become angry or bitter about the club.
  14. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Vort in ROBERTS: If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue could marry him and Tom can't. Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?   
    Let me also point out that the semantic distinction is vitally important, and not merely for accuracy's sake. A common tactic, perhaps unconsciously done at times but still not honest, is to introduce a peculiar, idiosyncratic meaning for a word, then make an accusation or statement using that idiosyncratic meaning but willingly allowing it to be generalized to the more common meaning. How often have we heard "love" used as a euphemism for sexual gratification, then been lectured at how "unloving" Christians or Mormons are because they fight against Love (meaning homosex or other fornication)?
     
    I believe this to be an example of corrupt communications such as Paul specified in the epistle to the Ephesians. When this is done unintentionally, the offender should simply be corrected; if s/he is honest and humble, s/he will immediately admit the point. But often, the offender does not admit the point, betraying either a dishonest intent or a prideful attitude (which is much the same thing).
     
    In any case, the "semantic distinction" should be maintained and not pooh-poohed away as if it were unimportant.
  15. Like
    Anddenex reacted to estradling75 in Excommunication Letter   
    It is quite simple really.... 
     
    He is violating the Law of Chastity (Sexual Relations are to be between a Man and Woman legally and lawfully married)
     
    This is something he would have been taught growing up so it should not come as any surprise...
     
    The fact that he goes off on other things he claims are "mistakes" made by the Church also point to the simple fact that he does not also share the belief that that Christ is leading the Church.  He is apostate plain and simple.  And that is entirely by his  choice and actions
  16. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in Excommunication Letter   
    There's a lot there, and I'm not really up for a point-by-point refutation. I would observe the following:

    1. Not everything done in the name of "love" is morally right, and
    2. In Mormon theology, life is seen as a training ground for a future existence in which a person might--if he has, through Christ's atonement, developed the necessary Godlike virtues--have absolute power to create (and destroy) life. A major purpose for this life is to prove that we can be trusted with that sort of power (so that you don't wind up with the sort of chaos imagined by the ancient Greeks, who described gods that created people out of mere boredom, started wars on a whim, and routinely tortured/raped their creations for the mere sport of it). To use the power to copulate (or to kill) for mere self-gratification in a means contrary to the way God intended, is therefore a very grave sin; and those who encourage such behaviors are in a very real sense jeopardizing the eternal reward of those naive enough to listen to them. That's why the Church reserves the right to excommunicate in these sorts of cases--so that unrepentant sinners can't use their church membership as a means to recruit others into sin.
  17. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from EarlJibbs in Should a bishop be notified if a man, receiving fast offerings, smokes?   
    We may feel different; however, the conversation should be easy enough, "Hello bishop, my name is Andrew.  I employ Tim. Tim and I had a conversation regarding work and financial. I understand he has been receiving help. Over the course of my discussion with Tim we agreed upon a raise, which he now enjoys.  Thought this would be good information you would want to know. I am sure you are already familiar with his smoking habit. Either way, have a great day." All of the bishops in my ward would have been pleased with this information (Our bishops have usually been Transitory bishops, which I would assume you are familiar with -- the more information they have the better they are able to distribute funds).
     
    As I mentioned previously, true story, and the conversation wasn't difficult, "Hello bishop, I understand this family requested assistance for Christmas.  Were you aware the father recently purchased $500 gift card for playing golf?" -- "No."  "Alright, well then, now you know.  Your the bishop, you have additional information."  -- "Thanks."  Conversation ended, nothing awkward.  Direct and to the point. 
     
    Now the bishop has knowledge and with knowledge they can correctly issue funds appropriately.  Our desire to help, or if we want to help is moot.  Of course, we want to help, and every bishop wants to help, and I have never met a bishop that didn't appreciate additional knowledge regarding his flock.  They all have welcomed it, especially when it pertains to the extending of Church funds.
     
    These are my thoughts. :)
  18. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Capitalist_Oinker in Should a bishop be notified if a man, receiving fast offerings, smokes?   
    Not necessarily so.  If we have information a bishop does not we are duty bound to inform the bishop of circumstances.  People abuse the Church and its welfare assistance, and with proper information bishops can make better or more educated decisions in accordance with revelation.
     
    Our ward has had its fair share of abusers.  With additional information which have been brought to our bishops attention at times better decisions were made regarding families. Example, true story, family reaches out for assistance during Christmas. Bishop is happy to help.  Bishop was informed father just purchased a $500 golf pass so he could play golf.  Now the bishop has better information which he can discuss with the father privately.  Yes, it doesn't matter where we work, if we are in the neighborhood or not, if we have information of possible abuse of sacred funds, we are duty bound to let it be known (privately with the bishop) and then let he who has stewardship to make the decision.
  19. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in Will BYU have to provide housing for same-sex married couples?   
    I think that's the endgame; but it's worth noting that ib the BJU case there was a clear, extensive, and stringently enforced federal statute prohibiting racial discrimination by private actors. We aren't quite there for gays--yet.
    The next move, I think, is to modify the Civil Rights Act of 1963 to add gays as a protected class. That will be when things really get unpleasant.
  20. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Str8Shooter in Should a bishop be notified if a man, receiving fast offerings, smokes?   
    As a boss, it is correct to say it is none of your business. As a disciple of Christ, it is your business to privately discuss with the Bishop any concerns you may have with the use of sacred funds. Chances are the Bishop knows and the smoking issue is already being addressed, but there is a chance the Bishop may not know.
    If the individual was receiving no funds from the Church, it would be meddling. Since sacred funds are being received, reporting to the Bishop privately is an ethical requirement.
    In this situation, desiring to pass judgment is appropriate because the only judgment that is being passed is coming from the Bishop who is a judge in Israel.
    A vital part of this situation is that everything is done in complete and total confidence. Don't even tell a spouse. Tell the Bishop and, as it has been stated previously, refer to it no more.
    Fraudulent use of church funds happens. There are those who travel from ward to ward taking advantage of charitable people. The Bishop needs to be informed of any possible misuse of funds. Chances are it's already being addressed, but it's best to be sure.
  21. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Str8Shooter in Should a bishop be notified if a man, receiving fast offerings, smokes?   
    Financially, we all are in different situations and at times may require assistance from the Church. If you gave this individual a raise to help financially then you possibly have an obligation to inform his bishop.  
     
    My experience, each bishop handles finances very differently, and your insight might be an answer to a prayer he has been inquiring the Lord about.  As a saying goes in our Stake, as given by G.A.'s, "Information proceeds revelation." Not an exact quote.  
     
    Once you have informed the bishop though, Beefche is correct, it is no longer a concern of yours.  The information is now in the mind and heart of him who is responsible and has stewardship over the financial assistance of the ward your employee resides in. 
  22. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Vort in Substance of Things Hoped For   
    Faith is the actuality of what we hope for. We hope for eternal life; that actuality is faith. We hope God hears our prayers; that actuality is faith. We hope Santa comes; that actuality is non-existent, so by definition we cannot have faith in it.
     
    At least, that is my understanding of Paul's teaching. I would note here that faith is much more than this; Paul's teachings help us understand faith, but they do not totally explain it. They are barely a beginning.
  23. Like
    Anddenex reacted to yjacket in ROBERTS: If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue could marry him and Tom can't. Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?   
    Dude, if you think that just being part of the the religion of Islam means one is oppressive to woman, you've got some serious issues. Polygamy in and of itself is oppressive to no one; as long as each party enters into the agreement free of choice it's not oppressive. (which can be said the same of any marriage as long as it is entered into free of choice one does not force another human being to do something with the threat of physical violence it's not oppressive.)
     
    Proponents of homosexual unions who oppose polygamy have absolutely 0 leg to stand on.  They are hypocrites.
  24. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Average Joe in When did evil first conceive in us?   
    And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?" John 9:2 
     
    Obviously the disciples felt that there was pre-mortal sin or they wouldn't have asked the question that way. In the Pearl of Great Price we read:
     
    "For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world." Moses 5: 24
     
    So we can see that the atonement must apply to both mortality and pre-mortality.
     
    Now D&C 88:37-38 states: "And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions."
     
    So apparently your "Laws induce opposition" are in effect and Joseph Smith taught  “Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning?  The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. . . . Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle.”  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.353-354).
     
    I lean towards intelligences having good or evil dispositions prior to being born as spirit children of our Heavenly Father.
  25. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Average Joe in When did evil first conceive in us?   
    As to my knowledge and understanding of the concept of "evil" a few passages of scripture enter into my heart and mind.  The first is 2 Nephi 2: 13, which specifies the importance of laws.  Laws induce opposition, contrast between light and dark, truth and error, good and evil, joy and sorrow. 
     
    The second scripture is a few verses later, 2 Nephi 2: 16, clarifying the ability for the sons and daughter of God to act for themselves, or to be acted upon.  In order to act for ourselves we are enticed to keep the law or break it.  When then did evil conceive in us?  The moment we were enticed by evil and chose to act in accordance with evil's temptations.  
     
    To some degree, I would assume, evil intentions were manifest as intelligences before our mortal probation.  Satan's rebellion is an obvious example that enticed the sons and daughters of God between truth and error, right and wrong, good and evil.