Anddenex

Members
  • Posts

    6131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from jerome1232 in The World and its Creation   
    I could easily be oversimplifying this Seminary, but I easily see it as the same one.  As to my perspective, and the analogy, is there a difference between a human with freckles or without?  A human with pimples or without? 
     
    I am assuming the thorns were already there in the Eden state.  They just now surely bug us.  I have understood that statement more as symbolic that life will not be Roses -- haha, and roses have thorns.
  2. Like
    Anddenex reacted to yjacket in The World and its Creation   
    I actually think that it does change gospel understanding quite a bit.  I personally find it very interesting that many LDS individuals on a LDS forum are so apt to believe that man coming from fish can fit into the Gospel perspective.
     
    If man came from fish then when the Bible says "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:", it is false.  For if man evolved and continues to evolve then man came from a living organism that was not man and will continue to evolve into some other living organism that is not man in the future-therefore this verse is false.
     
    Furthermore, Gospel Doctrine clearly states that in the Garden of Eden man could not die nor could they have seed.  If man came from evolution that is also false.  If man came from something else, at what point did man become man?  Previous versions of man, were obviously not man.  So it evolved until God made it look like Him and then stopped it -now man- from evolving, put him in the Garden and made him so he couldn't have children.  Did He also stop all other versions of man from evolving?
     
    Christ came to redeem man from the Fall, if the Garden of Eden is allegorical, then what else is allegorical?  Is Christ allegorical?  We really don't need a Savior, we just need to follow the steps, redemption is more a process?
     
    I make allowances that it is possible that God used evolution, the scriptures do say "let the earth bring forth" or STTE in reference to all other creatures.  When it comes to man, however it states "let us make man".
     
    We don't really know have the earth was formed or how man was made, evolution is a theory that cannot be proven or dis-proven, just like faith cannot be proven or dis-proven.  We still can't produce the spark of life.  Without something already living, we are powerless to do so.
     
    I just find it interesting that in today's technological world with iPad's, cell phones, instant this and instant that, etc that man creates in extremely short time, we lack faith necessary to say God could create man without using evolution; that man, His greatest creation was created by a process that supposedly takes eons to play out.
     
    IMO, evolution is used by the godless to explain how we came to be.  Did God use it? Maybe . . . .I guess we'll just have to ask Him on the otherside.
  3. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from SpiritDragon in The World and its Creation   
    Science is only good as according to the evidence and knowledge of the time.  Science hasn't disproven the flood, only the idea of what they understand the flood to be according to their limited knowledge and limited resources.
     
    If you can provide me any evidence regarding macro evolution I would be welcomed to it.  There isn't any empirical evidence of a fish becoming anything else but a fish.  There isn't any evidence of an ape becoming anything but an ape.  There isn't any evidence of a human becoming (the change of alleles) anything but a human.
     
    What evidence, common or empirical, is science able to provide regarding this? We have plenty of bacteria but all bacteria reproduce more bacteria.  What single celled organism do we have for evidence of becoming anything but a single celled organism when it reproduces?  
     
    Edit: The only answer to this I receive, "It takes millions of years for a macro evolution to occur".  Isn't evidence then, but a supposition according to their understanding of what exists.
  4. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Seminarysnoozer in The World and its Creation   
    It doesn't.
  5. Like
    Anddenex reacted to bytor2112 in The Alma 32 Experiment   
    Oh my...it is a grim reminder of my life before the Holy Spirit. I could not comprehend anything beyond what i was taught the Bible declared and even that was speculative at best.
     
    I am so grateful for the gift of the Holy Spirit by which the things of God can be understood....and in no other way can they be understood.
     
    God is either revealed to us by revelation or remains forever unknown. HE cannot be understood or comprehended without the Holy Spirit by which revelation comes.
  6. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Dravin in The World and its Creation   
    I think the phrase you are looking for is "punctuated equilibrium". At least if I'm reading you right.
  7. Like
    Anddenex reacted to jerome1232 in The World and its Creation   
    I agree, too many people scream "It's a fact!!" and if you notice I was arguing earlier that it wasn't proven. I do however think the argument that evolution occurs "within kind" but doesn't lead to speciation doesn't hold. Where do you draw this arbitrary line when each step resembles the step before it?
    edit: I make a lot of mistakes when I'm distracted haha, oh boy.
  8. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in Why?   
    I agree with you.  It's not just the objective severity of the sin; it's the severity of the sin in conjunction with the light and knowledge that the sinner had at the time of the sin. 
     
    Also, bear in mind (re Packer's quote):  Everyone who is saved in any kingdom of glory at all, receives forgiveness--were it not so, they would remain in outer darkness in eternity.  And I think we often focus on exaltation so much that we tend to underestimate just how big of a gift "forgiveness" and even a place in the Telestial Kingdom really is. 
     
    That said:  not everyone can be sanctified to the point that they can endure celestial glory and entrusted with all the powers and responsibilities that exaltation entails.  David had his opportunity to show what he would do with ultimate, unfettered power over life and death; and in that regard his test--the D&C and Joseph Smith tell us--is over.  He can still be saved, in the loose sense of the word; but he will never be entrusted with such absolute control over humans ever again.
  9. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from jerome1232 in The World and its Creation   
    To clarify, @jerome1232, and @Godless -- this isn't missed.  I understand the "long process" claimed for evolution, and I understand the fish to human wasn't the first evolutionary step.  I am simply specifying a known beginning for the theory of evolution to a known end -- fish to human.  No need to go into detail, a fish >> some animal >> some animal >> many years which can't be replicated >> human.
     
    Leaves a lot open for debate.  Is it to picky to expect science to produce actual evidence for a theory for this long process?  I think not, but then again this is just me.
  10. Like
    Anddenex reacted to The Folk Prophet in Why?   
    That if you have an opportunity to commit adultery and then murder to cover it up that you might want to pass on it.
  11. Like
    Anddenex reacted to classylady in Why?   
    D&C 132:39 has this to say about King David:  "David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord."

     

    From the April 1971 Ensign, Milton R. Hunter had this to say: "David, whom the Lord loved and who is regarded by many people as Israel’s greatest king, spent the latter part of his life in brokenhearted sorrow over his sin against Uriah and his adultery with Bathsheba. His deep feelings were expressed in one of the most pitiful prayers in the holy scriptures:

    “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness: …

    “Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

    “For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.” (Ps. 51:1–3.)

    Having an understanding of the plan of salvation and a thorough knowledge of the seriousness of the gross sins of adultery and murder which he had committed, King David in anguish cried out unto the Lord: “… thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.” (Ps. 16:10.)

    "More than two thousand years after King David’s death and only 127 years ago, Jesus Christ spoke from heaven and informed us that because of David’s sin against him in the case of Uriah and his wife, David “hath fallen from his exaltation” and his wives have been given to another. (D&C 132:39.)"

     

    From the Old Testament Student Manual: "The price of David’s sin of murder and adultery was high. He spent the rest of his life regretting it. In one psalm he expressed his mental torment and pleaded for forgiveness.

    “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. …

    “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.” (Psalm 51:1–3, 10–11.)

    Eventually, David received the assurance that his soul would be “delivered … from the lowest hell” (Psalm 86:12–13). But this assurance could not restore the blessings he had lost. They were gone forever (see D&C 132:39)."

     

    From Ask Gramps: http://askgramps.org/11843/atonement-and-king-david: " We know from the Book of Mormon, that our Heavenly Father is not able to allow his mercy to rob justice and its demands.

    King David was taught, and was a child of the Lord’s covenant people. When King David purposely sent Uriah to the front lines, he knew Uriah would die. King David also knew from his youth that murder was against the 10 commandments.

    Yet, we find another example in the Book of Mormon where some Lamanites, blood thirsty and murderers of the Nephites took an oath, a covenant, with God in hopes that they would find forgiveness from their blood stained swords.

    There is a difference between the Lamanites and King David. The Lamanites from their infancy were taught to hate and kill the Nephites. King David however was taught not to murder at all, unless he is defending himself as in times of war.

    The atonement of Jesus Christ is not permission or allowance of any sin, but an opportunity to be forgiven. The atonement doesn’t take away the consequences of certain decisions. Thus, according to the knowledge King David had, he has found himself in a position where his sin is not covered by the atonement to allow him entrance for exaltation."

  12. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Urstadt in The Euthyphro dilemma   
    Why not?  Our prophetic leaders aren't afraid to quote Plato.  If Plato said something good, then this good is from God, no matter how you want to slice it.
     
    "Fasting is also one of the finest ways of developing our own discipline and self-control. Plato said, “The first and the best victory is to conquer self; to be conquered by self is, of all things, the most shameful and vile.” (Laws, Book I, section 626E.)"  From L. Tom Perry, October 1986 -- emphasis added.
     
    The quote about self-control is fully gospel centered.  We are constantly taught to master oneself.  
     
    "Indeed, as the First Presidency stated in 1978, we believe that “the great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.”25 Thus, we have respect for the sincere religious beliefs of others and appreciate others extending the same courtesy and respect for the tenets we hold dear." (James E Faust, April 2006, The Restoration of All Things, emphasis added)
     
    There is a time and place for all things good.  Whether this be with friends discussing philosophy, religion, faith, repentance, etc...  
     
    When you are referring to "sit in council" of course discussing the philosophies of men isn't a topic of discussion in these meetings.  This website, forum, isn't a bishopric meeting, a young men presidency meeting, PEC, or Ward Council.  There would be no need to discuss these concepts.  To share a quote, in like manner as our leaders have from Plato, or any other person God inspired by his light and knowledge with wisdom even in these meetings has a place.  If Apostles can mention Plato, give a quote that he spoke in God's light, then there isn't any reason for us to be afraid to share a good quote, which benefits the discussion.
     
    I quite enjoyed the communication between 2ndRateMind and Urstadt, which wasn't taking away from the gospel of Jesus Chris, in the least.
  13. Like
    Anddenex reacted to MikeyBlueEyes in being drawn to LDS ?   
    Hi Everyone
    For a long time years back,I was very against the Lds Church,sadly without much knowledge to base those Convictions. I love The Lord Jesus he is the. Messiah,King Of Kings and Lord of. Lords and the one who Gave his Life for me. I also am developing a Love for the Lds Church. Who could not when you spend time watching the a Conferences,the teaching and programming on Byu Tv or listening to the Mormon Channel.Reading the Book of Mormon,every thing points to people loving Jesus Christ.So. I'm thankful for this Forum to be able to make new friends.
  14. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Dodie in being drawn to LDS ?   
    Yes!  I could have written your post!  I was drawn to the church as a young child.  As I became older that feeling never went away.  Circumstances got in the way, and I was baptized into another church when I was 20.  I was glad I did it, but I never felt completed.  It was due to peer pressure as you mentioned.  Every time I drove past a meeting house, I would pause and think.  I actually would go out of my way just to drive past.  I so wanted to join but it was a challenge due to the people in my life.  
     
    When I was in my mid 20s I read the Book of Mormon.  My current church began having classes that focused on witnessing to Mormon missionaries who come to your door.  I would question their reasoning as to why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was wrong.  They never gave complete answers.  The lessons and materials (including radio programs) were full of misconceptions and falsehoods.  The more I tried to prove or be proven that the Church was wrong, the more I found it to be true.  So many things bad happened at the churches that I, too, stopped attending.
     
    Time passed, and I moved to the Midwest (I really felt Heavenly Father's hand in that move).  To make a very long story short, I did everything to prepare to join - having read and study for 30 years.  I gave up coffee and contacted the missionaries to tell them that I was ready.  In June I was baptized.  I'm 50.
     
    It isn't too late.  I cannot tell you how much of a blessing it is.  I feel as if I am truly home.  I know now why the other churches never felt right.  After my baptism I know why the first one felt incomplete.  It has been an amazing experience.  Each day I see the Lord working.  Just this week there has been so much that takes my breath away.
     
    You won't be the only one not surrounded by family.  Many attend without spouses or children.  Some are single.  There is a wide variety.  Certainly there are a lot of families; however, they are all so welcoming that you will make many great friends and feel a part of the family.  Personally, my husband does not attend.  Only myself and two of my children are members.  A couple of my children are investigators.  One has not attended other than baptisms and picnics.  Before at my other churches, I felt awkward and almost ashamed to go to church alone.  I have not felt that way at all.
     
    I do hope that you consider. I feel as if our circumstances leading up to this point are so similar.  Remember that repenting isn't a punishment, it is a precious gift.  All you have to do is ask.  The Lord will forgive.  Work on growing and moving away from the areas in which you sin.  We all have to repent, and we all work on it daily to grow and become stronger in those areas.  You can do it.  
     
    I believe that Heavenly Father loves you so much that He has been with you all this time guiding you toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  I know this is true because He had been guiding me.   It feels so wonderful to finally reach the destination that He intended for me to go. It is such a blessing.  I'm really excited for you.  Wow.  I'm so happy that you posted.  
     
    To add to the similarities, prior to moving I retired as a principal and director of a private school.  
  15. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Leah in being drawn to LDS ?   
    I was baptized three years ago, in my early 50s. It's definitely not too late.
    I don't have family in the church. My only child is grown and not interested.
    It can be difficult at times, being an "older" single person in such a family-oriented church. From conversations I have had, the men have an easier time of it. It's worth the struggle,though.
  16. Like
    Anddenex reacted to 2ndRateMind in The Euthyphro dilemma   
    Dear spamlds
     
    One of the things I find most commendable about the LDS faith is your obvious sense of community, as evidenced by your practical actions. But practical actions need to be directed accurately, in order to be most effective. One of the ways we can ensure this is to reflect on our philosophies, and discover how rigorous, how coherent, how comprehensive, how consistent, they are.
     
    And, one of the things that distinguishes humans from lower orders of animal is the possession of a recursive consciousness, the capacity to think about our thinking, and assess it's quality. It would be a shame, I think, if we ignored this God given ability in favour of a headlong rush to do good things when a little meditation might improve us, and hence our impact on the world, to a great extent.
     
    Then again, through the medium of the question I put in the OP, I have learned many fascinating things about your faith, and I would not have known them had I not put the query to you. It was not, in this sense, and for me at least, at all a vain enquiry. I hope, therefore, you will humour me should I ask any more questions; they are not meant to trip anyone up, just put in the spirit of a genuine desire to understand.
     
    Some wag once said 'philosophy is questions that may never be answered; religion is answers that may never be questioned'. It would be good, I think, if we merged the two, and came up with a philosophy of religion that involves answers that may be questioned, for surely that is the way, individually and collectively, to develop our religious understandings and begin to converge on God's truth.
     
    Best wishes, 2RM.
  17. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Nature of Agency in the Celestial Kingdom   
    The war in heaven, at least to me, gives evidence to opposition -- otherwise how then did Lucifer rebel?  He was in the presence of God, God definitely was within the realm of a Celestial type kingdom.
     
    Celestial kingdom is not the absence of evil, more the idea that evil is not given any heed.  When the Savior was tempted he remained pure because he did not give wrong any attention.
     
    The same organization will exist in the eternal realms and wrong will always have its place; however I agree with the concluding statement from JAG, the righteousness of the people determined evil being bound.
  18. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Seminarysnoozer in The Euthyphro dilemma   
    I am a little confused, are you suggesting that if we think upon philosophical questions then we must not be doers of the word?
     
    Is a person able to be a doer of the word while pondering other questions, even philosophical ones?
     
    I assume we are all subject to our personal opinions of what is vain and what is not.  As a bishopric member, although this doesn't make me anymore special than any of my brothers and sisters -- I don't have any issue with pondering philosophical questions while magnifying my calling, serving the youth as we go to the temple 3 times a month, they are invited to my home for duty to God, they help index and are now even finding temple names for our temple visits.
     
    We serve in many other ways...yet, I agree, if we forget the basic principles of the gospel then we have missed the point. 
  19. Like
    Anddenex reacted to estradling75 in The World and its Creation   
    You just did the equivalent of a creationist saying... "I can prove the existence of a creator...  Because well someone had to create us..."
     
    That is simply not going to work in this kind of discussion
  20. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Urstadt in Nature of Agency in the Celestial Kingdom   
    Thank you, everyone. I agree. Exercising agency in one direction does not equate to no agency. I love my wife and so I would never do anything unfaithful to her. It doesn't mean I have less or no agency, I've already exercised my agency and am sticking to my decision. It would be the same in the Celestial Kingdom. I have already exercised my agency here on earth, after careful deliberation, to Follow God. Once I'm in the Celestial Kingdom (provided I have lived worthily enough) I am just sticking to my decision. I would only ever exercise my agency to disobey God if He chose evil.
    P.S., Thank you to the mod/admin who cleaned up my accidental duplicate thread.
  21. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Urstadt in Nature of Agency in the Celestial Kingdom   
    The war in heaven, at least to me, gives evidence to opposition -- otherwise how then did Lucifer rebel?  He was in the presence of God, God definitely was within the realm of a Celestial type kingdom.
     
    Celestial kingdom is not the absence of evil, more the idea that evil is not given any heed.  When the Savior was tempted he remained pure because he did not give wrong any attention.
     
    The same organization will exist in the eternal realms and wrong will always have its place; however I agree with the concluding statement from JAG, the righteousness of the people determined evil being bound.
  22. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in Nature of Agency in the Celestial Kingdom   
    This seems to touch on some other recent discussions we've had here; because the conundrum you posit for people who have attained the celestial kingdom is equally true for God Himself--if He can do no wrong, does He truly have agency?  And for that matter, can He truly be omnipotent?
     
    Seems to me that "the wrong" doesn't exist in the Celestial Kingdom, not because it's not theoretically possible; but because the Plan of Salvation and Atonement provide a perfect training process that lead exalted beings to a point where they will have completely, voluntarily, and eternally chosen to shun the wrong.  As with the Father (in my opinion), so with the children.
     
    What's that saying about how, during the Millennium, Satan will be bound and have no power simply because of the righteousness of the people?
  23. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in The World and its Creation   
    Perhaps you'd like to discuss that with a couple of friends of mine.
     
    I think you'd like them.  They're both named "Elder".
  24. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Seminarysnoozer in The World and its Creation   
    Thanks, I completely agree with your quotes and statements here.
     
    I guess I am trying to explain to those reading this that the term "man" and the use of the word "flesh" of man refers only to beings that are the offspring of God.   I also believe that Adam and Eve are the first of our race as you have quoted but that does not preclude the preparation for mortality including creations that are human-like but not man.
     
    I would also consider the idea that "our race" really is not the current body we have.  Our current body is a fallen one which is in the image of God but had to be transformed from the Garden of Eden version that Adam and Eve first received.  Our race is the type that lives forever.  Our current body could not fit that description any more than one could say that an ape is like a human.  Our bodies (not spirit) have more in common with an ape right now with this current fallen body than we do with a being that lives forever.  And that is why I think it is easy to forget who we really are and people start to accept their fallen state as self.  Part of our Earthly test is to avoid spiritually internalizing carnal traits, to avoid calling the physical carnal body, self.   Of course, if one believes that we did not fall that far from the paradisical state to our current state then one would believe there hardly is any difference.  But if we did not fall that far, then Christ' atoning act is no big deal.  The magnitude of the Fall is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Atonement.  To me, those were big events. If those were big events then our current physical body is far from being like "our race".
     
    To become "our race" a humanoid body would have to have been first created as a perfect, paradisiacal body in surroundings that were perfect and then fall from that state.  Obviously, that does not describe the process of evolution, it is more lke the opposite direction, a down grade. The down grade or temporary state will be reversed and then we will go back to being "our race".   Human pride centers around the idea that we are upgraded versions of previous forms and that is the evil of the theories of evolution.  Whereas, humility comes from realizing that we are in a fallen state from the original creation, fallen so far that we can't get out of the pit without help, we couldn't naturally get back to that state. Satan loves to try to teach people that they don't need God or His ways to be like God, that they can somehow naturally get there on their own.
  25. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Seminarysnoozer in The World and its Creation   
    Science is only good as according to the evidence and knowledge of the time.  Science hasn't disproven the flood, only the idea of what they understand the flood to be according to their limited knowledge and limited resources.
     
    If you can provide me any evidence regarding macro evolution I would be welcomed to it.  There isn't any empirical evidence of a fish becoming anything else but a fish.  There isn't any evidence of an ape becoming anything but an ape.  There isn't any evidence of a human becoming (the change of alleles) anything but a human.
     
    What evidence, common or empirical, is science able to provide regarding this? We have plenty of bacteria but all bacteria reproduce more bacteria.  What single celled organism do we have for evidence of becoming anything but a single celled organism when it reproduces?  
     
    Edit: The only answer to this I receive, "It takes millions of years for a macro evolution to occur".  Isn't evidence then, but a supposition according to their understanding of what exists.