• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


askandanswer last won the day on June 13

askandanswer had the most liked content!

About askandanswer

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday October 12

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
  • Religion
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Recent Profile Visitors

4427 profile views
  1. askandanswer

    Baptism of the Holy Ghost?

    Will the Holy Ghost need to be baptised at some point? I realise that very little is known about the Holy Ghost or its future, and that the value of any answer to this question might be initially somewhat limited, but its just something that occurred to me yesterday and i wonder if any forum members have any insights on this question. If the Holy Ghost does need to be baptised, then it could be reasonably concluded that at some point it will need a physical body, and if it doesn't need to be baptised, then the we could reasonably conclude that Jesus Christ was subject to a requirement that the Holy Ghost is not.
  2. askandanswer


    My dearest @Vort You've just become my deepest, dearest, most treasured friend. Have I ever told you how much I admire and respect you? And friends look out for each other and help each other, yes? And may I remind you of Jacob 2:6 and Matthew 5:42 17 Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. I'll send you my address and account details via personal message.
  3. askandanswer


    Vort, I'm sure you know this but others may not - this saying is generally attributed to Shakespeare, it being the name of one of his plays.'s_Well_That_Ends_Well
  4. askandanswer

    Becoming like God

    If my decision to follow God was a carefully calculated decision, then one of the things I would like to know and take into account when making that calculation was the possible end results of each of the possible options. Its almost always helpful to know whether the reward is worth the effort, and ideally, to know this before deciding whether or not to make any effort. To this end, it therefore serves a useful purpose to know that a possible end result and final outcome of a decision to follow God is to actually become like Him. I suspect that few, if any people, make such a calculation in this life when choosing whether or not to follow God but such calculations may have gone on in the pre-existence when we were choosing between alternatives.
  5. askandanswer

    nothing and everything

    Perhaps this is not quite what you meant to say? If this were true, then the blind, deaf, paralysed man in hospital would be judged very harshly because he has no ability to do anything. Perhaps it might be more correct, although perhaps still not yet fully correct, to say that we will be judged at least partially on what we did do, compared to what we could have done?
  6. askandanswer

    nothing and everything

    I agree. And I would argue that one can work effectively on one's heart regardless of their temporal circumstances. Perhaps one could go so far as to say its all in the mind, that is, it's what in one's mind that has the greatest impact on our salvation, rather than our circumstances.
  7. Just curious as to whether it has been a little over a month since your last journal entry, or whether you are still making journal entries but not keeping them online anymore?
  8. askandanswer

    How to regrow my dead faith

    Apply the following medication three times daily to assist with the revival of faith:
  9. askandanswer

    LDS view on Contraception

    Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's not for me, or you, to say.
  10. askandanswer

    nothing and everything

    Thanks @Just_A_Guy I mostly agree with what you've said here. The point I'm thinking about here is the idea that if all people, regardless of their circumstances in life have an equal opportunity for salvation, then the circumstances of one's life become minutely relevant, at best, so there's no point in getting too concerned about them. In fact, if it becomes the case that working on changing one's circumstances in life lessens one's focus on salvation, or becoming, then placing an unbalanced emphasis on achieving such a change could be detrimental - and yet that is what so many of us seem to attach such a high priority to. To put it into a practical context, perhaps the person in solitary confinement has just as much opportunity for salvation as the person running for political office, as does the person running a major corporation, as does the begger in the street. And yet, typically, there focus would be on changing the circumstances of their life by getting out of solitary, and regaining their freedom, or winning the election, or increasing the annual dividend, or finding the next meal. None of those things, in an eternal perspective, matter very much but that seems to be where most of our efforts go.
  11. askandanswer

    nothing and everything

    Does an endowed, fully worthy, penniless, paralysed, deaf and blind person in hospital, totally dependent on the needs of others for the continuation of their life, have a lesser, equal or greater chance at salvation than the endowed, fully worthy rich and healthy person who has "everything?"
  12. askandanswer

    Question re angels

    How much support, if any, does the following scripture give to the idea that we all have angels who are responsible for/to us? 10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. (New Testament | Matthew 18:10)
  13. askandanswer

    Police and the use of force

    I think the usefulness of your example is lessened by three important considerations. First, the authority that was involved in casting out Lucifer was exercised by a Being who thinks and operates and is motivated in a total different way than His children. Second, that authority was exercised in a social setting completely different, and unlike anything we have known on earth, except, perhaps, for the City of Zion. Third, it was exercised over spirit beings who were not as whole or complete as beings with a physical body and who lacked the experiences provided by mortality. When the One exercising the authority, and the setting in which the authority is being exercised, and those over who the authority is being exercised are completely different from where and how and by whom and over whom authority is exercised on earth today then I think your example is nullified. In reply to your question as to whether I have an example, sometime in about 1776 the colonialists in parts of North America resisted the authority of the crown. The authority gave in to the resistance and the authority that used to be in the crown ended up in the authority of the US constitution. The authority was, in effect, transferred, from one source to another. The loss of authority is not always a bad thing, and sometimes it is even a good and necessary thing. Authority can easily be lost or transferred from an organisation when it is exercised excessively, unjustly or unwisely. Isn't that what is happening with the current ongoing efforts to restructure or reduce various police departments? Aren't they in the process of having their authority transferred from them to other organisations? And it's not just police departments from whom authority is lost or transferred when it is exercised inappropriatly and and when people begin to resist that inappropriate exercise of authority - that's what happens to just about any organisation you can think of except for heavily militarised dicatorships who have the means and the willingness to overcome any form of resistance.
  14. askandanswer

    Police and the use of force

    I see many problems with the above idea. Reduced to its essence, the above idea can be expressed as submit or die because if you don't submit I'm going to increase the use of force until you do, or, you have to obey me because I'm stronger than you and I can hurt you more than you can hurt me. The western world started to move away from that idea at least 815 years ago with the signing of the Magna Carta which was the first agreement to place limits on the powers of the state against the people. ( That agreement still continues to serve as a helpful example of what can happen when authority, in that case, in the form of the king, is resisted. What followed has been more than 800 years of development of the common law that has sought to further refine that basic idea of how the power of the sovereign and the exercise of authority must be reduced and regulated. The idea of increasing force until resistance is relinquished is an absurd, authoritarian and simplistic approach and it seems like a rule fit for animals in the jungle rather than a rule for rational, complex, thinking people whom God has made "a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour." (Psalms 8:5) . It's the defining characteristic of a bully. It's nothing more than "might makes right." It's simply a subset of the ideas expressed in the roundly condemend work of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan in which, for the purpose of maintaining peace and public order, Hobbes proposed that all power is given absolutely to the sovereign. ( Such a notion has been strongly rejected for centuries by political philosophers. This idea of enforcing authority at any cost seems to give priority to the purposes of the state over the purposes of individuals, when in reality, the state has been created by the mass of individuals that make up society and it only exists only to serve the purposes of those individuals. I think the above idea fails to adequately consider the purpose for which the authority is being exercised. There are many scenarios where it just makes more sense to let something go rather than take a life. Nor does the idea give proper consideration to the effective and appropriate use of de-escalation strategies. And it seems to assume both that the person exercising the authority is better able to judge whether or not it is right/proper/appropriate to exercise the authority than the person who is resisting it, and that the exerciser of the authority is making well-informed, rational right decisions about the degree of force relative to the amount of resistance. Let's also not forget the power of peaceful resistance, as demonstrated by Mohandras Gandhi, particularly in his protests against the salt tax, when unthinking British soldiers, for the sole purpose of maintaining authority attacked hundreds, maybe thousands of Indians who simply wanted to make their own salt in their own country. ( Authority should be exercised with wisdom, and if the requisite wisdom is lacking then the use of authority needs to be restrained in proportion to the lack of wisdom of the exerciser. Authority should also be resisted if it is being exercised for an unjust purpose. In such cases. to not resist the exercise of authority is to support whatever unjustness is being done. And finally, we should not forget the counsel of scripture - Doctrine and Covenants, 121:39 "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."
  15. askandanswer

    Police and the use of force

    I'm of the view that preserving human life is more important than maintaining authority and that if one has to choose between the two, the choice should be preserving human life. Authority is only useful to that extent that it contributes to the maintenance and preservation of life. If it ever works against that ideal, it becomes less useful.