askandanswer reacted to Traveler in Doctrine and Covenants 7: 5 - 6
The problem is that we do not know the extent of what work is being done by the spirits of just men in the spirit world nor do we know the full extent of the work being done by those that are translated. I would suggest that without all the information concerning these options that we take the Savior at his word. What I personally find to be of the most interest to me about these verses is that in some cases it appears that individual are offered a choice between the two options.
askandanswer reacted to scottyg in The Shame of Elder Renlund
I in no way see how the remark is stigmatizing or divisive to congregations, other than it is encouraging repentance. We are all guilty of sin...but hopefully trying to become better. It is those who have their secret sins that they enjoy to indulge in that are put off by this remark. One of the adversary's best lies about sin is that is really affects no one. "Watching pornography doesn't really hurt my family. As long as no one knows about it everything will stay the same." The truth of the matter is that even if no one discovers your dirty habit, it is offensive to the spirit, and the spirit will not be present in your home at the level that it could be otherwise. Evil speaking of the Lord's anointed has the same effect. Children, and especially young children, can feel this difference in the presence of the Holy Ghost. Why wouldn't we want our homes to be a place where the spirit may dwell, and to be a shelter for them from the outside world? Why shouldn't we do all that we can to throw out sin and to spiritually renovate our homes? If you preach the right things and look good on the outside, but are filthy within, then, as the Savior said, you are no different than a whited sepulchre that is filled with dead men's bones. If you say prayers with your kids at night, but quickly tuck them into bed so you can start binge watching game of thrones (or any other trashy form of disgusting filth) then you are nothing but a hypocrite who will regret your actions in the future, and could unknowingly or unintentionally start your children down a path that will harm them spiritually. Let us give our children the best chance of success we can, and let our light so shine. Our homes should be a place where anyone who enters can feel the presence of the spirit
Lastly, if folks are just upset because he made an analogy to mask wearing then they need to grow up. I am not a fan of mask wearing myself...the difference they make is small. But I do it because I have been asked to. Some may call me a sheep, but I simply trust my church leaders.
askandanswer reacted to Godless in Church Leaders Condemn Violence and Lawless Behavior
Thank you, @estradling75 and @Fether for approaching this topic from a reasonable stance (though I'm not sure how we shifted gears to Central American refugees so abruptly 🤨). I agree 100% that this isn't a black-and-white issue, and I'm certainly not advocating for open borders. It's hard to approach the immigration issue from a national security standpoint while maintaining a compassionate mindset, but that's the fine line that we have seek out. Making cheap jokes about people fleeing their homes seems counterproductive to that. Unfortunately, I feel like attitudes like that have become too common in recent years.
As for my tone earlier, I am deeply sorry. I saw the responses above mine while I was getting ready for work, and lacking time to type out a measured response, I chose snark over substance. That was ill-advised and inappropriate. I recall remarking in a different thread that the heated nature of some of the discussions in over the past several months could potentially sour your church's image to observers who may be wavering in their faith or new to it. While I stand by my belief that some here could benefit from some self-reflection about how their words reflect their faith, it's not my place as an outsider to kick the hornet's nest, and I regret my role in contributing to the toxicity that sometimes rears its head on this site. To say that the last year has done put a strain on my mental health would be a massive understatement. And while that absolutely does not excuse by behavior here, I think it makes a strong case for walking away. I've tried several times in recent months, but I keep finding myself coming back, and I keep regretting it.
askandanswer reacted to estradling75 in Church Leaders Condemn Violence and Lawless Behavior
Indeed... For example I am personally willing to help other individuals. But if one of those individuals has a history of threatening violence against people trying to help, well my religion and faith would excuse me from going over. My responsibly to stay alive for my family trumps, rendering temporary aid to a stranger.
When we move this up to the macro scale and immigration it still holds. We help those we can. But those that are threats we do not, because it is not safe to do so. We have an obligation to protect those already here... the only way to do that is to vet those incoming. And large numbers make the vetting more difficult . To have this concerned be so toxicly twisted into pure selfishness and mocking and scorning of the poor an needy shows the fundamental dishonesty of the statement. A variation of this dishonesty is to claim that we think ALL immigrants are criminals and dangerous. We are not saying that they ALL are. We are saying that the odds are that small subset of them are, and that subset needs to be dealt with for the protection of all.
askandanswer got a reaction from prisonchaplain in How is the Melchizedek priesthood understood?
Hi PC, it may be helpful to look at what the Encyclopaedia of Mormonism says about the Melchizedek Priesthood. The encyclopaedia is not a definitive statement of LDS doctrine but it can often be a helpful source:
askandanswer reacted to Still_Small_Voice in Conclusions from D&C 132: 16 - 17?
Here are a few things I have learned about the degrees of glory that await the children of God in the next life:
The celestial kingdom has three degrees inside of it. Nothing has been revealed about the second degree inside the celestial kingdom.
Nothing has been revealed about any different degrees inside the terrestrial kingdom. In my own opinion there are different degrees inside the second heaven as there are different degrees inside both of the other kingdoms of glory. (Reading Abraham chapter 3 verse 19 may open up some other thoughts: "And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." )
The telestial kingdom has many degrees of glory in it according to my understanding of the scriptures. ". . . as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world." -- Doc. & Cov. 76:98
askandanswer reacted to NeuroTypical in Hypothetical - living arrangements
No need for specifics, this is merely one of a billion variants of the Universal Hypothetical Situation: "Your adult kid may or may not be going in ways you don't like. What do?"
Answer: Stress, ponder, and pray. Love. If you have stewardship, operate within it. Otherwise, operate within your sphere of influence. In other words, offer what you can, be a safety net if she needs it. In other words, unless she is still your dependent child, she's an adult making adult decisions and living an adult life.
askandanswer reacted to laronius in Conclusions from D&C 132: 16 - 17?
Everyone will inherit a kingdom with a glory equal to the law a person is willing to live. If an otherwise righteous individual chooses not to live the law governing celestial marriage then they will be rewarded with a righteous person's inheritance less the blessings that come by obedience to the marriage covenant. Apparently that is within the Celestial Kingdom but not the higher degree of that kingdom. This person will not be considered disobedient because that law is not required of them. This is to my understanding how all the kingdoms of glory will operate and why their number are like the stars in the heavens.
askandanswer reacted to Anddenex in Conclusions from D&C 132: 16 - 17?
Do the following conclusions flow from the above verses, and how firm or tenuous is the support for these conclusions?
You can be disobedient to God’s law and still be an angel living in heaven in a saved, but not exalted condition.
The verses support that the sons and daughters of God are able to be disobedient and still be saved and not exalted. This coincides with the three degrees of glory along with the three divisions in the Celestial kingdom. All are "saved" except the true sons of perdition. I would say support is 100%.
If the type of angels referred to in these verses did live with God, that would be inconsistent with the two well supported ideas that to disobey God’s law results in a form of uncleanness, and that no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. If those two ideas are both true, then we can conclude that this particular type of angel does not live with God.
This type of angel is consistent with the teaching that no unclean thing can dwell with God. Remember the "unclean" would be those who did not repent and accept Christ. Those who accept Christ (Oath and Covenant -- his Church, his Kingdom) will live in the Celestial kingdom.
If we have a brother who held a temple recommend, but -- due to fear -- never married we have a brother who by all accounts would be covered by the atonement and would receive a Celestial inheritance. The verse "may" be applied here (as I don't want to make an eternal judgement thus "may" emphasized) as this brother served faithfully in all callings, was worthy of a temple recommend, and kept all other commandments.
So, no we are not able to conclude with confidence that if both ideas are true that this brother (angel) would not live with God. I would say, it would be safer to conclude that the Lord would still plead for this brother before the Father.
We are "all" unclean without the Savior. The real question, was their sacrifice sufficient to be covered by the atonement, and if so, then according to verse and commandment he would live with God -- clean through the Savior, but chose (even if out of fear) to be single -- his choice -- his reward.
There is a place referred to as heaven, where these angels are said to be appointed to, but God does not dwell there.
If they have been received in the Celestial kingdom, all sons and daughters in the Celestial kingdom are able to be ministered unto by the Father. So, this would not have much support according to the verses provided.
EDIT: the thought though would be accurate for those who are Telestial or Terrestrial bodies.
askandanswer reacted to Carborendum in 1 Nephi 3:7 and D&C 124: 49
We should be perfectly confident. But that's the problem.
Nephi was perfectly confident. So, even in the face of death, he continued while his brethren were afraid of continuing. The Saints were confident... until... they were met with fierce opposition. Nephi came up with other ideas and different methods. The Saints (the bulk of them) simply gave up. (Not that I can blame them). Nephi's mission was able to be performed alone (being led by the Spirit). The Saint's mission had to be done by a people not an individual. The people never got to the stage of even asking to be led by the Spirit. Those who remained faithful, received Section 124 (yes, eventually shared with everyone). So, when the people lost faith, the Lord excused the individuals who remained faithful from performing the work that they could not do without the help of the people as a whole.
There is more to this which I will address at the end of this post.
I think we can agree that Adam and Eve were a special case. But even so, I don't believe that their case was a no-win situation. Yes, a lot of people say that. But I think there was a way. But it simply didn't occur to them. Proof of that is that even with the benefit of hindsight, we can't seem to figure it out either. Have any of us asked if there was another way? Adam and Eve didn't seem to have asked to be led by the Spirit then. Perhaps, that was part of the "partaking of the fruit".
For both Adam and Eve, they made their decisions with what they had at the time. But neither stopped and asked the Lord,"What should I do?"
And if we know that "other worlds" had the same thing happen. But there "seems" to have been no punishment, then there must have been a way for it to be done without transgressing the law. And finally, a world was made where one failed to keep one commandment (my personal belief). And that opened the door for mortality to begin. If this is not literally true, then at least the metaphor is implied.
IF THEY WERE GOING TO FAIL, WHY BOTHER GIVING THEM A COMMANDMENT TO FAIL?
When given a commandment, it should not be news that many times, we do not fulfill the commandment. That's what the Atonement of Christ is for. But there is always a reason for a commandment being given in the first place. And sometimes "failure" is the reason.
In the case of the temple in Missouri, the Lord wanted the Saints to build a temple for them to obtain the ordinances and covenants, yes. But it didn't NEED to be built right then and there. The need for the Missouri temple was for some time in this dispensation. That could wait. But, eventually, they built the Nauvoo temple for their immediate needs.
So, why the commandment that cost the lives of so many Saints? The answer is simple. Blood.
I've read it too many times to dismiss. In older generations, they understood. Today, one tends to discount it. But just as Abraham Lincoln said when proposing to consecrate the graves of the dead at Gettysburg:
The Lord needed that land of Missouri to be consecrated with the blood of the Saints before we could build the temple. And at the same time, I see a parallel. Christ had to come into a world wicked enough to crucify Him. As such, the world was not ready for the Church to endure.
Just as there was a restoration of the Church, there will be a restoration of that commandment to build a temple there. But the Missouri of that time was not prepared for it because they had to be wicked enough to... perform such wickedness upon the Saints of God. There was so much more than blood being spilt. These were demons incarnate. And the Saints' suffering was part of what prepared that land for the eventual New Jerusalem to be built.
askandanswer reacted to JohnsonJones in Conclusions from D&C 132: 16 - 17?
1. You can be disobedient to the Law in mortality, BUT still be saved in a Kingdom of Heaven after death. This is why there is the atonement. As long as one accepts the Lord and does not deny his atonement, they can be saved from death and hell, but this does not necessarily mean that they will get the Highest reward. In heaven there are many mansions/houses and various degrees of reward depending on the events of this life. As sins are wiped away and we are wiped clean, we are then pure and without sin in heaven, but the tendencies we may have had which led us to sin may still lie with in us. Therefore, we are limited in the power and ability we receive and in as much, in many instances certain abilities for certain drastic sins are removed as well as the desire to sin is no longer something that drives us.
2. Even the most dire of murderers that have sinned are cleaned by the atonement as long as they accept it. The power of the atonement is infinite and eternal and though one's sins be as scarlet, their robes can be pure. Without the atonement they would be unable to be in heaven, and no one on this earth could make it to live there. The atonement's power enables us to repent and be saved though some will not do so until the next life. However, the desire we had to achieve certain rewards are shown by our actions in this life and the spirit world, and as we have shown our desires, thus we will be rewarded. Only those who have been cleansed by the atonement can live in the Kingdom of Heaven, from those whose desires showed them wishing to live a Telestial life to those whose actions and desires showed them wishing to live a Celestial eternity.
3. The Spirit of the Lord lives throughout all of heaven. There are locations which they have designated for people who may not wish to be in their presence and where these people can reside, but the Kingdom of Heaven is still under the jurisdiction and control of our almighty Father. There is no place where he is not able to go if he wishes it, but because he is merciful those who chose to live a life where much of his influence was absent are not subjected or forced to live in a manner which they would not want to in the next life. They still can be visited by Angels and messengers, or others can still be visited by the Son, while those who truly did all they could to live with their Father in his abode and receive his greatest reward will also be granted their desires. Not everyone will get exaltation, but all will be clean by the power of the atonement who choose to live in the Kingdom of Heaven.
askandanswer reacted to prisonchaplain in Hypothetical - mail-order bride
Nobody wants to admit the obvious--the worry that maybe she is scamming him. Still, the right and godly thing to do is to speak blessing into their new life together, and to pray that God draw them together, even as they are jointly drawn closer to Heavenly Father. Further--if I am deeply worried, I ought to pray even harder that God will protect the brother, and perhaps even help her to develop a sincere love for him.
askandanswer got a reaction from JohnsonJones in Organizing Intelligences, Order and Chaos, and God's Plan
There is a widespread body of thought amongst astronomers and physicists, accepted by many of them, that matter only came into existence when particles and anti particles ceased annihilating each other, following the period of rapid inflation, which was sparked off by the big bang. Prior to that, it is believed that matter did not exist.
askandanswer reacted to Traveler in Was Jesus married
It has always been interesting to me what is assumed about G-d among many religious thinkers. There is a lot of terms and conditions used in scripture - all of which points to the possibility that both Jesus and his Father are personally involved in intimate marriage covenants and relationships. For example, in the ancient Israel (Jewish) society it was socially unacceptable for a man to NOT be married (man is not without the woman nor is the woman without the man in the L-rd). The title of Rabbi in that ancient society required a person be married. Jesus was often called Rabbi by the Pharisees that were using every means at their disposal to discredit Jesus. Had he not been married they would have leveraged that unusual condition to discredit him.
We live in a life, culture and society that is currently discrediting the sacred marriage covenant. Sadly many religions have positioned their understanding of G-d in such a manner to debase the sacred marriage relationship as something ung-dly and not divine. Despite all the nonsense arguments concerning the marriage of Jesus - I have never see any creditable evidence that Jesus was not married. You would think that if this most unnormal and unnatural condition was a necessity to qualify Jesus for being the Messiah - that there would be something in scripture to justify it.