laronius

Members
  • Content Count

    255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    laronius got a reaction from Anddenex in The time is coming when those who do not obey the Lord will be separated from those who do - Russel M. Nelson   
    I think there is another relevant question we can derive from yours and that is: Can a person be committed to such standards without a testimony? Perhaps not a testimony of the Church but of the principles themselves? I think that people can gain a conviction of these things under the influence of the light of Christ and I think that would fall under the definition of testimony. But to bring this back around, if we are judged according to what we know I think these individuals will fare better then the uncommitted who have a testimony of the Church.
  2. Like
    laronius got a reaction from Anddenex in The time is coming when those who do not obey the Lord will be separated from those who do - Russel M. Nelson   
    I think there is another relevant question we can derive from yours and that is: Can a person be committed to such standards without a testimony? Perhaps not a testimony of the Church but of the principles themselves? I think that people can gain a conviction of these things under the influence of the light of Christ and I think that would fall under the definition of testimony. But to bring this back around, if we are judged according to what we know I think these individuals will fare better then the uncommitted who have a testimony of the Church.
  3. Like
    laronius got a reaction from Anddenex in The time is coming when those who do not obey the Lord will be separated from those who do - Russel M. Nelson   
    I think there is another relevant question we can derive from yours and that is: Can a person be committed to such standards without a testimony? Perhaps not a testimony of the Church but of the principles themselves? I think that people can gain a conviction of these things under the influence of the light of Christ and I think that would fall under the definition of testimony. But to bring this back around, if we are judged according to what we know I think these individuals will fare better then the uncommitted who have a testimony of the Church.
  4. Like
    laronius reacted to Anddenex in The time is coming when those who do not obey the Lord will be separated from those who do - Russel M. Nelson   
    Doctrine and Covenants 46: 14, "To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful."
  5. Like
    laronius got a reaction from Plein Air in The time is coming when those who do not obey the Lord will be separated from those who do - Russel M. Nelson   
    Well if we sing that about His first coming then it should be appropriate for His second coming as well. ūüėĀ
  6. Like
    laronius got a reaction from Anddenex in The time is coming when those who do not obey the Lord will be separated from those who do - Russel M. Nelson   
    What's interesting is the context of his comment: the importance of temples. The very next sentence of his was:
    "Our safest insurance is to continue to be worthy of admission to His holy house."
    This separation isn't one of belief but of worthiness. There are many who have a testimony, in varying degrees, but lack the commitment to live up to the Church's standards. I think the recently revamped temple recommend questions tell us exactly where the line is drawn. 
  7. Thanks
    laronius got a reaction from Anddenex in Satan's First Lie   
    Satan didn't they say they would become gods only that they would in this one aspect become like God. Which is true. We learn in the temple that Satan has more to say than what we have in the standard works and some of them are true. But it's a common form of misdirection to state a truth in order to cause someone to believe something other than the truth. For example, if I stole a cookie yesterday and then today my mom asks if I stole a cookie and I respond "I've been at school all day" my statement be accurate but meant to deceive. So I guess it depends on how you define a lie, by what is said versus the intent. If you are arguing for the latter of the two then I agree with you.
  8. Like
    laronius got a reaction from Anddenex in The time is coming when those who do not obey the Lord will be separated from those who do - Russel M. Nelson   
    What's interesting is the context of his comment: the importance of temples. The very next sentence of his was:
    "Our safest insurance is to continue to be worthy of admission to His holy house."
    This separation isn't one of belief but of worthiness. There are many who have a testimony, in varying degrees, but lack the commitment to live up to the Church's standards. I think the recently revamped temple recommend questions tell us exactly where the line is drawn. 
  9. Like
    laronius got a reaction from JohnsonJones in Church has issued a statement on Covid-19   
    I don't know if anyone has posted this link yet but it's really good, from both a scientific and religious perspective. It's a Q&A with an Area Seventy who happens to be over Pfizer's anti-viral department and development of a potential vaccine.
    https://latterdaysaintmag.com/pfizer-head-of-anti-viral-has-good-news-on-covid-19/
  10. Like
    laronius reacted to Fether in The time is coming when those who do not obey the Lord will be separated from those who do - Russel M. Nelson   
    The church isn’t the gathering place of saints. The temple is. You must be worthy, but anyone can lie their way through to the temple. On top of being worthy, you must enjoy your time there or you will rarely go.
     
    The saints of God are those that are worthy, have faith in the revealed truths, and enjoy time spent in the temple.
  11. Thanks
    laronius got a reaction from Anddenex in Satan's First Lie   
    I was going to write a post stating I disagreed but decided rather to give you the chance to further make your case. Going back to the Garden of Eden, Satan told the lie of not dying followed by, what I believe, was the truth of knowing good from evil and thus become like God. So is it your belief that the second part was in fact not true or simply it's use to tempt Eve that somehow made an otherwise truth untrue?
  12. Like
    laronius got a reaction from Anddenex in Satan's First Lie   
    Great post @Anddenex. Satan is definitely the master deceiver utilizing his "mists of darkness" to keep people from seeing beyond the immediate. Once the truth is concealed a pleasant lie can be substituted in its place. 
  13. Like
    laronius reacted to Anddenex in Satan's First Lie   
    While studying the scriptures my mind fixated on Satan's first lie to Adam and Eve, "Ye shall not surely die..." Satan's first lie is the same lie that has been used since the fall of Adam and Eve. In the Book of Mormon Jacob asked an important question, "Yea, today, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts; for why will ye die?" (emphasis mine)
    My mind is even more fixated on this first lie due to a family member who is now trapped by it. The unspoken belief now, "If I partake of the fruit forbidden I will not die." Another notion, "If I am a honest person, live a good life, mind mine own business, I will not die."
    Satan hasn't changed, the overall temptation and excuse is, "Ye shall not surely die."

    We can see this lie in thoughts given, "I am who I am and God doesn't make mistakes," by which a son/daughter of God then chooses a forbidden path (a forbidden fruit) that will surely enact the end of the Law -- death if unrepented and hard hearted.
    We can see this thought, this lie being promulgated, in many forms all leading the sons/daughters of God toward forbidden roads.
  14. Like
    laronius reacted to Anddenex in Your thoughts please?   
    Nothing you don't already know, "Simon, lovest thou me.... Feed my sheep." In as much as you have done it unto the least of these my brethren you have done it unto me.
  15. Thanks
    laronius got a reaction from askandanswer in Your thoughts please?   
    Fether in real life: "No one signed up to clean the temple? Dang you all! Dang you all to heck!" ūüėĀ
    Just kidding. I'm sure Fether only curses when moved upon by the Spirit to do so.
    I actually like the sharing of examples. Sometimes when the answer to a question is a little obvious or something that is talked about a lot it is better to just simply teach the doctrine and then move on to examples and application. Not to say that this is necessarily one of those cases (you know your audience better than I) but it's an approach that has worked well for me at times.
  16. Thanks
    laronius got a reaction from askandanswer in Your thoughts please?   
    Fether in real life: "No one signed up to clean the temple? Dang you all! Dang you all to heck!" ūüėĀ
    Just kidding. I'm sure Fether only curses when moved upon by the Spirit to do so.
    I actually like the sharing of examples. Sometimes when the answer to a question is a little obvious or something that is talked about a lot it is better to just simply teach the doctrine and then move on to examples and application. Not to say that this is necessarily one of those cases (you know your audience better than I) but it's an approach that has worked well for me at times.
  17. Like
    laronius got a reaction from Jane_Doe in Your thoughts please?   
    I agree with @JohnsonJones. Though I think your questions are all variations of the same question about the relationship between service and love of God as confirmed in Mosiah 2:17.
    I would also suggest consideration of exploring the topic of what is "priesthood service." A lot of people just immediately think of helping people move or something like that but that isn't in reality the responsibility of the priesthood but of everyone. So what are the unique service opportunities of one who holds the priesthood?
  18. Like
    laronius got a reaction from Jane_Doe in Your thoughts please?   
    I agree with @JohnsonJones. Though I think your questions are all variations of the same question about the relationship between service and love of God as confirmed in Mosiah 2:17.
    I would also suggest consideration of exploring the topic of what is "priesthood service." A lot of people just immediately think of helping people move or something like that but that isn't in reality the responsibility of the priesthood but of everyone. So what are the unique service opportunities of one who holds the priesthood?
  19. Like
    laronius got a reaction from MormonGator in Liberals in the Church   
    Yeah, the term conservative as used by the average person here in the US is definitely different than the classical sense of the word. Here we associate it with a close adherence to the Constitution while perhaps internationally the freedom aspect really isn't relevant. 
  20. Like
    laronius got a reaction from Vort in Liberals in the Church   
    The problem is that while there may still be "Kennedy Democrats" around that Kennedy Democratic party no longer exists. Any such individuals who get elected are heavily pressured to toe the modern party line. 
  21. Thanks
    laronius got a reaction from Jonah in Temples And Protection   
    I don't pretend to be an expert in this (or any) topic but when comparing things in the Old Testament to things now we must take into consideration the fact that they were not always operating under the same Law as we are. The Melchizedek Priesthood and it's powers were not generally available to the people where as the lesser or Aaronic Priesthood was. Consequently not everything available to us in the dispensation of the fullness of time was available then. 
    But to address your question more specifically, when Moses (who held the Melchizedek Priesthood) was tasked with bringing the Israelites out of Egypt it was not simply to free them from physical bondage. Moses brought them specifically to Mount Sinai with the intent to take them up into the mountain and into the Lord's presence (think temple). But the people refused and instead committed terrible sins and were cursed not to enter into the promised land. After that time the people were also not allowed to enter into the Holy of Holies (the Lord's presence). Rather the High Priest acting as a mediator (think Jesus Christ) entered on their behalf. Then we fast forward to Christ's time. During His mortal ministry he taught the fullness of the gospel and restored the Melchizedek Priesthood and its keys back among men. Then at His death the veil of the temple was torn thus symbolically opening back up the way for us to enter His presence again. 
    If I'm off somewhere I'm sure someone will correct or clarify but that is how I understand it. But I think a key take away in all this is that we are as a world now preparing to enter the Lord's presence but on a global scale at His Second Coming. Except this will be more like "Ready or not here I come" and if we are not ready that great and terrible day will be more terrible than great if you know what I mean. So we need to be preparing now and the temple helps us do just that. 
  22. Like
    laronius got a reaction from mirkwood in Liberals in the Church   
    I appreciate your remarks @MarginOfError and it is unfortunate when members allow anything but love to influence their relationship with fellow members. I would though suggest an alternate view of the relationship between our political views and our religious views. You seem to imply that political views should be allowed to dictate our approach to things of a religious nature. I believe our religious views should dictate our political views. I am conservative politically not because I just happen to believe those principles but because my beliefs in the teachings of the Church lead me to hold politically conservative views. I'm not saying you can't be a liberal in some things and not be a good member or that you have to draw the same conclusions as me but rather we need to be very careful about what is influencing what in that relationship. Whatever the Lord dictates must always be allowed to hold the overriding influence in everything else, political or otherwise. Now there will always be different ways in how we interpret certain religious principles should be applied in the public or political arena and that's okay because at the core we are founded on correct principles. But we must give the revealed word of the Lord preeminence in everything else. Problems with our relationship with the Church will always arise when that stops being the case.
  23. Like
    laronius reacted to anatess2 in Liberals in the Church   
    I'm quoting just this because everything else you stated was great, except this one - it's not as great.
    I loved Blaire White's twitter post (that is not LDS-wording approved so I'm not gonna link it) that basically says (paraphrased), "I think a lot of folks assume they are mocked for their beliefs when in reality they are just unlikeable".
    It is never a good thing to be so prideful to think that you're so good that the awkward/negative/dismissive/hostile people are so bad.  It is always best to use these criticisms to check yourself and either accept the criticism as valid or dismiss them as invalid without needing to disparage their character.  You can't really love anyone while disparaging them.
  24. Like
    laronius reacted to Vort in Liberals in the Church   
    I was eight years old when President Lee gave this address. I don't remember it from that time, but I have studied it many times since. I was also aware of how words of the time were used, and became more aware as I grew up. The word "liberal" had much the same type of political connotation in American society of 1971 as it has today. When President Lee quoted Elder Widtsoe about "liberal Mormons", it's obvious to me that he was speaking in reference to those of his own day, in 1971, using the term as it was used politically.
    Throughout my life, I have found this to be almost unerringly true. I suspect it has to do with the absolutism that infects all American political liberal thought today, that their opinions are The Opinions and no others are worthy of consideration. This sort of implicit pridefulness inevitably leads to ruin. However that may be, those BYU students who proudly proclaimed themselves "liberal" in the 1980s while I was a student there eventually either left the Church or rather dramatically shifted their sociopolitical preferences. Since leaving BYU, I have seen time and again the close relationship between Saints who call themselves "liberal Mormons" and Saints who fall away from the gospel. There certainly are exceptions; I have a brother-in-law who considers himself a liberal Democrat (though I'm not convinced he really is) but who is solidly converted to the Church and the gospel it proclaims. So it's possible. But in my (non-statistician) judgment, the correlation is far too high for this to be mere coincidence.
  25. Like
    laronius got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Liberals in the Church   
    I wonder if we should start a thread that could specifically explore how our differing political views spring from a similar religious view. That would be an interesting discussion.