Sadliers
-
Posts
93 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sadliers
-
-
6 hours ago, tesuji said:
No, this is not even close to a definition of liberals. "Liberal" is a broad general term, but one of the main things most of them believe is that the status quo needs to be reformed and improved. They usually want change, for the better. In my experience, they tend to be more idealist and maybe less practical.
But there is a place for dreamers in this world - most historical progress and improvement has come because of them. You could even say that according to this definition, that Jesus was in some ways a liberal. He rejected the status quo and wanted a better way.
Just ask "why" enough times and see where it leads. For example, why are they attempting to reform the status quo? Go back to the earlier days of liberalism with the hippie movement - what was one motto? "If it feels good, do it" - that is self centeredness. Why did they break away from traditional values? Because they wanted to do what pleases themselves and to do it without conscience. The answer is not incorrect - just ask why enough times to get to the bottleneck of why they think the way they do.
-
1 hour ago, Traveler said:
Conservatives claim big government is bad but think big business is good??? Big business and big government is just the different sides of a coin in the pocket of very evil men.
Actually, you're relying on the definition of "conservative" that was created by liberals. Liberals do not know what makes a conservative a conservative so they tried their best at guessing and got it wrong.
You've also used another definition from liberals and that is that Democrats stand for the little guys. But that really isn't true and that certainly is not a correct definition for liberals.
Simply put, a conservative is one that lives by principles. For them the definition of "morals" is how well one adheres to the principles.
A liberal is one that is primarily looking out for their self aka self centered but not being stated in a negative connotation.
That's the base distinction between the two and that's how two totally different perspectives are formed. Take the conservative, for example. The basic principle is the golden rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". They don't want their freedoms taken away so they don't take others' away. They don't like being financially destitute so they don't entertain the idea of making others destitute. They don't like it when others are irresponsible so they act responsibly. For them it is fairness across the board, even for their enemies.
Liberals, though, cannot live by principles because principles don't always support one's self interests. Simce there are no principles then every situation must be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Next comes the definition of "right" and "wrong". A conservative defines "right" as that which is in line with good principles or as stayed from God. "Wrong" is that which opposes good principles or as stated by God.
Liberals define "right" as that which supports their ideas and "wrong" is that which opposes them.
It would take a book to go in to the details of how this plays out between the two ideologies, but for one avenue consider freedom. And even at that only one avenue within freedom will be mentioned due to time and space constraints.
A conservative only needs laws that lay out principles and then from there the principles are applied to all aspects. Take the principle of "don't steal". The conservative needs just that one principle to know how to act. What if the neighbor has two and they have one? Don't steal. What if they really could use it? Don't steal. What if they really need it? Don't steal. One principle is all it takes.
A liberal, though, examines everything on a case-by-case basis to determine what is in their best interest. So the same law is in place: "Don't steal". But what if they really want it? Gotta make a law to cover that scenario. What if they need it to go make money? Gotta make a law for that scenario. What if they are distitute and the neighbor has two loaves of bread? Gotta make a law for that scenario. What if they are destitute, the neighbor has two loaves of bread, but the neighbor is also destitute and it takes 3 loaves to feed their family? Gotta make a law for that. In the end the liberal will have to have dozens of laws to cover the different scenarios when the conservative needed just the one.
It is from that scenario that we see the 'big government vs small government' playing out. Each year the liberals have a myriad of new laws to introduce to cover different scenarios and each year the conservatives are saying there's already too many laws. Both are right depending on perspective.
But now here's another given: each law brings reduced freedom. The liberals are willing to waive their freedoms to have clarity since there's no principles for their guidance. The conservatives don't need the clarity because they are already living responsibly and should be rewarded accordingly. But in the society it will simply boil down to less freedoms as society abandons principles. Thus, in reality, the liberals are injuring those that are principled and moral - there is no such thing as living in a vacuum. When I have a neighbor living without principles or morals then it IS my business because my freedoms are effected by it (contrary to the claims of liberals).
One thing conservatives can do to regain their freedom is to teach the rising generation the good principles and to be moral.
That was just one avenue in the differences in thought and the results. Every avenue leads to the same destination: liberalism will result in tyranny and death while conservatism will result in more freedom.
-
55 minutes ago, Eowyn said:
The Holy Ghost told you that some young women who you don't know in a ward of indeterminate location have never felt the Spirit?
I refuse to have this conversation with you again, but I won't sit by and let you spread this "you haven't REALLY felt the Spirit" hogwash. It's a lie, in most cases, and a harmful one.
Are you the one that determines to whom God can and cannot reveal things?
Is this anger and divisiveness from the Spirit?
-
42 minutes ago, Vort said:
It's so exacerbating.
Gotta love autocorrect!
-
55 minutes ago, Eowyn said:
Once again, these are people you don't know, and you have absolutely no idea whether that's true.
"And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Moroni 10:5)
You have a point that it should have been more clear. Revise to "felt the Spirit in a great measure".
Doesn't it better help to identify what lacked thus where a focus would be most effective?
-
When one speaks of "the rich" there is inherently an issue of coveting going on. The wealth of one is if no concern to another, and when they make it their concern it is because they are coveting the wealth. That is a direct violation of the commandments. And the sin is exasperated when they attempt to have the wealth taken from that person through various means, especially by the government.
- unixknight, LeSellers and NightSG
-
3
-
It sounds like they need help understanding faith and repentance so that they can experience God in their lives. They have probably grown up thinking they understand because it's been taught all their life but it they have never really grasped how to apply it and what it would look like in daily living. Because of that they have not felt the Spirit thus don't miss It. That gives Satan a chance to tempt them to do something where they can at least feel something. Probably the best thing to do is take an active role in being interested and concerned for them so that they know that someone cares and loves them. Strive to help them have spiritual experiences. Try having activities that they might enjoy to try helping them feel involved. Try doing service projects so that they can feel the blessings and bonding from it.
-
Get your food storage! Think of it as a commodity investment. The church is probably quieting down because of the allegations of hording. In some countries it is illegal to have a year supply. In this country it puts a person on a watch list for being anti-government. With a certainty it will be needed in the near future. Be sure it is one year of long term storage and an additional 3 months of short term.
-
Definitely always be prepared! One should always be ready since it is not known when He'll be met, whether through Coming or death. But as for the Second Coming it is not yet. There's another big event that is also prophesied to take place: the Covenant people turn wicked, along with the other people of the "promised land", and are punished. We read of this very many times in the scriptures. For example:
"Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." (Isaiah 5:25)
"5 ¶ O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.
6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets." (Isaiah 10:5-6)
The "hypocritical nation" is the USA - the same nation whose motto is "in God we trust" yet is the greatest producer and exporter of filth and smut.
Jeremiah 49 prophesies about a nation in the last days that will be destroyed. There are 6 clues within the chapter that gives us hints to whom that nation is. For example, it is a wealthy nation (v 31), a nation that has enjoyed being free from attacks by opposing armies and believes they are secure (v 31), is not surrounded by other nations (v 31), etc. That nation will be destroyed of the political leaders during an invasion/war and the Lord will 'set His throne' there (v 38). Everything in that chapter points to the USA being destroyed. That happens to also be consistent with the vision that George Washington was shown by an angelic visitor.
Another prophecy is in Isaiah 28. In that chapter the Lord is displeased with His covenant people because they fail to come to Him through the Spirit. Because of that He will give the warnings to prepare in such a manner that only those who seek and listen to the Spirit will recognize the warnings, and those that fail to seek guidance by the Spirit will be snared and broken (v 13). He tells us that it will get so ugly within the land that "it shall be a vexation only to understand the report" of the conditions (v 19). He also reveals that the destruction will be intentionally caused by our political leaders, of which they will mistakenly think they'll be immune from (v 14-19).
There's many other prophecies, too. It will be most beneficial to prepare for that time because it is quickly coming and will get extremely ugly. Jesus verified how bad it will get in this land:
"And I will execute vengeance and fury upon them, even as upon the heathen, such as they have not heard." (3 Nephi 21:21 = Micah 5:15)
We just barely escaped a total financial collapse in 2008. The stage is set for the next one which we will not be able to recoup from. The amount at stake is higher, final plans are being made to abandon the dollar as the world reserve currency for a gold-backed world currency, and the group that has the power and has been attempting to create chaos in the USA for their political gain is not giving up. A nation has never been destroyed without having been first forewarned by the prophets (2 Nephi 25:9) and we have been given one stern warning in Family: A Proclamation to the World, which has been officially violated as of last year. In that proclamation we were warned that the prophesied calamities would come upon nations and individuals if the Proclamation was not heeded. Though the times will get ugly they are necessary so that the people will finally turn to God in righteousness, especially including His covenant people, so that Zion can finally be realized, which is essential before the Second Coming.
-
On April 11, 2016 at 6:01 PM, estradling75 said:
Lets put it another way... A stereo typical husband works 8+ hours a day... The stereo typical mom is working at home for that 8+ hours a day during that time... By the time that the husband get home they have both worked a full day...
Sometimes. Other times not so. While I was working the 8 hr job the wife had time to watch soap operas, visit parents, and do whatever was on the mind. She would be asleep before I left so I fended for myself for breakfast. During the day I was on my own for lunch, too. There was about a 90 minute period between jobs and when I'd get home there was seldom a meal so I usually fended for dinner. I'd get home around 11:00-11:30 and she'd be asleep. Come the weekend she then expected me to do work around the house. It was challenged that she work in the home hour-for-hour as I was working out of the home but it never happened - that was "too much". From that experience my personal experience and first reaction is to question whether the one that is in the home is actually working during the 8 hours or whether watching tv, visiting others, and playing around is categorized as work. I know that all are not that way! But how many are?
-
Absolutely we are saved by grace, not by works! But we are judged by works, too. Jesus said "if ye love me keep my commandments" - is not keeping the commandments part of 'works'? And, just the same, if we set aside works then is that not our witness that we are merely giving lip service?
In the parable of the pounds in Luke 19:12-27 we learn that there are varying rewards for faithfulness. When the one pound was taken from the slothful servant it was given to the one that had earned ten pounds rather than the one that had earned 5, which further lends to the greater faithfulness receives greater rather than all being equal.
-
1 hour ago, NightSG said:
More to the point, socialism is at base, an economic concept. Economics deals only with scarcity and want.
That may be the case but one cannot overlook the other factors of reality. It is those factors that make socialism a very poor choice for economics. Those factors include the existence of God, that we are here to try to return to Heavenly Father and help others do the same, and that each person is unique with thoughts, feelings, and a root motivating belief that causes them to behave differently.
For example, what happens if one person decides they don't care about anyone else and so they'll try to hord everything they can while their neighbors starve to death? Who is to determine and define that it is wrong for them to do so? "Because you have to care for others". Who said? Who is to determine what is right and what is wrong? Why should one care what the wants and needs of another are? And, more importantly, who believes they are the ultimate authority to make that determination when they are only another face in the crowd? By itself any economic concept cannot exist alone in the human world without defining what is right, wrong, proper, or improper. But then who makes that determination? Why should one, or many, think they have authority to determine that for another? Without having established a basis for right and wrong then there is no wrong in letting another starve to death and there is no wrong in depriving another of those things that are scarce even if they are essential for life. There is also no wrong in using socialism to enrich one's self at the peril of the rest that are forced to be a part of it.
You mentioned law enforcement. How can there be laws unless right and wrong have been defined? Yes, that's what laws attempt to do but what makes one think they are above another in order to make the laws? So right off the bat we see there is no true equality in socialism since someone will believe they are somehow more superior than others and that should qualify them to dictate how the others are to behave.
-
-
Honestly, what would you do for Jesus?
"29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." (Matthew 5:29-30)
Would you forsake the Internet for Jesus? If it is drawing you away from God in the least degree then why shouldn't it be plucked out? Why argue or rationalize with God about it if, in your heart, you know what He would have you do?
-
There are 3 degrees within the Celestial Kingdom. The highest degree is exaltation, aka eternal life. There is nothing greater than exaltation for that is where Father dwells.
"In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;" (D&C 131:1)
-
The root of socialism is self-centeredness. Those that want it place their self interests foremost. Those that support it either believe they will be one in power or fail to realize that the end result of socialism is bondage and death.
No no way and no how is Zion a form of socialism. Ironically the liberals desire a Zion society but they want it without having to lose the self-centeredness and that is why they will end up with socialism, which will be bondage and death.
Zion can only exist when all involved have the pure love of Christ in their heart. We are not ready for it. Why? Because even as members we seek either self-centeredness or we seek fairness. Fairness is a problem? Absolutely! When one seeks fairness, such as under the Golden Rule, they find it unfair to get the 'short end of the stick' in situations. The want a fair portion of the pie, not an unfair small portion or even no portion at all. In a Zion society one is serving others because they love them. But when they feel like they are getting the short end of the stick then they'll cop an attitude and begin demanding fairness. That will lead to Zion failing. Fairness must be set aside for the greater reward of love.
-
In the mission next door (the Georgia Atlanta Mussion) there were two missionaries that knocked on a door and was invited in by a woman with only a towel on. Soon the towel came off and her desires were made known. The one elder ran out but the other was stunned a little too long. She managed to get the door shut then chased him around the house. She finally tackled him and informed him that he was to seduce her. He said "ok, but can we have prayer first?" He got kicked out. It didn't end there, though. The mission president made him get up in Zone Conference and tell what happened.
- Sunday21, NeuroTypical, NeedleinA and 1 other
-
4
-
6 hours ago, anatess2 said:
Yes. This may have a lot to do with the situation.
The wife raising the husband as another kid is a wife choice. She doesn't have to, of course. This only comes up when the wife doesn't have the patience or the trust to leave the husband with his chores in the best way he knows how to accomplish them and leave it at that. If it doesn't get done, it doesn't get done. The husband and wife know it's his to do.
The approach to porn, is another example.
[...]But yeah, this only works because I know for a surety that my husband loves God and wants that Marital Covenant as badly as I do.
Many accolades to you for persisting in the ups as well as the downs!!! Too many of the self-centered will weigh it out and choose to break the covenant during the hard times when God's criteria for doing so has not been met. Atta girl!!!
Porn is a different matter. Porn is infidelity, spiritually speaking. I feel sorry for the wives that have husbands with that issue. And I feel sorry for those husbands for failing to realize just how damaging it truly is. Part of our mortality is to train this 'natural man' body to be a holy temple that loves the presence of God. Indulging in porn invites evil spirits to make a home with that man and also teaches the body to have desires for women other than the one whom the sacred covenant was made with. Both of those are more spiritually damaging than those men realize. They are not taking their stewardship over the body seriously and have become a slave to the body.
-
15 hours ago, Eowyn said:
Where does child rearing, errand running, yard work, etc fit into that percentage?
I think when we start keeping score, we've already lost the battle. I know that the workload between my husband and I has never been fair. I often have much more on my shoulders than he does, and he frequently has much more on his than I do. The point is that we're each looking at what we need to do to make sure the kids have what they need, and that the other is feeling cared for. Percentages and score keeping are inward-looking. Marriage is healthiest and most rewarding when the spouses' focus is outward.
Absolutely that the husband should be involved in child rearing! But the complaint was that the wife feels like she's having to rear a husband, too, not whether or not the husband is involved in the rearing. There's probably some legitimacy in the claim, given how many fail to step up to the plate, but other times it seems to be more of a complaint that it is not being done in a manner demanded by the wife. Each person has their different ways to do things and the wife's way isn't the only way. How often does it boil down to the immaturity of the wife in demanding that everything be done her way rather than respecting the non-life threatening differences?
One of the cancers that is plaguing society is self-centeredness. Too many expect, and demand, that everything goes their way and in their favor. Spouses experience it, too, and it happens on both ends. There's the husbands that come home and get engrossed in something for the rest of the evening, whether it be a newspaper, video game, sports, or go out with his drinking buddies. Then there's the wife that seeks everything for herself and rationalize it is for the "children", excessively buys for herself without regard to the spouse, spends plenty of pleasure time watching tv and talking to friends but then denies the husband similar time when he gets home from work, etc.
Each should first look at whether they are falling into a trap before automatically assuming it is the spouses fault. A case in point: there is a thing called "personal borders". It is an eternal law for personal borders to be respected but that often does not happen in mortality. A personal border is the border in which a person feels secure. If one hits another then it violates the personal border because it violates the personal security. Even angrily yelling at another violates personal borders. God is the ultimate respector of personal borders. How often is the complaint because the wife is unable to violate the personal border of the husband? Of course it goes both ways, but the issue is the complaining by the wife this the reply is focused on that. How often is the complaint because the husband is failing to be subservient to the wife? Just because the survey gives a result it does not mean that the complaint is legitimate.
-
Just wondering... The wives that feel the husband is just another to take care of... Dr Laura asked one wife a profound question. The wife wanted the husband to do more in the home. Dr Laura pointed out that the husband is already doing 100% of the work outside the home so how much more is the wife expecting the husband to do in the home? What's a fair number? 100% + 25% compared to 75% for the wife? What would the wife find to be fair?
-
It is true that God lives! That part is correct. Where He lives is not in this realm thus is immaterial. Follow Jesus with full purpose of heart, without any hypocrisy, and you'll end up with a mansion there.
-
Are you going to a single's Ward?
-
I owe you all a sincere apology. I began moving toward divisiveness rather than unity and that was displeasing to God. Sorry. Jesus said that if we are not unified in His gospel then we are not His. It does not matter where were are in progression nor what are views may be, it is more important to be unified with each other. He would rather have unity and some incorrect ideas rather than divisiveness over technicalities.
With that being said I will share a little for those that are interested but also not attempting to dissuade others from what they want to believe.
The Old Testament has the most references to God having anger. They also were more hardened and could not handle the higher law thus were given what they could better handle which was the lesser law. In their hardness, how was God to drive home the point that they could not continue transgressing against God without a penalty? If they believed that God was only a god of love then they would not understand an eternal punishment for transgressing the law - how could a God of love punish one with a hell? Thus God used lingo that was meaningful to them.
Using meaningful lingo is nothing new but rather how God best relates to those whom He is communicating to. For example in the Old Testament it says that God repents which also means that God makes mistakes (Genesis 6:6). We also read how God hardens people's heart against Him as though He is a god of confusion (Exodus 7:3). We also read of God being a god of evil (Exodus 5:22-23). Those words, too, were used for the benefit of understanding of those of that day.
Here's another one: when one is cast into hell they will be there forever. That is because hell is an endless punishment, right? For those that think it is ok to sin that may be what needs to be believed so that they will avoid sin. But in reality almost all that go there will not remain there. Jesus tells us why the verbiage is used which causes most to think otherwise:
"4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.
5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.
6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name's glory.
8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.
9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.
10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore-
11 Eternal punishment is God's punishment.
12 Endless punishment is God's punishment." (D&C 19:4-12)
If one is not able to handle the idea of God having no anger (as we know anger) because it will lead to sinning then I pray that what I shared is utter confusion to them. However on a personal level for the belief of God being an angry god - a God that is ready to dam a person for failing to be perfect in obedience - was a hindrance in knowing Him. It wasn't until the idea was abandoned that God was an angry god before I could trust Him enough to know Him on a personal level. The perspective that He is a God of love beyond my comprehension was finally realized then the realization also came that as a God of love He is deeply interested in me personally, as he is of you and of all others. It is much easier to draw closest to one that loves me, not one that is angry at me over my weaknesses and poor choices. With that love comes patience and understanding, unlike what is found with a god of anger. From there I was able to come to Him and trust that He is not out to chide and chastise me in my weaknesses but rather support and help me in overcoming them. He is the best cheerleader on this path of life!Since being able to come to God on a personal and intimate level (which was not possible while believing He was an angry god that is easily enraged) there were marvelous insights obtained. One such insight which I testify of is that when we come to God - and it matters not whether it is Father, Jesus, or the Holy Ghost - They shut out the whole universe and give me undistracted attention. They make me feel like I'm the only thing in the universe that matters to them. But this isn't just a 'me' thing because They do the exact same for you when you come to Them. You, too, will feel like you are the most important thing in the universe to Them while with Them. That is their nature and They are like that because each of us are very important to Them. The parable of the 99 reveals that They are interested in each and every one and that's why they are not satisfied with at least having 99 left, but rather will go searching for the lost 1. That is genuine love and concern for each and every individual! That is not consistent with the idea of an angry God since an angry God would be angry that the 1 left (and they should have known better) and would lock the door so the 1 could not get back in even if they found their way back.
-
When one cannot comprehend God's love then how is it assumed they can comprehend God's "anger"??? How can one comprehend either of those if they cannot even comprehend the Spirit? What makes one think they comprehend the Spirit if they don't even know what the Spirit's presence feels like?
Clearing up misconceptions: Where does God live?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted · Edited by Sadliers
Actually... He can appear in this physical realm but this is not the realm where He exists. One of the amazing things about a resurrected body is that it obeys higher laws of physics, and that includes being able to traverse from this mortal sphere to the spirit world. It's a whole new set of rules that boggles mortal physics. For example an immortal body does not need oxygen to survive. And the body is made alive by a type of energy that has yet to be discovered by mortals.