person0

One of my biggest concerns surrounding this whole issue is what feels like the absence of the 'Church Supported' part. If my kids are going to Church and learning by example to believe that living and acting and speaking in ways that are contrary to God's truth are okay, then I think the other ways the Church provides support become less valuable when weighed together. If the support received is not one of a firm and unwavering doctrinal foundation that is taught and reinforced, then everything else is just social or financial for some. I agree. His answer came across so clear, yet also very much in a 'he who hath ears to hear' kind of way. I actually don't think the parable was meant for Amy, I think it was more for the small number of members who would be inclined to ridicule and treat the gender dysphoric individual with cruelty. In the same vein of thought, the members who are supporting inappropriate behaviors through word or deed are also unrepentant about their support for it. So your analysis applies to them as well. Ultimately, I am happy to welcome individuals who are struggling with their identity and/or attractions. And there is plenty of room for members who are not quite there in terms of testimony on those issues. What concerns me the most is when leaders participate and nothing seems to be done about it at any level, or at least, not without a great effort from the members seeking refuge from this unexpected onslaught. I never would have imagined that Church could stop being a refuge from the world. Perhaps this further elevates the importance of temple worship. At least for now, in the temple these issues can still be escaped, given the barriers to entry there. Then again, when I think of people changing their speech in the ways they have been, the question comes to mind, "Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?" And I am left wondering how this social contagion can be ignored to allow individual application in that context.

This is an issue that has plagued my ward for years now. I really appreciate that he taught that Church leaders and teachers have the responsibility to teach the truths of the gospel. One cannot effectively teach the truth if in one breath they teach the family proclamation, and in the next they refer to someone using eternally/biologically inaccurate pronouns; in doing so, they sacrifice the truth and tear down their own witness. I appreciate the entirety of his answer, but that part struck me as an excellent way to lead out. I appreciate the way he noted the parable. I think what may be lost on many is that in the parable, while the accusers are turned away from their judgement, the woman is also instructed to turn away from her sins. When members use pronouns, or engage in 'affirming' behaviors, they are supporting the falsehood or sin. This would be contextually similar to Christ referring to the woman's partner in the sin, as if he were her husband; doing so would entirely unravel the Savior's instruction. I appreciate the girl being so bold as to ask, and Elder Oaks being willing to answer.

Feels good to know I've been missed! I uh, guess I've just been a bit sidetracked, lol. The thought just came to mind to check in.

Why would the servants at the wedding listen to Mary and obey her when she told them to do whatever Jesus said to do? As to this miracle being different, are there any other recorded times when Christ's mother asked him to perform a miracle? Upon who's faith was the miracle based? Mary's? Jehovah performed instructional miracles for Moses and the Bro. Of Jared (tablets carved with finger, skin turned leprous, stone made light). Likewise Jehovah turned the water in Egypt to blood. Given his disciples faith was also increased, perhaps, among other things, this miracle was important because it established Him as possessing the power of Jehovah.

I think the primary purpose is to express gratitude and to thank God for providing for our physical nourishment. It isn't about the food so much as about the fact that we are blessed to have it. I'd say somewhere along the line the waters got muddied and we also started asking a blessing upon the food, which I still regularly do myself. I remember during my pre-school years attending a day-care where we always recited the same prayer over meals: "God is great. God is good. Let us thank Him for our food. Amen." No blessing on the food in there, just pure gratitude.

My understanding is that the Superbowl organizers signed her contract before she became pregnant and that many of the behind the scenes people were upset about it. The thing about it that was good is that it sends a very pro-life message to a massive audience. I would bet a hefty sum that some women who have recently been considering abortion out of fear decided or will decide against it because of seeing that example. Not that this particular performer necessarily intended that, or is generally a good role model, but that specific message was positive in the midst of a mostly inappropriate event.

Have you experienced the new hyper encabulator? It far surpasses that older model:

This is wonderful. Welcome to the Church, and welcome to KY! I could be wrong, but I believe I am the only other active forum member from KY.

If I'm not misunderstanding you, I think the resolution from within the Skousen model would essentially be the idea that God already has a complete monopoly on power, and so rejecting Him would leave one with absolutely nothing. For me, the principal takeaway from the Skousen view is that God's power is not magic (which is the way most faithful people in the world seem to view it). Whether or not he muddies some of the other details is less relevant to me. I believe it is true, in some form, that God's power and dominion are directly linked to His perfection and to the honor, respect and obedience to Him because He can be trusted to always remain constant. By extension, clarity is then added to the belief that we can become like him and inherit all he has when we attain the same degree of perfection based on the such a principle. Likewise, by extension, exercise of the priesthood enables man to perform the works of Christ, based on His attributes, when in accordance with his will. Me too! I think we had a whole thread discussing that a couple years ago or so.

I don't believe the county from the video you originally posted could have had enough of an impact to alter the results. The initial holdup was claimed based on the belief that if another county's votes were fraught with irregularities, the voters in his county would be disenfranchised by the flaws of another county with a much larger population.

This is the goal of the Lake team, as well as the Hamadeh team: Flashback: Previous Arizona Gubernatorial Election Was Overturned (westernjournal.com) I doubt it will happen. I don't know if you are describing me as a conspiracy theorist. My claim in the AZ situation is that a conspiracy didn't have to have occurred at all in order for the face value, plain as day result to be unreliable due to election day issues that led to voter disenfranchisement. Consider Nephi who prophesied of the Chief Judge's murder from his tower. He was accused of being an accomplice, the 5 men who went to verify were imprisoned, and the people believed the wicked and corrupt judges, because that's what they wanted to believe, until they had verified everything Nephi said in a way they could not deny before the people. The reality is that corruption occurs, and the sad reality is that because corruption is real, the devil will distract from real corruption with fake rumors of corruption. Regardless, what I care about most is the truth, and learning and knowing it, even in regard to issues like the AZ election. I am less concerned with winning and losing elections at this point because I already believe the devil has sufficient grasp of the populous that we are on the downward spiral toward tribalism and generalized wickedness. I don't expect to get to the full truth regarding most situations in this life. In this particular instance, in my view the election day issues were so clear and provable that there didn't even have to be any actual fraud or conspiracy for the result to be untrustworthy due to the way voters were affected. There have been other elections in the 2022 cycle which have been thrown out for similar, though admittedly much lower profile. On the flip side, I think those who refuse to acknowledge plausibility are also acting with cognitive dissonance. It is quite difficult to imagine that one particular election can be declared illegitimate without fearing the validation of throwing into question any and all elections and thus undermining trust in the entire system. I think the fear of collapsing the system can just as easily lead people to dismiss things that should be given ample review. In a perfect world, both sides would be willing to establish election rules that would lead to fully trustworthy and irrefutable results. Unfortunately, only one side seems to express legitimate interest in the types of things that would actually bring that about. (shrug)

Is that your answer to every election integrity case, always? How closely have you followed the AZ election? Did you watch the trial? The thing that annoys me when members of the Church respond in the way you have, on election concerns, is that it flies in the face of the scriptures and the words of the prophets. That is not to say that all election concerns are valid. That said, to dismiss them outright and to be unwilling to recognize the reality that fraud does occur, that disenfranchisement does occur, and that secret combinations do exist for the purpose of securing power and circumventing the will of the people, is just entirely disingenuous. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2012-08-2620-secret-combinations?lang=eng I don't believe all voter related issues that are announced are real, however, I think we would be quite foolish to dismiss all simply because they are dismissed by a judge and the courts.

EXCLUSIVE: Katie Hobbs’ Office Threatened County Board With Arrest, Indictment If They Didn’t Certify Results | The Daily Caller For this to be true, it would also have to be true that the election outcome was not impacted by voter disenfranchisement. You may or may not believe the issues that took place were sufficient to have impacted the result, but if it they were, then your assessment is invalidated. The problem for the Lake team is not in proving the disenfranchisement happened, nor is it in proving the law was broken (they successfully established both of those things at trial), instead, the problem is proving that the issues were the result of intentionally malicious acts, which is a much higher standard.

I am not from Arizona, however, I have been following the election and the legal proceedings, and can confirm that this is real and true. On a related note, as it stands, Kari Lake's legal team lost their lawsuit because they weren't able to prove that the voter disenfranchisement that occurred was intentional. She is appealing the decision, but as I understand it, it is unlikely to succeed because, despite what appears to many to be very clear evidence, proving the disenfranchisement occurred is insufficient from a legal standpoint; in AZ, they must be able to prove that it was an intentional act. While it is plausible that it was an intentional act, proving that is much more difficult than proving that it took place.

I wish I felt differently, but the video of Christ appearing to the nephites left me feeling unsatisfied. 😕 @NeuroTypical, as to wokeness, I didn't see it that way. I think the Brethren are intentional in their language. While some of it may sound similar enough to appease detractors seeking to find fault, or members for whom wokeness is a stumbling block, the true application of their words requires to modern woke ideology to be rejected in favor of true unity in Christ. @Carborendum, I had considered the garments thing, but I interpreted it more in relation to the growing number of activist members who live or align with the LGBTQ+ lifestyle or in general, any who seek to impose their own will on the Lord, in disregard of his commandments, while expecting to claim the gift only he can provide. It could have both meanings, though; yours is inherently included I think. My wife suggested that many (in our area at least) will likely reflectively use Bednar's words to judge those who were against masking, though it seems this is a more present and future pointed message. 🤔

What would warning Adam have accomplished different than what ended up happening? That said: More importantly, I don't understand your ultimate objective in pursuing this line of questioning. The natural consequences of the Fall of Adam. Mortality and separation from God. What does that mean? Is it possible there is a language barrier? I want my children to know about evil so they can learn to avoid it. This all brings me to a big important question. If I am not mistaken, I assume you believe that if Adam and Eve had not partaken of the fruit we would all be living in the Garden of Eden together happily. Well, despite that there is no scriptural evidence to suggest that, let's suppose for a minute that would be the case. Considering Eve was convinced to partake of the fruit, what makes you think if she never ate it that you would also never eat it? EDIT: Oops, looks like I've been gone for a while, lol 😄

Moses chose to wait until after they had both eaten to indicate their joint awareness of their nakedness. That choice does not inherently imply what you have suggested. It would require authority like that of Moses to validate such an assertion. Negative and natural consequences are different things which can both happen simultaneously.

Without some sort of claim to extra-biblical authority, that seems to me an extremely tough interpretation to make considering the bible clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were not even aware that they were naked until after partaking of the forbidden fruit. I can only imagine such a lack of awareness would make it difficult to reproduce. This statement, on its own, is accurate. The concept of original sin is false, however, the descendents of Adam and Eve are subject to the consequences of their actions. Interestingly, this type of circumstance (where children suffer negative effects from the actions of their parents) is replete throughout history. All this said, I would encourage you to reconsider your definition of the word curse as it pertains to the scriptures. Sometimes, it appears evident that 'curse' simply means, long-term negative natural consequences. Perhaps not in all cases, but certainly in quite a few. The Fall certainly fits this definition well.

The Chief Judge who was murdered by his brother that Nephi prophesied about was plausibly also a wicked man. If we consider Trump as like one of the Chief Judges, he doesn't have to be compared to Nephi for it to be an accurate comparison. Personally, I have seen Trump like Morianton from the Book of Ether: a good leader to the people, despite not being a good role model due to his moral failings. This is me exactly. 😂

A few minutes ago I found myself wanting to react to a post with an 'astonished' face.😲 Sadly, the best alternative was the thumbs up / like button (😲), because when I clicked, I noticed an astonished reaction wasn't there! 😲 I have grown accustomed to using it in other messaging tools and am shocked (😲) that I have made it this far without begging for it! @pam, what do you think? Would you be willing to give us this new reaction option?

I can appreciate that perspective.

I was not intending to use the tweet as an example of the parable of the ten virgins, only as an example of the fact that we can reasonably expect to find the influence and 'members' of the church of the devil everywhere. I had multiple thoughts that were all placed in the same post. Absolutely, that's the whole point. I know many active and faithful members who have been misled. The problem is that those who are misled often intentionally spread their misguided beliefs to others, because they do not see their beliefs as misguided. When the Lord looks at them and tells them "I know you not", do you think he considers them to be part of the Church of the Lamb of God, or the church of the devil? I think most of us (myself included) have not tried to interpret passages such as the parable of the 10 virgins through the lens of 1 Ne 14:10. In the Church it is really rare for us to split things so dichotomously, however, that is exactly how Nephi does it when he teaches that there are only two churches. This distinction is much different than the distinctions we have come to understand through the revelation recorded in D&C 76. With each spiritually significant decision we make, we either move towards light or towards darkness. What if we consider the parable of the wheat and tares through this lens, would you view that differently? (Link) Considering the above, is it unreasonable to assume that at least some of the 5 foolish virgins either directly or indirectly had spread their foolishness to others? That perhaps some of the 5 started out okay but were misled to believe they didn't need to bring oil because one of their foolish 'friends' told them it would be fine? It seems clear to me that in both parables, ultimately, the unfaithful are cast out/burned. It should go without saying, but just to make sure, none of this should be interpreted to suggest the misled will not inherit a kingdom of glory.

Yes, sadly it is. 😥 I captured that screenshot myself and personally researched to discover that the second commenter is a member who was attending BYU last year. The tweets were still up last I checked.

I think it is important to consider that (despite the fact that adherents may deny it) in reality, secularism and its modern associates are religions. These religions are proselytized by their members. I think it is not too farfetched to assume that Nephi intended the word "church" to include religious adherents, which would have included the worship of false gods and idols (in the myriad forms in which they present in society). I think that the influence of the church of the devil is found wherever the philosophies of men are mingled with scripture. It is most evident and explicit when such a mixture is used aggressively against the truth. One way we frequently see this is when individuals (especially secular adherents) recite the passage, "Judge not, that ye be not judged"; while they may invoke scripture, usually, the true intention is to justify and coerce acquiescence to sin and evil. Consider the parable of the ten virgins. All ten knew of the bridegroom, were looking forward to his coming, and wanted to join him. How could it be that, despite all being aware of his coming, only five of the virgins knew to have the oil and the other five didn't? They all knew enough to have a lamp in the first place, enough to be there waiting, and even enough to recognize the call to go out to meet the bridegroom. If they were aware of all that, it seems to me the only thing that could have impeded their preparation would be an "eat, drink, and be merry" attitude. In the end, from the perspective of the bridegroom, would these five foolish virgins have been of the Church of God, or the church of the devil? Who do the ten virgins represent? Perhaps, sadly, members of the church of the devil, and its influence, can be found everywhere in society, even mingling among the members of the Lord's Church.

Also, you failed to include the 5 U.S. territories. I think I could name some of them, and some of them I could place on a map, lol.