• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by person0

  1. I wish I felt differently, but the video of Christ appearing to the nephites left me feeling unsatisfied. πŸ˜• @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. πŸ€”
  2. 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 πŸ˜„
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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. πŸ˜‚
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. Yes, sadly it is. πŸ˜₯ 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. I think the question has a flaw. I could easily name all states without a map, but if I was asked to fill in a map with state names, I would have to fill in all the states I know first and get the ones I don't know perfectly by elimination. That said, I may know them better than I think, haha. πŸ€·πŸ»β€β™‚οΈ
  12. "He grew up in the RLDS church but converted to the Utah-based LDS church about eight years ago." This is, in my view, the most important part of the article. I'm sure if he donates or lends it to the Church, additional verification will be done.
  13. A sin in ignorance is much easier to repent for than the opposite; consider King Lamoni & his father, especially compared to Cain. Having the sure knowledge that you murdered a child of God would not be advantageous if you knew it while doing it. Not going to claim to know the Lord's specific reasons, but it is evident from the scriptures that He does it, sometimes even when the individuals in question would never again dwindle in unbelief. Other times He intentionally speaks in ways that many will not understand, and also not be responsible (parables, sure, but also Isaiah comes to mind). Anyway, just some thoughts.
  14. There are multiple advantages to the answer being unknown. Two are: 1. If it were to be revealed that life begins at birth, sadly even more members of the Church would use that to justify abortion. 2. If it were to be revealed that life begins at conception, abortion would be considered "like until murder" in a much more strict sense and repentance for it during this life would become even more complicated. The ambiguity makes it easier for the Lord to both grant mercy to those who will sin in ignorance and to preserve those who would be tempted to justify. I think, perhaps for these and other reasons, the Lord, in his wisdom, has chosen not to reveal this.
  15. I have considered this passage as well. What would we gain from knowing the answer? Also, the Voice of the Lord could be the Holy Spirit speaking by divine investiture of authority (similar to the angel in the Book of Revelation), and could have received instructions in advance. I don't have a for sure opinion either way other than that I think the knowledge, while interesting, would probably not be very useful.
  16. More correctly, one could say we are pro-revelation for the rare exceptions. The correct interpretation of the Church position is that abortion is always unjustified except when God reveals otherwise, and that He will not reveal such outside of the circumstances of the specified possible exceptions.
  17. I agree. I have always gone by a name that is different from my legal name. One's preferred name does not necessarily or inherently convey gender, especially not in the same way that pronouns do.
  18. The handbook does not say that. I believe you are thinking of Section 38.6.23 paragraph 9. It explicitly states that the preferred name may be used, the permissible usage of preferred pronouns is omitted. The handbook acknowledges that a member may request both pronoun and name usage, but only grants permission to use the name. If there is some other passage to which you are referring, please share.
  19. Do you strive to be honest in all that you do? (Not aimed at you directly) When one knowingly and intentionally says something that is untrue, at a minimum, they are being dishonest. Therefore, at the very least, knowingly using pronouns that identify someone as something they are not, is dishonest. It does not matter one iota if the purpose appears to be noble. Justifying using false pronouns prepares the way to further justify dishonesty, deception, and sin. This is another avenue of attack Satan is using in his quest to gradually bring down society. Sadly, it will very likely have a damning effect on many, because of where it may ultimately lead them.
  20. Why can't it be both literal and figurative?
  21. That seems to be how this is being handled most of the time. Gotta have the Spirit just to understand the truth behind the words of the Apostles and Prophets of the Lord. He who hath ears to hear, I suppose.
  22. I have been sharing this and pointing it out to people for some time now. Sadly, even these words taught during General Conference are insufficient to sway even some of our leaders.
  23. I agree with essentially everything you said, including the above.
  24. I hope to determine two things: How does the Church encourage us to interpret section 38.6.29 paragraph 9 If different than my current understanding, upon what gospel and doctrinal principles am I to understand it so that I can know that it is not in clear and direct conflict with other doctrine and be able to teach it to my children. I would like for Church leaders to expect the members to adhere to doctrines during Church functions. And by expect, I do not mean force; I just want to be able to clearly show my children that what we are teaching them at home is correct, even if other adult members of the Church do not fully adhere to the same ideals. That is not to judge those other individuals, only to show my children that they should not look to them as examples in that specific thing.