person0
-
Posts
2029 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
Posts posted by person0
-
-
2 hours ago, laronius said:
I think that's an interesting question because we assume his present state as a spirit allows him to perform his responsibilities. But does that mean there are things he can do that God the Father can't because He has a body?
That is exactly what it means. The Father can neither dwell within us, nor lay down His own life, because He is already a perfected, immortal being. The Son offered Himself to fulfill the Father's plan, and the Holy Spirit did the same relevant to His role.
The Godhead exists out of necessity. The Father, being perfect in every way, would not have introduced roles and members of the Godhead that He was capable of filling on His own. This is also another reason that it can be rightly said that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God. None of them possess the capacity to bring about the salvation and exhalation of man alone. Hence, united, they operate as one God.
-
On 1/16/2024 at 12:54 PM, prisonchaplain said:
. . . just because God knows what will happen does not mean that those who partake didn't have free will. They chose what they would do and God's foreknowledge of it does not detract from their willful decision.
Not trying to start an argument, but for the sake of further clarifying the LDS position (as I understand it), we definitely are in full agreement on this; we simply believe that the concept of creation ex nihilo makes the above objectively impossible.
-
On 1/14/2024 at 5:35 PM, Maytoday said:
Yes this was the part I was confused about. Most mormons say they are Christians, but everyone else I talked to says they are not. I'm not say who is or isn't right I'm trying to figure that out.
Just to blow your mind a bit, I'm going to spin this a different way for you.
Latter-Day Saints believe that our faith is the true religion of Christ restored to the earth, possessing His priesthood and the authority necessary to organize and govern His Church.
In essence, if put bluntly and taken to the extreme, we are the true Christians and others are in fact, not. Of course, in actuality, we gladly welcome and acknowledge all who seek to follow Christ as fellow Christians.
I say it like that to demonstrate how easy it is to declare that someone is not what they claim to be. The truth in any spiritual declaration can only be confirmed by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is how you can figure it out.
-
9 hours ago, zil2 said:
I'm confused. It's easy enough to go read various translations of II Esdras 11 and 12. So...?
I was referring to D&C 91:2. Aside from that, your other points are accurate, I just misunderstood your shift from 19->20, and assumed you were suggesting that Biden would be the first short feather. You never explicitly said that, I just misunderstood what you meant. I never read the book either, just have read and watch a little online content.
-
1 hour ago, zil2 said:
The logic will be wrong if Biden finishes his presidency. There will be nothing left to talk about - the numbers don't fit any other set of presidencies.
Not sure if it was this guy or a different guy, but initially, after Trump lost, the interpretation quickly shifted to 'short feather' meaning the presidency/rule was cut short from any perspective. It was initially suggested that voter fraud and/or election interference sufficient to alter the outcome could be considered a rule cut short. It was also suggested that a 7 year and 363 day term would still be considered a term cut short.
Where I'm going with all that is to suggest that if Biden wins reelection, we would still have to wait through the next cycle before the proponents would either have to change their interpretation, or choose to abandon the theory. If Biden loses but finished the full term, they would have to try and come up with a way to suggest that the loss was somehow illegitimate, which would really be pushing it for them since most proponents would consider themselves very conservative and it would be cognitively dissonant to try and suggest a democrat was illegitimately removed.
It just so happens that I just came up with a theory at I could imagine would be proposed: The Democrats dislike Biden so much that they intentionally helped Trump (or R candidate) win so that they could shift the blame of all the country's problems and plan for R president's assassination, thus ending R president's term short. Or something like that, haha.
Aside: I just noticed @zil2 came up with a nice little variant explanation of her own! 🤣
To @NeuroTypical's point, I'm sure there are ways to try and extend the life of the theory, but they will be increasingly harder to sell. That said, of course, the theory could play out in an obvious way, but how often has such a thing happened, especially considering we don't know what interpolations might exist in the text to modify any of the meaning of the original prophecy.
Oh, well. I suppose we'll see what happens, lol.
-
I am familiar with the Ezra's Eagle interpretation you shared. I like the idea of it and, to an extent, kind of want it to be true, but that's mostly because I see how wicked the world is becoming and I'm pretty much ready for it to be over and for Christ to come back as soon as possible. I am curious to see if Biden doesn't finish his term and it gives further credence to the continuation of the theory. That said, I was under the impression that he had abandoned his theory, but it appears that he made another video as recently as 4 weeks ago. 🤔🤷♂️
-
12 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:
The traditional definition of Damnation is eternal punishment in Hell.
Among other things, the traditional definition (if that's an accurate description) is wrong. Hence, the Restoration. I hope to respond to your other statements later, but I'm heading out the door.
- zil2, Vort and JohnsonJones
-
3
-
6 hours ago, mrmarklin said:
The reality is that all LDS that I know, regard anything less than attaining the Celestial Kingdom is the functional equivalent of
hell ordamnation.Just damnation. Not the same as hell.
QuoteThe state of being stopped in one’s progress and denied access to the presence of God and His glory. Damnation exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and they will be damned to that extent. (Guide to the Scriptures - Damnation)
4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:I don't view it that way. I know some that do, but I do not.
I view anything that is in the Kingdom of Heaven as one of the Glories of Heaven. It is not a Hell, it is a glory.
It isn't hell, but it is damnation.
-
12 hours ago, zil2 said:
Hooray! It's @person0! I hope you'll stick around for a while.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's missed your contributions.
😁
I never intend to run off, I just get sidetracked with life and forget to check in, haha.
- Still_Small_Voice and zil2
-
2
-
7 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:
There is a movie being released about part of the Book of Mormon very soon. It was directed by a member of the Church and will be released December 8th 2023. The movie is called: The Oath. I am very happy and waiting to see it.
The website is here:
Isn't that by the same guy who was working on the title of liberty movie? He's now making one about Moroni, I guess.
-
Simpleton here: I always just enjoyed the show and never considered the ending to be problematic in any way. I also never read any of the source material.
-
BTW, if you get the sealing broken, it will just be re-done after the man and his wife are both deceased anyway. When we do work for the dead, men are sealed to every spouse they had in mortality, especially when children are in the mix. Ultimately, it cannot be avoided at this point, however, we do have the opportunity to trust in the Lord and in His plans for us.
-
My thoughts (in brief):
- If the first wife desires to remain sealed, I believe it is generally the right thing to allow her to do so and to not seek to strip away that sealing.
- The second wife is very much in the wrong here. She is acting pridefully. Though her desires are understandable, she is not willing to trust the Lord to make everything work out perfectly as it should in the eternities.
- The second wife is also completely wrong about the morality of a man being sealed to more than one woman for eternity and is expressing and enforcing her opinions over and above those of the Lord and the doctrines and teachings of His Gospel.
I wish the couple in question the best and pray for the spirit to meaningfully influence their lives to help lead them to all the blessings the Lord desires for them.
-
-
So, in a new career development, I have somehow miraculously been granted an opportunity to interview for a position as the Director of Software Development for a small company. The position is kind of a mashup of Director (report to CEO), Manager (manage a small team of developers), Lead (help guide team members, the direction of the software and team development style & habits), and there's probably some Product Owner responsibilities in there too. I do believe it is something I am capable of doing, and it would certainly be an exciting opportunity, though, from an on paper, completely objective measure, I am probably not qualified; despite that, they were willing to grant me an interview on Monday.
I have no idea what the Lord's plan is, but this opportunity has only come about because of things he helped set in motion a few years ago. Anyway, I welcome any prayers you kind folks may be willing to send in my direction. Given the circumstances, I don't think my feelings will be hurt if I don't get the position, but if the Lord is willing to entrust me with this opportunity in my career, I'll gladly take it and strive to do my best with it.
Interestingly, if the position were to be offered, I would either need to do some convincing in terms of salary negotiating, or else need a confirmation from the Lord to take the position regardless, because as it stands, even the top of the salary range posted online would result in me bringing home less than what I am making today. Anyway, I know the Lord will guide in this as well, and I'm somewhat jumping the gun thinking about it since I haven't even made it through the first round of interviews yet, but I figured I'd share and as mentioned before, welcome any prayers you may be willing to send in my direction.
Appreciate you all and the support I've received here in the past. 🙂- Vort, LDSGator, Carborendum and 3 others
-
6
-
12 minutes ago, Godless said:
except perhaps the pharisees
And that doesn't count?
Quote. . . the voice of the Lord came to him, saying:
. . .
Now I say unto you, Go; and whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people; and this shall be observed from this time forward.
(Mosiah 26: 14, 32) -
9 hours ago, ztodd said:
. . . the people I love most, who I disagree with in belief in these matters, most definitely already know my beliefs.
I think the problem 'we' (general) are dealing with in the Church is that the people in these situations may know 'our' (general) beliefs, but they don't know or understand Christ's beliefs. It doesn't matter one iota what I believe, it matters what Christ believes and members of the Church on both sides of this both think they are following after Christ's way.
What Elder Oaks addressed is that 'we' are in the right but may be going about it in the wrong way in our interactions with others (which is not what I have seen, but I'm not everywhere). Sadly, many of those on the other side of the argument didn't quite catch that understanding.9 hours ago, ztodd said:Christ, who did not condemn sinners, but showed them the way to peace
I could be mistaken, but my understanding is that the unrepentant are regularly condemned all throughout scripture. My understanding is that we are mostly dealing with the unrepentant and with those who uphold such behaviors. Though I acknowledge many in this category are confused, misled, and simply in a state of refusal to be moved back into a state where such is no longer the case.
-
39 minutes ago, Grunt said:
That's an oddly worded poll question, in my humble opinion.
Yes, for sure. I saw it from someone else who shared it and was pointing out that the pollsters tried to be misleading but still came away with the fact that the majority of religious people are not okay with alternative pronouns.
-
This is somewhat uplifting. 75% of members are not comfortable with alternative pronouns.
https://www.axios.com/2023/06/08/survey-religion-race-shape-divide-pronoun-usage
-
9 minutes ago, Godless said:
Most of our essential moral values are perfectly capable of existing without a god. Don't kill, don't rape, don't lie, and don't steal are the only moral absolutes that really matter. A society, religious or not, can't survive without a generally universal acceptance of these moral values.
At the societal level, such would be wise to enforce for the longevity of society, however, at the individual level, outside of the fear of punishment by societal enforcement, there is no reason to adhere to such morals when there is value or gain to be had in breaking them, especially lying and stealing, but the others as well. That is why one of the first things murder investigators try to establish is motive. With motive and no source of moral absolutes, there is no morality that applies at the individual level.
-
7 hours ago, Godless said:
I determine for myself what my goals should be and how to best improve my life.
That is the problem. If morality is not sourced to a higher authority (a.k.a. God), then there can be no basis for moral absolutes. What you determine for yourself and what others determine for themselves can be vastly different, to the extent that some will justify any act.
7 hours ago, Godless said:What if Jews and Muslims have been right about pork all this time?
That sense of right and wrong comes from God as their source. Regardless of whether or not they have an accurate understanding of God's laws, they still see themselves as accountable to Him and as the source of all truth, including moral absolutes.
Without God, there is no absolute moral source with which to compare one's self. A sense of morality without an eternal and universal source is irrelevant to any other being in existence aside from the individual who ascribes to it.
All that said, the truth is that mankind's innate sense of morality is sourced from the Light of Christ, regardless of belief in Him.
-
My wife pointed out that Mosiah 26 does an excellent job of guiding on how to handle the confusing circumstances in which we find ourselves in this day and age. The guidance Alma received seems so plain and simple.
-
I believe we should care for our environment as proper stewards. To followers of the Restored Gospel, the temporal lifetime of the world is limited, and is known to God. Outside of general and obvious measures to treat God's creations with respect, any extreme level of environmentalism (such as modern climate-change proposals) are entirely beyond the mark and unnecessary.
- Carborendum, lonetree, JohnsonJones and 4 others
-
7
-
10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
I'd like to see those statistics.
This is from 2019, but shows trans men (female-to-male) with nearly double the rates of some type of transition surgery.
Demographic and temporal trends in transgender identities and gender confirming surgery - PMC (nih.gov)
QuoteIn general, GCS is more common in transgender men than in transgender women. . . Transgender men self-report GCS prevalence at rates of 42–54%, while transgender women report it at around 28%. . .
A different website with recent statistics shows slightly more males who transition (39% vs 36%). That said, the numbers are not nearly enough to make up for the drastically higher surgery rates among females who transition.
Entered into their exaltation
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
I get what you are saying and I believe this is mostly a lexical disagreement. I will also argue that, in my view, what you are saying here is meaningfully equivalent to what I said. I will add the clarifying note that, if there is anything the Father cannot Himself do alone, it is only because the capacity to do so is not something that exists within reality.
If anyone needs them, I am happy to provide relevant passages from the scriptures that relate to this discussion, my position, and why I am willing to be more explicit in the way I said what I did (I know Vort already knows them).