person0

Yeah, I am less concerned about the virus and more concerned about the widespread panic and societies reaction in terms of food. Our grocery stores are mostly empty.

I'm sorry to hear this has happened to you and I wish you and your family well through this difficult time. My wife and I are financially stable, for now; my primary concern is less about money and more about the psychological instability of society. If people would just go about their lives as normally as possible, there would at least be enough food and supplies for everyone. We have about 3 months of food, but depending on how long this thing is held out, that could be insufficient. I am confident we will be fine in the end, but I am among the crowd that believes we should have just strongly advised the elderly, weak, and health compromised to quarantine and everyone else to continue about their lives. The long term economic and psychological effects of a prolonged quarantine could be much more detrimental - including on the death toll - than the disease itself.

If people get the virus they will just claim that the infection came from contact other than the 'holy cup' and the spoon. It won't be logistically provable either way.

The whole point of the OP is about a clear and concise, logical way of conveying to a mainstream Christian that Hell is not a litteral torment of fire and brimstone. Typically, one would likely not immediately dive into a discussion about the differences between Hell and Outer Darkness.

You are correct. I don't disagree that the imagery of fire and brimstone is an effective descriptor of eternal punishment. Because of the abstract nature of the idea, I doubt we can ever truly comprehend what it is like to be completely cut-off from God in every way; hence, I think imagery is needful to get the message across. Despite that, I think that such separation would most certainly be worse than burning alive for all eternity.

They would still have perfect, immortal bodies and, from what we understand, should not experience physical pain. As for the non-embodied, well, they would yet lack the capacity for physical pain.

ANSWER: Because being fully and completely cut off from God and the Light of Christ is already the worst pain and torment that is possible. During a sacrament talk today, the speaker was discussing how he explained the plan of salvation to a colleague who asked if Latter-Day Saints believe in Hell. He did not address this particular issue, but I started pondering on the difference between our understanding of Hell and that of the traditional Christian world. I started considering what would be a simple way to explain to someone why it is unnecessary to view Hell as a torment of literal fire and brimstone; this thought is what followed. It rang very true to me and was, in a way, a small epiphanic moment, so I thought I'd share.

I think they are beyond liberal. I try to avoid using that term because leftism is not truly liberalism, despite the holdover of some ideas.

So, I started studying for the MCSA: Server 2016 like a week ago and have been pretty casual about it because I figured I had time, then all of a sudden Microsoft announced they were retiring it in June! I have to really bust tail if I'm going to get this one in time! I will start hitting it hard over the next few days. 😫

I think that would require way more of a pay-cut then I can handle. My Employer just posted a job for an evening shift network admin and told me not to apply because they knew they couldn't pay me enough.

I would like to place emphasis on the fact that the passage specifically states: See, the reality is that Alma the younger had a much better understanding regarding the nature of composite/compounding sin than I think most of us do. In his youth, he was the son of a prophet and high priest an yet he outright rejected the gospel truth he had been taught and lived his life in such a way that, not only did he commit many sins and whoredoms, but in doing so, he also led others to commit the same sins. Let us consider a related topic: Just as parents are responsible for teaching their children the truth, I believe that those who have received the light of the gospel are also responsible to set an example and to not steer people away from the truth. Alma the younger experienced this, and because of his experience, he knew first hand how serious it was: Corianton forsook his ministry, and specifically sought out the harlot Isabel, to be physically intimate with her. This was most certainly not a wrong place, wrong time, wrong decision in the moment kind of action. He was preaching the gospel, then specifically going against the very principles he was teaching, actively sought the opportunity to fornicate. In doing this, he set a bad example and led the Zoramites to not believe in the teachings of the gospel. He started down the same path where Alma had spent much of his own time as a youth. The reason the composite of those sins is next to murder is because of the hypocritical nature. Not only are you mocking God by teaching his word and then actively living contrary to it, but in doing so you are leading others astray as well. Although I would still place sexual sin as a distant third, I think it's important to note that the true and immediate third would be found in the composite of sexual sin and blatant hypocrisy against God and the gospel of Christ.

I agree with both parts of this statement, both the "ranking" part (though I still struggle with fully understanding why it's helpful to rank the egregiousness of various sins) and the "distant" part (though, unlike MoE, I think we today tend to badly underrank the depravity of sexual sin and the very serious damage it does to our spirits). I agree with both of you on this.

At an instinctual level, I feel the same way, but the way I wound up with such a perspective is in I trying to reverse the logic by asking myself, 'Can I justify a reason why two heterosexual people having illicit sexual relations is better than two homosexual people doing so?' Ultimately, despite the fact that it almost seems natural to suggest that one is worse than the other, when I look at it from the angle of trying to suggest one is better than the other, I struggle to come up with anything. That said, I speculate that a sinful act could be sinful in multiple ways, requiring independent repentance, not unlike the court system where a single crime can carry multiple 'counts'. I wonder if homosexual relations, by nature, could involve a greater number of individual 'counts' of sin? Ultimately, however, all sin is equal in the sense that any sin, no matter how small, is sufficient to eternally separate us from God and bring about permanent spiritual death. I've said this before but, Christ's atonement paid the price for our sins and enabled Him to determine the requirements for repentance, which we experience, seemingly scaled on levels of severity.

If this is accurate, the real problem lies not with the honor code adjustment, but with the people who will choose to tow the line and partially feed their homosexual appetite. People are fooling themselves if they believe that a homosexual lifestyle is being considered acceptable. In general, I do agree with the notion that heterosexual sin and homosexual sin of the same type are equal in their abuse of God's procreative powers, and thus should be treated equal in the process of repentance. However, there are some things that I believe more quickly arrive at sin in a homosexual relationship that would not be considered sinful for a heterosexual couple. One such example would be simply identifying as a homosexual couple, which, although not a sexual sin, is yet a sin of pride and rebellion in its blatant rejection of the foundational principles of the family unit, and the plan of salvation established from the beginning.

I think it is simple, but that doesn't mean I think it is easy. Just because people fall into one of those categories doesn't mean resolving their issues is just a simple recognition that they fall into those categories. For someone dealing with clinical depression, recognizing it and taking medication doesn't mean it will magically be fixed, but recognizing the source is certainly a key in enabling the individual to power through it. Recognizing the need to repent wont make the repentance process any easier, but it puts the individual into the right frame of mind to address their issue and be able to come out on top in the end with an understanding of their worth and stance before God. Likewise, coming to understand the true doctrines and how one ought to apply them will be an ongoing process; for many, it will require completely rewriting their understanding of how God sees them and their relationship to Him, and how Christ's Atonement is and should be effectuated in their life. I most certainly do think it is as simple as those categories, but falling within those categories does not make it easy to overcome the circumstances that got them there. Recognition is just the first step. I hope this clarifies my view.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I don't see how that example falls outside of what I am saying. Those who are way too hard on themselves lack understanding or true belief in the Atonement of Christ and/or related gospel principles. I know plenty of people like that as well. There is one person in my family who deals with depression, but who also sometimes accuses God of not loving or caring about them. In reality what that person wants is for God to bend to their will rather than bending to Gods. The sadness and depression for this person stems from a lack of humility before God. I'm not saying the people to whom you are referring have the same problems as the person in my example. What do you (yes you specifically, not you general) generally do to console someone who is being too hard on themselves? Do you not, in some form or fashion, encourage them to not be so hard on themselves? Why would you do such a thing if their being hard on themselves were accurate and correct? Because chances are one (general now) would tell them how much God loves them, etc, etc, etc, and steer them away from being overly hard on themselves because it is doctrinal incorrect to do so. Or, if they come here to this forum, we would tell them, that yes, they should feel ashamed because they need to repent. Anyway, once again, I agree with what you have said, but I disagree that it falls outside the scope of what I said initially about the three categories.

I don't have any problem talking about it. If you give me an example, I would happily take it into consideration, however, in all sincerity, I have no problem believing that all of those depressed people in Utah fall into one of those categories. What other options are there? Either you get medical help (including for mental health), you actually repent and change yourself, or you come to understand that you are expected to be imperfect and yet to always strive for perfection. Even philosophically speaking, I can't think of any other possible solution. Even if we create a situation where the gospel instruction one received is objectively wrong, it wouldn't change the fact that by placing themselves into either the repentance category or the knowledge/understanding category (or both), their problem could be resolved, because they would learn the correct version of the incorrect thing they were taught and have the opportunity to come to terms with that. All that said, forgive me that I am going to point out your use of a double negative here: Okay; back to the important stuff. I'll leave it there and let you respond if you so choose.

Okay. But rather than postulating that such a situation might exist, why not just give me an example that would definitively establish it? If for some reason you don't have an example, why do you feel the need to hypothesize that other such examples might exist?

And? What does that have to do with anything? That's entirely and completely on them. However, regardless of whether or not they share, I'm absolutely confident they would fall within one of those three categories?

People who are trying their best, doing their best, while remaining depressed and troubled, either a) need to better come to understand and believe the truth of the atonement and the related core principles of the gospel, b) need treatment for a medical condition, or c) need to repent more fully and adequately for their sin. In my short life, thus far, I have never met someone who expressed feelings of inadequacy, like those you mention, who also fell outside of one of those three categories.

I passed! 🙂 <- Me <- Also me 😁

Taking my CCNA Exam tomorrow! Wish me luck!

The real problem, as I perceive it, is that the general populous of the world is incapable of understanding that repercussions of an act or event is indicative of the original actors and not those impacted. Adam partaking of the fruit impacted the entire human race by subjecting us to mortality, pain, suffering, and death. However, Adam and Eve were the ones who chose to disobey God; their children are subject to the repercussions of their action, but are not accountable for them in any way. The unenlightened Christian world decided on their own that the opposite is true, that because of what Adam did, all mankind are individually and personally accountable for it, which is one of the stupidest man-made ideas ever. 'Affected by' and 'accountable for' are very different in principle and application. I believe early members of the Church were simply blinded by cultural norms and therefore failed to correctly connect the dots in understanding that skin tone is irrelevant to faithfulness and stature before God, at any point in time, regardless of whether or not it was a repercussion passed down by the actions of their ancestor(s). That said, just because I am not responsible for the actions of my father, do not mean I am unaffected by them. The child of a convicted murderer may grow up without his father, but that is merely the effect upon the child, the father is the one who received the legal punishment. If people will simply seek to understand this truth, it will help them far beyond the realm of race. Do we not all believe that Christ was negatively affected by our sins? And yet, how do we perceive and receive him? If the Laminates skin was made dark as a curse upon the parents, does that change the righteousness of King Lamoni, or his father after they repented and came to a knowledge of the truth? Do we yet see them as vile heathen? What about Samuel the Lamanite? Does anyone question his righteousness, or faithfulness? Or do we see him as a prophet of God? Sometimes the affects of the sins of parents can impact their children in a way that deprives them of certain blessings during mortality. That does not mean it is the child's fault and most certainly does not mean the child will always be deprived of those blessings into the eternities. A child born with Fetal Alchohol Syndrome is negatively affected, for his entire life, because of the actions of his parents; does the mean he is lesser before the Lord? No. Does it mean that when I got a call asking to take in a child with said condition that I did not feel comfortable with voluntarily placing my other children in that situation? Yes, it does. So, why are people bothered about the truth that a curse, including dark skin, was placed upon the initial ancestors of the Lamanites? Because they cannot, or choose not to see beyond the mark, both literally and figuratively. I see no problem with the way the initial passages were written in the manual, although a brief discussion on the principles I expounded above could have been useful, and in fact, would likely be more beneficial to the membership of the Church, than the assuaging language that is now in place. I presume this may be a 'he who hath ears to hear, let him hear' situation.

I took a comprehensive practice CCNA exam on Saturday and scored a 782/1000. I was actually very pleased with that. The minimum passing score is 810, so I was just barely off. I have been going through and studying in depth on the answers and why I missed some of them. For a about 25% of my wrong answers it was just me not paying enough attention, but I actually knew the correct answer. For the rest it was for material I didn't initially focus on and have been digging into more (because it seemed trivial compared to the meat of what a CCNA should be able to do). If I can pass the next practice exam this Saturday, then I will plan to take the real exam on the 15th. If for some reason I fail that one, or am not ready, I will schedule the second exam for Saturday the 22nd, after an additional week of hard core study. Previously I have passed all my real exams on the first attempt with the equivalent of about an A-. Unfortunately, if I don't pass by the 22nd, I will have to start from scratch because the CCNA material changes on Feb 24th. Fingers crossed 🤞 😊 Prayers will be greatly appreciated.

That doesn't make sense to me; you're going to have to explain it to me like I'm five. The idea of progression between kingdoms would reduce ones motivation to worry about bringing their lost children back to the gospel because they would know that their children can make it eventually and would be able to complacently take solace in that idea.