threepercent

there is no doubt that it applies to us in this day, that is really the reason I am beginning an in depth study of Isaiah, because he is "the" prophet of the restoration, and we are in an accelerating period of the last days. the time of the gentiles is ending.

the problem with this view is that it does not mesh with Jacob the young lion. the "if" statements that depend on the "gentiles" repenting are oft repeated throughout the BOM. this land really belongs to the remnant of Jacob, but us gentiles don't want to face that fact, and it appears that we don't want to repent either. so..... And then, O ye Gentiles, how can ye stand before the power of God, except ye shall repent and turn from your evil ways? Know ye not that ye are in the hands of God? Know ye not that he hath all power, and at his great command the earth shall be rolled together as a scroll? Therefore, repent ye, and humble yourselves before him, lest he shall come out in justice against you—lest a remnant of the seed of Jacob shall go forth among you as a lion, and tear you in pieces, and there is none to deliver.

amen

yes, they are, and yes they do. unfortunately, I have found very few people are open the message.

I am begining an intense study of Isaiah, any advise, recommendations?

ok, some real off the wall stuff in this thread. first. the sealing done in the temples is an ordinance, not the "actual" sealing. for the "actual" sealing to take place requires both parties to reach the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, and for both parties to want (read here, agency, or NOT SATAN'S PLAN) the sealing to continue, and THEN the holy spirit of promise will seal the marriage. that can happen here on earth or later. note that both parties have to have made the celestial kingdom. think about what KIND of person that is. The marriage covenant is just that, a covenant. made between a man and a woman with CHRIST at the center. so you can be released from your marriage contract by the breaking of the contractual agreements, but you can only be released from the covenant by Christ. but, as a man, you can just continue forward anyway and let her work out her own salvation. I would put more down but I just dont want to post it here, I will pm on request. this is a sacred subject.

EVERYTHING that is legislated is based on morals. thats the first mental hurtle to jump. to speak of "legislating morality" is a false argument whos purpose is to legislate legislation. That said, yes I am saying this is a constitutional issue, and LMM stated it correctly. If states were allowed to govern themselves, things would be better. A perfect example of this is prostitution. if the Fed gets involved , then every state would either have to allow prostitution or ban it, and if abortion is any indicator, fund it. as it is, it seems to be working out fine. abortion would be much better resolved at a state level.

It would become a states rights issue, where it belongs. this is exactly what should happen at a Federal level, then it would become a states rights issue, where it belongs. The only part of this that lawfully should be at a federal level is perhaps protection of the unborn at an established point. right now that point is "birth" but sometime soon we will have to have a better "legal" definition of when a person becomes a "person".

so. Its quite clear to me that He must follow law to achieve his desires. just like if you want to fly a plane, you have to obey rules. you dont have to, but if you dont, you will crash or never get off the ground. if he were to break the laws that make us happy, he would be unhappy as well, he dosnt want to be unhappy so he follows those laws. its true that he has the capacity to break the law, but its not true that he can escape the consequences of it. and really, thats a poor way to put it, because you really "cant" break the law, you just get different outcomes. crashing the plane is still all occurring within law. being unhappy is also just a lawful consequence.

he is correct in the sense that God has to follow law, and thus cannot make people happy in sin. but he is incorrect in that he can achieve any result he wants by following the law.

this was a lawful killing, therefore not murder, even by your posted definition. yes, you can turn the other cheek, but you are required to defend your family, as I edited the post that distinction became lost in translation. opps. this is taken into account when nephi was commanded to slay Laban, thus removing the option from Nephi to "turn the other cheek" or to "extend mercy". By receiving this command Nephi was also released from the law of mercy. it is nessasary to learn addition before multiplication. I have no need to demonstrate that Nephi was defending himself when I was posting a example that KILLING is not unlawful. and if KILLING is not by itself unlawful, then the first thing you need to establish is if this was a lawful or unlawful killing. I also have posted previously that there is a difference between a commandment and a law. "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment not a law, so may be rescinded at any time. If you do not understand this distinction you will not be able to understand at all. now I have to ask you, snow, to go back and read the answer to this question. the basic principles of law may be found in this account. its really amazing, and testifies of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon that even with such little information available about the entire incident, there is sufficient to understand and teach more about law. I think it is there for a reason, and I think that reason is to try peoples faith. now, for those of you who are not posting but reading these things and perhaps struggling with such a confusing issue I would say this: sometimes understanding comes after the trial of faith. sometimes gaining a testimony comes from obedience such as with the law of tithing. I would recommend that you exercise that faith in believing that the book of Mormon is true, and that God is just, and that Nephi was a great and noble man, worthy of our most sincere gratitude and respect and love. That he was most assuredly not a murderer nor was he deceived into committing a heinous act. If you do not understand these passages, then kneel down and tell a loving Father of your confusion, and ask for understanding. I can only testify that the Book of Mormon is true, I hope each one of you learn this for yourselves. The time is soon upon us that you will need the power that comes from knowing that. you will not be able to stand on borrowed light. If anyone wants to understand the law better, feel free to pm me, I would love to teach those who want to know, in a spirit that is edifying and uplifting, in contrast to contentious.

its not that hard of an answer. you just need to understand law. It was not murder any more than putting a murder to death or defending yourself or a solider in war is murder. it was justified under law by LABANS actions. If someone is trying to kill you, or your family, you are required to defend yourself. in this easy to see situation it is the person who is attacking you that has under LAW brought their life into your hands as they have sought yours. That is the law of JUSTICE. that you are returned to your own. All this was was LABAN getting returned to his own by HIS OWN CHOICE, and by the person who he OFFENDED by law. if the angel, or God, had taken Labans life to "preserve a nation" then by the law of JUSTICE satan would be able to take a life to "preserve his nation" .... so..... God had the person, who under law had the power to condemn, take his life, thus preserving justice. its not near as difficult as you all make it out to be, it was not evil, it was not unjust, it was not murder. even under Israeli law, it would have been Nephi to "throw the first stone" Laban sealed his fate when he sought to take the life of Nephi and his brethren for his possessions and accused them of robbery. by simple justice, Labans life was at that moment forfeit to Nephi and his brethern because he had declared that robbers were to be put to death (and he DID seek their lives) and yet he chose to be a robber! . LABAN CHOSE THE LAW HE WOULD ABIDE AND LIVE BY. this is the law of the kingdoms. see this simple statement: kingdom of glory man inherits will be determined by level of law he abides. under law in Index of D&C.

there is a difference between a commandment and law. A commandment may change. Thou shalt not kill is a commandment.

A hydrogen atom lost its electron and went to the police station to file a missing electron report. He was questioned by the police: "Haven't you just misplaced it somewhere? Are you sure that your electron is really lost?" "I'm positive." replied the atom.

1. you dont understand my thinking at all 2. you didnt get it 3. your list of choices are a direct result of your misunderstanding, and do not reflect my choices at all. 4. If I were limited to your choices, and if your assumptions were true, I would agree that #2 would be the wiser choice. now I ask you whom does he not love? just so we can make the distinction.

actualy, according to the law of justice, Laban pronounced the sentence of death on himself. he did that here so under law, eternal law not just the law of the land, Laban had made himself subject to death by his own actions, or, he chose the level of law he would abide. this part has nothing to do with the slaying: but is a release from the law of mercy to nephi. so, in other words, Nephi righfuly held the life of Laban as his, according to the law of justice, but he still did not HAVE to kill Laban, he COULD have extended mercy, also according to the law, and this was Nephi's nature. So he was commanded to slay Laban thereby binding Nephi with the law of obedience, and freeing him from any liability to the law of Mercy. Laban also made himself liable to the Lord by being wicked. that his time on earth was up is clear. BUT>....there are only three people who would have been covered under law to take Labans life (or throw the first stone) , and the spirit was not one of them. Why were the other two not present? who then became rightful owner of the plates, REGARDLESS of birthright? you ask what is death to the Lord? would a good spirit allow him to die from old age? or a heart attack? or a virus? or a lightning strike? this way a lesson is taught and also a test of faith. there is without doubt reason that this story appears so soon in this book. there is lots more hidden in there if you want to understand law.

so I guess you could also ask Is it right (do you believe) that someone who places their hand in a furnace gets burned, even if they thought it was a Colman x-treem cooler? your question is flawed.

well, I really should just let all this go because its a useless discussion at this point. its about semantics. vort you posted this: D&C 19:10-12 "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—Eternal punishment is God’s punishment. Endless punishment is God’s punishment." and this is classic in what I am talking about. the casual student may read endless punishment to mean punishment without end. but here we see it really just means Gods punishment. now to the other side of that phraseology, "gods punishment." punishment really means "just consequence", in a negative sense. But I have learned that nothing God does in relationship to his children is really negative. again, its semantics in a way that is to large of a pain the backside to try to debate over a forum, because we are weak unto writing.

guess we just understand differently. see what LMM said.

I dont believe that that G-d punishes anyone, at all, ever, anywhere, period. having said that, I do believe that the atonement allows for the intercession of mercy in place of natural consequences in cases where we were not as gods, knowing good from evil. But where the law has been given, even if that law is in the form of commandment (not law), requiring faith, not a knowledge of good from evil, then mercy cannot intercede without robbing justice. And, just to make it clear as mud, we may be judged how we would have repented if we had knowledge. for insight in the punish thingy:

ps, not about me, I have my testimony. I say lets avoid the obvious because here is a real truth: people struggle with this. there are people who want an answer who have not received one. I for one am not going to tell someone who is moved to tears because they have not received an answer in years, and they have done everything they know how, that its their fault because they somehow did not have enough faith or real intent. there are people who have been baptized, married in the temple, pay tithing, fulfill callings and have never had this promise fulfilled for them. when they hit a severe trial of faith, this will, has, does come into play. we are all approaching severe trials of our faith. how do you council someone like this? someone who says "I dont KNOW the church is true"

so, what happens when you put Moroni 10"4 to the test and dont get an answer. has this been addressed by GA or in Conference? And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. and lets skip the obvious answer that puts the fault on the person asking, lets say there is real intent, faith, and sincere heart.

I live in Highland Ut. I want to dedicate one night a week to doing service for my fellow man. I need it bad. anyone have any ideas? anyone wanna join in? I also need to teach my kids (6 and 1) the importance of service. anyone need anything?

For those of you who were listening. again, saying evolution is true is like saying "religion" is true. the next question is "what version"? is it Christianity? is it Buddhism? Just like the Gospel is true, Evolution is a true science. And just like, say, Christianity, there are different versions out there. One thing that never seems to happen though is an acknowledgment of the different facets of evolution or the preachers and high priests of this modern secular religion. One cannot say "Christianity is true" without begging the question, do you mean the white supremacist version or the Spanish inquisition version? Yet still, I hold out Christ as my personal Savior, who has nothing to do with either of those versions, and am willing to live and die on my testimony of the Gospel. from March Discover: here are some examples of truth found in Evolution.... quotes from DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine now some from a page previous to this article, showing how religion is just an example of Evolution, aka falsehoods: emphasis added. like it or not, when you promote or defend evolution, people will associate the above quote. Evolution explains religion as merely an example of survival of the fittest because it gave a selective advantage by organizing cooperative behavior. so in logical terms, truth + false = false. trying to discuss the varied points of evolution that are true is like trying to discuss points of doctrine between Baptists, Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals...... you get the picture. I think this is why most people when asked will say they don't believe Evolution. not because they are stupid or uneducated, but because they associate to many falsehoods with this particular philosophy of men. The problem is enhanced when jerks, who are so smug in their singularly myopic view of evolution that they cannot see they also have white supremacists and spanish inquisitors within their sects, look down their noses at the intellectually inferior flat earthers holding on to their guns and religion.

saying "evolution" is true is like saying "religion" is true. it has to be a false statement because its to ambiguous and there are versions that disagree.