Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

What's interesting is the context of his comment: the importance of temples. The very next sentence of his was:

"Our safest insurance is to continue to be worthy of admission to His holy house."

This separation isn't one of belief but of worthiness. There are many who have a testimony, in varying degrees, but lack the commitment to live up to the Church's standards. I think the recently revamped temple recommend questions tell us exactly where the line is drawn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The church isn’t the gathering place of saints. The temple is. You must be worthy, but anyone can lie their way through to the temple. On top of being worthy, you must enjoy your time there or you will rarely go.
 

The saints of God are those that are worthy, have faith in the revealed truths, and enjoy time spent in the temple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Plein Air said:

All true, but eventually, before the 2nd coming, there will be a complete physical separation from the wicked.  

D&C 45

69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.

70 And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are aterrible; wherefore we cannot stand.

In this light, then do you feel President Nelson is actually referring to Zion? That Zion will no longer be a prophecy, but a reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ancient definition or reference to someone that is righteous is the same as what was meant by a Saint of G-d.  These terms are intended to designate someone that covenants with G-d.   The reason that we should worship at the temples are to establish and renew covenants and to become more instructed  in our covenants and how to better apply them in our lives - especially while we are away from the temple.

There are three specific blessings that come through covenants - These blessing were explained to Abraham and are sometimes called the Abrahamic covenant.   

#1. A promised Land.  This also refers to exaltation (citizenship in the eternal kingdom of G-d) both now and specifically after we die.

#2. Protection from our enemies.  This is specific to our enemies becoming the enemies of G-d.  Our prime enemy is death so this is a promise to be delivered from death.

#3. Enduring seed.   This also refers to everlasting life.  It is important to realize that marriage is both a covenant with G-d and a means of eternal life - both in mortality and after we die but are resurrected.

 

In the lectures on Faith - Joseph Smith taught that even if an army came upon a covenant Saint of the City of Enoch - that such a covenant Saint could call down fire from heaven or move mountains - and so the Saints of G-d (Zion) were feared by the world.  As the world become more violent and chaotic - it is obvious that only the Saints of G-d will endure.  The mistake is in thinking that the Saints will not suffer.  The promise is that regardless of what becomes of their mortal flesh - all the blessings of the covenant will be fulfilled.  

This is why the righteous need not fear.  It is also why the enemies of G-d fear the Saints of G-d.  Whatever they do the the Saints of G-d - the Saints (Zion) will suffer it and be victorious over them. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, laronius said:
On 7/12/2020 at 4:08 PM, Carborendum said:

Merry Christmas... to... you...

Oh, wait...

Well if we sing that about His first coming then it should be appropriate for His second coming as well. 😁

The shepherds sang about chestnuts roasting on an open fire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2020 at 4:07 PM, laronius said:

What's interesting is the context of his comment: the importance of temples. The very next sentence of his was:

"Our safest insurance is to continue to be worthy of admission to His holy house."

This separation isn't one of belief but of worthiness. There are many who have a testimony, in varying degrees, but lack the commitment to live up to the Church's standards. I think the recently revamped temple recommend questions tell us exactly where the line is drawn. 

What are your thoughts on people that lack testimonies but have the commitment to live up to the Church's standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grunt said:

What are your thoughts on people that lack testimonies but have the commitment to live up to the Church's standards?

Doctrine and Covenants 46: 14, "To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Grunt said:

What are your thoughts on people that lack testimonies but have the commitment to live up to the Church's standards?

I think there is another relevant question we can derive from yours and that is: Can a person be committed to such standards without a testimony? Perhaps not a testimony of the Church but of the principles themselves? I think that people can gain a conviction of these things under the influence of the light of Christ and I think that would fall under the definition of testimony. But to bring this back around, if we are judged according to what we know I think these individuals will fare better then the uncommitted who have a testimony of the Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this