Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,288 Excellent

About teddyaware

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants
  • Birthday 09/11/1949

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,885 profile views
  1. There indeed will be a large gathering of Israel to the American Zion. But that does not negate the fact that, as the Book of Mormon plainly testified, the saints of the latter-days will also be spread all over the face of the earth, and for a very good reason — that the the Lord’s commandment to preach the restored gospel to every nation, kingdom,, tongue and people will be fulfilled.
  2. It appears to me that you mistakenly believe the Book of Mormon teaches all Latter-Day Saints are expected to gather to the American promised land, when the fact of the matter is the Book of Mormon testifies that, by divine design, the saints of God of the latter-days will be scattered throughout all the nations of the earth. 12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw. 13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God. (1 Nephi 14)
  3. I guess this is evidence you haven’t read the rest of the Book of Mormon, and that’s the reason why you don’t understand the actual meaning and application of the verse you quoted?
  4. The Fifteen received a revelation from God that it is his will that the custodial children of cohabiting gay or lesbian parents should not normally be placed in an environment where such children will inevitably learn that the parents are living a sinful life that is most seriously out of harmony with the revealed will of God, possibly causing such children to lose respect for their parents.. So in accordance to this revelation, the Fifteen set out to formulate a policy that would minimize the possibility that these children would be placed in such potentially detrimental circumstances.. But the Fifteen felt impressed that they should leave the door open to the possibility that there might be some gay or lesbian custodial parents who might insist, for whatever reasons, ion having their children raised in the Church, thereby deliberately placing them in a potentially psychologically detrimental environment. In in the event of such scenarios, the leaders carefully crafted elements of policy that would minimize the very real possibility that some of these children might grow up to one day bitterly blame the Church for poisoning their innocent minds against their parents. So to prevent this possibility, the original policy was constructed in such a way that the Church could assert that the custodial parents were made fully aware that what they were doing could eventually prove harmful to the parent-child relationship, but in spite of being fully aware of this possibility the parents insisted on having their children raised in the “marriage between man and woman only” environment of the Church. Further, by causing such children to have to wait till young adulthood to decide of their own fully-informed volition whether or not to be baptized, the Church quite reasonably and compassionately could assert that the reason why such children should not be baptized at 8 Is because placing them under a solemn covenant that requiress the acceptance of living prophets and the divinely revealed doctrines of the Church could be reasonably viewed as an overt attempt to covenantally bind the children to the Church and it’s teachings. thereby placing them in a solemn covenantal obligation that stands in opposition to the lifestyles of their own gay or lesbian custodial parents. After prayerfully crafting the 2015 policy that it might fully accord with the Lord’s will and intentions, the leaders.no doubt presented the the finished product to the Lord for his final approval, which he granted. More on the modification of the policy when I return from work.
  5. According to President Nelson, at the very heart of the 2015 policy, and today’s iteration of the same policy, is the revelation from God to the Church leaders that it’s unwise for the children of cohabiting gay or lesbian custodial parents to be placed in a situation where the teachings of the Church could potentially cause the children to turn against the parents for living lives in violation of the law of chastity. The policy was designed to discourage gay or lesbian parents from subjecting children to teachings and beliefs that could deeply confuse them, humiliate them, psychologically damage them and undermine respect for parental authority. And remember, all that would be needed to do great damage to the Church is to have just one such child mature to the point where he or she could bitterly declare on the outlets of the mass media that the Church teachings damaged the parent-child relationship and inflicted upon him irreparable emotional harm. Both the 2015 policy and in today’s version of the policy, except in the case of rare exceptions, were carefully designed to comply with the Lord’s will to not confuse or psychologically damage the custodial children of cohabiting gay or lesbian parents. Both iterations of the policy accomplish the same thing and both are equally acceptable to the Lord. In today’s version of the policy, the Lord in his mercy allowed for a gentler appearing presentation so as to be less offensive to those who are weak in the faith and cannot yet abide strong meat.
  6. It’s going to get much, much worse than this. Ten or twenty years from now you’ll look back on the year 2019 as the calm before the storm.
  7. Reading between the lines, facilitated by having a fairly good idea about how you think (I’ve read many of your posts), I’m fairly sure you’re one who believes the fall of our first parents was a tragic mistake and that if they only hadn’t partaken of the forbidden fruit the human race would be living forever in an earthly paradise closely connected to the glory of heaven. If this presumption is a correct one, I have five easy to answer questions for you: 1) Do you believe God knows all things from the beginning? 2) If your answer to question one is in the affirmative, do you believe God knew Adam and Eve were going to fall before he created them? 3) If your answer to question two is in the affirmative, why would a perfect God go ahead and proceed to create Adam and Eve when he knew beforehand the horrific tragedy that inevitably awaited them? 4) If Adam and Eve had not fallen, do you believe you would have ever existed in some form?
  8. So then, it appears you actually do believe in some form of demon possession.
  9. Do you believe, as the scriptures abundantly teach, that Satan, and the fallen one-third spirit host of heaven who were cast out of with him, have the power to tempt and negatively influence the embodied sons and daughters of God who dwell on the earth?
  10. Another major difference between we mortal men and ‘the man Jesus Christ’ is that, unlike us, he possessed the fullness of the Spirit, power and glory of God,. For by virtue of being the sinless only begotten Son of the Father in the flesh, he was endowed with the Spirit of truth and holiness without measure. In Doctrine and Covenants 93, John the Baptist testifies of these eternal verities: 15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son. 16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father; 17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him. (Doctrine and Covenants 93)
  11. Taoist poetry about the eternal law of opposition in all things may be beautiful to read, but by the very nature of Taoism such writings must unavoidably set forth a deficient presentation on the subject of eternal opposition. I make this assertion because there is no Supreme Being in Taoism, but only enlightened individuals who spiritually fall far short of standard of the omniscient God of perfect love, light, justice and mercy who stands in diametric opposition to that most hateful, benighted, unjust and unmerciful being who “rules” in the realm of outer darkness. In Lehi’s paradigm of opposition in all things, there must be a perfect supreme intelligence, the Creator of all things, who stands in everlasting opposition to the perfectly evil devil who tirelessly works to destroy the creation of God. Without these two most indispensable elements that must exist within the framework of opposition in all things, Lehi asserts there could have been no creation because with out a perfectly good and infinitely wise Supreme Being there could have been no perfectly good and supernally wise purpose for the creation. The only thing that makes creation at all possible is the existence of the perfect God of light and love who forever stands in diametric opposition to the perfectly imperfect anti-God we call the devil. Things cannot exist outside of the existence of a perfect being, because only an omniscient and omnipotent intelligence can assure the immutable demands of the laws of justice and mercy will be perfectly administered and perfectly satisfied. There is no other way...
  12. Then, according to the way you see things, God the Father has failed the ‘test’ as well. Only in the case the Father, his moral failure is far greater than the moral failure of Abraham. The evidence of the Father’s egregious ‘failure’ to obey the demands of moral law is attested to by the fact that his perfectly innocent Son repeatedly pleaded with him that he might not be required to be savagely whipped and disfigured within an inch of his life, and then, in a terribly weakened state, submit to the infamously brutal, agonizing and protracted form capital punishment known as crucifixion. And then, as if these unspeakably horrific forms of physical torture weren’t enough, God’s Son was also required to have to endure infinite and eternal spiritual punishment for a staggering multitude of sins that he never committed. By comparison, if Abraham’s sacrifice of his son had not been arrested by the intervention of the angel, the administration of death to Isaac would have been quick, relatively painless, and though difficult to bear, far less spiritually traumatizing So if you are correct in your assessment that Abraham’s willingness to follow through with the sacrifice of Isaac was a great moral failure on his part, then how much greater was God the Father’s moral failure when he didn’t come to the rescue of his Son and remove from him the horrific contents of the bitter cup? But the interesting thing to contemplate is that if, according to your analysis, the Father had come to the rescue and not require his Son to drink to the dregs the bitter cup, there would be no forgiveness of sins, no joy and happiness, no glorious resurrection from the dead, no ascension to the heavenly mansions of the Father, God would cease to be God, and (according to the prophet Lehi) all things would vanish away into nonexistence. Therefore there is no other way for God’s work and glory to continue than to drink that bitter cup. So the Lord found a way to help Abraham to gain a more profound understanding of the infinite price the Father and the Son have to pay in order to save his children and bring them eternal joy.
  13. Why do you think essiential saving ordinances that employ the symbolism of the crucified and dying Christ are so pervasive in the higher sacred rites of the gospel?
  14. Aside from the somewhat oblique references to the crucifixion of Christ found in the Catholic and Protestant ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, what other Church is there that employs essential ordinances of salvation that specificity and repeatedly draw upon the symbolism of the Crucifixion of Christ as do the Latter-Day Saints in the higher ordinances of the gospel, ordinances that are indispensable in order to inherit the fullness of celestial glory?
  15. My claim is absolutely correct. The obvious answer as to why the Latter-Day Saints don’t wear crosses as jewelry and trinkets is because the symbolism is too sacred and appropriately employed only in the higher ordinances of the restored gospel..
  • Create New...