Jump to content

Freedom

Contributor
  • Posts

    3,480
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Freedom

  1. Bad parents punish, good parents give natural consequences and opportunities to improve, days without end. In some way, if we do not take advantage of the atonement in this life, there will be some sort of consequence before the resurrection. all we know is that the so-called wicked will go to the spirit world where they will be minister to by the so-called righteous. In the end, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. In the end, we will go where we are happy. not everyone will be happy living the lifestyle of the celestial kingdom. What one sees as hell, another sees as heaven. I know I would be very unhappy if I had to become a surgeon or a professional mountain climber. that would be hell to me. If a surgeon or mountain climber were compelled to do my job, they would likewise perceive it to be hell. so those who will not live by gods law will have their options limited but since they are not willing to live the standards of the celestial kingdom (a lifestyle that is required to enjoy its glory) they would be perfectly happy to live without it.
  2. hell is not a place. Hell is a state of being. Being damned means being blocked. Giving is a specific location is a very temporal and mortal perspective. We will choose to damn ourselves. Hell for one is heaven for another. A loving god would never banish a child to 'hell'. Some simply will not want to enjoy the wonders of a celestial existence. The earth will be perfected and will become a source of knowledge, but to suppose the righteous live in houses on a planet the way we exist today and the wicked will live on some black planet galaxies away is small thinking.
  3. I do not believe this passage refers in any way to passing the bread and wine. It does not indicate in anyway how the sacrament got distributed, likely because it did not occur to the author that this mattered. We have imposed passing onto the ordinance but this action was likely never part of the ordinance.
  4. I suspect that this is just one of those polices that has been done for a very long time and the brethren are now pondering and seeking revelation. the first presidency determine how doctrine is interpreted and put into practice, but we need to distinguish between doctrine and how doctrine is applied at any given time. The policy manual currently dictates that only a priesthood holder can prepare and pass the sacrament but policy changes as the brethren are made aware of doctrinal incongruities. I am quite confident that this current interpretation is discussed and taken to God. when God sees fit, he will allow the church to make adjustments.
  5. I think the doctrine is clear. Administering must be done by a priest or elder. Since deacons pass the sacrament, passing is not part of administering the sacrament.
  6. giver to who? the priest gives it to a deacon, a deacon gives it to a woman who then gives it to her child. You are creating doctrines where none exist. The priesthood administers the sacrament. Full stop. deacons do not have the authority to administer the sacrament.
  7. not getting your point. Are you suggesting that 12 men delivered the sacrament to a thousand people? We do not have a priesthood holder 'give it to the people' today. The hand it to the first person on a row and then it is 'given to the people' one by one by children and women.
  8. so have two women counting the cash. On reality, does anybody pay tithing in cash anymore?
  9. so the priest breaks and blesses it and gives it unto the people, such as a 12 year old girl, who passes it around for all to eat and drink. There is nothing in the passage that says it must be a priesthood holder who caries a tray, or for that matter that it must be a priesthood holder who 'should give unto the multitude'.
  10. ya, I suppose you are right. But to be fair, I have been begging to raise the question for some time.
  11. There are a number of patriarchal practices that are slowing fading. A recent example is the requirement for only priesthood holders to be a witness at a baptism. Another practice that I think can go is that one must at least be a deacon to pass the sacrament. I cannot find any doctrinal foundation to this practice other than that it is how the doctrine is currently interpreted. What is rather silly is that, the moment the sacrament tray is handed over someone at the end of a row, it is then passed along by non-priesthood holders. Begs the question, what the doctrinal definition of passing the sacrament? If a women taking the tray is not passing it, then what would we call that? I see many references that say that 'the sacrament is administered by those who hold the necessary priesthood authority" but there is never a scripture reference to accompany statements refering to deacons passing the sacrament. D&C 20:76 states, in reference to the sacrament, 'and the elder or priest shall administer it; and after this manner shall he administer it - he shall kneel with the church and call upon the Father in solemn prayer". To me, the doctrine is that the administering is limited to the ordinance itself. An ordinance that requires the office of at least a priest. I do not see a reason why a 12 year old girl cannot pass the sacrament, just as I see no reason why a women cannot be a ward clerk or executive secretary or, to really show my radical leftwing apostate ways, to witness a baptism or pray in general conference. There is also the matter of preparing and taking down the sacrament. Women get clothing ready for a baptism and even fill the fonts. They prepare a chair and grab the oil for a blessing. Why does one have to be a teacher to prepare and take down the sacrament, other than to create a make work project to give 14 year old boys some sort of purpose in life. I say it is time for these tradition to go away. Lets have the youth work together to more fully participate in sacred ordinances.
  12. In what way was the church made to look foolish? If someone offered you something of great value to you for a price and you said sure but I won't pay for it would you consider yourself a fool if the material turned out to be a forgery?
  13. milk the mormons. Take a drive through any town in Utah and you will see that it is a thriving business. Having said that, nobody is getting rich of of LDS themed books.
  14. well frankly nobody can say all conspiracy theories are false because that would suggest that there never has been a conspiracy. The whole premise of this thread is rather strange.
  15. I am not sure that this is the purpose so much as the means that will allow critical work to be accomplished. But it certainly will be how government is directed. a UN with real teeth.
  16. I think too much is read into this. If may be allowed to be, and whose who wrote it were very cleaver, but it is not scripture. The system of common law established in British law which we enjoy here is also inspired and allowed to be established by God. the US constitution has its values for sure but it is a man made document in the end.
  17. My son made the comment "guess that means no more Sunday school in (the name of the small largely Mormon down he lives in)" with the somewhat joke that if they cannot discuss politics, there will be nothing to talk about. I am conservative, but I despite their anti-science stances. For this I lean towards the more liberal parties. But I an frustrated by the unwillingness of the left to make individuals accountable. As such, three is no single party I agree with. There are values with the right and the left, it just comes down to how close any given party is to my values at any given election. But I ask, where in our doctrine does it state that the U.S. constitution is inspired, or for that matter, any more inspired than any other constitution?
  18. What purpose would the millennium have? 1) temple work 2) repairing the earth 3) introduction of ordinances not yet known 4) recovery and translation of ancient scriptures not yet found 5) completing works of salvation that require a more direct communication between mortals and angels 6) Advancements science and technology to prepare our species for divinity. The school of the prophets becomes the school of the temple worthy scientist 7) advances in forms of government to prepare our species for divinity I can see that as humanity makes great strides in social advancement, Satan will try to make a final effort to prevent us from our next stage of evolution as a species.
  19. I think these words are important to ponder. What is a little season and what does a little season mean to me.
  20. interesting, so the just as the story of Adam and Eve is an archetype for our life, so is the life story of the earth.
  21. This is another level isn't it. Why bind him and then unbind him. What is the meaning of this?
  22. this makes sense. The final battle before the second coming is a battle behind a veil. The final battle and true end of days will be a battle without a veil. Two battles, two bookends. We live in sin whether we can see clearly or not. It is not what we can see and understand, but what is in our heart.
  23. The concept of a 100 years of peace that culminates in more wickedness is one doctrine that I do not quite understand. We have an amazing second coming which would in effect put an end to all temporal social orders and bring in a regime headed by God himself. We know that there are somethings that, in Gods good wisdom, can only be done by mortals. So perhaps we have this proverbial overtime period to get all the temple work and other matters completed. This is a message of hope for those who are not able to do family history because the records have been lost. There will be no death as we know it, and no war. and then it abruptly all goes to hell? Why 1000 years. Perhaps this is a symbolic number that could be 50 years, 200 years or any other timeline that is simply a pure and perfect schedule to get all the needed work done. And why the final battle? What doctrinal value is there in knowing this? Why would it be allowed to happen if the government is lead by God himself? If He can make it all s top at the second coming, why let it happen again? It makes me think of part in The Stand where 'mother' sends the community leaders to Los Vegas to die. they do not change anything, they do not save anybody. If they did not go the same results would have come about. my general perspective is that teachings in the scriptures are indented to be likened unto ourselves. Rather than trying to speculate on what it means for the moon to turn to blood, we should be thinking, what does the blood moon mean to me. If the entire doctrine of the millennium was not mentioned in the scriptures, I do not see it making any difference in the gospel plan because it all occurs after the second coming. Knowing about the final battle also is so far removed from anybody ever that it seems pointless to mention. Unless there is some principle that is being taught that I am missing.
  24. I found the videos well made and entertaining, but I could have done without the snide remarks. Here is hoping the same people who made these videos will remake them with the same degree of entertainment but with added sprinkles of charity. Perhaps a bit challenging to pull off when the material you are addressing will automatically be dissed.
  25. The US constitution is great for America but has no value to anybody else. Each country has its own rules that work just fine without having to turn to america. I accept that the constitution is inspired, but that does not make it perfect, does not make it scripture, and does not make it of use to the rest of the world. The gospel flourishes around the world just fine in countries that have very different constitutions. Some of the pro america silliness is profoundly offensive to non-americans. Quoting scriptures out of context just makes the claims all the more offensive. the gospel did just fine among the Nephites and many other cultures around the world through time.
×
×
  • Create New...