Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Freedom

  1. On 6/17/2021 at 12:26 AM, Fether said:

    There is some punishment / suffering to be had for those that do not repent though. Is there a place for that or does that just happen?

    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. On 6/11/2021 at 9:19 AM, marineland said:

    Do you believe 3 Nephi 18:5-9 excludes the people in the crowd from passing the bread
    and the wine?

    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. On 6/11/2021 at 8:49 AM, bluebell said:

    Interpreted by whom?  Is that how it is interpreted in the D&C?

    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. On 6/11/2021 at 4:13 PM, JLHPROF said:

    So as far as Deacons and passing sacrament it's definitely policy.  Doctrine is that Deacons can't administer sacrament.  It's not an authority of the office.

    The question is if passing to people is administering. Policy says it's not, but doctrine is less clear.  It's an interpretation of doctrine that allows it.

    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. 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

    They are the best narratives of how the Savior administered the sacrament in person, using ordained priesthood, with the commandment to always do it this way. Projecting current political correctness and seating arrangements on these instructions is not warranted. Bring, break, bless, give. No mention of unordained people participating. 

    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. 5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

    3 Nephi 18

    3 And when the disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat.
    4 And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.
    5 And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name.
    6 And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you.

    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'. 

  8. 13 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

    Actually I choose to believe God would have intervened like he did to prevent his church being destroyed by one person. In the meantime the leaders were made to look a fool. Looked even worse when Oakes  was explaining how all the overwhelming righteousness in the room overpowered Hoffman’s evil which diminished their ability to discern. 

    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? 

  9. On 4/7/2021 at 10:32 AM, MustardSeed said:

    I've complained about this before but since I'm annoyed by my last thread gone wild I'm giving myself a pass.  

    Deseret book to me is an opportunity for people to profit off of The Gospel.  I don't see any way around that argument.  I get that there is demand, and that those who look for those things have a right to have them - but in my opinion its gross that people would be opportunistic and find ways to make money from peoples' faith.  

    I realize I'm the odd man in this point of view but it bother me enough that I'm not insecure about my oddness - I do find that I regularly see a need to yell about something that it seems to be to be so obviously icky and yet so accepted, embraced, encouraged and endorsed. 

    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. 

  10. 5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

    You forgot the most important one - direct political administration by the Savior.

    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. 

  11. 1 minute ago, bluebell said:

    D&C 101: 77, 80 are probably what people refer to the most:

    "According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;.... And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."

    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. 

  12. 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? 


  13. 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. 



  14. 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

    I'm not suggesting, necessarily, that the "binding" of Satan will not, in some sense, be literal.  But we needn't wait for that literal binding if, in fact, that is what will occur.  We can "bind" Satan the same way Christ did, by giving him no heed.  And, while I am full well aware how difficult it is to bind Satan in this mortal, fallen, wicked world, it is not impossible.  You know people who have done it, and so do I.  As to your larger question, how or why in the world would an individual, a group of individuals, or a society go from this (though this first scripture is from earlier in the Book of Mormon narrative):

    And this:

    ... to the total degeneracy, wickedness, and evil that prevails at the close of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon narrative itself provides proof (or evidence, if you like) that such a thing is possible.  The Book of Mormon is a type, a template, and a warning for people who will live on the earth at or near the end of the Millennium and/or at or near the time Satan's "unbinding" will take place.  But you're right: Totally degenerate conditions don't happen over night.

    But despite anything that is left out of the Book of Mormon for the sake of brevity, it didn't happen to the Nephites at the flip of a switch, and it won't happen at or toward the end of the Millennium at the flip of a switch.  We don't know how long the "little season" in which Satan will be loosed will last: A few years?  Dozens of years?  Even longer, perhaps?  Again, we don't know when the "unbinding" will take place or how long, precisely, it will last.  But the Book of Mormon does provide a useful type, template, and warning.

    I think these words are important to ponder. What is a little season and what does a little season mean to me. 

  15. 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

    You have to view the course of the earth like the course of our own life.

    It was born, baptized, endowed, it will receive it's second comforter, and yet die/be changed in a twinkling, and be resurrected to a celestial glory.

    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. 

  16. 6 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

    We are told that Satan will be bound during the millenium  and loosed at the end of it. Some say that Satan is bound because of the righteousness of the people. I think there is more to it. When Satan is free, righteousness rarely lasts more than 200 years. The presence of Christ and the binding of Satan would give people a chance at 1000 years . 

    My question would be , if there needs to be opposition in all things , what sort of opposition will be around during that 1000 years? 

    This is another level isn't it. Why bind him and then unbind him. What is the meaning of this? 

  17. 12 minutes ago, Calm said:

    Final battle is symbolic imo for when all finally choose what kingdom or not they desire to be in.  The battle is likely one of words, emotional pressure being used as the primary weapon, a repeat essentially of what occurred in heaven at the first Council.


    We can sin even in the presence of God, so we need to be ever vigilant about our internal dialogue to ensure we aren’t talking ourselves into nurturing weaknesses rather than strengths. 

    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. 

  18. 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.  

  19. 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...