My modern reflection on the great and spacious building

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/21/2017 at 4:17 PM, sunstoned said:

Who are these boogieman who you consider are contending?  The LDS church is one of hundreds of the Christian sects.  All claim to teach the gospel of Christ. I hope you are not implying that anyone who disagrees with the LDS version is contending against Christ. 

Asked and answered. In an earlier post, I already drew a distinction between disagreeing and contending.

As CV75 astutely pointed out in a prior post, the aggregate of people worldwide who are sworn enemies of the Church of Jesus Christ is substantial enough, that "multitudes" would not be inappropriate in characterizing them.

And as I indicated earlier, those in the world who oppose principles of truth and righteousness must be included with those who contend against the apostles of the Lamb of God, since it is the apostles who are engaged in promoting and fostering those principles.

Finally, as time goes on, I expect that things will only get worse as pertaining to the mounting of worldwide opposition to the apostles as they champion the cause of Christ and His Church.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Who are these boogieman who you consider are contending?  The LDS church is one of hundreds of the Christian sects.  All claim to teach the gospel of Christ. I hope you are not implying that anyone who disagrees with the LDS version is contending against Christ. 

1 Nephi 14 offers some perspective: “And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people. 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. 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.”

His association with apostles is mentioned several times in the preceding chapter (and with John in particular in chapter 14).

In this sense, who do you consider qualify as contending against the church of the Lamb of God, Christ and the Christian sects?

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Finally, as time goes on, I expect that things will only get worse as pertaining the mounting of worldwide opposition to the apostles as they champion the cause of Christ and His Church.

It will be "interesting" to see who supports the rationale for such action, the methods, and why.

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

1 Nephi 14 offers some perspective: “And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people. 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. 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.”

His association with apostles is mentioned several times in the preceding chapter (and with John in particular in chapter 14).

 

 

In this sense, who do you consider qualify as contending against the church of the Lamb of God, Christ and the Christian sects?

Yes. the "two churches only" paradigm is essential in understanding the prophecies of the last days pertaining to those contending against the church of the Lamb. It's a matter of truth vs. error, right vs. wrong. Much of the opposition that emerges these days against the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders has to do not with theological differences but with the Church's firm stand on principles of truth and righteousness, championing the integrity of the traditional family, holding fast for morality,things like that.

 

Edited April 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. the "two churches only" paradigm is essential in understanding the prophecies of the last days pertaining to those contending against the church of the Lamb. It's a matter of truth vs. error, right vs. wrong. Much of the opposition that emerges these days against the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders has to do not with theological differences but with the Church's firm stand on principles of truth and righteousness, championing the integrity of the traditional family, holding fast for morality,things like that.

As with most prophecies, they can involve multiple levels and scales of meaning, but all with the same basic message. One common defense tactic in fighting against the principles of truth and righteousness is to artificially compartmentalize the theological from the ecclesiastical from the secular from the political. Just because people manage to maintain membership in the Church per ecclesiastical policy (and the Church supports them in doing so) does not mean they are not fighting against the Lamb theologically or politically. The same with giving lip service in defending the Christian's right to speak up in the public square. For such individuals, I would like to see what it takes to acknowledge something as contending against the Lamb of God and how it is justifiable; in other words, how they suppose the LDS church is somehow one church on one issue and the other church on another issue and admit to wanting to remain in an organization they perceive as a mixture of the two (James 1:8 comes to mind, "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.").

Elder Christofferson said a few weeks ago: "We trust that especially you of the rising generation, youth and young adults on whom the Lord must rely for the success of His work in future years, will sustain the teachings of the gospel and the standards of the Church in public as well as in private. Do not abandon those who would welcome truth to floundering and failing in ignorance. Do not succumb to false notions of tolerance or to fear—fear of inconvenience, disapproval, or even suffering.” The paragraph before that is very instructive in a practical sense.  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/the-voice-of-warning?lang=eng

Edited April 22, 2017 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In this talk

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng

Elder Dallin H. Oaks seems to apply the definition to the Lord's anointed that I have always understood it to mean: those who have been called of God to lead His people.

Correct.  This has always referred to LDS General Authorities in general, but specifically to the First Presidency and the Twelve.

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

Are you referring to the topic of this article in Meridian, wherein they say:

http://ldsmag.com/article-1-13005/

If the author, Ron McMillan, was overstepping his bounds in publishing that article and I'm breaking decorum by quoting it, I apologize.

But if that is the basis on which you are making your claim, you should probably be very clear that it is your interpretation of the oaths taken in the Temple that criticism of Church leaders is included,  especially since someone who hadn't been through the Temple and didn't know you were paraphrasing might think we actually take such an oath.

I don't think that you or McMillan are breaking decorum, i just don't feel comfortable quoting it in this particular venue. I cannot be responsible for what yokels believe about our oaths.  If they want to know the specific, detailed content of LDS temple rites, they are readily available online.

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

I thought Lavina Fielding Anderson was "unchurched" for "apostasy".  I guess it's implied in the Temple oaths to "not be an apostate", but I'm not sure how that applies here.

And according to Lavina, she was ex'd for publishing an article about abuse in the Church.  If it is your understanding that the Temple Oaths include not talking about "ecclesiastical" abuse in the Church and the leaders who commit it, then they certainly need to make this clearer before people take the oaths.

Quote

The stake president said I was "exed" for apostasy but I didn't really fit the handbook definition. He said it was apostasy because I believed that general authorities had done something wrong.

..............................................

You ignore the actual quote you provided from Dr. Lavina F. Anderson (bolded above), who wrote a long and well-documented article in Dialogue suggesting that the Brethren had engaged in ecclesiastical abuse.  Any male scholar writing such an article would have been ignored.  It was professional reportage, which is her specialty, and we surely do not want scholars and professional reporters to be soft-pedaling factual reportage.  Her excommunication was a huge mistake.  This goes specifically to what you know to be the actual oath we take in the temple, and which Elder Oaks has discussed in detail, whose speech was cited and quoted in detail by Scott.

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

So if that's your example of someone being justifiably ex-communicated because they broke your interpretation of a Temple covenant, then I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to.  If anything, this is a good example of the dangers of people being afraid to talk about what goes on in the Temple because it allows us to perpetrate our own version of what is said and done without anyone being able to contradict you for fear of violating an oath.  There is no way that's a good thing (and it certainly isn't what we agree to not reveal during the actual Temple ceremony).

You take it as no more than my interpretation of that oath, and insist that you have no idea what I am referring to.  Tut, tut, cinepro.

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On this point, I would return to the speech Elder Oaks gave that I cited earlier:

................................................................

Thank you, Scott.  Elder Oaks makes clear that it doesn't even matter whether the negative critique is correct.  In my opinion, this should not include factual reportage by professionals who just happen to be Mormon.  Otherwise, we would be in the odd position of depending solely upon non-Mormon reportage on Mormon GAs.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, the brackets were not necessary for me to understand your meaning in that sentence.

It just seemed to me, at first, that you were saying that only those who have made covenants in the temple are accountable for contending against the apostles of the Lamb and that everyone else gets a pass for doing so. If that's not what you were saying, I'm relieved.

There is a special category of person who sins against greater light and knowledge (D&C 82:3, Alma 9:23), who comes in for special condemnation, and this generally includes those who are endowed.  Others are less obligated simply because they are unaware of the implications, or haven't knowledge enough to be found guilty for their sometimes flippant remarks and murmuring.  This could include the "temple blindness" discussed by Jack Lindsay.

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Asked and answered. In an earlier post, I already drew a distinction between disagreeing and contending.

As CV75 astutely pointed out in a prior post, the aggregate of people worldwide who are sworn enemies of the Church of Jesus Christ is substantial enough, that "multitudes" would not be inappropriate in characterizing them.

And as I indicated earlier, those in the world who oppose principles of truth and righteousness must be included with those who contend against the apostles of the Lamb of God, since it the apostles who are engaged in promoting and fostering those principles.

Finally, as time goes on, I expect that things will only get worse as pertaining to the mounting of worldwide opposition to the apostles as they champion the cause of Christ and His Church.

Sworn enemies? multitudes? Those who who contend?  things will get worse? mounting worldwide opposition?  Dude, the world you live in has to be very scary. Stop, you don't have to do this. Step into the now.  No one is after you.  No one cares what you believe. When pressed, people are going to ask you to justify your beliefs.  That is not percussion.  That is called dialog.  We are living in the most advanced time ever.  Medicine, culture, science.   It is all helping us live better.  No one cares what you believe in as long as you don't push your beliefs on others.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Sworn enemies? multitudes? Those who who contend?  things will get worse? mounting worldwide opposition?  Dude, the world you live in has to be very scary. Stop, you don't have to do this. Step into the now.  No one is after you.  No one cares what you believe. When pressed, people are going to ask you to justify your beliefs.  That is not percussion.  That is called dialog.  We are living in the most advanced time ever.  Medicine, culture, science.   It is all helping us live better.  No one cares what you believe in as long as you don't push your beliefs on others.  

So as long as I keep quiet on right vs. wrong, nobody will bother me. Is that it? No thanks. Sounds like the version of "free speech" that is being practiced on the Berkeley campus right now. And being pushed by the Human Rights Campaign. 

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

1 Nephi 14 offers some perspective: “And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people. 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. 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.”

His association with apostles is mentioned several times in the preceding chapter (and with John in particular in chapter 14).

 

 

In this sense, who do you consider qualify as contending against the church of the Lamb of God, Christ and the Christian sects?

Really?  Step out of your LDS box and think for a minute.  There are not two churches only, there are many.  And guess what, most do much good. Many give to the poor more than LDS church. The Catholic Church puts us to shame in that regard.  But then again so does Bill and Linda Gates. Two private citizens following the teachings of Christ to assist the poor that are setting the example for SLC..  What are we doing?  Building upscale shopping malls, high end condos, and mega bucks real estate deals?  Pretty soon it will come down to putting your money where your mouth is, and I do hope the LDS church lands on the right side of the line.  

Edited April 22, 2017 by sunstoned

[sunstoned]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So as long as I keep quiet on right vs. wrong, nobody will bother me. Is that it? No thanks. Sounds like the version of "free speech" that is being practiced on the Berkeley campus right now. And being pushed by the Human Rights Campaign. 

Those evil Human Right Campaign people. A group to fear?  They are targeting the church with their questions on the church doctrine. You can't claim persuasion when someone calls you on it on your own policies.  It is called a dialog. Explain why small children are not eligible to join the church.  Justify this with the teachings of Christ about small children.  I would love to hear that dialog.  Sorry dude, no one really cares what you or your paper or your church believes.  You.are.not.being.persecuted, neither is the church.  

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. the "two churches only" paradigm is essential in understanding the prophecies of the last days pertaining to those contending against the church of the Lamb. It's a matter of truth vs. error, right vs. wrong. Much of the opposition that emerges these days against the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders has to do not with theological differences but with the Church's firm stand on principles of truth and righteousness, championing the integrity of the traditional family, holding fast for morality,things like that.

 

Like most prophecies, there is always a way to interpret it to make it work.  I doubt this prophecy will ever happen.  There will never be just two churches.  And there is no evidence of any other church fighting against the Mormon church trying to destroy it or persecute it's members.

So as typical of "fulfilling prophecy" someone tries to figure out another fulfillment.  Two churches means good vs evil.  Yeah that is it.  Clear as day.  Now the prophecy will be fulfilled.  As if a conflict between good vs evil is some unique thing in the last days and only in the church will you find good.  All who are not in the church are evil.  Those who believe in good are few in numbers.  Those that are evil are huge.  And of course, throw in the gays and anyone who fights against the traditional family.  Some never tire of that.  That will always whip the masses up.  Of course those that support the civil rights of gays are all on the side of evil.  Anyone else get tired of the portrayal of gay families as being the evil ones?  

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So as long as I keep quiet on right vs. wrong, nobody will bother me. Is that it? No thanks. Sounds like the version of "free speech" that is being practiced on the Berkeley campus right now. And being pushed by the Human Rights Campaign. 

Who ever told you or anyone in the church to keep your mouth shut?  You and the church has been allowed to work as hard as you wanted to take away another's civil rights.  The fact that you and the church get pushback from what many consider to be immoral act is not persecution.  No one has been hauled off to jail for their opinion.  No one has been shot for their opinion.  No one's house has been burnt to the ground.  

Honestly this thread is looking more like a complete lack of prophetic fulfillment rather than a sure sign that we live in the latter days and everyone better get ready.  There will be blood flowing in the streets any minute type rhetoric.  The only thing you got going for you is the church is tiny.  So tiny that statistically it practically doesn't exist.  And you are using that lack of success to convince others to join the church as some kind of proof that those in the church should start sharpening their spears to get ready for all those that oppose exactly what?  This idea that the church whose very founding was fighting traditional marriage is now the only thing that is going to save the world?  Because the church alone is fighting the gays.  The church alone is fighting immorality.  

[SteveO]

On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 1:21 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

At the urging of President Monson in the last general conference, I have begun to re-read the Book of Mormon.

Thus, I have just finished reading again the account of Lehi's vision of the tree of life and Nephi's subsequent viewing of and enlargement upon that vision.

I was struck in particular by the description of the great and spacious building. By way of review, Lehi and Nephi beheld a great and spacious building that stood high in the air. They saw that it was filled with people of all ages, male and female, with fine manner of dress, who were pointing at and mocking those who were partaking of the fruit form the tree of life.

Lehi and Nephi observed further that those who had tasted of the fruit but were then being scoffed at by the inhabitants of the building "fell away into forbidden paths and were lost." Other multitudes were "feeling their way towards that great and spacious building" and "many were drowned in the depths of the fountain, and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads." Those who entered the building joined the scoffers in mocking those who had partaken of the fruit (see 1 Nephi 8:26-32).

In Chapter 11, where Nephi is privileged to behold the same vision, he learns that the great and spacious building represents "the pride of the world." Verses 34-36 (bold emphasis mine for reference):
 

Note that the verses don't say the multitudes gathered in the great and spacious building would be fighting directly against the Lamb of God, but rather, that they would be fighting against "the apostles of the Lamb." That is, the apostles, as Christ's emissaries, would be the ones that would be confronted by those who oppose Christ and His teachings.

In context, the great and spacious building and its inhabitants are prototypical; that is, they represent the pride of the world in all ages, not just the age immediately following the death of the mortal Messiah.

Likewise, "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" in this context are prototypical, representing not just the apostles chosen by the mortal Christ, but men of all ages who have held the apostolic office, including those who live today, and including the First Presidency, each of whom also holds the apostolic office.

Ergo, those who contend against the united word of the apostles of Christ place themselves in the unhappy category of those represented in Lehi's dream as the multitude who inhabit the great and spacious building, the "pride of the world," as it were, who mock and scoff at those who are pressing forward to partake of the fruit of the tree of life.

To bring it down to our day, this applies to whatever the matter at issue might be: marriage redefinition, the handbook policy that surfaced a year ago last November, expenditure of Church funds, the authenticity of the scriptures and other revelations of the Church, the divine calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the commandments of the Lord past and present, etc.

To the extent that I continue posting on this board, I might from time to time share other insights that occur to me as I progress with my reading of the Book of Mormon. I invite others to do so as well as they undertake a reading of the book.

 

Dr. Ravi Zacharias once told the story of the trial of Larry Flint—the notorious pornographer—in a rather conservative, religious Southern State.

When they were doing jury selection, Mr. Flint’s attorney orchestrated a brilliant line of questioning to potential jurors.  He asked if they had ever visited an art museum that had showcased the works of the grand masters.  When they replied that they had, he asked rhetorically, “What is the difference between the nudes in these works of art, and the nudes showcased by my client”?

Dr. Zacharias at the time didn’t know how he would’ve responded, and the jurists also seemed at a loss for words.  He then recalled a particular scene from CS Lewis’ novel, A Pilgrim’s Regress. 

The main character, Christian, is having breakfast on top of a mountain, and the waiter comes to call on him in the form of The Spirit of the Age.   Christian comments on the delicious milk he is having with his breakfast The Spirit of the Age  scoffs, and mockingly rebukes him saying that milk is merely the secretion of a cow—no different from its urine. 

Christian then makes the mistake of commenting on the delicious eggs…

At first, Christian has no response much like Dr. Zacharias.  But then reason found Christian, and he says to The Spirit of the Age, “you lie, for you do not know the difference in what nature has intended for nourishment and what nature has intended for garbage”.

That’s how I view “the pride of the world” as seen by Nephi.

We are presented garbage, and it has been repackaged and marketed as nourishment, as art, as entertainment, as education, as wisdom, and even as science in some cases.

And when followers of Christ reject this garbage, as they should, and identify it for what it is, “the pride of the world” mocks, disparages, and scorns them.  I don’t see them as individuals, but a collective whole: The Spirit of the Age.

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

 

Dr. Ravi Zacharias once told the story of the trial of Larry Flint—the notorious pornographer—in a rather conservative, religious Southern State.

When they were doing jury selection, Mr. Flint’s attorney orchestrated a brilliant line of questioning to potential jurors.  He asked if they had ever visited an art museum that had showcased the works of the grand masters.  When they replied that they had, he asked rhetorically, “What is the difference between the nudes in these works of art, and the nudes showcased by my client”?

Dr. Zacharias at the time didn’t know how he would’ve responded, and the jurists also seemed at a loss for words.  He then recalled a particular scene from CS Lewis’ novel, A Pilgrim’s Regress. 

The main character, Christian, is having breakfast on top of a mountain, and the waiter comes to call on him in the form of The Spirit of the Age.   Christian comments on the delicious milk he is having with his breakfast The Spirit of the Age  scoffs, and mockingly rebukes him saying that milk is merely the secretion of a cow—no different from its urine. 

Christian then makes the mistake of commenting on the delicious eggs…

At first, Christian has no response much like Dr. Zacharias.  But then reason found Christian, and he says to The Spirit of the Age, “you lie, for you do not know the difference in what nature has intended for nourishment and what nature has intended for garbage”.

That’s how I view “the pride of the world” as seen by Nephi.

We are presented garbage, and it has been repackaged and marketed as nourishment, as art, as entertainment, as education, as wisdom, and even as science in some cases.

And when followers of Christ reject this garbage, as they should, and identify it for what it is, “the pride of the world” mocks, disparages, and scorns them.  I don’t see them as individuals, but a collective whole: The Spirit of the Age.

 

So when a vegan chooses to not eat eggs, is he living a higher law or is he rejecting what God clearly ment to nourish man.  

What one sees as an enrichment in their lives another condemns it as garbage   Your story might not be as black and white as you present it

[SteveO]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

So when a vegan chooses to not eat eggs, is he living a higher law or is he rejecting what God clearly ment to nourish man.  

What one sees as an enrichment in their lives another condemns it as garbage   Your story might not be as black and white as you present it

Which is why we have apostles as a voice of warning in our day...

[Ahab]

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

So when a vegan chooses to not eat eggs, is he living a higher law or is he rejecting what God clearly ment to nourish man.

Fruits and veggies are what God told Adam and Eve to eat and while our digestive systems can digest animal flesh and byproducts fruits and veggies are still the best foods for us to eat and what God intended for us from the beginning.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Ahab

[Guest]

On April 20, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

At the urging of President Monson in the last general conference, I have begun to re-read the Book of Mormon.

Thus, I have just finished reading again the account of Lehi's vision of the tree of life and Nephi's subsequent viewing of and enlargement upon that vision.

I was struck in particular by the description of the great and spacious building. By way of review, Lehi and Nephi beheld a great and spacious building that stood high in the air. They saw that it was filled with people of all ages, male and female, with fine manner of dress, who were pointing at and mocking those who were partaking of the fruit form the tree of life.

Lehi and Nephi observed further that those who had tasted of the fruit but were then being scoffed at by the inhabitants of the building "fell away into forbidden paths and were lost." Other multitudes were "feeling their way towards that great and spacious building" and "many were drowned in the depths of the fountain, and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads." Those who entered the building joined the scoffers in mocking those who had partaken of the fruit (see 1 Nephi 8:26-32).

In Chapter 11, where Nephi is privileged to behold the same vision, he learns that the great and spacious building represents "the pride of the world." Verses 34-36 (bold emphasis mine for reference):
 

Note that the verses don't say the multitudes gathered in the great and spacious building would be fighting directly against the Lamb of God, but rather, that they would be fighting against "the apostles of the Lamb." 

Most scripture always has two meanings,

The literal and the Spiritual, or figurative. 

So I will address the literal...

Back in the day when I did inspections, (having served in Atlanta), both mansions and High rises. One thing I noted about High Rise building is that the upper floors we always remodeling, and these upper stories...50 stories and above were usually Law offices. $1,000 to 2,000 an hour law offices, wearing $1,000.00 suits who could not even attempt a kind word. These buildings were certainly "Large and Spacious" and the upper floors would fit, looking as if they were high in the air. The mansions were even worse, as many of their owners would never speak at all...again with few exceptions. We were allowed (as we would often have to crawl under houses) to wear jeans. It was not uncommon to hear a remark, "they let you dress this way to come into homes like ours". The few who would offer coffee...when I decline, and asked why...when I told them I would offended be laughed  to scorn. As for their views of religion of any kind, it was nothing of contempt. It was not because of being Lawyers, nor those in mansions, it was because of their wealth. As far as those who drown in the river trying to get to these lofty towers, and those who made it...the reason they attempted is the desire for riches, and then "mocking and laughing" was to fit in the world. 

Anyway, my take. 

[Paloma]

I remember a conversation that I, a non-LDS Christian had with LDS friends who were on their mission.

When the subject of "the great and spacious building" came up (and who was/would be in that building), we all, after expressing various thoughts, agreed on one guiding truth.  I believe that it was one of the missionaries who introduced it.  "It" being the parable of the sheep and the goats.  

It was so good to agree that judgement belongs to the Lord, and not to us.  And that the core truth and requirement for living eternally with God is based on how we treat Jesus (knowingly or unknowingly), as in Matthew 25: 31-46

³¹ “But when the Son of Man^[a] comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne. ³² All the nations^[b] will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ He will place the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left.

³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. ³⁶ I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’

³⁷ “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing?³⁹ When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

⁴⁰ “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters,^[c] you were doing it to me!’

⁴¹ “Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.^[d] 42 For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. ⁴³ I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’

⁴⁴ “Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’

⁴⁵ “And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’

⁴⁶ “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.”

That was a remarkable day and a beautiful conversation!

 

 

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Most scripture always has two meanings,

The literal and the Spiritual, or figurative. 

So I will address the literal...

Back in the day when I did inspections, (having served in Atlanta), both mansions and High rises. One thing I noted about High Rise building is that the upper floors we always remodeling, and these upper stories...50 stories and above were usually Law offices. $1,000 to 2,000 an hour law offices, wearing $1,000.00 suits who could not even attempt a kind word. These buildings were certainly "Large and Spacious" and the upper floors would fit, looking as if they were high in the air. The mansions were even worse, as many of their owners would never speak at all...again with few exceptions. We were allowed (as we would often have to crawl under houses) to wear jeans. It was not uncommon to hear a remark, "they let you dress this way to come into homes like ours". The few who would offer coffee...when I decline, and asked why...when I told them I would offended be laughed  to scorn. As for their views of religion of any kind, it was nothing of contempt. It was not because of being Lawyers, nor those in mansions, it was because of their wealth. As far as those who drown in the river trying to get to these lofty towers, and those who made it...the reason they attempted is the desire for riches, and then "mocking and laughing" was to fit in the world. 

Anyway, my take. 

How would you literally address the church office building?  Certainly not everyone on upper floors are mockers. 

This dream is not really working out very good. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

Which is why we have apostles as a voice of warning in our day...

Seriously?  You need apostles to warn about eggs?

Or are you just avoiding my question 

[CV75]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Really?  Step out of your LDS box and think for a minute.  There are not two churches only, there are many.  And guess what, most do much good. Many give to the poor more than LDS church. The Catholic Church puts us to shame in that regard.  But then again so does Bill and Linda Gates. Two private citizens following the teachings of Christ to assist the poor that are setting the example for SLC..  What are we doing?  Building upscale shopping malls, high end condos, and mega bucks real estate deals?  Pretty soon it will come down to putting your money where your mouth is, and I do hope the LDS church lands on the right side of the line.  

By prefacing my question to you with “In this sense…” I acknowledged your way (and other ways) of looking at it, but I was asking you to look at it in a way that is outside of your little box.  But your escalated emotionalism betrays your inability to do that. So try again; think for a minute.; don't rant.

Of course there are many churches (i.e. assembly, congregation, organizations of any kind and not necessarily religious; I think you need to get out more), and they can be separated into the two camps. Some do good, and some don’t. So much for your rant!

Now getting back to your comment, where you brought it up, and my reply to it (as you asked of Scott, I’m asking of you): who do you consider qualify as contending against the church of the Lamb of God (organizations that do good; my term), Christ and the Christian sects (your terms)?

[SteveO]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Seriously?  You need apostles to warn about eggs?

Or are you just avoiding my question 

Were you literally talking about eggs?  My post was not about eggs, milk, or anything to do with eating...you missed the point I guess

Edited April 22, 2017 by SteveO

[california boy]

44 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Were you literally talking about eggs?  My post was not about eggs, milk, or anything to do with eating...you missed the point I guess

I actually  think you missed the point.  Things are not all black and white.  Do you need an apostle to tell you how to think about every single issue?  Do apostles do all the thinking for you?  Of course not.  Yet, that is the answer you gave to my question.  

So let't get off the eggs.  Do you think that decisions people make may be as varied as the questions they deal with?  Would one person's yes on an issue be another person's no on that same issue?  Is an answer from an apostle the answer for everyone on every issue?  Can the Spirit tell one person that something is the best route to take and another person the exact opposite?  

Life is not black or white.  Despite Lloyds wanting to portray the world into two groups.  Several have asked, who are the people in the large and spacious building.  Do you have an answer to that question?  Really what I would like to discuss is what this dream is about.  Who are included in the good group.  And who are included in the bad group.  Where do the majority of people in the world fit in this dream? 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

How would you literally address the church office building?  Certainly not everyone on upper floors are mockers. 

This dream is not really working out very good. 

The depiction is of the wicked doing so, and living in Atlanta, no one could mistake the Church office building as a High Rise, nor any other SLC building. Also the men who occupy that building, are good and righteous men and women. Also, they are all believers and would not brave the river risking death to mock others. The dream is working out fine, it seems to me you are mocking them for not seeing the way things as you do. I have come to expect better from your posts, I am sorry to read your comment. More and more, I am seeing that, you and others who are Gay, want us to see your side of issues that matter to you, and will never understand our views. This saddens me.