In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

My reaction to that counsel:

 

Of course we are boned! Resurrected bodies of flesh and bone! But we cannot survive spiritually in a celestial world or maintain a celestial mindset (as President Nelson put it) "without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost." Surviving spiritually at a telestial or terrestrial level is possible, and quite comfortable (as Elder Oaks put it), but that is not the aim ("fabulous" as President Nelson put it). I guess a corpse is pretty comfortable too... for worms!

I just love the Halloween Season!

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course we are boned! Resurrected bodies of flesh and bone! But we cannot survive spiritually in a celestial world or maintain a celestial mindset (as President Nelson put it) "without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost." Surviving spiritually at a telestial or terrestrial level is possible, and quite comfortable (as Elder Oaks put it), but that is not the aim ("fabulous" as President Nelson put it). I guess a corpse is pretty comfortable too... for worms!

I just love the Halloween Season!

Do you have any idea how hard it is not to make a joke about God’s most fabulous plan? I am trying really hard here.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

What does he mean by "spiritual survival", do you think? 

I initially interpreted that to mean the common experience of having communion with the Spirit/ to be a spiritually based person and spiritually lead in life. 

Or is he saying something else?  Does he mean sinless, where sin = spiritual death?  In that sense, spiritual survival requires being sinless (an impossibility). 

If he means the latter, then I don't think I would have a problem with that statement.  But I don't know why he would be singling out the last days, or "days to come", as that is probably as true today as it ever has been.  

So, what does he mean by spiritual survival?  If he means the former, then no non-member (and most members) has any spiritual hope in the last days. 

There might be another way to see this:  scientism and secularism and political correctness "killing" other possible spiritual interpretations and understandings of how the world works, and changing what we see as " good" into "evil".

Just one debatable example:  Is the Family Proclamation good or evil?

It is easy to see how popular opinion could take it either way.

Edited October 7, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think this can be looked at in two ways (three ways, but one is s joke):

Those not within earshot get a pass.

Taking the long view, at Judgement Day, which is "in coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost." Those who lack this gift now, Christian or not, will have the opportunity to obtain it eventually.

Taking say, a shorter 10-ish year timeframe and all things being equal, those who enjoy the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost will survive spiritually into the 11th year, and those who do not enjoy it will not, and considering the immediate audience, this applies to members of our Church as well as 100% of the world's population.

We also have to keep in mind that "not surviving" and "surviving" are experienced  by different people to varying degrees.

In the LDS construct, what will be the criteria used by Christ at Judgment day? I assume (?) we are talking about the same experience, a final judgment by Christ to decide every human's ultimate destiny?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

In the LDS construct, what will be the criteria used by Christ at Judgment day? I assume (?) we are talking about the same experience, a final judgment by Christ to decide every human's ultimate destiny?

I do not think a succinct list exists. The following reference provides many criteria, and also allows for a least two meanings of "judge" (the other being "to rule"). I think in the case of Judgement Day, Jesus both (1) confirms our desires and (2) authorizes our entrance into the kingdom He has prepared for us, where we will be happiest/most comfortable. Doing so, He confirms the consequences of the agency He have us long ago to make the decision for condemnation / exaltation / anything in-between, which is a form of delegated judging originating with Him as Judge. Jesus Christ, Judge (churchofjesuschrist.org)

My best summary of the criteria are the elements that make us what we are: our thoughts, words, deeds, desires, etc. and how they match up, through His merits and grace, with His. I'm confident these terms are among the scriptures listed in the link.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

I do not think a succinct list exists.

Agree.

It would be cool if we judge ourselves first, then are " graded" by how close we get to how HE grades us! 

But actually I think we will just naturally float into the place in which we will be most comfortable. 

A little perhaps like high school lunch hour.... 

You kind of end up with the folks like yourself

 

 

 

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

In the LDS construct, what will be the criteria used by Christ at Judgment day? I assume (?) we are talking about the same experience, a final judgment by Christ to decide every human's ultimate destiny?

Weigh the heart. If heavier than a feather interesting things happen.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree.

It would be cool if we judge ourselves first, then are " graded" by how close we get to how HE grades us! 

But actually I think we will just naturally float into the place in which we will be most comfortable. 

A little perhaps like high school lunch hour.... 

You kind of end up with the folks like yourself

So you choose to laugh with the sinners or cry with the saints?

[california boy]

On 10/5/2023 at 8:52 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

The growing numbers of people unable or unwilling to do things like define "woman", or say "drag shows don't belong in middle school" out loud.  And the continuing polarization of our culture around such increasingly divisive issues with consequences that grow increasingly severe.  One of the consequences being that nobody knows what truth is anymore.  So you go to church and try to get some spiritual confirmation that truth is actually something that exists, as opposed to a method of controlling historically marginalized peoples by the colonizer patriarchy.   

(You laugh, but I hang around with people who think and speak in these terms.)

It is interesting to me that a civil war can pit brother against brother is not as sure of sign of evil than a drag show.  An entire world at war multiple times is not as sure of sign of evil as a drag show.  A nation torn apart with opposing political views to the point where families no longer are able to have a meal together is not as sure of sign of evil than a drag show.  Human trafficking and children sold into bondage is not as sure of sign as a drag show.  

Wow.  If we could just get rid of all the LGBTQ people in the world, this earth, this nation would be a paradise.  

And then some wonder why companies don't want to hire BYU students.  Must be another sign of the evils of the last days.  

But hey don't listen to me.  I am not an apostle, prophet or whoever else Elder Nelson wants you to only listen to.  

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

It is interesting to me that a civil war can pit brother against brother is not as sure of sign of evil than a drag show.  An entire world at war multiple times is not as sure of sign of evil as a drag show.  A nation torn apart with opposing political views to the point where families no longer are able to have a meal together is not as sure of sign of evil than a drag show.  Human trafficking and children sold into bondage is not as sure of sign as a drag show.  

Wow.  If we could just get rid of all the LGBTQ people in the world, this earth, this nation would be a paradise.  

And then some wonder why companies don't want to hire BYU students.  Must be another sign of the evils of the last days.  

But hey don't listen to me.  I am not an apostle, prophet or whoever else Elder Nelson wants you to only listen to.  

If you post, “kids being present at drag shows is of little societal benefit”

I will post, “I really don’t care if drag shows are a thing, knock yourself out”

[Navidad]

Judgment Day and where we will be happiest - I appreciate those of you who have responded to my question and I accept and receive your answer. There are just two apriori assumptions in your answers that I can't get my head around 🙃! I don't provide this in a context of argumentation. It wouldn't be right to ask a question and then berate the answers.

The assumption behind your answers is there are Christians who will be happy and content in an eternity without Christ or Heavenly Father, perhaps occasional visits but no more. There also is an assumption in that vision of the future that Christ and the Father will be content in an eternity absent continuing to instruct those who have dedicated their lives to Them in their mortal lives, done their best to live their lives as outlined in the Bible, accepted the atonement as sufficient, and ministered in Their names.

I can't get my head around either of those propositions. I think I can understand a teaching that perhaps those who, in mortality rejected Christ not being crushed by not living with Him for eternity, but not those who spent their lives living the gospel as presented in the Bible, and then being provided a "school with no lunch room" for all of eternity. I can't understand how being devastated by the absence of the practice and presence of the Savior in my future eternity as something with which I will be thrilled?

You each in your responses seem to think I, for example will be thrilled to be with Billy Graham, John R. W. Stott, Brother Lawrence, John of the Cross, and numerous nameless leaders who have taught me (those are my gang), for example - but not with Christ and Heavenly Father. I can't get my head around that. I don't care about being a god (God?), exalted, or living with my family of origin, especially the latter.  I do care deeply about continuing learning and living at the feet of my Savior and learning of His wisdom for eternity in an everlasting life (the place He has been preparing for me) as promised me in John 3:16. My comments are genuine. Thanks.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree.

It would be cool if we judge ourselves first, then are " graded" by how close we get to how HE grades us! 

But actually I think we will just naturally float into the place in which we will be most comfortable. 

A little perhaps like high school lunch hour.... 

You kind of end up with the folks like yourself

 

 

 

Yes, a mutual understanding among each other, but most significantly with our loving Lunchroom Monitor. Prior to resurrection (lunchtime), we can see how the corridor to the lunchline (spirit world) is designed to invite and encourage everyone to choose to sit with Him and "sup" (I love that word!).

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So you choose to laugh with the sinners or cry with the saints?

Ponder with the nerds.

 

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Judgment Day and where we will be happiest - I appreciate those of you who have responded to my question and I accept and receive your answer. There are just two apriori assumptions in your answers that I can't get my head around 🙃! I don't provide this in a context of argumentation. It wouldn't be right to ask a question and then berate the answers.

The assumption behind your answers is there are Christians who will be happy and content in an eternity without Christ or Heavenly Father, perhaps occasional visits but no more. There also is an assumption in that vision of the future that Christ and the Father will be content in an eternity absent continuing to instruct those who have dedicated their lives to Them in their mortal lives, done their best to live their lives as outlined in the Bible, accepted the atonement as sufficient, and ministered in Their names.

I can't get my head around either of those propositions. I think I can understand a teaching that perhaps those who, in mortality rejected Christ not being crushed by not living with Him for eternity, but not those who spent their lives living the gospel as presented in the Bible, and then being provided a "school with no lunch room" for all of eternity. I can't understand how being devastated by the absence of the practice and presence of the Savior in my future eternity as something with which I will be thrilled?

You each in your responses seem to think I, for example will be thrilled to be with Billy Graham, John R. W. Stott, Brother Lawrence, John of the Cross, and numerous nameless leaders who have taught me (those are my gang), for example - but not with Christ and Heavenly Father. I can't get my head around that. I don't care about being a god (God?), exalted, or living with my family of origin, especially the latter.  I do care deeply about continuing learning and living at the feet of my Savior and learning of His wisdom for eternity in an everlasting life (the place He has been preparing for me) as promised me in John 3:16. My comments are genuine. Thanks.

My assumption is that there are children of God who will be mutually happy living with Him (and He with them), and sadly those who will not (nor He with them), no matter whether or how we relate to Him in the current moment. It ain't over.

This frees me from assessing your personal current or future situation before God.

It also frees me from the assumption that Jesus will deny anyone the retention of any degree of genuine happiness we maintain in Him. 

I should add that God feels great sorrow as well as great  happiness, even in Heaven, and being "one" means we are doing so together, in love, which is the greatest gift of all. I think this helps ameliorate the absence of those who chose otherwise, and extends them the "space and grace" to enjoy what they are willing to receive without interference. I think the "fulness of joy" in taking the high road  accommodates and frees us up to share both happiness and sorrow.

Edited October 8, 2023 by CV75

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

It is interesting to me that a civil war can pit brother against brother is not as sure of sign of evil than a drag show.  An entire world at war multiple times is not as sure of sign of evil as a drag show.  A nation torn apart with opposing political views to the point where families no longer are able to have a meal together is not as sure of sign of evil than a drag show.  Human trafficking and children sold into bondage is not as sure of sign as a drag show.  

Wow.  If we could just get rid of all the LGBTQ people in the world, this earth, this nation would be a paradise.  

And then some wonder why companies don't want to hire BYU students.  Must be another sign of the evils of the last days.  

But hey don't listen to me.  I am not an apostle, prophet or whoever else Elder Nelson wants you to only listen to.  

Some people are scared of what they don’t understand and we all know where that can lead. 

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ponder with the nerds.

 

I prefer to laugh AT saints, sinners and nerds!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 10/5/2023 at 10:21 AM, nuclearfuels said:

 “In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost. My beloved brothers and sisters, I plead with you to increase your spiritual capacity to receive revelation.”

- President Nelson

I like this. It holds promise and helps us focus. 

I'm curious about what type of current/future events might make the constant influence of the Holy Ghost necessary to survive spiritually.

- Another plandemic scamdemic pandemic?

- natural disasters?

- War?

- Recession/Depression?

- Something else?

As to your title, this has been true of many dispensations, and peoples, as well as our own. The goal of goals, is to survive Spiritually, as we all die. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

It is interesting to me that a civil war can pit brother against brother is not as sure of sign of evil than a drag show.  An entire world at war multiple times is not as sure of sign of evil as a drag show.  A nation torn apart with opposing political views to the point where families no longer are able to have a meal together is not as sure of sign of evil than a drag show.  Human trafficking and children sold into bondage is not as sure of sign as a drag show.  

Wow.  If we could just get rid of all the LGBTQ people in the world, this earth, this nation would be a paradise.  

Somehow we lost our generational understanding of the harms and negative consequences of kiddos being exposed to sexually explicit stuff early.  Not sure how old @california boy is, but I'd think that anyone over 35 has either forgotten, or is willfully ignorant.

I wonder if you'd be willing to put your hyper-evolved sense of injustice for a moment, and review some of the body of information humans had assessed about such things before the LGBTQ folks and allies began recent efforts to bring early sexualization to children.

 

Harvard got it: https://hir.harvard.edu/all-about-sex-global-childhood-sexualization-and-education/

Quote

Although research conclusively linking sexual content exposure to harm is limited due to restrictions on conducting experiments with young subjects, there is solid evidence for mental health harm caused by early sexualization.  Laura Vandenbosch of the Leuven School of Mass Communication discovered that boys develop strong expectations of appearance and obligatory social behavior based on perceived expectations of the male sex drive in and out of the bedroom. For girls, the impact is often more severe. Their self-esteem is drastically lowered when they feel validated only by expressing themselves through sexualized means.

 

Psychology Today understood in 2012 that the earlier a child is exposed to sexual content and begins having sex, the likelier they are to engage in high-risk sex.  "66 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls reported wanting to try some of the sexual behaviors they saw in the media (and by high school, many had done so), which increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies." And "according to some studies, early exposure (by age 14) to pornography and other explicit material may increase the risk of a child becoming a victim of sexual violence or acting out sexually against another child."  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/real-healing/201208/overexposed-and-under-prepared-the-effects-early-exposure-sexual-content

 

The National Sexual Violence and Research Center understood (and cited their sources) back in 2013 that early or increased exposure can lead to sexual callousness, negative attitudes toward sexual partners, developing unrealistic sexual values and beliefs, increased rates of females feeling physically inferior, increased normalization of sexual abuse done to them, increased effects of self-objectification that include eating disorders and low self-esteem and depression, and diminished sexual understanding.   A study of sexually abusive children in Australia showed 25% of the participants accessed sexually explicit material from an older sibling or a friend, emphasizing the unawareness of parents. In the same group almost all parents “reported that they doubted their child would access pornography on the Internet.” 
https://www.nsvrc.org/publications/fact-sheets/impact-exposure-sexually-explicit-and-exploitative-materials

 

NIH/NCBI as late as 2020 was publishing research linking adolescent exposure to risky sexual behavior: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7147756/

 

I mean, is there any room here for @california boy to put down his melodramatic strawmanning for a moment, so we could have a reasonable conversation about how to educate children?  Is it possible to reach some sort of reasonable consensus about how it's possible to teach kids about LGBTQ issues in age-appropriate ways, and you can do it without twerking for middle schoolers?

 

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Somehow we lost our generational understanding of the harms and negative consequences of kiddos being exposed to sexually explicit stuff early. 

Are you differentiating in your comments between sexual drag and nonsexual?  Use the two just as Halloween can have horror and non horror costumes, drag can have sexual themes and nonsexual ones.  One storytime drag queen I saw was dressed up like a Victorian lady with the high collar and long sleeves, for example.  Would you have a problem with those types of drag?

Edited October 8, 2023 by Calm

[california boy]

8 hours ago, SteveO said:

If you post, “kids being present at drag shows is of little societal benefit”

I will post, “I really don’t care if drag shows are a thing, knock yourself out”

 

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Somehow we lost our generational understanding of the harms and negative consequences of kiddos being exposed to sexually explicit stuff early.  Not sure how old @california boy is, but I'd think that anyone over 35 has either forgotten, or is willfully ignorant.

I wonder if you'd be willing to put your hyper-evolved sense of injustice for a moment, and review some of the body of information humans had assessed about such things before the LGBTQ folks and allies began recent efforts to bring early sexualization to children.

 

Harvard got it: https://hir.harvard.edu/all-about-sex-global-childhood-sexualization-and-education/

 

Psychology Today understood in 2012 that the earlier a child is exposed to sexual content and begins having sex, the likelier they are to engage in high-risk sex.  "66 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls reported wanting to try some of the sexual behaviors they saw in the media (and by high school, many had done so), which increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies." And "according to some studies, early exposure (by age 14) to pornography and other explicit material may increase the risk of a child becoming a victim of sexual violence or acting out sexually against another child."  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/real-healing/201208/overexposed-and-under-prepared-the-effects-early-exposure-sexual-content

 

The National Sexual Violence and Research Center understood (and cited their sources) back in 2013 that early or increased exposure can lead to sexual callousness, negative attitudes toward sexual partners, developing unrealistic sexual values and beliefs, increased rates of females feeling physically inferior, increased normalization of sexual abuse done to them, increased effects of self-objectification that include eating disorders and low self-esteem and depression, and diminished sexual understanding.   A study of sexually abusive children in Australia showed 25% of the participants accessed sexually explicit material from an older sibling or a friend, emphasizing the unawareness of parents. In the same group almost all parents “reported that they doubted their child would access pornography on the Internet.” 
https://www.nsvrc.org/publications/fact-sheets/impact-exposure-sexually-explicit-and-exploitative-materials

 

NIH/NCBI as late as 2020 was publishing research linking adolescent exposure to risky sexual behavior: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7147756/

 

I mean, is there any room here for @california boy to put down his melodramatic strawmanning for a moment, so we could have a reasonable conversation about how to educate children?  Is it possible to reach some sort of reasonable consensus about how it's possible to teach kids about LGBTQ issues in age-appropriate ways, and you can do it without twerking for middle schoolers?

 

 

The thing is, it is the parents that decide what is safe and ok for their kids.  Many parents believe that a drag queen reading a story is NOT something that is hyper sexual.  Have you even ever been to a drag queen reading a book in the library?  Tell me exactly what is sexual about it?   You are pulling studies about children being exposed to sexual explicit events early in their childhood as being traumatic and I would agree.  But you are making a leap from that to a drag queen reading a book in the library.  What I flnd flawed about your freaking out about this is you think this is explicit sex.  It is not.  It is a costume.  

 

YOU are the one that turned this into some melodramatic event, claiming that the world was going to hell in a hand-basket because some parents are ok with their kids listening to a story read by a drag queen in a library.  It is a library for heavens sakes with the parents right there next to their own kids.  What happens there that makes you so hyper about THIS being the end of the world event?  I am not the one that brought this up, you did,,,Again.  You seem to want to vilify anyone in the LGBTQ community because you think we shouldn't exist in your world.  

Lay out your case.  WHAT is so sexual about a drag queen reading a book to children in the library with their parents right next to them.  Then tell me how THIS is more destructive and evil to the fall of civilization then bombs being dropped on the children and children being taken into slavery that has been happening since the beginning of time and still continues today.

And yes, I am sick and tired of Mormons dumping on everything the LGBTQ community does and blaming them for the world falling apart.  

Edited October 8, 2023 by california boy

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

The thing is, it is the parents that decide what is safe and ok for their kids.  Many parents believe that a drag queen reading a story is NOT something that is hyper sexual.  Have you even ever been to a drag queen reading a book in the library?  Tell me exactly what is sexual about it?   You are pulling studies about children being exposed to sexual explicit events early in their childhood as being traumatic and I would agree.  But you are making a leap from that to a drag queen reading a book in the library.  What I flnd flawed about your freaking out about this is you think this is explicit sex.  It is not.  It is a costume.  

 

YOU are the one that turned this into some melodramatic event, claiming that the world was going to hell in a hand-basket because some parents are ok with their kids listening to a story read by a drag queen in a library.  It is a library for heavens sakes with the parents right there next to their own kids.  What happens there that makes you so hyper about THIS being the end of the world event?  I am not the one that brought this up, you did,,,Again.  You seem to want to vilify anyone in the LGBTQ community because you think we shouldn't exist in your world.  

Lay out your case.  WHAT is so sexual about a drag queen reading a book to children in the library with their parents right next to them.  Then tell me how THIS is more destructive and evil to the fall of civilization then bombs being dropped on the children and children being taken into slavery that has been happening since the beginning of time and still continues today.

I guess drag queens *read* differently than I do.

 

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Are you differentiating in your comments between sexual drag and nonsexual?  Use as Halloween can have horror and non horror costumes, drag can have sexual themes and nonsexual ones.  One storytime drag queen I saw was dressed up like a Victorian lady with the high collar and long sleeves, for example.  Would you have a problem with those types of drag?

Exactly my point.  Thank you.  

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is a costume.  

Do you agree that sexual costumes are a problem?  It would seem you do, but just making sure.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Calm

[california boy]

Just now, Calm said:

Do you agree that sexual costumes are a problem?

I don't think I can do a blanket judgement on all drag queen costumes that are being worn in these library readings.  I think I would have to be there as a parent and make that judgement for what is appropriate for my children.  Could it be a problem?  For me, yes.  Am I willing to condemn every single drag queen reading without seeing what they are wearing?  No.  

Look,  I don't agree with the decisions every parent makes in how they raise their kids.  But I am not going to condemn an entire group of people based on media stories and hyper outrage by people who aren't there at the event.  And I certainly don't think the LGBTQ community should be casts as one of the biggest signs of the evils of the last days.  And we all know this kind of rhetoric is not the first time it has appeared on this board.

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I guess drag queens *read* differently than I do.

 

 

Why are you labeling this as drag queens??  It looks more like cirque du solett.  What I do see is parents in the audience sitting right next to their kids enjoying the performance.  Are we now on a rampage to condemn all circus acts now too because they are now a sure sign of thee end of the world?