a TEST is coming

[Anddenex]

Subject of OP: I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming, and who will be able to stand?”

The "TEST" is not what I find disturbing, as we already know this life is a "test" (Abraham 3:25), but the test being spoken of centers around this sentiment, "it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy to the people of God." If anything, this bring to my remembrance, "Wolves in sheep's clothing," but I am not sure this is referencing a "wolf" among the sheep. How in the world can we not know a "Saint" from an "enemy" to the people of God?

My first thoughts lean toward the Book of Mormon, and the New Testament (the Gospels). Who were "Saints" and yet were "enemies" to the people of God, or better said maybe, "Who should have been "Saints" rather than "enemies" to the people of God? The pharisees, saducees, and scribes were all "sheep" and look at how they treated the people of God. Look at how they treated their God, for that matter.

I remember listening to a TED talk on Youtube who mentioned the following (she was Mormon), "We only need enough Millenials to grow up in the Church, who then become leaders, who then are able to change the policies and doctrines." This mentality is truly the "enemy's" (the evil one's) philosophy. The philosophies of men mingled with scripture, and obviously a poor understanding of doctrine. I don't even think this individual realizes how this is not the Lord's mind or heart.

I would agree with the thought regarding "love" and its misunderstanding and misuse in our world. This is probably already occurring through social media. I have seen all to often, from Saints, how the Church has failed society -- really? -- OK, sure (false).

Regarding Public Policies and Laws in Relation to Morality

When the proper understanding of rights is understood there really isn't a question as to what the Law protects. The misuse of the term "rights" is why we are enduring what we are right now.

Zion will be a system of Laws, even based on morality, where if people do not want to adhere to they are able to leave. There will be no "SSM" in Zion. So, how people confuse the notion that if we fight against "an assumed right" (which isn't a right to begin with) that we are somehow following Satan -- I don't know.  This is incorrect.

There was a sacrament talk that misunderstood this principle, and the talk assumed that if we don't have all the choices we are following Satan also (or if we inhibit choices we are following Satan's plan). If so, then why did Nephi not teach his posterity of the people in Jerusalem, and their ways? Because they were not of God. What I hear from people is that Nephi was actually following Satan's plan of not giving people options as he should have. He should have taught, he should have made laws to protect the "sin" of Jerusalem, because that is God's way. NO IT IS NOT. Never has been, never will be. If so, the Church would have never moved forward with Prop 8. Why did they? Because they know of the judgements which are to come, and they have given warning.

Zion will be accomplished by righteousness and by laws that keep righteousness, otherwise, there will be nothing in place to protect it. There are Celestial Laws, Terrestrial laws, and Telestial laws. Zion will be a place where Celestial laws (it doesn't matter what personal belief system someone will hold) will be maintained by law.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Anddenex

[laronius]

I think its important to address the difference between agency and rights. Agency is simply the ability to choose for ourselves. This however does not mean we get to do whatever we want (even when it can be argued that it doesn't impact anyone else). For example, the war in heaven was fought over agency. One third of the hosts of heaven wanted to follow Satan's plan. Did they get what they want? No. God essentially said too bad and gave them the royal boot. Why was he able to do this without depriving them of their agency? Because following Satan's plan wasn't an option or a right that God had given them. Everything comes from God and we have no right to demand anything except that which he chooses to give us. Its no different in this world, especially here in the US of A. The Bill of Rights was our inspired forefather's attempt to address exactly what those God-given rights are. So to argue that God (and by extension His Church) does not have any say as to what right's people have just doesn't hold water. IMO.

[The Folk Prophet]

27 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

Children are WHOSE responsibility?  Their parents.

Can children DICTATE to their parents?  Successfully?  No, they cannot.

Can children leave their parents if they don't like it and parents abdicate their responsibility as parents?  There may be, but it's not an automatic thing until children are 18 years old.

Now, to protect children, who UNDER THE LAW have no voice, they are a cause by lawmakers to fight for their protection.  Perhaps it may get too strong, or not... but because UNDER THE LAW children have no voice and limited legal rights compared to legal adults, they need protection.

I have answered according to my limited knowledge of the law.  Is there some moral question you are trying to ask or infer from all this?

Yeah...I better cut to the point. Why are children their parent's responsibility? Why must we protect children. Why shouldn't we murder children indiscriminately? All these whys come down to right and wrong. The point I'm trying to bait you into is that laws are based on morality. We protect people and children and rights and property because it is RIGHT to do so and it would be WRONG not to.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think there is a definite principle in play in the plan of Salvation that literally requires evil. There must, after all, be opposition in all things. Satan is, actually, requisite to the plan. For we must be enticed by one or the other for agency to exist. That principle is true and scriptural.

However, that doesn't have anything to do with the right and wrong of establishing laws for the protection of society. The implication that agency may be remove by establishing laws implies a strong misunderstanding of agency. First, as has been said, a law doesn't literally force. It punishes after the fact. That is not a removal of agency. It is, frankly, the exact same as agency and exactly the same as God's plan. He does not force us, but we will reap the reward for our labors or lack thereof. That is God's plan and what agency is all about. Laws of the land tend to work in the same way (not always, of course). We still have the ability to murder our neighbors. But upon doing so, we reap the legal reward.

Moreover, even if a law, literally, forces (which is rare), it still doesn't remove agency as it relates to our eternal salvation. We still have the absolute ability and authority to choose for ourselves salvation or damnation. The only case where this is untrue is in the cases where we lose accountability due to mental state.

[skippy740]

Evil... or regulation?

Evil is Satan and his plan.

Regulation is government and individuals seeking to gain and preserve power over others.

At times, they are one and the same.  Other times, regulation is to help curb abuses.

It's an individual decision to determine each one, not all of them.

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

Evil... or regulation?

Evil.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.10-11,15?lang=eng&clang=eng#p9

[skippy740]

When the law has become corrupted, it is evil and for the purpose of enslaving mankind under those who have been appointed to be lawmakers and judges over us.

Helaman 5:2-3

2 For as their laws and their governments were established by the ^avoice of the people, and they who ^bchose evil were ^cmore numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ^dripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.

3 Yea, and this was not all; they were a ^astiffnecked people, insomuch that they could not be governed by the law nor justice, save it were to their destruction.

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, skippy740 said:

It used to be.  It used to be that if you were caught committing adultery, it was a crime.  Now, nobody cares.  Police have far more to worry about than if a man cheats on his wife (and vice versa).

People care.  Especially the person getting cheated on.  But, it used to be that governments were theocratic.  Now they're not.  They don't need to be.  The government does not (and should not) be the arbiter of morality, especially not the way it is designed in the US Constitution.

4 hours ago, skippy740 said:

I don't understand how preventing gay marriage is about protection of children.  Either someone is a pedophile, or they are not.  Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with that.  Statistically and demographically speaking, I'm sure there are far more pedophiles that are 'straight' than with same-sex attraction... but pedophilia is also a perversion and a crime, so using the term 'straight' may be quite a stretch.  Gay marriage MAY have more to do with religious liberties - making someone perform a ceremony against their beliefs, etc.  Meaning it could be interpreted as a power-grab to force people to serve their needs.  But to say that it's about protection of children... I don't see it.  Not anymore.  While there are stories of abuse designed to twist and manipulate people to think that the other side is truly evil, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Pedophilia?  What in the world does that have to do with marriage?  PROTECTION OF CHILDREN - That's what MARRIAGE is about.  Why should a government codify marriage?  To protect children .  Why is it illegal to marry your brother?  To protect children.  Why is it illegal to marry at 13?  To protect children.  It used to be that it's not a marriage unless there are children.  Because, outside of children, there is no reason to put yourself in a contractual obligation.  Women, even before suffrage, were under the protection of their fathers and brothers.  They need not get married for protection.  A child born out of wedlock, on the other hand, becomes the sole responsibility of his mother.  

Now, gay marriage is billed as "it doesn't hurt anybody".  Yes, it does.  It hurts children.  Have you ever heard an LGBTQ movement proposing that they not have any rights to children or adoption?  Of course not.  In their minds, a child growing up in a gay household is just as advantaged as any other marital union.  Because, as they say, there are a whole lot of single parents and divorced parents and dysfunctional parents, and abusive parents, etc. etc. etc.  But, we didn't legalize divorce because Johnny and Jane were so excited to plan a marriage so they can divorce.  Whereas, gay people are so excited to plan a gay marriage and put it up as a societal ideal no different than heterosexual marriage in the rearing and caring of children.  

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, plain and simply speaking- you are wrong. Laws are and must be based on moral principles. Laws that are based on secularism erode and destroy freedom, family and society as a whole. Try as men might you cannot divorce morality from what is right and true. All things that are right and true are based off of sound moral principle.

The day you will understand your dangerous position of governance is the day Sharia Law becomes the law of the land.  You are lucky that you live in a democratic country where your system of morality is still the majority.  The way it is going, it won't be for too long.  You can shout on the rooftops as much as you like that your idea of what is moral is right and true.  In a free country, nobody has to believe you.  And they still get a vote.

Edited September 19, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

When the law has become corrupted, it is evil and for the purpose of enslaving mankind under those who have been appointed to be lawmakers and judges over us.

Helaman 5:2-3

2 For as their laws and their governments were established by the ^avoice of the people, and they who ^bchose evil were ^cmore numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ^dripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.

3 Yea, and this was not all; they were a ^astiffnecked people, insomuch that they could not be governed by the law nor justice, save it were to their destruction.

There's something decidedly surreal about having a conversation with someone who's, apparently, discussing something else entirely.

[skippy740]

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Pedophilia?  What in the world does that have to do with marriage?  PROTECTION OF CHILDREN - That's what MARRIAGE is about.  Why should a government codify marriage?  To protect children .  Why is it illegal to marry your brother?  To protect children.  Why is it illegal to marry at 13?  To protect children.  It used to be that it's not a marriage unless there are children.  Because, outside of children, there is no reason to put yourself in a contractual obligation.  Women, even before suffrage, were under the protection of their fathers and brothers.  They need not get married for protection.  A child born out of wedlock, on the other hand, becomes the sole responsibility of his mother.  

Now, gay marriage is billed as "it doesn't hurt anybody".  Yes, it does.  It hurts children.  Have you ever heard an LGBTQ movement proposing that they not have any rights to children or adoption?  Of course not.  In their minds, a child growing up in a gay household is just as advantaged as any other marital union.  Because, as they say, there are a whole lot of single parents and divorced parents and dysfunctional parents, and abusive parents, etc. etc. etc.  But, we didn't legalize divorce because Johnny and Jane were so excited to plan a marriage so they can divorce.  Whereas, gay people are so excited to plan a gay marriage and put it up as a societal ideal no different than heterosexual marriage in the rearing and caring of children.  

Protect children from what?  Compared to what?  How are they protected?  How does gay marriage hurt children?  You are insinuating that gay marriage only wants to exist so that these same-sex unions can exploit children for their own ends.  That's called Pedophilia.  And pedophilia exists in BOTH same-sex couples AND straight couples.

Children are RAISED in families.  They are TAUGHT their parent's values in word and in deed.  They are TAUGHT about the consequences of their decisions.  They are LOVED.

Marriage is a legal contract - strictly speaking in the eyes of the law.  With a legal contract, there are privileges.  Tax benefits, estate planning benefits, medical visitation benefits, social security spousal continuation benefits... many things in a marriage contract have NOTHING to do with children, but in how two people can care for each other and how government SUPPORTS that union.

That was what Prop 8 was about - not having same-sex marriages receive government support via contract with the current rules and laws.

[JohnsonJones]

56 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The day you will understand your dangerous position of governance is the day Sharia Law becomes the law of the land.  You are lucky that you live in a democratic country where your system of morality is still the majority.  The way it is going, it won't be for too long.  You can shout on the rooftops as much as you like that your idea of what is moral is right and true.  In a free country, nobody has to believe you.  And they still get a vote.

I have gone/done research in nations that basically have Sharia Law.  It is harsh on women, but there are some good things in those nations.  Pornography is outlawed.  It is a crime to have pornography (think about what that might do to slow down pornography problems in our nation).  It is a crime to commit adultery and a crime to commit fornication (which has led to some sticky situations with the law for a few people from Europe/West at times in those nations).  I have been astonished at how honest people are (probably because you can have your hand chopped off for stealing).  I lost my wallet in one of those nations once, the police contacted me and told me people had turned in the wallet.  It had ALL the money still in there. (I've lost my wallet in the US before, and never had the money still in it if/when it got returned, even in Utah in Provo and other majority LDS areas)

That doesn't mean there isn't an underworld of crime, but in general, people were a LOT more righteous (ironically I suppose compared to how we think about those nations at times) than we in the US are.  On the otherhand, you may think of it as forced righteousness, as the penalties for committing crimes can be quite harsh.  However, I think even in Biblical and perhaps the Book of Mormon, many of the laws of the land were based on the commandments of the Lord, rather than being more secular like our laws in the US are today.

I prefer living in the freedoms we have, but I don't think Sharia law is necessarily as bad as some make it out to be, at least for one who has Christian values in their general life and how they live...except for one distinct difficulty which is in many of those areas Christian religions are NOT recognized by the government.

 

PS: This does not mean I'm condoning us to live under Sharia Law by any means.  Hopefully no one got that confused.  I prefer the freedoms we have (and I'm positive my wife feels doubly so about that) in our nation.  My point was in some ways, if we view the Book of Mormon as a parallel to our day, that while we as the Nephites grow more wicked, the Lamanites are proving to be more righteous than we.

Edited September 19, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[skippy740]

I'd prefer to work out my own morality with God, rather than with man via Sharia Law.  Sharia Law (who beheads Christians and throws homosexuals off of buildings), and requiring 4 men to be witnesses to a rape or it didn't happen, is taking JiHad and putting it in the hands of man, rather than God.

 

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

There's something decidedly surreal about having a conversation with someone who's, apparently, discussing something else entirely.

The difference in our conversation is this:  You actually TRUST your government to create laws that benefit humanity.  You think it's always to be better.  

I don't.  I question everything, particularly who will benefit, why was this written, why wasn't it a law before, and who could be trying to usurp power because of this or similar laws.  Some times (perhaps many times) it IS good... but I don't trust it blindly until I study them out.

Edited September 19, 2017 by skippy740

[The Folk Prophet]

36 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

 You actually TRUST your government to create laws that benefit humanity. 

42 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

 You think it's always to be better.  

 

[zil]

I hate to break it to you @skippy740, but you're reacting to what you expect to be there rather than observing what is actually there.  Or you are making massive assumptions without sufficient grounds for so doing, and responding to the result of your assumption.  Either way, your side of this debate is not following what the other side actually said.  (My personal assumption is that you've had this conversation so many times that you've stopped listening to the person with whom you're supposed to be conversing.)

[skippy740]

Perhaps, but when someone is asking a LEGAL question, rather than a MORAL question... and is disappointed that they get an answer regarding the LEGAL question... it helps to clarify what you intended.

I'm simply responding to the question as it was asked.  If the question wasn't clear, it wasn't my fault.

There is no accusation or animosity.  Sometimes communication is a game and it's interesting to see where it goes.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, skippy740 said:

I'm simply responding to the question as it was asked. 

What question?

Maybe I'm confused because I assumed at some point that you were responding to a post I made but you were responding to someone else.

[skippy740]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why?

That question.

 

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You're sure doing your very best to avoid answering my question.

And that one.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, skippy740 said:

Protect children from what?  Compared to what?  How are they protected?  How does gay marriage hurt children?

Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

[skippy740]

That is a gospel perspective, not a legal one.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

That question.

 

And that one.

So your answer to my question:

"Why do we 'need' to protect children?"

is:

"You TRUST your trust your government to create laws that benefit humanity."

??

 

That.....makes...............sense.

[skippy740]

You need to bring associative context to these two statements.

"Why do we 'need' to protect children... from same-sex marriage?"  (It really helps when you complete a thought.)  And I had asked compared to what?  Compared to being in an orphanage?  Foster care?  Single parents?  Yes, we have a GOSPEL perspective, but even THAT does not answer the question.

 

"You TRUST your government to create laws that benefit humanity."  That's a statement I made regarding your perspective, not mine regarding laws that are passed today.  I don't trust government to not have some other influence or design behind laws being passed, so I always ask what the purpose is and who can take advantage of it.

[skippy740]

This whole thread has been about "a TEST".  This thread is a good example, so let me summarize this.

The test is this:  How can you adapt to an ever-changing government, who is determined to eliminate gender bias, gender identity, and any form of discrimination or thought in how it governs the laws and lives of its citizens while latter day saints try to live the gospel?

Everything of the past is being challenged, and LEGALLY speaking, there are some things that simply don't make sense OUTSIDE of a gospel or faith perspective.  This is the 1st Bill of Rights - that the Government will not establish a religion and make its citizens conform to a state religion.

What's being tested, is the removal of ANYTHING that is REMOTELY faith-based in government and society to be "fair".  Which means that SOCIETY will not be a confirming influence on faith.  Not anymore.  It becomes more INDIVIDUAL and UNIQUE to each person.

When it's no longer peer-supported or government supported to be a person of faith... will you continue to be... or not?  

Will you count on the Church to teach your children the gospel... or will YOU do it in your homes?

The time has come for members of the church to become STRONGER because the nature of our government will show additional freedoms to those of differing lifestyles in order to not show 'preference' of one lifestyle over another.  Government will not be allowed to use Judeo-Christian motives and beliefs in creating laws.  They must be more objective - and that objectivity has far more freedom than a more controlling government normally allows.

Are you ready for THAT test?

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship?lang=eng

Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. (See 1 Kgs. 18:21.)

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ!

We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.

M. J. Sobran wrote recently:

“The Framers of the Constitution … forbade the Congress to make any law ‘respecting’ the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge ‘the free exercise’ of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it. …

“What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs.” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52, 60–61.)

What *I'm* saying... is that this has already happened.  I'm taking the counsel of the First Presidency and applying it directly to my own life and teaching it to those who are of our faith.  I won't get in the way of someone wanting to live life as they want on their terms... but our PERSONAL morality and direction, and that of our FAMILIES... needs to be inline with what the First Presidency teach for us.

[JoCa]

8 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

You need to bring associative context to these two statements.

"Why do we 'need' to protect children... from same-sex marriage?"  (It really helps when you complete a thought.)  And I had asked compared to what?  Compared to being in an orphanage?  Foster care?  Single parents?

Thus lies the problem.  I say yes, you say no.  If I have your position right, it is better that a child be raised in a homosexual household vs. foster care or an orphanage.  I say no, parents have a critical role in raising the next generation and to stick an innocent child in a bastardized evil family setting where the concept of "family" is perverted is the worse crime. I would say ophanages and adoption agenecies should only place children in stable married male/female homes. And yes there are plenty of them out there.

In addition, plenty of married male/female couples would love to adopt . . .but adoption costs are through the roof.  But I guarantee if you are a homosexual couple there will be no end to the amount of "support" one can get for raising a child in a perverted twisted household.

It is child abuse to purposefully place a child in a homosexual environment.  It is sick, it is twisted, it is evil.  How someone can not be strongly against placing an innocent baby in a home that is 100% contrary to God's laws is beyond me.  To me, it is a sign at just how slick the homosexual movement is at convincing people (including members of the Church), there is no sin in homosexuality.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

You need to bring associative context to these two statements.

"Why do we 'need' to protect children... from same-sex marriage?"  (It really helps when you complete a thought.) 

That is NOT WHAT I'M ASKING. If I meant to ask that I would have.

Yeah.......communication breaks down when you assume someone means something other than the words they've said.

I am asking why, in your opinion, is it important for us (you, me, anyone) to protect a child from anything.

14 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

"You TRUST your government to create laws that benefit humanity."  That's a statement I made regarding your perspective, not mine regarding laws that are passed today. 

Which is really weird because it's a perspective that you've made up for me out of nowhere.

14 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

I don't trust government to not have some other influence or design behind laws being passed, so I always ask what the purpose is and who can take advantage of it.

I feel the same. So why you're telling me I feel differently is baffling.