1 Nephi 14:10-12 'There are save two churchds only'

[_cosmo junction]

We aren't interested in converting the world. What we are doing is "gathering." We are gathering the flock of the Good Shepherd. HIs sheep know His voice. They hear. They join. Those who aren't His flock and aren't interested in being adopted in don't care.

Since we believe everyone has their agency, that doesn't bother us. By the way, I joined the Church at age 19. Obviosuly since some people leave the Church, staying is a matter of choice for those baptized at 8, even. No one has to be a member who doesn't want to accept the Lord.

Wait, so you're going about "adopting" those who are already children, at least during the pre-existence, however valiant?

When does one become a sheep? Is it during the pre-existence, or in this life? Does a person become a sheep?

What were you before you joined the Church, charity? A sheep? Did you resist at all? Did you question? If you did have doubts, or do now, does that somehow make you not a sheep?

[_Brackite]

My objection to that is that neither Nephi or the angel to whom he talked ever existed.

Thus their words are fictional.

Hi Dr. Shades,

Maybe these two really did exist in a Parallel Universe.

[_barrelomonkeys]

If they don't exist in this universe they wouldn't exist in the parallel either. As far as I know! I thought the idea was that all these choices we make branch off to create whatever - and in the other universes there are we and others taking these different paths. And the paths are limitless. That's the dummy way of understanding it I suppose.

Anyway, I think it's safe to say if there aren't angels here they won't be in the parallel universe either.

Or I could be wrong! :)

[_charity]

1 Ne. 14: 10-12 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.

What is your objection to this?

Hi Charity,
So, which of the 40 or more sects of Mormonism that believes in the Book of Mormon, is the one and true Church of the Lamb of God???

*Sigh*. I wish you would read what I post before you respond.

[_charity]

Wait, so you're going about "adopting" those who are already children, at least during the pre-existence, however valiant?

When does one become a sheep? Is it during the pre-existence, or in this life? Does a person become a sheep?

What were you before you joined the Church, charity? A sheep? Did you resist at all? Did you question? If you did have doubts, or do now, does that somehow make you not a sheep?

I don't know whaty ou are talking about those who are already children.

One becomes a member of the flock when one accepts the Shepherd.

I think much of your sarcastic tone is just plain silly.

What was I before I joined the Church? Well, first I was agnostic. (I was never atheist.) I was not a member of any church. I attended church and seriously studied Catholicism. Next I attended the Methodist church for a while, and studied its doctrine. One of my grandmothers had been Christian Scientist, so I read up on that, but never went to one of the reading rooms. I attended a Friends Church for quite a while. Questioning. Lots of questioning.

Then I went to an LDS church. I was a sophomore in college. I studied the doctrine, through the Book of Mormon and the book "The Articles of Faith" by James E. Talmadge.

I won't say there are never moments of questioning. I am still studying and when I come across something new, I have questions. But I trust the Savior. I think that qualifies me as a member of the flock.

[_cosmo junction]

I don't know whaty ou are talking about those who are already children.

One becomes a member of the flock when one accepts the Shepherd.

I think much of your sarcastic tone is just plain silly.

I wasn't being sarcastic, I am genuinely interested in your thoughts and answers to those questions.

By "those who are already children," I'm referring to the belief that we are all children of Heavenly Father, charity.

Why would we need to be "adopted," as you said above, if we are already children of Heavenly Father?

[_cacheman]

Those who hate, those who enjoy other people's pain (emotional or physical), those who selfishly take their own pleasure at the expense of others, those who molest, those who deny God, I think that is a list of the candidates for the church of the devil.

Hi Charity,

What do you mean by those who deny God?

cacheman

[_charity]

[quote="cosmo junction"]

I wasn't being sarcastic, I am genuinely interested in your thoughts and answers to those questions.

I apologize for ascribing unworthy motives to you.

By "those who are already children," I'm referring to the belief that we are all children of Heavenly Father, charity.

Why would we need to be "adopted," as you said above, if we are already children of Heavenly Father?[

There is more than one definition of children. We are all spirit children, we cement that relationship by following Him. There was a poem my mother read once (no doubt to tell us children how we should behave) about a family where all the children come, one by one, to tell their mother how much they love her. Then they all run out to play to leave the mother to do all the work alone. Only one stays to help. So the poem asks at the end, which of all the children really loved their mother.

There are those who can make a change between their original way of acting and a later repentant one. So those who didn't initially follow the Shepherd can become part of His flock later. I think adopted, not adopted isn't really a very useful term, actually. But there is probaby some kind of distinction. I am not welded to this concept.
/quote]

[_cosmo junction]

I apologize for ascribing unworthy motives to you.

No problem, charity - I forgive you.

There is more than one definition of children. We are all spirit children, we cement that relationship by following Him. There was a poem my mother read once (no doubt to tell us children how we should behave) about a family where all the children come, one by one, to tell their mother how much they love her. Then they all run out to play to leave the mother to do all the work alone. Only one stays to help. So the poem asks at the end, which of all the children really loved their mother.

Charity, do you think the mother loved any of the other children any less than the one who stayed behind to help?

Or, more succinctly, do you think that a man loves his wife or his children only when they are obedient? Or does a father love his children simply because they are his children - even if adopted?

[_charity]

Charity, do you think the mother loved any of the other children any less than the one who stayed behind to help?

Or, more succinctly, do you think that a man loves his wife or his children only when they are obedient? Or does a father love his children simply because they are his children - even if adopted?

No, I think the mother loved all the children the same. I think she was sad that her children didn't all love her the way the little helper did.

The real problem here isn't who God or Jesus loves. It is in the love that goes back to them.

Let's try another homey example.

A mother and three children are walking across a narrow, shallow bridge. The mother tells them to be careful and walk right behind her so they won't fall off the bridge and get all wet and muddy. Two of them decide to disobey and they fall into the water. The third one walks right behind her and makes it across the bridge.

Now, did the mother love the ones who disobeyed and fell any less that the one who obeyed and was safe? No.

But that doesn't mean the other two didn't get their shoes wet. They reaped the consequences of not being obedient. It wasn't the mother's fault. She didn't push them in because they were disobedient. Natural consequences. They are all wet and muddy because they disobeyed.