Justice

Oddly enough, until the Book of Mormon, the world knew very little about seer stones and Urim and Thummim. Within the pages of the Book of Mormon we see different prophets using these items to translate records from languages they couldn't understand. Also, remember the premise behind the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. There was a global apostasy about 400 AD. That means that there were no inspired "seers" on the earth from 400AD until 1820 who *could* translate with a gift from God. This is why we claim we believe the Bible is true as far as it is translated correctly. I'll have to search the Old Testament to see if there is any translating going on. But, for the most part, the Bible is about one tribe of the House of Israel... Judah. It's doubtful that there was much need for translation since their records were passed down from prophet to prophet. One of the groups of people the Book of Mormon speaks about came from the Tower of Babel. The Lord led them away and He did not confound their language. But, the Nephites who discovered their record much later translated it in the same manner Jospeh Smith used. There are many things the Bible does not contain a precedence for, but through modern revalation have been shown to us.

Another way I have studied that yielded great fruit for me is to study and look for the personality traits of the people in the stories. This is where Nephi, son of Lehi, gained a hero status to me. Captain Moroni, Alma, Mormon, Moroni, King Benjamin, and many, many others all grew in my eyes. I found many traits I'd like to add to my own personality.

The reason I use the KJV is because the prophet Joseph Smith rendered a translation of much of it from revelation, much like he did the Book of Mormon. If I see something I don't understand, or puizzling, I can turn to his translation of the KJV and it will help me see what was meant by the original. No other version of the Bible offers this to me. And, because of the JST (Joseph Smith Translation) I can often see where more modern versions have misinterpreted things. I apologize for my poor wording, I often forget non-LDS don't know some of the reasons we do things. I'll try to do better describing instead of making blanket statements.

I honestly didn't see your post before I made mine. Proof when related to heavely things is something I have thought a lot about. Plus, I think you're right. :)

Or, maybe it was physically possible, since they had physical bodies, but they just didn't know how. I never said it wasn't physically possible, but that they couldn't have children... meaning they didn't know how. Before the fall they knew no pain or suffering. After the fall their physical bodies felt pain and suffering, so it would be increased for sure. Besides, I stick with the KJV instead of someone's interpretation of what was meant. It's not clear exactly what kind of pain it's talking about: 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Sorrow can be interpreted as physical pain, and by the words it seems it was part of what was meant. But, I don't believe that was the main point God was making.

This thread appears to be dying down a bit. So, at the end of it, I'd like to state what I have learned while pondering the topic for those newcomers that go right to the end of a thread, like I do sometimes. :) The fact that God *had to* send His Son to suffer and die is indeed proof that God obeys law. If it could have been accomplished any other way, He certainly wouldn't have required His Son to suffer and die. Jesus Christ even petitioned His Father in Heaven and asked if there was another way. The answer came that there was not, because God followed through with His Son's atonement and death. This means God followed the law that required His Son suffer and die.

Oh no, I did not mean you shouldn't study anything. :) Often I even used opposites to learn a more rich and full definition of a word. I would never encourage you to not study Agency or any other principle of the Gospel. I'm just saying I think you have done well in finding synonyms and pulling together what it might mean. By using semantics we can gain a more complete understanding. I have enjoyed the thought and dialog put into this thread, mostly by you. I was just pointing out that when you come full circle, through using synonyms, it's a good sign you have gained understanding. Thank you for a good discussion.

BTW, very good discussion. I'll be keeping my eye on this one.

Well, it's a gift of the spirit for sure. I'd say keep studying and desiring this gift. Those who can read any scripture and seem to apply it to themselves and us today (I have been given this gift as well) first have to learn the scriptures pretty thoroughly. It seems off the wall and spur of the moment on their part, but it's really not. Those ideas entered their heads long ago while reading and pondering. In class the spirit lets them recall feelings and impressions they received long ago, or even last week. In some cases, the inspiration can come in class, but I'd say most of the time they are stating something they learned before the class began. One way I began likening scriptures to me is by learning about how it was being applied to them in their day, the day they spoke it. Once you discover it's original application you discover that today is not very different, and you find it applies nearly the same way today. Then, all you have to do is be wise enough to include yourself in how it applies today. Many people see how scriptures apply to others, but not themselves. :)

Many things man *thinks* he discovers proof on are changed as he learns more. Like the earth is flat. What you're looking for is sufficient evidence, not proof. There are some who saw angels appear to them and still did not believe. I would consider that proof from a physical standpoint. What everyone is saying is that the thngs of God are not discerned by physical means, or by any physical proof. There is sufficient evidence, to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.

Again, I think you are delving into semmantics. Choosing evil = death Choosing good = life Choosing Christ means life, not choosing Christ means death.

Although the word Agency does not appear in the Bible Dictionary (wish it did), I found that the description for War in Heaven used the term and implied a specific meaning. BD War in Heaven This term arises out of Rev. 12: 7 and refers to the conflict that took place in the premortal existence among the spirit children of God. The war was primarily over how and in what manner the plan of salvation would be administered to the forthcoming human family upon the earth. The issues involved such things as agency, how to gain salvation, and who should be the Redeemer. The war broke out because one-third of the spirits refused to accept the appointment of Jesus Christ as the Savior. Such a refusal was a rebellion against the Father’s plan of redemption. It was evident that if given agency, some persons would fall short of complete salvation; Lucifer and his followers wanted salvation to come automatically to all who passed through mortality, without regard to individual preference, agency, or voluntary dedication (see Isa. 14: 12-20; Luke 10: 18; Rev. 12: 4-13; D&C 29: 36-38; Moses 4: 1-4). The spirits who thus rebelled and persisted were thrust out of heaven and cast down to the earth without mortal bodies, “and thus came the devil and his angels” (D&C 29: 37; see also Rev. 12: 9; Abr. 3: 24-28). I told my son that I was going to get the butter out of the refrigerator. He said, "We don't have any butter." I looked and there were sticks of margarin, to which I was referring. I said, "Yes we do, they are right here." He said, "That's not butter, it's margarin." I said, "Well, I know it's not actual butter churned from cow milk, but I was using the term generically." I showed him in the dictionary where butter can mean: Main Entry: but·ter Function: noun 1: a solid emulsion of fat globules, air, and water made by churning milk or cream and used as food 2: a buttery substance: as a: any of various fatty oils remaining nearly solid at ordinary temperatures b: a creamy food spread ; especially : one made of ground roasted nuts <peanut butter> I'm afraid that's all we have here. I think Agency means man's ability to choose for themselves... the VERY thing we gained when Adam partook of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. That it has synonyms or more specific traits, like "moral agency" or "dominion" is what this discussion is about. Agency is man's ability to choose between good and evil. We are the ONLY being on earth with this ability. This is because we are children of God and have a far superior intellect than animals. We can study and analyze our behavior, and change it. Animals cannot. This is why we will be judged and animals will not. Animals obey God because they meet the purpose of their creation each and every day. We have been given Agency which allows us to go against God's will for us. It allows us to act contrary to God's commandments if we choose to.

That's not entirely correct. Satan did not tell her there would be no consequences. Genesis 3: 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Satan told a half-truth about her not dying. She did not die physically, she died spiritually; hence the fall. Adam and Eve were far too intelligent, being taught in the Garden while they walked and talked with God, to believe in an outright lie. Partaking of the fruit gave them the knowledge of good and evil. The fruit was a symbol. The knowledge of good and evil did not come from the fruit, but it came from disobedience. God affirms that "becoming as gods" was not a lie. The reason why God withheld the tree of life from them at that point is described very well in the Book of Mormon. I'll tell you where if you're curious. :) (Might be around Alma 12)

Yes. :)

Just wanted to throw this scripture out: Matther 8: 26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. 27 But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him! Rebuked means he spoke... Mark 4: 39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. 40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith? 41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him? Luke 8: 24 And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased, and there was a calm. 25 And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him. Other times He spoke as well: Mark 1: 27 27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. And, the one I was leading to: Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 3 And God said 6 And God said 9 And God said 11 And God said 14 And God said 20 And God said 24 And God said 26 And God said 29 And God said 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Now, here are the great questions that you need to answer. If God brought everything into existence from nothing, what was He speaking to? If nothing existed prior to God speaking, what was there to obey His voice? Again, the God you believe in who brought everything into existence from nothing is not the God of the Bible... who spoke to elements and they obeyed. Just as Christ showed power over elements when He was here, so His Father has power over elements and used that ability to create the heaven and earth.

Yes. I just wonder what she was deceived about, specifically. I have no doubt her mother instincts were strong, and she desired to fulfill the first commandment. I have theories about what she may have been deceived about. There's every reason to suspect it revolved around child birth, since her punishment was based on it.

No, because they DID fullfil the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. They were told NOT TO eat of the fruit. They made a choice. They were not in direct violation of God's law concerning the first commandment because they did not have the knowledge of HOW. Part of God's judgement is based on your understanding. This is why we believe we are not accountable at birth. They had an eternity to multiply and replenish the earth. As I said, it was a sin of omission, not commission, so they did not break that law. It was Eve's drive to keep the first commandment that led her to partake of the fruit. It was impossible for them to procreate before eating the fruit, but God did not set a time frame in which to obey the commandment. I'm assuming you understand the difference between sins of omission and sins of commission?

Dym, I can show you contradictions the Bible has with itself. That's really not the point. The point is the Bible is the word of God. The point is the Book of Mormon is the word of God. Any and all contradictions are because of man, not God. But, the Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, atoned for the sins of the world, was resurrected, and is the ONLY way to return to God. No contradiction. The only difference is it was written by people who lived in a different place.

I didn't see Maxel's post until after I posted... but, yea, what he said.

Eternal as in infinite in nature, yes. There will never be a sacrifice or suffering as complete as Jesus Christ's. The reason being only Jesus Christ had everything to lose. The suffering of Christ was much more than a whip or nails, or hanging on a cross. It was an internal suffering that caused Him to bleed from every pore. Matthew 26: 36 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. 37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. 38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. 39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I dwill, but as thou wilt. 40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? 41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. 42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. The Bible doesn't do the suffering Christ endured in Gethsemane justice. Doctrine & Covenants 19: 15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. 16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; 17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; 18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink— 19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men. I believe it is Church doctrine that Christ suffered an eternal and infinte suffering, just as Lehi said in the Book of Mormon scripture I quoted.

The first one is kinda tricky. The Book of Mormon is in harmony with the Bible's teachings. But, it'll be harder to show you. Number 2, however, is easy. You just proved there must be opposition in all things. 2 Nephi 2: 15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. God did give them a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth before the Fall, or to continue "life." The problem was they didn't know how to do it. This was the great contadiction, or opposition, to not eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge how to fulfill the first commandment only came by breaking the second commandment. So, the Book of Mormon should add to your understanding of Adam and Eve, in that they could not have children, or keep the first commandment, until they knew how. So, if they did not know how to have children, how could they have had children? Notice it was only forbidden for them to partake of the fruit of the tree of life AFTER they gained the knowledge of good and evil. They had to have time to repent, and to fullfil the first commandment.

And, it was not God's will because He wanted His Son to suffer infinitely... It was His will because that's what law required. It was the ONLY way to save man. If there was another way I'm sure God would have chosen it. And, if God set the rule on what was required He would have chosen something different. It's as plain as day to me.

I'm not sure what to think about the rest of your post, but I'll answer this one. The terms infinite and endless are synonyms to me. If God is to redeem man from infinite or endless punishment, then the suffering or sacrifice that redeem's man must be equally infinite and endless. Alma 34: 10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. • • • 14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. Sadly, I can't quote the Bible here because it's not as clear on this topic. But, even this Book of Mormon quote, whether you believe it or not, should help you understand my view.

I have researched it. gods is different than Gods. But, an infant is fundamentally different than a man. But, both are still men. It appears you are not reading my posts. I already said that we are lost and fallen by our sin. I gave the example of the prodigal son, remember? So many scriptures are misunderstood by man. Gods ways are not mans ways. Too many people have taken it upon themselves to interpret scripture for themselves. I have not done so. What I am sharing with you has been revealed in these latter-days through prophets of God and additional scripture. Either you rely on your own wisdom or give up the pride and rely on God's prophets. So, can you not say that a mother and father create offspring when a child is born? Of course you can. You are binding yourself to an old sectarian notion of what God meant by create. If you continue to ask questions that I have already answered several posts ago, and show signs of not reading or caring what I'm saying, I won't participate in a one-sided discussion. Remember, you are on an LDS site, not the other way around. You should really seek to understand what we believe. You can't do that by ignoring what we say. You aren't even *acting* like you care about what we say. Instead of showing me (us) scriptures with the intent to *prove* to us we are wrong, you should show us a scripture and *ask* how we interpret it. This would at least show some interest in our words. I promise, I have studied all the scriptures (except for the Song of Solomon). I know that I can't post a scripture to prove to you what I believe is right. If it were that easy, everyone in the world would be LDS. So, let's discuss it.

I'll point out where your logic is flawed. You said, Since: God created time for man He existed always Why must that be true? As long as He existed before He created time, which I believe, it does not prove He had to exist forever to create time. God has created time many, many times. For each earth where He sent His children to dwell, He created a space where they can learn good and evil and repent (be glad to quote scriptures for you). God certainly did exist before He created an earth and heaven where we can dwell as mortal outside His immediate presence. I believe this scripture is true. But, because time is only measured to man, it does not prove that God has existed forever. After this earth passes away, and we are all resurrected and immortal, time will have no meaning to us as well. That will not mean that we existed forever. You keep saying that there must be a first cause. But, you haven't answered why? Why is the fact that the race of man has existed forever an impossibility? Show me scriptures that says, "There was nothing but God, then God brought man into existence from nothing." You won't find it. It didn't happen that way. The family of man has always existed. The problem is mortal man cannot comprehend such things without being enlightened by the spirit. God is our Father in Heaven. We are His offspring, just as it says in the Bible. Why would he go through this much trouble for anything other than His children? What will we be when we are perfected and dwell in everlasting burnings with God? Heirs of all that the Father has? What does that make us? Sons! Where was there ever a son that couldn't be like his father? This is going to take some serious pondering and prayer for you to understand.