Justice

Not sure where you're going with that, Hemi.

I have a hunch you already know the answer to that. :) This is a trivial example, but the principle still applies. Years ago, when I was working at my last job, I had a friend who left the company. I played on the company basketball team with her son and we talked at the games quite a bit. She was older, but we shared many beliefs in common. Me and a few guys went to lunch one day and this lady was there having lunch with our receptionist. On my way out I stopped by the table to say hi, and she asked several questions and we ended up chatting for 3 to 5 minutes. Later that afternoon, there was a meeting in my office. The receptionist walked in and interrupted the meeting and said, "I want you to know what you did today was very rude. I planned a lunch with my friend and you took up some of my time with her. If you want to talk to her schedule your own lunch with her." Then she walked out. I looked at the guys in my office, several were at the restaurant and witnessed what had happened. We were all floored. Later, after my meeting, I went to the front and apologized to the lady for interrupting her lunch. She said, "I don't accept it. It was rude and I can't get that time back." I thought she'd soften up in a few days, so I apologized again near the end of the week. She said, "Apologize all you want, but it won't change anything." I was pretty frustrated. I happen to be talking to my dad that weekend and he suggested I offer to pay for, and have them meet together for, another lunch. I thought it was a good idea. So, Monday morning I offered. She said, "No thank you." It was clear at that point she wanted to harbor ill feelings and there was nothing I could do. Still, I am the type of person that gets literally, physically sick when I know someone has hard feelings toward me for something I did. So, walking in the office was difficult for me because I walked by her every morning. A couple weeks later I started parking in the back and walking the very long way through the back doors. After a week of that I realized how silly it was. So, I prayed. I asked if there was soemthing I haven't tried. The answer was as clear as I have heard in any prayer. The words said that I had done all I could do, and that because I had, He would handle it. The next day at work she was fired. I didn't put it together at first, so my first thought was, "Oh no!" I really do hate to see anyone lose their job. Then peace settled over me almost instantly, and I was told that she would be just fine, and that I could have peace at work now. I found out later that she was fired for something nearly everyone did at work, using the internet for personal stuff. Anyway, I guess you got my point. After you have done everything you can, and show willingness to do whatever you haven't thought of, it's time to turn it over to the Lord.

LOL... I'm at home... and didn't even think about being after a pregnant woman... ... honestly!

MoE, the word utterly in your comments brought back a memory... A new missionary was bearing his testimony a while back and said, "I feel like a cow in tall grass... udderly tickled to be here." Corny, but made for a good laugh.

I've been pondering this topic since it was first posted. You know, Christ said we should forgive our enemies. When I see topics like this, and even some strife that exists in my own family (in-laws), it really makes me think what a sad state of affairs it must be when we have discord and discontent within our own families for more than just a few hours or even days. It really breaks my heart when family members desire to not see each other because of something someone did. Having said that, sometimes people do things to their own familiy members that are simply horrible, demeaning, and evil. In fact, by virtue of being a person's family member makes it seem all the worse, seeing that we should love our family first and foremost. I don't have words to describe how utterly un-Christ like it is to treat members of your own familiy is such a manner. There is someone in my wife's familiy that no one wants anything to do with. Sure, what he did was really bad. But, unforgivable? Here's my take: How prideful do we have to be to think that if we don't fogive that person it actually affects them, or can have some kind of lasting consequence? The truth is, it makes absolutely no difference to that person whether we forgive them or not. It has no bearing on their eternal progression. When we don't fogive another person, family member or not, it is only affecting or damaging our own eternal progression. The kind of forgiveness we should achieve for others is where we kneel down and ask our Heavenly Father to forgive them and apply the Atoning blood of Jesus Christ to the wrongs they have done so that they will not have to be held accountable, or punished, for that is where it really matters. When we achieve that kind of forgiveness, then we have reached the kind of forgiveness that Christ taught in the New Testament. "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."

Heavenly Father chose the Firstborn... that is first of His spirit born children. Jehova was not born into mortality first, Adam was.

Very unfortunate. It should always be about the people, not about procedures and red tape. Frankly, I have a hard time believing that any temple worker would treat anyone in such a manner.

Yep, no problem here at all.

Mailis, I love the quote you have in your signature line. I made a nice print of it and am going to put one of each of my daughter's doors. Thank you. :)

Awesome graph. I'll be using it. There is one other thing I'd like to add that is related, even if found elsewhere... In Alma 32 we read of the seed, and how faith is exercised. Alma gives an acronymn for seed: verse 28: swell, enlarge, enlighten, and delicious. 28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me. Interesting, eh? The swelling enlarges our soul, enlightens our understanding, and becomes delicious. That's how we know it is a good seed. If you plant a seed and the fruit is not delicious, then we can say it is not a good seed.

Let me clarify for those who have a problem with me saying "we make it to heaven by choice." Jesus Christ is the way. There is no other way. The choice we make is whether or not to "beleive" in Him. The problem many have today is they feel they can claim to believe in Him without believing what He says. Yes, He is the Way. He is the Truth. He is the Life. He is the Light. No man goes to the Father but by or through Him. Many do not understand what the scriptures mean by "believe in Him." If you believe in something, He has said you must exercise faith in that thing. We do that by choosing Him every day. We strive to walk His walk and to traverse His path. If you do not choose Him after you claim to believe in Him, then apparently you never believed He was "of God" because the next step is to act. It is consistent; it's just that many people miss it while seeking for the easy road. Josh. 24: 15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Good or evil? It's a choice that is manifest by who we serve.

Peace is the key. Peace is the one thing Satan cannot duplicate. It was instituted before the foundation of the world to be so, and the dove is the sign or symbol of it. It does sound cliche to say "read it" if you don't know if it's true. But, the facts are undisputable. The words within the text tell us that if we desire to know whether or not it's true to read it, then pray to God with sincerity of heart to know if it is true. We are given a remarkable promise if we do: He will manifest the truth of it unto [us] by the power of the Holy Ghost. Manifest is quite different than "proof." He never said He will calm our doubts and fears over the matter. We have to remember what the power of the Holy Ghost is or we will miss the manifestation. The primary way the Holy Ghost works is to help us decide what is true. He does not act for us, or even decide for us. But, He is a guide and comforter. He will not help us decide multiple choice questions. He helps us decide between good and evil. We must break our questions and concerns down to these basic 2 things. Either the Book of Mormon is "good" or it is "evil." There is no other way to approach it. Either it is of God or of Satan. When you read it and believe it is of God, and want to know for sure... ...you are ready to ask. But, if you already feel peace when you read it, there can only be one answer. For, that is how the Spirit works. When the Spirit speaks to us it is to help us "believe in" what is true. When we have a confirmation from God that something is true we feal at ease, or peace, over the matter. The world or Satan desires us to feel no such thing. When we feel that peace, it's not over. We must then act on what we "believe to be true" in order to exercise faith. Only then can we "know" for sure... by doing. It is designed to be that way, because Heavenly Father will not drag any man home to Him. Any man who makes it to His presence will be by his choice. The man can not have chosen Him unless it was by exercising faith, because God does not force a man to decide or act. He helps the man to know good and evil and lets the man choose. He also says "By the power of the Holy Ghost [we] may know the truth of all things." Very remarkable.

Yes, think of the words "set apart" and what it is we are being set apart from, or to. What are some synonymns for "set apart?" Being "called" allows us to legally act in our callings. Think of it like baptism. Being "set apart" gives us direction and power to act in our callings. Think of it like receiving the Holy Ghost.

Yes, much like the term "Mormon" is used today and was originated by non-Mormons as a term of derision. Those who did not believe that Christ was the Messiah coined this phrase to differentiate His followers from the "true faith" as they viewed it. They viewed it as contrary to God's will that people follow Christ, so by calling them Christians they would be calling them a cult, or even occult. If you think of how the terms Christian and Mormon are used today you will see similarities. Thank you for that post.

I love your quote from Benjamin Franklin, Prodigal_Son. My take is that all truth must exist together in harmony. This we know: 1) We are spirit children of Heavenly Parents. 2) The element or material that makes up our spirit bodies (intelligence) has existed forever. Whatever we believe or learn must hinge on those 2 truths. It is in this regard, to understand our "spirtual birth" we can use our physical birth as a pattern, since: Moses 6: 59 That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; I realize this is talking about our spiritual RE-birth, but it is more than interesting that it makes this comparison. There is consistency between a spirit birth and a physical birth. I also believe this applies to our actual coming into conscience, or spirtual birth. 63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me. Again, this scripture is not speaking of how spirits come into existence, but the words make it clear that the physical is patterned after the spiritual. So, if we want to understand the spiritual we can study the physical. Physical birth: 1) We are born of earthly parents (both male and female). 2) The material that makes up our bodies (physical element) has existed forever. Very similar.

What is interesting about this discussion is the actual definitions have been blurred over time. Just because one group of people view themselves as something doesn't make it so. For instance, the Jews, at the time of Christ, claimed to be the "children of God." But, if they reject Christ, how can they be? It's an interesting twist. They claim to be God's children and to be waiting on the Messiah, but when He came, they rejected Him. Much like today, people who claim to follow Christ, claiming to be Christian, have rejected His words in the Book of Mormon. The only real Christians are those who believe all of Christ's words. So, the question isn't, "Are Mormon's Christian?" but, "Are those who don't beleive in Christ's restored Church Christians?" Anyway, that's my take on the Christian thing.

I heard that in Kung Fu Panda, one of my new favorite movies. :)

Yes, Nephi abridged the writings of his father onto the Large Plates. Then, Mormon abridged that onto the Plates of Mormon, the record he was making for his son, Moroni, so that he could bury and preserve the original plates he was commanded to protect. I don't agree or disagree with this. The fact is I don't know what Lehi wrote on. However, I gave a quote by Joseph Smith calling them "the Plates of Lehi." Whether he refered to them as plates for consistency, assumption, or because he knew... I do not know. As I said, it was 116 pages of hand written manuscript, not typed. Length is hardly a conclusive method to determine whether it was dealing with Lehi's own life, or also the life of his fathers, or contemporary prophets. That it "seems" like a lot of pages is hardly conclusive. I am going by what Joseph Smith stated was contained in the 116 pages. Even if it contained more, it doesn't change my theory... unless Lehi wrote of Nephi's future life and teachings. Yes, but only if you use the Book of Lehi from the Large Plates and the Books of Nephi from the Small Plates. We do not know what was written in the Books of Nephi on the Large Plates because we have never seen them. My supposition is that since Nephi made a Book of Lehi on the Large Plates, he did not need to include many, if any at all, of his father's writings in his own books. That's a logical assumption. Of course I could be wrong. Disagree if you wish, but I hardly think your entire disagreement is over that much, because that much is rather pointless. It doesn't, and I never meant to assume it did. I have called it the writings of Lehi, not that it contained only his life story. This is a good point. My only response would be that Mormon included the stories of these people only once. If Lehi also wrote about Nephi, then there would be no need to rewrite those things in Nephi. Whether it was Mormon that did this, or the writers themselves did this, I am not certain. Like in Omni, several authors wrote in the same book, and even said, "I write in the book of my brother." Here's where what is written must prevail over whatever makes sense. You have said you agree Mormon made an entire abridgement, and you have said you think he did not. I'm confused on this point. Mormon said he did, that's enough for me. I have said that Mormon's original abridgement, the one he said he was about to give to his son, was a complete abridgement of Nephite history. I'm not sure what "other" writings you're talking about that might be included in the Book of Lehi. But, I believe Mormon made a complete abridgement of the Large Plates, which included Nephi's abridgement of whatever his father wrote. Mormon said he made a complete abridgement. There's no need for me to doubt or argue that point. Martin Harris lost the book of Lehi. Mormon did not remove the book of Lehi, which he abridged from the Large Plates. If Mormon removed his abridgement of the Book of Lehi, then there would have been nothing for Martin harris to lose. Again, I do not believe Mormon removed the book of Lehi. The Small Plates did not contain a record of Lehi, so he kept it, just as he did Mosiah, Alma, Helaman... all books that were not on the Small Plates. I said Mormon removed what would have been duplicated, which was Nephi up until king Benjamin. Again: If Mormon did not remove his abridgement (from the Plates of Mormon) of Nephi through king Benjamin, we would have BOTH in our current Book of Mormon. We do not have them both, so that means Mormon removed them. The ONLY other possibility is that he did not remove them and Joseph Smith was told not to translate them, since we do not have them. No where in anything Joseph Smith ever said do we find a statement to that effect (to my knowledge).

Also, Checkerboy, the Large Plates do not begin with Nephi... they begin with Lehi. This is where the Book of Lehi that was lost came from. You also said: Obviously Nephi took what his father wrote and recorded the historical parts on the Large plates and the spiritual parts on the Small Plates. This is what I'm trying to say. On the Large Plates, Nephi made a Book of Lehi, which was included in the Plates of Mormon (his abridgement) and was what became the lost 116 pages. But, on the Small Plates (which is what we currently have for Nephi through King Benjamin), Nephi did not make a Book of Lehi, he included some of his father's writings in his own books.

What else we learn from this is that Lehi seems to have had plates of his own. ref: "...plates of Lehi..."

Joseph Smith has stated that the lost 116 pages of manuscript was the Book of Lehi. Where have you heard that it was more than the Book of Lehi? I do agree that the Large Plates is where the Book of Lehi came from. The point I'm trying to make is that (in my opinion) Nephi did not include any of his father's writings in his own writings in the Large Plates, because he included an abridgement of his father's writings as the Book of Lehi. There was no need to include his father's words in his books. But, since there was no Book of Lehi on the Small Plates, Nephi included some of the things of his father in his own books. So, if you have just the Large Plates, there is no duplication. If you have just the Small Plates, there is no duplication. But, if you used his abridgement of the Large Plates for the Book of Lehi, and then used the Small Plates for the Books of Nephi, there would be duplication. This is what allowed us to have Lehi's words. If Mormon had not removed his abridgement from the Large Plates from Nephi through king Benjamin, then Lehi's writings would have been lost to us today when the 116 pages were lost. But, since Mormon removed his abridgement of Nephi through king Benjamin and inserted the Small Plates instead, what was delivered to Joseph Smith duplicated some of Lehi's writings. This was the wise purpose. This is from the preface that was contained in the first edition of the Book of Mormon: “I [Joseph Smith] translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon.” Also in the heading to chapter II of the Book of Commandments of 1833, now section 3 of the Doctrine and Covenants, we read: “after Martin [Harris] had lost the Manuscript of the forepart of the book of Mormon, translated from the book of Lehi, which was abridged by the hand of Mormon. …”

I said he removed the portion of his abridgement that he made that covered the same time period as the Small Plates. Mormon, himself, said he made an abridgement from the Large Plates "down to the reign of king Benjamin." I am not claiming it by interpretation. Mormon said he did. If he did not remove this part of his abridgement when he "inserted" the Small Plates we would have a double record from Nephi down till king Benjamin. I don't see a double record. If there is a double record please point it out to me. I think you should read my posts slowly. I know they're long, but if you read Book of Mormon and Words of Mormon, paying particular attention to the verses I've highlighted, you will see that Mormon says he made an entire abridgement of the Large Plates, which would have to include from Nephi through king Benjamin, and that he was about to deliver it up to his son. If, at that point, he inserted the Small Plates (from Nephi through King Benjamin) it would have doubled the record of Nephi through king Benjamin in the Plates of Mormon for that time period. Since Mormon's abridgement of Nephi through king Benjamin from the Large Plates is not in our current Book of Mormon, he must have removed it. In fact, his words say he "chose" one over the other. I didn't mean for this to be so complicated. I was simply sharing something I learned. The point being: 1) Mormon said he made an abridgement of Nephi through king Benjamin. 2) He said he chose the Small Plates over that part of his abridgement. 3) We only have one record of that time period. The only logical conclusion is that he removed that portion of his abridgement. Maybe someone else who understands what I'm trying to say can expain it to you clearer than I can. Now, had the 116 pages not been lost, we would have some of Lehi's words doubled. But, the wise purpose was the Lord's, knowing it was going to be lost. He had Mormon remove his abridgement of the Large Plates from Nephi through king Benjamin and insert the Small Plates.

I'm going to have to give that some thought. Thank you.

Where absolute truth is concerned, who, what, when, where, why, and how are replaced by the feelings of the Spirit. When man tries to determine truth, he does so by observation and experiment. Unless man discovers everything about a subject his studies will never be able to conclude absolute truth, but only a percentage of certainty. The only sure way for man to know something is true is to have it revealed from the heavens. Our senses can deceive us. Even if we watch something happen we can reach a false conclusion. I don't need to remind you of the many things man once thought were true by observation and experiment that they later learned were not. But, when God reveals something to man, the discussion is over. There is no need to observe or experiment. The hard part is allowing yourself to "know" something when you did not satisfy your curiosity of the particulars by study, observation, and experiment. God even asks you to experiement on His words. We can know that each and everything God has revealed is true... for oursleves. He will tell us if it is true. But, if we don't let Him, or if we don't believe He will and we doubt, then we are again left to ourselves to reach conclusions. We must give up our pride in our own understanding. We must realize that what we know and understand always has a chance of being flawed. We must give way to what is revealed. We must choose God's truth over ours... without seeing. It's called faith, and although a small thing, it is how God teaches us. When we put into practice what we learn from God it is called wisdom. This is how truth and wisdom are related.

And again, after that has sunk in, I will restate the question I asked and answered on this thread. If Mormon did not abridge "down to the reign of King Benjamin," where did we get the Book of Lehi? Are you saying Mormon abridged Lehi, skipped Nephi through Mosiah (King Benjamin's father), then picked up again near the end of King Benjamin's life and went straight to Mosiah, his son, and on through Alma and the rest? Then, later, as he was about to give Moroni that much of the Nephite record in abridgement, he found the Small Plates and said, "Oh, I forgot to abridge this time period, I better put it with the rest so it's a complete history." Very doubtful. Again, it makes far more sense that he completed his abridgement and was about to give it to Moroni, after he wrote a few more words, when he found the Small Plates of Nephi and liked it better than his abridgement. So, he chose to include his last writings with the Small Plates and replace what he made... WoMormon 1: 3... I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi. 4 And the things which are upon these plates pleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ; and my fathers knowing that many of them have been fulfilled; yea, and I also know that as many things as have been prophesied concerning us down to this day have been fulfilled, and as many as go beyond this day must surely come to pass— 5 Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them Why is Words of Mormon placed many hundreds of years ahead in Mormon's record? The Words of Mormon were actually written after the Book of Mormon. Because he chose to end his record on the Small Plates instead of the abridgement he made of the Large Plates, which he inserted in it's proper time sequence, bridging the gap between Lehi and King Benjamin. He tells you why he liked the record on the Small Plates over the abridgement he made, and why he chose it over his abridgement. Again, this must be true since he never included anything from the Large Plates but that he abridged it first. The Small Plates did not have a Book of Lehi, so he left his abridgement of it from the Large Plates, and that is what was lost. Does that help?