Justice

And, what truth does He guide you to? Do you ignore all the prophets and apostles mentioned in the Bible? I suppose it was a different time, but there aren't any now? What if there was one? What if Moses were alive today? Would you follow him or would you keep trying to find the truth yourself? Well, there IS a Moses alive today. There IS a man who God chose to speak for Him to the world, or to all who will listen. Prophets are used to being rejected and not followed. It's happened all throughout history, why should it be different today? All I will ever ask you to do is sincerely pray to know whether or not God speaks to men today, and then read the Book of Mormon and decide for yourself. I would never ask you to take my word for it.

It was my understanding that the Passover meal was a celebration of the blood of the lamb that led to them being passed over by death and set free. I was not aware that there were any Covenants, or renewal of Covenants, during the Passover meal. I thought the Covenants, and renewing of Covenants, were done in the sacrificial offerings. Please correct me if I'm wrong, anyone. This is why I believe the Sacrament, instituted by the Savior as an ordinance whereby we renew promises we make with God, replaced animal sacrifice. From the time of Adam up until Moses, there was no Passover. How did they renew their covenants? I'm not sure the writers in your quotes are speaking in the same specific terms as we are in this thread. They are saying that, just like animal sacrifice (which the Passover was related to) was done away because there was to be no more shedding of blood. The Passover was done away because the shedding of blood was done away, and we needed a better way to remember Christ more specifically, who was the Great and Last Sacrifice. Thus He instituted an ordinance where we can renew covenants. Instead of merely a ritual celebration of the blood of the lamb that caused them to be passed over, Christ turned it into an Ordinance where actual Covenants are renewed... the New and Everlasting Covenant. So, I think we (puf and I) are saying the same thing as those quotes, we were just relating the making and renewing of Covenants, and not just the celebration meal itself. The Sacrament replaces the renewing of Covenants that were found in animal sacrifice as far back as Adam. Since the Sacrament replaces animal sacrifice, the Passover meal in rememberance of the slain lamb's blood over the door could no longer be celebrated, because there was to be no more slaying of lambs. Hence, no place to get the blood from. Does that make sense?

LOL at your avatar image, Dr T. My wife heard of a sign in a doctor's office that read: Unattended children will be give a latte and a free puppy. LOL Sorry, continue...

Yes, I was going to suggest what puf already offered. The Sacrament replaced Animal Sacrifice, not Passover. Passover was instituted when the sacrificial lamb's blood was put on the door frames and they were then passed over by death. The blood of the animal they spilled represented the blood of Christ, and if applied correctly would yield forgiveness. So, the Passover was a way for them to remember the purpose of the blood during the sacrifices they were already performing, which was a symbol of the Savior of the world. The Animal Sacrifice was instituted with Adam, not Moses.

Very interesting. Thank you for sharing. I've never placed exactly why the currency was detailed out in the Book of Mormon. It makes sense.

People always fear what they don't understand. Many of them believe they are doing the right thing, as did Saul before he became Paul. But, I suppose there are some like the Scribes and Pharisees that do it with some understanding that this is the true Church.

San Diego.

I hear General Authorities tell jokes in General Conference all the time, in good taste and in good manner. I would think whether or not you felt comfortable joking around with someone is determined by how well you know them. Something to think about, if indeed President Kimball was overheard telling jokes with Him. I've always believed God has a sense of humor. However, I have too many things to discuss with Him, and don't spend enough time doing it, to spend my time with Him telling jokes that He has no doubt heard already. :)

You beat me to it! This is the great companion scripture to the one in Moses. She should definately include this in her talk.

Joseph Smith said it therefore it's good enough for me. Whether there is good in other churches is an entirely different issue than which version of the Bible they use. To be honest, I am like some who have posted here. I really do believe some things are lost in the newer more modern translations. And, I do see where the changes can lead you to believe the verses actually mean something different. Without the comeplte understanding of having a prophet and all of its implications, it is difficult to understand my view, I guess.

"Better" is the whole dilemma here. Why is one translation better than another? Is it because it makes it easier to understand what was originally meant? If one is seeking to really understand what the Bible is saying he must turn to God for wisdom and enlightenment. If a man does that, does it really matter what translation he uses? Joseph Smith made a translation of the KJV from revelation, not from any understanding of languages he may have had. This is what we must do. We must rely on the spirit to help us understand. There have been many times in my life where I was reading the Bible and all the sudden the words seemed to jump off the page, and though I read those words hundreds of times in the past, they made sense for the first time. This is the spirit of enlightenment. Elder Bednar explained it to me like this: There are Gospel truths that are "caught and not taught." Joseph Smith said it was the best English translation at the time, so the Church used it. The truth can be had from the KJV, because God will reveal amswers to those that diligently seek them. The exact wording doesn't really matter. The problem with using a different translation, which some claim is "better," is what do they mean by better? Something has to be different about it to be "better." Joseph Smith took many of the most confusing parts and re-translated them into English the way they were supposed to be. With the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, we have enough. The problem isn't "Is there a better translation?" but "Do we read and pray about the scriptures often enough?" Because if we do then the KJV is perfectly understandable. But, to change the wording of the Bible because it is "better," you have to ask "What did it change in order to become better?" Were those changes inspiried? Does the new wording get closer to the truth or farther away? The KJV is just fine for anyone who relys on God for their understanding, and we have Joseph Smith's corrected portions as a further help.

Part of the Atonement is that sin and death are defeated. If Christ were not allowed the fulness of everything that pertains to that victory, then where is the victory? Christ's reward is endless and eternal. He is greater than all but the Father. He will sit in His throne in the Celestial Kingdom, being worshipped and praised by all who are there, because it is only by His actions that they are there. Without Him it wouldn't matter if anyone was good or evil. Justice has no claim on Christ because He was sinless and perfect. This is why He was the Only One who could Atone for mankind.

I have simplified charity to a point I can understand it. I used a familiar formula to break it down to simple terms. You are all familiar with this: Belief + Works = Faith Now, there might be more to it, but that is the simplest way to understand faith. I have altered it a bit to understand Charity. Love + Works = Charity I believe the most important things in the Gospel can be understood by adding works or service to them. Humility + Works = Meekness That we take action to love and serve is always the rest of the formula.

Amazing what music can do, good and bad. Thanks for sharing.

One time when I was serving in a certain calling, one of the members of our Ward was disfellowshipped for something he admitted he did. Part of his punishment was that he was not allowed to pay tithing. When I heard the judgment given I was very surprised. After a couple years went by, he was restored to full fellowship. I asked him what the hardest part was of being disfellowshipped. He said not being able to pay tithing. I mean no disrespect to any other church, but I can't help but wonder how many other churches would do such a thing? (rhetorical)

We can't forget about our pre-mortal existence. Prophets have said that those who strived to learn more and grow there have all the adevantage here.

The reason the Bishop sent him to the Stake President is because if there is to be any action against a Melkizedek Priesthood holder, it is the Stake President who presides, not the Bishop. If I were your friend I would take his Stake President at his word concerning his level of repentance. If you follow the direction of a Priesthood holder with keys who presides over you, you are in a unique win/win situation. The only way you can go wrong is to not take his counsel. Because if you do, and it is wrong, he is the one who is wrong, not you. Oops, I didn't see MarginOfError's post. Oh well, in the mouth of two witnesses... :)

I can't speak for others, but the reason I try to explain things with love is because people are more apt to read what I say. 10 years from now no one will remember what you said, but they will always remember how you made them feel.

I was trying to be more diplomatic. :) Maybe it's a fault.

I'm very sorry about mentioning that with no explanation. I forget sometimes that some who don't understand read these forums. We don't talk about it much because it's sacred to us. I think what has been said so far is enough to tell you what it is. However, if you still have specific questions, ask and we'll do our best to answer.

Well, that one commits murder isn't the idea, necessarily. Murder can be forgiven through honest repentance, as you have indicated. It is speaking more of the murder of the innocent, meaning Jesus Christ. It is when you openly crucify Jesus afresh and wish that He and His efforts would fail, and you actively seek to destroy His Church, knowing, like Nehor, that it is true. You become His enemy, and there is no forgiveness for you according to the Law of Justice. It makes no sense to me how someone could do this, but it's clear some will.

I agree more with hordak, not that you are totally wrong Truthseeker. I have read much about this on the Church web site. There is actually quite a bit about this topic by early prophets and others. As hard to believe as it is, it is actually some combination of what you both say. It literally is speaking about the marrying outside of the covenant. Some early Church leaders speculate how these giants, like Goliath's family, were formed. Some say it could indeed be by someone other than mortal men, as their fathers. What is clear is that these others had to have physical bodies, ruling out that they were ticketed to be born on this earth, knowing Christ was the first to be resurrected. Who they may have been is speculation. But, every road leads down "out of the covenant" one way or another. It does raise a lot of questions. I hope no one gets stuck on this and doubts their testimony.

One teaching of Christ's in the New Testament might offer some "light" on this discussion (pardon the pun). Matt. 5: 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Interesting in its implications... and considering Christ's good works... Also, for more interesting reading, go to the Church's site (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and go to the web edition scriptures. Search for "light shine" without quotes. Read the several scriptures that come up. Very interesting.

The short answer is that only marriage through proper authority can yield eternal results. Only one who God authorizes can seal for time and eternity. All other marriages are "till death do you part." When Christ said there is no giving in marriage in heaven He meant it is an earthly ordinance, like all ordinances, and must be done here. It does not mean people will not be married, just that marriages won't take place there. They would have already had to take place here. That's why we perform them by proxy for those who did not have the chance. My best advice for you is to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it. The marriage issue is really a basic part of Church belief. You must know the Book of Mormon is true before you can believe the rest.

I have studied this for many, many years... and the conclusion I have drawn is that the Atonement is infinite and eternal, and as long as you repent, any sin can be forgiven. If there is a sin that is repented of that cannot be covered then it is not infinite and eternal. A prerequisite for committing an unpardonable sin is that it implies it is not repented of. In the case of committing "the" unpardonable sin we can assume the person did not repent of it, whatever you believe the specifics of that sin to be.