Justice

If we can, we would do something that thousands have failed to do. It's too bad the Book of Mormon cannot be used as evidence. Mosiah 5: 13 For how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart? You cannot know someone, or be converted to someone, if you have not walked his path and served him. Conversion does not come from complete darkness. One is converted by degrees; line upon line. If one does not serve Christ, or do His good works from smaller to greater, conversion, or knowledge of your salvation, cannot come. It doesn't happen overnight from complete ignorance to complete knowledge. Some work MUST take place before you are truly converted.

It is by putting the Laws of Christ into practice that we become converted to Him and His Gospel. Putting those laws into practice in our lives IS "good works." If one does not practice good works (exercise faith) he can never hope to be converted. If one does not practice good works (exercise faith) after he is converted, he cannot hope to remain converted.

With even a cursory reading of Matthew 25 it should be obvious to all Christians that works are part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you remove works from the Gospel, the Gospel cannot function as intended, it becomes dead, and grace cannot be bestowed upon man. The New Testament is full of verses about doing good to others and looking after each other. The confusion comes in as the early Apostles try to teach early Christians that the works of the Law of Moses are not required as part of the Law of Christ. If only that one point were understood when reading the New Testament it would dramatically change how people viewed what Christ requires of us. So, PC, it's not like we need to find a middle ground. Every Christian needs to be anxiously engaged in being a Christian, instead of debating about whether or not we should be following Christ by doing what He did (good works). He compared our good works to a light: Matthew 5: 14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. There's no discussion about if; it's just assumed in the verse that good works are present in the life of the believer. D&C 58: 27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; We have never claimed our works somehow earn us even part of the way to heaven. But, without good works, we can't claim to love God or be Christian. Here is the popular claim: John 14: 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. And worded differently: Luke 6: 46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? There are many, many more: 1 John 5: 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. Frankly, with all that's in the New Testament about this subject, even including the confusion of the works of the Law of Moses being done away, I honestly wonder how this can even be debated. Any man or woman claiming to be Christian must also claim in their heart that they desire to keep His commandments. It just doesn't make sense any other way. That's what it means to take His name upon us; that's what is required in order to have the Spirit with us. How can one grow closer to God if he refuses to keep His commandments?

I agree. I have developed a new admiration for Ammon in the last couple of years, as I study more in depth. We all recognize the great words written about Captain Moroni and are amazed at how wonderful a man he must have been. It seems we miss the comparison made to Ammon: Alma 48: 17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men. 18 Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon, the son of Mosiah...

Eve was unable to have children because she was "innocent." Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Then... Genesis 3: 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: My first question would be who is "us" above, since it would require both male and female? Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil changed them. Transgressing God's law removed their innocence. Genesis 3: 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? Why didn't they know they were naked before? I think it's a bit odd to think that Heavenly Parents can't have children, when that's one of the main teachings of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the reward given to those who are exalted. I would seriously study and pray about this. It's seems very odd that Adam and Eve gained this ability in the Garden but it will be lost in the resurrection. I very much disagree. I think having children is the main thing that will separate those in the Celestial Kingdom from those in any other kingdom. It will even differentiate those in a lesser glory in the Celestial Kingdom from those in the greatest degree. That is why being married is a requirement before being exalted. If parents can simply adopt children, then it seems there would be no need for the requirement.

Mormon 6 offers a touching story of the end of the Nephites. As they all stood there on the hill, watching the Lamanite army coming upon them, they all knew they would die. Yet, it was more important to them that they not deny Christ, even though it meant they could live in the flesh longer.

There are some awesome stories about being a soldier and freedom in the latter chapters of Alma. Captain Moroni is a type or symbol of Christ, and the Book of Mormon begins telling his story in chapter 43. I'd suggest spending some time today reading Alma 43 to 63 (yes 20 chapters) and keying in on Captain Moroni and how important freedom was to him. Alma 48 offers this as a tribute to him: 10 And thus he was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians. 11 And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery; 12 Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people. 13 Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood. continuing... 17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men. 18 Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon, the son of Mosiah, yea, and even the other sons of Mosiah, yea, and also Alma and his sons, for they were all men of God. My opinion is that people don't use scriptures enough while speaking.

Yes, this is an awesome display of faith. If you go back a little, where he first meets Ammon, and he is pleading for his life (after Ammon whips him at swordplay) he says he will give up half his kingdom if Ammon would spare his life. Then, as you see in this encounter with Aaron, he is willing to give up his entire kingdom to know God, and a couple verses later he says he's also willing to give up all his sins. It's obvious his encounter with Ammon had a profound impact on him. And, as he pondered over it, until Aaron came to him, it continued to work in him. One person can make a difference. Ammon made a HUGE difference among the Lamanites.

This is a big assumption. This is the idea that is leading you down the wrong path. The physical properties of the fruit had nothing to do with Adam and Eve falling to a motral state. All men fall because of disobedience, not because of what they eat. The Savior said that what comes out of a man's mouth is what defiles him, not what goes in. What we say and do is what makes us live or die in God's eyes. If it was the properties of the fruit that made them fall then God could have accomplished it without the need for Adam to choose it. Also, if that were the case, that meant that all living things would have needed to partake of the fruit because all life fell. I think you should consider that it was the choice they made that caused them to fall. Choosing to separate themselves from the Giver of Life is what caused them to die.

I so agree.

I think your first 2 are pretty universal and would be good topics of study for anyone. Number 2 should include the creation and fall, because the atonement takes on a richer meaning when studied along with the creation and fall, and can be understood better. The rest of the list will change as you study.

As far as Joseph Smith ordering the printing press to be destroyed, many thoughts come to mind. The printing press was being used to print lies and promote a sense of hate and contention against church members. Had there been any "real" legal course of action I'm sure he would have pursued it. Did destroying the press cause more harm than had they let it go on printing lies? Your guess is as good as mine. But, it was done in retaliation, or in answer to, things that were done, and being done, to members of the church where legal redress was not working. When a government fails to fairly address concerns and disputes brought before them in good faith, when it is their responsibility to do so, then they should expect citizens to take the law into their own hands. It becomes their only means of protection. I can't even imagine what Joseph Smith would think of what our government has become.

The Church is against homosexual BEHAVIOR. They have said that the tendancies toward same sex attration is a greater challenge for some. They recognize the tendancy toward attraction as something people are born with, and therefore view it is a trial or temptation. We must be clear when we say the Church is against homosexuality. The Church is against the behavior, but loves all who are faced with greater tendancies toward being attracted to those of the same sex. Trials like that are what drive the need for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We all have our trials and have all given in to those that affect us. The attraction is not immoral, it is a trial or tempation that must be dealt with like any other. It boggles my mind how a man can be attracted to another man in this way. From my inner fiber I cannot really understand what it must be like. But, that makes it all the more important that I seek to understand, lest I am found without charity.

It just means you don't understand what it means to "be gay." Comments like this are the ones that cause division. You lump the attraction in with the relations, and by doing so condemn those who are born with Same Gender Attraction simply because they were born with an imbalance of some kind; an inclination to be attracted to members of the same sex. Did you read ANY of the link I provided from the church web site? You couldn't have and still retain your opinion. After relating inclinations to same sex attraction as being no different than many other challenges in life, like tendancies toward anger, Elder Oaks was asked this question: PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If we were to look back at someone who had a ‘short fuse,’ and we were to look at their parents who might have had a short fuse, some might identify a genetic influence in that. ELDER OAKS: No, we do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control. That is contrary to the Plan of Salvation, and it is contrary to the justice and mercy of God. It’s contrary to the whole teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which expresses the truth that by or through the power and mercy of Jesus Christ we will have the strength to do all things. That includes resisting temptation. That includes dealing with things that we’re born with, including disfigurements, or mental or physical incapacities. None of these stand in the way of our attaining our eternal destiny. The same may be said of a susceptibility or inclination to one behavior or another which if yielded to would prevent us from achieving our eternal destiny. Do you honestly think people make a choice at a young age that they will be attracted to those of the same sex? Did you make a choice when you were young to be attracted to the opposite sex? Or, was that just the way you were born? Notice Elder Oaks says these feelings can be controlled, and that's what needs to be addressed. Many wonder why they need to control them when "nature made them that way." That is the REAL issue. It is about having an understanding of what is right and wrong, not legal or illegal, or even equality. I hope you give this study and prayer, and deeply ponder on it. SSA or SGA is NOT a choice. I suggest before you make comments like that that you learn more about it first. You may find yourself saying something you'll regret later.

David Koresh certainly was a martyr for his cause. As was said, "martyr" is not tied solely to your belief of what it means. Read the posted definitions for it above. Joseph Smith certainly falls into that category. In response to both questions posed, about Joseph being a martyr, and about him being the greatest prophet, one only needs to turn to D&C 135 to see the church's stance: 1 To seal the testimony of this book and the Book of Mormon, we announce the martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch. They were shot in Carthage jail, on the 27th of June, 1844, about five o’clock p.m., by an armed mob—painted black—of from 150 to 200 persons. Hyrum was shot first and fell calmly, exclaiming: I am a dead man! Joseph leaped from the window, and was shot dead in the attempt, exclaiming: O Lord my God! They were both shot after they were dead, in a brutal manner, and both received four balls. So, not only was Joseph Smith a martyr, but Hyrum was also. Two witnesses were required to seal the testament. 2 Corinthians 13: 1 ...In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. Hebrews 9: 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. D&C 135: 5 ...The testators are now dead, and their testament is in force. And, the second question: 3 Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fulness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood; and so has his brother Hyrum. In life they were not divided, and in death they were not separated!

It's probably because most people aren't schooled enough in the topic to understand the difference between SSA (or SGA) and SSR (or SGR) (G being gender). It makes for a difficult discussion when the two are lumped together in one topic.

Here it is again: Newsroom - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Under the link "official statement same gender attraction."

The Church has made official statements. They have been linked in this forum over and over. SSA (Same Sex Attraction) is a chemical or hormonal imbalance of some kind (not really understood), but absolutley in many (or most or all) situations people are born with. SSR (Same Sex Realtion) is NOT the same thing as a "condition," it is an act and as such can be decided upon. It is not all that much unlike when a man or woman has an attraction to someone of the opposite sex they are not married to. A man or woman did not choose at birth to be attacted to the opposite sex. But, he or she can control the relational behavior. I suppose I could find the link again if anyone is interested in reading it.

Or, the easiest possible explanantion could be that Nephi was shown the future and saw the Bible, and therefore called it what we would call it. Personally, I've always preferred the explanation that Joseph Smith just used the word he knew it by. Simple.

This has been one of the most enjoyable threads I've read. Thank you all for your posts.

I don't think we can limit the definition of hypocrite to someone who is trying to deceive. That may more closely fit to a liar or deceiver. I think if someone is smoking, yet counsels their children not to smoke, is indeed a hypocrite. Merriam-Webster says: 1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feeling I think we can include in this as implied someone who does one thing yet tells another not to do that thing. That, too, is a contradiction. This is why I frequently say that often there is a fine line between teaching correct principles and being a hypocrite. If you do not live the principles you teach you are at the very least walking that fine line.

This is agency as far as the Gospel of Jesus Christ is concerned: 2 Nephi 2: 27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. When you discuss people in prison or laws made by man you move away from this simple definition. Moroni 7: 12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually. It's the choice between right and wrong that dictates whether someone is exercising their God-given agency, not a choice between legal or illegal.

The point being that agency, as far as the Gospel is concerned, is the ability and freedom to choose either God or Satan. Many examples we've seen on this thread move past this simple definition of agency. This is why people have a hard time discerning between agency, freedom, and choice.

I also heard many times that we do receive revelation as individuals and because of this we can KNOW the truth. We can know that God lives, that Jesus is His Son, and that eternal life is only available through Him. We can also know that the Book of Mormon is scripture given to us through Joseph Smith by the power of God.

There is a moment in The Prince of Egypt (animated film about Moses) where it is explained pretty well. After the priests of Pharoah performed an illusion to turn water into something red like blood, Moses told the people that the Pharoah had the power to take away many things, including their very lives, but he couldn't take their faith away. This agency we're speaking of is much the same way. Choices can be limited, and yes that does limit what you can do, but you can always choose to serve God, or be good to others if you don't know of God. Morally, you can be whoever you choose to be. I prefer "moral agency" when describing this type.