Justice

I love Alma's words on this topic: Alma 5: 45 And this is not all. Do ye not suppose that I know of these things myself? Behold, I testify unto you that I do know that these things whereof I have spoken are true. And how do ye suppose that I know of their surety? 46 Behold, I say unto you they are made known unto me by the Holy Spirit of God. Behold, I have fasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of revelation which is in me.

My comment was addressed toward the types of service mentioned in the post I was referring to, like feeding the hungry, clothing the naked... etc. I do not think family should be neglected while performing any kind of service, especially church service. However, nor do I think that it's either serve your family or serve in the church. One should maintain a healthy balance. One can serve in the church and perform all family functions. My point is to try. If you do your best and it doesn't work out then at least you gave it your best effort. Then you're in a much better position to approach the Lord and the Bishop for further counsel and possibly a less time consuming calling.

It's not about what we want. It's about trusting the Lord and exercising faith. I think we should seek service above and beyond our calling, as mentioned above. But, I believe the first place we should serve is in the church. I don't want this to turn into an argument. And, I'm certainly not going to tell you it was easy to accept all the callings extended to me. But, in the end, I've grown from each and every one of them. The Lord doesn't need us. He will fulfill His promises even if He has to come and of it Himself. We need Him, and serving in His church is one way we can gain His added grace. We grow when stretched. I go back to my first statement, that it all depends on where you think the call comes from.

In every one of your examples, and any other you can think of, it would be appropriate to discuss your concerns with the Bishop. If, after a discussion with him, he still wishes you to accept the calling, after making him aware of all of your concerns, then you should accept. To suggest that there is any reason why you can't perform a calling is to doubt the Lord's ability to assist you. It really doesn't matter if it's the right calling. I happen to believe there are any number of callings people can be called to and the Lord will agree.

Assignments and callings are very different things. There may be days when you cannot attend church or perform your calling. Suppose you're a teacher and you're out of town over the weekend for vacation or a funeral. That doesn't mean you should not accept the calling for the weeks you will not be able to perform your duties. I still see this as a black and white issue. Service is one of the things that separates our church from others. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ we serve. The list of ways we serve each other is long. Christ set the example by giving of Himself so completely to the Church, the analogy was that He was married to it. You are right. He does not expect us to spend every waking hour in church service. But, considering what He has done for us, He's not asking very much in return.

What are some examples of situations where you would counsel someone to put other things before God? What are the things we can put before God that will make a particular situation work out better?

It really comes down to where you think the call comes from. If you put God first everything else will work out.

I think also we can forget. There may be a time when we know, but we fall back because we aren't as dilligent with guarding our testimony. Remembering is very hard without proof. We feel maybe we were mistaken. I can tell you with all surety that I know the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. I don't know how it was translated, nor do I understand the gifts needed in order to do such a thing, but I do know it's a true book. There are other principles of the Gospel I can tell you with a surety are true. I do not know all things, but I do know some things.

I was thinking of the Cain and Abel reference as well. Thank you. The fruit was not acceptable as a sacrifice, but the blood of animals was. Kind of along the same lines. Also, Adam and Eve made the first covering without involving God, maybe symbolizing how we can't do it on our own.

Kind of. I was thinking (possibly) how blood had to be spilled in order to make an acceptable covering.

Anyone see the symbolism between the fig leaves Adam and Eve used verse the coats of skin God made for them to cover their nakedness? Someone pointed out something to me today that I hadn't thought about before. In order to get the skins, to cover their nakedness, God had to shed the blood of an animal. I'm curious to hear your comments.

Exactly what are you referring to? This can still be true even if it was the actual transgression that caused the change in Adam's body, and not specifically the fruit.

I guess what I meant was much like spiritual death had to overcome first, the atonement had to be performed to ransom us from spiritual death, which was caused by sin. The resurrection does not ransom us from spiritual death, or from sin, but from physical death, or what we inherited without choice from the fall.

Also keep in mind that the atonement was completed while he was alive. When he gave up the ghost, that part of His mission was finished. So, He didn't have to die to help bring about the atonement, but He had to die to help bring about the resurrection and victory over death. From another perspective, the sufferings He endured to bring about the atonement was greater than man can bear and remain alive. So, in a sense, He already overcame death before He died.

Ohhhh... Sorry, I've been talking so much about the Garden of Eden lately, that one just went right by me. LOL Indeed it would, and I believe you are on the right track. I don't think it means they accomplished 2 different things, I think it just means there was pause while He was on trial and such. 2 places; 1 suffering. If you're curious about the suffering, try D&C 19.

What blood in the Garden are you referring to?

The Plan of Salvation is known by many names in the scriptures, but in all cases it is Heavenly Father's plan, not Jesus Christ's. 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; 60 For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified; Yes, the atonement was part of the plan, meaning, the fall was part of the plan, meaning, creation was part of the plan.

Before you can really come to any understanding of the fall or atonement, you have to first understand the creation, the purpose for it, and why we needed to be mortal. As you study the fall and atonement, don't forget to study the creation. Answers like these really need to be found personally. I'm not sure there's been too many people that have ever lived that have really understood it so completely. It might be best to concentrate on how it affects you.

Tom, also, you sound sure that nat eating of the tree of life was a consequence (natural or otherwise) of Adam eating the forbidden fruit. Do you have scripture references? Any quotes you remember?

If it was the fruit of the tree that actually caused the change in Adam and Eve, then wouldn't all the animal life have to eat of the tree also?

Tom, it appears to me that God barred the tree after Adam left the Garden. Alma 42: 2 Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee. For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, from whence they were taken—yea, he drew out the man, and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden, cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life— This is verified in the Pearl of Great Price and Bible accounts of the Garden itself. Isn't it odd the guard wasn't placed until after they left if it was placed for him?

Why do you suppose Alma addressed it so much in multiple places, like here in 42? Alma 42: 5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated.

Not until after he ate the forbidden fruit. After he ate the forbidden fruit, then had he ate the tree of life it would have brought about the consequences Satan wanted. Before he did, then I agree with you.

I'm going to have to think about how both of these comments can be true at the same time. After Adam ate the forbidden fruit he had consequences coming. Those were told to him before, and explained in more depth after. I never see anything mentioned about not being able to eat of the tree of life as a consequence. If it was, then it wasn't mentioned. At this point, immediately after Adam ate the forbidden fruit, what options did he have? Was not eating from the tree of life a natural consequence of eating the forbidden fruit? Let's see some scripture. Something to keep in mind: I have a hard time seeing that if God had to place a guard to prevent Adam from eating from the tree of life (again, I don't believe He did, it's just a belief that was presented) then I do not see how it could have been a natural consequence. You don't have to do anything to bring about or prevent natural consequences. By definition those are things that happen as a result of something else. If it can be prevented it is not a natural consequence. If he had to be prevented then it would not be called a natural consequence, it would be something else. So, what were the natural consequences of Adam eating the forbidden fruit?

The odd thing here is that Adam had to eat of "death" in order to really live. But, if our decisions are based on what God will and will not allow then we may have the ability to choose, but not the freedom. I don't know if you threw this out to try to show me how silly you think I'm being or if you're serious. Did you find where the scriptures say this was indeed a consequence? I'd like to see it if you did. I'm not sure if God had to do anything more than withdraw His presence for the fall to happen. The scriptures really aren't very clear on cause and effect here. I do know that it was not something in the fruit. It was brought about by their transgression, which transression was eating the fruit, but the fruit itself did not cause the fall. This is very difficult to comment on because we all have to be on the same page as far as what agency really means. The agency I'm referring to is that man always has the ability and freedom to choose between God and Satan. I'm not referring to having just any choice or choices. Having options available is part of agency, but not in and of itself. Those things you mention as consequences are not the same thing I'm asking... or at least I don't think they are.