Justice

It matters who you blame or whether or not you have a choice. If you are born into the world with a disposition and un-resistable tendancy to sin, then you aren't accountable. Mnay who belioeve this blame Adam and Eve for their sins. If you sin because you choose it then there is no one but yourselof to blame, and then through Christ sin can be overcome, as it is not an un-resistable urge. Man is dual natured. We have a physical body which desires pleasure and satisfaction, which are but temporary. We also have a spiritual side which desired good and love, which bring joy, which are not temporary. There really is a big difference if you think about it.

Yep, well said. We believe very much alike.

I'm going to get "technical" here. "his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin" I would word it that sin was introduced into the world and man became an agenct unto himself, whether he would choose good or evil. "Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation." Once you say men *had* to sin, then you destroy accountability. I would say since all men chose sin, all men fall short of the glory of God. This quote you posted from that site is typical of what I hear around here. I live in the Bible belt, predominately Baptist. As you read the Book of Mormon see if you can see this distinction taught by the Nephite prophets.

I'm surprised. Every other SB I've spoken to (and that's a LOT) does not believe this about works. Very good answer. I only said what I said because I *assumed* you believed the same as the SBs I've spoken to. My bad. I think you'll be just fine. :)

This is the ultimate expression of what you already beleive. I know you believe that your works mean nothing toward your salvation. However, with Christ, all things are possible. I know you believe that. Reading the Book of Mormon could be called a work. As long as it is studied and examined as a physical work, with your own understanding, comparing tit for tat with what you know, then it will mean nothing. However, if you read it with the desire to know Christ and if it is true, regardless of the consequences, then with Christ we can come to know all things. So, don't get too hung up on comparing it to things that you know. There's a distinct chance that some of those things you know aren't necessarily right,( ) and would make it more difficult for you to receive revelation concerning it's truthfulness.

Vanhin means it is more properly stated as "pre-mortal existence." Because, there can be no existence before excistence. And, since life has always existed... Does that make sense?

Also, we have been told that men and women must be sealed (or married) in the eternities in order to inherit the highest degree of glory in the afterlife. We know this implies, and has been explicitly stated, that the reward for exaltation is to be able to use your procreative powers and have children of your own. If all life (of man) already exists, and has always existed, then what is the reward for exaltation? I would need an explanation of how this works, because I see the two as directly opposing each other. If all life already exists, and has forever, then how can we be spirit sons and daughters of heavenly parents?

I'll use your last line to summarize your entire quote to save space. I have never heard anyone express this idea before, but it is exactly what I believe. I'd like to add one thought. This thread is full of posts about "beginning," and many have refuted your belief (before you even stated them) by using the logic that "if we had a beginning then we must have an end." I just think it's a misunderstanding, or misapplication of the logic needed to understand how this cannot be when looking at the spirit world. Let's use the life of this physical world as an example. We know this world had a beginning. It was created. We also know that it will eventually be remade and reshaped, and it's particles will be used to make another world, for infinity. So, the earth had a beginning and will have an end. However, the particles used to create it did not have a beginning, nor will they have an end. So, you're going to have to "play along" with my example and realize it's just an example, because as long as we're mortal and in time, we have no examples that we can see of things that exist forever. Now, with that in mind, why is it so hard to believe that something can be "of" something else that is "of" something else, that is "of" something else, that is "of" something else, etc for infinity (backwards), and not exist forever from that point on? In this earth we see trees that are "of" trees before it, which are "of" trees before it, until the creation of this world. Yes, the trees die, but that's because they are part of the fallen mortal world. Before we came to this earth we could not procreate (for whatever reason). Part of coming here was to gain that knowledge or power. Now that we have, and we are immortal... once we are glorified and perfected and IMMORTAL, why would our offspring ever have to cease to exist just for the sole reason that we are offspring (or had a beginning) of an eternal God? And, for that matter, why would God have to cease to exist if He was offspring (or had a beginning) of an eternal God? I think the logic is faulty, and that train of thought is dwelling too much on mortal life and what we know. I believe a lifeform that is created WILL exist forever, and CANNOT cease to exist because it is spirit not just physical. Since the materials that make up spirits (intelligence) and physical bodies (physical matter) have existed forever, and we are offspring of a race that existed forever, I believe that is enough for sons and daughters of that race to exist forever. So, I find the logic previously mentioned faulty. I think Seminary's thoughts should be given thought, and we shouldn't dwell so much, or have our beliefs shaped so much, by things we really don't understand. There are possibilities out there that we really can't grasp. It just boils down to what we choose to believe. Anyway, the speculation is fun.

I really do apprecaite what you're saying. I really don't want to go very deep here, because it's really not the message of the Church. To most people who are looking for truth, they read the Book of Mormon and make a fairly fast decision. My words are more directed at someone who had "read and pondered" on the Book of Mormon and its teachings for years, but doesn't make a decision, maybe they don't even want to try as they know they should. I really don't think this happens very often. Please understand I am not comparing you personally to anyone or anything, same goes for PC. The comparisons I make, and am about to make, are based solely on the stipulation that the Book of Mormon is true. If you believed it was true, you would feel the same way. You know, the Jews who did not believe in Jesus Christ, or had not gained that witness, thought THEY believed in the Messiah of the Old Testament. In their mind, they were following the law and words of God, and waiting for when the Messiah would come. In their view, it was the Christians who were preverting the right way, and is why they used the derrogatory designation of "Christian" to differentiate them from the "true believers" the Jews (in their mind). I don't think the term "Mormon" is very different today. You see how it was *really* impossible for them to believe the words of the Old Testament, as they were really intended, unless they believed that Jesus Christ was this promised Messiah? Could they be right in claiming to believe and follow the God of the Old Testament, yet reject Jesus as the Messiah? As previously stipulated, this is true only if Jesus Christ truly was/is the Messaih prophesied about in the Old Testament. That is the stipulation I make also. If the Jesus Christ that is taught and preached in the Book of Mormon IS the same Jesus Christ of the New Testament, then you really can't believe *just* the Jesus Christ in the Bible. The comparison to Jews who claim to believe in the Messiah, but not Jesus Christ, is the same scenario and I used it so you could understand it from my perspective. And, yes... I wish you the best in your reading, and I hope you take it seriously. Take time to ponder the things you read and suppose if they are true. I know the Spirit will work in you if your motive is pure.

Jacob 4: 1 Now behold, it came to pass that I, Jacob, having ministered much unto my people in word, (and I cannot write but a little of my words, because of the difficulty of engraving our words upon plates) and we know that the things which we write upon plates must remain; 2 But whatsoever things we write upon anything save it be upon plates must perish and vanish away; but we can write a few words upon plates, which will give our children, and also our beloved brethren, a small degree of knowledge concerning us, or concerning their fathers— They did things the hard way just so that their words would be saved. 3 Now in this thing we do rejoice; and we labor diligently to engraven these words upon plates, hoping that our beloved brethren and our children will receive them with thankful hearts, and look upon them that they may learn with joy and not with sorrow, neither with contempt, concerning their first parents. They did it the hard way because they want to share what they knew. Part of what they knew was that our first parents (surely Adam and Eve are referenced in part) should be looked at in the proper light. 4 For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us. They want us to know that they knew of Christ, and that the prophets wrote of Christ. 5 Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son. 6 Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea. Remember, "the Law" is the writings of Moses, or the first 5 books of the Bible, and "the Prophets" is most of the rest of the Old Testament. Through Christ they were able to do all things, including mighty miracles and commanding the plants and elements. 7 Nevertheless, the Lord God showeth us our weakness that we may know that it is by his grace, and his great condescensions unto the children of men, that we have power to do these things. To PC, and anyone else who is wondering if the Book of Mormon is true, this is the purpose for which it was written. One is to "come to Christ" because of the Book of Mormon. It's more than a book of help or to clarify doctrine. It is meant to prove the reality of Jesus Christ. Either you believe it does or you believe it doesn't. There is no middle ground; no gray areas. When you decide whether or not the Book of Mormon is true, you either side with it (and in my view, with Christ) or you take a side against it. The comparison between believing in the Bible but not the Book of Mormon is like the Jews believing in the Old Testament but not the New. The Book of Mormon is ANOTHER Testament of Jesus Christ. To say you believe in the Messiah of the Old Testament but not the Jesus Christ of the New Testament, is like saying you believe in the Savior in the New Testament but not the Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon. It is the exact same comparison, and carries the exact same consequence. Using the Book of Mormon for guidance or doctrine, but not belving in the Jesus Christ that is the source of it's testimony, is like a Chrsitian who uses the Bible as a guide in life, but does not come to and accept Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon is true; just as true as the Bible. It is another testament of Jesus Christ... the SAME Jesus CHrist who was born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life, was betrayed, and crucified for the sins of the world. It is Another Testament of Jesus Christ, not a Testament of Another Jesus Christ. Just as the Jews denied that Jesus was their promised Messaih, it is impossible to believe in Jesus Christ and deny the Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon. You cannot reject the Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon and accept the Jesus Christ in the Bible. This is why it is imperative for every Christian to take a side. The Book of Mormon must be read to come to know if it is the same Jesus Christ. If you come to know it is, then you accept it and know it's true. If you do not, then you cannot accept it as truth, and therefore reject it as truth based on it's claim and promise.

All anyone can do is quote the scripture to you and tell you what they think it means. I'm telling you what I think it means. I want to start a new thread that expresses my thoughts about this. It's about Jacob, Nephi's brother.

Well, you know, different people like to discuss different things. Sure, there are better things a person could be doing, but there sure are a lot worse things a person could be doing. And, this squick factor... this is my point about judging things we really don't understand. Read the story of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There's plenty of squick factor in that story alone. And if you find out one day it really did happen that way? Do you change your opinion or do you express your squickness?

Agreed. Most don't take Moroni's challenge because they really don't understand it. PC is different. He does. I guess I'm saying he understood but chose not to do it the only way he knew it could bring results. It's his choice, of course.

Now, c'mon, PC. You admitted that you "modified" Moroni's challenge. You have been around us long enough to know this promise and that one must read it believeing, not doubting. Your words suggest you didn't read the Book of Mormon for the purpose to know if it's true. I wasn't slamming you, I was pointing out these things by your own admission. A long way of saying you do not believe it can be true, or maybe you don't want it to be true. You are comfortable where you are and seek no further truth. I state it as a fact, not a slam. There are so many areas of my life where I am guilty of the same. I hold myself in much higher discontent because I do know it's true, but don't live it as I should. So, please don't think I'm trying to cut you down or say you're not a good person. This is interesting. Saul was seeking to establish God's word based on the scriptures they had, the Law and the Prophets (Old Testament). He was following the counsel of those who were in leadership positions in what he felt was God's "church." What he did not do was accept the fulfillment of those scriptures, or their fulness and the very Messiah they proclaimed. I hope you see that all I did was base my words on what you claimed you did. Don't look to harshly on what I said, but maybe look more harshly on what you said you did. If you were really genuinely curious to know if the Book of Mormon is true, you would not have approached it the way you did. All I'm trying to say is that if you are ever going to know it's true, you're going to have to take the real challenge. :) I think you already know that. That's not a knock on you, but my way of helping you see you went about it wrong.

And, as far as him being home schooled... None of his family in any of their journals mentioned home schooling. They lived on a farm and when they were home they were tending to their farm. It was a lot of hard work and they had little time for school is why he didn't attend school more.

PC, with all the feeling I can muster I tell you that it was impossible for any man to write the Book of Mormon without inspiration from God. Even today, with the internet as a help, it would be impossible for anyone to write it. It's true, PC. It is a history book of God's dealing with the ancient people of the Americas. It is the pivotal work in the last days to prepare the world for the re-coming of the Messiah.

The New Testament seems to suggest that Old Testament prophets taught "the Gospel" also: Romans 10: 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

My point was that his translating the Book of Mormon did not come from what he learned at school, or what he, himself, could glean from the Bible. His education was full underway when he was translating the Book of Mormon, but the vast majority of what he learned came AFTER he translated the Book of Mormon. At 40, having lived a life close to the Lord, it would be easier to believe that he wrote it. But, at 20ish, not having been to college, high school, or middle school, makes it virtually impossible that he did it on his own. In later life he was an intelligent man, indeed, probably more so than he ever said or anyone believed. I never meant to imply he wasn't. I have heard he had a 3rd or 2nd grade education, I haven't heard 4th. But, considering that education was based on 1820 schools and learning, it was probably no where near comparable to what a 1st grade education is now.

Another thing you might try is to compare the text in the Bible directly against the text in the Book of Mormon. There are slight differences. Note those differences, and then ponder them based on the fact that one was BEFORE the atonement, and the other was AFTER. Very interesting.

The reason why the missionaries don't ask this question is because it supposes the "physical evidence" side of it. They work closely with investigators to be sure they read only selected verses closely and help them understand the implications of those verses, helping them lean toward the spiritual implications. And they make every effort to help the investigator read the Book of Mormon for the right reasons and that their prayers are focused on the real purpose for which the book was given to us. Judging by these comments from PC, I've gathered that he did not read it for the right reason nor was his prayer and intent focused on the promise it offers. It's not a big surprise he does not believe it's true... he didn't even ask, nor does it seem he even desired to know. His mind was made up before he read it. No knocks on PC, though, but I hope that if he looks at it as the "physical" miracle that it is it might help him rethink his purpose and intent for reading it and give it another try for the intent of knowing if it's true.

The key is we are currently mortal and exist in "time." God is immortal and exists in "eternity." One who is in eternity is not bound by time nor subject to it. It is a different reality, if you will. Once Christ's atonement is applied to your sins while still in time, they are gone from eternity. Once you are resurrected and restored to your body, those sins no longer exists. Alma's words to Corianton, his son, in Alma 39-42 are very good on this subject. Look for "restoration" and look for the distinction it has with resurrection. They are different.

So, what's your impression about a 19 - 20 year old man with a 2nd grade education writing it in about 3 months with only 1 scribe and no reference material... in 1825ish?

My personal favorite is how the woman who was caught in the act of adultery was brought before Him. According to the law she should have been stoned. It is fitting that He said he who among you who is without sin let him first cast a stone at her. He opened the doorway that it was His right to throw the first stone, since He was without sin. But, He did not condemn her. Instead, He suffered an unimaginable pain and suffering in Gethsemane and on the cross for her so that she can be forgiven. Pretty amazing that He would do this just in case she would repent.

LDS really don't believe in "original sin." We view Adam and Eve's fall as a "transgression." We can discuss the difference, but many don't believe there is. I believe there is. In any case, because men sin they are cut off from the presence of God, both temporally and spiritually. The atonement (and resurrection) of Christ overcomes temporal or physical death, meaning all who ever lived will be resurrected, or their body and spirit will be reunited never to be separated again. The atonement also allows all who repent of their sins and who keep Christ's commandments (faith, repentance, baptism...) to be forgiven for their sins and be returned to the Father's presence. In a nut shell.

I believe there was no ultimate beginning. John, you're doing a pretty good job of speculating. :)