Justice

My opinion is anything that is important to you is important to the Lord. We are to be a caring people. How we care about animals is typically a good indicator of how caring we are. Specificaly about your question, I don't know if it's correct to submit an animal's name to the temple for prayer. But, I bet your Stake President could tell you. My hunch is it's not recommended.

Very good topic, Connie. And, thanks for posting that article, Pam. Here is a clip from it: Our mortal existence gives us the opportunity to develop the skills, capacities, and divine attributes we must have to live in the celestial kingdom. When my nine-year-old boy says he wants to drive the car, I must explain to him that if he goes out onto the freeway, he is going to be dangerous. He might kill himself and a lot of other people as well. He does not yet have the capacity to use the freedom offered by a freeway. Until he develops that capacity—the skill, the judgement, the maturity—driving on the freeway will kill him. The same would be true of our premature introduction to the freedom—and the responsibility—of living in a kingdom governed by celestial laws. Responsibility can liberate us or crush us, depending upon how prepared we are to receive it. Very profound statement. And, I think he addresses a topic that can roughly be described as "faith and leanring by study or experience" (a topic we frequently debate about on this forum). The idea that salvation involves a process of skill development may also help us to understand why there is a veil. We need not be impatient that things must be the way they are; we should, rather, be grateful. These circumstances show us how faith and repentance and knowing God are processes and principles of action. We understand these processes and principles not just by defining them, but also by experiencing them. God is a great teacher, and he knows the patterns and the principles we must follow in order to develop divine capacities. He can teach us these things—he has that power—but only if we will give ourselves to the process. If we insist on getting a medal or an award as proof that we are learning the right things, or if we insist on being able to explain to everyone else how the gospel works and why it works—even though God himself cannot explain it to our finite minds until we have developed the capacity to understand it—we will not have learned what the gospel of Jesus Christ is about. We will still be floundering around as spiritual adolescents trying to master the details of a lesser law. I very much enjoyed the article. Your questions were: Why exactly do we need the veil? I like to think of it this way. For those who gain exaltation, one day they will "move out" of their heavenly home and start a family of their own. This mortal life provides that opportunity on a very limited scale in order for you to prove you will give yourself to your children, and that you will choose to grant them agency and provide a method for them to become exalted... namely the same way Heavenly Father did it, by creating an earth and providing redemption from mortality... or by choosing Jesus Christ. Who will finally experience the veil to be taken off? The Book of Mormon makes it clear that some will. Obviously, it will be those who have matured far enough in their relationship with Christ that they will be able to handle what's behind the veil. It is more a result of who God will choose and not so much who will be worthy enough, though... at least in my opinion. And when will this happen? Hopefully sooner as opposed to later. I'd love to get more of the Nephite and Jaredite writings, and some of what's on the Brass Plates. But, I haven't studied the topic enough to even have a guess as to about when this is suppose to happen.

No, the Small Plates of Nephi were never abridged. The best argument you can come up with is that Mormon copied them so he could bury the originals with the rest of the Large Plates of Nephi originals to preserve them. But, that's purely speculation (good, sound logical speculation which I agree with). I don't think he would have risked the only copy of the Small Plates to go with Moroni. Mormon felt the weight of the copmmand the Lord gave him to protect and preserve all the writings that were passed down to him. The abridgement of the Large Plates he made was not passed down to him, so it was not an original and would cause no harm if they fell into the hands of the Lamanites. I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but if you mean the Large Plates were used for a political history, and only touched lightly on their spiritual experiences (up until Mosiah, anyway), then I agree. Well, remember that Mormon's abridgement of the Book of Lehi from the Large Plates of Nephi was lost. All we have left of Lehi's writings are what Nephi chose to include in his book in the Small Plates. All those details he needed to know when he wrote in the Small Plates (like when they turned east) could be found in Lehi's writings, which Nephi apparently compiled into a book in the Large Plates. Joseph Smith made many references to the Book of Lehi. Be glad to show you scripture references. This is a particular interest of mine.

Exactly, pianoman, and whether they did or did not doesn't prove or disprove that Mormonism is true. Mormonism hinges on whether or not the Book of Mormon is true. Perhaps it's an interesting topic and study, though. And, perhaps if those rites and symbols can be shown in antiquity it would provide some evidence of their truthfulness. But, they could have been "made up" long ago instead of recently. I guess it all depends on how they were used and who used them anciently. In some people's minds, it discovering such a thing may only result in proving them to be made up. Perhaps.

I wonder how his ministry is "supported" financially? That's usually a quick way to discover the real motives behind such a campaign. I happen to think that if a person isn't worried about what they do, or concerned about the consequences of their actions, they are less likely to become all they can be. It's not good to over-stress about things, but a little good ol' fashioned remorse is good for the soul. "Broken heart and contrite spirit."

I go back to Moroni 7: 22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing. There's something there that the casual reader will never see.

Mormon was careful to point out that Gadianton and Kishkumen didn't learn the art of secret combination from the records of the Nephites, but that they learned it from the same being that had a pact with Cain. We also know that the temple rites and symbols weren't learned from a book, but by revelation. So, in my opinion, it really makes no difference when Masons learned or started their practices. Obviously, they learned from a different source. Joseph Smith may have been intrigued or interested by what he saw, but the temple symbols were a result of revelation. So, that the Masonic Lodge was practicing something handed down for many, many centuries, perhaps ageless, doesn't either prove or disprove Mormonism. It's kind of like saying whether or not the Mormon Church is true is based on where the Baptist Church learned to baptize.

I love several points in your post, Melissa. You rock!

Remember, Jehovah volunteered. And, also remember that the Father already had a glorified, perfected body of flesh and bones and could not die. It was impossible for Him to atone for the sins of His offspring. It required a mortal sacrifice, and He did what He needed to do to bring about the possible salvation of His children... the only way it was possible.

He is also mentioned by who many experts say is the brother of the Savior: James 5: 11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

God does not require blood to forgive us. If God could make His own rules on how man is to be saved, then He would not have sent His Son to suffer, bleed, and die. This is the greatest evidence we have that God is a glorified, exalted, and perfected Man, and is following laws and did not create these laws for His own benefit, or ours. A blood atonement was necessary because, by his own choice, man was seaprated from God by a blood fall. That blood had to be presented clean and pure... purged from all stain. Christ needed to reverse the effects of the fall in His own body so that He could overcome the fall, and then He would gain the power to pass it on to all who met His criteria. So, He shed His blood.

Very good discussion, and very good points made. My reason for specifically mentioning the atonement is to put it above any other single event that happened in the scriptures. I'm heading toward "if the atonement was real, then what's so hard to believe about this or that?" Before I could do that I needed to see if there were any who believed the atonement was allegorical and didn't actually happen. I was very doubtful that any member of the Church would take that stance. It's hard to tell, but I think we have some? Be specific.

What exactly are you asking, Jenn? Your answers are going to come from the confirming voice of the spirit as you read the Book of Mormon, not from the discussions on this forum. But, I'd be glad to help if there's something I can help with. Nothing on this forum should ever shake your faith in Jesus Christ and His message as delivered in the Book of Mormon.

Point taken. Well, the Nephites did say the Lamanites wore nothing but a loin cloth, painted their skin, and were overheard plotting to kill them. I don't necessarily think that means they were always this way throughout their history. But, my impression is Nephi nailed it. Yes. Yes. But, I believe the translation process was through revelation and not through man's learning... in the case of the Book of Mormon.

Well, there's the stories where Christ fed thousands with a few loaves of bread and a few fish. There is no doubt He demonstrated the ability to multiply elements. In the Book of Mormon, in 3 Nephi, the second time Christ administered the sacrament to the people, it says they brought Him no bread or wine, yet all the multitude did truly eat and were filled. However, as far as the flood, the Bible gives us a clue that a great portion of the water may have come from underground, where it existed all along already. There are so many possibilities without having to reduce the stories to something allegorical to make them believable. It's not about whether or not God CAN perform miracles such as flooding the entire earth, globally covering even the mountains, it's about how much do we believe our "eyes" (or science) when they try to tell us something is impossible.

Much has been said in the forums lately about stories in the Bible being literal, or actual history, verses just stories used to teach principles and not actual events. Many say the creation is just allegorical and not to be taken literal. There really weren't "days," and God really wasn't "speaking," and when He said "us" He only used it for context. Many say the Fall is just allegorical and not to be taken literally. There really weren't actual trees with fruit, and Adam and Eve really didn't get kicked from a physical location. The same applies to the global flood, the talking donkey, the virgin birth, and even to many miracles the Bible claims. OK. Fair enough. What about the Atonement of Christ? Here is the most pivotal event that defines Christianity. Here the Son of God born of a mortal mother intercedes and atones for and in behalf of all who are born on earth. If any story in the Bible is outlandish, hard to swallow, and has very little if any evidence, this is it. Did the Son of God REALLY atone for the sins of mankind? Was Jesus of Nazareth really crucified? Allegory or real event? Yes, I am trying to relate what we KNOW happened to some of the lesser important things. For instance, if we know the atonement happened, then we know the fall happened. If we know the fall happened, then we know the creation happened. If we know the creation happened (that God spoke and demonstrated power over the elements) then what else in the Bible may have been real? I'm giving those who believe the Bible is strictly allegorical to voice their opinion based on this, the most important event in the Bible, and where the line may be drawn between reality and fiction.

I don't think Moroni is saying there are errors in what's being said. The Book of Mormon writers make the point to say they know the record is true. Any mistakes are the result of language difference or just plain man's mistakes. The same applies to the Bible. The original writers didn't tell false stories. God sharply warns anyone who mocks or doesn't believe because of any error that is supposed or found. We know through revelation that errors were introduced into the Bible. But, considering how much of the Bible is revealed in the Book of Mormon, I'd say much of it is still pretty accurate.

My impression is that sometimes soul and spirit are used interchangeably. D&C 88: 14 Now, verily I say unto you, that through the redemption which is made for you is brought to pass the resurrection from the dead. 15 And the spirit and the body are the soul of man. 16 And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul. Much like other terms that are used interchangeably in the scriptures: Alma 40: 11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection (this isn't entirely accurate because after death and before the resurrection we are spirits and not souls, technically--which he affirms next...)—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life. 12 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow. 13 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; (this can't be considered outer darkness yet, technically, because outer darkness is after the judgement) there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil. So, some terms are used synonymously even though they technically aren't. Soul and Spirit Hell and Outer Darkness They CAN have the same meanings, but technically do not. Spirit is man without a physical body. You are correct. When the spirit and physical body are immortally joined, they become the soul of man, or man becomes a living, breathing soul.

You are correct. My mother's mother was a direct descendant of Pocahontas by mothers all the way back to their son (so my grandmother said).

If modern translations are crap and high accuracy is laughable, EXACTLY what parts are translated incorrectly and what is crap??? How about the "camel through the eye of a needle?" Some modern translators have suggested that the Greek word kamilos ('camel') should really be kamêlos, meaning stranded cable or rope. It seems to give the message a clearer meaning. They possibly used "camel" for "camel hair." The words were possibly so similar because they used camel hair to make rope. It's not uncommon for cultures to call something by what it's made from instead of what it is, like we do today. "Hamburger" can be ground beef, or a cook ground beef sandwich. In 1,000 years it may be debatable by what our culture meant in every instance. One can side with this new modern terminology, or go with the original. It was a common practice in the Hebrew culture to use extremes, or even impossibilities, to teach a point. Maybe a living, breathing camel was the original meaning. In either case, the message remains the same.

That they went to earth to gain a physical body is my first impression. It was a "war" of words and it clearly describes those who changed their mind. Much like here, one can change sides and be the same as those who were on that side from the start. Sure will be nice to know the answers one day. But, I believe the Book of Mormon gives us more answers than most realize.

I'm gonna have to think about it and read with that in mind (some no longer esist). It seems odd they only distinguish 3 sides most of the time if there were 4. My first thought is that if they entered into a covenant not to fight, and did not come to earth as mortals, that they remain spirits forver, yet didn't come to earth to continue the fight. Those who didn't enter the covenant are the ones on earth fighting as spirits. I haven't pinpointed what "wilderness" is yet. I think that'll be my next study. There is no telling how much happened in the pre-mortal existence that has not been revealed.

Yep, I'm trying to wrap my brain around that one. It's possible that a spirit who did not enter into this covenant is different from one who did, and therefore was sent "into the wilderness." The gray area here is that Zarahemnah did not enter into this covenant, yet if he is symbolic of Lucifer then we know he came to earth. Answers to stuff like this come slowly, if at all.

PAM is a trucking company near me. They don't like being called Pam, but insist on P-A-M the letters. So, who knows. :)

Saw it at a Dolby DLP 3D theater with my kids yesterday. We liked the movie. I guess it's a story worth repeating.