Justice

My best advice for teaching is to use the scripture stories to teach Gospel Principles. If a person wants to know and understand the stories in the Bible (names, dates, places) they can study it in their own time. There isn't enough time in Sunday School to teach the scriptures very deep. But, you can generate an interest by teaching principles with the scriptures. Stick with one principle, or as few as possible, and keep it simple. Here is an example of what I'm trying to say and how I taught this principle to the teachers in our Ward. I had a teacher improvement class where I demonstrated how to teach a principle using the scriptures, and not just teach scripture stories. I had a new teacher stand at the front of the class. I asked for someone to suggest a scripture story for this sister to teach us. Someone said David and Goliath. Then I asked for a Gospel Principle that could be taught using this story. Four or Five ideas were given, but I chose faith. Immediately, with no study, preparation, or thought I asked this sister to teach us about faith using the story of David and Goliath as her source. Without pause she taught us a wonderful, very spiritual lesson on faith using David and Goliath. It was uplifting, spiritual, and made everyone want to be more like David. There are ways you can prepare to teach in this very manner. It doesn't mean you can't give historical background, little known quotes, or insightful commentary. What it means is that if you teach Gospel Principles using Old Testament stories your class is more apt to feel the spirit. Personal stories, whether yours or a member of your class, are very powerful ways of bringing the spirit in your class. My 13 year old son coined a phrase in his class. His teacher told me that he said, "To liken the scriptures to yourself means you end up likin' the scriptures." I agree with him. Personal stories are an awesome way to help your class "liken the scriptures," which bring the spirit. Getting everyone to feel the spirit is the goal of teaching in the Church, not to educate everyone about scripture stories and history. It's a great teacher who has the ability to do both.

Check out the new Old Testament Visual Resource DVD. :)

"Marvel" and doubt are the primary reasons why people either won't read the Book of Mormon, or why they don't believe it when they read it. Also, we could get into a discussion about how this comes into play when using science and evidence with scripture, but we've pretty much milked that one dry.

Meatloaf said 2 out of 3 ain't bad... so I guess 3 out of 4 ain't bad either. :)

Moses 5: 42 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bare Enoch, and he also begat many sons and daughters. And he builded a city, and he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. From this verse forward in the Book of Moses, until the beginning of chapter 8, there is much information about Enoch, possibly more than what can be found anywhere else (except in the Book of Enoch). From what I remember, Joseph Smith said that most of the Book of Enoch is true, but it must be understood like John's Revelation. From Wikipedia (Book of Enoch): A short section of 1 Enoch (1En1:9) is quoted in the New Testament (Letter of Jude 1:14-15), and there apparently attributed to "Enoch the Seventh from Adam" (1En60:8). There is a lot of information at Wikipedia about the Book of Enoch and many related links. It's hard to be certain exactly which Enoch wrote the Book of Enoch. It's apparent there were many Enochs. The first known Enoch was the son of Abel, the son of Adam. Presumably it was a decendant of this first Enoch who was the author of the Book of Enoch. It mentions that Enoch's son was not taken up with the city... so the writings could very well have been by an Enoch who lived after the city was taken up. The more information you gather the more questions will arise. But, a good way to proceed is to compare what you learn about Enoch to the mentioned chapters in the Pearl of Great Price.

It was mentioned that it was in reference to government, not land mass. I don't subscribe to that theory, but just letting you know it was mentioned. To me, the government became divided when Abel left the land of his father and started his own family.

They should be finished with 3 Nephi 15 as of yesterday. My son is now 30 chapters behind. My oldest daughter was 10 chapters behind when she left to stay the night at a member-friend's house. She took her scriptures and said she wanted to get caught up. We'll see. My youngest daughter finished Alma yesterday and is 15 chapters behind. Amazingly, when I was younger Alma was always a struggle for me too. I'm not sure if it was the size, or something else. But, now, Alma is a book I read over and over. I love Alma. I'm starting to think they are doing this just to say they did. I think it was my fault in the way I challenged them to do it.

Helaman 6: 22 And it came to pass that they did have their signs, yea, their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant, that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother, nor by those who did belong to his band, who had taken this covenant. This is very interesting wording: "that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother." 23 And thus they might murder, and plunder, and steal, and commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness, contrary to the laws of their country and also the laws of their God. For some perspective, let's back up to chapter 5: 2 For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. 3 Yea, and this was not all; they were a stiffnecked people, insomuch that they could not be governed by the law nor justice, save it were to their destruction. This is an interesting statement about people who cannot be governed by law, that it is to their destruction. Back to 6: 24 And whosoever of those who belonged to their band should reveal unto the world of their wickedness and their abominations, should be tried, not according to the laws of their country, but according to the laws of their wickedness, which had been given by Gadianton and Kishkumen. Back to the wording: "that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother." "According to the laws of their wickedness, not the laws of justice," because the majority chose evil over righteous. Doesn't this sound like today? 25 Now behold, it is these secret oaths and covenants which Alma commanded his son should not go forth unto the world, lest they should be a means of bringing down the people unto destruction. 26 Now behold, those secret oaths and covenants did not come forth unto Gadianton from the records which were delivered unto Helaman; but behold, they were put into the heart of Gadianton by that same being who did entice our first parents to partake of the forbidden fruit— 27 Yea, that same being who did plot with Cain, that if he would murder his brother Abel it should not be known unto the world. And he did plot with Cain and his followers from that time forth. This is telling about Satan and his desires. "No one will know" is a common justification for doing something we know is wrong. But, one day it WILL be known. This is a great example of how Satan lies to achieve his designs. It's telling that many in the world did/do know about what Cain did... and not just a few people, but literally millions and millions know about what he did. 28 And also it is that same being who put it into the hearts of the people to build a tower sufficiently high that they might get to heaven. And it was that same being who led on the people who came from that tower into this land; who spread the works of darkness and abominations over all the face of the land, until he dragged the people down to an entire destruction, and to an everlasting hell. 29 Yea, it is that same being who put it into the heart of Gadianton to still carry on the work of darkness, and of secret murder; and he has brought it forth from the beginning of man even down to this time. He brought it forth from the beginning of man. I wonder how these same teachings apply to Lucifer's plan in the pre-mortal spirit world? Lucifer had gathered quite a large following and it seems it had to be kept "secret" for a while, until they grew to a number large enough that Heavenly Father had to initiate His plan. I believe the war described in Alma 43 and 44 is a type of the war in heaven, and I feel it gives us a good clue on how it started. Alma 43: 14 Now those descendants [Lamanites] were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites; and thus the Nephites were obliged to contend with their brethren, even unto bloodshed. I believe these secret combinations to get gain or power is how Satan operates, and I believe it is how he has always operated, even in the pre-mortal spirit world, and even by secretly approaching Eve in the Garden. We need to be careful of the feeling "no one will know" because it is a great lie Satan uses to justify evil actions. I'm beginning to wonder what role this may have played in his plan to get rid of sin. It could be that he wanted all of us to enter into some kind of covenant to lie about sin and say there wasn't any, perhaps trying to fool justice itself. This goes along with his attitude and plans toward evil in every age, and how he tempts man to get gain and seek power, like himself. Maybe he needed all to follow him for his plan to work, because even if just one was honest, in his mind it would have thwarted his plan. Just something I'm considering. But, I do know that my New Year's resolution is for me to watch for those moments when I feel I'm doing something because no one will know about it. I'm going to be mindful of those instances and try to remind myself that all will be known one day. The final scripture in the series comes as a warning to us: 30 And behold, it is he who is the author of all sin. And behold, he doth carry on his works of darkness and secret murder, and doth hand down their plots, and their oaths, and their covenants, and their plans of awful wickedness, from generation to generation according as he can get hold upon the hearts of the children of men. I plan to have a meaningful discussion with my kids over this issue in the coming week. Hopefully they can watch for those moments where they feel justified because no one will know.

It comes in the form of revealed truth through prophets.

The article I posted mentioned that they have discovered evidence of this census. I don't walk away that the NT account is not factual about the census, but that evidence for it in the Bible was lost or changed. It's no secret that LDS believe the Bible has had many changes and deletions. It is the primary reason why the Bible is the source of so much confusion today. 1 Nephi 13: 28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. 29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

Revelation.

I believe this is the point people are making. It is very difficult to know, if not impossible. But, perhaps, as I mentioned, one way might be to observe their feelings toward sin, repentance, and baptism. The parents are in the best position to do this. No one is saying they shouldn't be treated with dignity or respect. I believe we are on the same page there. What I'm saying is that I don't think it would be treating a 3 year old with dignity or respect if you expected them to act and reason as if they were 30. To someone who is physically 30, but with the mental capacity of a 3 year old, the best thing to do is treat them as a 3 year old and help them to advance. To expect them to respond as a 30 year old isn't reasonable, and I don't think that's what you're saying. That wouldn't make any sense. So, I have to believe we're saying the same thing with different words.

Moroni 6 gives us some indication that baptism may have been a "bigger deal" to the people in Moroni's day... or at least they seem to view it as a bigger deal. Moroni 6: 1 And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it. Men, or young men, were given the priesthood before they were baptized? Not conclusive, but it seems to be saying that. 2 Neither did they receive any unto baptism save they came forth with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented of all their sins. 3 And none were received unto baptism save they took upon them the name of Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end. Very much like our day, but verse 4 makes a possible distinction: 4 And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith. I realize this is the way it is supposed to be, but if it were written of our day, could the same thing be said? It seems, although the confirmation happens at baptism, in our day the cleaning typically doesn't happen until much later in life, if ever. It reads like baptism wasn't performed until a person demonstrated fruit, or evidence, that they were further along their path of conversion to Christ. Chapter 6 only has 9 verses but is powerful guidance to members of a Bishopric, PEC, Welfare Comittee, or Ward Council.

I was going to say if God did not want us to eat meat at all He would have said so, but your quote is more entertaining. :)

/agreed

Quoted from the article: May I also suggest that this will always be an issue when dealing with evidence as science sees it.

It's interesting how you list Wiki as a "pretty good" source, yet seem to overlook that the Bible says a census was taken while Agustus was alive, apparently to their entire population (even if just for Jews). That's one possible explanation. Another is that the decree for taxation was given to their "entire" province, and the word they used for this had a dual meaning, like many of our words today... slang if you will. Another is that they used the word out of pride implying that they were powerful... kind of sarcastically to tell the people they were the largest, most powerful government in the world. Another is that they were speaking of the "world" that they knew, which was not complete and total "land," but complete and total "understanding." Another is that they used the word wrong in that scripture and the flood account actually was right and did signify a worldwide flood. There are many possible ways those 2 scriptures can be used together and allow for a global flood. It is simply your choice to choose error in Genesis and not Mark. If I must I choose the error in Mark, or even a misunderstanding in Mark, because the flood account is much more specific and explains itself multiple times. I feel it leaves little room for misinterpreting what it meant. Mark, however, is stated once and could have meant multiple things. But, I don't criticize you for your belief, or for the way you interpret the Bible more allegorically than historically; it is the way you have chosen to do it based on how you have studied and what you have learned. I don't accuse you of having a lack of faith or belief in God for this... so I hope you aren't accusing me of being intellectually inferior, or "middle age" in the way I choose to believe it. Since you are so fond of saying, there is no proof, and even very little evidence. Quoting an article in the Ensign: Little is known about the date of the birth of Christ from secular histories. Most of the potentially useful biblical clues, such as the star of Bethlehem (see Matt. 2:2), the slaughter of the infants (see Matt. 2:16), or an empire-wide taxation (registration or census; see Luke 2:1) while King Herod reigned (see Luke 1:5; Matt. 2:1), have not been clearly identified in secular histories. Accordingly, dates from 7 b.c. to 1 b.c. have been proposed. The only secular thread to which the birth of Jesus has consistently been tied is the death of King Herod, who was visited by the Magi after the birth of the Savior. For several centuries it has been believed that Herod died in 4 b.c., and so the birth of Christ has been placed about two years before (see Matt. 2:1, 16), in 6 or 5 b.c. However, recent reevaluation of the evidence suggests that Herod died some time later, in 1 b.c. 14, or a.d. 1. 15 It is now a field of intense study 16, but with no clear solution in sight. The problem is the same as with the other biblical clues: lack of solid evidence. The Jewish historian Josephus is the only source for details about Herod’s life, and even he does not mention the year of Herod’s death. 17 One new historical argument for the occurrence of the birth of Christ somewhere in the 2 to 1 b.c. period is the view that the decree “that all the world should be taxed” (enrolled or registered; see Luke 2:1) has finally been identified as an empire-wide census and oath of allegiance to Augustus in 2 b.c. 18 Josephus apparently mentions that oath 19, which, according to his history, would have been a year or so before Herod’s death. These new dates fit well with the Passover pattern discussed above—that Christ was born in the spring of 1 b.c. and that Herod died in early a.d. 1. It has been pointed out 20 that the 6 April 1 b.c. date also explains certain aspects of the New Testament account. For example, the date is during the short lambing season, which would explain why the shepherds were “keeping watch over their flock by night.” (Luke 2:8.) Moreover, the fact that “there was no room for them in the inn” (Luke 2:7) suggests that the birth probably occurred at the time of one of the three feasts, such as Passover, at which Jews were required to be in Jerusalem. 21 That proposal is also consistent with the 6 April date. Fortunately, although secular histories are not very useful in helping us to determine Christ’s date of birth, they offer clear testimony for the dates of his ministry and death. Entire article by John P. Pratt: LDS.org - Ensign Article - Passover—Was It Symbolic of His Coming?

Fair enough. I guess your use of the term "vegetarian" multiple times came across as not eating meat at all, which is different than eating it sparingly with thanksgiving. I agree, though, that I think most people eat way too much meat. One of my favorite meals is a good, fresh salad.

If you isolate verses 13 and 15 it seems you are right. But, if you include verse 12 I think the Lord is being as clear as He can be. D&C 89: 12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; I think what you're saying is like reasoning that if we are asked to pay 10% of our increase for tithing, wouldn't it be btter to pay 15% or more? I know we don't want to get caught trying to do the minimum, but you also have to use all the scriptures given to arrive at the best conclusion. With the inclusion of verse 12 I believe the Lord states it exactly the way He intended. I don't think that means the Lord is offended if someone chooses to be a vegetarian. It just means the Lord approves the use of "flesh of beasts and fouls of the air" as food for man, in moderation and with thanksgiving. So, I don't think the Lord is "more pleased" if we choose not to eat meat at all, but is more pleased when we do it with thanksgiving, and without gorging it.

Omaha is right. You can't treat someone who is mentally equivalent to a 4 year old like a 40 year old. It doesn't even make sense. My mother is (was before she retired early this year) a specialized caregiver to people who are very underdeveloped mentally. She had 4 different people live in her home (at different times) and she cared for them. I spent a significant amount of time around these people in her home, as I was still living at home when she took on her first client. I can tell you with surety, these 4 did not understand right and wrong and were "little children" in every way, but bigger. They had no need of baptism because a person must understand the covenants that are made with the ordinance, and be capable of repentance. In order to do that you have to be free to choose good and evil. One who doesn't understand the difference is not free to choose. The Lord severely chastized the people in the Book of Mormon who were baptizing little children.

This is new to me also. I'm not surprised the movie writers withheld this part of the story. I'm somewhere between Dravin and Hemi on this. Establishing whether or not an adult is accountable isn't always black and white. If there's any chance he might be, I don't see a harm in baptizing him. The key may stem from whether or not he desired to be baptized. Typically when one feels accountable they will desire baptism, if not, it may never enter their mind. I think the parents feelings may be accurate on this since they know him better than anyone.

That was already addressed in a different thread... or perhaps earlier in this one. All you have to do is consider who is speaking. To Caesar, all the world was Rome since that's all he had power to tax. It's context. I do get your point, though. Once a person starts "interpreting" where do they stop? Some stop sooner; some stop later. I do get it, Snow, I just don't have proof . But, you know that :) . Out of curiosity (maybe I'll look into it when I get a chance), I wonder how the words used for "world" compare in both of those uses?

It's OK. I understand how hard it can be to gather someone's real intentions when just reading. But, Dravin was right, I was dissing myself for typing the wrong name and showing that, had I thought about it 2 seconds, I would have realized what I said was wrong. It's all good. Thanks for the quote... you are correct. Others may have said it also, but Benson definately did.

Interesting statement. Using your statement in reference to the topic at hand: 1 Peter 3: 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. There are a few intersting tidbits in this scripture (speaking strictly about God's love and patience and not about whether the flood was global or local), and about how God sent His Son to those that were in Prison who had died as a result of the flood, to teach them so they would be given a better opportunity to repent than had they remained on earth in that wicked generation. There was very little chance of them repenting while on earth, since the earth was covered with wickedness. But, by mercifully removing them from the earth and sending His Son to them in the Spirit World, God showed that we can't understand His purposes by looking through human eyes. We can't dig in dirt and uncover His purpose. These people were given a better opportunity to repent, and future generations were given a better opportunity to break free of the wickedness man chose for himself. I don't look at it just as here and now. I realize God doesn't always reveal His purposes, but He revealed His overall purpose... to SAVE man, as many as possible. I know that God will give each man sufficient opportunity to hear, believe, and understand the message of Christ. It doesn't have to be as a mortal on earth, it could have been in the pre-mortal existence, or even in the post-mortal existence. To witness death caused by God and think "God is cruel" is being narrow-minded and not considering that God knows the beginning from the end. It's projecting your own limited understanding of God onto Him, based soley on what you can see. It's also a bit silly to believe God will not cause the physical death of millions to better their chances at exaltation. Did He not send His Only Begotten Son to earth to die a horrible death? Why did He do that? Because He enjoyed watching His Son suffer? Were those who died in the flood better than Christ? God causes things to happen that increase mankind's chances, and make possible their repentance and return to Him. Every single person who died in the flood will be resurrected and have that physical death overcame for them BY GOD, something they could not do on their own. God is adding MORE than just overcoming physical death... He is adding opportunity for them to overcome spiritual death. So, please don't think that since I believe the flood was global and "all flesh" was destroyed (just like scripture says), that I believe God must be terrible and vindictive. I believe He had a higher purpose and plan to give those people a better opportunity at repentance. It's easy to see if you focus on the scriptures and quit relying on man's understanding... something that they discovered in the dirt. I trust God enough to know that He is doing the right thing, or He wouldn't be where He is. If you want to believe that God can't kill men, or allow them to be killed, without jeopardizing your underlying faith in Him, then you are going to have a hard time getting past why He allowed His Son to be crucified.

Thank you for the correction, Rory. I said President Kimball, but it was President Benson, and the year my wife saw the conference was 1987 (that couldn't have been Kimball DUH).