Justice

Again, we change just by virtue of gaining the knowledge of good and evil, and by gaining a physical body. If you do not think this brings about a change in us, or makes us no longer innocent, then you have to disagree with the passages I quoted from Alma. But, we're not finished changing yet... We cannot go back to the way we were before we were born physically. Look at Adam and Eve in and after the Garden as an example. We become carnal; we must be born again. We start off innocent in the pre-mortal realm. We come to earth and gain a body, and at some point gain the knowledge of good and evil. We must learn to become spiritual while in a carnal state. We do not re-learn to become innocent, we no longer can be. We change from innocent, to carnal, to spiritual... not from innocent, to carnal, to innocent. We become something different than we were in the pre-mortal life. We change. It's called progression, and it's part of life. As far as those who die before the age of accountability, it's a different group of spirits. They fall under the, "noble and great ones." Those spirits did not need mortality, for whatever reason. It's not comparing apples to apples.

Yes, as was the book I refer to, "Pure Religion." It was written by a member of the Seventy under the direction of the First Presidency. I believe they have committees made up of different General Authorities that are responsible for every word of every lesson manual, all under the direction of the First Presidency. Yes, the bulk of what the Church publishes are lesson manuals. Yes, the Ensign is published by the Church. I don't have a list of the books that have been written by individuals that the Church has published, but I'm thinking the total of them can be counted on your fingers, maybe even the fingers on one hand. That's not many, considering the Church is approaching it's 200th anniversary (April 6, 2030), and publishing has been one of it's largest works.

I have some speculation on what else "authorized" could mean. I didn't mention it because I did not research it. The criteria involved in determining if a work can be published by the Church or by one of it's companies is surely different. I would think there are content screeners that are employed by a book company owned by the Church that have a certain set of standards to measure potential works to be published. It would seem that for the Church to publish something, it would require the approval of the prophet and/or apostles, the leaders of the Church, who have been called of God, not employed by a CEO of a company. They would be acting in the calling of their Priesthood office, as opposed to being paid by a publisher. That would be a notable difference. It is also quite possible, and a more significant difference if true, that tithing funds could be used to publish books approved by the Church. That would be a notable difference also. This is just logical speculation, of course. I'd be curious to see if anyone knows or has researched what the difference(s) may be.

I was addressing this comment: It seemed you were saying that whether it was published by the Church, or by a company owned by the Church, it was the same. I was saying that just because it's published by "Deseret Book Company" does not mean it is "Published by" the Church. Your statement: ...is not true. I was just pointing that out. Maybe you knew, even though you stated otherwise, and were just testing me. :) As far as what it means, it means the First Presidency reviewed and approved the content of the book, so the Church is safe to put it's publish stamp on it. Incidentally, the Church has not published very many books like this. The bulk of what they publish takes the form of manuals and such. But, books that have been authored by an individual? Very precious few.

I found the announcement on the Church web site for when it was released. Pure Religion: The Story of Church Welfare since 1930, a book written under the direction of the First Presidency, is now available for Church members. Go here to read the entire announcement: News of the Church - Ensign Dec. 1995 - ensign

No, I'm saying some books have been "Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" which is different than "Published by Deseret Book Company." For instance, look in the front of "Pure Religion." The Church officially endorses this book. Here is the text copied and pasted from the web site I found it in (I have the book, too): Pure religion: The story of church welfare since 1930 by Glen L Rudd Published 1995 by Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints See the "Published by?" That book is endorsed by the Church, making it different than other books that are not. Miracle of Forgiveness is published by Bookcraft, making it not officially endorsed by the Church. Jesus the Christ was published by Deseret Book Company. So, again, if it is "published by" the Church, not a company owned by the Church, the Church "officially" endorses it.

Blah! I was one chapter off. That was the one I was looking for. Alma 42 continues and clarifies the point, but 41 introduces it. The word restoration as used there intrigues me. Thanks for your summation. I agree. I think the consequences of Adam and Eve's choice are much misunderstood largely because we have no baseline reference for what it means to be innocent. I maintain that we can study the condition and behaviors of small children and see what some of those might be. I think we can better understand what it might mean to try to make desicsions while innocent. The example I frequently give is like if a little 3 year old boy and girl take a bath together. They have no concept of reproduction, and it does not tempt them to any degree. Instead, they are more interested in the bubbles and toys. If you read the Garden of Eden story with this understanding, many things become clear. I think we were much like this in the pre-mortal life. Having gained the knowledge of good and evil and a physical body, we are now who we are, and that is different in nature, and we can never go back to "innocent." We must become as a little child, meaning we must return to innocent obedience and behaviors, but the knoweldge will always be with us. It is now a choice, and we have moral agency to make those choices.

as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature So, here is the question you're asking... We were innocent before coming to earth, much like Adam and Eve were innocent in the Garden of Eden. Once this carnal nature is added, it is a change. So, are we simply trying to get back to our previous condition of innocence, or are we really trying to change into something else? As I stated earlier, I do see your point. I would like to offer that we can never be innocent again. We now have a physical body with flesh desires. We did not have that before. We now have the knowledge of good and evil (maybe as a result of having the physical body). We have that now forever, but again we did not have that prior to being born on earth. With the addition of these two things, we are changed. We are carnal, and must learn to become spiritual with the new additions. By being born here we went through a fundamental change, and now we must go through a nother funamental change, to become spiritual, or follow the will of God, but we cannot go back to being innocent, we have progressed beyond that. We cannot unlearn what we have now learned, but must learn to overcome it. When we do, we will become something entirely different than was possible in the premortal existence. We will become holy by our choice (not precluding the need for Christ and His atonement to make it possible). In the premortal existence we didn't have the abiltiy to choose to be holy because we didn't have the necessary opposition (carnal nature). Some chose to rebel prior to having a carnal nature, and they were not allowed to progress to having that nature. Since being holy can never be a choice for them (as long as they don't have a body) they cannot progress from their current condition.

Yeah, this is exactly why you can't really trust history books. The opinion of the author(s) is always present. Two history books covering the same event may read completely different. The truth of the matter is that people see what they want to see. I read Alma 5 to my friend at work, which is one of the greatest chapters found anywhere in scripture, and his take was that there has to be some good, or some enticing, if the book is attempting to lead you astray. Since he believes the Book of Mormon is but trying to lead men astray, then even the beautiful, correct teachings it does contain are part of the ploy to mislead. We see what we choose to see.

My point is "perfect" can change drastically if God existed before all things, and created all things, including law and even matter itself. This would mean that whatever God does is perfect, no matter the consequences. However, if God is co-eternal with law and matter, and God is following eternal law instead of dictating eternal law, then as the Book of Mormon says, if God is not perfect in following and abiding in law then He would cease to be God. It makes for a dramatic shift in the thought process for determining if God is perfect, and how God is perfect. Under the Trinity view, where God "created" all things with perfect foreknowledge then your original point becomes very valid, that God made everything the way it is, and He created imperfect things and deemed that they suffer for eternity for it unless He Himself chose to intercede on their behalf. He becomes the Savior of something He caused. Also, it means He set the terms and conditions on how man is redeemed, requiring Him to send part of Himself to suffer for mankind's sins that are merely part of what He created, and we are but doing what we were created to do, natually and instinctively. Somehow, we are evil for it. But, if God is an eternal Parent and we are offspring, then He cannot prevent us from sinning if we are to progress, because we are like Him. All He can do is provide a method of redemption according to eternal justice and mercy. This earth then becomes a test to see if we will keep His commandments, because He cannot force us to obey, since we are children with minds and wills of our own. The fundamental premise of "perfect" changes between the two beliefs. So, the discussion will be very different depending on your belief about who God is, and who we are. Sorry about that, it wasn't my intent to derail, just to make this disctinction. As some made comments that seemed different, I just wanted to establish a base for the difference.

What I mean, more specifically, is that if you open the cover of an actual book, and read the text describing it's publication, if it says "Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," then it's published and authorized by the Church. If it does not, then it is not.

Yes, there are a few books that are published by the Church. Regardless of the title, official or otherwise, if it's not published by the Church, it's not endorsed by the Church.

C'mon now, you don't expect me to believe that since you believe there was a period before time began that that explains how God existed for an eternity but did not create time or a universe? That's like saying since I've never been to Russia that means it doesn't exist. God existed, whether in time or eternity (doesn't make any difference), and you believe He existed alone because He had to be before all things, and that He existed for an eternity before He created man. Again, I don't see what this adds to the conversation. I never said God had to do anything. I'm just making a logic based argument that if God knows all, then He would have known to create time, space, a universe, and man long before this time, space, universe, or us. Throughout all eternity He would have been able to do this an infinite number of times. It's a pure logic argument and it points out a flaw in the belief of the Trinity. Only if you believe God is a mystical triune being with no family.

So, you believe the resurrection will wipe away any flesh desires? What your quotes and scriptures do not address is what will happen after the body and spirit are reunited. Again, I believe what Alma teaches in chapter 42 is that "evil will be restored to evil." The resurrection will not automatically, or magically, purge flesh desires. Speaking of Adam and Eve, but applying to all men and women: Alma 42: 10 Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state. Once they had become flesh, or carnal, they needed a time to repent. If not, redemption was impossible. The addition of the knowledge of good and evil, and a mortal body, added carnal desires that cannot simply be erased, even by resurrection; but only by repentance. 27 Therefore, O my son, whosoever will come may come and partake of the waters of life freely; and whosoever will not come the same is not compelled to come; but in the last day it shall be restored unto him according to his deeds. 28 If he has desired to do evil, and has not repented in his days, behold, evil shall be done unto him, according to the restoration of God. The resurrection will not wipe away any desires the spirit has, where the spirit has not overcome the desire of the body. If it were possible to wipe these desires away simply be making the body immortal, all could abide celestial glory after the resurrection, no longer having evil desires. Repentance is the condition by which the atonement is applied to sin, weaknesses, and evil desires. Without repentance, the desire will be restored, because nothing has removed the desire, since without repentance the atonement cannot be applied.

This might be a simplified example, but I liken your words to the volume of the radio. The programming is the same no matter what volume it's on, but the louder it is the easier it is to hear. So, the volume changes, but that's all... no real change in content. Let's continue with that analogy. Let's say the station you're on is hard rock. What I'm suggesting is it's also possible to change the channel and listen to easy listening or to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. You now have the ability to adjust the volume with new programming. This change of programming is called "born again" or "change of heart." There is no real change in just adjusting the volume. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, I'm just offering that there may be more to it than mere volume control.

Easy. Some progressed farther in the pre-mortal world of spirits and did not need this life as much. I certainly understand what you're saying. What I fall back on is that I know I have changed, and I know I have seen others change. The word repentance means to turn or to change. The purpose for this mortal existence is to see if we will keep God's commandments when outside His presence. The spirit and body are joined together, and we are introduced to evil, and thus opposition. Evil can be enticing, and all subject themselves to a taste of it (all but One). We must learn to overcome the desires that are inherent in having a physical body, and choose to keep God's commandments. Maybe this requires little chance for some, but for others it requires a complete and total change of the heart. It's like courage... it's not the lack of fear, but the ability to rise above fear when confronted with it. In fact, you can't have courage without fear of some kind. Similarly, these desires of the flesh are there, and they will be as long as we have a physical body, mortal or immortal. The desires will possibly different when immortal, but physical desires are part of having a physical body. The ability to rise above those desires and choose the good is what we're striving for, IMO.

Maybe we should have a discussion about what it means to have a "change of heart?"

I love the C.S. Lewis quotes. That the tyrants of the world are monotonously the same, and the saints are all beautiful and different rings true with me. I have seen people change. The Gospel of Jesus Christ can and does change people. I'm not talking about just what they do, but what they desire, and even who they are. Christ said He didn't come for the whole, but for the sinners. He came to change the hearts of men. He has changed me. Without Christ and His Church I have no idea what kind of person I would be, but I know it wouldn't be anywhere near as good without Him.

This works for all those who know there is a ladder and have sufficient time to choose it. There are many who don't know, and when they know don't have the time needed. Perhaps both are correct. Perhaps some are put in a kingdom because that is really what they will ultimately desire. Maybe there are some who are slower, or behind for whatever reason, and didn't get to progress as far in this life. Maybe it will be possible, but not mandatory to progress? Maybe that marrys both sides of the discussion?

This is why addiction is so dangerous. This is whay we are told to avoid anything that will make our physical bodies crave or desire anything. I think many times I have used a term and you have understood it differently than what I intended. I would go back and compare them all, but I don't know what point it would prove. That, or my horrendous grammar from late last night (sigh). We are dual natured beings, and we always will be. Do you believe we will stop desiring flesh things at some point? I don't think we will. Some learn to not act. It's not a sin to desire things of the flesh (I'm not talking about evil thing necessarily, but say, strawberries, laying in the grass on a nice warm day, taking a refreshing swim when it's hot, etc.). We will still have flesh desires. Some of those desires may be against the rules of the kingdom we live in. But, I'm not just speaking about the things we generally consider sin. I'm just trying to establish the fact that flesh is flesh, whether immortal or mortal. Incorrubtable doesn't mean you can't be tempted, it means it will not decay and die. Christ was tempted while on earth, yet He was perfect, and His body was corruptable because it had blood and aged, not because He sinned. I think Alma is separating the corruptableness of the body from the corruptableness of the spirit. The physical body is corruptable because of blood and mortality, the spirit because of sin (not temptation -- or desire).

Very well. However, the person who has given in to the desire their whole like with wreckless abandon will not be equal to the person who fought and desired to stop. Christ's atonement can work for the man who fought and struggled with the desire his whole life, but not for them an who does not desire to stop. If the atonement worked for both in the same manner, then what good does it do to resist evil?

I still it as you speaking more in the physical sense, with the whole corruption thing. I speaking about what we will take with us when we die physically. "That" will be restored to a perfect, incorrupable body. The body will be flesh, even if it no longer has blood, but yes perfect flesh. But, the resurrection cannot magically make "us" perfect... the part that is not the flesh body. Did you read all of Alma 34 yet and look for "restoration" with this thought specifically in mind? I believe that poeple can change. I think that is the whole point of this existence. A trial or test can change us, if we respond appropriately to it. I believe repentance IS change. We can be "of the flesh" and become "of the spirit." I don't give in to the notion that we're here just living out a "program" of who we are and it's set in stone what we will do, and who we were in the pre-mortal life has already determine this life's final outcome. We're here to see "if" we will do what we're commanded, even if it goes against our flesh desire.

In our attempt to not judge others, we need to be careful not to turn the Church into something we can be "politically correct" about. For example, we have been counseled to read our scriptures daily. Does that mean if during one particularly trying day, where we are left with not a moment to spare, that we will go to hell if we don't read our scriptures one day? No, what it means is that THAT is the day where it becomes most important for us to read our scriptures, so that we can receive ALL the blessings the Lord can give. It means that reading the scriptures everyday is the minimum standard, and that if we do so long enough, one day we will run to our scriptures when our day's work is done, excited to seek more for the answer we have excitedly been pondering all day. But, don't let us become so politically correct that we say, "Oh, it's OK if you don't read your scriptures just one day." We are striving for the place where we love to read them so much that we literally feel a loss when we don't get the chance.

Yes, but it doesn't result with a passing or failing grade, or even a A,B,C or any other letter. We are graded by what we become. That means, how well did we give up our selfish desires to desire the good of others? We will be "restored" to those desires at resurrection. This is what Alma 34 is saying in my opinion. Your spirit will respond in such a way to having a body. When they are rejoined, it will respond in the way it responds. If you have not overcome any selfish desires, they will still be there.

I'm not sure I go along with this completely. Certainly, there are certain struggles that a person can only have here, but I don't think once we're resurrected all struggles with "overcoming the body" go away... they just become much more difficult (see previous post). This is what Alma means by the "restoration" of evil for evil. I think what Alma is saying is that if anyone still has problems with being a 100% spiritually minded and guided person, they cannot enter Celestial Glory. The sins we commit here can be washed clean... easily... and forgotten (easily because Christ suffered eternally for the right to succor His people). The rest of our existence will be spent overcoming unrighteous desires until we have. Some never will (possibly).