Vort

If that is your definition of "evil" than a spirit that is cast out of God's presence is no longer under his will and therefore not evil.No, that does not follow. If, as I have suggested, "evil" means knowingly acting contrary to God's will, then even those cast out of God's presence can act against his will and thus be evil. We in our mortal state do not dwell constantly in God's presence; do you suppose that means we cannot sin? Of course we can. We can choose evil, just as the rebellious spirits who were cast out can (and do) choose evil. You are free to believe whatever you wish to believe, of course. But the doctrine of the LDS Church is quite clear: We made important moral choices before ever being born into mortality, as did other spirits. Some of those spirits ("the third part") chose evil. If you wish to believe the teachings of the kingdom of God, those are the teachings. If you wish to ignore them for some other philosophy, one that ultimately denies the very existence of evil, then of course you are free to do so. But in choosing that belief, you are also choosing the consequences of that belief. I think it's a dangerous belief, one that I stay far away from and try to teach my children to avoid at all costs. Evil is real; Satan is real; destruction of the spirit is real. Dancing around the terminology or trying to convince oneself that Satan isn't really evil, because evil doesn't really exist, will never change the reality of things. Again, you are free to believe this doctrine, but it is a false doctrine. Your comparison is ill-considered. Satan and his hosts did not merely "refuse to fight". They actively rebelled against the Father and sought his honor, openly lying to further their wicked ends.

Maygraceabound's question about ignoring Jesus was based on a false premise. That was the point of my similarly falsely based question.

Have you stopped raping your son yet?

SS, what do you think "evil" is? Do you think it's a self-existent entity? By asking "where did that 'evil' come from", you sound to me like you think "evil" is some thing or substance or entity with an independent existence. In my understanding, "evil" is acting in conscious defiance of God's will. Therefore, any time you have God's will presented to you, the possibility of evil exists. It's like a shadow: It exists only when there is light. The two are not mutually exclusive. We came to this life, in part at least, to be tried by being exposed to evil in certain forms. That does not in any way mean we didn't experience and reject (or perhaps accept) evil before this life. If it's night and you have a campfire, that fire is "the source" of light. That doesn't mean the sun doesn't exist as the source of light at other times. It doesn't mean that you can't have a flashlight or a lantern to provide light, as well. It simply means that, when you're all sitting around the campfire, the campfire itself is the light source. In this life, Satan functions as our primary source of temptation and evil. But make no mistake, we carry the seeds of evil choice within us, and Satan uses those seeds to further his purposes. But the fact that Satan is a source of evil and temptation, or even the primary source of evil and temptation now, does not imply that Satan is the only source of evil in creation. Such a supposition is naive and vastly oversimplified. Do you think you have a "full knowledge" of good and evil now? Your understanding of good and evil is continually changing, hopefully for the better. We may suppose that our understanding of good and evil is better, or at least more mature in some ways, today than it was premortally. Similarly, we can hope that our understanding of good and evil will vastly improve in coming ages during and after this life. So if by "full knowledge" you mean the ability to distinguish and choose between good and evil, then I would say yes, of course we had a "full knowledge" of good and evil. But we did not, and do not, have a perfect knowledge. That will only come in the eternities, I think.

This is an artifact of our twisted cultural expectations and biases. Adult men, specifically middle-aged and older men, have traditionally been the "wise men" of any culture and the natural people to turn to for advice and insight. Our patriarchy-hating society has lost sight of that, but that doesn't make it any less real.

I miss Sister Vort's belly button turning inside out. It let me see a hidden part of her -- literally.

No. But if your judgment of his situation is correct, he is doing himself grave spiritual harm. God will not be mocked.

Tanny, if you want a temple marriage, you need to act like you want a temple marriage. You have put yourself in a position where you are completely unable to marry in the temple, and it will take you a while (probably a year or longer) before you can become worthy to do so. If a temple marriage is really what you want, then start acting like it today. And if such is not a priority for your boyfriend, then you need to decide whether spending your life with him is more important than that temple marriage you always wanted.

I agree with anatess. It's very, very scary when there is no bright-line decision on when to take a child away from his parents. What about those homeschooling weirdos? The Germans already take the children away from such child abusers and throw the parents in jail. What about the cultists who teach their kids all those strange religious things, like praying to some sky god or weird sex perversions like chastity? Should we take the kids away from them? On the other hand...a 200-pound eight-year-old is utterly appalling. Please don't tell me about glandular conditions or other such nonsense. A morbidly obese eight-year-old is prima facie evidence of neglectful, or at least abysmally ignorant, parenting. So I really don't know the right thing here. I cannot celebrate taking a child from his parents because they feed him too much, but on the other hand, I can't work up a lot of outrage toward the CPS case worker who made the difficult call.

Not sure why you are misunderstanding us so badly. We do not say the husband does not deserve consideration. Rather, we are saying that his freely chosen actions have painful consequences, and that his wife should not damage herself or refuse to seek the help and support she so desperately needs just so that he, the unfaithful husband, does not have to face the consequences of his actions.

If I understand you correctly, you think that Good and Evil are concepts that exist outside of our own being. At some point, God said, "Hey, how would you like to get to know these concepts that I call Good and Evil, and that exist outside your being?" And some (like Satan) answered, "Nah, that doesn't really sound like much fun." I think this model is fatally flawed. Good and Evil do not exist independently outside our being. They are a part of what makes us children of God. They are an inextricable part of reality, of existence. Every son or daughter of God chooses between Good and Evil from the very beginning of their existence as children of God. It is inescapable. We discriminated between Good and Evil premortally, and to some extent at least we chose the Good. We are doing so now, in mortality. We will continue to do so after death. That is my understanding, at least.

By the way, I don't think it's a silly question at all. I think it's a tricky question. I think if you do not understand it or if you have a wrong answer for it, you could potentially go off on a wrong path and ultimately do yourself some real damage. But silly? No. "Innocent" can have at least two meanings here; in both cases, the answer as I understand it is "No, Adam and Eve were not innocent before their birth." If by "innocent" you mean "without understanding of good and evil", this is clearly not the case. Adam and Eve were faithful and valiant children of God, and the qualities of faithfulness and valiance presuppose the ability to discriminate good and evil and choose the former. If by "innocent" you mean "without any sin or blemish", this is unlikely to be the case. Jesus is the only sinless being; the rest of us make less than optimal decisions. Could this be the case in premortality, in the presence of the Father? Consider that the third part of heaven's host openly rebelled against the Father. This shows unequivocally that we could choose the evil or the good. Consider also D&C 93:38: Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God. How could an infant have become "again...innocent before God"? Obviously, that infant must have been something other than perfectly innocent before being "in their infant state". To me, this demonstrates quite clearly that we became clean again at birth, having at some point lost that state of perfect innocence and cleanliness while still in our premortal state. Now, I'm not an apostle and have no authority to proclaim doctrine, but this seems the obvious meaning of D&C 93:38. Keep in mind that, while Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden are all real, the presentation of events there is highly stylized. For example, Satan was not actually a serpent, slithering around on the ground. The "forbidden fruit" was in all likelihood not actually a fruit growing on a tree (in my opinion -- and it very clearly was not sex, either, as prophets have explicitly taught). Whatever took place in the Garden, we have only a stylized version of events, designed to ignore the mechanics and highlight the core issues at stake. Sure, there is a gradation of the extent of our knowledge of good and evil. Hopefully, we are all growing in our understanding. But if one consistently rejects the good choices and takes the evil path, he will eventually lose his ability to discriminate between good and evil. This does not make him innocent before God; on the contrary, he has freely chosen his path by consistently rejecting the good and embracing the evil. His blindness is the natural result of his free choices. This is Satan's condition. If you asked Satan, I have little doubt he would portray himself as a victim of circumstance and a whipping boy of a vengeful God, even as he openly seeks God's honor and delights in the destruction of God's children. Paradoxical though this may seem, it is the natural and very real outcome of those who reject the light and embrace the darkness. Don't worry that you cannot understand it. As D&C 76:48 teaches, Wherefore, the end, the width, the height, the depth, and the misery thereof, they understand not, neither any man except those who are ordained unto this condemnation. The innocent are baffled by the thought processes of the guilty. But don't make the mistake of thinking that, because you can't understand it, therefore it must not really exist. Satan is real, and he is forever lost, damned for eternity, as a result of his own choices. He is not merely misguided and waiting to grow in knowledge before he, too, can receive remission of sins and salvation. He actively works against God and for our destruction. He is not misunderstood and deserving of compassion and love. He is the very father of evil. Such knowledge is not a monolithic entity that you either have or do not have. It is an understanding, gained gradually over a long time and based on your decisions. It is a one hundred million piece puzzle that you put together, a piece at a time, for a very long period, premortally, mortally, and after death. I think it was new for her in the mortal sphere. Many prophets have suggested that our present "learning" of spiritual knowledge is actually a "remembrance" of knowledge we already had but had forgotten. In either case, I don't see that it makes a difference. This is a question of mechanics, not of substantial reality. How we receive truths into our spirits is ultimately of much less importance than that we receive those truths. For example, you chose to follow Christ in embracing the Father's plan and to reject Satan and those who followed him, seeking for power and glory.

I, too, do not object to Kentucky Fried Duck, but I doubt it will catch on.

Yes. What makes you think premortal spirits did not experience good and evil? Clearly, they (we) did. No, you are mistaken. Adam and Eve had their minds veiled, and thus were innocent and without understanding of good and evil. But such was not the case before their mortal birth. Incorrect. As I demonstrated, you're starting from a false premise. It is always difficult for a good and decent person to understand the motives of an evil and selfish person. But difficult to understand or not, those motives exist as real reasons why they do the things they do. The scriptures teach that Satan, being miserable, wants all to become miserable like unto himself. They teach that Satan seeks to destroy the agency of man. They teach that Satan seeks to usurp God's honor. The scriptures, one of our primary guides to spiritual life, teach us that Satan is forever lost (the meaning of "Perdition", one of his names), and that we, too, will be forever lost if we follow him. Attempting a 21st-century psychoanalysis of the personality and character of Satan is a fool's errand and will yield no worthwhile results. We will do much better simply to accept the scriptural teachings on the matter.

Hi, Sarah. This is a whole discussion list full of people who are happy to be your friends. Cyber-friends, that is, which isn't really the same thing as a flesh-and-blood IRL friend. But you are certainly welcome here. Do you mean "ease the subject" of discussion about the LDS Church to your family? Or do you mean "ease the subject" of the Book of Mormon as you're reading it and trying to understand its sometimes-peculiar language? For the former, I don't really have a lot of suggestions, though others probably will. For the latter, I think really the main thing is you need to read the Book of Mormon several times to get a feel for it. If you have ever read an older English version of the Bible, such as the so-called King James Version, it's the same thing. You have to read a while before the language clicks. Kind of like how you have to read three or four chapters of Pride and Prejudice before the language flows naturally.

In the timeless words of Weird Al: You're dead for a real long time.

And how would you know this?

Or those who do not care to accept a bishop's inspiration.

Reminds me of how I felt about Led Zeppelin: A talent level somewhere between impressive and staggering, but I wouldn't want my sister (or daughter) involved with them. And I never did understand Anthrax. To my ear, it was just noise. Don't know why they never clicked with me.

Full confession: I like all the songs I listed, but One is the all-time most gut-wrenching and, frankly, amazing Metallica song, in my estimation. Probably not coincidentally, it was the first Metallica song I ever really liked. Either: 1. You are pure and unsullied; or, 2. You are naive and unexposed to aspects of life's artistry. Probably some of both. It is if that's what you want it to be! Admittedly, it was not an exhaustive list. I really should have linked Nightmare instead for a speed/thrash example, but Practice What You Preach was, again, the first Testament song I heard and liked. Indeed there is! And truth be told, Metallica is a part of that. (But in my estimation, not the song or artist I linked to in that choice...) I just went back and linked to the Some Enchanted Evening version. If you haven't heard that (and the fact that you know Astronomy suggests that you probably have), go listen to it. One of my all-time favorite songs, of any genre. And while Metallica's cover is not my favorite Metallica song, it is very good, and shows what a song cover should be: A band pays homage to a great song by making it their own. Mormon's can't dance. Or at least, . Penn State area stations did that in the early to mid 90s. Seattle's FM 99.9 used to do it, too. Don't know if they still do it. I haven't actually listened to much radio in probably fifteen years. Hmmm...maybe that you're getting your eras confused? Queen was a '70s band that peaked in the '80s. Metallica was an '80s band that peaked in the '90s. I left the "What?", "When?", "Where?", "Why?", "How?", and "Which?" buttons off, just to mess people up. I always found that one to be a bit noisy for my tastes. (Ignore any following comments about the irony of this statement.) Black, middle-aged woman who listens to Metallica. Yeah, I can't say that's quite conforming to stereotype, Dahlia. Your students will probably rebel by listening to Conway Twitty or the Andrews Sisters. Hopefully not on temple grounds. Actually, lots of people like Nothing Else Matters because it's more of a lyric ballad. Thanks for the responses so far. Fun thread.

And all of the lower-case "i"s are dotted with little hearts.

For shame! It's against list rules to link directly to such a site.

My advice is that your attitude is all wrong, and you need to change it. It seems that you view the endowment as an entitlement and your bishop as an obstruction. You are mistaken on both counts. The endowment is exactly as the name indicates, a gift, not an entitlement; and your bishop is your facilitator in preparing to receive that gift, not a roadblock to be overcome. I suggest you completely reconsider your attitude, go back to your bishop with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and ask him to help you prepare to receive that sacred endowment in whatever way he feels is needed for you to prepare. Then do as he says.

Christ referred to his followers as sheep. He was not insulting them; he was stating a fact about human nature. Those who criticize others for being "sheep" are ignorant and should be summarily, and permanently, ignored.

Your question is ultimately, "Does God progress?" Answering this question would require understanding what 'progression' means for God. It is possible the word has no meaning when applied to God, in which case the answer would be, "No, God does not progress." I personally believe the word does indeed have meaning in that context, and the answer is, "Yes, God progresses." However, the nature of this progression is something I don't know, because I don't know God or the state of exaltation well enough to understand what 'progression' means to such a being. It may be as simple as this: God progresses through our progression, because bringing about our immortality and eternal life is God's glory.