Vort

That wasn't very nice. But at least you're not laughing at me.

Based on the endowment presentation, we can safely assume that God's plan included introducing the erstwhile "forbidden" fruit at some point in Adam's and Eve's progression. Had Satan not tempted Eve at all, as you suggest, the default plan would then have been operative, wherein the "forbidden" fruit would have been presented to the principals in its proper order. Satan apparently believed that by making this introduction in an unauthorized way, perhaps earlier than planned and certainly without proper preparation of the principals, he could destroy the world.

My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened. (D&C 64:8) I assume the Lord can only have been referring to exactly such things as you bring up. Pity to remember the great ancient apostles for such ignominy.

My understanding is that "Paul" (or Paulus, or Paulos) was the Roman (not Greek) family nomen, or perhaps cognomen, and that Saul was his personal Jewish given name, or prænomen. (Here is a Wikipedia article on Roman naming conventions.) Among the Jews, he went by his given Jewish name; but among the Gentiles, where he spent most of his missionary efforts, he identified himself by his Roman family name. Or so I have been told.

Personal attack!!!!! Mods?!

Threads I post on don't have a laugh button. I'm rather sensitive about being laughed at.

I assumed as much. But the humor only works if there's a "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" underlying truth to be understood, and I deny any underlying truth to the idea that Adam attempted in any degree to exculpate himself by laying blame on his wife. Unless you were going for absurdist humor, and might as well have written "Yes, and Adam was quick to go polish off a cheeseburger at the Eden McDonald's to chase down the apple." But somehow, it didn't come across as such, so I assume that wasn't what you were aiming for.

Of course Satan had a "plan": To destroy the agency of man and usurp God's honor. That was his plan, such as it was. That was his only plan. Satan certainly did not have any plan of salvation. This is obvious simply by inspection: Would anyone have achieved a "saved" (i.e. exalted) state following Satan's methods? Of course not. Ergo, no plan of salvation. Not so. The scriptures explain this clearly: And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.

I have never understood why this bothers people. Adam didn't pass the buck. He simply told the truth.

The endowment presentation is highly stylized and ought to be interpreted with great care. Certainly, any idea that the actors (live or filmed) are accurately portraying fine nuances of the typed beings they represent is not supportable. Adam and Eve are types, stand-ins for the rest of us. The endowment is meant to teach us our relationship to God and how to approach him, and (I am confident) is not intended as a fine-grained, true-to-life history lesson in the literal portrayal of actual historical events. To answer the question: I am confident Adam loved Eve very deeply, and that the feeling was mutual. The idea of "romantic love" is a recent invention of the Western world, so I don't think it applies to our first parents.

What a thoughtless comment!

Two problems with this: You will not be able to tell her anything she can't already read or find out legitimately. Some of what is presented is only done so under covenant that you never reveal it. The rest is already available in scripture and in books, as mentioned above. So unless you plan on violating covenants (which I am sure you do not), you won't have any new information to offer. To be blunt: Unless you are highly unusual, you will not understand much of the temple endowment presentation the first time you experience it. You will probably need to go through the temple a dozen times or more just to get a good feel for what's going on, and many more times after that to start investigating the actual meanings of the symbolic presentations given. It's a lifetime of study, and more. Going through the temple once will not prepare you to give much of a lesson on what goes on in the temple.

I'd say this is almost trivially obvious. Did Satan really have a "plan" to save everyone? Clearly not. If such a "plan" were possible, God would implement it. Satan's one and only plan, then, now, and forever, is to destroy the agency of man and thus usurp God's honor or power (apparently, these are synonyms). This is all Satan has ever sought, or will ever seek. But then, why the claim that he would save all mankind, "that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it"? Here we come upon one of the "deep doctrines" of the LDS Church, something many people have great difficulty comprehending: Satan lied. But how can this be, if Satan could not actually act as the Savior in "his plan"? Isn't that what we're taught from Primary age: There were two competing plans, and we had to choose between them, and we chose Jesus' plan? Here we find yet another disturbing fact: Sometimes, what we are taught in Primary isn't the whole story, and in some cases isn't even correct. There were not "two plans". There was one plan, the plan of salvation. That's it. The Father needed a Savior for his plan of salvation. The First volunteered (or so it is presented in the record). Another also volunteered, but with amendatory conditions. The Father selected, or called, the First. The other rebelled and, with his followers, was cast out. We would do well to teach our children and converts these basic facts, rather than dress them up as a made-for-television movie. But in any case, that's what the scriptures teach.

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. If men started out innocent in the beginning, and then needed to become again, in their infant state, innocent before God, the obvious implication is that they were not innocent before being in their infant state. Ergo, they must have sinned in premortality. Remember the question Jesus' apostles put to him of the man born blind: "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:2) Clearly, they believed premortal sin was possible, even punishable. Remember that the third part of heaven rebelled and fell. Sin is spiritual death, which by very definition is separation from God. If Satan and his "angels" cannot be considered to have sinned, the word has no meaning. 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. I think the above scriptures indicate that the atonement is needed for premortal actions, as well.

I was referring to your personal attack in accusing me of a "self-righteous guilt-triping [sic] crusade". But this is a false allegation, volgadon. See the previous link to remind yourself of the context of my remark. As in your false claim that "One is able to function perfectly normally without a foreskin"? That one can successfully copulate and even have a fulfilling sex life is not at all the same thing as being "able to function perfectly normally". The mechanics of sex are not the same for circumcised men as for intact men. This is a fact, not an opinion. Yet you clearly did not know this (or else you were consciously telling an untruth -- but I gave you the benefit of the doubt in attributing your error to ignorance rather than dishonesty), so obviously you were ignorant on this matter. As for your being "all for barabrously [sic] amputating a baby's penis", I neither said nor suggested any such thing. My expressions did not involve personal attacks, as yours did.

I don't believe there is any difference today. The original circumcision as practiced by the ancient Hebrews has not been done regularly in over 2000 years. The radical denuding of the glans penis is the standard method of circumcision performed today, whether by hospitals or by a Jewish mohel (or whatever the Muslim equivalent is).

My understanding is that relations (i.e. sex) between the husband and non-first wives were also to stop, but I don't believe this was ever enforced doctrinally or culturally to any degree. I may be wrong. (In which case, why am I even posting this? Mysteries never cease.) I have heard more than one non-LDS Christian state that OT polygamy was an abomination, but God let it slide. So this may not be a convincing point for some people.

I would suggest Googling remote computer monitoring, remote computer monitoring software, and remote computer monitoring software free, and starting your research from there.

I see a few possibilities: 1. You're imagining it. Impressionable people who believe in ghosts, especially if they are told that there are ghosts about, are more likely to "see" the ghosts. Those who claim to have seen ghosts are invariably those who talk about ghosts all the time. 1a. (Really an adjunct to the above) You are seeing normal variations in shadow and light, but because of your heightened sensitivities and predispositions toward ghosts, you are attributing such variations to ghostly presences. That is, there really is some (small) thing that triggers these "visions" -- you are not imagining them out of whole cloth -- but they are not what you think they are. 2. These are bona fide visions of spiritual beings, either disembodied spirits of the dead or unembodied spirits of evil. I do believe in the doctrine of spiritual "possession", so I grant that it is possible that these evil presences could do you harm, if you invite them into the house of your body. If you avoid their influence, however, they can have no power over you to do you any harm, so can safely be ignored. Since even evil spirits are subject to the power of God, any (LDS) Priesthood holder could simply cast them out, so I suppose that might be an option to consider. If #2 is correct, though (which I doubt), then something else is going on. People normally do not interact with the spirits of the dead or (especially) with evil spirits. There is a veil that separates us from them. If that veil has been breached, something is wrong. If #2 is indeed the case, then my suspicion is that you and/or your family are doing or have done something to invite such presences into your home. If such is the case, that is the root of your problem.

Wearing a seat belt, carrying a spare tire, and keeping food storage do not put anyone else in danger in any sense. In addition, our leaders have not explicitly asked us to avoid wearing seat belts, stop carrying spare tires for our cars, or quit storing food.

As a husband, your relationship with your wife is far more important and more intimate than the bishop's relationship with a ward member. Of course your wife's spiritual status is your business! Of course you should be informed about it! But never forget D&C 121:41. If you wade in, throwing your (perceived) weight around and demanding to know, you will get exactly nothing. If your concern is for your wife's well-being, and if you can communicate this fact, then you might learn exactly what you need to know.

Seems like the leadership has explicitly asked the members not to bring firearms to Church. I seem to remember such being read over the pulpit some years ago. Don't have a reference.

Neither of which are relevant. Because such I believe it to be. So you are suggesting that an honest expression of heartfelt opinion, directed toward a topic but no individual, constitutes disrespectful speech in the same manner as volgadon's open attacks? A perfectly sound and accurate description. Circumcision is in fact the amputation of the skin at the end of the penis. That some might object to this description is evidence of denial of the facts of circumcision, not that the description is inherently flawed. If one mutilates genitals, is that not genital mutilation? If someone forks his tongue, would not "lingual mutilation" be an accurate description? And remember, tongue forkers do so on their own, not because their parents did it to them as infants. Of course I expect civilized people to act, well, civilized. This is a completely false characterization. I am not stirring the coals just to see if flames spring to life. I am stating my opinion as clearly and convincingly as I can. How wonderful for you. But guess what? I do feel guilty. And my guilt is no less valid than your lack thereof. In any case, that is irrelevant. Feeling guilty is not and never has been the point. The point is that circumcision is an unnecessary mutilation of an innocent infant's genitals, and parents ought to protect their children from such, not subject them to it. Guilt is only useful if it serves to help change the damaging behavior.

Or .

For the record, I have been nothing but respectful toward others in this conversation, including volgadon. Please do not attribute his rhetorical devices to me.