Webster

That answer belongs to an old riddle often told about two natives on an island, one from a tribe who always lies and one from a tribe that always tells the truth. But the tribes presumably know that the other person belongs to the other tribe. You never said that the guards knew who the other was (liar, truth teller), plus you added that you would ask both guards at the same time, the original version usually allows only one person to be asked. Therefore, I devised a completely new answer, one that only works when both are asked and even works if the guards are completely ignorant of whether the other guard lies or not. In comment #76 you told sakuragirl she was incorrect. I recognized her answer as the correct one for the old riddle, although it was not completely spelled out, therefore I thought you must be looking for something else, which I provided. You said in comment #33 "There is only one right answer to this." Do you still think so?

Thanks for all who have reponded so far, but remember the main idea of this forum post is "Do you have, or have you heard of, a 'non-traditional' idea or definition of Agency?" Please review comment #1 for the full question and idea, also there is a link to some polls if you're interested.

Read 'em and weep, SinnerMan! In your example you say that, "the liar will say yes if he has heaven," and, "The truth teller will say yes if he has heaven." I said, "As soon as you hear the 'Yes,' walk through that door!" By your own example you show that the guard who says, "Yes," is guarding the door to heaven, regardless of who he is (and I really don't care who he is, because I'm in Heaven).

SinnerMan: This may not be what you're looking for, but check it out -- it actually works: Ask the two guards, "Would you be allowed to enter the door you are guarding?" (Or maybe, "Are you guarding the door that leads to your eternal reward?") As soon as you hear the "Yes," walk through that door! Try it, you'll like it.

The secret agent is receiving phone calls. Everytime the caller ends the call, the agent notes the time. After a while, the agent has a list of numbers. These numbers are a code which the agent can decipher. The caller is passing a code to the agent based on these numbers. No one watching or intercepting the phone calls knows what's going on. But the secret agent gets the message none-the-less.

Loudmouth: I've heard your bottom three points in some form or another before, but your top three catch me a bit off guard. Would you care to add more info about those points? Also, can you define or describe the idea of agency as you have talked about it? Is it some sort of control over you own life?

Moksha: I went to dictionary.com which had several dictionaries that came up. The definitions listed below are from the first dictionary that came up. Do you really want to go with the first one listed below? You can check the site and find what you mean and specifically refer to it, or perhaps pick your favorite(s) from those listed below (please rank them in order if you choose to pick multiples); otherwise, I have no idea what you're referring to. 1. an organization, company, or bureau that provides some service for another: a welfare agency. 2. a company having a franchise to represent another. 3. a governmental bureau, or an office that represents it. 4. the place of business of an agent. 5. Indian agency. 6. an administrative division of a government. 7. the duty or function of an agent. 8. the relationship between a principal and his or her agent. 9. the state of being in action or of exerting power; operation: the agency of Providence. 10. a means of exerting power or influence; instrumentality: nominated by the agency of friends.

Moksha: What do you mean by the "prime definition" of Agency? Please explain.

Do you have, or have you heard of, a 'non-traditional' idea or definition of Agency? I have seen some discussions of Agency on the internet that are different from the common "Freedom of Choice / Freedom to Choose / Free Will" type definition that seems to be the traditional meaning within the church. Please briefly share your ideas or others you may have heard. Feel free to refer to books, articles, or link to websites as well. I'm not asking to start a debate, just to share different points of view. Because the 'war in heaven' is a related subject (Satan sought to destroy agency), you may want to discuss that as well if it helps shed additional insights into the meaning of Agency. I also have some POLLS which ask "What does Agency mean to you?" and "How would Satan have implement his plan?" (Unfortunately the polls only allow 4 responses, and I had 6 in mind, so I had to split the question into two parts. Read both parts, and please only select one of the options from among them. I guess you could also choose the last parenthetical option if you want to view the results for the half of the poll you do not select. You may have to go to the next poll page to find them)

Apparently a good account about his receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is missing. For more on this, see discussion on LDS.net When Did Joseph get the HG?

I want to apologize. The comments originally were, for the most part, interesting, and fun to see others' views about the idea of Adam and Eve being born. It hasn't been fun for the last several pages, and for that I apologize. I was trying to lighten up the discussion with some humor above, but my guess is that it will not be taken that way. Therefore, I am banning myself from this post from this point forward. I will check out the future comments from time to time, but I will refrain from commenting. I will let all readers examine what has been written so far for themselves. I find many of the ideas interesting. I really don't know all the answers (and maybe some leaders in the past did not either), but I am interested in the possibilities.

You ask for scriptures, I give them to you, you deny their literal meaning. Your favorite verses are literal, others' are not. I present possibilities, but since you appear to have all knowledge you deny me access to your club. Fine, Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph F. Smith (did you even read the original comment?), John A. Widstoe, Brigham Young, and I will go form our own club. Anyone who's open to possibilities can join. (This is figurative of course -- I hope you get that.) Our first meeting will be at the Stake President's house. Apparently the brethren named above have some 'splainin' to do. Joseph Smith can be a club member too. He said, "Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way." --- Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373 (emphasis mine) (Let me save you some time. You will no doubt deny the general principle stated above during the King Follett Discourse by saying that was found in the context of a statement about Jesus and His Father. Your club is too exclusive for me.) Good thing 'Mormonism' lets people like me stay in. (It even promotes some of us heretics to the station of Apostle or Prophet -- see above names.) Peace out.

Something else to consider: I think that God calls Abraham's son Isaac his only son three times in Genesis 22 (where Isaac is almost sacrificed), but really, Abraham had another son earlier named Ishmael. Hmm. Another son born first, who was not as favored as Isaac, and Isaac the "only" son was sacrificed. Hmm. Maybe we don't know what "only" means. Possibilities.

Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with Him. Then He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as He had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth, until His system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth. --- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v.4: p.218 You'll explain this away however you want, but it looks like Brother Brigham may be saying something like you said. One way to paraphrase the above is this: God created earthly tabernacles (physical bodies of 'earthly particles') in the same way His flesh was originally created. How? He partook of (we could say ate) the coarse material of this earth until it infused His body. (You're already rejecting this aren't you?) When it says, "consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth," I have to wonder why God would partake of earthly matter, until His system was "charged" with it, and then it sounds like Brigham says that as a result the bodies of his children were composed of the coarse material of this earth (i.e., your earthly particles). I'm not saying that what I've been advocating as a possiblity is THE way it was. I'm saying it's possible. I don't KNOW which is correct, and I'm not going to hold too tightly to any one view, and I also don't think I should condemn possiblities.

You skipped comment #103 where I answered a challenge of yours with 2 scriptures. Arguing is one thing, but shouldn't we be open to all truth, even if it seems contradictory? I like to hear all sides because it gives me more to think about. Many of the early saints had trouble with things Joseph told them because they couldn't consider something that seemed at odds with truths they already possessed. I imagine that many of my favorite ideas, and probably quite a few of yours as well, will not quite measure up to the full truth that God has yet to reveal. If we arrive in heaven and find out that Adam is not his son as some scriptures say, or that Adam was not literally formed from dust as others say, should we lose faith and apostatize?

How did he create male and female in his own image? (Gen. 1:27 I realize I am assuming that "man" [i.e., human] is made up of both "male and female", but that's my particular reading of that verse.)

Dare I even ask the question that just popped into my head? I'm just fool enough to do it: Does God give birth to human spirits or does He create them some other way? Why were we created in His image? Is mankind the perfected form of life to create or do we naturally look like our parent? If God gave birth to human spirits, did God give "birth" to chicken spirits of did He form them in a laboratory? Or did He get them from perfected, immortal chickens who were fulfilling the measure of their creation? Just imagine all the possibilities. He is God after all! I sometimes wonder if we are like mosquito larae in a scummy pond, trying to image what life in a penthouse is like.

If God does not need a female God to create offspring, then why do we have a female God? Also, I believe we could say that God knows where to find resurrected, perfected chickens and trees from which to produce immortal chicks and seeds. Actually, I have no problem with either theory, but I prefer the idea that all life on our earth sprang from other life.

As I said previously in comment #36: I take some of the Genesis account as figurative as I believe the temple may allude to. While we're using scripture to suggest Adam's parentage or not, what about the following? Luke 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God. Moses 6:22 (also in JST) And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed.

My point was that if Adam is God's son physically, then Cain, Abel, and everybody else can trace their physical lineage back to God the Father. I'm not saying that's good or bad; it's just the result of that logic. Personally, I have no problem with it.

IF God were Adam's father physically as well as spiritually, then God the Father would be the father of our spirit bodies (in one generation) and the Original father of our physical bodies (utimately when we trace our lineage all the way back to Adam and beyond).

Although I'm fishing for what information might be out there, I would also assume that the Gift of the Holy Ghost was given at the time that Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek priesthood, but with the following modification (remember, this is only my view): Since Joseph and Oliver baptized each other after receiving the Aaronic priesthood authority, I wonder if they would have given the Gift of the Holy Ghost to each other after receiving the Melchizedek priesthood? It seems to me that angels only perform ordinances or restore keys when there was no other authorized person available. But in the case of baptism, Joseph and Oliver were authorized and instructed on how to do it, which they did. I wonder if a similar thing happened with the baptism of fire? They were authorized, probably received instructed, and after their baptism they said that they prophesied many things by the power of the Holy Ghost (therefore they already had experience with uttering inspired words via the Spirit).

Any additional clues, ideas, or references out there? I've now read through all of the above comments. There was one which said, "previous to this, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had baptized, confirmed and ordained each other to the office of an Elder." This was about the best evidence I could find, but then I noticed several places which referred to the idea of confirming to the priesthood, so I'm not so sure the above quote is referring to confirmation (i.e., receiving the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost) as we think of it. It may be referring to what we would now call "conferring" the priesthood.

Hemidakota included some more information. I scanned through it, and there are some additonal hints/clues. I'll look at in more in depth later. There may not be a clear description of how, when, and by whom it happened (like we have with Joseph's and Oliver's baptism), and I'm okay with that. I still invite anyone who has additional info/insights to contribute.

I'm still wondering if we have an official (or even less than official) account of the circumstances surrounding Joseph Smith's receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost ordinance. Rameumptom says something that was my best guess. I seem to recall that at the organization of the church, it mentions that the Holy Ghost was given to some in attendance, but it doesn't mention specifically who. Does anyone have any additional knowledge? [p.s. I meant to post this under the Gospel Discussion forum rather than the General Discussion. If someone with authority feels that this would be more appropriate to have over there, go ahead and move it. Either way is fine with me.]