Maxel

I must admit; I'm hesitant to accept this idea when the issue is increasing the national deficit by such a huge percentage. The idea behind FDR's remarks is that if Plan 1 fails, we can try Plan 2 because we'll still be around to try Plan 2.If this crazy spending fails, and America's creditors decide to 'cash in' their debts, America may be in no position to try a Plan 2. FDR's wisdom loses its efficacy when Plan 1 requires a person to drink what could be either a lethal poison or another substance that may or may not cure the drinker of an ailment. I'd prefer to find another option and forego Plan 1 altogether.

The best way to help a child grow up to be healthy people is, in my opinion, to make sure they are loved and have the right intellectual and religious training. In terms of knowing right from wrong, the most important thing is to teach a child to have a personal relationship with God and how to recognize the Holy Ghost. BTW, Aesa, we're here on Earth to learn right from wrong- that includes learning the consequences of our evil actions, as well as the consequences of our right ones. And it's not oppressive or despotic to instill one's values into one's children- quite the opposite, in fact. Children need guidance when they are young- too young to care for themselves and, therefore, to make their own informed decisions. It is up to the parent to search for truth as honestly and as boldly as they can, and then teach that truth to the children. It is also the parents' prerogative, however, to make sure the child knows (s)he is loved and accepted and that (s)he needs to make his/her own choices in life once (s)he is old enough to do so.

Really? Could you quote chapter and verse? Can you prove that? Also, how do you define corrupt? I think you're spewing rubbish. Frankly, I see capitalism and our current economic system as vital to the growth of our nation- the good kind of growth. Are there things wrong with it? Yes. Is it perfect? No. However, is it (ideally) the best system out there? Yes.By the way, I suggest you read up on current political structures. America's greatest export is the Constitution, some have said. What makes it great is its political structure- not its economic system (although that helps). Really? It's my turn to say 'that's rubbish'. You can. The lines of division and unification are the key factor: Christ will unite the righteous under His banner, and divide the wicked from the righteous at the last day. Before that day, a similar yet imperfect division will take place among the children of men. I'm glad we agree! Done; and done. You're right; virtually every religion teaches the same core principles. Glad we can agree on this too. Only if you want to equate technology with morality- which is what the Zeitgeist Movement appears to do.Of course if it doesn't, the only logical assumption would to be that eventually it will. If values become outdated, and we learn that science phases out values, the only logical conclusion would be that, eventually, science itself will replace morality- which, of course, it cannot. If people try, they will create a moral vacuum in which anything- and everything evil- will be sucked into. We do understand that; very well. The difference, however, is that we understand revealed religion to give us the end answers- that is, Christ is revealing to us the fundamental nature of the universe when he said "You shall earn your living by the sweat of your brow". An effect and/or condition cannot come into existence without a preceding cause and/or change. Movement away from that fundamental truth- and others like it that Christ taught- is a movement away from sensible and honest living to some bizarre, self-contained delusion that has no choice but to end bitterly and possibly violently. ...? No, it's not. Good and evil could not exist if one didn't have agency. Good and evil cannot exist if men have no agency- which is what you would have us believe, judging from your comments other places that all crime has an underlying cause and that there are no real 'criminals'. Now, really... that's laughable. Can you tell me, then, why organized religion has survived in virtually every society, both monetary and non-monetary? Hold on, America is NOT founded on the idea of anti-established religion. The separation of church and state is to prevent the tyranny of organized religion over the people, and at the same time to protect religion from influence of the government. You're right; one of Christ's doctrines is to live His teachings and not just talk about them. However, the wording "it is time to stop praying, stop wishing and stop blindly talking", coupled with the other anti-religion rhetoric, is painfully obviously a sleight to the idea of prayer as something useless and ineffective. Prayer is not either. Yes; quite educational. I am not calling them. I've read enough of their garbage online- that's what lead me to be so against them. Thought I would throw that out there.

Q: Why do so many religions share common themes? A: "And thus the Gospel [of Christ] began to be preached, from the [time of Adam], being declared by holy angels sent forth from the presence of God, and by his own voice, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost." Moses 5:58

I am reminded how some Gospel principles find their true efficacy in the merging of two polarized concepts- and that our understanding of them can only find correct expression through the 'synchronization of the Spirit' (so says Elder Maxwell). For example: Justice and Mercy Free Agency and Fore-ordination (a form of 'predestination', if you will) Forgiveness and Vengeance

All right, that wording makes more sense. My reservation on this issue would be if the community planners didn't set aside some sort of area or building specifically for worshipers of various religions. I assumed from your first explanation that no plans would be made for a general area for worship centers. However, I don't think your answer reflects the reality of what would happen. More on that below. Then the real way to cure people of their love of money is to give them something else to love- the best thing is God. People who have faith in worldly things- who trust in the arm of the flesh- will always walk in crooked paths. Changing the direction of those paths doesn't make them less crooked, nor lead in the right direction. The only kind of society that can survive and foster peace is one that intentionally provides two things: the freedom of worship, and the safety of a fair government, and those two things need to be the basis for the society (hence America's success). Focusing on building a society revolving around some other means takes one's eye off the ball. I've done my thinking on this subject. I believe Christ said it best:Luke 12:51-53: 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Religion does divide people in two ways. The first is through superficial social differences. The second is through legitimate moral differences. That is, there are those who will allow themselves to be divided from their brother based on religious differences (I'm Christian and you're Buddhist so we can't get along; etc.). Then there are those who will allow themselves to be divided from their brother based on what's right and what's wrong. The wicked will always fight against the righteous. It's better for part A and part B to be fighting against each other and part A still acting under the influence of the truth then for part A and part B to be united under falsehood. As for why I said this movement was 'evil', here are the things that turned me against it: From the Activist Orientation Guide PDF found linked in post #1. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.Conclusion: the Zeitgeist Movement is anti-established religion, which is one step away from being anti-religion. Frankly, in a society based on these values, I doubt a worship center could even be erected, despite Aesa's assurances. It sets itself up as a savior to the world; the answer for the problems of our day. It is, however, nothing more than an organizational false Christ.

This instance would not be in the scriptures if it was not the truth. If Nephi was unjustified in killing Laban, he would have told us. The scriptures are for our own edification: they are sent from God to us in these latter days and will not trick us. God is not a changing God; neither does He lie. There is a reason this story was in the Book of Mormon: it is because God works by laws higher than our own laws. It is our place to believe and learn from the scriptures; not to rewrite them with our own human (and therefore faulty) agendas and beliefs. Nephi was justified in killing Laban. If it were not so, he would have told us or the story wouldn't have been in the Book of Mormon. By the way, HEthePrimate- if it were possible to disprove one part of the Book of Mormon using other parts of the Book of Mormon, than it would be a house divided against itself, not sent from God, and it would not be scripture. You either believe the Book of Mormon is true, or you don't- you don't believe parts are and parts aren't without falling away from the Iron Rod into 'forbidden paths' (1 Nephi 8:28).

No; there was no comparison between specific people today and past figures (especially dictators). The only really damming instance was where Beck showed Hillary Clinton describing herself as a Progressive (the type from the early 20th century) and then goes on to show how the Progressive movement was largely responsible for the shift to turn away from the Constitution to bigger government.The point of the show was to highlight frightening parallels between our current governmental trends and past instances where the same thing has led to fascism- a large part was focused on the out-of-control spending America is currently doing.

The laws need to be worked over so that innocent victims and foolish teenagers can get off without having the rest of their lives ruined. Specifically legalizing such degrading and harmful behavior as this is almost worse than doing nothing at all. Attention should be given to social reform aimed at combating this, however- approaching such an obviously moral issue using the power of the law is, IMO, the wrong way to go about it.

Are these connected to the tea parties that Fox News is hosting on April 15th? They sound similar, but the platform is a far cry from burning books- the ones Fox is hosting are connected to The 9-12 Project, with the stated purpose of "making our politicians follow the Principles and Values". I'd love to attend one in my home state, but my car is broken and the nearest one is an hour away. I'd like to see what they're like first-hand.

"Cult of personality"? I have no idea what you're talking about; could you expound a bit more? And what did he say about Mussolini that turned you away?I agree with what Beck said: you had to watch the entire episode to get the whole thing in context. He goes as far as saying that, if a person can't watch the entire episode then watch something else, because it's not something that can be taken out of context and still keep its overall meaning intact. You probably missed the dramatic re-enactment of Thomas Paine talking about why Americans need to take some kind of action; it was at the end. Personally, that struck a chord with me. If you liked his attitude about '9-12', I encourage you to at least check out the website for the organization- The 9-12 Project.

Your questions are not offensive, nor are you an apostate. I wanted to point out that the line of reasoning you are taking does eventually lead to apostasy. My apologies if you feel persecuted or if I offended you.

I don't know if anyone follows Glenn Beck's show, but he had a special one yesterday (called 'Destined to Repeat(?)') about the current trends America is in and the possibility of fascism taking over should a major economical crisis hit America. Before I talk much about it: did anyone else see it, and if so, what were your opinions? I'm also looking into what's called the 9-12 Project, which is the first movement I've seen that I feel might be worth joining. If anyone has heard of that, what are your opinions?

Yes; but what would Laban have done had he lived and realized the Brass Plates had been "stolen" from him? How would he explain their absence? It is not going beyond reasonable logical limitations to assume he would accuse Nephi and his family of being thieves, and mustering the men under his command to attempt to retrieve the plates from Lehi in the wilderness. If that happened, the journey would have been hindered needlessly. Of course, we can posture and posit endlessly about how things could have been better if they hadn't been done the Lord's way, but to do so brings us dangerously close to the precipice of apostasy. This is dangerous ground you're treading. When we begin to believe that we knew the better way for the Lord to bring about his divine purposes- especially when we are spurred by our own human emotions- we begin to apostatize and leave the iron rod. A few things I've noticed about your conclusions here:1) The idea that his progeny would prosper in the land if they had the records is not greedy. It is the opposite. Greed is based in pride, and pride does not care for anyone else- including one's own offspring. The desire for one's descendants to prosper- either spiritually or temporally- is healthy. 2) The idea that Nephi's descendants would prosper is not the only reasoning for Nephi following the commandment of God. Verses 10-17 all define his reasoning which include the following conclusions (listed as they are in 1 Nephi): -The Spirit (i.e., 'God') had commanded Nephi to slay Laban -The Lord had delivered Laban into Nephi's hands; Laban had sought to slay Nephi. -Laban would not hearken unto the commandments of God -Laban had robbed Lehi of his property -Again the Spirit commands Nephi to slay Laban (that's twice now) -Nephi is given divine insight into the workings of the Lord, namely that the Lord "slayeth the wicked to bring about His righteous purposes" and that it is "better that one man should perish than a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" -Nephi's previous revelations from the Lord were brought to Nephi's mind, namely the fact that Nephi's seed would prosper only if they followed the Lord's commandments- and they could not have the Lord's commandments if they did not have the record. -The record was on the Plates of Brass. -Laban had been delivered into Nephi's hands- as the Spirit had told him. Far more went into Nephi's thought process than what you seem to believe did. Then Moses was one of the weakest prophets in the Old Testament, for he killed, and commanded to be killed, many of the wayward Israelites during the Exodus from Egypt. However, we see by the fact that Moses is repeatedly extolled by later prophets- in fact, Christ the Messiah is prophesied as being another "like unto Moses" (Acts 3:22)- that Moses was in fact one of the greatest prophets. See the slope questioning one fact in scripture takes you? It is clear that Nephi was commanded by the Lord to obtain the Brass Plates. You question the details, however, based on your own predjudice. However, looking closer will reveal Nephi broke no commandments- for the commandments are given to us so that we may follow the will of the Lord. If we deny His direct commandments to us, we are in effect breaking the greatest commandment of all, which is to have no other Gods before Him. If we refuse a direct command based on our own preconceived notions of God, we are replacing Him with our own human, faulty understanding of Him and breaking His greatest commandment to us.Like Dravin already said, if Nephi was commanded by the Lord to lie to Zoram about being Laban, then we find precedent for this when the Lord commands Abraham to lie to the Egyptians about Sarai's status as his wife (Abraham 2:23-24). It is undeniable that the Lord did this, if we are to believe the Pearl of Great Price as revealed scripture. Pam's quotation of the D&C was relevant to show that the Lord is not every patient with those who constantly offend His followers without remorse- and, that this was the law given to Nephi. However, Nephi was apparently not bound by this particular law i this particular instance because, as far as we know, it had not been given to him (where there is no law, there is no transgression- Romans 4:15). However, even if this law HAD been given to him, it still does not apply. Why? Because Nephi was not slaying Laban to enact vengeance for the wrongs that he had enacted against Nephi's family. Nephi was slaying Laban because he was commanded to do so by the Lord, God Almighty. Read verses 39-40 very carefully and you will see that the law of forgiving one's enemies 70 times seven applies to those who repent of their trespasses against us. This 'new' law is in regards to those who continually offend us but do not repent of their trespasses against us. Of course, this is the same law that was given to all the Lord's ancient prophets and apostles (v. 32)- so it's about as 'new' as the human race (and, I'd wager, far older than the human race's existence on Earth. I'd daresay this is an eternal law).I want to point out that, in one post, you have gone from hesitating to accept Nephi's slaying of Laban as an actual commandment of God to doubting all of Nephi's actions associated with this, Moses' actions (I admit you do not say such, but using your logic you cannot doubt Nephi and not doubt Moses and other instances where the Lord slays the wicked by the hands of the righteous) and the actions of all other prophets who followed the Lord's commandments when He commanded them to kill the wicked, and the revealed word of the Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants. I don't want to be cruel, ad hominen-istic, or brash, but this line of questioning and reasoning you're on is leading you down a path you do not want to tread. Then you refuse to accept a large, relevant portion of both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon- including the wars waged by the Israelites to secure the Holy Land, and the wars waged by the Nephites to protect their rights and liberty. Au contraire, we are commanded to seek after the blessings of heaven, because we cannot obtain them unless we obey the eternal principles upon which they are founded (D&C 130:20-21). We are told to work out our own salvation with 'fear and trembling' (Philippians 2:12). The blessings of heavens are ours to be bought, but we must pay the right price: a broken heart and a contrite spirit. We also must pay the price of accepting the Atonement and the fact that we do not merit any of this by ourselves, but only through the righteousness of Christ our mediator. Part of that acceptance is following ALL of His commandments, and not just the ones we like. The difference is that Abraham was not being commanded to destroy Sodom himself. You'll notice that Abraham did not seek to change the Lord's mind about sacrificing Isaac (which, by the way, is the taking of another's life) but instead "rose up early in the morning" (Genesis 22:3) and embarked on a 3-day journey. It is interesting to note that this is a prime example of the Lord testing us: Abraham had 3 days to contemplate the sacrifice he would be making for the Lord's sake, and the opportunity to turn back or plead with the Lord to change his mind. We have, however, no record of him doing so.Regarding changing the Lord's mind about destroying Sodom- Abraham was only offering 'If-then' scenarios to the Lord that the Lord agreed. You'll notice that the Lord still destroyed Sodom, despite Abraham's pleadings. There were, in fact, not a significant portion of righteous men for the Lord to spare Sodom. The only righteous people in Sodom- Lot's family- were taken out of the city, and the city was destroyed. There was no changing of the Lord's mind here. You can find other examples in the scriptures where the Lord's mind seemed to have been changed by mortal interference, but each case is unique and needs to be approached separately. There's another option: that, at this time, Nephi had not been given that law as this incident (Nephi's killing Laban) happened very, very early in Nephi's prophetic 'career' (in fact, we have only one recorded revelation given to Nephi before this incident).The point is moot, however, as Nephi- because he was acting under direct commandment of the Lord- was not bound by the law found in D&C 98, but under a higher and much more basic law: 'Thou shalt have no other God before [Him]' (Exodus 20:3)- the law which had been given to Nephi through Moses. This is a fallacy of the most foul degree. We need the records and insights of the previous generations. The fact that '3 major commandments were broken' (as you claim) were needed to obtain the plates is a testament to the importance of written record. I should note here that no commandments were broken, however, as Nephi's actions were dictated by the Spirit, and God is an unchanging being.------ Kudos to Dravin and Traveler for your insightful comments.

So the entire system might forego preparation for the building of religious centers because minorities might be offended? In other words, it would ignore the needs of the majority in favor of the minority's hurt feelings? Ah... In other words, God would become a nebulously good feeling and religion does more to divide than to unite. The philosophy of the devil if I ever heard it.This Venus Project and Zeitgeist movement is nothing more than the old evils veiled by glamorous new verbiage: namely, returning to a resource-based economy and world unification (i.e., New World Order). Unfortunately, my sister is coming to pick me up and I don't have time to copy/paste the quotes from the OP's linked PDF file that support that outrageous claim, but if anyone wants me to back that up I'll do so at a later time. One thought from the mind of Maxel. Money isn't the root of all evil; the love of money is the root of all evil. In other words- pride. This new system of society will do nothing to alleviate the problem of pride in the human psyche, which is the real source of all of humanity's failings.

There's one story I read about in Parley P. Pratt's autobiography, about a traveling preacher from Europe that Pratt contended with in Canada (at least, I think it was Canada). This preacher claimed to be a representative of the restored church of God replete with a Quorum of the 12 Apostles and everything. However, he was preaching a false gospel and, in the end, was exposed as an impostor by Pratt. Maybe your friend heard this story? I wish I knew more about it, but I can't even tell you the page number.

The devil wants to have a body, and his followers. When Christ cast out Legion from the crazy man, they pleaded to allow him to send them into a herd of swine rather than simply be cast out of all physical bodies. (Mark 5:12) Giving it up for no reason (or a very bad one) is a very, very bad idea. We didn't come to earth just to get a body; we came to earth to get a body so that we could inherit the celestial glory that our Father in heaven enjoys. Giving up that glorious gift- our physical bodies- due to anticipated pain is cowardly and an act that, in normal circumstances, would forfeit the person's right to Celestial glory. I don't want to beat this one story endlessly, as it's irrelevant. Just to clarify, though: my friend knew that I thought homosexuality was a sin (that bare fact we did discuss a few times). Whether he realized I thought having homosexual temptations (i.e., 'being gay') was sin, or just acting on them was sin; that's where I'm confused about his knowledge of my own position. No; that's actually a good question. I disagree with you, and I frankly refuse the idea that the kindest thing to do would be just to listen and take no action to stop her. Dealing with the death of loved ones is a normal part of life. Wanting to die is a normal part of human existence. However, acting on that desire and ending one's life prematurely due to that emotional pain is immoral and wrong. The struggle is overcoming the pain and getting on with one's own life- there is life after death; both others' and our own. You know nothing about what I've experienced in my own life- I am well acquainted with the desire to end my own life due to severe emotional pain. What I have learned is that life goes on; life gets better. Anyone wanting to die- who's not even experiencing that pain yet, but only planning to avoid it altogether!- to avoid life's hardships is taking the coward's way out and applying a long-term solution to a short-term problem. That is a fact some don't want to accept, but it is a fact nonetheless, and because that is the truth, we should encourage people to take the right roads and fight social reforms aimed at making that act acceptable and ordinary.

I have no opinion about whether the embargo should be lifted or not (I can't tell you any details about it, so how could I have an opinion?).My comment was meant to reflect on the idea that the human rights violations are basically so much water under the bridge- and what that says about the people who let those violations float on down the stream. Perhaps I should have posted these other relevant quotes from the article. Of the seven direct quotations from the representatives, 3 are about how deluded America is concerning Cuba. That may or may not be true, but the attitude and wording which these people state that 'fact' is troublesome (to say the least).Moreover, 6 of the 7 delegates are from the Congressional Black Caucus- nothing wrong with that, but Fidel Castro's claim that they said America was still "racist" in the meeting disconcerts me. The delegates' claims that such was not said doesn't ease me at all. The big 'showstopper' for me is the following: Is it common practice for congressional delegates to deliver religious sermons while on diplomatic missions such as this? Why on earth would they deliver sermons? These two representatives are also the two who most brashly and uncharitably described America's mass delusion concerning Cuba (again, whether or not America has actually been duped is beside the point- for me, it's about how it was said).Everything about this makes me feel not at ease. Whether the embargo should be lifted or not is, in my opinion, almost an entirely different issue than the fact that these delegates seem willing to brush past atrocities under the rug for... whatever reason. I don't trust them, and I don't trust their motives.

A question, Aesa: If I wanted to live in the community being raised by the Venus Project, where would I go to church? Could I petition to have a religious center built for me and other Mormons? Also, what's your take on religion?

Hey Snow- Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. For me, I've gotten what I want from this conversation- I understand your position better and I've reflected on my own. I appreciate the opportunity to do so. Most of your post I agree with/consent to disagree, so I won't respond to anything but one point. Umm - they'd say the same thing. The fact that Mormons have the gift of the Holy Ghost makes all the difference. That, and the fact that we're right. (I'll take circular logic for 1,000 )I think that a testimony is entirely structured in a circular path of logic. For example: The Book of Mormon is true because I received a personal revelation from the Holy Ghost about it because I followed the advice found in the Book of Mormon which worked because the Book of Mormon is true. Ultimately, the entire circle hinges on the one bit of evidence that is (to the person involved) demonstrable true or false: the spiritual witness given through the power of the Holy Ghost. In other words, the circle of logic is either based in truth or in falsehood: there's no other option. In my opinion, that's why it's so crucial that a person believes (s)he knows that the Church is true; that the Book of Mormon is true; that President Monson is a prophet; etc. Once that circle has been ridden and the spiritual witness has been obtained, the next step is to move forward in faith, building upon that initial foundation. There are more circular paths to travel, each one stacking upon the previous (line upon line, precept upon precept, etc.) and building the character of the person making the journey. Anyway, that's just how my thoughts were directed while writing this post. Sorry for the wordiness. Once again, I'm glad that I had this opportunity to discuss this with you, Snow.

I wholeheartedly agree with the statement about the U.S. never being a Christian country and that Christians currently make up the majority of the population, and probably will for the next few years (I think we'll see a faster decline in Christians as time goes on).I don't see articles like this, however, as a manifestation of a persecution complex (although it does exist). I saw this article as an honest evaluation of the spiritual health of our current society. I think part of the reason Christians are so worried is that, even among those who profess to be Christians, a large chunk (perhaps a majority) of them don't even regularly attend any church, and the ones that do attend often have ulterior motives for going (i.e., motives that don't include the desire to feast upon the word of God). When we see a decline in Christians altogether- including the inactive and hypocritical ones- we react, in part, in despair for our country, and what we perceive to be the dangerous track it is on.

FutureCoastGuardsmen (hereafter FCG): Welcome to the site! First of all, I'm glad you found it. I've found LDS.net to be a good resource of information. I would suggest picking a course of action and preparing to follow through while praying about it. For example, decide you will tell your mom on [enter future date here] and then prepare what you're going to say. If you're nervous, I suggest writing down possible ways to breach the subject, and even find someone to role-play the scenario with if you can (believe it or not, it works). The point of waiting a couple days and preparing is to allow you time to receive revelation about the matter with the Lord. We are more receptive to revelation when we are acting in accordance with what we think to be right. If you decide to tell your mom/dad/both, I suggest following the preceding plan. If you decide not to tell them, I suggest finding a way to keep yourself spiritually nourished through the Book or Mormon and other scripture while continuing to pray for guidance. Don't let the prospect of rejection make you worry. My mother converted when she was 16, even though her parents were dead-set against the Church (they were non-denominational Christian as well). It was a miracle that they signed the papers allowing her to get baptized- but they did! Don't give up, and don't stop moving forward. If I can be of any assistance, feel free to PM me! Good luck!

Hey Newcomer4831- Thought I'd jump into the fray. I think the questions you're asking are poignant, and there are scriptures to answer them. 1 John 4:1 tells us to test the spirits. How shall we test them? D&C 8:2 tells us that we will be told, through the power of the Holy Ghost, but D&C 9:7-9 reminds us that we have to study the matter out in our minds beforehand, and then ask if it be right.We see Nephi following this pattern. The following is 1 Nephi 4:9-19 (bold emphasis is mine): A few key points: First of all, Nephi himself tells us that the Spirit speaking to him was the Spirit of God (that is communicated by Nephi's use of the term "constrained by the Spirit"). When Nephi actually wrote his books of scripture, it was many years after these events: he had had many opportunities to ponder and pray about the matter. If the Book of Mormon is real scripture, then it was the Holy Ghost that commanded Nephi to kill Laban. Second, Nephi weighs the events and consequences in his mind. He had received prior revelation commanding him to obey the Lord. He knew that the Lord had commanded him to secure the Brass Plates and return with them to his family in the wilderness. Nephi knew that his children could not abide by the law save they had they law given unto them- and the law was contained within the Brass Plates. Nephi knew that previous attempts to obtain the Plates had been futile, and in fact Laban had robbed them of their former possessions and sought to take their lives. All other roads had been traveled, there was but one way to obtain the plates and fulfill the commandment of God: Laban had to die. One may then ask, why was it requisite that Nephi had to kill Laban? Why could not Laban have died of a heart attack, or even of alcohol poisoning (as he was passed out drunk)? The answer, I think, is that this was a test for Nephi. Nephi had to be tested to see if he would follow ALL of the Lord's commandments, not just the conventional and easy ones. This kind of testing finds parallel manifestations in the modern apostle's reaction to polygamy when commanded to practice it (Brigham Young said he would rather die then follow the law, but ultimately it was a commandment of God), and in the march of Zion's Camp. Don't forget that Nephi's journey was only beginning, and he would need the faith to hold on through impossibly hard trials. These included his older brothers, who ought to have been supporting and protecting him, rebelling against him and seeking to kill him; the toils of marrying and having his wife bear children on a wilderness journey; the incident where he broke his bow and a despair came over the group so fierce that even Lehi began to murmur against the Lord. Camille Fronk offers another insight into the importance of being prepared for the journey in this article, although she discusses Sariah and the other women's trials and preparations. It is worth a perusal, and take particular care to ponder the importance that this trip, which tested Nephi's faith in his slaying of Laban, also tested his mother's resolve to entrust her children to the Lord's care. Laban was not an infidel: he was a ruler of Jerusalem. He was well aware of the will of God, yet was rebelling against what was right when he refused to give up the Brass Plates (and especially when he sought to kill Nephi and his family). As the Spirit told Nephi: "it is better that one man perish than a whole nation dwindle in unbelief". Ultimately, what matters is our spiritual salvation, not how this mortal sojourn ends. We also believe that those who die without hearing the Gospel in this life will have the opportunity to hear it in the next. However, we need not fear: the Lord does not command His servants to take the lives of others before those others are given an opportunity to repent. So, if God came to you- and you knew 100% that it was God- and commanded you to do something that was against your understanding of how He worked, you would refuse to do it- although it was God commanding the action? If so, then you prefer dead text to living Truth. I don't think this is what you meant to say, but it's how you came across. Can you imagine Jesus taking a whip and driving merchants out of their place of business? Or, can you imagine Christ eventually enacting judgment on those who sinned, damming them to eternal damnation? He did the former when he chased the moneychangers from the temple, and he has promised to do the latter at the last days.Regarding the Hitler tangent that has arisen- Comparing the acts and life of Hitler to this is a gross abuse of the juxtaposition of two radically different scenarios. Hitler was motivated by the power and doctrines of the devil- such is apparent from history. He was not commanded by God to enact the Holocaust. I don't see any wrongful intentions. I see the desire to follow God. Satan quotes scripture, abuses our humanity, and lies and deceives us all with the ultimate end of damming us, should we heed him. Satan will use our empathy to get us to fight against the things of God, because our empathy is tied to us: imperfect human beings. While usually good, empathy can mislead us if we do not hold to the iron rod of the word of God. This is one of those times. The doctrine of Christ is a hard doctrine to abide by. In John 6:61 and 66 we see that Christ's teachings offend many of his disciples and they ultimately leave, to walk no more with him. It is Christ we must follow because He has the words of eternal life- though those words are not always easy or make sense to our limited understanding.Furthermore, asking about how Laban, his family, and society feels- instead of what God feels- is approaching the situation in the wrong way. Forsake the world for the sake of Christ; do not forsake Christ for the sake of the sinner's feelings. So, you would support a state-sponsored execution, yet you scoff at God-ordered executions? Do you believe Moses' destruction of the Israelite who worshiped the golden calf, or the Israelite-conducted genocide of the Canaanites in the Promised Land, or that Ehud the deliverer of Israel raised up by the Lord (v. 15) were sinning when they killed? All evidence points to the contrary. If a person refuses a direct commandment from God, that person is disobeying that very logic and reason God gave them and they become an agent of the devil. You are saying that you would disobey a direct commandment given by the Holy Ghost because it violates your preconceived notion of the nature of God. IF you want to make the case that God would NEVER command one of His followers to kill a person, and that any order to do so must always come from a being other than God, then you have more leeway. However, as it currently stands, you are claiming you would deny acting under the direct command of the Lord- in essence, denying Him as your leader and benefactor, and substituting Him with your own human understanding of Him. Doing so is to ignore the following words from Isaiah 55:9:"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." See above. Yes; that is right.

I can't remember learning anything about this. My assumption has always been there is no veil placed over the mind of someone who passes on from this earth life, but that the veil in place keeping us from remembering our pre-mortal existence stays intact for a while longer (until sometime after the Judgment, I think).

I read her comment as a mention of the 1/3 of the hosts of heaven that followed Satan and didn't come to this earth and receive a body at all. The irony is that there are those who now would give anything to have a body, and this woman is willing to give hers up due to her husband's death- even though she came to earth to get a body in the first place. My best friend in 6th-10th grades came out of the closet in my senior year of high school. By that time we had mostly fallen out of touch, although we still hung out at social events. He told me he was now happier, and our mutual friends also said he reported being more happy. He certainly seemed happier; his acne had cleared up and he was smiling more. However, he knew all along that I thought committing homosexual acts is a sin (he might have even believed I thought being gay was a sin)- yet we were still friends. I am no longer in contact with that friend, but my own experience reflects Hemidakota's.Anyway, bringing this back to the OP- Is there anyone who thinks that the woman has every right to take her own life, and that there's nothing morally reprehensible about it? Remember, the woman in the article is perfectly healthy but wants to die when her husband does. Millner, the man advocating her right to choose (ah, the irony), is claiming suicide is a basic human right.