Seminarysnoozer

I don't disagree with most of what you are saying but the thing you are talking around and not directly at is the idea that one could have a shared "experience". What about the idea that the shared experience is experience still the same? Did Christ suffer for our suffering in lesser amounts than we would have had we done it ourselves? If that is deemed equivalent or greater then we do indeed believe in vicarioius experience. The purpose of the test we face here is to determine what track we are forever placed in, a Celestial one, a Terrestrial one or a Telestial one. Once on that track it cannot be derailed or changed even though the track still moves forward beyond this life. The test is one that pertains to character not how far up the ladder one has climbed. But it does pertain how far up the ladder one has climbed in relationship to how much Father expects us to climb. That is different for everyone. The tests and challenges we face in this life are different for everyone and ranges. Only God knows what is specifically required for each person, where much is given much is required.

As typical with our discussions, you take what I say as an all or nothing statement, as a black and white, one precludes the other statement. I made no such claims. I am not saying one is over the other or one is without the other like you think I am saying. Not sure why we can't get beyond that. Your arguments agains mine are always in the form of giving one example of something outside of what I said as if what I said was refering to the whole therefore what I said is not true. Experience is the context. Especially as in this life we are tested in doing what we are asked, it is in the doing. Children who die before the age don't need to take that test. They will do what they are asked to do. They do not need to learn to do what they are asked to do like the rest of us. All those above the age of 8 and who are made accountable have been given an opportunity to show that we will do what we are asked to do and if not to use experience to work through that issue, we are given a time to learn that skill. But not everybody has to learn that skill. Those that die before the age of 8 have already learned to do what they are told by Father and will not deviate from it, they do not need to be tested in that skill. They have already done enough to pass that thing that the rest of us are trying to work through. So, in those cases it is not a necessary thing to learn, it came naturally. Our overall assignment is to follow the will of God. God has called us to different assignments. If one is trying to group that into one thing then I suppose one could say that the unifying assignment is to follow the will of God for each of us that may have come in the form of foreordination or promptings from the Holy Ghost while here or just in the form of scriptures and the light of Christ, etc. I know you don't buy this but I will express it for others. To let down a corrupted body, to not be eternally connected to corruption, i.e. - to die physically separating the spirit from a corrupted body, is not evil. The body serving its purpose, to allow for mortality and then ending when it is supposed to end, is not evil. This is part of the plan, to pass through mortality. Satan would make those claims that the process was evil and 'don't do it'. We all agreed that it was not evil, that is was important for our salvation and growth to die. We were excited and happy about such a prospect. Maybe after here we changed our opinion about it but before we were excited and happy that we should have such an opportunity even if it was for a short time. I am not sure where you are getting this idea of letting dust return to dust is evil. As far as learning various things go, including English, it is more of a process of accepting it. It is not like learning how to walk or learning how to make sounds. I am talking about learning all the rules of grammer etc, all the man made things of this world are a matter of accepting and internalizing them. They are not learned by process of proprietary discovery in a bubble. And that is not how the next world will work either. We inherit knowledge from those that have gone before. Just like our Father inherited all that His Father had, and that is what makes a person eternal. If knowledge just started with self than it would be as finite as self. It is passed on and shared. This is what makes society. We believe in a social God, not an isolated, learned everything in and of Himself without any social interaction. God could not become God by Himself. We do not believe that is possible. We should not believe that is possible for us either, like you are suggesting. It has to be done by sharing of experience and knowledge.

There are many Gods but they are also one. Both can be correct at the same time. John 17; "11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." And if we are kept from the world then we can also become one as well, as Jesus prayed would be the case. Why would Jesus pray that we be one if that is not possible? To be one means to no longer look at oneself as separate. This is why the greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart and to love our neighbor as our self. That kind of charitble heart is one that could actually see those around her as self, as one. We are far from that and so it is hard to comprehend but I am sure the Gods see their self as one as well, there is one God. To be a God means that the person loves all those around him/her as self and doesn't distinguish their self as a separate part of the body of one. Our God therefore would not look at all the other Gods as separate, He would look at them as one, therefore He would tell us there is one God. As Christ exemplified in the Garden of Gesthemane it is a godly trait to be able to feel what others feel and to experience what others have experienced. If Christ did not have that trait then He couldnt have taken on the sins of others. Our God knows our thoughts, He knows our experience. This it the pure love of Christ that allowed Christ to atone for us. We can too have that charitable trait and then gain the ability to be one with others. What will happen when we know God that well? We take on His experience and become one with Him as Christ is now one with God. The glory of God is one, it is like the sun as opposed to the stars, one separate from the other.

I think there is a difference between learning eternal principles and knowledge. I also think that you place way to much emphasis on the learning as a major purpose of this life. The two main reasons to come here are to gain a body and to be tested. Learning anything is a secondary purpose. It is not necessary. For example, the baby that dies on day number one did not learn much. I know we have talked about this before and you pointed out that there has to be some learning even though both you and I cannot remember anything about our first day of life. I don't see how there was much learned if anything by the baby who dies on day number one but I could be wrong. I think for those that die before the age of 8 and are kept from the effects of evil in this world, they certainly do not experience evil personally even though they can learn of good and evil. How is that possible? We can be in the world without being of the world. We can learn from those around us and what we are exposed to without having to experience it ourselves. I don't have to experience running down the freeway to know that that is a bad idea, I don't even have to watch clips of it on youtube to know that it is a bad idea. By me witnessing it first hand there is nothing more that I have learned about it. We learn all the time from someone else experience. When I pick up a text book and look at the information, believing it to be true, I can learn without having to run through all the trial and error it took to get to that point. When I learned the English language I took it from my parents who took it from their parents without having to develop a new language on their own each time. Most of what we learn in life is from someone else' experience and work. That is how it is in the next life too. If one had to say to their Kindergarten teacher, "I don't believe 2 plus 2 equals 4 until I prove it for myself, in fact I don't even know if the word "equals" is the correct word to use in this situation" then that child would be forever stuck in kindergarten because it would take a lifetime to have enough "experiences" to even speak the language. Christ grew in stature amongst God and Man. He did that by learning from others. His learning was not all by personal experience. Where did He learn to be a Carpenter? We all have been given different assignments in this life. We have not all been given the same assignments. There was only one called to be Our Savior and therefore He was made the Only Begotten, the only one who could be our Savior. Noone else could do it without being called to do that job and receiving the foreordination to do it as well as all the other tools and keys needed to do it. Likewise there are many other assignments in this world that certain people have to accomplish including the job Adam and Eve had, and Joseph Smith and Abraham etc. We can all benefit from their work though. The eye cannot say to the hand that I have no need for you as we are all one body. When we are one body there is no differentiation that way, we are one and share all as one.

I would like to try to answer this question a little different than what has already been said about it but not in opposition to those posts, just in addition. I would keep in mind the idea that one can be adopted into Abraham's lineage and receive the same blessings as one born directly. It is the nature of the covenent that exists in the family unit that allows for the eternal blessings not just who is the "biological" father or mother. "Seed" also refers to the way in which the blessings came about, how was it passed on and received. Sharing the gospel with someone might be a way to plant the seed. How great shall be your joy if you bring but one soul unto Him. That is the source of the joy, the achievements of others. If we are linked to others in such a way that we can "experience" their joy and happiness with each of their successes then our joy will be eternal. Why is it that I am more happy when my own child gets an A in school as opposed to another child? My connection with my child is different than my connection with another child. This is what eternal marriage supplies, a connection, by way of covenant that is different than any other type of connection. Any other type of connection is not good enough to allow for sharing of joy. Just like the stars are separate, one from another, the happiness is lessened when it is singular but together it is magnified and multiplied when we are one with each other and all that I do is shared with others and their achievements. I think this also gives new meaning to the purpose of fast and testimony meeting. A shared testimony is such a spiritual event that brings joy for this reason. It is that kind of joy we would want to have continue forever in the next life. It cannot occur if we see ourselves as individuals. The Kingdoms of Heaven are divided in that way, graded down from being as one to being separate. That seems to correlate with joy.

Of course you leave yourself an escape hatch by saying "some things" and not specifying what those things are (other than being shot at) but again one would have to ask whether there was anything that was too heinous that Christ could not feel by way of the atonement? Was there anything He couldn't take on? If you say "no" then it is possible to have an experience vicariously. Alma 7; " 12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities." So long as it is "according to the flesh" it can be done. Neal A. Maxwell; "In Isaiah the sufferings of the Savior are described with eloquence—how he bore our sins, and did it so that we might be redeemed and have life everlasting and so forth. In Alma 7:12, the only place in scriptures, to my knowledge, that it appears, there seems to have been yet another purpose of the Atonement, speaking again of the Savior and his suffering, ‘And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to his flesh, that he may know according to the flesh, how to succor his people according to their infirmities.’ Have you ever thought that there was no way that Jesus could know the suffering which we undergo as a result of our stupidity and sin (because he was sinless) except he bear those sins of ours in what I call the awful arithmetic of the Atonement? And according to this prophet, Jesus now knows, according to the flesh, how to succor us and how to help us as a result of that suffering, which knowledge could have come in no other way.” Which other way could it not have come? By Him sinning and having the "actual" experience. So, there is more than one way to have the experience. There is a way to experience the suffering of sin and still be sinless. We believe in the atonement of Christ. We therefore believe there is a way to understand things vicariously.

That is not what vicarious suffering means. "Vicarious" does not preclude actual. No wonder you can't follow that if that is what you think. Christ suffered the pains of all men, vicariously. He really and actually suffered for us (not pretend). 2 Nephi 9 ; " 21 And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam." Vicarious does not mean "pretend" and "pretend" does not equate to empathetic. I am not following your explanation for why you don't understand. Maybe you are relating this to when a husband has empathetic labor pains for his wife or something like that. Even if you suggest that that is what you are considering the meaning of those empathetic pains, those are also real, they are not pretend. How are they not real? How are we to mourn with those that mourn? Under the definition of "love" at LDS.org; "We manifest our love for Heavenly Father by keeping His commandments and serving His children. Our expressions of love for others may include being kind to them, listening to them, mourning with them, comforting them, serving them, praying for them, sharing the gospel with them, and being their friend." And we know that charity is the pure love of Christ. To be christlike requires love, which requires mourning with those that mourn which requires empathy. Sorry, can't get away from empathy if one wants to be like Christ. ... do you not understand that logic? I can mourn with a fellow sister who has lost her husband even if I have not lost my husband. You don't think that mourning is real?

You have to believe in learning by association with information, that is how Christ taught and how He lived His life. One of the great lessons of this life is empathy. This is why one of the most important commandments is to love thy neighbor as thyself. If one truly has that much love as if the neighbor is self then mourning with those that mourn etc, takes on a new meaning. The experience becomes a vicarious one. Christ suffered for our sins vicariously. Do you think Christ actually experienced the sin or that His empathy and love is strong enough to "experience" it as if He was there? In the end there is no difference. You want to believe there is a difference but when it comes to Christ and His suffering the vicarious experience is equal to the actual. We do believe that is possible not impossible. As we become more and more Christlike we take on that characteristic which makes our joy endless. It is endless and eternal because it doesn't just end with what we personally experience. If all joy was limited to personal experience and proprietary experience, that could not be shared with anyone else, then joy is limited. Endless and eternal happiness is predicated on the principle of loving God with all our heart and loving our neighbor as self. When we reach that level of empathy then we can share vicarious experience and receive eternal and endless joy. Just like when my child gets an A in school I feel it stronger than any other child getting an A in school. Why is that? It has to do with the level of connectedness I have with my child, the amount of pure love I have with her. The capacity for that kind of love must have something to do with the body. That hasn't been revealed but I ponder the possibility that one of the limitations of the spirit alone is empathy, to put ourselves in someone else' shoes and to feel what they feel. If thought of that way one can see why Christ needed the one type of body that was capable of such a thing at that level, an only begotten body. To me, that empathy is the knowledge of good and evil that has to do with how we relate to each other, either in an inclusive way - good, or a proprietary selfish way - evil. To desire proprietary experience or exclusive experience, to me, is evil. It is a form of selfishness to think that the only way to advance is through personal and solo steps where credit cannot be given to anyone else but self. When credit is given to others for advancement that is good. To understand that and realize that is the knowledge of good and evil. The direction of evil is like the stars one separate from the other whereas the sun is bright because it is one and synergistically shared. Our whole goal in this life is to become one with God. Understanding that and why is the knowledge of good an evil.

Why doesn't "open everything" describe the first estate test to you? To me, that was "open everything". That was the pick your major, where are trying to go with this type of decision. We had the testimony of God which was more direct than what the Holy Ghost can do while we are here behind the veil. I think we are held accountable for our character. Our choices in life, whether they be carnally minded or spiritually minded outline a form of character testing from which God can justify our final designated Kingdom. The final judgement is not just based in our desire but our capability as well, it is, at least in part, based on a character exam. Like when my husband was accepted to medical school, not only did he have to do well on the MCAT but he also had to do well in the interview and show through his various volunteering and work that he was desirous to become a doctor all along. This life is more like the interview process, the knowledge part of the testing is done, the first estate test. We all here did well on the first estate test. Now we are being "interviewed" as to our integrity and moral character. Part of the moral character is based in intelligence, so that cannot be separated from the test altogether but it is more than that alone, it is a test of our true nature while we are limited. I know I have used this metaphor before but I liken it to the difference between the soldier who in boot camp says "I will never leave a fallen soldier behind" vs the one who in the heat of the battle actually goes in despite risk to his own life and saves the fallen soldier. Not everyone who intellectually agrees with the plan (passing the first estate test) will have the moral character to actually carry through with it despite being in the "heat of the battle". We are in the part of the test where we don't have all of our faculties available, like when morter explosions are crashing all around the soldier going back for his fallen companions, is his integrity strong enough to withstand those drives or does he value the life of his fellow soldier more than the desire to get out of harms way to save himself. This is a test of character, knowledge is part of the character but may not include wisdom or spirituality. We are told to bring up our kids in truth and light. Truth are the facts, light is the ability to discern the truth between different choices while in a state of darkness. Light is the executive functioning, the character. We already had the test of truth, now the focus is the light. Bringing it back to the OP, part of the test of character is emotion, computer like intelligence doesn't concern itself with emotional influences whereas the removal of those drives (under the veil) allows for a more specific test of emotion, of character. This is why the greatest commandments have to do with the emotions of love and empathy.

So, do you think Boyd K. Packer's statement about reformers is "unrighteous"?; "The line was broken, and the authority to confer the Holy Ghost as a gift was gone. The Dark Ages of apostasy settled over the world. But always, as it had from the beginning, the Spirit of God inspired worthy souls.22 We owe an immense debt to the protestors and the reformers who preserved the scriptures and translated them. They knew something had been lost. They kept the flame alive as best they could. Many of them were martyrs. But protesting was not enough; nor could reformers restore that which was gone." Is it unrighteous to "owe an immense debt" to those that protested against the church. Boyd K. Packer seems to praise those that opposed the Church and states that they kept the flame alive for future events. Do you disagree with the truth of that statement from a living apostle? Were those protestors righteous or unrighteous? Were they inspired by the Spirit of God to protest, like our President of the Apostles states, or were they following an unrighteous spirit? When those "unrighteous" protesters protested, were they protesting over false information and "anti-" material or was it over real and actual corruption and problems? I am only talking about the ones that the president of the Apostles says we should owe an immense debt to. What debt? The courage to stand up against people who said, 'dont say anything bad about the church, dont blaspheme the church.' Yes, thank you protesters and reformers, thank you for not being caught up in the acusations of evil doings while pointing out corruption in the church without being able to hide behind a computer screen. Wow, that must have taken a lot of courage.

What "anti-" material did I post?

I am not here to argue with you either but I am confused about you wanting it to stop and then you say you want a conversation. I would not be offended by any postings you would have on another site, I would not think it is unfair and I would certainly not be angry. I have made no postings with any "seed of discord", that is your perception and not my intent. Are you prepared to judge me that way? This is what our recent prophet said; " President Gordon B. Hinckley taught that the reformers were doing their best to find the truths that had been lost to the Great Apostasy: “This was … a season of growing enlightenment. As the years continued their relentless march, the sunlight of a new day began to break over the earth. It was the Renaissance, a magnificent flowing of art, architecture, and literature. “Reformers worked to change the church, notably such men as Luther, Melanchthon, Hus, Zwingli, and Tyndale. These were men of great courage, some of whom suffered cruel deaths because of their beliefs. Protestantism was born with its cry for reformation. When that reformation was not realized, the reformers organized churches of their own. They did so without priesthood authority. Their one desire was to find a niche in which they might worship God as they felt He should be worshiped” And our current Prophet; President Monson; "Honest men with yearning hearts, at the peril of their very lives, attempted to establish points of reference, that they might find the true way. The day of the reformation was dawning, but the path ahead was difficult. Persecutions would be severe, personal sacrifice overwhelming, and the cost beyond calculation. The reformers were like pioneers blazing wilderness trails in a desperate search for those lost points of reference which, they felt, when found would lead mankind back to the truth Jesus taught. “When John Wycliffe and others completed the first English translation of the entire Bible from the Latin Vulgate, the then church authorities did all they could to destroy it. Copies had to be written by hand and in secret. The Bible had been regarded as a closed book forbidden to be read by the common people. Many of the followers of Wycliffe were severely punished and some burned at the stake. “Martin Luther asserted the Bible’s supremacy. His study of the scriptures led him to compare the doctrines and practices of the church with the teachings of the scriptures. Luther stood for the responsibility of the individual and the rights of the individual conscience and this he did at the imminent risk of his life. Though threatened and persecuted, yet he declared boldly: ‘Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me.’ “John Huss [or Hus], speaking out fearlessly against the corruption within the church, was taken outside the city to be burned. He was chained by the neck to a stake, and straw and wood were piled around his body to the chin and sprinkled with resin; and he was asked finally if he would recant. As the flames arose, he sang, but the wind blew the fire into his face, and his voice was stilled. “Zwingli of Switzerland attempted through his writings and teachings to rethink all Christian doctrine in consistently biblical terms. His most famous statement thrills the heart: ‘What does it matter? They can kill the body but not the soul.’ “And who cannot today appreciate the words of John Knox? ‘A man with God is always in the majority.’ “John Calvin, prematurely aged by sickness and by the incessant labors he had undertaken, summed up his personal philosophy with the statement: ‘Our wisdom … consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves.’ “Others could indeed be mentioned, but a comment concerning William Tyndale would perhaps suffice. Tyndale felt that the people had a right to know what was promised to them in the scriptures. To those who opposed his work of translation, he declared: ‘If God spare my life, … I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the scripture than thou dost.’ “Such were the teachings and lives of the great reformers. Their deeds were heroic, their contributions many, their sacrifices great—but they did not restore the gospel of Jesus Christ" This is what I was refering to in terms of ability to say that there was corruption in the Church without having to fear like these men would have to have courage and fear regarding their statements. Nowadays we do not have to have that kind of fear when truth is presented, the kind of fear that would cause their actions to be heroic. Do you not think these men were heroic?

The thing that goes hand in hand with the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil is agency as well as its associated accountability. Just like one does not have to lose to be a winner but one has to have the chance for losing to be a winner, in the same way, one has to be put in a situation where sin is possible to be described as righteous. The purposes of this life being to receive a body and to be tested to see if we will do what we are told to do and follow the will of God are not so separate. The body we are given in this life allows us to have internal opposition but we do not want that opposition forever, just during the testing phase. In taking a final exam, the chalk board is covered (if they even use those nowadays), the text books are closed and then the test takes place. But the testing conditions were never intended to be permanent. Similarly, God, in His wisdom, allows for a testing situation that was never intended to be permanent, thus death is needed. Spiritual death is like the closing of the books etc, and the physical death is the way to not make the testing situation permanent. The knowledge of the good and evil is like having false answers on a test with multiple choices. The test requires those false options. Exposure to the false answer doesn't mean that someone is permanently affected by being exposed to it. So the issue of God having knowledge of evil to me is not a problem at all. In the same way that we can live in the world without being of the world.

Who said I was posting anything as proof of anything or as a faith building message? I have been posting long enough on this forum to realize that nothing anybody says here is proof of anything. "Proof" always comes from the spirit when pondering truths. It does not come from the amount of intellectual effort or the quantity of the gathering of information from men. If that fact insults Catholics then my hope is that they do not depend on the teachings of men to understand God's will. At one point men also believed that the world is flat and that eating a tomato would kill someone. At the time of those beliefs if anyone said that wasn't true, they were offended. The reason we should praise the reformers as was previously stated is because they were not afraid to insult those in charge. I am not sure why you are so afraid of the cutting nature of truth. The truth seems to insult those that believe the opposite to the point of causing anger. That has been pointed out by the Catholic religion many times over. So, what is your point? Am I supposed to be threatened by that? Am I supposed to go run and hide for fear of being tortured by the great 'God-empowered' leaders of that Church? If they are insulted instead of enlightened, that is their own prideful problem. Insult comes from having contentious motives. The truth is for all to hear, it doesn't have to be kept under a bushel so as to not "offend" anyone who is hurt by the light. Nowadays I don't have to worry about offending a Catholic Priest with my religious views and practice as did my ancestors who at the time of the Conquistadors had their cities and culture destroyed in the name of that insult. We don't have to fear them like that anymore. LDS truths have been "insulting" to others from the moment Joseph Smith was told that all other religions were corrupt and to not join any of them. If they don't want to be corrupt then have them come on over to the truth, they would be less angry and less easily insulted. The only thing I could insult is a false belief, the false belief that the Catholic Church is run by God. If that insults the Catholic Church then so did Joseph Smith. If we are having to draw the line, then I will stand with Joseph Smith. You don't have to point out the line any further or be fearful of it, it has been there before you and I were around. The line is already there, it is not insulting.

Lets get something straight, you are suggesting that my focus is in the quantity of good vs bad these men have done as a measure of authority. I have no idea where you are getting that idea. I have not suggested that or stated that. If I have I apologize because that was not my intention. I think you have taken what I posted as implying some kind of "dirt" on these men but all I was doing was showing internal disagreement about their own authority. I don't take that as "dirt" as you do. You are exagerating and expanded the scope of the things I have written. I have not discussed any "dirt" on anyone in terms of character flaws or sinful life etc. As far as I know, all those men lived relatively righteous lives but we do know from our own teachings and revelation that the Church that was established by Christ fell into apostasy meaning there was corruption in the church. Who specifically was corrupted and how, I do not know. What I have shown are examples of people within the Catholic church that dispute their own history and authority. How can they say they have authority when in their own history, not dirt pulled up about someone's character but recorded disputes over authority specifically, suggests there was uncertainty about the line of authority. If one Pope says the other Pope did not have authority then which one is right. You are right, if that didn't happen then I suppose that is dirt. But this is from the Catholic church's own historian writtings. So, are you saying that didn't happen? Did the Cadaver Synod occur or did it not? If it did occur and Stephen VI said that Formosus papacy was invalid and that he did not have authority then either that is true or Stephen VI did not have authority to make that claim. It has to be one or the other, if that trial really took place like that as stated in the same material you provided and has been documented in numerous histories too many to even provide here. This is a fact. There is nothing in LDS history that I am aware of that states a previous Prophet's authority was disputed by a current Prophet. So, I am not sure what "dirt" you think you can pull up about Joseph Smith or Brigham Young that would be related to that discussion of linear succession. Otherwise, you are trying to suggest that I am talking about something I am not. I agree with your statement "God works with whatever He can use to further the Kingdom." But that is not how you are really seeing this. You are trying to suggest that God worked through the Popes and that was His Kingdom. I disagree with that premise. The Catholic Church was not "God's Kingdom". God did not work through the Popes as one in authority over His Church on Earth as the Catholic Church claims. God's "Kingdom" did not exist as a church during those times as reflected by the answer Joseph Smith received about which church to join. God would not have to restore the church unless it was not in existence at that time, He would just have to reorganize it. All I have to show is one little break in the line to "prove" that there is not linear succession. You are right, it still requires faith to believe in it or not. But, this is a point in which faith is questioned, did Stephen VI say that Formosus authority as a Pope was invalid or did he not? Or was Stephen VI not in authority to make such a statement? Or are all the histories just "dirt" like you are trying to say, that that event did not happen that way? Is it really disputed by the Catholic Church that that event took place? My goal is not to "measure" the apostasy as you assume but at the same time if one believes in the one true Church of Christ as does the Catholic Church then one would dispute one over the other, who has authority. I am not measuring how much "good" was done over how many years as you have tried to make the focus. That is your focus not mine. One could not take a liberal view of this matter like, 'they were all good and trying to do the best they could with what they have so don't worry if they claimed to be the one true church with all the authority and that nobody else had the authority". Is that what you are tyring to tell me? For example, "In the encyclical Mortalium Animos of 6 January 1928, Pope Pius XI wrote that "in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors" and quoted the statement of Lactantius: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation."[10] Accordingly, the Second Vatican Council declared: "Whosoever, [...] knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." The Pope from 1928, at the same time Heber J. Grant was around as a confirmed prophet of God's Church on the whole Earth stated that only the Catholic Church had the authority. At the same time Heber J. Grant claimed to be the living leader with authority from God of God's only true Church on Earth, Pope Pius XI also made the claim. So, one is not telling the truth. If one says they believe one, then they are saying they don't believe the other. There is no middle ground here. I am not sure why you are so excited about trying to create some middle ground when Pope Pius XI showed no middle ground.

I can only speak for myself (and by the way, I am a she, not a he) that the things that make me believe there was a great apostasy is because living prophets and those who have authority to say it have said it. That is proof enough, such as Boyd K. Packer, previous president of the quorum of the twelve apostles; " But as the centuries passed, the flame flickered and dimmed. Ordinances were changed or abandoned. The line was broken, and the authority to confer the Holy Ghost as a gift was gone. The Dark Ages of apostasy settled over the world. But always, as it had from the beginning, the Spirit of God inspired worthy souls.22 We owe an immense debt to the protestors and the reformers who preserved the scriptures and translated them. They knew something had been lost. They kept the flame alive as best they could. Many of them were martyrs. But protesting was not enough; nor could reformers restore that which was gone." And who did those protestors and reformers oppose? What authority did they oppose? "We owe an immense debt" to those that opposed that existing line of authority to keep the idea alive that something was lost! Yeah for them that opposed those church leaders during the dark ages!!! ... I think I am going to pray right now to give them thanks for opposing and protesting because they knew there was something lost. Good job reformers! Good job protestors! Way to listen to the light of Christ to tell you that something was missing, that the authority was gone without having any internet or historical facts to back it up! Weren't they amazing people? They gave their life to say that the leaders of the time did not have authority. We owe them an immense debt!!!

I took that information off the same web site you gave for that list. How is that digging up dirt? Are these facts or are they not? If the Catholic Church (a subsequent Pope) says that a particular previous pope lost his authority how are you coming to the conclusion that none of them lost their authority? How can they both be right? Did Brigham Young ever say that Joseph Smith was not really the prophet or has any modern day prophet denounced a previous modern day prophet's authority? I am not talking about dirt, just authority.

Thanks. That is interesting. I readily admit I am no historian or expert and know very little about the Catholic Church's history. I only submit this is support of the truth about the Great Apostasy. I am taking in what others have written in a factual, historical context. If you click on Pope Formosus (891) from the list you provided you will read; "Under Stephen VI, the successor of Boniface, Emperor Lambert and Agiltrude recovered their authority in Rome at the beginning of 897, having renounced their claims to the greater part of Upper and Central Italy. Agiltrude being determined to wreak vengeance on her opponent even after his death, Stephen VI lent himself to the revolting scene of sitting in judgment on his predecessor, Formosus. At the synod convened for that purpose, he occupied the chair; the corpse, clad in papal vestments, was withdrawn from the sarcophagus and seated on a throne; close by stood a deacon to answer in its name, all the old charges formulated against Formosus under John VIII being revived. The decision was that the deceased had been unworthy of the pontificate, which he could not have validly received since he was bishop of another see. All his measures and acts were annulled, and all the orders conferred by him were declared invalid. The papal vestments were torn from his body; the three fingers which the dead pope had used in consecrations were severed from his right hand; the corpse was cast into a grave in the cemetery for strangers, to be removed after a few days and consigned to the Tiber. In 897 the second successor of Stephen had the body, which a monk had drawn from the Tiber, reinterred with full honours in St. Peter's. He furthermore annulled at a synod the decisions of the court of Stephen VI, and declared all orders conferred by Formosus valid. John IX confirmed these acts at two synods, of which the first was held at Rome and the other at Ravenna (898). On the other hand Sergius III (904-911) approved in a Roman synod the decisions of Stephen's synod against Formosus; all who had received orders from the latter were to be treated as lay persons, unless they sought reordination. Sergius and his party meted out severe treatment to the bishops consecrated by Formosus, who in turn had meanwhile conferred orders on many other clerics, a policy which gave rise to the greatest confusion." There are many holes and unproven events as well as scandulous events in that list without historical proof. In this example that is supported by historical documents, one Pope states the previous Pope had been unworthy to be Pope and "All his measures and acts were annulled, and all the orders conferred by him were declared invalid." So, either one Pope is right or the other. It sounds like it went back and forth about who was right. But even if Stephen VI was wrong about Formosus then I am not sure how that makes him worthy to have held the keys of the Priesthood. They both cant be right and inspired. In fact Stephen was attacked by mobs, supporters of Formosus, and found strangled to death in a dungeon. There are also lists of Popes that have been abdicated or overthrown or deposed; For example. Benedict V Benedict IX: 1 | 2 | 3 Benedict XVI St. Celestine V Gregory VI Gregory XII John X John XVIII Leo V St. Martin I St. Pontian Romanus St. Silverius Silvester (Sylvester) III There are examples of popes that were not confirmed, St Martin 1 as listed above; "Was consecrated without imperial confirmation. Boldly defended orthodoxy. Was charged with sedition and, although already bedridden, was tried, persecuted, and mistreated. He was deposed and exiled and died in exile. Sadly, he was abandoned by the Church and a new successor was elected before he had died. Has been considered the last martyred pope to date." He was unconfirmed during his 4 years of office. ... So, how does that make this a direct line of authority?

The Great Apostasy that LDS believe is in relation to the priesthood authority and divine direction through prophets, the organization of the Church. It does not mean that God cannot work miracles or communicate with individuals or that people cannot have the Light of Christ within them during that time. So, if you believe that an Apostasy of that manner never occured, who were the prophets that continued in the priesthood Authority of God in the past 2000 years specifically without any break in the chain from Christ' time to now? If there is any break in the line, in which one prophet somehow gets the authority on their own without it being passed in succession from the previous prophet then by definition there had to be an Apostasy and a restoration of the authority. If you say there is none, then it is on you to draw the straight line from the Apostles of old to now. Here; I will get you started; Matthew 16; (the keys given to Peter) "18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Acts 8; " 14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God." .... D&C 27; " 12 And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them; 13 Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times, in the which I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;" This is what has to happen when it is not done by the proper authority, through Jesus Christ, and the proper way, by those who received the authority by laying on of hands; Acts 19; " 1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7 And all the men were about twelve."

I agree, one can hunger and thirst for knowledge without having doubt. Doubt isn't necessary to trigger some kind of extra-powerful hunger for knowledge and understanding. The problem with doubt is that one can doubt and have no interest in finding the truth. For maybe a few doubt can trigger a drive to understand but I would say for most doubt makes a person indifferent to the truth.

Why are they redeemed? This accords with Joseph Smith’s statement: “The Lord takes many away, even in infancy, that they may escape the envy of man, and the sorrows and evils of this present world; they were too pure, too lovely, to live on earth.” (Teachings, pp. 196–97.) It is implicit in the whole scheme of things that those of us who have arrived at the years of accountability need the tests and trials to which we are subject and that our problem is to overcome the world and attain that spotless and pure state which little children already possess." They are redeemed from the "sorrows and evils of this present world". They are redeemed from the cost of passage through mortality, the cost of receiving a body. The cost does not always imply sin. There are many things that we endure in this life innocently. It's like getting a scholarship for those children. Elder Christopherson uses a great metaphor of what it means to be redeemed; "In colonial times, labor was in great demand in America. During the 18th and early 19th centuries, potential immigrant laborers were recruited in Great Britain, Germany, and other European countries, but many who were willing to go could not afford the cost of travel. It was not uncommon for these to travel under an indenture or contract, promising to work after their arrival for a certain period of time without wages as payment for their passage. Others came with the promise that family members already in America would pay their fare upon arrival, but if that didn’t happen, the newcomers were obliged to pay their own costs through indentured service. The term used to describe these indentured immigrants was “redemptioners.” They had to redeem the cost of their passage—in a sense, purchase their freedom—by their labor.1 Among the most significant of Jesus Christ’s descriptive titles is Redeemer. As indicated in my brief account of immigrant “redemptioners,” the word redeem means to pay off an obligation or a debt. Redeem can also mean to rescue or set free as by paying a ransom. If someone commits a mistake and then corrects it or makes amends, we say he has redeemed himself. Each of these meanings suggests different facets of the great Redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ through His Atonement, which includes, in the words of the dictionary, “to deliver from sin and its penalties, as by a sacrifice made for the sinner." And... "The Atonement also satisfies the debt justice owes to us by healing and compensating us for any suffering we innocently endure. “For behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam” (2 Nephi 9:21; see also Alma 7:11–12)"

I think, in order to really be talking about the same things, you have to separate out which death you are talking about when you say death is a punishment. Spiritual death may be a punishment, physical death is not. The reason physical death is not a punishment is because it allows us to not stay with a corrupted mortal body. We want to mortify the deeds of the body by being alive in Christ. Those that love the carnal nature of our bodies would see the physical death as punishment. If their treasure, the desire of their heart, is towards things of this world, then yes that would be a punishment to lose anything pertaining to this world of dust but then their treasures also turn to dust in the end. To claim the physical death is a punishment is to also suggest that there is some yearning and sorrow for when it has to be turned in which is to express some love for the carnal. The unjust servant wants to claim the stewardship for himself as if he owned it all along. He never owned it in the first place. That is the test of this life, to see which body we are willing to sacrifice to death, the physical body or the spiritual body. One has to die. Either we love the carnal and are upset when the carnal body dies or we love the spiritual and are content when the physical body dies. Also, death is a needed step to bring about the works of God. Can't you agree with that? If that is the case then how is bringing about the works of God a punishment? Death is needed to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man, it is necessary to bring about joy. Can't you agree with that? If death is needed to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man and to bring about joy then how is it a punishment? Also, do not ignore the first estate test. We all had the opportunity to decide whether we wanted to partake of the tree of knowledge, metaphorically speaking, and in essence, decided that we wanted to die as a part of the first estate test. In part, the choice between following Lucifer and his tempting proposal as part of the first estate test vs God's proposal as part of the first estate test was to choose no death or death. That was explained to us during that battle. We all chose death at that time. We wanted to go forward with God's plan and then started to work towards making death happen at that time. If we wanted to make that happen in the first place, to follow God's plan of going through a probationary period which would require death, how is that a punishment? Separating out spiritual death and only talking about physical death specifically, please show me what scriptural or other reference you have that says the physical death of the mortal, corrupted body is punishment (again, not talking about spiritual death caused by sin). Paul is the most verbal source we have, in my opinion, about separating out the differences between the body and the spirit and expresses it many times such as 1 Timothy 5; "6 But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." This is the second spiritual death, to live for the body which kills the spirit. Also, I think it is a good thing to ponder the phrase; "by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified". Ponder the idea that the blood does not justify. In other words, the physical death and the mortal body (represented by blood) only has to be sanctified not justified. There is no law that was broken for the physical body to die, otherwise it would also have to be justified as opposed to just sanctified. Yes, sanctified is a cleansing from sin but the difference has to do with being surrounded by sin vs sin being a part of the being. These are subtle differences. It has to do with living in the world without being of the world. If a person becomes of the world, spiritual death, then they have to be justified. If it is just being in the world but not of the world, then the person just has to be sanctified - in other words, removing the sins of the world that surround them. (i.e. - the death of the physical body and leaving the mortal world behind) I think it is said beautifully in Moses 6; " 55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good." When they are exposed to the passion of the mortal body which is "sin", they are "conceived in sin" (the key word being "in") - the spirit being inside the outer covering of sin, they are now in the world but not yet of the world. But if it becomes part of their heart (heart's desire - or their spirit's choice) then they start to die spiritually taking on the characteristics of the body and this is only after they "begin to grow up", not before! And Moses 6; "59 That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; 60 For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;" We were born into this world by blood, which is different than Adam and Eve who were born into this world without blood and then made a choice to have blood enter into their body (blood being a metaphor for sin or a sinful world). Christ spills blood, forsaking the world, giving up the world and everything in it so that we might also be sanctified "from all sin" - so that we might die the physical death to get rid of all these "sins" or carnal nature, by the blood. That death is a free gift along with its associated resurrection. Alma 11:" 45 Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption." In other words, the death of the physical body is the way that we "can no more see corruption". How in the world is that punishment?? Physical death is a blessing and we read in verse 44 that the physical death even comes to the righteous. I think your view of this is skewed because you are not separating out the physical death from the spiritual death and therefore calling it a "punishment". The infant child that dies before the age of 8 and is therefore protected from the effects of spiritual death, is punished by coming here and suffering a physical death? Do you really believe that? We shouted for joy at the prospect of coming here, this is not a punishment. Neal A Maxwell; "Besides, this is the life that long, long ago when in our first estate its prospects were presented to us and over which we shouted for joy. I grant you there may be days here that we may wonder what all the shouting was about. But, we’re here and we’re in the midst of all of these things, which life’s circumstances thrust upon us, but also those circumstances which are the result of a tutoring Father in Heaven who seeth fit to inflict certain things upon us because he loves us." Not because He is punishing us!!!! I think also your view of this is in part because of your resistance to accepting the fact that we all come into this life pure and innocent and free from sin, all of us!!! McConkie; "They are saved through the atonement and because they are free from sin. They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; and they return in purity to their Maker. Accountable persons must become pure through repentance and baptism and obedience. Those who are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced. Hence the expression that little children are alive in Christ. “Little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten,” the Lord says. (D&C 29:46.)" So when we are talking about death being a punishment for a person who was never accountable (i.e. - died before the age of 8) they never sinned, there is no sin attached to them as they enter this world and as they die there is no sin attached to them. If there is no sin attached to them how do they die a physical death? This is how we might compromise; the body contains sin, we are conceived in sin, meaning the corrupted body is full of sin and so it can die. But we are not our physical bodies and at least before the age of 8, we are told it does not attach or taint our spirits.

Thanks for your response. I think with each exchange we are refining our views (at least I am) and I appreciate that. Adam and Eve did not make an "individual" transgression, it was together as a married and given couple. So, keep that in mind when comparing our situation to theirs. They were in a unique situation, a married couple with immortal physical bodies in a world where nothing dies. You cannot remove the situation from the event. The creation of that setting is vital to the Fall. Without the creation of all things in that state there could be no Fall. The transgression cannot be removed from the law associated with the Garden of Eden state of immortality and paradise. The transgression that led to death, as far as we know, cannot be made without those conditions. So, keep that in mind when making these suggestions that we all had to make a similar transgression. I think the "punishment" that was suffered by Adam and Eve is directly related to their unique situation, that being the fact that they were the only ones created with a paradisiacal body first. I think this is an issue that you have not directly addressed in your relating the idea that everyone had to pass through similar conditions to come to mortality. I do not read and even through temple instruction see anything that indicates that each one of us were first created in "Eden" and then underwent a change to that body after choosing to eat of the tree of knowledge. From what I understand our first body is the mortal one. This puts all of us in a different category than Adam and Eve. They started out in paradise and it is because of that they were placed in a position to Fall. I think this is significant. Otherwise, why couldn't they have just made the choice as spirits and then came into this world with a physical body that was mortal? The "punishment" exists because of the state they were in before the Fall. Whereas for us, not having any body at all, receiving a mortal, carnal body is a step up. There is no "punishment" in receiving this fallen body, even if it is a 'lemon' and has to be put down in the end. Adam and Eve were given a set of laws in the Garden of Eden that we were not given. They were unique to the Garden and would only be applicable to the Garden. The law that was transgressed is in reference to those laws related to the Garden of Eden, you may freely eat of all these trees but of the tree of knowledge that was forbidden as they couldn't remain within that law (the laws of the Garden of Eden) and die. "When Adam came into this world, he was not subject to death. He was immortal. He could have lived forever. Had he remained in the Garden of Eden and not transgressed the law that had been given to him, he and Eve would have been there yet. …“… Adam had not passed through a resurrection when he was in the Garden of Eden, and having not passed through a resurrection, spirit and body could be separated by the violation of the law. And the Lord provided the law so it could happen, because the mortal estate in which we find ourselves is absolutely necessary to our exaltation” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:91)" Let me ask you this, when you received your current physical body (when you were born on Earth) was that the first time you had received a physical body? If you answer yes, then you cannot say that we all passed through the same challenge that Adam and Eve did. To have the law given to them in the Garden of Eden would require that they are married. I think you are going to have a hard time explaining how every person in this world was first living as an eternally married couple in the Garden of Eden and given the charge to multiply and replenish the Earth so that they may transgress the law of the Garden of Eden to Fall. According to Bruce Mcconkie in "The Three Pillars of Eternity"; "Who is Michael? He is a spirit son of the great Elohim. Under Christ he led the armies of righteousness when there was war in heaven. Our revelations say that he "was the son of God" (Moses 6:22), that he was "the first flesh [the first mortal flesh] upon earth, the first man also" (Moses 3:7), and that he was "the first man of all men" (Moses 1:34). He is Adam our father; he is the presiding high priest over all the earth. Under Christ, who is "the Holy One," he holds "the keys of salvation" (D&C 78:16). He is the only one by whom the fall came. And anything you may have heard to the contrary, from whatever source, is false." If he, Adam, was the first man of all men as stated in Moses 1:34 and by him the fall came, then how could it be that anybody else would or could receive a paradisiacal body after that event, a body that could not die? If Adam's fall brought death into the world and there is a gaurd placed on the tree of life, then where and how did we all make the same transgression with the same situation as Adam? There would have to be equal numbers of Gardens of Eden as there are people, each one with a tree of life being gaurded after that person fell. Am I reading you right that you believe that every person on Earth experienced the same thing as Adam and Eve, were given in Eternal marriage with a paradisiacal body in a Garden of Eden with the mandate to multiply and replenish the Earth and then chose to give up that existence by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and yet cast out into this world with their mate, together as an adult couple, being found naked in this world? When did that happen for each of us? If you think it happened a different way for each of us compared to how it happened to Adam and Eve, as a married couple, then it is on you to now describe this transgression that is different from Adam and Eve's that resulted in mortality for each of us. The creation is a pillar of eternity because the creation had to be of a specific type to fall, it had to first be in a paradisiacal form in order to fall from a higher place to the lower place. Without creation of the Garden of Eden setting there could be no Fall.

The LDS gospel does not support any idea that a child is conceived in sin or carries any kind of taint from sin of any kind when they enter this world. All children enter this world pure and innocent before God and the Lord. If you really believe our gospel then how is it that they die without having any sin on their head and remaining pure?? Bruce R. McConkie; " Are children tainted with original sin?Absolutely not. There is no such thing as original sin as such is defined in the creeds of Christendom. Such a concept denies the efficacy of the atonement. Our revelation says: “Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning”—meaning that spirits started out in a state of purity and innocence in preexistence—“and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God” (D&C 93:38)—meaning that all children start out their mortal probation in purity and innocence because of the atonement. Our revelations also say, “The Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.” (Moses 6:54.) Are children conceived in sin?Since there is no such thing as original sin, as that expression is used in modern Christendom, it follows that children are not conceived in sin. They do not come into the world with any taint of impurity whatever. When our scriptures say that “children are conceived in sin,” they are using words in an entirely different way than when the same language is recited in the creeds of the world. The scriptural meaning is that they are born into a world of sin so that “when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.” (Moses 6:55.)" The atonement not only counteracts sin but all the bad things that happen to us including death; Alma 7; " “And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. “And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people” In these verses there is no mention of sin. The atonement takes away even those things that cause suffering that are not related to sin!!!. And specifically in these verses we learn that the atonement takes away the bands of death which is listed as an infirmity, "according to the flesh", not a sin!!! So, please understand the description given on LDS.org that when we are talking about "all sin" it is talking about being born into a world of sin. That is all that is meant by that to cause the physical death. The second spiritual death is caused by a person choosing to sin once they have the agency and accountability to do so, after the age of 8 and therefore is not applicable to the phrase "all sin". WIth the "all sin" phrase, the body is tainted, it is a corrupt physical body and therefore dies but the spirit within it can remain pure. Before the age of 8 the spirit does not become carnal, it does not take on the nature of the body. To take on the nature of the body one must choose to take it on, that choice occurs after the age of 8. Otherwise we would have to believe in infant baptism. Don't you understand or believe in the reasons behind not performing infant baptism? _____ If that is what we believe that all of us come into this world pure and without any "original guilt" then how do we die? Probably the same answer that applies to why the blind man was born blind, who sinned to make him blind? John 9; " 1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." So, according to the Bible, it is possible to be born with some type of ailment that results in grief without having sinned. Why? So "the works of God should be made manifest in him." ____ I will answer your question directly but it may not be satisfying to you; What causes death? Agency. Where did agency come from? The Lord. God gave man agency, with it He gave man evil as well as good, He gave life and death. He explains this to Enoch in Moses 7 because Enoch had similar questions. Enoch wondered why the Lord would weep even though He created all these things. He weeped because man chooses to do evil with his agency. Moses 7; " 31 And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep? 32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;" It was talked about and agreed upon in the War in Heaven. All of us agreed with the plan and then death was given via agency. And then the Earth was chained by Satan and evil poured into Adam and Eve's veins making them carnal (symbolically), " 48 And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?" The Earth was changed because of Adam and Eve's Fall. Then we are all affected by that change because, metaphorically speaking, the Earth is the "mother of men" in which filthiness comes forth. Our bodies are of dust but will return to dust. __________ Also consider the idea that we are to let the body die, that is a choice that we make as we live life, do we choose life eternal or death, the metaphoric choice between following the body's drives vs following the spirit. In other words, death is a choice placed before us, the tree of death - the body or the tree of life - the spirit. Explained in Romans 8; " 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." I think this again reinforces the idea that we are born into a world surrounded by sin not that we have to sin to die. Our very body is "sin" and if we live after the flesh we die but if we live through the spirit and ignore the body "mortify the deeds of the body" we will live.

Traveler, see above. Thanks for this stimulating conversation. I think 2 Nephi says it in an interresting way; " 6 For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord." There are two things that I take from this. Death is by way of the "merciful plan of the great Creator" and "because man became fallen" then "they were cut off from the presence of the Lord." Also in Moses we read; "10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God. 11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient." Sounds like they were pretty happy about the event. This is not a punishment and it was done purposeful. “When Adam was driven out of the Garden of Eden, the Lord passed a sentence upon him. Some people have looked upon that sentence as being a dreadful thing. It was not; it was a blessing. … “In order for mankind to obtain salvation and exaltation it is necessary for them to obtain bodies in this world, and pass through the experiences and schooling that are found only in mortality. … “The fall of man came as a blessing in disguise, and was the means of furthering the purposes of the Lord in the progress of man, rather than a means of hindering them” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:113–14) If as you say, point #1 death comes by sin, and as stated here this death is a blessing then you would have to say that sin led to a blessing. Joseph Fielding Smith; "I’m very, very grateful that in the Book of Mormon, and I think elsewhere in our scriptures, the fall of Adam has not been called a sin. It wasn’t a sin. … What did Adam do? The very thing the Lord wanted him to do; and I hate to hear anybody call it a sin, for it wasn’t a sin. Did Adam sin when he partook of the forbidden fruit? I say to you, no, he did not! Now, let me refer to what was written in the book of Moses in regard to the command God gave to Adam. [Moses 3:16–17.]" Also, George Q Cannon; "This being ‘conceived in sin’ [Moses 6:55], as I understand it, is only that they are in the midst of sin. They come into the world where sin is prevalent, and it will enter into their hearts, but it will lead them ‘to taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good." In other words sin coming upon all men means that we are in the midst of sin, it doesn't necesarily mean that all men sin. We know that babies do not sin.