Seminarysnoozer

Thanks for responding. I was beginning to wonder if I was getting no response because I answered my own question in the OP. I am assuming but since the scriptures tie in the act of eating of the tree with death and the other tree is called the tree of life, I think it is reasonable to assume the two trees are opposite each other, death and life. And, I think this is why I posed the question, to better understand the purpose of the commandment, if we want to call it that. It also seems reasonable if He is saying that you can eat of all the trees freely and remain alive in the garden forever, to do that I command you not to eat of the tree of death. Kind of like telling the kids you can go play in the park but don't talk to strangers ... He is saying if you want to remain in paradise then we can't have you exposed to evil influences. But, when you are ready to move forward it is up to you, it is given to choose. I have read the other principle is that of choosing freely vs choices that come with consequences. Even if that were the principle being taught by the command then that is also associated with death as one has to become an agent unto their self and be out of the protective watch of God to learn that principle. What is the principle that you see at play with that command? And I assume you are calling it a command as opposed to presenting two mutually exclusive choices - life or death.

That being the case, then, if your sister was killed, it would be wrong to hire a private investigator to track a presummed killer like the boyfriend or hire lawyers to build a case against the boyfriend to get him to talk, etc? Just watch the news on any given night (maybe this is just in San Diego) and there is some family on whos loved one was killed and they "can't rest until justice is served". Then if an LDS man's wife is killed and they are not spending their life savings hunting down the killer they look like they are guilty - at least that is how our society sees it as opposed to a person that is truly forgiving. It kind of makes me think of watching the world cup, if the player is not screaming and rolling around on the field then nobody gets a card. It also makes me think of the woman who lost her son in the war and then devoted her life to anti-war persuits, in the meantime losing her family life. I think our culture has turned into one that it is unusual if one doesn't scream and roll around on the ground after something bad happens to them. In the end, I think it might be worse for the person who spends their life savings tracking down the killer and making sure that justice is served then it would be for the killer who ultimately repents because the one who spent all their life savings on justice will be met with the same level of justice in the next life. Satan potentially wins twice with that kind of reaction. Charity allows forgiveness to flow easier when one is not easily provoked and hopeth in all things.

because it is not the end of wisdom? ... Love is the end of wisdom.

Why did it have to be a commandment from God to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil as opposed to simply providing a choice? Genesis 2; "16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Then in Moses the command seems a little more open; "16 And I, the Lord God, commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." And then in Abraham it seems like more of a choice; "12 And the Gods commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, 13 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the time that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." Abraham's description sounds more like, this is what you do if you want to stay in the garden but if you don't want to then eat of the tree of knowledge and then you will die. The commandment seems to be a strong statement against what Satan will tell them in a while that they won't die. My question is why would God "command" them to not die? Why didn't he simply say if you want to live in the garden forever choose this tree and if you want to move onto mortality with its accompanying death then choose this tree. As it states in Moses "thou mayest choose for thyself" but then He "forbid"s it. Why did He have to "forbid" it? We believe that Adam and Eve made the choice knowing the consequences and still did it. This is what Joseph Fielding Smith said; "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.] “Now this is the way I interpret that: The Lord said to Adam, here is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you want to stay here, then you cannot eat of that fruit. If you want to stay here, then I forbid you to eat it. But you may act for yourself, and you may eat of it if you want to. And if you eat it, you will die." In other words the commandment to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is only if they wanted to stay in the Garden of Eden, then it is a commandment. But the moment they do not want to stay in the Garden and they want to move on, as was previously planned, then they can eat of the tree of knowledge. Am I misunderstanding what Joseph Fielding Smith is saying? The commandment only pertained to the situation of staying in the Garden and eating of the tree of knowledge at the same time. That could not be done and that was the commandment, right? The commandment is one or the other but you can't have both. Like I tell my kids, you can have one dessert or the other but not both, if you choose this one then I forbid you to have the other one.

Thanks for the exchange, this is good! Yes I believe the fall includes spiritual death but don't forget the words "special status". The word "protection" also comes to mind and this is not a word that I made up for this discussion, there have been several talks about the special protection of children by the leaders of the church. "Protection" makes it so the event occurs but there is no effect from it. So, when you ask does a child experience spiritual death the answer is yes but one has to include the issue that there is no effect from it in that they receive special protection via the atonement of Christ. One cannot separate those things. I don't think any of us would have wanted to enter into this situation without that protection because as you are suggesting then that would require some kind of unjust punishment situation. I believe Christ satisfies the demands of the law in many areas, including this thing that we are discussing. With that protection, even while here, they are not being "punished" or suffer spiritually. They may have illnesses of course that cause a physical suffering but there is no drop in spirituality or the character of their spirit by coming here. I like the way Merlin Lybbert states it in 1994; "The Lord extends special protection to children and shares jurisdiction with earthly parents, even as we enjoy their presence. They cannot sin until they reach the age of accountability, which the Lord has declared to be eight years (see D&C 18:42; D&C 29:47)." I like how he said the Lord "shares jurisdiction" with the parents. Later he says; "Because all children who die before the age of accountability are pure, innocent, and wholly sin-free, they are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven (see D&C 137:10; Mosiah 3:18)." Mosiah 3:18 is interesting because, of course it is the verse right before the statement that the natural man is an enemy to God and in contrast "For behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just; and the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy" In other words, despite the infant's death, she does not perish. There is a special protection for children. And in verse 18 it states that men drinketh in damnation to their souls - they let it in, they are not born with it, they have to take it in. Is going on a mission a reward or punishment? I have family members that have fallen away from the church during their mission and most that come back stronger. I guess I look at spiritual death the same way. It is a step for development that depending on what a person does during that time could either be a reward or a punishment. It is an opportunity for advancement - advancing the evil nature or advancing the good nature. Is taking a calling in the church a punishment or a reward? It depends on one's attitude and whether they magnify the calling or not. The same is with this calling to come to Earth and do what we are told. The only ones that really fall spiritually are the sons of perdition, as President Kimball states they "retrogress"; “In the realms of perdition or the kingdom of darkness, where there is no light, Satan and the unembodied spirits of the pre-existence shall dwell together with those of mortality who retrogress to the level of perdition. These have lost the power of regeneration. They have sunk so low as to have lost the inclinations and ability to repent, consequently the gospel plan is useless to them as an agent of growth and development” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, 125)." Meaning, for everyone else the gospel plan, including spiritual death, is an agent of growth and development. That doesn't sound like a punishment to me. For the sons of perdition it will be, though.

Elder Jess Christensen Jan 2002 Ensign; "“Ye shall not surely die,” protested Lucifer, directly contradicting the word of the Lord (Moses 4:10; see also D&C 29:41–42). “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Moses 4:11). Lucifer spoke a partial truth mixed with a falsehood. If Eve were to partake of the fruit, her eyes would indeed be opened “as gods” and she would begin to know good and evil; yet the notion that eating the fruit could immediately make Eve as the gods was a clever deception. The purpose of life can be fulfilled only when we have time to prepare to meet God and learn good and evil by our own experience (see Alma 12:22–26; D&C 29:39)." Moses 4; "10 And the serpent said unto the woman: Ye shall not surely die; 11 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." We have already gone over your second paragraph questions; Adam and Eve opened the door for us to come into mortality. The second article of faith is to state that we are not born into sin. One has to have accountability first and then sin to be able to be punished for any transgression or sin. Adam and Eve are the only ones that start out with a paradisiacal body. I can only imagine what that would be like to start out with a perfect body and then have it change into a fallen body. Luckily we don't have to experience that. I imagine it was kind of like when I had to live in Utah for a while after living in San Diego all my life, not realizing what I had (in terms of weather). When I came back I was more appreciative of the weather. My friends that were born and raised in Utah never seemed to complain of the weather, they never suffered by it, at least as much as I did. I think you equating death with punishment is not fair. Why not ask, why do innocent children get to return to their Heavenly Father so quickly as opposed to staying in this fallen world? I think if you ask the question that way then you have your answer. We all have to pass through mortality to advance from our previous position, some don't need to spend much time here because they passed the previous test so well there is no need for a probationary state for them, a time to have a change of heart or perfecting of character before moving on. Think of "death" as the step that is needed to grow up. It is kind of like a young adult who finally wants to move out of the parents home and become a responsible adult. If they really want to do that then they need to move out of the house for a while. The young adult can't say, 'I want to be a responsible adult but I still want to live in your house'. They don't go together. So, when the time comes that the young adult feels ready, just like Adam and Eve's choice, they move forward and separate themselves to face these responsibilities mostly on their own but some lifelines of assistance ultimately realizing that the best way to be an "adult" is to closely appreciate and follow the example of one's parents with humilty increase their faith in the way the parents have done things.

It is from an intrinsic trait called charity. Within the skill of charity there is empathy, the ability to understand another's experience without going through it their self. I think this is why loving one's neighbor as thy self is so important. If those spirits had that much love before coming here, they could gleen knowledge without having to experience it their self. For the rest of us that don't have that skill naturally, we have a chance to improve it and learn it while in mortality. You and I, obviously, by way of the struggles we face, probably didn't have that amount of charitable skill naturally and so we are here in this perspective having a hard time understanding how a person could learn something without going through the experience their self. One of Satan's deceptions in the garden of Eden was to tell Eve that the day she eats of the tree she will know of good and evil and be like God with that knowledge. That was a lie. She didn't obtain all knowledge of good and evil the day the fruit was eaten. It was simply a doorway by which there became the possibility of knowing good and evil. The process of knowing good and evil is one that starts with mortality and continues on until all things are learned. The experience of mortality is but a context from which we can appreciate and formulate the moral values of good and evil. Apparently there are some spirits that are naturals at such a thing, they "got it" before coming here. Their knowledge is put into a context by receiving a body. Not everybody falls when riding a bike for the first time, for example. One doesn't have to become evil to have knowledge of good and evil. One doesn't have to experience the depths of despair to suffer with those that suffer. One human characteristic that I think is a trait of the spirit that is amplified by the body is empathy and when done in a loving way is charity. I think there are spirits who naturally have an abundance of charity as part of their spiritual make up before coming here and in so have the abililty to understand the experiences of others without actually going through it their self. These are the spirits that don't need a test of faith, love and charity - they already have it. In other words, they come to that knowledge the same way that all of us do that actually get the knowledge, by having faith in Christ, keeping ourselves clean and away from evil and having charity (empathy) to the point of loving others as one self. With those skills, over the course of eons after this life the knowledge is obtained if one is accepted into the program where that knowledge is available, the Celestial Kingdom. We get a glimpse of it while here but the real learning occurs after, when we have a context to place that knowledge. If one believes that all the learning about good and evil occurs in mortality or at least a good portion of it, I think that is very short sighted as to how much knowledge there is to obtain. It can't be done in a mortal lifetime anyways, so the kid that dies before the age of 8 is not a whole lot behind as far as experiential knowledge goes. The purpose of this life is to receive a body of flesh and bones and to be tested. The universal purpose of this life is not to gain knowledge of good and evil, I think that is a misconception of the plan of salvation. Mortality opens the door for understanding good and evil but is not the thing that necessarily needs to occur during mortality. All that has to happen is getting a body and passing the test.

Suffering is not the same thing as sinning even though they are related. Sin is required to spiritually fall. Are you now equating suffering with spiritually falling? For the benefit of others reading this; Sin = To commit sin is to willfully disobey God's commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth. Whereas "suffering" has many meanings and uses. As explained by Robert Hales; "There are many kinds of sorrow and suffering: •Self-inflicted suffering •Suffering from infirmities of our mortal bodies and sorrow from separation by death •Suffering that tries and tests us •Suffering to develop our spiritual strength •Suffering to humble us and lead us to repentance •The Savior’s suffering and atoning sacrifice, the most important event in the history of the world." The only kind of suffering that I can see a one hour old baby that dies would experience "firsthand" as you say would be possibly the suffering caused by infirmities of the body but then again, I don't remember my one hour old experience and there is no evidence that hardly anybody would be expected to remember or even really experience what happens when they are one hour old any more than they would remember what happens under the effects of anesthesia. Children are not experiencing the suffering needed to humble or lead to repentance. In other words the suffering is not as a result of their own sin and therefore there is no spiritual fall suffered. There is nothing here that says "suffering" is equated with falling spiritually. What is described is suffering as a means to bring about joy, so not sure how that relates to a spiritual fall. John 16; "21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. 22 And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you." The joy that results from suffering takes away the suffering and it is not remembered. Sorrow is the process of refinement. The souls of the children that die before the age of 8 need no further refinement, they are pure and clean and merit Celestial glory before the foundations of this world. Christ needed no further refinement, this is why His act was a sacrifice, he didn't need to suffer. When God "experiences" the worlds suffering from sin, when he moans over the evil in this world, does He experience a spiritual fall as a result?

I agree with most everything you are saying here but I am not seeing how a child who dies after one hour of life can "experience firsthand the power to destroy and bring down into misery". How is that transmitted to that child "firsthand"? And for Christ this was a step forward as you say "so he also became perfect through the knowledge of good and evil". So, this experiencing "firsthand" as you say, is a step forward towards perfection for children. Your discussion of having no means to "deliver ourselves" is a hypothetical situation that really doesn't exist. We all went into this life knowing that we would have a Savior. We chose God's plan, not Lucifer's of no real savior do-it-yourself style. We do have a means and it is explained to us as being "protected from the effects of the Fall" until we are accountable. That is the plan and was the plan before we decided on the plan - that was explained to us fully. We knew that children would be protected from the effects of the fall spiritually until accountable. I can't agree with being affected by the sins of others as a result of the fall. The second article of faith speaks against that idea.

So, in that light, what do you think of an LDS family who looses a daughter to a killer and wants to find the killer at all costs to "bring them to justice"? I am thinking of a very specific example of this where a family that spent lots of money and time and energy hunting down this killer so they could bring "justice" for their daughter. After all of that effort, the "killer" was found but he denied doing it and yet the family stood up publicly and said they cannot forgive him because they can't understand why he didn't admit to the killing even after he was "brought to justice" by the court and jury. (by the way - I am not divulging who this family is nor have I confronted this family or know this family personally enough to really know what is in their heart - I am just speaking of what came across in their court room presentation and using it more as a hypothetical situation even though it is based on my understanding of this case) A desire to 'bring someone to justice' without really knowing if they are guilty or not, to me is an example of not forgiving. Bringing someone to justice, in terms of tracking down a killer or spending lots of money on lawyers and private investigators etc, just to have someone have their day in court seems like not forgiving. Even if the person is a killer and could potentially hurt someone else, that is the police' job. They should help in finding the person if the police ask for information etc, but to spend a lot of money on lawyers etc goes beyond assisting the police and seems like a profession of not forgiving. In the same light, it bugs me that my mother-in-law gets so much enjoyment in watching these 20-20 shows in which the same kind of story is played out. Someone is killed in the family, could it be the spouse? The family cries over there not being justice until the killer is caught. You can see the anger in their eyes. And throughout the whole show, one is forced to make quick judgements about who the killer really is. My mother-in-law says things like "I hope they catch him", "I know he did it". And is visibly dissapointed when the person gets off or if the case is left unsolved. This is the same reason I hate watching the news. I think there are too many stories out there showing that "fighting for justice" is a noble thing when it is really just a legal way to judge and not forgive.

Maybe I am overineterpreting what you are saying. What exactly does it mean to you that a child who dies before the age of 8 experiences a spiritual fall? What do they experience? Especially in the thing that we both agree, they need Christ' atonement. They are protected from the effects of the Fall by Christ' atonement, so what exactly do they experience by this spiritual fall? I flew to Florida one time with my family from San Diego. We stopped in Houston but didnt have to leave the airport on the way over. So, technically, I can say that we have been to Houston but we really never left the airport, so we really didn't "experience" Houston. Is that similar to what you mean by children under the age of 8 experiencing a spiritual fall? In a similar light it would be important to determine what it means for children to be protected from the effects of the Fall via Christ' atonement? How are they protected? Can they experience it without being affected by it? I think that is the issue. Again, I ask what you think it means to be in the world but not of the world? Isn't that possible? We can be here without being draged down by it or take in it's characteristics. So, how are children affected by the spiritual fall? Is it a gain or a loss? The word "fall" and combining it with spiritual makes it seem that they have fallen in stature in the eyes of God. I would say that children, even when they experience a spiritual fall, are not lowered in stature in the eyes of God but that God is proud of the step forward they have taken. I think spiritual "fall" is a deceptive term in that sense in that it seems like a person has taken steps backward in their development when we know it is the opposite, it is a step forward. So, what exactly is taken with a child after they die before the age of 8 that one can say there was a change in that individuals spiritual make up? If you want to say it is experience, then what exactly did they experience? If the child dies one hour after birth, what did that child experience from this world specifically? Please, try to be specific so I understand what you mean by experiencing a spiritual fall. Tell me what that one hour old experienced.

Was the world that was "created" a mortal home or a paradisical world that could fall? Because if you are talking about developing a love for "the place that would be our home for our mortal sojourn" then, in essense, you are saying that we took place in creating the mortal conditions after the Fall.

Why isn't your concern about justice cleared up with the idea that through Christ we are all protected from the effects of the Fall until the age of accountability? Then as we start to make choices with accountability we fall spiritually - correlating with sin. Christ covers the demand for justice. Now we are beholden to Him and must obey the gospel. Through the light of Christ, that we are all born with, we have a "life-support" connection, so-to-speak, that withholds effects from the spiritual death or separation. How much understanding do you propose we have before justice can be applied? I don't think it has to be a full understanding. If a person murders another for the first time, do they really understand what is in store for them after commiting such a crime? I think we had a pretty good idea about the consequences of our choice in Heaven with the First estate test. And because of that understanding, I think this is why it drew away a third of the host of Heaven, that wasn't an easy choice. But all of us here made that choice. The choice was made having faith that Christ would keep us from the effects of the Fall if we followed Him. We knew He had our back. I think you read into the spiritual fall more than I do. I do not look at the spiritual fall that you are speaking of, just the separation from God as a description of character. A spiritual fall in which sin is commited is certainly a description of character but the simple separation from God that was necessary to move forward in the plan of salvation is a step forward not backward. It is described as a step downward but forward. I think you are looking at the downward part too much and neglecting the forward aspects of the move. All in all, the spiritual fall as it pertains to leaving the presence of God to come here to mortality is a forward motion as opposed to the static position we would have been in if we didn't do it. This is a temporary state and we all looked at this life as a temporary condition, not permanent. I would liken mortality to taking a final exam where all the books are closed, the chalk board is erased and you can't talk to your classmates. If you want to pass the class you have to take the final exam. The person isn't a different person just because all the resources have been taken away but she would certainly be limited. The limitation is only temporary though. The testing condition doesn't represent how it will be after the test as all the books will be open and everything available again. The change is a situational change. Now, if someone cheats on the test or doesn't give a good effort in taking the test, then it counts as a change in character that will remain. A lot of the test is also a test of capacity - ones capacity for faith and charity. If I want to join the marines and am asked to climb to the top of a 20 foot rope, I probably won't make it. Not necessarily because I don't want to, I may not be capable of such a thing. Then, I am not going to be accepted into the marines. Or I might be asked to sit in the cold water as long as I can before hypothermia sets in. In that way there is a screening of those that have both the physical as well as the mental stamina needed for the job. Likewise, some of the challenges we face in this life are a test of capacity (i.e - valiant), not so much a choice between A and B. How much faith can we show, how much charity can we show. Some will reveal their spiritual weakness in these areas even despite trying. That sounds harsh but our spiritual make up is at varied levels when we start and we all to some degree will reveal the extent of our capabilities falling short in some areas. That is okay because that is the test. ... everyone gets hypothermia eventually when sitting in 62 degree water. Just like all of us sin while here (and accountable). But luckily it is not an all or nothing test, it is a test of capability, just like the first estate test involved those that were more valiant than others. Just because the test involves all of us falling short of perfection does not make it a permanently downward action any more than the marine sitting in 62 degree water for hours before he gets hypothermia is a flaw in character. God allowed us to proceed with this step even though He knew that only Christ would do it with perfection. Agreeing to take the test alone could not cause a spiritual fall if it is really a necessary step towards becoming like God. Did Christ increase or decrease in stature by coming to Earth? In response to your statement of a spirit must fall to inhabit a mortal body - do you not believe in the statement that we can be in the world without being of the world? The contrast between the two is what creates the test. If they were the same then there would be no influence one way or the other, it would just be. There is an internal struggle because there is a contrast between things spiritual and things carnal. If there was no difference between the two then the test we face now would be no different than the first estate test. Why would we repeat the first estate test?

Like I suggested then, you are talking about the laws that qualify a person to live in a particular glory not necesarily the laws that exist for that person after they enter that state of glory, right? If there are any laws for that matter. Christ satisfies the demand of the laws; D&C 76; "106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work; 107 When he shall deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless, saying: I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God." ...talking about the telestial folks. The law that they abided as well as the laws they fail to abide are during this life, then they suffer an eternal torment in spirit prison until the fulness of times, at which time Christ overcomes all and the price of their sins has been paid in full by their suffering in hell (spirit prison). LDS.org, Doctrines of the Gospel student manual chapter 33; "2.The inhabitants of the telestial kingdom will include those who were murderers, liars, sorcerers, adulterers, and whoremongers—in general, the wicked people of the earth (see D&C 76:103; Revelation 22:15). These inhabitants of the telestial kingdom will have become clean through their suffering so that they can abide telestial glory." ... and ... "The inhabitants of the telestial kingdom will suffer the wrath of God and be cast into hell until the end of the Millennium (see D&C 76:84, 104–6; 2 Nephi 28:15)." Talmage; "In the telestial world there are innumerable degrees comparable to the varying light of the stars. Yet all who receive of any one of these orders of glory are at last saved, and upon them Satan will finally have no claim” (James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, 91–92)." Satan has no claim on those that make it to the Telestial Kingdom, so I not sure what "laws" would need to be there in that Kingdom, if you are using the word "laws" in the sense of a law that is associated with justice and punishment. There are laws of truth there as it is a degree of glory but nothing suggests there is going to be any failure to follow the instructions they are given such that there needs to be a "law" attached with a punishment.

Are you talking about two different things? Mortal laws vs level of glory. There are laws that if lived while in mortality might qualify one for the Celestial kingdom and I think you are making reference to the lesser law associated with the lesser priesthood when refering to the Law of Moses. Both of which are a set of laws that were given while here in mortality but that does not suggest they are laws of any given kingdom. I am not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. Maybe you could reference where you get the understanding that mortal laws are continued in the kingdoms. Consider this, a person who finds their self in the Telestial Kingdom is one who has a level of glory and is not capable of breaking any law. In other words, a person in the Telestial Kingdom cannot sin. What "eye for an eye" law could exist for a person who cannot sin? I don't think any of the "laws" (meaning principles of truth) found in either the Telestial or Terrestrial Kingdoms are different than the ones found in the Celestial Kingdom, only the Celestial Kingdom would have the full set of the laws whereas the lower kingdoms will not have all available to them.

I think defining "minister" is also helpful as minister (verb) - simply means to attend to the needs of someone. Does it have to be in person? What would keep an angel from ministering to one's needs at a distance? In other words, would it be possible to have ministering angels that do their thing without anybody having to know about it? Or is it something that has to be experienced by the receiver?

(someday I will have to learn how to break up the quotes) As for the first two paragraphs, I agree. Jesus overcoming the physical affects of the Fall is free for everyone, just like it occured freely. To recover from the spiritual Fall, which is to sin, requires repentence and I agree, that is more involved. I am not sure what you think needs to be justified. What justice are you talking about? We all agreed to come here during our First estate trial. That was the choice. We all made that choice to have the opportunity to be tested in this way and gain experience about good and evil. And yes that was a choice that we made as spirits but the choice was in regard to our physical state, whether we wanted to come to Earth in a fallen body for a period of time. This fallen body and circumstances gives us a chance to be in these kinds of circumstances, to be exposed to a certain degree to good and evil but to not have it be a permanent condition and that is accomplished with the physical death. I look at it as a package deal. It cannot be separated one from the other. The way we become separated from God was by being born into this fallen body. From previous discussion, I think you might believe there is some holding tank for spirits who have "fallen" but not yet born that is away from God's presence. I don't know of any doctrine that states such a thing and I don't believe that unlesss you can show me my error. Part of the reason I don't believe that is that we are all born innocent and we believe that we will not be punished for Adams transgression. I don't see a reason that we would be spiritually separated from God before birth. As far as why Adam and Eve couldn't do it all for us; we all have specific assignments in this world. We cannot all be the Bishop or the Relief Society President or the Prophet or Adam and Eve. These are callings and assignments based in our faith and valiant natures and challenges we each need to face in this life or accomplish. That isn't to say that I can't benefit spiritually from a good Bishop, RS president, Prophet or Adam and Eve etc. We believe that the baby born under the covenant who dies at the age of one hour can be adopted into the same promise that was given to Abraham, how is that justified? Whatever assignment any one of us has been given for this life is the thing that we hope to do and has to be done by ourself. But there are some blessings that can be received by the work of others. It isn't an all or nothing condition and just because there are some things received from others doesn't preclude our need to do other things for ourselves. Where much is given much is required. The requirements are different, not 100% the same. We all knew that Adam and Eve would make the choice to eat of the tree of death and allow us to be born into a fallen, corrupted body and then we agreed to the plan, thus passing the first estate test. It wasn't that we passed the first estate test and then we had another test to see if we would partake of the tree of death. If so, where are those spirits that passed the first estate test but are continually in a state of paradise because they refuse to eat the of the tree of death. Those are the ones that got cast out with the third of the host of heaven. God didn't get that division wrong. He didn't accidently let some pass the first estate test who really didnt want to go through with it in the first place. That would be like saying there are people who apply to college, get accepted but then find out that they have to buy books and refuse to do so, so now they dont want to go through with college. The first estate sifts out those fence sitters as to their desire to be in a fallen state.

I found the best way for me was to invite our local missionaries over for dinner as often as I could. Made me feel like someone was probably doing the same for my son.

We believe in vicarious acts. Just as Christ atoned for all of us, Adam fell that men might be. It was done for all of us. As part of the first estate test, we all here accepted this plan and agreed to accept a fallen body as opposed to a paradisiacal body. This body and everything around us is in a physical state fallen from its original design. Adam and Eve are the only ones who first received a paradisiacal body that was specially designed to be able to fall and they are the only ones given the assignment to do it for all of us. They are the only ones who underwent the actual transformation from paradisiacal state to corrupted body. But we all did it symbolically through them. What difference would it make to you if we all fell symbolically through Adam and Eve vs a personal, individual starting out with a paradisiacal body that was transformed? Isn't the effect the same? Keep in mind that Satan's idea was that he wanted all the glory to himself and of himself, he couldn't stand the idea of being obliged to someone else, a Savior. He still tries to pass that message on, that the only way to get things done is to do it yourself so there is no indebtedness to someone else. He hates the idea of vicarious acts being equal to individual acts. Adam and Eve doing it for us is as if we did it our self. Don't you agree? Why or why not? We already believe that kind of thing is possible, i.e. - work for the dead, so there should be no hang up there.

The variance was not in terms of good and evil though, it was in terms of more valiant or less valiant. There is no spirit who received a body that God made a mistake with, that shouldn't have passed the first estate. There were no equivocal cases. A person either passed the first estate test or they didn't. God would not have tolerated a luke warm response. I am pretty sure a luke warm response would have resulted in a casting out. And, the relationship between that variance and our current variance is not a 1 to 1 relationship, it is not a linear relationship. There are those that were so valiant and good that they get to die before the age of 8 or live in a body that does not allow them to have accountability. And there are some that were valiant and were called to specific tasks and purposes. Why was the blind man born blind? Not because someone sinned - either in this life or the past life but so that Christ could show the works of God. Some are born into this world so that their blood can stand witness to those that do evil, as in Alma 14. Who was more valiant in the pre-mortal life Joseph Smith or a child that dies before the age of 8? We don't know, there is no formula that could tell us such a thing. It cannot be determined by their Earthly status or body etc.

Can you explain what is the specific doctrinal issue that is created if our mortal bodies (not spirit ancestry) is not 100% from Adam and Eve? Also, I am not talking about the resurrected body.

I've taught Gospel Doctrine for 5 years and RS for several, this kind of thing happens all the time. I have found that I always over prepare and never teach the lesson I thought I was going to teach. I think one has to follow the spirit carefully and sometimes it takes the discussion to unexpected places. As has already been stated, the teacher and others should try to gently refocus the discussion. There should never be a argumentative reaction. (lol, you all might think I am a different person if we met in Sunday School class - - I've had a few argumentative reactions on this forum). I would usually say something like; 'That sounds interesting and would probably take a lot of discussion to work through. We have a lot of material to get through in a short amount of time so we will have to have that discussion another time.' or a "how does that relate to what we were talking about?" Most often, though, someone in the class would simply redirect the conversation with a comment on topic. I always thought it was a positive to have responses that are emotionally driven. So, I would simply redirect the energy, not try to censor it.

LDS believe that those that die before the age of accountability will automatically be accepted into the Celestial Kingdom and we believe that before coming to Earth we are fully matured spirits having grown as much as we can as a spirit. As we spent eons with our Heavenly family prior to coming here, the few years between our departure from Earth to the time we meet again is a relatively short time, so probably no apparent "aging" would have taken place, although the changes that occur after having had an experience such as this mortal one may change the appearance of the spirit. I don't know of specific descriptions. We know that by having this experience we are more like God. So, I would imagine a spirit that has experienced mortality appears more glorious than one that hasn't.

Whenever I read those verses, especially in Ezekiel 39, I imagine Israel doing something that makes "all" the nations of the world upset, not just taking their lands. I think one possibility is the use of nuclear weapons, that could potentially make "all the nations" want to gather together in one valley to fight. And as the dead are buried they have to put up a sign next to the bones - makes me think of radiation risk. Burying the dead for 7 years - also radiatioin exposure? Maybe I have seen to many movies? From what I understand, in the battle of Gog and Magog vs Israel, all the nations will be fighting. Aren't they? Seems like it would have to be an issue big enough for all the nations to want to pick a side. Israel just taking back lands doesn't seem like a big enough issue by itself for the whole world to get involved. These other organizations like ISIS already have a bone to pick with Israel but there is going to have to be something bigger than that to involve everyone else, even though that might be a start.

I am saying this from experience, rich kids (or I should say kids who have rich parents) complain about a lot of things even though they have more than most. But they can also become attached at the hip to their parents who provide them with everything. They learn over time that the squeeky wheel gets the grease and so they learn to murmer and complain a lot. And I say this from experience as well; whereas kids who grow up with moderate conditions or poor conditions tend to learn early that complaining is not going to get you anywhere, hard work and earning it yourself might but complaining doesn't help any. I look at Lamen and Lemuel as rich brats. They can't appreciate what they have, which was more than most and yet can't live without it. Without the material things their lives are miserable and they want everyone around them to feel the misery they are going through. Whereas Nephis sees this whole thing as an opportunity and a growing experience. .... at least this is the message I teach my kids whenever we read this part of the Book of Mormon in Family Home Evening. 1 Nephi 2:" 11 Now this he spake because of the stiffneckedness of Laman and Lemuel; for behold they did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man, and had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance, and their gold, and their silver, and their precious things, to perish in the wilderness. And this they said he had done because of the foolish imaginations of his heart."