Seminarysnoozer

If we had no weakness, would we still sin? If we sin because of our weakness, do we humble ourselves and come unto Christ? And if we were not weak, of what would we have to humble ourselves? Would we still look to Christ in our fallen state? How often did the Nephites boast in their own strength? What ultimately happened to them? 

Great post!
 
What you are talking about is one's ability to spiritual discern.  This dilemma is spoken of many times in the scriptures.  I like Zechariah's words about it, chapter 11; " 17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened."  The "right eye" is symbolic of one's ability to discern spiritual things.  The "right arm" is symbolic of one's ability to carry out spiritual things.  Just like we have a right eye and a left eye and a right arm and left arm we are dual beings.  It is said more clearly from modern day prophets and apostles like David O Mckay and Elder Bednar that we are both physical and spirit beings.  Elder Holland made it clear that the "mind" can have ailments as in depression etc. that are physical in nature, the physical mind or in other words the brain.  Those being different from the thoughts that are generated by the "mind" of the spirit.
 
Our ability to differentiate the source of those thoughts, passions, feelings etc is called spiritual discernment or metaphorically represented by the "right" side of the body, on the right hand or the right eye, etc.  We want to find ourselves on the right side of Christ in the end.  That is the test of this life - do we pay attention to the right side or the left side or like Zechariah so poetically said when one's faith is "shaken" what happens is the right eye becomes darkened.  In other words, spiritual discernment is more difficult.
 
The whole focus then is to keep our "right eye" clear.  That is the purpose and effect of the gospel, to enhance our spiritual discernment.  Without it, the natural man takes over, the "left" side of the body, or the physical or carnal man takes over and then we don't see things spiritually as well.  
 
Maybe this is why I spend so much time talking about what is physical vs what is spiritual, to discern the two can be difficult but that is the test.  Elder Bednar; "The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Consequently, the Fall of Adam and its spiritual and temporal consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies. And yet we are dual beings, for our spirit that is the eternal part of us is tabernacled in a physical body that is subject to the Fall. As Jesus emphasized to the Apostle Peter, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41). The precise nature of the test of mortality, then, can be summarized in the following question: Will I respond to the inclinations of the natural man, or will I yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man and become a saint through the Atonement of Christ the Lord (see Mosiah 3:19)? That is the test. Every appetite, desire, propensity, and impulse of the natural man may be overcome by and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ."
 
Like you stated, the conundrum exists because we are dual beings, everything has to be processed through the natural man brain.   Even if the spirit is the source of the message it still has to be processed through the brain.  So, the best way to help (but not totally do away with the conundrum) is to do everything we can to distinguish what is from "natural man" the physical brain vs what is from the spirit (the way the Holy Spirit communicates is directly to our spirit).  We "put off" the natural man to tune into the spirit or to improve our spiritual discernment.  You are describing THE test as Elder Bednar says - which inclination do we respond to - natural man vs spirit, right eye vs left eye.

But no one is arguing that, SS. Remember, my objection was to Finrock's definition of "God" as "both male and female". I know of no such approved definition of God in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
 
Note that I did not intend to accuse Finrock of being among "those who want to remake the kingdom of God in their own image." But I do think that important terms should be used carefully, either adhering to the commonly understood or "official" definitions, or else having pointed out very clearly that their usage in this case is non-standard.

I think he also wept because he knew that even though some Jews would witness the miracle of Lazarus rising from the dead they would still not believe.

They are not mutually exclusive.  No doubt he wept because of their expressions but that being the case because, as humans, we have a hard time seeing the bigger picture, this is one of our shortcommings.
Like I said He wept because of our (their) shortcommings.  He grieved over their pain.  Their pain caused by their inability to really understand that he would rise again.  He also saw the result of what was about to happen, that because of this thing he could no longer walk openly amongst the jews.
 
Take into consideration the verse before; " 33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,"

well what did the eyewitnesses to this happening make of it? 
 
Jesus wept.
Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”
(John 11:35-36) 

so that they would now that He loves. 

but what did He say to Martha? did He mourn with her? no. read: 
 
“Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.”
Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”
Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
(John 11:22-26) 

now when He met Mary, look closely at what took place: 
 
When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”
When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.
(John 11:32-33) 

i think His sorrow was at Mary's statement: "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died."
Jesus is life. as He explained to Martha, He is the resurrection. without Him - if He is not there - there is only death. i believe He wept for everyone who will not receive Him, and in so doing embrace death instead of life. not for Lazarus - He had told His disciples on the way there that Lazarus was 'only asleep' though they didn't understand Him: 

So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”
(John 11:14-15) 

He wept for the hopelessness of the world that rejects Him, because 'whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son' 
 


 

Not right - Paul was ordained under the direction of Apostles acting as the proxy for Christ - Jesus only ordained Apostles - he personally trained them it is was his Apostles that were present at the "last supper" - not every single one of the disciples were invited.  We also have records that when an apostle died that the remaining Apostles and only Apostles (not every single one of the disciples) cast lots to select another apostle.  When Paul spoke of a "royal priesthood" - that was an explicit reference to a kingdom - A specific kingdom organized and operating as Jesus left it to be run and organized - the great apostasy changed that organization and did away with apostles and likewise the priesthood Jesus gave his apostles as well as the right to preside at gatherings of congregations. 
 
 
What do you mean by different things???  A high priest is appointed to preside over gatherings of other priesthood members when they meet.  The reason Paul wrote letters (epistles) was because he was acting as the presiding high priest over those to whom we wrote to.  But he was not the only one presiding - some of the other Apostles acting as high priests also gave presiding lessons to congregations. 
 
 
Jesus also tells us that he was presided over by "The Father"
 
 
Your confusion is because you do not understand the covenant established through a kingdom.  Not living under a Supreme Suzerain and not understanding how servant vassal law was anciently established - you are making assumptions of ancient terms in scripture based on modern social political constructs - which I do not think apply the way you think they do.  The relationship of a servant vassal to a Supreme Suzerain was also lost in the great apostasy in order to men to assume control of the kingdom that rightfully belongs to Jesus.  Thus he is the presiding authority.  The question is - in his absents who has right to act as his proxy and preside over congregations of his disciples?  If you read the scriptures of the New Testament - you will discover that Jesus appointed his Apostles and his apostles acted as presiding authority over all the true disciples of Christ.
 
What Jesus appointed as recorded in scripture was changed - you have every right to align yourself with those changes - by what ever reason you want.  I have chosen to reject such changes as apostasy.  I believe the the prophesies that in the last days that there will be a "restoration"

I am speaking of the "axe" ground by those who want to remake the kingdom of God in their own image, who want to change both the doctrine and the way it is taught to emphasize some gospel aspect they personally find important -- what President Joseph F. Smith called "gospel hobby horses".

wormholes only connect parts of a universe with the same universe. 
from a spacetime to a spacetime. 

so, is "heaven" where the angels dwell, the same physical universe as the one our flesh dwells in? 

no? then cannot be a wormhole. 

yes? then why do we need God? all we need is a good spaceship. 

personally i would say "no" -- because i have on unshakable authority that no one can reach God with a sufficiently well engineered spaceship. one must enter the sheepfold through the door :) 

 

No, it describes the end of an angelic visitation.
 
"Wormholes" are a recent theoretical construct. It's always fun to take popular ideas and shoehorn them into some aspect of the gospel. Perhaps this is a harmless pastime, but you need to make sure you keep imaginitive ideas distinct in your mind from the gospel and its teachings.

It's all word play. By their definition of "Christian", we aren't. So what? It amounts to name calling. (Which is, I'm sure, exactly how they feel about being called anti-Mormon...though....if the shoe fits......)
 
Anyhow...sticks and stones and all that.

Alma 41... Talks about restoration and judgement
 
1 And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the restoration of which has been spoken; for behold, some have wrested the scriptures, and have gone far astray because of this thing. And I perceive that thy mind has been worried also concerning this thing. But behold, I will explain it unto thee.
 2 I say unto thee, my son, that the plan of restoration is requisite with the justice of God; for it is requisite that all things should be restored to their proper order. Behold, it is requisite and just, according to the power and resurrection of Christ, that the soul of man should be restored to its body, and that every part of the body should be restored to itself.
 3 And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good.
 4 And if their works are evil they shall be restored unto them for evil. Therefore, all things shall be restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame—mortality raised to immortality, corruption to incorruption—raised to endless happiness to inherit the kingdom of God, or to endless misery to inherit the kingdom of the devil, the one on one hand, the other on the other—
 5 The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh.
 6 And so it is on the other hand. If he hath repented of his sins, and desired righteousness until the end of his days, even so he shall be rewarded unto righteousness.
 7 These are they that are redeemed of the Lord; yea, these are they that are taken out, that are delivered from that endless night of darkness; and thus they stand or fall; for behold, they are their own judges, whether to do good or do evil.
 8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.
 9 And now behold, my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin.
 10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.
 11 And now, my son, all men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.
 12 And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?
 13 O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful.
 14 Therefore, my son, see that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually; and if ye do all these things then shall ye receive your reward; yea, ye shall have mercy restored unto you again; ye shall have justice restored unto you again; ye shall have a righteous judgment restored unto you again; and ye shall have good rewarded unto you again.
 15 For that which ye do send out shall return unto you again, and be restored; therefore, the word restoration more fully condemneth the sinner, and justifieth him not at all.
 
Now Alma is talking about the resurrection when he says restoration, but I think you can see the clear implication that has for your friend
 
Simply put your friend errs in thinking he will fundamentally change his ways after he dies.  The promise of baptism and repentance is for those that, "Would have accepted it if given a chance."  Your friend thinks he can sin, be carnally-minded, and reject God while alive and then do a 180 flip after he dies...  He is going to be in for a very rude awakening, if he tries that.
 
 

Great post!
 
What you are talking about is one's ability to spiritual discern.  This dilemma is spoken of many times in the scriptures.  I like Zechariah's words about it, chapter 11; " 17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened."  The "right eye" is symbolic of one's ability to discern spiritual things.  The "right arm" is symbolic of one's ability to carry out spiritual things.  Just like we have a right eye and a left eye and a right arm and left arm we are dual beings.  It is said more clearly from modern day prophets and apostles like David O Mckay and Elder Bednar that we are both physical and spirit beings.  Elder Holland made it clear that the "mind" can have ailments as in depression etc. that are physical in nature, the physical mind or in other words the brain.  Those being different from the thoughts that are generated by the "mind" of the spirit.
 
Our ability to differentiate the source of those thoughts, passions, feelings etc is called spiritual discernment or metaphorically represented by the "right" side of the body, on the right hand or the right eye, etc.  We want to find ourselves on the right side of Christ in the end.  That is the test of this life - do we pay attention to the right side or the left side or like Zechariah so poetically said when one's faith is "shaken" what happens is the right eye becomes darkened.  In other words, spiritual discernment is more difficult.
 
The whole focus then is to keep our "right eye" clear.  That is the purpose and effect of the gospel, to enhance our spiritual discernment.  Without it, the natural man takes over, the "left" side of the body, or the physical or carnal man takes over and then we don't see things spiritually as well.  
 
Maybe this is why I spend so much time talking about what is physical vs what is spiritual, to discern the two can be difficult but that is the test.  Elder Bednar; "The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Consequently, the Fall of Adam and its spiritual and temporal consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies. And yet we are dual beings, for our spirit that is the eternal part of us is tabernacled in a physical body that is subject to the Fall. As Jesus emphasized to the Apostle Peter, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41). The precise nature of the test of mortality, then, can be summarized in the following question: Will I respond to the inclinations of the natural man, or will I yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man and become a saint through the Atonement of Christ the Lord (see Mosiah 3:19)? That is the test. Every appetite, desire, propensity, and impulse of the natural man may be overcome by and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ."
 
Like you stated, the conundrum exists because we are dual beings, everything has to be processed through the natural man brain.   Even if the spirit is the source of the message it still has to be processed through the brain.  So, the best way to help (but not totally do away with the conundrum) is to do everything we can to distinguish what is from "natural man" the physical brain vs what is from the spirit (the way the Holy Spirit communicates is directly to our spirit).  We "put off" the natural man to tune into the spirit or to improve our spiritual discernment.  You are describing THE test as Elder Bednar says - which inclination do we respond to - natural man vs spirit, right eye vs left eye.

Great post!
 
What you are talking about is one's ability to spiritual discern.  This dilemma is spoken of many times in the scriptures.  I like Zechariah's words about it, chapter 11; " 17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened."  The "right eye" is symbolic of one's ability to discern spiritual things.  The "right arm" is symbolic of one's ability to carry out spiritual things.  Just like we have a right eye and a left eye and a right arm and left arm we are dual beings.  It is said more clearly from modern day prophets and apostles like David O Mckay and Elder Bednar that we are both physical and spirit beings.  Elder Holland made it clear that the "mind" can have ailments as in depression etc. that are physical in nature, the physical mind or in other words the brain.  Those being different from the thoughts that are generated by the "mind" of the spirit.
 
Our ability to differentiate the source of those thoughts, passions, feelings etc is called spiritual discernment or metaphorically represented by the "right" side of the body, on the right hand or the right eye, etc.  We want to find ourselves on the right side of Christ in the end.  That is the test of this life - do we pay attention to the right side or the left side or like Zechariah so poetically said when one's faith is "shaken" what happens is the right eye becomes darkened.  In other words, spiritual discernment is more difficult.
 
The whole focus then is to keep our "right eye" clear.  That is the purpose and effect of the gospel, to enhance our spiritual discernment.  Without it, the natural man takes over, the "left" side of the body, or the physical or carnal man takes over and then we don't see things spiritually as well.  
 
Maybe this is why I spend so much time talking about what is physical vs what is spiritual, to discern the two can be difficult but that is the test.  Elder Bednar; "The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Consequently, the Fall of Adam and its spiritual and temporal consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies. And yet we are dual beings, for our spirit that is the eternal part of us is tabernacled in a physical body that is subject to the Fall. As Jesus emphasized to the Apostle Peter, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41). The precise nature of the test of mortality, then, can be summarized in the following question: Will I respond to the inclinations of the natural man, or will I yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man and become a saint through the Atonement of Christ the Lord (see Mosiah 3:19)? That is the test. Every appetite, desire, propensity, and impulse of the natural man may be overcome by and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ."
 
Like you stated, the conundrum exists because we are dual beings, everything has to be processed through the natural man brain.   Even if the spirit is the source of the message it still has to be processed through the brain.  So, the best way to help (but not totally do away with the conundrum) is to do everything we can to distinguish what is from "natural man" the physical brain vs what is from the spirit (the way the Holy Spirit communicates is directly to our spirit).  We "put off" the natural man to tune into the spirit or to improve our spiritual discernment.  You are describing THE test as Elder Bednar says - which inclination do we respond to - natural man vs spirit, right eye vs left eye.

Great post!
 
What you are talking about is one's ability to spiritual discern.  This dilemma is spoken of many times in the scriptures.  I like Zechariah's words about it, chapter 11; " 17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened."  The "right eye" is symbolic of one's ability to discern spiritual things.  The "right arm" is symbolic of one's ability to carry out spiritual things.  Just like we have a right eye and a left eye and a right arm and left arm we are dual beings.  It is said more clearly from modern day prophets and apostles like David O Mckay and Elder Bednar that we are both physical and spirit beings.  Elder Holland made it clear that the "mind" can have ailments as in depression etc. that are physical in nature, the physical mind or in other words the brain.  Those being different from the thoughts that are generated by the "mind" of the spirit.
 
Our ability to differentiate the source of those thoughts, passions, feelings etc is called spiritual discernment or metaphorically represented by the "right" side of the body, on the right hand or the right eye, etc.  We want to find ourselves on the right side of Christ in the end.  That is the test of this life - do we pay attention to the right side or the left side or like Zechariah so poetically said when one's faith is "shaken" what happens is the right eye becomes darkened.  In other words, spiritual discernment is more difficult.
 
The whole focus then is to keep our "right eye" clear.  That is the purpose and effect of the gospel, to enhance our spiritual discernment.  Without it, the natural man takes over, the "left" side of the body, or the physical or carnal man takes over and then we don't see things spiritually as well.  
 
Maybe this is why I spend so much time talking about what is physical vs what is spiritual, to discern the two can be difficult but that is the test.  Elder Bednar; "The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Consequently, the Fall of Adam and its spiritual and temporal consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies. And yet we are dual beings, for our spirit that is the eternal part of us is tabernacled in a physical body that is subject to the Fall. As Jesus emphasized to the Apostle Peter, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41). The precise nature of the test of mortality, then, can be summarized in the following question: Will I respond to the inclinations of the natural man, or will I yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man and become a saint through the Atonement of Christ the Lord (see Mosiah 3:19)? That is the test. Every appetite, desire, propensity, and impulse of the natural man may be overcome by and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ."
 
Like you stated, the conundrum exists because we are dual beings, everything has to be processed through the natural man brain.   Even if the spirit is the source of the message it still has to be processed through the brain.  So, the best way to help (but not totally do away with the conundrum) is to do everything we can to distinguish what is from "natural man" the physical brain vs what is from the spirit (the way the Holy Spirit communicates is directly to our spirit).  We "put off" the natural man to tune into the spirit or to improve our spiritual discernment.  You are describing THE test as Elder Bednar says - which inclination do we respond to - natural man vs spirit, right eye vs left eye.

TFP, my personal belief is that we don't comprehend what perfection or eternal lives mean. We have a very imperfect (sorry) understanding of all such concepts. This is partially because we are limited by our very language, but much more because we are ourselves imperfect and do not understand the Spirit in all things.
 
One of the differences early Saints of this dispensation rejoiced in vis-à-vis (for example) Roman Catholicism was that they did not end up having to respond to so many questions with, "That's a mystery." So I hesitate to trumpet too loudly that we really don't know what we're talking about here. I don't want to deny the revelations we have or our ability to gain further revelations privately. But I do think that there is a kernel of truth to the idea that some things are simply beyond us at this stage of our existence. I suspect this issue butts up against one of those possibly unknowable things.

I agree that we will take on his likeness and have his image in our countenance...were his children after all.
 
I think you have made it clear that we truly need to let go of ourselves and become like our Heavenly Father. I don't dispute that and along with you contend its the very reason and purpose we find ourselves in this state in the first place trudging the straight and narrow path. 
 
My contention is that in my study and in my attempts to draw closer to Heavenly Father I have found that becoming like him means becoming our true selves. We shed our weaknesses and make them strengths, we become new. But in so doing we become wholly ourselves and become even more unique and distinguished as we are blessed with this attributes.
 
Becoming like him also means we take joy in variation. It's not just the inhabitants of his creation that love variety, it's the Creator himself. Monotony is not a virtue, and there is nothing in nature or creation or beauty that suggests it is. 
 
Consider these quotes - 
 
"Each of us is unique. Each child is unique. Just as each of us starts at a different point in the race of life, and just as each of us has different strengths and weaknesses and talents, so each child is blessed with his own special set of characteristics." ~ Howard W Hunter blessed....with special characteristics "Recently I stood on the north shore of a beautiful Pacific island gazing out to sea at daybreak. I was fascinated by the regularity with which the gigantic waves consistently moved forward to break on the shoreline. It reminded me of the constancy of the plan of the Lord, with its fixed, eternal law, and the security of enduring justice and the tenderness of mercy when earned by obedience. I noticed that each wave would crest at a different point on the horizon to find its unique path to shore. Some cascaded over rocks, leaving rivulets of foaming, white water. Others burst on the shore in individual patterns. They slid up the moistened sand with playful frothy edges, then bubbled and swirled as they receded."
  "I thought of the unending variety of possibilities the Lord has provided for us. We have so much freedom, so many opportunities to develop our unique personalities and talents, our individual memories, our personalized contributions. Since there would be no further opportunity to observe the majestic sea, I tried to imagine the glorious panorama the brilliant sun would later create. As I watched this magnificent scene in reverence, a window formed in the clouds; the glistening rays of the rising sun broke through the overcast sky, transforming everything with its luminescence, its color, its life. It was as if the Lord wanted to share an additional blessing, a symbol of the light of His teachings that gives brilliance and hope to everyone it touches. Tears of gratitude formed for this wondrous world in which we live, for the extraordinary beauty our Heavenly Father so freely shares with all who are willing to see. Truly, life is beautiful." ~ Richard G Scott  We don't develop our unique personalities to cast them aside. They are a blessing, they are good. Not evil. Perfection does not mean Monotony. In most things it's the little variations that makes something perfect and unique and beautiful.

I fall somewhere between SemSnoozer and Windseeker. I see no value in variety. I also don't think we'll all be "exactly" the same, but I can't source that or support it with any logical doctrinal ideas. So I'm forced to side with SemSnoozer on this one (though, as I've explained, I think the descriptive phrasing she uses is lacking and ends up sounding too hive minded).
 
Windseeker, there is no logical path to apply your quotes to the eternities. We know we're born unique in this life. That does not automatically lead to we must all remain unique forever more.
 
Though I do wonder about our physical beings. There are quotes stating we'll look the same as we do in this life. In God's image no more than I'm in my earthly father's image, perhaps. But character-wise? How can there be variety in perfection? Some of us will make tigers with orange stripes, others with purple? Why? Just for fun? Does a perfect, all powerful being do things just for fun? Is whimsy even possible when you're all-knowing? And...is there truly neutral in anything? God is perfect in every way. If there is no neutral, then every choice He makes can not vary, because it must by nature of who He is be the best and most perfect choice in every case.

I thought it would have been clear from my original post concerning the matter that I was pulling your phrase out of context. As in...
 

A thought - about Eden.  Perhaps it is not so much the decision or agency to partake of the forbidden fruit of the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" as it was to not make such a decision together.  That Satan's victory was not really getting "Adam" and "Eve" to partake for individual reasons as it was getting them to partake of the fruit separately and not together.
 
But this would mean that the natural man is the essence of selfishness or individualism.  And that the spirit or better understood as the spirit of Christ is the opposite or the essence of self and the giving up of individualism which is the sacrifice of self (physical or spirit self) - and thus extends to that which is both our physical or spirit nature to care for self first. 

I have no computer, so I come in on a cell phone. Maybe I'm middle-class?

You took that very well.  :)   Recently I was in a religious debate with an individual that was trying to argue that all religions and philosophies have some truth but no one particular paradigm is the right G-d supported undisputed true religion.    So I asked to be sure - "So you do not believe any particular notion has any advantage over all the others?"  Absolutely they responded. 
 
Then, I said, your particular notion - by its own projection must be wrong.  Because if it is right there is no advantage in believing it or thinking such a thing and if it is wrong then you just wasted your all your effort to discover anything and every conclusion you reach because of such thinking must be wrong or at best misleading.
 
There must be something that can be relied upon.  There must be truth that is correct by which the value of all other things can be measured.   If that truth is not empirical it cannot be used or even considered for use.  We must believe that we can identify truth by some infallible means - otherwise there is no purpose in trying to consider truth.
 
Some try to argue that G-d is the infallible means of knowing truth.  But we are not G-d and thus we are left with trying to discover the infallible means to know G-d and his truth granted to us.  There must be some empirical means.  Jesus taught that if we empirically apply the principles - we will know of such principles if they are granted to us by G-d.  Alma suggested the empirical means of "planting a seed".  Though he uses suggestive symbolism - the method is still empirical. 
 
In essence we must believe there is infallible truth and that we are capable of discovering it and recognizing it.  If we cannot believe that - there is no purpose in seeking truth.  But there is a most interesting caveat - and I think you understand that caveat better than most - that is that the infallible truth is always masked by pride and the refusal to consider that something may be better than what you currently understand.  For that reason alone your are my best and most trusted friend on the forum.  You make me see better things. :)

As I read this I had the thought that maybe it means it's not a day of many word because IT IS A DAY OF ACTION!

This is what I think of when I hear "many words"; Joseph Smith History; "
 5 Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.
 6 For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions."
 
Then it was later described to him this way; "19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
 
In other words (not many), we don't want to dance around the truth or pretend to have the truth, the truth is direct and in preparation for the second coming.  The warning is related to the whole reason for the restoration of the gospel, to prepare for the second coming.  Introduction of the Book of Mormon, "Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is His revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the Second Coming of the Messiah."

You are only saying this because your borrowed brain has it all wrong.  :)