Relentless

So I take it you are targeting people whom you feel place too much "faith" in the Prophet? I for one feel as though this man is to be revered because of all that he did and all that he overcame. However, I will not be so bold as to say he was perfect. I am intrigued by your use of "all-too-human".

But without the details, what would we have to debate?

Nope.

My guess is it stems from the skimpy atire the aliens wear. The alien males wear a loincloth, and the alien females wear a bikini tpye of garment. That said, the bodies are humanoid, but far from sexual in my opinion. Also, there is a "love scene" between the two main characters, where she is sitting on his lap and they rock back and forth. It is not graphic, but my wife covered the eyes of my 12 year old for this part.

So this is hands down the best movie I have ever seen. I saw it in 3D, which was awesome, because they invented a new type of camera to better film 3D, as wel as new software to make the CG more realistic. On top of that, it had a compelling story line and good character development. Some people compared it to the last samurai, because a warrior adopts his enemies beliefs and joins them against his old comrades. But this had so much more. I was simply awestruck as this movie kept my interest the entire time. The action scenes were amazing, and there were times when you felt as though the action was happening to you (because of the 3D, objects would almost hit you). I would recomend everyone go see this amazing film.

Pam, you watched the Denver game, right? Can you serriously tell me that they should have called that PI on the last drive, seeing as how they ignored the 2 blatant PI's that Oakland did against Denver? That said, WOW, Denver really stank it up. 0-4 TDs in the redzone.

I am interested to find out how you KNOW how old the earth is? Aren't our current beliefs only a guess? albeit an educated one? As for the one land mass vs multiple land masses, this is not discussed in the scriptures, so I don't know why the "pro global flood" side makes this argument. So you are saying the Priesthood is magic? How was Enos able to move mountains by simply telling them to move, or change the course of a river using only his verbal command as described in Moses 7:13? 13 And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him. But what if it isn't the "pro global flood" side that has the wrong idea in their head? Why are you so sure that your deductive reasoning and critical thinking has led you to the right conclusion? I am sorry, but to compare these things to the teachings in the scriptures and from the church is downright ludacris. The scriptures do not say to kill America, nor do they preach the extermination of the Jews. Your argument here is unfounded. So I am curious to know what your belief about the scriptures are? I believe that it is the word of God, delivered to us through chosen people. I do not think that it is merely the ideas of men, as you seem to be indicating (maybe I am reaching here, but how else could you say that God tells us nothing, and that all we have is what men say on the matter?) I am sorry Vort, but how is the idea that the Bible saying the WHOLE EARTH (ie the globe) was flooded "something that is not in its correct historical or chronological time"? As for the knowledge of the Hebrews, I can not debate this point because I also know of no record stating they knew or didn't know. What I do have is the teachings that Abraham at least knew, as did his fathers; 31 But the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs, concerning the right of Priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands; therefore a knowledge of the beginning of the creation, and also of the planets, and of the stars, as they were made known unto the fathers, have I kept even unto this day, and I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me. So it seems that those who spoke with our Heavenly Father and/or Jesus KNEW that the earth was round, and that there are more planets than this one. So using my deductive reasoning, I can theorize that whoever wrote ACCEPTED scripture also knew these things. How is this utter nonsense? Is it any more nonsensical to believe that Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego were thrown into a fire and did not burn? That the furnace they were thrown into was so hot, it killed the ones who put them in, yet they escaped unscathed? The scriptures are full of stories that science can not explain, nor can we understand using "deductive reasoning and critical thinking". To me, that is kind of the point, that we do not fully KNOW everything, and therefore have to accept things on faith. Amazing, you seem to ignore the fact that the Bible covers the creation. What, when the Earth was created, it was flat? How did you come to this conclusion? Who are YOU to say it CANNOT describe the flood as being global? I am interested to know why you get to determine the "mindset" of those who wrote the old testament? It has already been shown that some people KNEW about PLANETS. Are we to believe that these planets are actually floating discs, as opposed to globes? What of Enoch, who saw our day? (Enoch teaches, leads the people, moves mountains—The City of Zion is established—Enoch foresees the coming of the Son of Man, his atoning sacrifice, and the resurrection of the saints—He foresees the restoration, the gathering, the Second Coming, and the return of Zion. Chapter heading for Moses 7) If I might point out one fallacy; If the authors are anonymous, how can we know if they ever met the Savior? Onto my other points; We all know the story of the City of Enoch. It was "received into the bossom" of God. There is no historical or scientific evidence that this happened, yet I don't think that Snow or Vort would argue it happened (I could be wrong, as I am often wrong when I try to think what Vort thinks). As to Heavenly Father "killing babies" and other innocents, let's look at 3 Nephi real quick; 3 Nephi 8:8-16 8 And the city of Zarahemla did take fire. 9 And the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned. 10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain. 11 And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward. 12 But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth; 13 And the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough. 14 And many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate. 15 And there were some cities which remained; but the damage thereof was exceedingly great, and there were many in them who were slain. 16 And there were some who were carried away in the awhirlwind; and whither they went no man knoweth, save they know that they were carried away. 3 Nephi 10:12-13 12 And it was the more righteous part of the people who were saved, and it was they who received the prophets and stoned them not; and it was they who had not shed the blood of the saints, who were spared— 13 And they were spared and were not sunk and buried up in the earth; and they were not drowned in the depths of the sea; and they were not burned by fire, neither were they fallen upon and crushed to death; and they were not carried away in the whirlwind; neither were they overpowered by the vapor of smoke and of darkness. It would seem so.

I will never forget my father telling me his stories. I never understood how he could love Santa so much. I mean, if anyone knew my father, you would think of him as an angry, cold and unemotional person. Someone who is ruled by reason and does not let emotion get in the way (except for anger). And to see him crying while struggling to teach me the REAL reason for Santa, well, it was life altering.

I teach my children about Santa, thanks in large part to my father. My father is overweight, and always played the Santa role for school parties, ward parties and would even "visit" us at home. I am the 2nd oldest of 6, and when I was 12 or so, my older sister and I were making fun of Santa, and hinting that he didn't exist to my youngest sibblings. Now instead of his normal scream, yell, rant, rave and spank punishment routine, my father actually sat us down and told us about the magic of Santa. The first story was about how he played Santa at a different ward's christmas party, and when a little girl came up to talk to him, she said all she wanted for Christmas was for her daddy to get a job, so he would stop being so mad at her mommy, and stop hitting her mommy. My father expressed these concerns to the Bishop, and the father was helped with finding a job. The ward collected food, clothes and toys so this family could have a christmas. I do not know what came of the allegations of spousal abuse. No one in this ward had any idea that the man had lost his job, that the family was in trouble or even suspected that anything was out of the ordinary. The small girl hadn't told anyone, not teachers at school, not her primary teachers, no one. But she had faith that Santa could help. The second story he told is a bit more complex. He was once again playing Santa at a ward christmas party, and when he spoke to a small boy, the boy started to cry. He said that all he wanted for Christmas was for his step dad to stop hurting his sister. He told Santa that he wanted Santa to take his sister with him, to the North Pole so that his step dad couldn't be mean to his sister. Then my dad spoke with the younger sister of this 8 year old boy. She said that her brother wanted her to go to the North Pole and live with Santa forever, because her step dad was hurting her. My dad summoned the courage to ask what the step dad was doing, and the girl said he would touch her where he shouldn't. And he said that if she told anyone, even her mother, that he would kill her. My father took this information to the Bishop, and that same day the stepdad was arrested and eventually convicted. The mother worked full time, and had no idea that anything was going on. No one else knew what was going on. Yet these 2 children believed that Santa could help them, and so they talked to him. You can say what you want to about "lying" to kids about Santa, but to me, the magic of Santa isn't about a guy who brings presents. It's about the love that we have for children and showing them that there is someone they can talk to, someone who can help.

Avatar 3D is my new favorite movie. I was in awe the entire time. Can't wait to see it again!

I didn't utilize questions for discussion from the back of a teacher's manual. Iused a lesson directly from the teachers manual. But I guess you would discount it as non doctrinal, because it doesn't support your theory. What evidence do you have "that it is so"? Your own interpretation of scriptures? Why would your interpretation be correct? The quote from Elder Nelson? What about the "less weighty" quote from Elder Maxwell? Simply saying I am ignoring the evidence does NOT make it true. I don't find your evidence compelling enough to cause me to change my views. I am curious to know why you seem to think that the ONLY measure of Heavenly Father's love for us is salvation. That is after all the basis for your argument, is it not? That if some people end up damned, then it will be because they failed to qualify for Heavenly Father's love, not because (as I assert) that they failed to qualify for the redeeming power of the atonement, yet still have a Father in Heaven who loves them. Do you have a scriptural interpretation that Heavenly Father only loves those who acheive Celestial Glory? And what about the differing degrees of Celestial Glory? Is His love reserved for only the absolute highest? I guess that you saying my responses are ignoring your questions is a little like you saying I am wrong, therefore you don't need to debate the issue. As for how come I am saying that the opposing side of this argument (the conditional love side) claims that sometime Heavenly Father will STOP loving some of his children, it is based off simple logic. IF Heavenly Father loves us now (can we agree on this point?), THEN we are currently meeting the "requirements" for that love. IF we stop meeting the "requirements" for His love, THEN He will STOP loving us. Is that not the logic of your arguments? That because His love is conditional, that failing to meet those requirements causes a STOPPAGE of His love? So then is it not fair of me to say that you believe He will STOP loving us if we fail to meet the "conditions"

I can't speak to how to motivate a family to clean up, as my wife never seems satisfied with MY version of clean. But I do know a TON about discipline. Of course, my oldest is only 15, but he understands that if he wants to stay at home, there will be rules. I have set a standard for all of my children, and I expect them to live it. As for adult children, I would say send them to the movies one day, and change the locks while they are gone. Give them a good scare and a wakeup call...

I guess I don't understand why some people are claiming that Heavenly Father won't love us even if we are sinning? I think that you need to seperate the act of loving someone from the act of providing them blessings. I find no doctorinal proof that Heavenly Father ever stops loving us. As for doctorinal proof that Heavenly Father ACKNOWLEDGES Lucifer as his SON, look at the Church's teachings on the premortal life; From Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual; link • Before the earth was created, Heavenly Father called a council in heaven and presented the plan of salvation to all His spirit children. What were some elements of the plan that Heavenly Father presented in the premortal world? (See 2 Nephi 2:24–26; Alma 34:8–9; Abraham 3:24–25. Answers could include the Atonement of Jesus Christ; the Creation of the earth; the Fall; time on earth during which we would receive a mortal body and be tested; and agency, or the power to choose good or evil.) • How did Jehovah, the Firstborn of the Father, respond to the plan of salvation? (See Moses 4:2. To show how the Savior obeyed the Father’s will, you may want to read D&C 19:16–19 and D&C 76:40–42. Emphasize that the Atonement of Jesus Christ makes the plan of salvation possible. The Savior is the central figure in God’s plan for our salvation.) • Lucifer rebelled against the plan of salvation, seeking to destroy our agency and gain Heavenly Father’s power (Moses 4:1, 3; D&C 29:36). He became Satan, and he and his followers were cast out of the Father’s presence and denied mortality (D&C 29:36–38; 76:25–27; Moses 4:4; Abraham 3:26). Why is it important for us to know about the existence of Satan and his followers? So Heavenly Father gathered all of His children to discuss the plan of salvation, but also invited a random spirit whom He wasn't related to the party? The only reason we know that Lucifer even IS Heavenly Father's child is because He revealed it to us. If he was refusing to acknowledge Lucifer as such, why would he tell us, much less allow us to teach it? As for your assertation that Heavenly Father stopped loving Lucifer and one third of the host of heaven, let us examine D&C 76:26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning So what heavens wept over him? Everyone BUT Heavenly Father? Why did they weep? Are we to believe these are tears of joy?Now please, do NOT confuse me saying Heavenly Father still loves Lucifer with my saying He will forgive or in some otherways bless Lucifer. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the blessings Heavenly Father offers are obviously conditional. The degree to which He is able to demonstrate His love for us is conditional. I do not understand how believing that Heavenly Father will love us unconditionally would lead us to think that sin is ok. That is quite a jump to me. Obviously we are capable of loving someone without loving or approving of their actions, so why would Heavenly Father be different?

How is it meaningless to know that Heavenly Father loves you? How is knowing the relationship WE share with HIM meaningless? How is it useful to KNOW that even if we disappoint Him, Heavenly Father will still LOVE us? I guess that this depends on the state of mind of those who hear it. To some (me) it is comforting to know that we have a Heavenly Father who will FOREVER love us. To others (you) it is of no importance, and should be disregarded as such. As to what solace is there in knowing God is eternally mourning our lost state; I cannot offer any. I can offer the observation that it parallels the Saviors teachings that "inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, your brethern, ye have done it unto me". How? Because, our SAVIOR feels a special bond with each of us. See 1 Nephi 21:15-16 15 For can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee, O house of Israel. 16 Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me. Also, consider for a moment the teachings of Alma to the people of Gideon; 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. Now I suppose you could argue that in order to be "his people" you need to follow the principles of the gospel. However, if that were your stance, I would ask is it ONLY members who can call upon our Savior, the attonement or Heavenly Father to bring us comfort? Do WE corner the market on goodness and blessings from Heavenly Father? My answer would be no. As for "God's love is only meaningful if it results in something to our bennefit"; Do you really believe that? I don't know if you have children, but if they made you a macaroni picture, would you throw it away as trash because it was a meaningless demonstration of their love for you? I mean, it's not like you could trade a macaroni picture for anything of monetary value, nor would it be of physical bennefit, as it wouldn't keep you warm or dry. Yet I and I am assuming several other parents have hand made presents from our children which result in no actual bennefit OTHER than the knowledge that our children love us. Sorry if "warm fuzzies" don't get it done for you. When did I say this? Eternal Damnation is NOT the subject I have been debating. As for your comment that "as I suppose", yes, I do suppose Heavenly Father STILL on SOME level LOVES Lucifer. Just as YOU suppose he doesn't. How is Heavenly Father refusing to acknowledge Lucifer as His son? The only reason we know Lucifer is His son is because He told us. Do you have a scriptural reference saying Heavenly Father doesn't acknowledge Lucifer as His son? Because otherwise it seems like you are offering opinion that speaks for Heavenly Father. So how is it that you considering one Apostle's remarks "of much greater moment" than another's any different from me? Is your opinion more correct because it belongs to you? How is Heavenly Father's unconditional love (as we suppose it is), a good thing? Well, as previously stated, it gives us "warm fuzzies". And some of us like to feel loved.

I can't wait to see Avatar in 3D tonight! This movie looks so AWESOME!

Nope. My wife does, as I leave for work before her. And on my days off, she still makes the bed, because as a man, I am incapable of doing it right.

So since this happened to me, can I comment on it? Or does the fact that it didn't bother me disqualify me from offering advice? The short answer is simple. If she completed her repentance process, then you must forgive her D&C 64:10; 10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. However, the process of forgiving someone can often times be very hard, even if they have repented. Of course we have the best support system available. Consider Matt 11:28-30 28 ¶ Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Yet how do we give our burdens over to the Lord? consider the story of Enos; Enos 1:4 And my soul hungered; and I kneeled down before my Maker, and I cried unto him in mighty prayer and supplication for mine own soul; and all the day long did I cry unto him; yea, and when the night came I did still raise my voice high that it reached the heavens. I can testify to you that Alma's words regarding comfort are true; 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. I know (or rather suspect) it will not be easy, but if you put your faith in Heavenly Father, you will be able to overcome these feelings.

So your argument that if God loves everyone, why will people go to hell is only for Non LDS people? Then you somehow make the leap from "Heavenly Father's love for his children" to "Divine love and salvation". I am sorry, but the two are NOT inclusive. As any PARENT can tell you, you can LOVE your child and still punish them. I think the bulk of our disagreement stems from 2 things; 1) How we view Heavenly Father's love for us. To you, "Divine Love" is extremely conditional. To me, Heavenly Father is a loving parent whom wants the best for His children. 2) Both of our own unwillingness to look at the issue from the other's perspective, coupled with verbal jabs (by both parties "Dog and whale" refrence ring a bell?). Before we continue down this path, and I demonstrate more of my "world class jerk"ness, let me set a few things straight. I do NOT think that our Heavenly Father's love for us will allow Him to OVERLOOK our sin. In order to qualify for SALVATION, we need to practice the principles of the gospel. However, will Heavenly Father STOP loving His children if they fail? No. Now we keep debating the term "stop loving", but to me it seems as though IF love is conditional, THEN if the conditions are not met, the love will NOT be applied. Seeing as how we are all here because Heavenly Father loves us, then this would constitute a STOPING of His love. As for scriptural references that Heavenly Father doesn't love Lucifer, I would like your examples. Simply not allowing him to be in Heavenly Father's presence is more like a parent grounding a child then ceasing to love him. Also, the origional argument was not is Divine Love unconditional, but rather is Heavenly Father's love unconditional.

This seems to me like you are saying that Heavenly Father will not continue to love His children if they are condemned to not be in His presence. How did you arrive at this idea? The idea that you seem to be preaching is that the Fullness of Heavenly Father's love is Celestial Glory, and those who fall short are not loved by Heavenly Father. Your statement apears to take the stance that becasue some people will go to hell, then God must not love them. I ask you, what scripture do you have to show us this? I am not speaking of receiving a "Fullness of Heavenly Father's Love" (ie Celestial Glory), but that He STOPS loving us if we go to "hell"? 1 Nep 22:25 And he gathereth his children from the four quarters of the earth; and he numbereth his sheep, and they know him; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd; and he shall feed his sheep, and in him they shall find pasture. So how does that show us that Heavenly Father's love is conditional? Hm, maybe you meant that Jesus will only love His sheep? As to the example you gave; How can you say that it is Heavenly Father who stops offering these gifts to us? We might not do what we need to in order to claim them (ie hold to the rod, continue on the straight and narrow path), but they are offered to us regardless of if we CHOOSE to accept them or not. Your illustration does NOT prove that Heavenly Father does NOT unconditionally love us, it proves that in order to claim ALL of the blessings available to us, we need to hold to the rod and continue down the path. Elder Nelson says "While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional. Before citing examples, it is well to recognize various forms of conditional expression in the scriptures." So while he does not say that it is unconditional, he also states that it is the "higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love" that are conditional. This is not so much an argument that Heavenly Father's love is conditional, as it is that the FULLNESS of it is. Thus rendering your statement wrong.Now before you go off ignoring what I am saying and thinking that you alone speak for Heavenly Father, look at my side of the argument, which I will B R E A K D O W N to very SIMPLE terms. Heavenly Father loves His children. He demonstrated that love for us by sending his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ to earth to atone for our sins. We KNOW this because of John 3:16. By saying that His love IS conditional, you are placing limits upon Him. You will notice that Elder Nelson's argument for not saying "unconditional love" is primarily that the word unconditional is not listed in the scriptures. His examples go on to show receiving blessings and fullness of the Gospel require us to DO things, thereby rendering it conditional. Yet what happens to those who do NOT qualify for those "higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love" because they did not DO the required tasks (ie your example of going to the tree)? Does Heavenly Father STOP loving them? Or did He not love them at all to begin with? Indeed, Elder Nelson says no. "Does this mean the Lord does not love the sinner? Of course not. Divine love is infinite and universal. The Savior loves both saints and sinners. The Apostle John affirmed, “We love him, because he first loved us.” 39 And Nephi, upon seeing in vision the Lord’s mortal ministry, declared: “The world, because of their iniquity, shall judge him to be a thing of naught; wherefore they scourge him, and he suffereth it; and they smite him, and he suffereth it. Yea, they spit upon him, and he suffereth it, because of his loving kindness and his long-suffering towards the children of men.” We know the expansiveness of the Redeemer’s love because He died that all who die might live again." You put forth arguments to show that the FULLNESS of that love is conditional, which I agree with. The statement at hand was is the love (no matter how small) offered unconditionally. I have offered arguments that it is. How am I avoiding this studiously? I am showing that in the same article, it says that Heavenly Father loves ALL His children. How is that avoiding? Oh, because I didn't agree with you, my bad. How do you get that "that love is life and salvation"? More importantly, how do you get that the love stops (because the conditions weren't met) if you fail to acheive Celestial Glory? Are you implying that Jesus will be more tolerant and loving because those in the terrestrial kingdom will be in His presence? From what I read in your origional example Is that Heavenly Father's love must be conditional because not everyone will reach the fruit (life everlasting, or eternal life; Celestial Glory) My argument is that Heavenly Father loves ALL of His children, EVEN if some fail to make it to Celestial Glory. Saying that i am talking about dogs and whales is a bit off, but what else would I expect from the Voice of Reasoned Thought? In the spirit of YOUR line of reasoning, please provide ME with proof that YOU would say the same thing. Perhaps in the form of a video, so we can see you having nails driven through your hands and feet, and then you asking Heavenly Father to forgive your tormentors? So you stating is not an opinion? Is it a fact? Well maybe When you said it was somehow NOT an opinion?The point is that neither one of us SPEAKS for Heavenly Father. We both believe we are right, even though our views seem to be contradictory to one another. We have both provided examples we believe (ie interpret) to support our arguments. But the fact still remains that these are our OPINIONS. Last time I checked, the Voice of Reasoned Thought was NOT a delegated Church spokesperson, so anything you say here is opinion, wether you view it as such or not. You did not claim to be Heavenly Father's spokesman, but you also claim that your words are definative on this subject (as previously demonstrated by you not thinking you were offering opinion) As for the validity, who is to say that you are the one calling a bat a mamal in this argument? To me (uh oh, another opinion) your argument is like you calling a bat a fish. But I guess being the Voice, your words are never subjective, so I guess once again i am wrong. (dang) Uh oh, you are offering opinion again. You saying "If God's love is the reception of his glory and presence, as stated in 1 Nephi, then being eternally cast out of his glory and presence is the opposite" operates under the assumption that "reception of his glory and presence" is the only meaning of Heavenly Father's love, which would make several scriptures far different. But again, I must admit, I do not have the authoratative powers of being the Voice, so maybe that is the only definition of Heavenly Father's love. My example demonstrated that Heavenly Father did not stop loving his fallen children. It was in response to your question I was merely pointing out that you have no scriptural basis for your theory that Heavenly Father does not love Lucifer (satan).What do I believe is meant by the love of God? I think it means that Heavenly Father wants good things to happen to us, for us and through us. That He wants us to be happy. I can not find the reference right now, but I heard a talk given about the afterlife, and in it we were told that it's not that Heavenly Father won't want us to dwell with him, but that we wouldn't feel comfortable in his presence unless we are clean. I will continue to search for it, and post it when I find it. I was refrencing the prexistance, in a continued argument that Heavenly Father still loves His fallen children (the 1/3 who followed Lucifer). Why else would He accept a plan that He knew off the bat, 1/3 of His children would fail, so He would stop loving them? I am not making up that your argument is Heavenly Father will stop loving His children. Your statement is that His love (not fullness of His love), is conditional. Thereby meaning that it does not happen if we fail to meet those requirements. To me it seems as though you are saying He will STOP loving those who fail to acheive Celestial Glory, which I can not find scriptural reference for. I refuse to believe that not receiving the fullness of His love is the same as not receiving his love.

Liberals don't kick puppies. Look at what they did to Michael Vick. Also, they only steal candy from children to combat childhood obesity. The real thing they spend all their time doing is working to grant clemency to illegals, and change the national language to spanish!

Nah, I get into enough knock down drag outs on my own. My wife keeps me in line.

Whew, I was wondering when the Voice of Reason would speak up. Thanks!

That is weird, I can not imagine dreading Christmas? Ever since I can remember, Christmas has always brought out the best in my family (which if you knew my father, would be saying a ton). And ever since I had kids, I can barely wait for them to open their gifts and see the looks of awe and amazement on their faces. But that's just me...

Fine, I give. Mine is from Orson Wells "Lady from Shanghai". I took a film noir class and we watched several Hitchcock and Wells movies. Here's an easy one "Rosebud"

Ok, let's break this down. "On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional" So Elder Maxwell's quote right off the bat is that the "higher levels of love, and certain blessings" are conditional. That does not say that they cease, just because you love person A more than person B or give them more blessings, you do not stop loving person B. Your argument seems to imply that because Heavenly Father's love is demonstrated to us by degrees, it must also mean that His love for us is measured in degrees, thereby making it possible for some of his children to receive 0 degrees of that love. I do not disagree that there are levels and prerequisits for receiving the FULLNESS of Heavenly Father's love; rather I am saying that it is impossible to say that God STOPS loving us. Let's start with the most often quoted scripture; John 3:16 For God so loved the WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting light. (emphasis added) Now you might say that in order to qualify for that love, you have to live right, and accept the attonement. But that is not true, Jesus suffered for all of the sins of all mankind. He did this out of love for us. Now if we chose to accept this or not does not change the fact that he did it. Jesus did not say, well, I am only going to suffer for the sins of those who I know will accept this, thereby qualifing all to utilize this atonement. Next, let's consider Moroni 7:47 47 But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him. Now how can we have charity, which is "pure love" and which "endures forever", and yet somehow our Heavenly Father doesn't? That makes no sense. Now, had you bothered to read the entire article, you would have come across this quote Divine Love and the Sinner "Does this mean the Lord does not love the sinner? Of course not. Divine love is infinite and universal. The Savior loves both saints and sinners. The Apostle John affirmed, “We love him, because he first loved us.” And Nephi, upon seeing in vision the Lord’s mortal ministry, declared: “The world, because of their iniquity, shall judge him to be a thing of naught; wherefore they scourge him, and he suffereth it; and they smite him, and he suffereth it. Yea, they spit upon him, and he suffereth it, because of his loving kindness and his long-suffering towards the children of men.” We know the expansiveness of the Redeemer’s love because He died that all who die might live again." I don't know how else I can demonstrate that your argument is off base. Simply put, because Heavenly Father will "show more love and/or blessings" to some of His children, does NOT mean he STOPS loving his other children. Even Elder Maxwell says as much. As for the legs of your argument, of course you think it has legs, why else would you make it? Who enters into a debate KNOWING they will lose? Your first example of the tree of life was flawwed. It is flawwed because the fruit is offered to all. Acceptance of the fruit requires US to do something to claim it. It does not demonstrate a "selective love" of Heavenly Father. It shows us that the FULLNESS of his love is offered to us, if we TRAVEL the path and take it. That is how your logic is flawed. How am I incorrect about us being able to demonstrate love for someone who has nailed us to a cross? Have YOU demonstrated that kind of love? Because I haven't, nor do I kid myself into thinking I could. As for your second to last statement about this being my opinion, isn't that the point behind a forum? Are you actually the living voicepiece for Heavenly Father? If not, then your statements are all your opinion, same as mine are, thereby rendering my opinions just as valid as yours. As for Heavenly Father's love for Lucifer, where do you read that he STOPPED loving him? As I read it from Abraham 3:27-28 27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first. 28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and at that day, many followed after him. It was Lucifer who decided to "keep not his first estate". It doesn't say that Heavenly Father stopped loving him. Also, if this life was a test, and "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things." (2 Nep 2:11) then why would Heavenly Father's plan set up 1/3 of His children for failure? What, is a 66% maximun a reasonable success rate? How do you come to the thought that Heavenly Father STOPS loving his children?