MaidservantX

This is a good post, LT; however, I would say that giving the Melchizedek priesthood to every qualified male member is also not new or unique. This took place in many times and ages. It took place before and after the law of Moses. It may not have been quite as ubiquitous as it is now, but there were always many Melchizedek priesthood holders, even as the Aaronic and or the Levitical Priesthood was busy with the law of Moses. Setting aside the Book of Mormon, which definitely had that going on, I will point you to Jethro of Midian who was the person that ordained Moses, in fact. Well, who the heck was this guy??? Almost no one ever talks about him, but there is an incredible implication here. First of all, "from Midian" most likely means that he was descended from Midian. Midian was one of five sons of Abraham from his third wife Keturah, a young woman he married after Sarah died. If Jethro had the Melchizedek priesthood, where did he get it?? Was he all by his lonesome?? I doubt it. He was part of a society, albeit perhaps a loose nomadic one (????maybe?). I'm sure the fact that there was this one gentleman with the priesthood represents at least several more who also had it. As well, when you get into the story of Elijah, for example, when Jezebel is killing the prophets (hundreds of them) of God, how many prophets do you need? I personally have come to believe this is simply a reference to those who held the Melchizedek priesthood in the church organization at the time. Just to get you thinking . . . [thread high jack??]

By the way . . . "Socializing" is waaaaay different that "socialization"! An argument against home schooling originally was that children would not be "socialized" properly. Those who put forward this argument could haved cared less whether or kids had friends, activities, social interaction, etc. THAT IS NOT WHAT SOCIALIZATION MEANS. The worry was that children needed to attend public school (or similar) in order to be trained to be a proper member of society. In my own harsh way, in other words, "brainwashed". If your child is not in public school how will he know how to be an employee (worker bee!), and citizen (populace mass), and open minded (atheistic). Now, I know, I'm going to get hate mail, I don't know how else to express this. Obviously being a citizen and being open minded (but not atheistic) are VERY high values to me; employee not so much, because I'd rather train someone to be an enterpreneur. Anyway, "socialization" means the government wents to input your child into their system and output an adult that accepts the values and methods of society as they are desired by the government. Okay . . . . I DON'T WANT MY CHILD TO PARTICIPATE. As Rosie said it, I don't think the government and public schooling has a grasp on real life. A lot more could be said about this, but you can see what the issue is about "socialization". Well, many people who do not understand this definition and argument have gotten ahold of the word (semantic) "socialization" and in their minds think it means "socializing" and have a serious cow worrying about if your homeschooled kid is going to meet enough children and have enough large group activities. My personal opinion is if I do not provide these kinds of activities to my homeschooled child, then my homeschool is severely inadequate. However, this is not the original argument. As well, I am a great believer that the interactions children need to have are with siblings of various ages, or extended family, or intergenerational (grandparents) (and I know not everyone has a big, geographically close family like this, either) NOT a lord of the flies scenario as public school recess so often is. (Recess is one of my biggest dislikes of public school!!!! lol).

God the Father and Jesus the Christ personally visited Joseph Smith when he was 14 years old, so this is what you would call the first revelation, I suppose. Then the experience jim brought forward at age 17. It went from there in various manners and experiences. See D&C 123, 127 and 128 for examples of Joseph Smith's writing (I'm sure there are other examples, lol, but this is some). Happy learning, k! oh, by the way, www.josephsmith.net.

I am homeschooling some of my children. I don't know that I have any bits of wisdom. For my ten year old daughter, at this time, I prepare a 'letter' for her that outlines what I expect to be accomplished by the end of the week. She works at her own pace, although generally in the mornings I require school time. There is a lot in the letter she can do herself, and she chooses what to work on in what order, and there are some things in the letter that I tell her we need to do together, and if she is ready to do them, then I sit down with her and teach. I am gradually being able to do this in an organic, flowing manner, with the rest of my duties. I go from doing my dishes, to leaving them in midstream to explain a math problem, to calling on the phone for my visiting teaching appointments, to doing a project with the smaller son, to holding the baby and playing a ball game with him, back to my dishes, writing a scene on my novel, getting the kids to help me with laundry folding, a moment for a mid day prayer and scripture verse, check my investments online, -- you get the idea. I realize this won't work for everyone. But I simply cannot say that at this hour this will be done and at this hour will be this, because every day is too different for me. I have a master 'to do' list with a general idea of when to get things done, but the three kids need me at different times, so I have to allow myself to be available to them when they need me; plus then the big kids get home in the afternoon. One thing my ten year old daughter has been doing all year long is preparing a 7 page research paper on Mermaids. With my son, we had just been going through a fun work book Scholastic puts out, some things he can do himself, some with me. He's 7. This workbook integrates several disciplines in the work pages and project ideas they come up with.

I suppose it depends on how we define temple. One way to think of it is where heaven and earth meet (just one way to say it, maybe not even the best way). You will laugh at me, and this is purely a thought in my mind of curiosity, but I have often wondered, or even gone so far as to assume, that the garden of Eden remained a place that Adam and Eve could access once they repented and that it served as their temple. Again, this may be pure fantasy, but has anyone else even thought this before at all? One also wonders, in considering the ancient civilizations, such as Enoch's city, what they would have had or built as far as temples. As it turns out, the whole city became a temple, anyway. Another interesting clue would actually be Nimrod's insistence in building the abomination that he did (Tower of Babel) -- but occasionally I also wonder if a small part of this dynamic was that there was on the earth God's house already to arouse a longing in Nimord that quickly turned to greed etc, since he might have been barred from God's house because he lacked repentence -- he had no desire to follow God's way to receive heaven's mysteries and powers -- he decided to attempt it in his own way. Again, I have no basis for this other than I quite often try to imagine what the 'in between the lines' and the blanks are in some of these ancient scripture stories. I also personally think that there would have needed to be temples, or places where what we consider to be the temple ordinances were being administered, because we see the effect of what usually comes from those temple ordinances that were being enjoyed by Adam and his (early) posterity.

Yes, at least as stated in your question, diamond, the first of the Ten Commandments implies that there ARE other Gods/ gods. Even if we were gods in eternity -- assuming this is so -- we would never be violating the first of the Ten Commandments, because any individual, though he may have reached a condition of holiness and power to create, will still be worshipping the Heavenly Father we worship now, and no other. No other relationship will take the place of this one with our Heavenly Father (and what is the definition of worship, anyway, right? if you say there is only one to worship, then that implies there are others to choose from). Also, just a thought, don't mean to make it bigger than it should be, but it is always good to keep in mind that Moses and his Ten Commandments were the weakest law God and Moses could come up with so that the weak Israelites could still be obedient and not freak out, as they were wont to do, whenever God tried to explain a bit more and offer them greater laws. Now, of course, the Ten Commandments are basic, they are never going to be removed -- but they might be expanded upon a bit and become more clear. And, as a- train said, this was a commandment to a group of Israelites who were still steeped in the cosmology of the Egyptian religion (including Pharoah is God?) and God was just trying to get them to pry their fingers off of it. My final thought for this post is simply -- and I"m sure you've heard this one before -- if we are God's children, isn't God going to generate offspring that are gods? What other kind of offspring would he generate, if we go by the fact that horses give birth to horses and apple trees give fruit to apples.

Crimson, The scriptures that I offered above were (part of) what I read to get where I am at (thus far). As well, I have read scriptures such as D& C 6:2 (and similar in the Topical Guide) and D&C 27:18 and passages such as 2 Ne ch 2 and also places in D& C where it says that spirit is matter. Also I am looking right now at a lovely place (which also speaks to the power of the Sacrament) in Moses ch 6:59-62 (and other surrounding verses) -- to where, as I read the scriptures, I constantly have a basic assumption that I feel has been more than warranted by my study that ALL things that are spoken of in the scriptures are descriptions of tangible processes -- in other words, there are lawful, mechanical, scientific realities (celestial) taking place -- which, perhaps you'd agree that much, but then still ask what are the mechanics. As for entropy in the scriptures, particularly as it applies to the human soul -- Moses 6:49; Matthew 13:12; D&C 1:33; D&C 93:39 (28-38); John 3:15; Mosiah 27:24-29; Alma 34:35; 1 Tim 6:9; Alma 12:16-18 (and surrounding). You may not read these as I do, but it is my understanding at this time. I do not mean to say that resurrection will not be permanent for all of earth's inhabitants (good or evil), because I believe that it will. But a person who is full of uncleanness or the chains of sin, or whatever other term we want to give -- they are missing light, intelligence, and are incapable (until redemption) of being who they really are. They have no power over their own energy and matter, they have turned it over to Satan, and is Satan doing any creating? No, he is not. He is taking things apart as fast as he can.

Okay, I will make the assumption that 'heaven' is a beautiful place of glory and peace. Well, an individual has to do nothing in order to experience a beautiful place of glory and peace in the after life. Jesus Christ made his sacrifice (atonement) and his resurrection, and from His merits, every one will freely receive immortality (resurrection) and they will be placed in a sphere of glory and peace. All of God's children will receive this gift without doing anything. That's the afterlife. As for THIS life, it can be a hell, no? One might want a little help or even protection from the Adversary. So Jesus Christ asks us to "Come unto Me". He can save us in this life, also, so that we might have peace in the present. John, visit the website www.mormon.org. That is where you will find official doctrine. This site is just a bunch of study and opinions and good friends.

What is the definition of salvation? What condition is a human being in, that has been saved? Tell me what you see salvation to be, and I can tell you what LDS generally consider to be necessary to reach the condition that you have defined. Thanks. Happy learning.

LT, my friend . . . there's no nutshell, here, lol. a-train and CK, this is amazing stuff. I do want to say that the one point I would change a little, in my mind, from what you have to say, CK, (although everything else you said takes me to a new level) is that the Father does not need anything to arouse pity in his heart (I refer you to the book of Enoch, or rather the book of Moses). To me, this makes it sound that God is going to change the rules to allow something unclean into his presence simply because his pity is of such a magnitude based upon what his Son did. I'm sure you would not mean to say that. So . . . how I would put it is that -- the atonement is not just so the Father would FEEL emotionally merciful . . . rather, the atonement literally affected the conditions of space and time, at whatever basic nature or particle known and unknown, so that the ends of the law had their satisfaction. This law is not a law of policing and statute as we think of it. It is a law of matter, like gravity. There is a material consequence to our acts (spirit is matter in this context). Those consequences cause us to deteriorate and disorganize as beings, unless we have a way to receive more energy and intelligence, which comes from Christ and his atonement. As well, all the 'conservation of energy' stuff that we have screwed up by our LIFE -LESS acts was diverted from the universe at large and our personal lives (which not really penal substitution in my mind), and placed upon the Savior -- that's why and how he experienced what he did; and also btw, why the necessity for the infinity of it (infinite matter and material consequences, infinite atonement). And how we become clean, or have the possibility of becoming so, through ordinances. Other than the marvelous scriptures you two have brought forth, here are a couple of other good ones, related to what I am saying. 3 Ne 27:10 - 20 1 John 1:7 2 Ne 9:5 - 27 2 Ne 11: 4 - 7 D & C 29: 30 - 47

The Sacrament is for the purpose of continuing to receive the merits and power of the atonement in our daily (weekly) lives so that we can remain sinless. I submit to you, that one cannot remain sinless (from their baptism) without the Sacrament covenant and WITH the Sacrament covenant, it is the means to renew our condition of sinlessness (through the atonement's power), if we allow it to (requires sincere repentence and a striving for obedience, etc). There is so much I could say about this, but let me point your mind to only one thing, and that is the need to be born again. To be born again requires flesh, blood, water and spirit, just as a real birth does. These elements (symbolically at least) are present in the baptism/ Sacrament ordinance(s). by the way, the Sacrament and its purpose has endless and depthless meanings. There will never just be one answer to this sort of thing. A lifetime of study and pondering and revelation will continue to uncover priceless truths and power.

You know, I think we all agree here more than we think. There are actually more than one question in this thread and we have been mooshing them together, but I would like to separate them. Is is ok to use medical or (holistic, natural) birth control methods? Of course! Maureen quoted us the handbook -- that's modern revelation -- it's appropriate. Is it ok to control the number of children you have? Of course! This 'control' will be different in each marriage and family for all of the reasons already discussed in the thread, and per the handbook Maureen quoted, and per personal revelation. Some marriages might 'control' the number of children they have to reach the number 10 (or some such). Is it ok to put the principle of bearing children before almost any other principle and expect to be completely supported by God in this sacrifice? Yes!! Is it ok to feel unready for this sacrifice and instead be in a time of preparation to have the faith to make this kind of sacrifice? (story on this below!) Yes!! The only thing is that until one is prepared, there is not a punishment (do not run faster than you are able) but on the other hand, there may not be the reward, either. And if someone decides they are never prepared for the sacrifice of a bushel full of children (speaking of those who truly have a choice), well then they will be blessed in the principles they have laid hold on, and be passed over on the reward for this particular principle. Is it ok to think that, in general and all things being equal, that Heavenly Father's children should be stopped from coming here? No! In general and all other things being equal, all effort in families and in societies should be to do the labor necessary and have the joyous faith necessary to welcome as many children as possible to our homes and societies. What individual person's part in this, they can know for themselves (we don't all have the same part in other types of principles, either, such as Family History work, even though the command to DO Family History work stands for everyone). The story: I had five children, ages 3 to 12 or thereabouts. I was working full time, driving 40 minutes each way to a neighboring city to work at the job I had (I was home on weekends). My husband was home with the children, but did zero housework or even handyman work (I had to do these things at night or on weekends or they didn't get done at all). My husband did help with the little children's homework and administer snacks, and USUALLY made sure the baby got fed, but his abilities and/ or desire for interaction or even keeping track of the baby (half the time the baby just went over to my sister in law's house) did not go beyond these things (I am thankful for what he did do; and it was good even just to have a 'parent body' in the house). But my husband's mental and physical abilities were diminishing each year. I was and have always been a fairly healthy person. Pregnancies don't generally bother me, I even enjoy them, and labors are a piece of cake. However, I was noticing that with each child, my body took a little harder hit and bounced back quite a bit less each time -- my body was already wearing out as far as pregnancies were concerned. My husband and I were never huge on birth control and both of us pretty much had the attitude, if they come they come -- EXCEPT each child did bring a heavier emotional toll on me as to how I was going to take care of it financially and in other ways -- there didn't seem to be any relief for me, as I was being father and mother. It seemed that either mine or my husband's fertility or both had dropped off a bit, as I didn't get pregnant for several years, and I must say I was ecstatic about that. ANYWAY, early in 2004 I found out I was pregnant and I cannot express to you the deep fear that came over me when that happened. My job was unbelievably crappy and stressful, my marriage was non existent, we had many weaknesses spiritually and in other areas of life -- but the main thing was that I knew I could not place a newborn infant in my husband's hands and expect him to take care of that baby; and I knew I could not quit my job or there wouldn't be anything to buy diapers or eat with -- either scenario was wrong. I had two wrong things to choose from. This feeling of mine was despite the fact that I truly did want MANY more children than even the 6 that this would be -- but I felt the joy of childbearing had been taken from me from the very beginning of my marriage and it had only been sorrow -- a much longer story than this and I don't mind telling that my anger towards God was phenomenal. But I kept trying to think if I could make the sacrifice to quit my job and just see what the Lord would do to take care of me. I don't think I was far enough along spiritually to really do that though!! And yet, once a baby is coming, IT'S COMING!! ha ha Anyway, I only had a week to think about all this because then at that time I had to be induced to give birth to a 4 month baby (fetus) in which life had ended. I was not attached to this 'baby' (I'd only known a week) and because of the previous fear and the present circumstances, I was VERY relieved. So, it wasn't the child that I didn't want, it was the rest of the crazy life to calm down so I could have the children I wanted!! The happy ending to the story is that, even though my husband did pass away the next year (this is not the happy part), I was expecting a child again! Yayy!! Such a gift! And I had the gift of financial means to be able to quit my job and raise all of my children. I do work again now, part time, but I am VERY blessed, not every one can do this, to work on my own terms and schedule, I have a great boss, and he works with me like this. Things can still be tight, but I am so grateful things have change 100% for me! I really want more children emotionally, but my body, says, be my guest but leave me out of it, lol!! Maybe foster kids?? lol

ok, lol, but why do you think they decided that those little pics on the internet that 'represent' 'embody' 'personify' 'manifest' 'incarnate' (in the binary world) and 'image' YOU should be called avatars??? some people take their internet seriously -- conceiving it as a virtual world into which we pour our true (and hidden) natures (those true, hidden natures sittin on their bums in front of the monitor).

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source av·a·tar /ˈævəˌtɑr, ˌævəˈtɑr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[av-uh-tahr, av-uh-tahr] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. Hindu Mythology. the descent of a deity to the earth in an incarnate form or some manifest shape; the incarnation of a god. 2. an embodiment or personification, as of a principle, attitude, or view of life. 3. Computers. a graphical image that represents a person, as on the Internet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Origin: 1775–85; < Skt avatāra a passing down, equiv. to ava down + -tāra a passing over] So, LT, maybe you are talking mostly definition #1 and I am more bringing up definition #2. Also # 3 uses the word image. 'An image that represents' or an 'embodiment' or 'incarnation' or a 'manifestation' of some power or being, is kind of how I use the word and, therefore, apply to myself.

I am aware of my blessings. I used to lay down at night next to my husband and give a thanks prayer to God that he was here with me. I learned to say that prayer, because I was so full of hurt, it didn't come naturally, but I am glad I learned to do it and I meant it. Every thing you say is true enough, but every time you say 'kids', insert a number, I mean, lol? Would that be 2 or 8?? (per the topic of this thread, lol). The answer in my case tho is no, he didn't go to work (there's a reason for that), 5 of the 6 yes, they do know who their daddy is (and number 6 will know as soon as he is old enough to be told); no, he didn't provide spiritual guidance except for existing who he was, which was better than zero, as you say, and no, did not play with kids. He did say he loved us from time to time. However, this is beside the point as to the number of children, lol. My basic point, I guess, is that husbands and wives should initially, before they get married, should be joyfully looking forward to plenty of children. But that should be a pro-active, detailed even, plan -- including the kind of work the husband will do, the kind of work the wife will do (for each of them, their responsiblities in and out of the home), the kind of spiritual guidance there will be -- it should be definitely planned. If it turns out that the wife's health isn't what it should be, or the husband's paycheck wasn't what they thought, then that's ok, life gets in the way, it doesn't mean you can't have another kid, or that you have to have the originally number (range) planned. But this should be a mutual thing all around! That's all I'm saying. I personally don't know why we are leaning toward a population zero mind set in the world (lds and non lds alike), it's a brainwash to me. Let the kids come! But individually, in case by case marriages, no woman should feel like she's a baby popping machine or she's going to miss out on the celestial kingdom.

I skimmed some of that stuff, Fiannan. I could find nothing disagreeable for the most part. However, here is some more anecdotal stuff, and I can only speak for myself and those that I have observed close around me. May not apply to the very fine gentlemen on this site. In my case, my husband was quite worried about whether or not I was having enough children (and taking care of them) but he was not nearly as worried about whether or he should be earning more than minimum wage so that he could support all the children he thought I should be having. I find this to be true in many homes near where I live. The husband gets a 'job' and expects the number of children to be 5+, but does not consider how that particular job might or might not feed and care for them. If the husband wishes 5+ children, he should plan his career to be one that will easily support 5+ children, so that the wife feels peaceful and free to bear them. In these same homes, the husband gets the job and considers his responsibilities finished and then the remainder falls on the wife. She is required to teach piano or do some other 'home' or 'part time' employment or 'go back to school' because she realizes that the 'job' of the husband will not afford a home, medical expenses, food, diapers, clothes and a reasonable (not maniacal) amount of children's activities. Being poor should always be temporary -- if people find themselves truly poor, they should be working to change that. In my case, 4 of my six children born, their medical expenses were paid by state programs (welfare) therefore i.e. your taxes. How many more of those -- my -- children would you like to pay for??? I apologize if I don't sound very fair, this stuff is a raw place in me.

Just some anecdotal additions. Oh, and btw, although the breastfeeding works for some people it won't work for everyone -- it has a different effect on different women's bodies. I just mean, it's nice, but don't count on it. (It wouldn't have worked for me, it would have been less than 2 years.) My sister in law gave birth to 9 children. It was at this point, and this point only, being totally weary, that she sought medical means of birth control -- wholeheartedly, desperately; knowing she was still otherwise fertile. By the same token she bottle fed her last two babies, something that even I judged her for, but from her point of view, she simply could not do it and stay sane with all of the other kids and duties she had. By the way, although no longer getting pregnant, she and her husband ADOPTED two other children (bringing the brood to 11) from a foreign country, which turned out to be far more emotionally taxing than giving birth, lol!! It took us 2 years to get those kids here. Anyway, I also cannot take the pill, it messes with me too much. But before I realized this, and tried to use it, I did so to make sure my body had a rest (this was after child number 4), that there was a little bit of a space between chilluns, and so that I would be of a willing mind and heart whenever I or my husband desired to have relations with each other, so I wouldn't be so fearful and on the verge of freaking out for fear of getting pregnant whenever we wanted to express love to each other in this way. I have discussed female physiology thoroughly with all of my children (of age), boys and girls. My oldest sons are 16 and 12. I have specifically had discussions with my boys about the timing of the cycle and the timing of pregnancies and of how pregnancies feel to women so they will know how to succor their wives. I will admit that there was nothing so flabbergasting to me as when I married my husband (he was 24) and he knew nothing of all this and I had to tell him the facts of life. I think that's just wrong. lol

I agree, more information and discussion, say, in a Relief Society enrichment meeting, would be nice from time to time. Btw, good thing the book 'Mormon Doctrine' . . . . . isn't Mormon Doctrine. Wasn't it written by Bruce R. McConkie? It's a very interesting book and very helpful and I personally love it. But it isn't canonized. Did the author quote any other source for his subject? It's also a general teaching of the church to care for women and hold them sacred and to be wise with women's health (physical and emotional, etc). The main point is that both the husband and wife in the marriage should be wanting the child and should have planned for it and planned on it. They should have the same ideas WITH EACH OTHER (as opposed to referencing ONLY any church doctrine, real or supposed) as to how many children they invite to their home from Heavenly Father. Neither one of them (husband or wife) should be requiring the other to have a child they don't want or aren't ready for -- that's called unrighteous dominion. And THAT'S in the scriptures.

Birth control is a necessity.

The Son of God, whom we now name Jesus Christ, did not have a physical body until approximately two thousand years ago. The physical body he possesses now, he will never again be separated from. Any planet and its inhabitants that are being redeemed through the sacrifice that was effected in the Garden of Gethsemane and upon the cross of Calvary will hear about this through teaching, just as the inhabitants of Zarahemla et al did not need the Savior to live a mortal life with them and yet they heard the teaching of him being born 'at Jerusalem' and it was the same redemption. Just because we have no practical and immediate knowledge of other planets and their residents, doesn't mean that they don't know about us. Going back to the Nephites (plus) and their being taught about a Savior in another place, a lot of them actually had a problem with that (Helaman 16:17-20) but their inability to believe doesn't undo the reality of Christ's grace available for them as soon as they might soften their hearts enough to access it. no matter where the baby Jesus was born. By the way, if you want to talk avatars, we should start another thread, because I am an avatar, in the definition that I understand.

FROM a-TRAIN: We also therefore believe that all verses throughout the Standard Works coherantly agree with one another and if they appear to conflict, then our perception or interpretation is what needs fixing, not the Scriptures. As I stated before, it is the sense of the Oneness of Diety that is being misunderstood here. To the LDS, a scripture that says that the 'day and [the] hour [of Christ's 2nd Coming] knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father' (Mark 13:32) does not conflict with the verse that says: 'I and my Father are one." (John 10:30) EXACTLY!! By the way, doesn't this thread, and others similar that we have so much fun with, sound a little bit like what the Council of Nicea would have sounded like? Is it no wonder what they came up with? Isn't it great to have living prophets who keep it real? One cannot overestimate, in my opinion, the First Vision -- what Joseph SAW and HEARD. Two men and one pointed to the other and said, This is My Beloved Son.

D&C 76:23-24. (I can't believe a-train missed that one!! lol, teasing you a-train.) Btw, human beings dwelling on other planets is not necessarily doctrine. It just is. If there is a man on that other planet wondering if someone else is out there (i.e. US over here) -- do you feel like doctrine? Of course you don't! You're just going along in life, going to work every day, enjoying the simple things. Many people in the Old Israel and Old World could not imagine another continent, and I suppose Jesus was 'forced' to present it as a mysterious doctrine (other sheep I have which are not of this fold), but in another sense that's ridiculous -- just get a boat, sail an ocean, and voila! the entire picture of the structure of the planet and other people living regular lives is all there. Just don't be surprised if the communication efforts of scientists is able to give or receive contact with other planetary civilizations WITHOUT a huge revelatory experience (although, of course, as lds, we are aware that the spirit of God moved upon Columbus). Not to mention that, I plan to colonize the moon, Mars, Venus, Pluto and any planets that are in the Pleaides; and on from there! DON'T YOU?! My opinion, in general, of the extent of the Savior's redemption power, is that is does cover more than one earth -- all of them under the Father -- but that if we are willing to contemplate godly government more ancient than the Father or more 'future' than the Father, then there may be need of other Saviors. I just haven't studied it enough. So 'infinite' does it for me, although that word has a need of context and definition, that infinity may not necessarily only or even mainly, describe a timeline (past to future) progression, and perhaps neither a numerical (counting) infinity. D&C 19 is another good one to go along with this kind of thought and study, verses 1 to 12. Which is interesting, because after that explanation, it does go right into a very perceptive description of the operation of the atonement (15 -20) and then thirdly, reminds us to embrace repentance as the center teaching -- the beginning and the end teaching, I would say (21 -28) And again, after giving Joseph Smith and friends a tiny taste of 'tenet', he reminds that that 'tenets' should not be the teaching, but to embrace joy (glad tiding), faith, repentance, baptism, and fire/ Holy Ghost and reminds us as Jason did here in this thread: "this shall suffice for thy daily walk, even unto the end of thy life" (29 -32) And then the section ends with more encouragement and instruction for deep and daily joy (33-41). I will say, that I have never, ever had Heavenly Father turn my questions away about any 'tenet', and I have had so many answers, in fact, and this will sound stupid, but sometimes I 'hate' to open my scriptures, because even a quick perusal opens so many windows of light and knowledge that I can't contain it all, I can't even live by it all, and then I get even more upset!! That IS stupid. So I know that knowing these kinds of things are hardly 'off-limits', I think God would be more disappointed if we didn't care to ask. But there will never be anything more glorious than faith, repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost, prayer, freedom from debt and bondage, joy, etc. There ARE no greater mysteries than these, and I can promise you we haven't plumbed even the tip of the iceberg of them.

Or checking the score. Or regrooming in the rest room. Or are waiting for someone to notice them.

I agree that there should be far more pre-marital teaching or counseling available and pro-active in the church.

I could say so many things about this. But I will tell of a recent experience I have been having. I have always had a struggle with money -- having enough of it (including keeping my kids fed, etc), using it wisely. However, when crunch time has come, I have always been able to have money or other things I need at that spot -- I mean, literally, people will send me a check in the mail and say, "I was thinking of you." but I would know that God had heard my prayer. Well, over the last 12 months, I have been allowed to have the full consequences of limited money -- there has been very little relief. I even prayed for some very specific things and as well, I have done everything I know how to do to solve the problems practically and to earn some more money. I have had many prayers answered, but also at one point I thought that I had been let down quite a bit at a certain juncture. However, the funny part about this is that I HAVE had personal revelation in connection with this test/ trial. The personal revelation is EXTREMELY clear to me and it is this: it is that at this time in my life I am prepared to learn these lessons of caring for myself monetarily and to overcome even quite large consequences with patience and persistence and intelligence. Rather than letting me down, God is TRUSTING me. When I was weak, he took up the slack. Now that I'm a little stronger, the gift is for me to learn about money completely and get to a completely new level where I will be more or less totally free from poverty. But I have to do that by going THROUGH the tough parts NOT by having it be REMOVED. That way I will be able to subject these temporal laws to myself and reap the rewards. So I have still been dismayed at some moments and feel momentary discouragement -- I don't allow it to last -- it's all quite hard, BUT I do have the peace of that revelation in the background. God hasn't gone anywhere.