Martain

Heh, you quoted me =) If I gave the impression that I was talking about spiritual preparedness to the exclusion of temporal then I apologize. You're right, they're a package deal.

Oops. Thanks. No... wait... it's Matthew 19 after all. I was right =) Matthew.

So you think that we should use sage smoke instead of tear gas against terrorists? =) Talk I say! Talk! Tell us where you placed the bomb... if you don't... we're going to light sage sticks all around the room... MUAHAHAHA. o.0 If we admit that it's useless against that evil when it comes in the guise of a fellow son or daughter of God, why should it be any different for an evil spirit? If it did, why should it matter if we used a sage stick. Couldn't we just as easily... bake a batch of cookies? They smell pleasant to me too and there edible as well!

Oh, yes many. Quite a few. Some of which I am completely sure on and others where my understanding is incomplete. That the adversary has power to influence mortals we know. The actual means and operations of how he accomplishes such aims has not been revealed. I could share with you the insights I've gained but I won't do so. Partly because I wouldn't do so unless completely confident in their accuracy and partly because I'm not sure that such information should be shared. This isn't a portion granted unto the children of men. Although what I have learned hasn't been received with a command to not impart it, I would be hesitant in doing so without confirming such injunction was not in place.

Sorry I can't help it =) (or rather I could but I don't want to) Urban... If it smells pleasant to me, why should I think that it won't smell good to them eh?

Ah! I understand now. Let me try to re-explain the point in question then =) We know that everything and everyone living a telestial life will be cut off in the second coming. Only those who are living either a terrestrial or celestial life will live through it and even then not all of them will. If I die prior to the second coming and fall short of a celestial glory, any progression still available to me must be had in the spirit world. While we know progress is possible in the spirit world for those still eligible, we know it takes longer to achieve per the lack of a physical body. In that case, if I have any such feelings about my current worthiness, better to live through the second coming and so be able to progress towards a celestial glory while still in the flesh. That's what I meant. Hope this makes more sense =)

There is one benefit to the sealing between parents and children that I'm intimately aware of because I have seen it manifest in my life. Were it not for this blessing and the power it enabled to be manifest in my life, I expect I would still be in spiritual darkness even to this very day. Perhaps you'll apprecaite this April 1992 conference talk given by the Apostle Boyd K. Packer.

Whoops. I meant to post this on a different thread, I'd used this to look something up.

That's ok. I don't mind if you disagree. Yet I'm confused. Your disagreement sounded more like an agreement? Your right, many righteous people died during the trek. It wasn't due to unworthiness. Likewise I expect that many righteous people will die during the events prior to the second coming and that likewise it won't be due to unworthiness. After all the Lord has told us that he will test us even unto death right? Is it so hard to envision that some will be called to die for the faith? What if I don't live but it was because I refused to recant my faith? Such would be a martyrs death which qualifies one for the celestial kingdom does it not? What if I qualify but I'm called to labor on the other side? What if it was simply my time to leave at age 62? Sure it's possible that he would come within the natural lifespan of man had I stayed. Surely the Lord could extend the life of every individual who has made their calling sure but that doesn't mean he will. If there are these reasons why a man may die rather than live through the tribulation proceeding the second coming and yet be worthy of the celestial kingdom, could there not be more? So while we disagree, do you better understand why I feel that just because you don't live doesn't mean you're not worthy of the celestial kingdom?

I've been told that there were those in every generation of saints since Christ's resurrection who expected it to occur in their lifetimes. We are no different. That the great and horrible destruction proceeding the second coming lies in the future we all know. It is the when that concerns us so greatly. Will my Savior be returning to usher in the millennium during the natural span of my lifetime? If he is then I'll have to go through everything that proceeds his glorious triumphant return. For a long time I was of the mind and had the very real desire to do everything to make sure I would live through such time. Now, it really doesn't matter. All that matters is that I become worthy to inherit the Celestial Kingdom. If I prove so worthy then should I die before his return, I will return with him. If I prove so worthy and live until his return, then I will rise up to meet him. Either way, when he comes, I'll be with him. Death before his coming, so long as I am worthy, simply means I avoid much of the pain, horror, terror and destruction that is foretold. As long as I'm worthy there are only two real reasons I can foresee as to wanting to stay throughout it all. The first being that I have proven worthy but find out that it's his will for me to tarry in order to carry out his will. The second being that I will have proven worthy of a terrestrial glory but not yet a celestial. In which case I would want to live through it all so that I could have all of the millennium, in the flesh, to work out my eternal salvation. If we're prepared, if I could lay down my life this very day assured in the knowledge of obtaining a celestial glory, then I will have no fear whether I live or die. So that's my goal!

As others have spoken regarding 1 Corinthians I will speak regarding Matthew 19. In reviewing the verses you selected in context, everything becomes much more clearer. Pharisees: "Is it alright for anyone to get a divorce?" Christ: "Do you recall that God made man and women?" Christ: "And that for the cause of marriage they leave their parents and together as husband and wife?" Christ: "At which point they are no longer two individuals but a married couple. Having been so designed by God to become such, men shouldn't break such unions apart." Pharisees: "Then why did Moses tell us that in order to break such unions we should get a divorce?" Christ: "In the beginning divorce didn't exist. However because he knew would leave your spouse anyways, due to the hardness of your heart, he gave you a proper proceedure to do." [similar to how the Lord suffered Israel to have a king in 1 Samuel 8] Christ: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." Disciples: "In that case it would be better that those who divorce for reasons other than sexual infidelity should never remarry." Christ: "This cannot however be applied to all men but only to those to whom it is applicable." Christ: "For there are some men who are eunuchs and are unable to have sex. Some because they were born that way, others because someone castrated them and some because they do it to themselves for their religion." Christ: "Someone who is a eunuch doesn't commit adultery in marrying such a divorcee because they can't have sex. If you can't have sex, you can't committ adultery." Christ: "Those who are able to have sex, these are who this law applies to." So yes you could say that I interpret that scripture differently than you do =). As to your question of: Those who receive a celestial resurrection will live on the earth during the millennium which will be a Terrestrial habitation. In the celestial kingdom there are three degrees. When the determination of which of these three degrees of celestial glory someone worthy of the celestial kingdom is assigned to not been revealed. Some will receive a celestial resurrection and come to inhabit the earth during the millennium who have not had a fullness of opportunity to receive marriage during mortal life. For these there will be the opportunity to marry. Whether this opportunity is relegated solely to the millennium or not we do not know. However if after a 1000 years I had not yet gotten married, I would not bank on being able to get married thereafter. Some will receive a celestial resurrection and come to inhabit the earth during the millennium who, per the determination of Christ, have had a fullness of opportunity to receive marriage during mortal life. For these individuals it is sadly to late. They will remain single and separate for the rest of their eternal existence.

I know what you mean. I picked up the same teaching somewhere but I have no clue where. I too have looked and been unable to find anything doctrinal in nature would states such protection. While the adversary can tempt us without the aid of an external stimulus, it's obvious to me that he succeeds more when there is one. Isn't it harder to tempt someone to drink alcohol when there isn't any around? Isn't it harder to tempt someone to think unchaste thoughts when there's no one dressed immodestly? Of course that doesn't mean the adversary doesn't try, it's simply much less effective without corresponding physical stimuli. Could not the same be said for the Lord as well? While the Lord can entice us to do good without the aid of an external stimuli, isn't it easier for him when nearby there is stimuli which invites to do the same? If someone tells us they love us, aren't we more likely to express love in return? If someone talks about the Lord and bears their testimony, are we not more likely to ponder the divine? In the temple then we have a place where the physical stimuli used by the adversary are not present and those used by the Lord are. This then would limit the effectiveness of the adversary in tempting one within and increase the effectiveness of the Lord in enticing one to be righteous. While I do not know whether such protection was available originally and was lost over time by unclean members entering or whether such protection was never intended I can say this: I know for a fact that such complete protection is not currently available in the temples I have visited and my knowledge is not based off of me inviting them in either. Individuals will disagree regarding whether or not evil spirits can enter yet my caution remains the same. Do not blindly accept all spiritual communication received in the temple as of God.

Thanks Seminary- You've given me something to think about. I'll let you know the results =)

Dear Moocow, Please please please don't get married in the temple unless you are worthy to do so. You're right that you could choose a civil marriage with the desire to get sealed when you're both worhy. The only concern I have in regards to taking such a course is whether or not it will happen. If I was in your position I would want assurance from the Lord that the path I was about to persue would indeed lead me to the temple. If I knew that it would not, then I'm sorry but the Lord would come first in my life. That's my advice anyways, seek council from the Lord. Now there was a period in my life where because of unresolved sin I was unable to hear answers from the Lord. I hope you are not in such straights because if you are it just makes things harder. If so please continue in the repentance process until you are and then seek revelation. Remember that there are worthy priesthood holders in your life who are there to assist you. You can always ask for a blessing of guidance from one of them.

While I hope you read the talk I referenced, I was searching for something for someone else and found more relevant information. The Miracle of Forgiveness - Spencer W. Kimball, pg. 237-241

Pornography is the gateway to Adultery. It is indeed a possibility that he does not have an addiction to pornography and that which he did view was sufficient to lead him to these things but I don't know that it's common for it to work this way. He has stated that he's not addicted to pornography but by whose standards? As the one sinning, I'm not sure that his perception of what qualifies for addiction and what does not can be blankly trusted. While perhaps there are some who would disagree with me, I expect that for the most part all here would agree that if you add the egg of pornography to the nest of marriage, adultery will eventually hatch. Bring it to his attention that because he's already done these things before, the adversary knows that they are some of his weaknesses and will tempt and attack him via this opening in future. Then express that you want to help protect him against future temptations and that you would like to install a filter to prevent accidental or intentional viewing of pornographic material. I personally love K9 Webfilter and recommend it highly. If he doesn't see the wisdom in this setup and resists it's implementation instead, to me that would speak volumes about his feelings on the adultery he has committed. For if his remorse is true, would he not desire to avoid it any way he can and do anything to prevent himself from repeating his sins? I see both sides as well in regards to speaking to the bishop and am grateful for the insights. Tattered, by sharing what you have you've also made a difference in the lives of others for good. The question is, when a spouse commits serious sin but doesn't have the courage to go see the Bishop, what should we do? I'm going to tell my future wife that in such a situation, unless I was given council by the Lord to do otherwise, I would go to the bishop and I would ask her to do the same for me. Say you're hiking and you come to a raging torrential river. On the other side of the river you see someone has fallen in but managed to catch themselves on a tree growing in the cliff side. Should they not find rescue, eventually they will run out of strength to hold onto the tree and they'll fall to their death. As you stare in horror at their predicament you realize something surprising. They're not calling out for help. Even more starling is that you see a park ranger sitting in his jeep not far from where the man has fallen. Confused you ask them why they haven't called out for help as there is a park ranger nearby. They answer indicating that they already know but they're afraid to call out. They explain indicating that the park ranger had informed everyone that the river was off limits and anyone found trespassing there would be fined severely. Ask your husband what he would do in such a situation. With someone's life in immediate danger, would he call out to the park ranger on their behalf or spend a few hours trying to convince them to do it themselves. Ask your husband which of these two choices would be the most loving and caring? I know that this analogy is written in a way as to hopefully ensure a single answer. It was intentional. Should he answer as I hope, you could then liken it unto his situation. This is his eternal salvation at stake here. His soul is on the line. Without the aid of the Bishop and application of the Atonement, he can never escape and will fall to his death in the river below. For members of the Church who have God's law, there is no forgiveness for Murder in this life or the life to come. Outside of Murder this is the worst thing he could have done While someone I love may be angry at me for trying to save them so, I would only be doing it as an act of love. Yes I may loose their trust in so doing but to do otherwise and continue to risk their soul? Ultimately the decision is up to you but remember this. You have claim on the Lord for revelation in this matter. If in doubt, seek his council until you have received it. My heart feels for you. How much it helps I really don't know but I've prayed for you. May you find the answers you seek so that regardless of how the future unfolds, you may have peace knowing you did his will.

PrettyRose, I'm sorry for what you're going through. I knew you must have gone through or be going through something horrible based on your response to what I wrote but I had no idea what until this morning. You asked for my forgiveness and I want you to know that I had already given it before you asked. Yet now that I better understand why you said the things you did, I feel even more compassion for you. I hope there are no harsh feelings remaining between you and me Michelle and I'm sorry that my post offended you. Going through what you're going through would devastate me. I think for the most part that everyone either has or will experience something this painful in their life. In the crucible of my own pain I know that were it not for the Holy Ghost and the comfort he gives, I could not endure. Though the pain and horror has shattered my soul, I've been held together so far by the power of God alone. My heart goes out to you and I would that there was something more I could do or say to bring you succor. Michelle, if you have not already, sincerely pray to the Father in the name of the Son for the comfort of the Holy Ghost to attend you throughout this conflict. I know he answers such prayers and it really makes all the difference in the world.

I had an interesting thought. Adam was in the Garden and even without the knowledge of Good and Evil, had Agency. This we do know. Let us say that Agency simply defined means the right to choose. Based on the above, it wouldn't require a knowledge of Good and Evil. Or Let us say that Agency cimply defined means the right to choose between good and evil. Under such a definition, can you exercise Agency without such knowledge? In thinking about the second definition... Let us say that using my agency I choose an evil act without any knowledge that it is evil. There is a consequence to every act and Justice requires I receive the consequence of said evil act regardless as to whether or not I know it to be evil. I then thought about the atonement. Part of the atonement, the resurrection, is free to all mankind through the sacrifice of our Savior. The other part of the atonement, forgiveness for sins, is conditional upon repentence. I find it interesting that the first was based upon transgression without the knowledge of Good and Evil and the second was based upon sin with the knowledge of Good and Evil. When Adam transgressed God's commandment he did so without a knowledge of Good and Evil. It was not a sin. Justice required that the consequences of death still be met, lest God be made a lier, but it allowed for Mercy and for what otherwise would have been an eternal punishment to be met by a sacrifice. I thought that was kind of cool =) We can disagree regarding whether or not we had a knowledge of good and evil in the pre-existance. Yet one thing I hope we can agree on is this. If Satan and his host did not have a knowledge of good and evil, then they did not sin but transgressed the law instead. If they transgressed the law, then it too would allow for mercy and for what otherwise would be an eternal punishment to be met by a sacrifice. If they did not have a knowledge of Good and Evil, could we not expect that someday a plan of mercy will allow them to be redeemed? It would be nice but I've already previously shared a quote which tells us that such a doctrine is of the Devil and not of God. I don't know when or how or to what degree we had a knowledge of Good and Evil in the pre-existance or even how much if any that knowledge differs from what we have now. But I can't seem to conclude any other way but that an evil spirit knew the difference then and knows the difference now and really has evil as it's goal. I have a question for you Seminarysnoozer. Where do you get the concept that the natural man is the physical body? I'm not saying I disagree but neither am I saying I agree. I'd like to better understand where you get this concept.

Good quotes Justice, thanks =) So we've confirmed that we must have had agency in the pre-existance and yet we have the quote indicating that agency was given to man in the garden. That can indeed seem conflicting. It is obvious to me that Adam had Agency before the Lord told him about it in Eden. But although he had it, until the Lord told him, he did not know it because of the veil of forgetfulness. Adam was the first man wasn't he? So even though we would have already had agency, we could say that mankind first obtained agency when God made Adam aware of the same. Or at least that's the way I see it. Question though. If we don't have permission to exercise our agency... if we're not allowed to choose, how is it that we would still have agency? Such a concept seems a contradiction to me that I can not seem to get past. Do you really stand by that statement?

You are an example to me John. Thank you.

Instead of translation would you accept the terms inspired correction and commentary? D&C 45:60-61 And now, behold, I say unto you, it shall not be given unto you to know any further concerning this chapter, until the New Testament be translated, and in it all these things shall be made known; Wherefore I give unto you that ye may now translate it, that ye may be prepared for the things to come. If it isn't a translation... why do they call it JST or the Joseph Smith Translation? As to the original question I'd like to share the introduction information found inside these books here and here which are also sold and used by the LDS Institute. In the LDS Bible we have a numerous amount of Joseph Smith Translations available either in their own section or as footnotes. Yet there is a large amount of JST that was not added therein. The bulk of the JST we have in the LDS Bible arises from documents that came to the west with the saints. I'm not sure how much if any of the JST that remained with Emma and now copyrighted by the RLDS Chuch (whose current/new name I cannot recall) has made it into the current LDS Bible but I am under the understanding that most of it could not be added due to copyright laws. One of the reasons why I value the two books I linked to above =). As for why the the Lord hasn't called another Prophet in the LDS Church to finish the translation? I do know. I have heard an opinion as to one reason why though. We have enough difficulty seeking to convince the world of a new book of revelation, the Book of Mormon, without also seeking to tell them that we have a new Bible to replace theirs. Another thought would be this. Right now we have the KJV and the work Joseph Smith completed to review. If this were substantially different as a whole from what the Bible was meant to read, perhaps the Lord would have the rest revealed. Another would be that perhaps it has not been revealed for the same reasons that other works of scripture remain sealed. This being primarily unbelief and unrighteousness. Why should the Lord see fit to reveal the rest when as a whole we're still working on accepting the Book of Mormon and living according to it's teachings? As for one reason why the KJV version was used, my understanding is that it was the only version at that time which had official world wide acceptance.

I'm sorry I offended you and I hope my explination helps. AshleyAdair came to us seeking advice. Now we both agree that this is a volitile subject for many. You're right that the Lord does not want someone to be abused by a parent. He also doesn't want people to divorce each other if it can at all be avoided. Satan's after all of us whether we like it or not. Is it possible that further children will be traumatized because of abuse? Yes and if that happens he wins. If her family is broken through divorce? He wins as well. I don't even know for sure whether or not abuse has happened. Like Vort, I can't conclude based off of the information she has provided whether or not he has and if so to what degree. I do know that if she leaves him then in addition to needing to become the provider and loosing that time with her children, her youngest will loose their father the same way that she has lost her son. To trade one child for the other in such a fashion? It's a hard decision either way. In this situation I really don't feel qualified to advise her one way or the other. Right now there currently isn't any abuse. Sadly this is because the son is no longer in the home. Yet this gives her time to find out what the Lord would have her do and this is what I recommended. So my next question was, what does her priesthood leader council? After all he has the rights of stewardship and can guide her better in this matter than either I or you right? In rereading her original post, I see that he is not endorsing divorce but rather patience and endurance and love. The question then becomes whether or not this is the Lord's council as well. I'm sorry you feel like I'm playing mind games. You feel I don't have any right to state the truth that the adversary is very involved in this situation. I know he is. I feel none of us have any right to council her to get a divorce let alone council her contrary to her bishop. How would any of us feel if we counciled divorce and later in heaven found out that we were wrong to do so and that because of it children grew up without a father and a wife lost an eternal marriage? I don't judge you prettyrose for your words or hold them against you. I feel I understand why you wrote them and I feel for you. I'm sorry you've been hurt. I'm sorry that it was at the hands of a man. I know how hard it can be to forgive but oh I promise you it's worth it. The pain, the anguish and the sorrow you feel can be wiped away to be replaced by peace and love. Seek the Lord's help and he will help you. I'll pray for you prettyrose and for you Ashley. May you each find what you seek.

One question to ask yourself is if there is a difference between having the opportunity to marry and having the fullness of opportunities to marry. There are many who having the opportunity to marry in this life still chose not to. Whether or not these individuals will have the opportunity to marry in the next life will depend largely on two things. 1. The fullness of their opportunity For example, lets say you have an ex-boyfriend who was abusive and now he's stalking you because he wants you to marry him. Do you have an opportunity to marry? Sure. Are you going to be punished for slapping a restraining order on the dude and going your merry way? I doubt it. 2. The fullness of their knowledge regarding it's need For example, someone who had never heard of the gospel and who knew nothing of eternal marriages or the need to be married to enter the highest level of the celestial kingdom will be judged differently from someone who has had the gospel and knew the need for marriage yet chose not to do so. We don't know the exact scale the Lord will use in determining this qualification but we know he will be merciful as well as just. He will be the one who determines whether or not we had the fullness of opportunity for marriage.

In discussing this question with my family, my step-mother had another insight that bears thought. We know that our Savior Jesus Christ, was the first born spirit child of our Heavenly Father. We know that while still a spirit, he received the divine investiture of authority to act for his father as God towards the children of men. We know that he became perfect even before he gained a body. Are we to say that our Savior did not have an absolutely perfect understanding of the difference between good and evil? How could he be perfect or act as a God if he did not? Is it such a stretch to assume that we had knowledge of good and evil too?

While none of of us here know the full extent of the issue, there is something I'd like to add. It is a well known occurrence that victims can become abusers. While not all victims become such, I think a majority of those who become abusive were once abused. The question I have is where is this behavior coming from? It seems apparent that he does not have any problems with his own children but that it is the children of other men that he struggles with. Why? What is it in his past and in past relationships that have lead this? Find out and you may win half the battle right then and there because once the causes are known, steps can be taken to resolve them. Another thought. Say you do divorce your husband. Do you know who will be overjoyed? Satan. He wants to destroy your family either from within or by causing it to break apart. While he may win if you don't divorce, how is his victory not guaranteed if you do? The way I would personally approach it is this. Unless I have received direct council from priesthood authority or from the Lord to divorce my spouse, I will not. Such a decision has eternal repercussions. I know that I am not wise enough to make such a critical decision based on my own limited understanding and wisdom. I can relate to your concerns and feelings regarding correctly understanding the Lord's will. Though I feel the spirit clearly, I get frustrated sometimes by the difficulty I have in interpreting it. Seek his revelation and guidance for he can council you better than anyone on earth and definitely everyone on this thread =). Yes you may have to struggle in prayer but it will be worth it for what ever the Lord councils you to do, that is the right thing as well as the best thing you can do. Trust the Lord. Trust that on a matter of such eternal significance that even if you don't trust yourself, that he is powerful enough to find a way to answer you in a manner you will be able to trust.