[How do you Interpret this Verse?]

60 Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 20)

I would like to know how others interpret this verse, especially the last statement of this verse.

As imperfect humans we place our hands on another's head and may confer the right to the priesthood, but it is clear that we do not confer the power. Only the Lord through the Holy Ghost can confer the power of the priesthood upon us and ordain us to a place in the Heavens. Such a priesthood blessing is reserved for those who exercise faith, keep their covenants, and obey His ordinances. Thus Jacob can say, "I, Jacob, having been called of God, and ordained after the manner of his holy order, and having been consecrated by my brother Nephi..." (2 Ne 6:2) Note the separation of terms, he says he was called of God but he was consecrated by Nephi.

Parley P. Pratt mentioned an interesting occasion which also points to this same fact. He said, "Brother Joseph while in the spirit, rebuked the Elders who would continue to lay hands on the sick from day to day without the power to heal them. Said he: "it is time that such things ended. Let the elders either obtain the power of God to heal the sick, or let them cease to minister the forms without the power!" (Autobiography of Parley Parker Pratt 3rd Ed. p 293-294)

[Righteous Anger...what are your thoughts?]

Here are my own thoughts, to add to the good comments already made.

Anger is an emotion and like any emotion it is driven by our thoughts. When we are angry it is because we believe a person is acting unfairly or some event is not just. We impose our code of conduct on the situation or person and expect them to see things as we do. Sometimes our code of conduct is not shared by the other party. For example, I might be driving and believe someone is tailing me. I may get mad because I think they are doing so deliberately. However, it may be that they always drive close to other cars and they don't have any notion that they are "tailing". Should I feel angry? However, in other cases it may be that they are trying to hurt me. The question is, do they have the power to make me angry. Or does the hurt they inflict cause my anger?

I tend to agree with this quote, "No matter how outrageous or unfair others might appear to you, they do not, never did, and never will upset you. The bitter truth is that you're the one who's creating every last ounce of the outrage you experience. ...Your feelings result from the meaning you give to the event, not from the event itself." (Feeling Good, p 155) Tough words. Of course this wasn't really the question of the thread. The question is more difficult to answer. Are their cases where it is right to be angry. If we recognize we are the cause of our anger should we choose such a course?

Perhaps we can attack the question by determining what meaning we should give to the event which may result in our anger. The actual event causes us hurt in some way but should we then translate that hurt into anger? It seems to me that some children do not, they simply hurt but continue to love. It is actually rather amazing and humbling to see. What about Christ? He did not appear to be angry even when suffering on the cross. Elder Packer once spoke about hurt and how he approaches people. He said,

As I begin a new relationship with anyone—students, missionaries, or those with whom I associate or whom I supervise—it is on the basis of confidence and trust. I have been much happier since. Of course, there have been times when I have been disappointed, and a few times when I have been badly taken advantage of. I do not care about that. Who am I not to be so misused or abused? Why should I be above that? If that is the price of extending trust to everyone, I am glad to pay it.

I have come to be much less afraid of the possibility of being “used” than I was before. It is sometimes painful when one is misused or when trust or confidence is not honored. That kind of pain, however, is not unbearable, for it is only pain; it is not agony. The only agony I know is when I discover that inadvertently I have misused someone else. That is torture; that I will avoid … LDS.org - ArtÃ*culo de Liahona

Of course it is not right that someone hurt us, but the issue here is our response. I find it interesting that he says, "Who am I not to be so misused or abused?" Is this the right approach for everyone? No doubt in some instances our sense of entitlement caries our anger (and hurt) on for many years after the initial event. So in these instances anger does not appear to be the right emotion. But at the moment of the event when someone is deliberately trying to hurt me or abuse someone else the emotion appears more useful and more justified.

[a deeply troubling quote from E McConkie]

As Vort said, I will never have a chance to find these things out for myself. One question on this, if I may. (not picking on your post specifically, Anddenex, because several others have made a similar statement). If those who have their calling and election made sure still need to endure to the end, then what is the real significance of having one's calling and election made sure? Haven't all of us been given the same promise? To paraphrase 2 Ne 31 (vs 19 and 20 in particular) - we exercise faith in Christ, relying solely on his merits for salvation, enter in at the strait and narrow gate through baptism. Then, if we press forward and endure to the end, the Father says we shall have eternal life. If this is really the case, it seems that having one's calling and election made sure is simply a reaffirmation of this promise made to all of us.

2 Ne 31:19-20 is not referring to promises received simply because one is baptized by water. Rather one must first truly repent and receive the baptism of fire. Then, is one the path, not before. "Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works" (D&C 22:2). But still the promise may not yet be given. After one has gotten into this strait and narrow path he must continue to walk in it trusting Christ and then after he has proven himself he may receive his calling and election made sure, wherein the Lord confirms, "Ye shall have eternal life." For many this process takes a lifetime, and beyond. It is no small matter.

Of what value then is the promise of eternal life?

An actual knowledge to any person, that the course of life which he pursues is according to the will of God, is essentially necessary to enable him to have that confidence in God without which no person can obtain eternal life. It was this that enabled the ancient saints to endure all their afflictions and persecutions, and to take joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing (not believing merely) that they had a more enduring substance (Heb. 10:34) (Lectures on Faith, Lecture Sixth, p 67)

It is not enough simply to believe, unless one knows the course he is following is according to the will of God he will became lax in his faith when severe challanges come. One must know for himself or herself that they are sealed up unto eternal life and the only sure way to know is to have it revealed from the Heavens. By this knowledge and this knowledge alone can one endure the trials required to gain eternal life.

[a deeply troubling quote from E McConkie]

I was reading about having your calling and your election made sure (after you have been promised Eternal Life) and came across this quote in the D&C student manual. So you know the context, this paragraph discusses the question "what happens if someone has his calling and election made sure, and then they live a sinful life (without committing any unpardonable sins) and never repent before they die? Are they still promised Exaltation?

I believe there is some misunderstanding regarding forgiveness of sins after having received your calling and election. It worries me that we Saints will not seek this blessing because of these misunderstandings. So let me see if I can refer to the same section you are reading and let you know how I interpret it.

First the section in the D&C student manual asks the following question:

What if those whose calling and election has been made sure thereafter commit grievous sins? Suppose they backslide and walk in the ways of wickedness? Or fight the truth and rebel against God—what then?

Everyone commits sin, it is part of human nature. Those who have received their C&E are no different (see 2 Ne 4:16-35). The real question has to do with those who "commit grievous" sin, or "fight the truth". These are they that rebel against God after having received the more sure word.

“But suppose such persons become disaffected and the spirit of repentance leaves them—which is a seldom and an almost unheard of eventuality—still, what then? The answer is—and the revelations and teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith so recite!—they must then pay the penalty of their own sins, for the blood of Christ will not cleanse them. Or if they commit murder or adultery, they lose their promised inheritance because these sins are exempt from the sealing promises. Or if they commit the unpardonable sin, they become sons of perdition.” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:342–43.)

This quote by Elder McConkie is the concluding statement. It is important to understand what he said before this quote. Of repentance for those who have received their C&E he says:

...what of sins committed after being sealed up into eternal life?

“Obviously the laws of repentance still apply, and the more enlightened a person is, the more he seeks the gift of repentance, and the harder he strives to free himself from sin as often as he falls short of the divine will and becomes subject in any degree to the Master of Sin who is Lucifer. It follows that the sins of the godfearing and the righteous are continually remitted because they repent and seek the Lord anew every day and every hour.

“And as a matter of fact, the added blessing of having one’s calling and election made sure is itself an encouragement to avoid sin and a hedge against its further commission. By that long course of obedience and trial which enabled them to gain so great a blessing the sanctified saints have charted a course and developed a pattern of living which avoids sin and encourages righteousness.

As Elder McConkie states, the laws of repentance still apply. In fact, these people have added encouragement to avoid sin since they have received the promise.

Now after all this Elder McConkie takes up the case of those who have committed grievous sins (murder, adultery, and the sin against the Holy Ghost). He says this is almost an unheard of eventuality. These few have lost the spirit of repentance. It is these people who must suffer for their own sins and lose the promise.

Thoughts? It seems horrifyingly contradictory within a gospel viewpoint that one could get to a point where God essentially says "Ok, I promise you Eternal Life, and as long as you don't commit an unpardonable sin, you can live as sinfully as you want and you will still eventually be exalted."

It should not be supposed that because the Lord has promised eternal life that an individuals work is done. Far from it. In fact I might argue that it has just begun! A person must still work righteousness and repent and continue to grow in light and truth. Such a person is not cut off from repentance, if such were the case no one would seek the promise.

Moreover, to recieve the promise is not to receive the blessing. As always, one who continues in sin will not be exalted. Whether in this life or the next a person who has received the promise must still cleanse himself through the blood of the Lamb, "For no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of Heaven". We saints must stop viewing promises as tickets to Heaven. They are not, and never will be. Whether promises recieved at baptisim, anointings, the endowment, sealing, or C&E. Many in the scriptures committed this folly from the children of Moses, to the Pharisees, and those in Book of Mormon times and little good it did them. A promise is confirmation of righteous living and wonderful encouragement to move onward but it gives no free entrance into the kingdom.

[Is the Spirit World on Earth?]

This entire conversation reminds me of a piece from "The Tao of Pooh". The chapter contains this song:

Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie,

A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly.

Ask me a riddle and I reply:

"Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie."

Why does a chicken do what it does? You don't know? Neither do we;

Neither does anyone else. Science likes to strut around and Act Smart by putting its labels on

everything, but if you look at them closely, you'll see that they don't really say much. "Genes"? "DNA"? Just scratching the surface. "Instinct"? You know what that means:

CURIOUS: "Why do birds fly South for the winter?"

SCIENCE: "Instinct."

It means, "We don't know." The important thing is, we don't really need to know. We don't need to imitate Nearsighted Science, which peers at the world through an electron microscope, looking for answers it will never find and coming up with more questions instead. We don't need to play Abstract Philosopher, asking unnecessary questions and coming up with meaningless answers. What we need to do is recognize Inner Nature and work with Things As They Are. When we don't, we get into trouble. (The Tao of Pooh, p. 50)

Science is wonderful, but I'm affraid it does not tell us why. It mearly strings facts together, puts names to events, and tells us how something occurs.

Much less will man's methods of science, history, and secular learning ever lead us to God. To know is not to be. It is left for those that trust their heart and act in faith. Using feeling and action to grow in truth.

[Question about the Spirit World]

So if we can touch and interact with one another in the spirit world. That would mean we actually could do Baptisms. Could it be that, although we can perform Baptisms while in our spirit forms. Gods law forbids it, and that is why the living perform Baptisms for the dead? Brother Ray

We know so little of what happens in the spirit world. Who is to say what important ordinances are performed there? What might the symbolism of baptism mean to one who has died but is longing to receive a body? What meaning might the endowment posses? I suspect, but do not know, that ceremony, ritual, and ordinances are continued well beyond this life. It may be that such things are as eternal as the life of the soul.

Perhaps in the next life we will understand more fully what Christ has done for us or what he has given us. What if our gratitude was so profound, and our longing so great that we could not express our emotion? What if no poet could pen or word describe how we felt? What would be left? Here is some of what the scriptures say, and it looks an awfully lot like ceremony.

“And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

"Yea, methought I saw, even as our father Lehi saw, God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels, in the attitude of singing and praising their God; yea, and my soul did long to be there."

[Question about the Spirit World]

If everyone would forgive me the length of this post and the number of quotes, but I think this is some interesting and valuable information on the spirit world. I believe they shed needed light on this important subject.

First, our interaction with others in the spirit world:

Spirits are just as familiar with spirits as bodies are with bodies, though spirits are composed of matter so refined as not to be tangible to this coarser organization. (Discourses of Brigham Young, 379)

The problem with trying to touch a spirit has everything to do with our courser, unrefined, substance and a spirits more refined matter. There exists no problem with spirits touching spirits it is a sectarian notion for which the LDS must do away with.

Again from Brigham Young on the same topic:

When you are in the spirit world, everything there will appear as natural as things now do. Spirits will be familiar with spirits in the spirit world—will converse, behold, and exercise every variety of communication with one another as familiarly and naturally as while here in tabernacles. There, as here, all things will be natural, and you will understand them as you now understand natural things. You will there see that those spirits we are speaking of are active; they sleep not. And you will learn that they are striving with all their might—laboring and toiling diligently as any individual would to accomplish an act in this world (DBY, 380).

In the spirit world everything will appear as natural as it does here. There is not problem with holding items, there is no problem with touching other spirits.

Estradling brings up the issue of spirits viewing the absence of their bodies as bondage. But the bondage is not because spirits are unable to grasp objects. The absence has to do with how our body is able to magnify our spirit. Our body is able to intensify our joys and our griefs and enable us to progress more quickly. This I believe is what we will miss in the next life. This is what we will be yearning for.

Regarding the separation of Paradise and Prison in the spirit world Bruce R. McConkie shared the following:

Until the death of Christ these two spirit abodes [paradise and hell] were separated by a great gulf, with the intermingling of their respective inhabitants strictly forbidden (Luke 16:19-31). After our Lord bridged the gulf between the two (1 Pet. 3:18-21; Moses 7:37-39), the affairs of his kingdom in the spirit world were so arranged that righteous spirits began teaching the gospel to wicked ones" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 762).

So while there is a divide I believe it is now primarily due to choice.

Last, just a quote from Heber C. Kimball who spoke at the funeral of Jedediah M. Grant (a member of the first presidency) regarding president Grant's visit to the spirit world. I love the image of paradise he paints. It makes me want to leave this world today, for a far better one.

He said to me, brother Heber, I have been into the spirit world two nights in succession, and, of all the dreads that ever came across me, the worst was to have to again return to my body, though I had to do it. But O, says he, the order and government that were there! When in the spirit world, I saw the order of righteous men and women; beheld them organized in their several grades, and there appeared to be no obstruction to my vision; I could see every man and woman in their grade and order. I looked to see whether there was any disorder there, but there was none; neither could I see any death nor any darkness, disorder or confusion. He said that the people he there saw were organized in family capacities; and when he looked at them he saw grade after grade, and all were organized and in perfect harmony. He would mention one item after another and say, “Why, it is just as brother Brigham says it is; it is just as he has told us many a time.”

He also spoke of the buildings he saw there, remarking that the Lord gave Solomon wisdom and poured gold and silver into his hands that he might display his skill and ability, and said that the temple erected by Solomon was much inferior to the most ordinary buildings he saw in the spirit world.

In regard to gardens, says brother Grant, “I have seen good gardens on this earth, but I never saw any to compare with those that were there. I saw flowers of numerous kinds, and some with from fifty to a hundred different colored flowers growing upon one stalk.” We have many kinds of flowers on the earth, and I suppose those very articles came from heaven, or they would not be here.

After mentioning the things that he had seen, he spoke of how much he disliked to return and resume his body, after having seen the beauty and glory of the spirit world, where the righteous spirits are gathered together. (Kimball, Heber C. Journal of Discourses. 4:135-138)

[The Greater Advantage]

I believe that book learning gives little advantage in the next life. Nor does such learning by itself save.

As a matter of fact the Lord gives wisdom from books, only second place. For he says,"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (D&C 88:118) Note the first few words, learning by faith is first. Book learning is second and is given for those who don't have sufficient faith! This statement is worth serious consideration.

To learn by faith is to initiate action in the present bolstered by evidence in the past and the whisperings of the Spirit. Once we act and receive the promised blessing for ourselves we grow in faith. Elder Bednar said, "Learning by faith requires spiritual, metal, and physical exertion and not just passive reception. It is in the sincerity and consistency of our faith inspired action that we indicate to our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, our willingness to learn and receive instruction from the Holy Ghost" (Seek Learning by Faith, Address to CES Religious Educators, Feb 3, 2006)

When we learn by faith we grow in leaps and bounds. Through this type of learning we incorporate gospel knowledge into our very being. This is the knowledge that will be so much the advantage in the world to come.

[What is sin?]

Here is one way to view sin which I think has merit. Joseph Smith presented this teaching in 1834. It can be found in TPJS starting on p. 49. I will summarize in my own words.

Imagine a country of the world. It has an organized and established government with certain laws by which, more or less, the innocent are protected and the guilty punished. If these laws are just, it is only right that the guilty be punished to protect the innocent. It may also be that such punishment will bring a remorse of conscience and a change in behavior.

Generally speaking a man of decent character may freely travel from such a country to others in the world, be it France, Japan, or Mexico and keep the laws of that new country. By these laws the people are governed. By these laws order is upheld and freedom is generally maintained.

But imagine now, a government and kingdom that does not span a portion of the globe but instead encompasses the known Universe. By it, complete order, equity and harmony are maintained. By it, worlds are upheld. It's laws are so fair and its freedoms so great that one must be instructed first before even entering this kingdom. For if a person were not of a certain character he would surely destroy the freedom and happiness of another who lived there. Moreover, in order to even conduct such a government, administrators must be possessed with similar principles and dispositions. This then is the Kingdom of Heaven. We in our current state cannot even hope to set foot there.

In the beginning man lived in this kingdom but he departed from these laws and refused to be governed by them. Consequently he was sent out of the kingdom. However, he was not left alone, God in his mercy and wisdom provided certain lesser laws that, if kept, would build on each other and one day bring the man back into this kingdom. To live contrary to these laws is sin. However, even these laws were so far above man in his fallen condition that he could never hope by our his own effort to return to this kingdom. Consequently a plan was instituted whereby fallen citizens could be forgiven of their offenses and again obtain an inheritance there.

This of course is the Plan of Salvation with Christ being the center point. By it we may may one day again enter the Celestial Kingdom.

[What does "forgiveness" mean to you?]

While I generally dislike LDS fiction I did read The Peacegiver. In it the author shared the story of David, Nabal, and Abigail. It seems to have hit a chord, spoken and truth, and stuck in my heart.

David with a small army had guarded the land and kept the people safe. One day he and his men were in need of food. They went to Nabal a rich man with many sheep, goats, etc. whom they had protected and asked him to spare some of his substance with them. He utterly refused and sent them away. When David heard of the incident he was angry with Nabal and told 400 of his men to put on their swords that they might attack Nabal. Abigail, Nabal's wife, heard that David's men were coming. So she took a large amount of food and drink from her husbands store, without him knowing, to give to David and his men. She meets them on the road and falls before David to plead for her husband. She in this instance prefigures Christ. Carefully note the words she uses:

- Upon me, my lord, upon me let this iniquity be. (1 Sam 25:24)

- I pray thee, forgive the trespass of thine handmaid. (1 Sam 25:28)

- That this shall be no grief unto thee, nor offense of heart unto my lord. (1 Sam 25:31)

Because of Abigail David does not attack Nabal. David says, "blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood" (v. 33).

Here then is the point of this scripture:

1. Christ has assumed the sins of the person who caused the offense. Christ is the great intercessor. For you who need to forgive, it is Christ with whom you deal, not the offender. For you the offended, it does not matter if the other person repents or suffers.

2. Christ pleads that the offenders sin be forgiven because the sin is now His. In essence, Christ pleads that you forgive Him. Since he has interceded and has assumed the offense, you in essence deal with Christ.

3. Christ pleads the you forgive, that the evil feelings in your heart may be lifted. Christ does not plead that you forgive to heal the other person. That is between the person and the Lord. But he pleads that you forgive that your own sorrows may be healed.

He leaves us no cause for our hatred, our anger, or perhaps even our pain. He has interceded between us and the person who has given offense. It is squarely between us and the Lord. Letting go of our just accusation will let us out of our own prison.

[Confounding of language, Ether 1]

And a side question, why does Jared always ask his brother to pray for things and not take on that himself? Seems like he had plenty of faith to do it himself. It comes across as Jared being the one in charge as he says things like "Go and inquire of the Lord ...". Even if the brother of Jared is the leader, it seems like Jared is giving orders in Ether 1. I am having a hard time picturing the nature of that relationship.

I'm not sure of the exact relationship between Jared and his brother. Perhaps it had to do with who was the firstborn son and the birthright. However, I think these first few chapters of Ether have an important point to make about spiritual growth, trials, and faith. The brother of Jared at first follows counsel (v 34-38) but then in verse 42 he is told, "thou shalt go at the head". He continues to progress until in Ether 2:23 the Lord does not command but instead asks, "What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels?" He first followed Jared, then the Lord, but now he is to determine how to proceed. In great humility but bold faith he tells the Lord, "therefore touch these sones" and "O Lord thou canst do this." The result is that he "rends the veil", and sees the Lord.

[Why was Moses Transfigured?]

I don't believe so either, but an understanding of the concept is still important so we fully understand what the text says. The Book of Moses states that Moses spoke with God, and understanding divine investiture merely affords us the knowledge that it was indeed Christ given authority to speak as if He were the Father. It doesn't do much, however, in helping me understand the notion of God's glory being too great for Man to bear when it is in fact Christ that conversed with Moses.

I think it important not to diminish the pre-mortal Christ and assume he was like unto us in power and glory. He was not. While he didn't receive a fullness of glory until after his atonement he was still the Firstborn of the Father in the Spirit, the creator of Heavens and Earth. He was and is the light of the world and light and life of men.

As if man in his sinful state could even come close to approaching the pre-mortal Christ without being changed. Note these words, "For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God. Neither can any natural man abide the presence of God, neither after the carnal mind. Ye are not able to abide the presence of God now neither the ministering of angels; wherefore, continue in patience until ye are perfected." (D&C 67:11-13). Here the Lord says that the natural man cannot even abide the presence of angels, how then could we hope to abide the presence of Christ!

Because we have great potential we must not misunderstand our current state. We are as nothing! Less then the dust of the Earth. As Moses said after his experience, "Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed" (Moses 1:10).

[fear vs Love]

I would agree. In high school I kept the commandments partially due to my fear for hell. I did not have the relationship, nor did I have the understanding, I do right now.

It would be nice if people kept the commandments because of love, however, again, I would rather see someone keep the commandments out of fear, than not keeping them at all.

If fear is an acceptable motivator for obedience I would then ask these questions:

1. Should someone be forced to obey?

2. If not, where then does one draw the line in order to obtain obedience?

3. Does the Lord use fear to gain obedience?

4. Is there really some continuum of obedience within the gospel of Fear -> Duty -> Love?

[How far would you go?]

Here's what comes to my mind in this difficult situation.

Why did God put the first commandment first? Because He knew that if we truly loved Him we would want to keep all of His other commandments. “For this is the love of God,” says John, “that we keep his commandments” (1 Jn. 5:3; see also 2 Jn. 1:6).

We must put God in the forefront of everything else in our lives. He must come first, just as He declares in the first of His Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3).

When we put God first, all other things fall into their proper place or drop out of our lives. Our love of the Lord will govern the claims for our affection, the demands on our time, the interests we pursue, and the order of our priorities.

We should put God ahead of everyone else in our lives.

...We should give God, the Father of our spirits, an exclusive preeminence in our lives. He has a prior parental claim on our eternal welfare, ahead of all other ties that may bind us here or hereafter.

...“Whatever God requires is right,” said the Prophet Joseph Smith (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979, p. 256)—and so Nephi slew Laban. And God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.

Had Abraham loved Isaac more than God, would he have consented? As the Lord indicates in the Doctrine and Covenants, both Abraham and Isaac now sit as gods (see D&C 132:37). They were willing to offer or to be offered up as God required. They have a deeper love and respect for each other because both were willing to put God first. The Great Commandment - Love the Lord

For me, to give up going to Church and partaking of the sacrament would be to give up my commitment to Him.

[Question about the Fall?]

Yes, I see the scripture - indeed, if Adam had not transgressed, he would have remained in the Garden (yet Eve would have left) - thus, being separated, they would not be able to have children (yet the scripture doesn't indicate that if both were to remain in the Garden, they are incapable of having children).

As for the concept of duality and opposites, my understanding is that it is necessary to experience the "bitter fruit" of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to realize that it is not the way. However, when one is spiritually reborn (eastern philosophy terms this "enlightenment", yet is is the same as being reborn spiritually/entering into the rest of the Lord, etc), they no longer view things from this dualistic mindset. They are no longer labeling this "good", and this "bad", and thus constantly judging in their own minds this versus that. They see truth as a whole, not as divided into opposites.

Again, this can be hard to understand (as what this really means is we transcend the "carnal mind"), but the Spirit very much does indicate to me it is true. Surely God in the eternities does not continually experience the bitter to know the good - perhaps at one time in His probation he did, but such a continually experience of opposites is not part of joy. Remember a time when you felt great peace and joy - is there an "opposite" to this? Or rather, is such a blissful experience complete in itself?

Little children do not experience life in such a conflicted, opposite-driven fashion. We are told to become as little children, and to not partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The great misconception, I believe, is that we forget that the promised "blessings" of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (knowledge of God, knowing everything has it's opposite, etc) were proposed by Lucifer, the father of all lies. This was a great deception, on under which many are still living! From God's own direction, this tree leads to spiritual death. It is the other tree - the love of Christ, that leads to life eternal.

Thanks, both good points. I'll have to consider them.

[Question about the Fall?]

...In his book, Max explains what he believes the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes - that it is our tendency to falsely judge what is good and evil, and to see things as opposites, rather than as a unified whole. This may be difficult to understand at first, but it makes a great deal of sense to me now.

Lucifer (the father of all lies!) said that by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve would become as Gods (Lucifer even said that is how God obtained his knowledge). Lucifer also explained that by partaking of this fruit, Adam and Eve would comprehend that "everything has it's opposite". According to Max, and I wholeheartedly agree, this was a deception of Lucifer, which led to the spiritual separation of God and man.

I'm not going to explain it in detail (it would take quite a while), but I strongly suggest you read Max's book - I've provided a link above. This book was very helpful to me in understanding this very concept. We are specifically told in the scriptures that the Tree of Life is symbolic of the love of Christ. However, we are not specifically told what the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes. Reading the book by Max may give you some good inspiration on this. Basically, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is the illusion by which we judge this to be good, and this to be bad, this to be preferable, this to be not preferable, etc. In eastern philosophy, this would be known as "duality" - which is a condition of the fallen/natural/carnal mind, which views things in opposites, and thus always in conflict.

Yet we have this from the scriptures, "for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet" (D&C 29:39) and again, "it is given unto them to know good from evil" (Moses 6:56). How do these scriptures fit into this philosophy of "duality" and not viewing things as opposites?

P.S. I could be mistaken, but I don't believe anywhere in the scriptures it states Adam and Eve could not have children while in the Garden of Eden. Adam partake of the fruit so he could remain with Eve (because she was already going to be cast out for eating the fruit). However, if neither had partaken, it appears they very would could have remained in the Garden and multiplied.

Here is the scripture that indicates that Adam and Eve could have no children:

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. (2 Ne 2:22-23)

[Is 12 years old too old to be trick or treating?]

This question brings to mind one of my favorites, the classic Seinfeld routine:

Remember those last few Halloweens, getting a little

too old for it. Just kind of going through the motions.

"Bing Bong", "come on lady, let's go. Halloween,

doorbells, candy, let's pick up the pace in there".

They come at the door, they always ask you those same

stupid questions:

"What are you supposed to be ?"

"I'm supposed to be done by now, you wanna move it

along, the Three Musketeers... ? I got 18 houses on

this block alone. You just hit the bag, we hit the

road, that's the routine, let's just pick it up".

[The WofW and meat]

How many overweight Americans, that have no need to eat more meat, continue to eat and kill these animals? I don't think the Lord can be that well pleased. There may come a time, perhaps during the Millennium, when the direction to eat meat sparingly is followed more precisely. After all, how is the wolf to live with the lamb and the calf with the lion if we cannot ourselves stop killing this animals when we don't even need the food?

[Was Eve wise or beguiled? and at which point?]

Was Eve wise or beguiled? The question for me hinges on how much knowledge Adam and Eve possessed regarding good and evil and the Plan of Salvation.

In the book of Moses we read the following, "The Lord said unto Enoch: behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden; gave I unto man his agency" (Moses 7:32). According to the scripture, God gave Adam and Eve knowledge when he created them. They were also given the ability to use that knowledge in the Garden of Eden, or in other words, they were given agency. Based on subsequent events it appears they were held accountable for the agency they were given. So to work the point backwards; to have accountability Adam and Eve must have had agency, to have agency they must have had knowledge of right and wrong.

Now, how far did that knowledge extend? Jeffery R. Holland says:

These terrible risks of sorrow and death were facts Adam and Eve were willing to face in order that "men might be." But they-like us-were able and willing to venture these only with the knowledge that there would be safety at the end of the day for those who wanted it and lived for it. They were willing to transgress knowingly and consciously (the only way they could "fall" into the consequences of mortality, inasmuch as Elohim certainly could not force innocent parties out of the garden and still be a just God) only because they had a full knowledge of the plan of salvation, which would provide for them a way back from their struggle with death and hell. (Christ and the New Covenant, p 203,204. See also Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 9:149)

This only makes sense because there is no way a just God could punish Adam and Eve if they did not have knowledge of the risk and reward they faced. Nor would they eat of the fruit if they did not know they could be saved. Genesis 3:6 may allude to the knowledge Eve had, it says,

And when the woman

1. saw that that the tree was good for food

2. and that is was pleasant to the eyes

3. and a tree to be desired to make one wise

she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat...

It is my opinion that the above three points must not be taken only literally but figuratively.

Having said all of this, it also seems clear that Eve still lacked some understanding, for after the fall she says, "Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption and the eternal life which God giveth to the obedient" (Moses 5:11). What then did she lack or what was there to gain? Perhaps this question can be answered in part by looking in 2 Nephi 2:23, it says, "And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence". It is interesting that their innocence in this verse is tied to them not having children. It may be that one can understand about the experience of having children but it truly remains unknown until a person experiences the bond of love between mother and daughter or father and son. Could Adam and Eve have known or felt what it would be like to sacrifice so that their children might succeed? Can such a thing be know cerebrally? Now the second part of the same verse says, "having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." I have little doubt that Adam and Eve might have been happy from time to time, but to have true joy it may be that they had to know misery. This is a deeper joy, tempered by, and gained precisely because, one has experienced anguish and loss. This I believe is the joy Adam and Eve lacked and did not yet know. when Eve partook she mentally knew the plan, had heard of the joy she might find but had not yet understood "according to the flesh". She lacked the breadth and depth of knowing by hard experience. Thus she could say later "the serpent beguiled me and I did eat" for she did not know the extent of what she had to face. Further, while she was decieved by Satan it could be that he also lacked understanding in very much the same way as Eve, for it says, "and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God" (Moses 4:6).

Now back to the original question: was Eve beguiled? In short I would answer, "Yes". But if someone were to ask me if Eve was wise I would also say "Yes".

[The fate of Judas Iscariot]

Christ Himself said Judas would be a son of perdition and several scriptures say he was a devil. When you go outside of canon, some conjecture on his fate. But the scriptures are very clear as to his fate.

Livy you may very well be right but we should also consider the other side of the matter.

Take the quote you provided by Joseph Smith:

“What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. . . . You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance; they make open war, like the devil, and awful is the consequence.” Teachings of the Prophet, 358;

I would ask:

1. Did Judas receive the Holy Ghost?

2. Did Judas have the heavens opened unto him and know God?

3. Did Judas start to repent?

Additionally, we have a number of comments from prophets and apostles.

You provided one quote from Elder McConkie but here is another which indicates more of his thought on the issue, "[Judas] was probably not a son of perdition in the sense of one who is damned forever, but in the sense that he was a son or follower of Satan in this life. (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1976), 1:765. See also McConkie, Mortal Messiah, 4:112–13.)

And also from Joseph F. Smith:

To my mind it strongly appears that not one of the disciples possessed sufficient light, knowledge, or wisdom, at the time of the crucifixion, for either exaltation or condemnation; for it was afterwards that their minds were opened to understand the scriptures, and that they were endowed with power from on high; . . .

Did Judas possess this light, this witness, this Comforter, this baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, this endowment from on high? If he did, he received it before the betrayal, and therefore before the other eleven apostles. . .

Not knowing that Judas did commit the unpardonable sin; nor that he was a “son of perdition without hope” who will die the second death, nor what knowledge he possessed by which he was able to commit so great a sin, I prefer, until I know better, to take the merciful view that he may be numbered among those for whom the blessed Master prayed, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” [Luke 23:34]. (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939)

[Newly Called Bishopric Member]

After having served in a Bishopric and now being released for a few years here are two thoughts on how I might have improved my service. They may help you. Many other good suggestions have been given, with which I agree.

Take responsibility where given

The Bishop has much more strain on him than a bishopric member. You may spend more time at the church, but the bishop is burdened with the ultimate decision for most ward issues and almost all personal matters. To truly provide worthwhile service take responsibility for the areas you are given. For example, if you are assigned the Relief Society make sure you follow the handbook and meet regularly with the Relief Society president. Find out what her concerns are in regards to her councilors and others who are called to serve in the organization. There may also be some needs of Relief Society sisters that you can help her resolve. When you find a concern, work with the President and the Lord to resolve it. Make the decision and move forward. If the matter should come to the Bishop's attention then come prepared with your suggestion on how to resolve the matter. He then can work with you and quickly make a decision. Once it is decided, again, work to carry out what he has asked.

Seek to minister not to administer

A councilor can spend long hours and many meetings, with and without the bishop, simply trying to know what is happening, organizing, and fulfilling somewhat mundane tasks. While some of this type of work must be done, continued administration can be rather ineffective. This type of work will keep you busy and can fill up your weeks, but I would ask if such efforts are bringing families together, strengthening testimonies, or bringing the ward closer to Christ. In many instances I think you will find that it is helping little in these areas. The real core of being in the bishopric has to do with ministering to people and the most effective way to minister is one on one. Talk to people. Love people. Listen to people. Bring the spirit to a person. Ask a person to stretch themselves. I believe these things are at the heart of bishopric service.

[Reconciling Asking to be Released with GA Statements]

There isn't a dividing line. Nothing should divide the family from Christ's church. As my grandfather used to say "the church is here for the family, NOT the family here for the church."

Applepansy,

I understand that nothing truly divides the family from Christ's church. The dividing line I am speaking of is being with the family versus spending time fulfilling a calling away from them. Don't you agree that at times the best service we can give our family is to serve faithfully in the church?

I admire Bro Moyle. Coming from an old pioneer family I've heard his story and others just like it all my 54 years. Callings are sacred things but they don't trump family. These decisions are personal and should be made with all seriousness. No Bro. Moyle was not wrong, his decision was the right one for him. But just because it was right for him doesn't mean it was right for his neighbor. What we don't know about the story is the seriousness of the fracture. Was is a simple fracture or was it a compound fracture? I can't imagine him walking at all with a compound fracture.

Again... its a personal decision. I will never advise someone to take asking to be released lightly. But I will always say its their decision since ONLY they can know their circumstances.

Sharky, Thank you for your story. It illustrated my point.

It was a compound fracture and his leg was cut off just below the knee. He had to recuperate for a time before he again undertook the 22 mile journey to the temple. This is an extreme example but other sacrifices are made on a daily basis by Bishops and Stake Presidents who leave their family to serve for long hours. I think they, and their family, will be blessed for the service. If their families will be blessed for their service, will not other families?

[Reconciling Asking to be Released with GA Statements]

Which she did. Being tested doesn't mean we failed. Learning something doesn't mean we were doing the opposite before. She got a calling she didn't like or want (the test) she fulfilled the calling (presumably to the best of her ability).. After a time she asked to be released. She was not (the test again) and she continued to serve (again presumably to the best of her ability) and then different things came up, time passed, and she asked again and the cycle repeated. By doing it the Lords way she learned(according to Elder Packer) that it was the right way.

In fact we can go so far as to say Christ asked to be released when in the Garden he asked the Father if the cup might pass from him.

Now if you equate 'asking to be released' as meaning refusing to do the calling then I would agree with you. But as Christ's example shows, the asking is not a sin, and not of itself wrong. That potentially comes when we get an answer we do not like to our request

A fine line here...I am equating asking to be released with refusing to perform a calling. But I can see that there may be some people who might ask to be released but who are still willing to serve. Christ indeed asked that he might not have to drink the bitter cup but he also said, "nevertheless not my will, but thine be done." If someone was humble and approached it in this manner I think the spirit would be in it.

[Reconciling Asking to be Released with GA Statements]

Your story just proved the point... The dear Sister asked to be released... She was not rebuked or belittled or told she lacked faith for bringing her desires to the bishop's attention.

She asked and it was considered perfectly acceptable for her to do so, in so much that the Bishop took it to the Lord. The fact that it is also a great story of being humble and doing the Lord's will is secondary to the subject to this thread. For many people in many situation the answer could very well come back yes.

Estradling,

Indeed she was not belittled or told she lacked faith. And as I stated before there is no problem with bringing concerns to the bishops attention.

But, I'm afraid your conclusion that, "it was perfectly acceptable for her to do so" was definitely not the point of the story because Elder Packer sums it up by saying, "She often spoke of being tested in her calling. Perhaps the greatest test came when, as a young woman, she learned to respect the power and authority inherent in the priesthood and that an ordinary man serving as bishop can receive direction from the Lord in calling members to serve." If it is as you claim then how is it that she, as a young woman, did not respect the power and authority of the priesthood?

[Reconciling Asking to be Released with GA Statements]

Well, ask yourself this: is the Bishop (or SP or whoever) the only one the Lord will tell when it's time to change out who's serving in a Calling? Might He also let the person in the calling know that it's time for a change?

I agree that the Lord may let the individual serving know. But who issues the call and who issues the release? The person called, or the Lord through his servants?

I rarely suggest people ask to be released. I will usually suggest the person go meet with their bishop and explain the situation that is making them want to be released, and then counseling with their bishop about what to do.

I agree there is an important distinction here. We should explain our situation to the bishop so that he understands our difficulties and concerns. No one should be worried about doing so. But further there is an important point where we need to respect the Lord's servants and the guidance they receive. We do this by following their counsel and the decisions they make.

James, we are suppose to accept callings. Refusing or asking to be released is a needs serious consideration and especially prayer. Then you have to go talk to the Bishop.

Its hard to walk away from a calling. Especially because of what the GAs have said on the subject. However, the overriding principle is "Family Comes First."

You will be blessed for sacrificing for your calling. But if your calling is putting undo hardship on you then Pres. McKay's quote trumps it all. Paraphrasing: No other success can compensate for failure in the home.

I understand that family comes first but where is the dividing line? Might it sometimes be better to show your family the example by continuing to serve in a difficult calling? I'm reminded of the story reiterated by Elder Uchtdorf in General Conference a few years ago about John Rowe Moyle. Brother Moyle had to walk 22 miles to the Salt Lake Temple and 22 miles home every week. After a cow seriously fractured his leg he was forced to have his leg cut off just below the knee. He eventually fashioned an artifical leg that hurt when he used it. Even with all these challenges he continued to make the weekly trip to the Temple. He is the person who carved the words, "Holiness to the Lord" that still show today. Elder Uchtdorf concludes, "John did not do this for the praise of man. Neither did he shirk his duty, even though he had every reason to do so. He knew what the Lord expected him to do" ("Lift Where You Stand", Ensign October 2008). I feel most of us, probably even myself, would feel this is asking too much. But was Brother Moyle wrong for putting such a burden on his family?

All the statements you give strike me as don't turn down a calling quotes... That is quite a bit different then asking to be released after serving for awhile.

True, most of what I provieded has to do with not turning down a calling. But there are others that have to do with continuing to serve. In addition to Bro. Moyle's story here is another from Elder Packer.

One of the great influences in my life was to work closely for many years with Belle S. Spafford, general president of the Relief Society, surely one of the greatest women of this dispensation.

One day she told me that as a young woman she explained to her bishop that she was willing to serve but preferred a call to teach. The following week she was called as a counselor to the ward Relief Society president. “I did not relish the call,” she said. “The bishop had misunderstood.” She told him bluntly Relief Society was for old women. Except for the counsel of her husband, she would have refused the call.

Several times she asked to be released. Each time the bishop said he would pray about it.

One night she was seriously injured in an automobile accident. After some time in the hospital, she was recovering at home. A terrible laceration on her face became infected. The worried doctor told her, “We can’t touch this surgically; it’s too close to the main nerve in your face.”

That Sunday night, as the doctor left the Spafford home, the bishop, returning from a late meeting, saw the lights on and stopped in.

Sister Spafford later told me, “In that pathetic condition I tearfully said, ‘Bishop, now will you release me?’”

Again he said, “I will pray about it.”

When the answer came, it was, “Sister Spafford, I still can’t get the feeling that you should be released from Relief Society.”

Belle S. Spafford served for 46 years in the Relief Society, nearly 30 as general president. She was an influence for good in the Church and was respected by women leaders worldwide. ("Called to Serve", Ensign, Oct. 1997)