james12

Seminarysnoozer, I might agree in part and disagree in part. I agree that we will not be "stuck" in an evil lineage forever. Willford Woodruff in speaking on the law of adoption enthroned the importance of the parent child relationship but did not quite do away with adoption. He said, I think the sealing is tied to the next phase beyond this current earth life. There is something special about a father and mother that should be honored. In some cases clearly a son or daughter will not be sealed to parents but in most cases the sealing will take place. I take this to mean that posterity plays an important role in progression. However as you stated, righteousness is key. I disagree that our earthly lineage is relatively unimportant. In a previous thread I questioned the distinction between earthly brother and sister vs. heavenly brother and sister as we near perfection, but certainly the parent to child relationships on earth are vital. Theodore M. Burton in a May 1975 conference address said, Priesthood power to some extent is dependant on blood ancestry. Does that mean I will continue to have some murderer in my lineage throughout eternity and thus miss out on priesthood power? I don't think so, they will be dropped out. However, neither does that mean that ancestry is unimportant. Now skipping to the end of the second state I pick this whole idea back up with God our Father and his Son. We see Christ completing his atonement and resurrection. A perfect Son, even the Great High Priest, returning to his perfect Father. A powerful statement on the importance of priesthood and the parent child relationship.

I started trying to answer some of these questions and while typing I realized I was asking more than I was answering. Anyway here are my thoughts... Maybe in the limited sense of salvation some of these questions about family ties to spirit brothers and sisters versus physical brothers and sisters have some validity. But when we finally reach perfection will this discussion have meaning? We must look to Christ as the only perfect being we know in any detail. Could anyone say that Christ loves his immediate family more than me or you? What of his atonement? There is a rather surprising scripture in the bible which says, "While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." (Matt 12:46-50) How little we understand of family ties! In asking this I have another thought. What of the relationship between God the Father to Christ the Son? Are the Father's ties to Christ stronger than the ties to us? It makes me think of the scripture in Moses 4:1. Here Lucifer is speaking to the Father asking to be the Only Begotten, "Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore forgive me thine honor." Is it even possible that another could be God's Son, the Only Begotten? Our knowledge is so limited when discussing family relationships and the eternities. Then there is the issue of our first estate and the almost infinite amount of time when we were learning and growing. We know almost nothing of relationships there. We were sons and daughters of God, but I have a host of questions about what that meant. For now I file them in the back of my mind until the day I'm given more understanding. President Kimball mentions the issue in his talk Our Great Potential, he says, "But no parent has ever yet on this earth been the parent of a spirit, because we are so far yet from perfection....Could you produce a spirit? Has anyone whom you know ever produced a spirit? This is a power not given to mortal man, so there is much for us to learn." I agree, there is so much for us to learn!

It's amazing how often this Bill Cosby, Brain Damage piece is relevant isn't it? Just remember, "For to not, for to drink your drink." Wish I could talk longer but I've got to be off to straighten out my kids brains yet again!

Just_A_Guy, Even today I could see land and private property as an important part of the United Order. Based on what I have read I see the process happening like this... After a person has deeded everything to the Lord the individual and the bishop would meet together and decide what land and possessions were fair for the person (or family) to posses. They would obviously consider the other members of the ward, and the amount the individual received may be more or less then the person originally possessed. The person would then own these items. They could sell them or improve upon them with the condition that the excess go back to the church. The process would be maintained through an annual stewardship interview where both would discuss how well the individual took care of what he had been given. I agree with your thoughts on freedom as long as you also agree that the individual will be able to decide how to make a living. My questions start to arise when I think about the initiative angle. The reason to work would not be to make money anymore. There would be no profit motive. So is there another motivation?

Understood. The two questions are really more for the general audience. Though I've found that few people want to discuss the United Order. I'm not exactly sure why.

Backroads, You're correct, I do deny that children should be removed from their parents. Apparently Plato thought so, but I do not. Your also correct that I see the injustice of inequality most starkly when looking at children in their formative years and that involves education. I also believe that the government should never force equality either through redistribution of wealth or public policy. Freedom must be maintained. Including the freedom to fail or succeed. I would go so far as to say that I prefer a voucher system for education, an independent postal service, and a privatized social security system among others. Actually my thoughts lately have revolved around our current economic system and the United Order. As a matter of fact I could ask my original two questions in relation to the United Order. Question 1: Does the United Order allow all people to have equality of opportunity? Why or why not? Question 2: If yes, can it be achieved without destroying freedom and initiative? How? I believe these two questions are fundamental. Until a system can have both there will be disagreement and protests just as we have seen with the Occupy movement or the Tea Party.

But it all starts with education and is perpetuated from parent to child. It is not simply the education of one generation but the next and the next. It spills over into bad communities and structures that make it hard for a child to escape. Is this satisfactory?

Estradling, Good question. So do you agree that there should not be equal opportunity as xforeverxmetalx has commented? Are we to be satisfied with the unfairness of inequality? A world where the rich get richer and the poor must constantly struggle?

Backroads, Let me just say I don't have all the answers that is why I posted this thread. However, let me give you my thoughts in regards to your questions. I agree with you here. It is not right to stop a family from having a child. It is not fair for the government to take money from those who have earned it. No, both equal opportunity and the initiative to work are important. I think I have been dwelling on the former more due to the direction of the discussion. Again, in this context I am only discussing equal opportunity in monetary issues. So for a child to start out having at least close to the same opportunities as another each child's standard of living must be about equal. Of course, as any child grows, they make choices and one child may excel above another. This is as it should be. Equal outcomes are inherently unfair. I am here concerned with the starting point (or close to it).

Backroads, We can assume in many cases that nothing illegal or unethical happened to make one family richer than another. However, I must disagree that it is fair that the child be born in a family with economic limitations. You may be correct that there are other limitations that are unequal such as looks, intelligence, etc. However, the question of economic inequlity is specifically posed by the savior in D&C 38:26-27, "For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just? Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am." The parable seems to indicate that it is not just. But how do we solve the problem without running into the freedom and initiative issue? I obviously do not think we should pull babies from their homes but I am suggesting that as wonderful as our current economy is it does not adequately address this issue.

Skippy, You are right to a large extent, and certainly this is how I must look at the situation individually. I should not use perceived inequality to limit my potential. However, I cannot ignore the fact that some children do not have the same opportunity as others. Can you agree that to some extent economic circumstances limit an individual? I'm not saying they cannot achieve great things but they are at a disadvantage. If this is so, than I ask is this fair? Can nothing be done?

I disagree that all men have an equal opportunity at birth. Take Sorry Sally and Happy Harry (pulled those out of my head:)) Just as an example, if Happy Harry is born to an extremely rich family he will have a relatively easy time getting into Harvard. If Sorry Sally is born to a poor family there is little chance that she will go to Harvard. (Some may argue that she could work very hard and get a scholarship but the point still remains, she has to work harder for it than Harry.)

Question 2: If yes, can we achieve it without destroying initative? How? LeKook, If we add an additional heavy tax to the richest 1% (or 5% or whatever) of the population the very taxation helps destroy the willingness for people to reach this level of income, thus destroying initiative. Won't many people work to be just under the level of the higher taxation and no more? On the other end of the spectrum, if we allow the poorest 10% (or 20% or 50%) to have a certain level of income regardless of how much they work doesn't this destroy initiative? Aren’t there a certain number of individuals who will refuse to work in order to receive the hand out?

There have been a number of threads now about the Occupy Wall Street movement. In general I find the protests lacking in direction and providing little to no solutions. However, there is a very valid and interesting topic which in some ways is at the heart of the protests and I would love to hear thoughts. Let me first give a little context since I am afraid the term equality of opportunity (or equal opportunity) has been twisted and dragged through the mud over the years till it is hard to know what is understood by the phrase. By equality of opportunity I mean the chance for every person at birth to have the same opportunities and not be limited by their parent's economic standing. I do not mean equal chance of participation throughout life (such as Equal Opportunity Employment etc.) Stated another way, by equal opportunity I mean the chance for everyone to start the race in the same position but not for all to finish the race at the same time. I believe few would say, based on the above statement, that we have equality of opportunity in the US. So now... Question 1: Should all people have equality of opportunity? Why or why not? Question 2: If yes, can it be achieved without destroying initiative? How? Any thoughts are welcome.

Matthew, True saints in the early days of this dispensation failed to bring forth Zion. However we should look closely at some of the revelations. D&C 105:9-10, "Therefore, in consequence of the transgressions of my people, it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season for the redemption of Zion—That they themselves may be prepared, and that my people may be taught more perfectly, and have experience, and know more perfectly concerning their duty, and the things which I require at their hands." And again in D&C 105:34, "And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption." These words clearly indicate that the saints were to wait until they were more fully prepared. Not that the opportunity had passed those of the tribe of Ephraim forever. Specifically about the building of the New Jerusalem we see that the righteous Gentiles and the remnant of Jacob shall work together. In 3 Ne 21:14,22-23: Yea, wo be unto the Gentiles except they repent...But if they will repent and hearken unto my words, and harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them, and they shall come in unto the covenant and be numbered among this the remnant of Jacob, unto whom I have given this land for their inheritance; And they shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob, and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they may build a city, which shall be called the New Jerusalem. I believe the time will come for both Ephraim and Manasseh to more fully build Zion when they truly desire it and are willing to unite and sacrifice for it. Until that day we must wait.

LaKook, There is definitely precedence in the scriptures for individuals receiving spirits. Who could deny it? It is also plainly discussed as a gift of the spirit, "And again, to another, the beholding of angles and ministering spirits;" (Moroni 10:14). Who knows how many receive visitations from time to time? For good reason few discuss it openly. I see you haven't received your patriarchal blessing, this is probably a good place to start. Your patriarchal blessing will give you specific revelation to guide you throughout your life. Temple work and genealogy may also be important. Study this topic and I think you may soon know more than most about this gift.

One of my favorite books is Lilith by George Macdonald. It is full of symbolism and imagery while playing off the Adam and Lilith theme.

This point about freedom is so important. I believe during the millennium people will have more freedom than we have ever enjoyed. In 4 Ne 1:3 its says, "And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift." What is the heavenly gift? Freedom! It is what was fought for in heaven. I believe this will be a fundamental principle during the millennium as we live the united order. We will be even more free than we are now. How? Let me just give one thought for now since I am running out of time. Economic Division - The oportunity for people to excel based on their parents ecenomic status will be no more. Additionally, Our current world of injustice where one tries to get gain from another will end. In other words the profit motive will cease. Why? Because everyone will have consecrated their property and received a portion back as decided by the Bishop. So in government or in business financial greed will largely be eliminated, something we do not currently enjoy.

RMGuy, I agree that our lives should be lived today and now. However, I have found that a clear goal, a vision of what might be, can move me forward with greater purpose and direction. To use another Joseph Smith quote, “The building up of Zion is a cause that has interested the people of God in every age; it is a theme upon which prophets, priests and kings have dwelt with peculiar delight;..." Sometimes it is hard to catch that vision focused only on the details of this telestial world. I remember listening to Elder Hales speak to us while I was at the MTC. He said that only on a mission can we fully live the law of consecration. But it wasn't what he said, it was the extreme emotion in his voice and the tears in his eyes. I realized that I did not feel as he felt. I had missed something. I did not yearn for the day when all could live the law as he did. Have we to some extent lost that vision as a people? Are we too satisfied?

Traveler, Interesting thought about healthy weight. I agree there might be more physical activity because people are up and doing. However, don't you think freedom will still be the guiding principle? Won't we still be able to work where we want and eat when and where we want?

I have been thinking today about the millennium. We know a number of conditions that will prevail during this time. There will be no war, there will be a righteous government, many people will not die and be buried but will be changed in the "twinkling of an eye", and many current sicknesses will be cured or not exist. Temple work will be a huge endeavor. But i find it most interesting to consider how our every day lives will be effected. For instance, will I work to earn money or will the need for money be a thing of the past? Will government occur on a more local level? What institutions will likely disappear?

Vort, Is it really that clear? If the Lord said, "You will not kill, but you can choose for yourself" is it more obvious what I should do or less? Is the emotional impact the same? Of course in all commandments there is an implied option to choose, but the fact of the matter is in this case it was specifically stated. Why don't all commandments have stated qualifiers? Also, do you disagree with Joseph Fielding Smith in this instance?

From an LDS perspective I think this idea that the Lord "forbid" them needs to be clearified. We read in Moses 3:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Joseph Fielding Smith said, "Mortality was created through the eating of forbidden fruit, if you want to call it forbidden, but I think the Lord has made it clear that it was not forbidden. He merely said to Adam, if you want to stay here [in the garden] this is the situation. If so, don't eat it. ("The Sacrament and the Atonement," address given at the LDS institute of religion, Salt Lake City, 14 Jan. 1961, 5) It was forbidden only in the sense that in order for Adam and Eve to remain in their current state they could not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. However, the choice was theirs to make. I believe this clears up the apparent conflict between points 1 and 2.

But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice. - Matt 9:13 NIV

While I agree that our flesh and spirit can do no good or evil of themselves it is more about who has control over our spirit and who has control over our body. I feel Elder Bednar was very clear about this in a talk given to Rick's College. Ye Are the Temple of God - Ensign Sept. 2001 - ensign In it he quotes Brigham Young who said: “The spirit is pure, and under the special control and influence of the Lord, but the body is of the earth, and is subject to the power of the Devil, and is under the mighty influence of that fallen nature that is of the earth. If the spirit yields to the body, the Devil then has power to overcome the body and spirit of that man, and he loses both"(Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1941], 70). Brigham Young further clarifies the issue of whether our body or spirit is attacked by Satan he says: “Recollect, brethren and sisters, every one of you, that when evil is suggested to you, when it arises in your hearts, it is through the temporal organization. When you are tempted, buffeted, and step out of the way inadvertently; when you are overtaken in a fault, or commit an overt act unthinkingly; when you are full of evil passion, and wish to yield to it, then stop and let the spirit, which God has put into your tabernacles, take the lead. If you do that, I will promise that you will overcome all evil, and obtain eternal lives. But many, very many, let the spirit yield to the body, and are overcome and destroyed” (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1941], 70). I do agree that our bodies are not inherently evil but it is clear that Satan attacks us primarily through the body, not the spirit. Elder Bednar further expands this thought after quoting the above Brigham Young statements and 2 Ne 2:26-29 he says: "I suggest that you thoroughly study and prayerfully ponder the statement of Brigham Young and these verses from 2 Nephi. Neither passage asserts that the physical body is inherently evil. Rather, they teach that we live in a fallen world. The very elements out of which our bodies were created are by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death. Thus, the Fall of Adam and its consequences affect us most directly through our physical bodies. And yet as President Young stated, we are dual creatures, for at the same time that we inhabit a physical body that is subject to the Fall, we also have a spirit that represents the eternal part of us. We are the spirit sons and daughters of God and have inherited divine qualities from Him. The precise nature of the test of mortality, then, can be summarized in the following questions: Will my body rule over my spirit, or will my spirit rule over my body? Will I yield to the enticings of the natural man or to the eternal man? That, brothers and sisters, is the test. We are here on the earth to develop godlike qualities and to learn to bridle all of the passions of the flesh (see Alma 38:12)."