Anddenex

I would say the literal meaning was both and intended for both, as seen here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2001/06/behold-your-little-ones?lang=eng

This is the only forum I have been apart of, so I wouldn't know one way or the other. I think here is a great place to ask questions. You can always direct message people and have a great conversation.

The first part of your questions aren't really making any sense that I can grasp. I'm not sure the comparison you are making with sports and choosing baseball, or fruit with vegetable. The second Article of Faith is simple in my eyes: 1) We aren't punished for Adam and Eve's decision to partake of the fruit. Simply put, when I stand at judgement the Lord will not require at my hand the deeds of Adam. The Lord will only require my decisions, my desires, and my words at the time of judgement. 2) Although we are not punished for someone else's sins we do have to live with their decisions, but no matter where we are born or where we are raised the decisions we make are our own. A child born to a drug addict will have to endure the life's beginnings of living with a drug addict. The child born to a millionaire will endure the life's beginnings of living in prosperity. The child born to two hard working parents, but poor, will endure the life's beginnings of whatever those may be. In the end, the child born to the drug addict will not be punished for their parents' decisions, but will be judge by their own decisions. The child born to the millionaires will not be punished for their parents' decisions, but will judged by their own decisions, and so on with the hard working parents who are poor. As a result of Adam, we live in a fallen world, but in this world it will be our own choices: our thoughts, our words, and our desires that will condemn or exalt us -- not Adam and Eve's decision. 3) Victory over death through our Savior, Jesus Christ. Death was brought to pass by both Eve and Adam; although, it is clear that without Adam's willingness to obey all of God's commandments there would have been no Adam and Eve who had offspring (us). The quote given (specifically this quote), with regards to our Savior, the term "sin of Adam" and "Adam's trangression" are synonymous. Without our Savior we are all fallen and lost, due to our own individual sins.

Yep, just as there is always another variant of the Flu. Sadly, this is the first time in my life time to see how easily particular narratives are using this as if a variant is something new. The Flu shot won't ever eradicate the Flu. Vaccines and boosters won't eradicate Covid. The worst part though, if Covid is truly the result of human failure -- which means all the lives lost are due to human's playing with things they still don't understand, which could have been avoided.

Let's not play a victim here. Were you planning on doing something that would ban you from this forum? If not, why wouldn't you be welcome to stay on the forum? I am just as capable of being banned from this forum as you would be if we decide to break the rules of the site. The scriptures, both Bible and Book of Mormon, are clear as to the purpose of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost clearly will not bear witness of opposing tenets (as both being true which they can't be), which is what you are sharing with regards to your witness. The Holy Ghost is a testator of truth, there isn't a "version" of it as you are describing. It is truth. The Book of Mormon is either the word of God or it is not. The Holy Ghost will not bear record of opposing tenets. He will not say to one person, "It is true," and to another, "It is not true." So, the outcome is just as it is -- one is true and one is false. You appear to be confusing circular reasoning with additional witness. You have said the Holy Ghost said it is not true. I provided the witness and testimony of another person in the Book of Mormon that will be given at the last day. This witness is either true or false, there is no in between. Either at the last day it will be true, or it will be false. I don't know enough about you to say one way or the other as to your efforts. I do know your witness wasn't from the Holy Ghost. It doesn't mean it wasn't experienced, it just wasn't the Holy Ghost. I have beaten the dead horse enough. It is a simple principle of truth, opposing truths can't both be true --- there isn't a version of it as they are opposing. Again, it would be similar to someone saying, by the Holy Ghost, they were informed that Christ was not the Savior of the world but a good prophet. And then someone else saying the opposite, by the Holy Ghost I know Christ is the Savior of the world. Which is the "version"of truth you are presenting. It can't be both, no matter how many times someone says it can, it can't. I still wish you all the peace and happiness in this world.

I'm glad you believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. I'm glad you believe in the word of God. I never said you weren't a Christian, please don't put words in my mouth; it is a naive way to make a statement. The answer you feel you received wasn't from the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is a testator of truth (John 14:26, Moroni 10: 3:5) not of lies or error. To think, or believe, the Holy Ghost will tell, show, or witness someone something is not true when it is true is naive, and clear evidence you have a misunderstanding of the roll of the Holy Ghost from scripture. Recognizing your answer isn't from the Holy Ghost isn't an assumption, its a reality. I accept you received an answer, it just wasn't from the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is a testator of truth. That is clearly defined in scripture -- not of lies or error. The Holy Ghost will not, and cannot witness both to be true. They are in direct opposition. It will be similar to someone saying they received witness from the Holy Ghost that Christ is not the Savior. I don't need to assume anything. I can call it out for what it is. Thus we have the following scripture:

That's fine. I'm perfectly fine with others and their personal belief system, but this isn't what we are discussing. God is not an author of confusion, and if He says Jesus Christ is his son, and then someone says, "God told me Christ isn't his son." Both witnesses can't be true. One is right, and one is wrong. There is no way around it. If God says, "You shall know by the power of the Holy Ghost these things are true." And a person says God told me it is false. They both can't be true. What make a spiritual experience greater or of more value. The answer is simple -- truth. If as a Christian you think a person saying God said, "Christ is not his son," is the same as the witness that Peter received of the Messiah -- than we are fooling ourselves into believing all Spiritual experiences are the same. They are not in this regard. I choose to believe God's words. That we can know with certainty of truth and our belief system. If you don't choose to believe such, then that is fine. You can believe as you wish. If we are unable to know for a "certainty" then what's the purpose of the Holy Ghost or answer to prayers? I do enjoy a lot of quotes from Socrates; however, do you think Christ "knew" he was the Son of God, or do you think it was a mere belief system? I would specify he knew for certain he was the Son of God. He knew for certain what he was about to accomplish on Golgatha. I prefer to believe in Christ's words when it comes to his gospel.

This is where I believe we are looking at two different concepts. The one you are mentioning is simply seeking and asking questions according to our circumstance. The other is an actual witness from God pertaining to a specific promise. You can see from Marge's response that her answer received from God, "no, its not true." This is in direct opposition against what God said he would do. They both can't be right. It would be similar to someone teaching someone about Christ (let's say someone who grew up Hindu -- with no Bible background and is not a Christian). That person then saying they devoted their lives to learning about Christ, reading the Bible, and then coming away with the following, "God spoke to me and told me Christ is not his son." Did this person do something wrong? I think we probably would both come to the same conclusion. And your last statement is exactly what I am referring to. Once you "committed", done your part, the answer or witness came. I agree whole heartily with the concept of waiting. Sometimes we need to learn line-upon-line before God can bring further witness. But in this sense, we are talking about God saying I will give witness by the Holy Ghost that these things are true, and the individual saying God said the opposite. God isn't a liar, and that would make God a liar to say something opposite of what he said he would do. I think we are both on the same page though; however, my mission experience taught me that I never met one person who met the requirements not receive witness.

Right, which means the witness will come, especially if they meet the requirements. The responsibility falls upon us, not God. God is always ready to give witness. EDIT: And you are making an assumption that it is just the Book of Mormon. You will notice from my comment I also addressed those who received witness that Christ was the Son of God while he was upon the earth and those who didn't. Did the people who didn't receive witness while Christ walked the earth and spoke, is it not their fault? Yes, it is. The sole responsibility is ours. If a person sincerely, with real intent, and faith in God followed Christ or heard Christ speak for two years and still did not receive witness of his divinity -- yes I would not need to assume anything it is clearly manifest. The same for the Book of Mormon. What Father would withhold witness from any of his children if they are meeting the requirements -- none, especially if they are perfect. If we don't receive witness, as in such a direct statement from the Lord, then yes, it is easy to see we are doing something wrong on our end not to receive a witness.

I would agree with you if the promise we are discussing were to be coming from "man" and not from God. Within the promise provided the Lord provides conditions and stipulations to receiving a witness from him: Conditions: 1) Remember how merciful the Lord has been to his children 2) Ponder these things in your heart Stipulations: Ask with 1) Sincere heart 2) Real intent 3) Faith in Christ Promise: * You will receive a manifestation from the Holy Ghost that these things are true. If a person has fulfilled all of the above and has received no witness then this would make God a liar, and we know God is a God of truth and cannot lie. As such, the default then falls back upon us, and always will fall upon us. It will never fall upon God. In these cases, if a person remains without "witness" which we know wouldn't be true if they followed the given conditions and stipulations, they will one day (if at judgement) see every witness God gave by the power of the Holy Ghost by which they were past feeling. Otherwise once again, God would be a liar. This goes back to Christ living among the Jews. Why were there some who received witness that he was the Son of God, the prophesied Messiah, and why were those there who did not receive the same witness? God's fault, or does the responsibility and accountability fall upon us? Is God unable to provide according to his promises? No. Then the default is always at us -- individual accountability and responsibility. This isn't arrogant, nor does it have any hubris, because we recognize God is a God of truth and cannot lie and it is his promise.

Right! All this could have been avoided if the rioters would have stayed home and just smoked their weed instead.

We are in agreement also, especially pertaining to gossip, back biting, forgiveness, and other small but important principles interwoven with Charity.

What then is the "pure love of Christ"? There are aspects of charity that are easily seen in Christ's life: 1) He glorified the Father, and his will was swallowed up in the will of his Father. 2) He was willing to give his life that another might be saved. In his case everyone might be saved. 3) He followed his own counsel regarding a willingness not to save his own life. The teaching that he that saveth his life shall lose it, but he that loses his life shall save it. 4) Pure religion and what that is, which is what Christ did We are understanding the quote from the Bible dictionary a little differently. I have interpreted that in light of the Pharisees giving tithes and offerings in comparison with the widow's mite. Their (Pharisees) giving wasn't giving to glorify God, or to follow the other three items mentioned. It was to glorify themselves. So the donation of alms is not always a sign of charity, but it can be a sign if the person is giving according to the two great commandments. So, it is more a matter of heart. Example, the three young men who carried women and children across the river who ended up losing their life. We are informed that act alone (an act of benevolence) sealed their inheritance to the Celestial kingdom. I can't say as to their heart for #1, but we definitely can see how they honored 2, 3, and 4. Charity is a gift. It is a way of life and living, not a moment in time. A moment in time may be a sign that someone has the pure love of Christ, or has exercised charity (which is what allows us to grow).

I think what your sister is doing is awesome, and I think it is very similar to the Self-Reliance "Goals." I don't know if you have every gone through the Self-Reliance course but this reminds me of what your sister is doing. Use Time Wisely.

I would change one part of the first sentence, it wasn't "wealth" per se Jesus was criticizing. It was the "attitude" for those who obtained wealth that Jesus criticized. The easiest example is the rich young men, which goes back to what has already been shared considering ownership and stewardship. If people's attitudes are ownership then it remains that they have an "idol" as they place money as their own, and do not realize or reject the giver of that monies. They then spend their money on themselves, or like the Pharisees they give a lot to be seen of men. One of our prophets (I believe it was Spencer W. Kimball in Miracle of Forgiveness) mentioned the size of homes starting to happen in Utah were a sign of Pride, and we have even bigger homes now in Utah, some of which are GAs. This, of course, is one of the inconsistencies I find in the earthly Kingdom of God confusing. In college, I wish I could see the math myself, I was informed if you accumulated the vast majority of wealth from everyone in the World into one pool and then divided it equally it would result in about 12 million per person. We have more money now throughout the world then we did previously. If a person forgets where their wealth comes from, then that attitude is the reason why Zion could never be organized -- pride and selfishness. The easiest example is the $200 million dollar yacht. That money could have gone to better use, but went to selfish means.

But what does it mean to be equal in heavenly things? And what is the connection with being equal in earthly things? We receive "all" the Father hath through Christ. In that sense, and as said above we are joint-heirs with Christ, we are equal in heavenly things. The connection, a theory, is the doctrine that all things were spiritual before they were temporal. We are to pattern this life (earthly things) after our pre-mortal life (spiritual things); after the manner which the Lord has set. This connection also weaves the doctrine of being "one."

This is true, God is a God of order and law. Nothing he does is for spectacle, and this idea probably stems from the temptations given to Jesus from Satan. Some of the temptations were spectacles (e.g. throw yourself down) which he could have done, but Jesus new the purpose of the miracles. In this case, I would call it an edifying miracle. I used to teach seminary with special needs children. At one point I came to the feeling that I had made a wrong decision, which led to apply James 1: 5. As a result, I learned something that was very important with regards to the Spirit, their understanding, and their mortal tabernacle. Now, if I were in a lesson with them and the Spirit was strong enough, and a certain individual/student began to speak coherent sentences, such words that couldn't be written, I would have easily defined that as a miracle. This student, although 16, had the mentality of a 2 year-old. It wouldn't have been a spectacle. It would have been amazing and something I would have cherished forever. In this light, I could see how remarkable this would have been, and the miracle portrayed to recognize that the Spirit can even help a babe learn, they can be taught, and if the Lord decides to loose their tongue he can. I, personally, think this is a greater miracle than the donkey speaking in the Old Testament.

What do you mean by "functional" purpose? I am not familiar with any condition for miracles, except that it is accomplished by God, a law (often Celestial law), and something we do not yet comprehend with our natural eyes.

So...my brother was at a conference in Paris and on a slow evening he decided to see Dune. He said it was an extremely good movie; however, this is part 1 of part 2 for just the first book. He actually got me excited to watch this.

Seems right from the Church's search engine 😜

Yep, this means I will be there and to some that will seem like hell...but we are both progressing and repenting.

I have understood this to mean little children and babes (as in babies) did have their tongues loosed that they could speak.

Is there a reason why he omitted the location of the way side? You would have to ask him why in this talk he didn't see the necessity of mentioning the wayside. It is quite normal for a person giving a talk to focus on certain aspects of a parable. I'm sure you have done the same thing. If I were talking about this parable, I would mention one very important adversary; the fowls. That's great, but you weren't the one giving the talk. Each individual, as with yourself, assigned to give a talk will focus on what they feel the purpose of the talk is. Can the birds also be viewed as negative in the parable of the mustard seed? The birds were eating the seeds, so it would appear as if the birds in this sense (to some degree) are negative force in this parable. Which of these two kingdom inhabitants encompass group #1? This is what is defined as an eternal judgment, only the Lord has the authority to make the eternal judgement. They could be in all three kingdoms (depending on the Lord's judgement). The chances are more likely they would be in the Terrestrial or Telestial. As to which though, its not important to this parable. Anything less than the Celestial is still not with God the Father and his Son.

Looks like we feel the same when it comes to fully understand what love/charity is. I have a sibling now that likes to tell others "This is not what Christ would do." Or, "If you do this you are not a Christian." The irony I suppose is that he has removed himself from the Church (which isn't a Christian decision because to be a Christian we follow Christ not remove ourselves from him) but now knows exactly what is or is not Christian. Some of the examples he gives the Spirit quickly brings scripture to my remembrance. Your example is a great example of seeking to understanding "Love" or "Charity" because charity is the pure love of Christ. Another example is the woman at the well by which he likens her to a "dog" at the master tables. I find her humility astounding. She simply responded (at least what we have in scripture), about how even the dog eats the scraps from the masters table. So, when people start to tell me what Christ would or would not do, I am cautious, because the scriptures highlight things they would say Christ would not do. Same, I struggle greatly with people I do not trust or like as well. I also struggle greatly with people who use the Spirit as an excuse to act a certain way when it is their decision not the Spirit. I also struggle with love when I know someone has something personal against me, but tells me they love me. I can't stand pretenders. So, like you, I am not fully ignorant but I am definitely still trying to understand this principle of love and the principle of charity.

The scriptures command us to love God (first great commandment) and to love others (neighbor, second great commandment). Not sure what theproblem is with this logic, it is scriptural. No one suggested, at least not myself, that loving God is the same as loving others; however, charity is charity no matter the direction.