Anddenex

What part of his talk made you feel this way?

We are in agreement, and this is also why I love the teaching in the Book of Mormon where we are counseled to be bold but not overbearing, and it is in some ways a fine line between the two. True boldness keeps intact the core doctrine of agency. We know there is agency when (2 Nephi 2: 16) an individual is still able to "act for themselves" because they are able to be enticed by one (truth spoken in plainness or boldness) or the other (the opposite error). To speak with plainness (which is often to be bold) is also a show of greater love. This is one witness to me that these individuals "love" Christ because they speak his truth in plainness of speech (boldness). They are willing, like Christ, to bear their crosses and to receive shame for his name. We know Christ's love is perfect. We know that when he spoke in plain terms (not in parables for a good reason) that some of his disciples were no longer disciples because it was too hard to hear. It cut too deep.

This post reminds me of a recent Instagram post I scrolled into. The individual was a member of the Church who said, paraphrased, "I'm a member of the Church who stays in the Church and seeks to change it from within to be more inclusive." This follows the thought provided, "We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church." I'm, very much, in agreement with the idea and concepts being shared. This is definitely happening in the Church today. I'm pretty sure someone posted here a while -- a while -- back sharing a video from some movie, episode, or podcast where the individual said, "I can do more damage to the Church by staying in the Church..." President Nelson's quote regarding having the Spirit with us is the only that we will make it through these last days before Christ comes as strong followers/disciples of Jesus Christ. The purpose of the Spirit is to bear witness of truth, and to help us see things as they really are. @MrShorty "Perhaps Goff is wrong and maybe the church will figure out how to keep people together in spite of such a divisive issue." As to the following thought here, the Church already figured this out. The answer is Jesus Christ. If a person truly believes in Christ and His Church, the focus will be upon Christ and building up the Kingdom of God/Zion. Those who focus on this will be able to work together in peace and harmony -- despite their difference of thoughts and opinions (because these individuals will wait patiently on the Lord and how he moves His Church). This notion extends both ways on the spectrum -- far right and far left. We have been counseled and taught to avoid any and all "religious hobbies." Religious hobbies is one of the easiest ways for the adversary to gain control and place into the heart of individuals to follow forbidden paths. When any individual places any idea, any action, any decision above the Lord and His Church then they (the individual(s)) will choose to separate themselves from the Lord and His Church. The doctrine is very very clear on many things (the easiest one is marriage), and yet we have members who seek to blur the clarity, and place their thoughts, their decisions, their life choices above the Lord and His Church. This brings up the notion provided by Jacob in the Book of Mormon, "they despised the words of plainness." And we have that happening in our day -- words of plainness being despised by members of the Church such that they seek to change it and are angry with it.

This is a great question to ponder for oneself. We are instructed by the Lord to become as he is. What manner of man/woman ought we to be --> even as he is. He is the prime example of what it means to become like the Father. When I think of the Savior I would think of "Good Shepherd". He is the Good Shepherd, especially from our purview, our vantage point. However, if we look at the relationship between the Father and Son, he is exactly the metaphor of a lamb/sheep. He knows his Father's voice. How do we know we are the Lords sheep --> we hear his voice and know who he is. In relationship to my Savior, I am a sheep. I at least would like to identify as a sheep, but may at times be a goat. In relation to discipleship, as with the Lord, I'm called to be a shepherd. It really depends on what I'm doing as to how I would identify myself with either symbol. The same would go with the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. I'm both, neither one would define me. The Savior was both a sheep and a shepherd. But from our purview he is the Good Shepherd, so always my Shepherd never a sheep symbol.

This is a situation, one of those pickles, where the Church is put in a bad position either way -- my opinion. The Church is taking a proactive stance it appears (if this is all reality). If the Church didn't take a proactive stance, and then these accusations are true could you imagine how many ex-members and antis would come out and use this as more evidence as to why they have left, "You see, <insert finger of scorn>." And then you have the opposite side, "I can't believe the Church didn't back him up...<insert finger of scorn>." I think we are going to see the Church, more often than not, take the proactive stance for what appears to be better. Awkwardly backing a sexual predator to the end, until they find out he actually is, or take a proactive stance to back away. At the same time, I feel for any individual who is being targeted by our modern social and news media. @Just_A_Guy --> I have wondered the same thing in this type of scenario, and you give evidence to confirm my thoughts. I knew of individuals who were undercover with drug rings. There were certain crowds where they had to take the drug in order to get further into the ring to find the head of the ring. I think in some ways finding the sexual predator rings might even be more disturbing (at least ones like shown in the movie). When I watched the movie Sound of Freedom it caused me to ponder even more what these undercover rings might do in order to track down these predators while keeping themselves from getting killed. Can a person truly come unscathed from this type of situation and hostile environment when undercover?

Any question like this will always bring me to the following verses of scripture: 1. Abraham 1:2 --> knowledge then obedience, then more knowledge and more obedience 2. 1 Nephi 10: 17, 19 --> hearing the word as given by one who has the Spirit of the Lord with them In both scriptures, the common themes are: 1. Hearing the word taught by someone with the Spirit 2. Desire by the one hearing 3. Acting according to the desire to learn more 4. Becoming --> Feeling the witness from the Spirit yourself, and then start the process over with desire to learn more. Yes, knowledge through our independent search and study is definitely different than improvements that come from trial. The knowledge and understanding Job gained through his experiences is very different than reading about Job's experiences and learning from them. Our trials however highlight what we know verses what we don't know. Our trials our evidence of our faith during them. The knowledge gained is the fruit we have yet to know/experience. They definitely hit differently, and the knowledge gained through suffering is in some ways more sweet than simply learning through study.

I'm not sure I would say I fear, but I definitely am cautious about counseling and therapy. The reason is due to my college experience and degree (Major: Marriage, Family, and Human Development; Minor: Psychology). One class really opened my mind regarding this caution, and the counsel and guidance of some therapies that people would be willing to participate in and perform on children. Because it was under the umbrella of "science," and there was "research" behind it -- it was accepted an practiced. This made it very clear how important it was to be "wise" when considering a counselor/therapist and the methods they accepted as good and wholesome. Jacob's counsel/teaching is relevant in this area, "O be wise, what can I say more."

Tattoos are evidence that the natural man is alive and well in all of us. I have only heard of one good reason where a tattoo (culture isn't one of them) seemed reasonable. In college I met a lady who had a lot of surgeries, due to genetics. Her body was riddled with scars. In order to cover up those scars a tattoo was created out of them. What is it with human nature that we tend to disregard counsel so easily, and find every and any reason to make our choice to appear as the outlier that someday God will accept and that we won't need to repent of -- despite the clear audible counsel?

This is a difficult question because everything we receive is technically a "gift" from God through the grace of Jesus Christ. I would like to think there is a difference between the "gifts of the Spirit," and personality gifts -- although both are gifts. I think PC provided a good distinction to this discussion regarding the "gift" and the "fruits" of the gift. That seems to make more sense to me. There is the "tree" and there is the "result" (fruit) of the tree. Someone who has been blessed (a gift) with more charity will ultimately show the fruits of Charity more than another person who will need to pray a little harder for this gift. Determining where that distinction separates the two is more difficult, and yet the Lord specifically in the past and reiterates in our day to specifically seek out the "gifts" of the Spirit. One thing for certain is that the gift of the Spirit requires an increase of the Spirit in our lives to be received. A person doesn't grow in faith without an increase of the Spirit in their lives. Someone doesn't increase in Charity without an increase of the Spirit in their lives. In contrast, an Atheist who doesn't seek nor believe in the Spirit can increase in knowledge (worldly), but not have an increase in the gift of knowledge as given by the Spirit. I have watched them increase in worldly love, but not Godly love -- Charity.

Welcome @Dylan, rather than saying the same thing I will just say what is said above is accurate and true. Does your friend have rights to be disappointed. Sure thing. Do we have rights to force our beliefs, or way of thinking on others, no. As I specified above, I attended a private Christian school when I was younger. One of the greatest blessings in my life was one of the teachers from that school. When the Lord says, as through his prophets, that when we look back what we thought were coincidences may not be coincidences after all -- this is the way I feel about this teacher. He started at the school the same time I did, and left the school the same time I did. I thoroughly believe this was directed by the Lord. I participated in all the events, even on Ash Wednesday, having the cross of ash placed on my forehead. We want to enjoy the same freedoms and respect for our beliefs. In that light, let us give them the same privileges, freedoms, and rights we also would expect.

In all things in the Gospel, our example (perfect example) is Christ. When I think of worship I think of Christ's life -- the pure love of Chirst. The pure love of Christ (Charity) glorified the Father in all he said and did. God wants our LOVE. The evidence is given in the conversation between the Lord and Enoch when Enoch realized God can weep for the workmanship of his hands and their disregard for filial piety. This verse in the conversation explains what the Father means by worship, which Jesus Christ offered in totality to the Father and as asked us/invited us to do the same (what manner of man aught you to be....), "And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father..."

Eve's decision without Adam's would have simply resulted in Eve's death -- there would have been no offspring -- and she would not have received the title "Mother of All Living". Adam's decision is why the verse of scripture specifies "Adam fell that men might be." Thus the fall is attributed to Adam which resulted in -- us -- offspring. Adam also "chose" to fall -- symbolic of Christ who chose death that we all might live. Or better said here, "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Mortality -- Adam chose death so that we might be -- live. Spiritually -- Christ chose death so that we might be (exalted) -- eternal life. In the same sense though, Eve's decision was also death (like Adam), but it was made by herself, and would have resulted solely in her death -- no offspring -- without Adam. Thus Adam is attributed with the Fall because his decision was that man might be.

I like the notion of the four "beginnings" you provided: God's mind, covenant, spiritual creation, and mortal (physical) creation. I think "in the beginning" is multifaceted. When it comes to "God" -- who are "one" -- I think the term even increases its depth of meaning. We know there are many beginnings even in our own lives. In the beginning of my life (birth). In the beginning of my learning and understanding (could mean pre-mortal or mortal schooling). At the beginnings sheds a different point of view, for at is within "in" the beginning (at is specifying a singular point in time). In the beginning of my first schooling, and also at the beginning of high school. In this case I have multiple beginnings also. In the beginning of my adult life (18, 19, marriage?). The arching "in the beginning" for me is our spiritual creation. There are many theories surrounding this, and at this point I am more inclined to follow how I interpreted Joseph Fielding Smith's idea of spiritual creation within the Doctrine's of Salvation. At that point, any other beginning would be an "at" but can also be represented through "in" as given above in the examples shared. I haven't had any specific spiritual experience, but I find the main beginning is our spiritual creation and learning. Once we reached a specific point where we could only progress further via mortal experience, I believe that is the next beginning referred which you highlight (from what I can see) as the covenant. Where the sons of God gathered in a solemn assembly and Satan and Jesus were there and Jesus was chosen and Satan rebelled. I also think in the beginning is harder also, because we are trying to understand time with regards to a God where time seems to be according to events. Much like what I would hear from older generations -- we'll see you in the Spring. Whether that meant at the beginning or the end, the family would wait patiently for the family to see them in the Spring, but there was no "exact" time -- it was when it occurred no later and no sooner. Much like how Joseph Smith described or stated regarding the Savior's second coming, He will come no later or sooner than he comes (paraphrased mightily).

Yep, this is something I don't appreciate either -- keeping information that would be beneficial for the youth (even if the adults don't like it).

As a result of the Fall we are -- all -- lost and fallen, and will in turn be subject to and answer the ends of the law. The first law of heaven is obedience. The second law is sacrifice. The law of sacrifice (the Lord, Jesus Christ's Atonement) was given due to the law of obedience being rejected/broken. Because we have broken the first law (obedience) we must answer its ends -- physical and spiritual death. The Atonement (the law of sacrifice) is the only measure -- outside of ourselves -- that can properly answer the ends of the law (physical and spiritual death) if we have broken the first law of obedience. The ends of the law is the natural order of justice and mercy. Without the ends of the law there can be no justice or mercy. In that light, it appears there are two ends of the law. The one where people will answer for their own sins (so to speak -- 1000 years as in scripture), and the ends of the law through the Atonement. I would then agree (I would also add mercy) is essentially blessing for obedience and punishment for disobedience.

In my honest opinion, I think the "Commitment Patter" within Church membership is like hearing in Elders Quorum, "Its the end of the month, please do your home teaching." Sadly, even with the change to ministering we still here this type of speech. We don't learn very well, and tradition is very hard to break. Case in point, let the youth lead out, and yet every week the youth are being told what to do. There is no plan by the youth (and the Church has been teaching this for many years now). We all know the Commitment Pattern. We all know when it is being used. When we know something, and it isn't something we want to do, then it is very well within the natural man to push back. I'm not convinced this will change because people -- in general -- aren't aware of it. This pattern though happens in all forms and walks of life (especially sales jobs). This brings up the conversation between force and invitation. I know of a member family who felt like missionary work was forcing the gospel on people, thus their younger children never served a mission. I would love to see a more principle based commitment, and yet, without an invitation (or some pattern of commitment nothing will progress).

Welcome Maverick. If you are interested in last day timelines an early Church Ensign highlights some events that will take place in Jerusalem before the Lord comes. I'm having a hard time finding it right now, but it's one of the articles between 1971-1977.

I would say Elder Ballard was accurate. I would also say, we have moved from the subtle intelligent evil in some areas, and while in other areas intelligent evil is still subtle. If the report is accurate, the young father who received a restraining order due to the girlfriend dressing their son up as a girl is evidence of intelligent evil being more blatant. This is a disgrace to the human race. A child is not old enough to smoke. A child is not old enough to do many things, but a life altering drugs and potential surgery -- old enough. EDIT: The father seeking to protect his son is the one with the restraining order, now their is some irony and blatant evil.

Yes, yes indeed. With one as studied as yourself, I will always play the scripture card. 😁 I was first taught Adam and Eve's marriage by G.A. on my mission, and at that time coming from a G.A. I automatically assumed it was right. It wasn't until reading the following manual from the Church that it seemed to be a proper teaching. This particular statement, "Adam and Eve were married by God before there was any death in the world. They had an eternal marriage. They taught the law of eternal marriage to their children and their children’s children." In a different manual from the Church, we can read the following from Joseph Fielding Smith, "President Joseph Fielding Smith taught: “Marriage as established in the beginning was an eternal covenant. The first man and the first woman were not married until death should part them, for at that time death had not come into the world. The ceremony on that occasion was performed by the Eternal Father himself whose work endures forever. It is the will of the Lord that all marriages should be of like character, and in becoming ‘one flesh’ the man and the woman are to continue in the married status, according to the Lord’s plan, throughout all eternity as well as in this mortal life” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie [1955], 2:71)." You are correct though, we don't have any scripture that specifically says they were married in the Garden of Eden -- sealed; although, it seems more likely that this was done at this time. They were having children. They were married. Who married them? If the interpretation of scripture, as taught in Church manuals, is accurate then their marriage was a sealing covenant and any child then born to them would have been born under the covenant. I'm open though to what is true. This is why I was wanting to know the scriptures used to purport the idea of the sealing later and that Cain and Abel were the first under such. If that is the truth, then that is the truth.

This is all very interesting, but it doesn't negate what is already understood as the basis of being born under the covenant, which is eternal parentage. The sealing, marriage, is done by covenant. Adam and Eve's marriage was done by God, an eternal covenant providing all offspring they have to be born under the covenant -- or having an eternal parentage. If Adam and Eve weren't sealed by God, which is exactly what God did when he married them, then I would say this argument has some validity other than that I don't see any merit to it -- at this point. Thank you (Vort and laronius) for the additional insight to why you feel this is plausible. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/tools/help/children-who-are-born-in-the-covenant-bic?lang=eng EDIT: I think for me I would have to have someone use scripture to explain how Adam and Eve's sealing by God wasn't a covenant, and how it would bear no weight for eternal parentage to Adam and Eve's offspring until some mortal covenant was made. The covenant in the Garden of Eden would have just as much weight then, prior to mortality, and during mortality.

Intriguing theory, and I would be curious as to what scriptures they are using to substantiate this theory. I don't see any way this would be plausible. Adam and Eve were married by God. Their covenants began before they had children. All their children were already born under the covenant as Adam and Eve were sealed as husband and wife. It's the sealing that causes us to be born under the covenant. I would be more curious as to what they then defined as "under the covenant."

Wow! Good for you and your local authorities for making the hard right choice.

Sister Shelia -- No. Sheila -- Yes. Shelia isn't a "sister". The name change doesn't change the biological sex and eternal gender of the individual. "Sister" Shelia does, and Satan rejoices in such loving support that will confuse children and potentially cause (which already has) them to commit sin they would have never without cultural acceptance.

Might be, I don't remember hearing about this although it wouldn't surprise me if it is the same ward.

I understand completely; however, I think it really depends on the ward and the bishop. I know of a ward in Utah, with a lot of BYU professors that is very LGBTQ activist. My ward is very Church supported when it comes to this doctrine with a few members who (I'm being as kind as possible) are misguided. They have inverted the two great commandments. In light of this, I would all the more say Family centered gospel teaching is more important now than any other time since the beginning of the restoration. I have a brother-in-law who is gay. We love him. We open our arms to him; however, he also knows very well where we stand. We have never shied our kids from him - no way. We have taught and been very clear (at least I thought my wife and I were "VERY" clear until my oldest son one day a few years back said, "I had no clue he was gay" -- Doh! Needless to say, it shows how an eight year old, a ten year old, and a 14 year truly listen to their parents -- lol) with regards to the Savior's teachings. But once he knew and understood his love for his uncle never changed, because it is what has been taught. His love for the Savior and his way, his truth, and light also didn't change just because he has an uncle who is gay. If the Church ward is not supportive it can be very hard because we are now coming to the time where because something is "culturally accepted" now it will occur culturally rather than a proclivity. I have seen this in mine own family also. Let me provide an experience with a high school friend. In high school she had moral standards. Virgin all the way through high school and first year of college (not a member of the Church but her best friends were). Once her member friends went to different schools and missions, after my other friends mission she went to see this friend and the change was drastic. Not only was she sleeping around she had multiple encounters with same-sex (which she was against) intimacy. My friend, who was the closest to her asked her what changed? Her response, "It's just what you do in college." We are now seeing this among members of the Church where the doctrine of Christ is not supported in the wards -- the laughs of the adversary in the background. As such, we need to be more vigilant and proactive in our teachings and more aware (as far as we can) as to what they are learning. I could go on with regards to this ward in Provo, but it would lead to too much privacy being revealed.