Anddenex

In this question I am reminded of the verse in Matthew 6: 21, God not only judges us according to our deeds; He also judges us according to our hearts and the intent of our hearts. I believe a person is able to be outwardly active, while inwardly their hearts are far from being active, or near to the Lord. The Zoramites were outwardly active on Sunday and attended their worship service every Sunday, with a loud and vocal prayer. However, as we know in scripture, they then forgot about the Lord throughout the week until Sunday worship again. I am also reminded of the verse in connection to giving with Mosiah 4: 24, As with your husband, duty calls him other places on Sunday, yet within his heart and intents, it appears he is with the Lord. Active. Or in other words he says within his heart, "I would attend each week if my Sundays were open, however they are not open so I cannot attend." I think this sentiment is very different than a person who could attend and chooses not to, or person like the Zoramites who do attend but God is far from their heart.

Unless I misunderstood Mordorbund, I believe "my boss" was the Lord. If the Temple represents the Celestial Kingdom, and the only person who pleads our cause before our Father in Heaven is our Lord and Savior. I interpreted his meaning, as the Lord needs to sign off on my recommend. I could be wrong, but that is the way I understood "boss".

If the woman is not working, and is expected to write out a tithing slip specifying ZERO, seems to me a waste of paper, and a waste of a good tree.

First - Thank you everyone for sharing their thoughts on this subject. I understand this is a sensitive topic and appreciate the sincere posts. Second - Thank you for not making or any assumed presumption regarding my heart and the intention behind this question. Note: I have a few personal experiences with regard to this question, which has sunk me into, for a lack of better words, a low valley concerning this topic. Third - Mordorbund - "my boss has yet to sign my recommend also", but as with everyone else I am hoping myself and my family qualify for that signature also. Thank you.

Yes. In my mind, I was replacing honest with just.

For about two years I have been thinking about this question, and have not come to any good conclusion. Why does our temple recommend ask if we are just (honest in our dealings), when it appears as if it doesn't really matter, as long as we perceive we are just? It is a subjective question, by which, those who aren't just, say they are. Would appreciate any thoughts on the matter.

Indeed it is, indeed it is.

Over the weekend, we had the wonderful visit from a family friend who used to be our neighbors. Our children were the best of friends, and so when they stop by they make sure they visit us for their children. We talked, we laughed, and had great conversation. Yesterday, we received word, our dear friend was received into paradise. Within 24 hours the disease of bacterial meningitis claimed her life, leaving behind her husband, and three beautiful and wonderful children. Her husband was just flying home when he received the news, and was not there at her passing. I can only assume the grief in his heart. Life is so fragile, give your loved ones a hug and tell them you love them. You never know when we will be called back to the God who gave us life.

It is interesting that you mention Elijah who once shared this (1 Kings 19: 12): Recognize where Elijah found the Lord, it was in a still small voice, which correlates with our Doctrine within D&C 8: 2 - 3. Why are our prophets special: 1. They are called by God. 2. They were called in the same manner which Aaron was called in the Old Testament. They were called in the same manner by which Peter, James, and John were called, as with the other apostles. They are given their titles by the Lord as were the apostles of old. 3. We are able to trace our priesthood lineage back to Jesus Christ. I would agree, breaking that love is no small thing. I am not sure how I am speaking that they are the "direct successors" when we know the difference in time periods. What I was saying is that there is no difference between the calling of Elijah, the calling of Jonah, and the calling of Moses in comparison to the calling of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and now President Thomas S. Monson. Yes, I agree, however it is only hard to swallow when you only apply men's knowledge and men's testimony. It becomes much easier to accept the moment the Lord testifies truth unto us. I agree, faith in men is scary, which is why we do not put our trust in men, or in the arm of the flesh, we put our trust in God, and in whom God has called as his prophets and apostles. For example, when the children of Israel were bitten by poisonous snakes, and all they had to do was look at the brazen serpent. The people who put their trust in men, did not look, and walked away and died. The people who trusted in their God, and that Moses was a prophet, looked and were healed. I do not put my trust in men; I put my trust in my creator and in the servants he has called. This is rhetorical, however I think you will see the point, were you there when Elijah called fire from the heavens and consumed the offering? Or might I say the Lord in a different way has accomplished the same task, except in the manner by which his apostles saw Him. There was no fire from heaven when Peter and all the other apostles saw the risen Lord, but he came to them and told them to teach and baptize. In the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith and others have seen our risen Lord. Joseph Smith, in the sacred grove was visited by our Lord, and by our Father in Heaven. It may not be fire, but it is no different than how the Lord appeared to His apostles in the New Testament. Note: I am not trying to convince you of anything, only sharing some thoughts and answering, and to my best ability, your questions. Ultimately, Sabastious, like every other person you will have to trust in God and find out for yourself, and remember as Elijah once said, God was not in the wind, the earthquake, or the fire, but he was in the still small voice. (D&C 8: 2-3). Best, Andrew

Well Pam, you have officially quenched all the mystery and allure of this story, and have placed me in the void of nothing. I will now go to my room and cry! As a brown eyed boy, yes, blue and green eyes were always more attractive to me then brown eyes. Pam, and you would think science would have been in my favor for at least one of our five children to have blue or green eyes, but alas, all our kids have brown eyes.

Eman, I once read an article from Elder Packer, who mentioned how he felt D&C 9: 8-9 has actually made the idea of answer prayers more complicated then it is. He then shared D&C 8: 2 - 3, as an alternative scripture to share with regard to answered prayers, and then use this in connection with D&C 9: 8-9. However, in saying this, your question is also my question. I have not yet understood why, I am able to receive answers to prayers for things which really don't matter. But for things which really matter, like finding a good job, stable job, has eluded me since my graduation from BYU. If you haven't heard about Elder Bednar's book, "Increase in Learning" this is a great book regarding spiritual growth, and one section discusses answered prayers. In one of our Priesthood Leadership training, Elder Snow, was the visiting authority, and said something that humbled me, and at the same time, caused even more confusion, is that we must remember that the aspect of prayer should be so simple that even an 8 year old, newly baptized, should be able to start praying and receive answers, in the same manner and as easily as any adult.

My Senior year in high school, in my English class (Yes, to all who have to suffer through my posts, English should have been a subject I paid attention more to), we had a written assignment where we were provided 4 different scenarios. The instructions of the assignment was that you could not read the next scenario until you actually have finished the first scenario. The last section, explained that you come across a person and asked that we describe the person we saw. As I begin writing, I described a woman around 5'7", blonde hair, and that I could not tell you if her eyes were blue or green, because they constantly transitioned from green to blue. At the end of describing this section, I explained how I realized that this women would be my future wife. I am currently married to a beautiful women who is 5'8", blonde hair, and depending on what she is wearing her eyes transition between blue and green. Not saying this was any spiritual moment, but I find the correlation very interesting.

If the true Church of Jesus Christ, or the true gospel required perfection (without corruption), then there would be no true church on this earth. Even in the Lord's time, the Apostles warned the people of wolves in sheep clothing within the Church. Solomon, who was once considered the wisest of all kings at the time, even fell himself to different forms of corruption. You mention absolute power is absolutely corruptible with all flesh, and I wouldr agree, if our prophets had absolute power, which they do not. There is two people in scripture by which we know who had absolute power given them by the Father. This was Jesus Christ, and Nephi in the Book of Mormon, who was told by God he would have power to do all things, because God knew that he wouldn't abuse the power. Within, our faith, we have a promise, that the Prophet will never lead us astray. There was a talk given regarding Brigham Young who spoke one thing in the morning, and then at night said something to the affect, "I spoke this morning, now the Lord will speak through me" (This is paraphrased quite a bit). When it comes to Bishops, Stake Presidents, and even some General Authorities they are men doing their best to follow the Spirit, but are not always successful, and sometimes the wrong men or woman is called, and they say called by the "Holy Spirit." What you have to recognize is that the presence of corruption, at any level, is not what makes the gospel of Jesus Christ true or not true. It is simply true. If corruption was the reason why something is true verses not true, then the gospel would have failed at the time of Cain. These are great questions, however, if you want to know for yourself if the Church of Jesus Christ is the gospel of Jesus Christ restored, then you must: read, ponder, and then pray and ask God, thus learning for yourself. I would also add fasting. When God confirms the truth, then you can seek for other answers. Skippy, has provided you with some excellent answers, however, both Skippy and I have a witness, by the Holy Spirit, that this is God's true church. After this witness comes, then we seek answers for other things. I say this, because it doesn't matter really what answer we provide if the church is false, although it isn't, but you get my point. If the Church is true, and you gain this testimony for yourself, then as Skippy, myself, and others we exercise faith the promises of the Lord, especially with regard to our Prophet, and how we have a promise from God that he will never allow the Prophet to be corrupt, or God himself in His own way will remove the Prophet from his mantle. This is evident with the story of Balam and the donkey. Ballam (forgetting if this is the right spelling), who was told to bless Israel, however because he had a lust for power and greed, he was going to follow the King instead, and as he was going to curse Israel the Lord had prepared an Angel to smite him. He then changed his course of action and blessed Israel. This is also evident with the story of Jonah, who was a prophet, and commanded of God, when he rebelled out of fear, or whatever he was feeling, the Lord used a big fish to humble him enough to do as He commanded Jonah to do. As a Latter-day Saint, I have no worries regarding the corruption of our prophets and apostles, because I know, as the Lord did with Ballam and Jonah, that He will correct their course, if need be. Great questions! May the Lord bless you in your search, and I am sorry to hear about your abuse as a child, and may, as Alma once said, your soul be comforted in Christ. Best Regards, Andrew

Bini, this is my personal feeling from debating with Athiest, and seeking to understand their hearts. When I have spoken with an Athiest, who specifies this same argument, in their minds they are saying, "Is this God, or just a higher intelligence." An example would be, if you are at all interested in Sci-fy, would be stargate and the ancients. The ancients are a further evolved humanoid species. They have Godlike traits, but are not Gods themselves. Thus, many of them get caught up in the feeling of a God, yet is it really a God or just a more evolved species, race, which according to our minds, have Godlike characteristics. However, in also answering your question, I personally don't feel the two can be separated. If a person feels there is a God, then that person should discover who that God is, logically or intellectually cannot deny their feelings. Another argument presented by Athiesm, is that they don't believe because of "feeling" they believe because of evidence. In this argument, then, yes, the two can be separated by the mere proposal that our feelings do not allows lead to factual or true results. Thus, to an Athiest, a feeling is a whim to be ignored. Evidence, is to be accepted. Thus intellectually they say, "There is no God," but inwardly they feel there could be. It is a never ending circular debate.

I am wondering brother if you are thinking to hard, or to deeply on a simple subject. For example, in our common language, we have been taught since we were young the word antonym. As you are familiar with an antonym is "a word opposite in meaning to another." If we look at the antonyms for joy we discover they are: sadness, sorrow, unhappiness, woe, misery (there maybe other antonyms, or words which are opposite, but these will suffice). You specify, "I'm sure that I, and everyone, can know and enjoy and appreciate happiness without first having been unhappy." This wouldn't be a correct statement. How would a person know if they were happy if they had no knowledge of unhappiness. If happiness and unhappiness are "one body" as the scriptures specify, then no person would be able to distinguish if they were happy or if they were unhappy. You can use the term unhappy, because you know the opposite which is happiness, and this has been a result of either by personal experience or by observation (viewing or experiencing this unhappiness through the life of someone else). "Who came up with the idea that bitterness is the opposite of joy, or sorrow is the opposite of rejoicing?" This is an easy answer, the Lord did. This seems pretty simplistic, have you ever seen a person in sorrow, rejoicing? Have you ever seen a person in deep depression, while they are in their depression, rejoicing? This is a simple gospel logic when you apply faith and doubt. These are opposites and the Lord through his prophets have testified many times, that faith and doubt are not able to occupy a persons mind at the same time. So a person can describe an opposite being two elements which cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Now faith and doubt, occur naturally, however without the proper knowledge and meaning of either words, you or anybody would never know what they were feeling, they would only know that they were feeling. Fruit exists, and some fruit is sweet and some fruit is bitter. However, until a person partakes of the fruit themselves, or by the experience and observation of watching another, you or I would never know which fruit is bitter and which fruit is sweet. The same idea exists for that which is inherently good and which is inherently evil. Both good and evil exist, however, we would never know which is good and which is evil without first being taught, experiencing the good or evil by personal choice or by observing the personal choice of another. 2 Nephi 2: 11 - 25 is the best example of how one doesn't know good, joy, etc... until they experience choice for themselves. Verse 23, is the culmination of the previous verses, "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." Yet, all these things existed while they were in the garden, but could not experience them due to the state of knowledge and mind they were in. It wasn't until Eve partook of something bitter, that they officially knew what joy was compared to misery. So, as you specified, who came up with this---the answer is simple, the Lord within scripture.

Thank you for the review.

However there are three important pillars of truth: the pre-mortal life, earth life, and our immortal life. Or, one might say three chapters in a story book. We first learn in scripture, that all men have been instructed sufficiently the knowledge between good and evil. "And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever." (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi, Chapter 2) When did this teaching occur? It would only make sense in the pre-mortal existence, because not all receive the same teaching and instruction of good and evil in this life. It is also declared that all of God's children are provided with the "light of Christ", which allows all men to know good and from evil. This initially puts all of God's children on the same playing field. Earth life, however, has provided a different playing field, not because it isn't fair, otherwise God would be a partial God and a respector of persons. We know that God is not a respector of persons, thus even this playing field, however it may seem to us, is still fair and just. One thing to remember, is that it is not that we are good that saves us, it is through the merits and mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ that all, or those who choose to be saved, will be saved. I know of an individual who shared with me the reasons he was born out of the church was so that he could gain the necessary experiences in this life to be ready and accepting when the gospel was preached to him. Another thing, it is my belief that some of God's children are placed outside of the gospel so that they can open the way for the gosepl to be preached. I would not be surprised if the Russian leader who brought down communism in Russia, was one of these brothers. If this was his call, then I see no reason why salvation would be denied him. However, he still would have to receive the gospel, whether it was preached in this life, or in the next life. The final chapter is immortal life, which also constitutes those spirits who are taught in prison, and provided the opportunity to gain Salvation. These three pillars of truth place all of God's children on the same playing field. If your good neighbors, do not accept the gospel whether in this life or in the next, then "no" they would not be in the same standing or favor of God, not because God is unfair or unjust, but because they chose not to accept it. To judge the Lord's plan from reading one chapter, or one book in a triology isn't going to provide the whole picture. I definitely agree with you, far too many members, probably myself at times, like to stand on the towers and proclaim our favor while doing nothing to help others. Your thoughts and questions are definitely important to ponder.

Before I touch on this quote, I would like to say, "I second what Skippy shared." Now, in providing some thoughts by which you may want to ponder, if you think it is noteworthy. First, it was never intended by God that a "small group of His children" would be offered salvation. If Adam's children from the beginning of time would have kept the commandments, followed God's counsel, and lived faithful lives --- all of God's children would be under one umbrella, this umbrella being as Christ said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Second, as a result of our agency, God will not force any child to come unto Him. Unfortunately, as a result of our agency, children tend to be sufferers of a parents agency. An example, would be members who have left. Due to our agency, scriptures have shown that men are prone to have "itching ears", or to seek after doctrine which pleases them, as with Korihor, Nehor, etc... I believe, the children, of those who have had parents who have rebelled, will experience greater mercy, than the parents who originally rebelled (e.g. Cain and his offspring). This is evidenced in the Book of Mormon when the Nephites are high and mighty and the Lord says to them, that their skins will be whiter than theirs because their faults are due to the choice of their parents. With this mercy, I am positive, this also fulfills the idea that God doesn't just save a small portion of His children. Third, as a result of men's choice, many religions have resulted. In order to keep within the bounds of faith, God provides servants, prophets, to teach and bring children back into the fold. This will allow all the children of God to have opportunity to hear and know the gospel via their experience or through proxy as within the temple. Finally, missionary work, imagine if we all listened to the counsel of David O. McKay, "Every member a missionary" and actually sought out the elect as we did on our missions. If every member desired this, seeking the elect (Note: on my mission when we found an elect, even through knocking doors, it was usually 2-3 months before they were baptized, but surely within a year. Our membership is around 13 million, let's speculate about 3 million adults. If each member brought in 1 person a year, after 4 years we would at 24 million members. Give that another four years (assuming 6 million adults), then we would be at 48 million members, give it another 4 years (9 million adults), the church would be at 84 million, and so on. Thus I would say, that the blessing isn't to a "small group" of people, but is for all, however, God will not interfere with our agency to head or disobey His counsel. Great question.

I find this verse in the Book of Mormon intriguing, and still have been seeking to fully comprehend aspects within it, 2 Nephi 11: 7: "For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

In this situation I am always reminded of Joseph Smith's words, "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves." This is a perfect example by the church of teaching correct principles and letting us govern ourselves. In correlation with the principle of violence we are taught in the 13th Article of Faith "if there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." I also recognize, that we are continually learning as a people and as individuals, and what you might accept now as OK, you may no longer think is OK as you grow in the gospel, serve a mission. As well, what you may think is not OK now, you may switch your perspective and feel it is OK. As Vort said, "This situation is a perfect example of when you need to use that gift. The Holy Ghost can and will tell you all things if you learn to listen."

I fully agree with the principle of this statement. I don't see how this answers that no one was less valiant in the pre-mortal life. Many called but few are chosen, has been connected to a person's choice to listen to the spirit of the Lord. It is also specified that one aspect of them not being chosen is a person's desire for the honor's of men. We know that the honor's of men, desiring glory for oneself instead of glorifying God, was exhibited by Satan in the council of heaven. In my minds eye, the ability to "earn" represents a person being more valiant than another. I would agree, I definitely don't know how it all worked out, and it doesn't bother me if a person was more valiant than I. I am assuming "they" means Father, and I would agree we definitely know they were not infallible. No disagreement here. Interesting, my patriarchal blessing tells me nothing regarding my place in the pre-mortal life. The idea presented "you weren't valiant enough in heaven" doesn't negate that others were more valiant, it only specifies that the individual was valiant enough, and I would agree. I couldn't agree more that God can choose whom He wants to fulfill His purpose. In connection to pride, which comes before falls, if this being a choice, then a person who exhibited less pride, and more obedience and faithfulness, would (at least to me) specify someone is/was more valiant. This is where I am not bothered by someone having a higher standing before the Lord than me, and I would put people in a higher standing than I. In my mind's eye, I definitely see President Monson having a higher standing than I do. I would say the same for all the prophets. I am not bothered, because I know they have made better decisions in this life than I have, however, as we all work out our own salvation, I definitely can reach the same standing as they have with God, at which I do not now enjoy at this time. I couldn't agree more, and thank you for responding and providing some points to ponder.

Now this is very interesting and have wondered why people think this is such. I would say that there is doctrine that people were less valiant in the pre-mortal life, when reading Abraham 3: 22-25. How would God choose among some, to be leaders, if there was no body more valiant than anybody else? Why are leaders chosen? Character? Obedience? Knowledge? Goodness? We know that the Lord saw these souls as good? If all were the same, none more good than others, why would the Lord specify that they were good? I would also say, Jesus, was more valiant than me when abiding his father's and our father's will. The idea, within Kolob, one star being closer and above other stars also represents people who can be more intelligent, or even more valiant (unless a person only interprets this aspect pertaining to our earth life) I would also venture to say, that the third part which left and rebelled were less valiant in the cause and plan God provided his children, than those who chose to continue in the right path. Your statement, is made as one of authority and one with knowledge, thus I would be curious to your answer with regard to the scriptures I have shared, and why you feel, "[you] know that there is no doctrine regarding anyone being "less valiant" in the pre-existence" Thank you in advance.

It appears you may have misinterpreted what Dove was expressing. If what Dove said is literally true, then it is the reason why Paradise can occur. The opposite of Paradise is Spirit Prison or hell. A person will not be fully capable of experiencing paradise unless they have knowledge of the lack of paradise. The depth at which we understand Paradise, will also allows us the understanding of its opposite. It can be said vice-versa as well, the depth at which we have comprehended hell, will also up us to understand the literal joy in Paradise. I wish you the best in your pursuit to accept God's will, and would add, then make sure you seek the gift of Charity. The gift of Charity, is the primary element to fully accepting God's will in all we do, say, and experience. The greater our charity the greater our capacity accept God's will. Charity, the pure love of Christ, and Christ did all that God commanded and endured all that God saw fit Jesus should endure.

I am not sure why anybody would consider this to be a negative outlook, when it is pretty cut and dry. It is doctrinally true that without opposites we would not have become like God, knowing good and evil. This stands for joy and sorrow, life and death. Without the knowledge of the opposite it is literally impossible to know either. This is confirmed by 2 Nephi 2: 11 - 12, when it refers to "one body".f One of my favorite quotes when understanding opposites said, "If you want to know what something is, then you must know what it is not." Once we understand what joy is not, its opposite, then we can more fully comprehend what it is. How is a person able to distinguish joy or sorrow when they are "one body"? Thus, I don't see how anybody could possibly say it is a negative outlook when you are only explaining factual history within the Bible and other servants lives. Thank you for the thoughts.

Ok, I understand your thoughts, and I see where we interpreted the meaning of "relationship" differently. Yes, I would agree that the only relationship in how you have explained it would be genetics. I understood the question, or relationship, meaning if a child has been switched at birth, then will that child continue with the parents who raised him/her or with the family that he/she was sealed to in the first place. I would then go back to my original assertion, that it would be left up to the child, due to the importance of agency. In this sense, I would agree with Vort, who said, as a Father I would want my child back (paraphrased quit a bit), however, although I would want my child back, I would also recognize this child had no relationship with me, and I would not inhibit the desire to remain with the family he/she had a relationship with.