Anddenex

This is the first time I have ever heard of him, so I wouldn't be of much help. What makes you uncomfortable about his description of Zion?

There are two main components to understanding the importance of love, and how love is increased in our hearts and mind: 1) Pray for the gift of charity (this is by far the main way love will increase) as it is a gift from God. 2) Overcome enmity, which can only be accomplished by a broken heart and contrite spirit. For me, the hardest B-attitude is to bless them that curse you, or speak evil of you. That requires a selfless attitude, where truly one is not seeking his own. And that isn't me yet.

This appears to be a very large stretch of scripture. Here is more likely the reading, "And I, God, created whales which the waters brought forth abundantly...." The "and" is simply a statement specifying an additional clause for God created great whales (and every living creature that moves on the planet). It is not saying every living creature came forth from the water.

I would say "great stuff" is definitely a personal interpretation.

Sadly, I think you are correct. Sad times, and sad decisions being made throughout our country. This is evidence of one.

My initial thought, when I first read this, was exactly what @Vort and others have mentioned because the quote is overly simplistic regarding something that isn't simplistic -- morality -- as it tries to portray that if a person or thing originates anything it can not be problematic to anyone. The verses denies the overall truth, "Some call good evil and evil good." (which may be why this friend also tried to disprove this verse of scripture) As I read the quote and pondered it a bit, I found the simplicity of the quote to be accurate and logical; however, this is due to the light of Christ within me and the knowledge I have of God's plan. God is the author of religion, not man. There isn't anything problematic with Him. Any problems assigned to God, or his religion is the fault of man, not God nor morality. So I find the quote to be as @Scott said to be true. At its core, this is correct. As there is nothing problematic with God who is morally perfect. Sadly the evidence to that is after death for many. There will be many who cursed God, many who belittled God, who will after death bend their knee to worship and praise Him and exclaim thy ways are just (moral)! They will finally see things as they really are. The response to this quote from atheists is typically "Morality is the result of human evolution as we grew into societies..." There is even a problem with this, ironic maybe, because the quote negates morality as a result of human evolution into societies. Let's change the quote a tad, "There's a simple argument that shows that morality doesn't originate [with human evolution into societies]: If it did, we wouldn't find anything [with human societies] to be morally problematic." Viola! Here are items that are missed in the simplicity of the quote ( @Carborendum pointed out a major flaw): 1 > "Just because we know some things as a child doesn't mean we don't learn more as we grow and mature." The quote disregards human fallibility and our limited knowledge. If a person with limited knowledge sees something as problematic does this mean what is professing to originate morals is now false? No. As we obtain more knowledge and understanding, what we previously saw as problematic may no longer be problematic (or as scripture specifies we begin to see things "as they really are). 2 > Human fallibility. If the original Church, religion, taught things as they really are and people disregarded the teachings and created their own religion, does this falsify the original? No. To judge all religion, all truth, by counterfeits is also irrational and illogical. This coincides with #1 human knowledge and how our knowledge is continually increasing. This is pretty much what @Moonbeast32 said. True religion is moral. False religion will incorporate false principles and truth thus making it immoral. 3 > EDIT > Yes, what Carb mentioned, a false dichotomy, all or nothing from humans with limited knowledge and understanding of things as they really are. Thanks for the thoughts. I wanted to hear how others would respond to this type of quote.

That is a valid point.

Thank you. That is a good point. I did not see the dichotomy either until you mentioned it. I am used to options provided with a false dichotomy. Your thoughts are apart why I think the quote isn't fully accurate -- to simplistic.

Love it. I think this is a crux of this simplistic quote.

Thank you. I would agree.

I think you and I will have some similar thoughts.

I would also agree. I think the quote is too simplistic, and creates a fallacy by itself. I will share further in my explanation providing my thoughts over this quote.

Overtly, I actually would say the quote is true (face value). My argument though wouldn't be for God creating man's way of thinking that and thus we are all religious. The quote doesn't accurately ascribe the difference between imperfect knowledge (which finds things problematic) and a perfect knowledge. I will clarify my thoughts in my post that isn't responding to others thoughts.

My wife has long legs, and finding shorts has been very difficult for her, which is why she rarely wears shorts (can't find them so easily). She likes capris. But now she mostly wears jeans and workout pants. I think @anatess2 provided a good principle to follow.

Correct, have we seen in scripture divine inspiration received and the person reject that inspiration or choose their own thoughts? Yes we have. Examples: Jonah leaving and taking a boat despite inspiration. The lost 116 pages of manuscripts. Agency is never removed with inspiration from God. I am unsure where you would say it is. That is what I said, "Texts have the meaning that was given by the person who wrote it. This is why we need the Spirit to understand." Moot to argue this anymore. Nope. I don't bring myself to acknowledge what maklelan is teaching. There is a difference, do you see it? (Note, I am using now the same tone you are using) No, it doesn't. This is your assumption, you just can't bring yourself to admit it. You see what I did there? Christ is the exception. He proved perfection was possible. I don't need to imagine. I have proof in Christ's life. I don't see any further need to continue with you, as your tone is changing. Have a wonderful day.

God's inspiration doesn't remove agency, in no way. We will continue to disagree. No need to further discuss this. This isn't correct. Texts have the meaning that was given by the person who wrote it. This is why we need the Spirit to understand. If a person loved the Father liked the Son (Jesus Christ) loved the Father, then yes. Are there people on earth who are keeping commandments without sin? If they loved God like the Son (Jesus Christ) loved God, yes. If not, then no. I am not suggesting. That is a truth. If we loved God, as Christ loved God, we would be perfect also. The sad part, is we don't, which is why we sin, and thus a Savior was provided. Thus, if we sin, our perfection is in Him. Christ proved to all of us that perfection was possible, but we have chosen, ourselves, to sin. That's fine. No worries.

Thank you for all the shared thoughts thus far. I will share my thoughts later.

I am going to say you read too quickly the points. Option #2, read it again, it obviously shows Joseph's agency potentially playing a role. Your statements here are confirming that you are conflating perfection with giving it your all and total effort. Now it looks like your exaggerating. Again, total effort or giving it your all, doesn't mean that 100% percent of the time you are 100% of the time giving total effort. There is a thing called "rest", "take a break," slow down for a moment. We have scripture that concludes this point: "And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order." I believe in what the scriptures teach, not what a human wants the scriptures to mean. I believe in what prophets have taught and continue to teach. I don't believe God gives us commandments that are impossible to keep, that would be unjust. Without fail? Repentance is a commandment, is it not? There is a difference between thinking a commandment is impossible, and that all things are possible with God. Despite God giving commandments that are possible, he knew we would not keep them, and thus a Savior was provided. Christ proved that we can be absolutely and entirely obedient in all things without fail. Sadly, we do not love the Father as much as the Son (Jesus Christ) loved his Father. Yes, all we have to do is read the verses after verse 23, and we recognize the purpose of the laws given and the deadness of the laws. As we are alive in Christ, through repentance. Did, I mention repentance wasn't necessary. I think I was pretty clear with the verses I shared in my first post regarding repentance (particularly Moses 6:60).a None of us have shown this, doesn't mean none of us could have if we had loved God as much as Christ loved God. This is the statement I was referring to as given by you (emphasis mine), "The whole point is that the phrase "after all we can do" in 2 Nephi 25:23 has to be understood to mean "despite all we can do," and cannot mean "once we have have done all we can do." When someone uses the term "has to be understood to mean" it sure doesn't sound like their are other options for interpretation. Unless, I am misunderstanding what you mean by "has to be..."

I would tend to accept what is written over theories as to why it was written the way it was. I believe Joseph Smith pointed out the age of Adam is wrong due to Methuselah's age being older than Adam, and Adam is the ancient of days. Also, what if the ages aren't exact, but close to, in order to create the symbolic meaning behind them as well. Example, if someone wanted to specify (hypothetical) one more year. My exact age would be 44, but in their desire for symbolism (as I am in my 45th year) they say I was 45.

I am not sure it really is that complex. We have at least three options: 1) Nephi and Mosiah used their own words. Their words were written hundreds of years before Luke. 2) When translating, Joseph (as inspired by God) used language he was familiar with. 3) Nephi and Mosiah were shown hundreds of years into the future and were able to see Luke preach and thus use his words in their writings. Could there be more options, I assume so, but not likely. Option #1 and #2 are more likely. I'm not exaggerating, I am accepting the total effort a person can give according to their talent. It appears, I could be wrong, you are conflating perfection with total effort. Haven't you heard coaches (a leader) and others say about a player (any talent), "Man, he/she really gave his/her all today." It is a figure of speech that a person went all out, even if but for a short time. No one believes for a moment when we make the statement, "That person gave us his all," that it was done with perfection and that the person is therefore perfect. The verse of scripture doesn't equate "total effort" with perfection, and I don't believe the Bible Dictionary is equating perfection with total effort either. This is again where we would disagree. Does God give commands that are impossible? I don't think so, scriptures appear to be quite clear that God doesn't provide any commandment that is impossible. If you want to believe a commandment from the Lord is impossible, I assume that is your choice. It appears your definition of "ALL" is perfection. I don't read total effort or our whole souls as perfection. Imperfect people are able to give their ALL according to their individual gifts and talents. Grace is activated according to conditions, it is a blessing predicated upon laws. Plus I am not the one stating we need to give our all for Christ's grace, Moroni is pretty clear on that point (emphasis mine): "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God." Do you then feel that the first great commandment is also impossible to achieve and follow? (emphasis mine) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Especially in light of scripture (emphasis mine), "And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. Is God really telling us, giving us commands, that are impossible? Would that make him a liar then, or unjust? .......... To be clear, I believe the concept of "despite all we can do" is a necessary truth to understand; however, if we only accept one interpretation or one meaning (as it is the ONLY way it can be interpreted) we are missing out on further light and knowledge.

A little confusion hear. Nephi's word were written long before Luke 17: 10 was written. Mosiah was also written long before Luke 17:10. I am not sure how either of these "comes from" the New Testament. Are you referring to the concept in translation (if I am remembering correctly) how translators would use their current language and understanding to assist with translation? This is where we would find disagreement. As a basketball player, I have had the opportunity to teach youth basketball. It is quite easy to confirm and view who is giving "total effort" when practicing, dribbling, shooting, etc... It is also easy to recognize who is haphazardly practicing, shooting, dribbling, etc... Total effort is totally accessible, and is recognizable. Total effort is also unique to each individual's talents and gifts. If total effort is inaccessible, then we would have to ponder why the word of God informs us to, "Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him..." If total effort is inaccessible how then are we to offer our "whole souls" as an offering? A command that it entirely impossible. True, Moses 6: 60 is very symbolic and fully of truth and knowledge. That is why I suggested the correlation with 2 Nephi 25: 23. Moroni 10, is an "if/then" statement. If you do x, then you receive y. X in this case is denying yourselves of all ungodliness. Y is "then" is his grace sufficient. We also have the story of the 5 wise and 5 unwise virgins. Despite all they did, the 5 unwise did not receive the grace of Christ. After all the 5 wise did they did receive the grace of Christ. Despite the efforts of the unwise, who knew of the bridegroom, they were still unprepared. We can also say, despite all the 5 wise did, without the bride groom they would not be save, but it wasn't until they did something different then the 5 unwise. I am not convinced this isn't splitting hairs between "despite" and "after." They both have their place in learning. Example, we know there is a law connected to blessings. Grace is a blessing from God. Once we have done all we can do seems to fit just fine with a law that predicates the blessing of grace. Or any other blessing.

I have always wanted to ask this in light of statements like this. Do you actually have statistics on this? I can understand the confusion between doctrine (as something that was taught) and personal thoughts, theories, etc... I just think the word "many" is all to often thrown out because they have come across a "few" members who think prophets are infallible, and are always consistent with each other.

Look up repentance, and you will discover a lot of talks from apostles regarding a "change of heart" and a "change of mind."

I, honestly, don't see the difference between 'after all we can do" and "despite all we can do." This argument/debate seems similar to the debate of conditional vs. unconditional love. I, personally, like the interpretation provided in our Bible Dictionary, "However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Ne. 25:23). It is truly the grace of Jesus Christ that makes salvation possible." I could only find one source from the Church's website regarding "despite all we can do" from Elder Oaks, "But despite all we can do, we cannot have a fulness of joy in this world or through our own efforts. (See D&C 101:36.) Only in Christ can our joy be full. This is why the angel proclaimed: “I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people." Elder Oaks has also said, "And what is “all we can do”? It surely includes repentance (see Alma 24:11) and baptism, keeping the commandments, and enduring to the end." So, Elder Oaks has used both phrases. The concept of "after all we can do" reminds me of (and correlates with) the following verses of scripture: 1) Mosiah 2: 21, "I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants." 2) Omni 1: 26, "And now, my beloved brethren, I would that ye should come unto Christ, who is the Holy One of Israel, and partake of his salvation, and the power of his redemption. Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him, and continue in fasting and praying, and endure to the end; and as the Lord liveth ye will be saved." 3) Moroni 10: 32, "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ." 4) Moses 6: 60, "For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;" (This encompasses the bounteous love and mercy given by Jesus Christ) Notice how the term "despite" doesn't fit perfectly with Moroni 10:32, but "after all we can do" fits nicely. The Bible Dictionary definition "total effort" seems to some it up nicely between "despite" and "after." Despite our total effort we are still saved by grace. After our total effort, we are still saved by grace. I would say the argument is pedantic and is splitting hairs; however, that is from my perspective. Also, I am a little confused with this statement, "the two-stage soteriological process of reconciliation with God (also called "justification" in the New Testament), and then exaltation, with only the latter being addressed in 2 Nephi 25:23." 2 Nephi 25: 23 implies all Moses 6:60. If we do not keep the commandments (includes repentance) we cannot be justified, which means we are unable to be sanctified. I am reading your statement as, "2 Nephi 25: 23 only refers to exaltation." Is that what you meant?

A friend of mine quoted the following statement given by Franz Kiekeben, "There's a simple argument that shows that morality doesn't originate in religion: If it did, we wouldn't find anything in religion to be morally problematic." The quote is clearly problematic itself (is that ironic?). Thoughts?