Anddenex

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.

This young lady's question is a question I have been pondering actually for over a month now. At times, I feel I am waiting for our leaders to come out more directly than they have (e.g. the Family Proclamation canonized), and then at times I think they have been very clear but we have members of the Church who still think and believe -- if not canon -- then they teach the philosophies of men mingled with scripture so carefully crafted. The easiest example, "God told us to love," while ignoring that the first great commandment is to love God with all our heart, might, mind, and strength, which means we do exactly that we teach his truth, his way, and his light. Having family members on both side who are experiencing homosexuality and gender dysphoria it would be nice to see more direct speech. Calling out the wolves so to speak, and yet I openly admit I don't see the way God sees the wheat amongst the tares (who is tare and who is not but God does). I understand, he doesn't want to root up a wheat who appears to be a tare right now. I believe @laronius hits the nail on the head with proactive parenting; however, I'm not a big fan of calling "Come Follow Me" -- new. This was the Church's teaching this whole time. Teaching of our children was and has always been on the parents. This to me is more evidence that we, collectively, weren't following what the Lord had already taught...now he needed to be more plain rather than us following the teachings and the Spirit. I have never expected the Church to teach my children. I have always seen it as Church supported -- FAMILY centered. It has never been the other way to me.

Yes, there is always blessings being missed when the Lord removes a portion of the higher law. Reminds me also of Brigham Young's quote of how we live far below our privileges. I think to a degree we are covenanting to live the higher law through our own personal merits though, individually not collectively.

Yes, there is a difference between boycotting and cancel culture. I think you summed it up as good as you could. Boycott simply means I won't purchase or be a recipient of your product. Cancel culture by force (like Satan) wants their way by any means necessary as they dehumanize their targets for different political views. Cancel culture occurs even if they don't watch or view a show. They just want it "canceled". Boycott simply says, I don't need your service anymore, thus I'm not paying. I don't watch the NBA anymore or any other professional sports (for multiple reasons). I'm boycotting for multiple reasons -- one of the biggest reasons is now its more street ball than professional basketball. It's a fine line between the two, much like discipline and allowing agency. There comes a time, even with our perfect Father in heaven, where harsh discipline is a result of agency, although the disciplined is screaming "it's my agency"!

I'm not going to be able to add much to this discussion than the answers that have already been given; however, I think the addition will provide additional thoughts. When I think about the question provided I think about what has already been shared above, and I think about God's intercessory prayer with regards to his apostles. The Lord prayed the following (particularly chapter 17): 1. "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." 2. "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." 3. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." 4. "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;" 5. "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:" These verses, and others in this chapter, highlight to me the separation that happens when we become spiritually begotten by the Savior. We have accepted the Savior. We follow the Savior. We have become his elect, possibly "chosen". The children of God are "sheep" not "lambs," which provides the same notion of separating his children (those who have been given him by the Father). And to be a "peacemaker" ultimately means we are following the Savior. Having the unfortunate experience of two siblings now who have left the Church, I can totally see what a peacemaker is and what a peacemaker is not. And sadly it is easy to see how they are no longer "children of God" in this sense the Lord is referencing.

My apologies if I was unclear above. I believe proxy work will be done for these individuals once they are at a certain point in their growth because the work of the dead must be done by proxy (at least according to what has been revealed at this moment). I wasn't trying to insinuate they would be able to do such with mortals by proxy. But once they were taught and had come of age so to speak work would be done for them. This is speculative. It seems to make sense to me (a possibility) in light of what I have read from prophets words. I agree with this statement, which is why I feel it has to do with the growth of their spirits and resurrected body. Even the Lord was baptized although he was clean. The condition still bound him to follow to remain perfect. The Savior could not have said, "I don't this," and still remain perfect. All would have been lost. I'm looking forward to further truth, but who knows I may be beyond the veil before anything else is revealed.

I'm in understanding, at this moment, it is precisely because they are alive in Christ (those who die before the age of accountability). Baptism is for those who are of the age of accountability. In our earth life we don't even baptize kids before they are of the age of eight. It seems right that we don't baptize them also who died before the age of accountability, because we are informed they do not need it. We are informed also that children who die of a certain age will resurrect at that specific age. They will grow into maturity which is interesting in and of itself seeing we are resurrected with perfect bodies. A perfect body that grows, which is something more to think about and only provides more questions. The other ordinances require the first gate to be opened -- baptism. If we aren't baptized, then the ordinance of priesthood, endowment, initiatory, etc... are not able to be bestowed upon us without baptism. I assume baptism will be done for these children as they grow (but that is speculative). Sealing is the only covenant that doesn't require baptism first. These are my thoughts.

This scripture, to me, correlates with the doctrine specifying "all" are saved in and through Christ, except for the sons of perdition (who receive outer darkness). All three kingdoms are kingdoms of salvation (although they vary in degree, freedom, and glory). This is one teaching/doctrine that highlights why the atonement is important in covering our sins -- making us perfect in him. There is no period of time in "darkness" for those who are alive in Christ. We are immediately received. Even though they repent and have paid the price of the penalty of their transgression they are not received in fullness of glory. They are though received into a kingdom of glory which is giving only through Christ. Without Christ, there would be no "washed clean" we would all be in outer darkness. The Atonement still provides this cleansing. If the Savior completely paid (those who are alive in Christ) then we would all be with the Father in his kingdom of glory (Celestial). They are not "perfected" in Christ, but they are cleansed and because of that cleansing they are able to be received into a kingdom of glory according to their works and heart.