Anddenex

JP Strikes again:

I agree. We shouldn't develop "illusions" of what we think the outcome may or may not look like. We already know the Great and Abominable Church will fight against Zion, even through legal suits, or what would look like a "legal" suit. Let's be frank, I think we already have people trying to sue the Church for tithing they paid who are no longer members? No matter how ridiculous that sounds, it doesn't change what the natural man is capable of. I agree percentage wise. The percentage of active members I think will remain constant sadly. I am more inclined to believe though the growth will more come outside of the US rather than within. We are already entering into a realm where calling repentance to known sin is bigotry -- for example. I'm also looking to prophecies before Christ comes about the nature of Zion. It will be enough people to thwart an army, but does that mean it's a lot of people or simply the faith of Elisha (they really should have had really different names -- always have to look them up ) who could call on the angels, or Moses who could command elements. Much like the prophets in Jerusalem. This is true.

This will be one of the reasons why the Church will grow. In an unstable world with consistently shifting Telestial values, it will be one place where the core values will remain constant and will not change. Yes, I'm hoping to see that grow also. And that is one of my concerns and has been for a while now. What you describe in my mind is part of the great and abominable church and the whore of all the earth. The idea you are presenting with banks is no different than Facebook, what was once Twitter, and Google (YouTube). It covers the same type of moral relativism. If you can't bank there how do you then create a business? The adversary works in small and simple ways.

Thank you. It definitely should be pointed out, but then again I'm not surprised especially with regards to how the riots were treated also.

Anyone protestor/insurrectionist shot?

In my studies, both teachings are correct. At least for me, I separate the conditions of the world from the righteousness of the Saints. The conditions of the world do not need to meet any standard for the Lord to come the second time. God's kingdom/Church, on the other hand, will need to have a people ready to receive him. Yes. Not everyone in the Millennium will be members of God's kingdom/Church. I believe there will be Atheists who may not believe in God, but recognized the safety that will be among the Saints before Christ comes. They will honor the laws/rules of this body of people. There will be good Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, and many other people who live "good enough" lives to be spared. As God doesn't force anyone to accept or believe his strait and narrow path, this means they will die according to their beliefs but will have lived a Terrestrial law, thus receiving a terrestrial body/glory. I think this is the type of question that creates a conundrum of sorts. Sorta like when growing up my Christian friend would ask me, "If God is all powerful could he make a rock that he can't destroy"? Does "evil" stop existing because God is perfect? Yes and no, I suppose. If God always chooses "good" and never would choose evil, then ultimately "evil" doesn't exist -- and yet evil does exist -- it is simply no longer present. In the Millennium, I am thinking there is to some degree "the natural man" because not everyone will "choose" the strait and narrow path. If the Millennium were the "Celestial" law and kingdom, then the natural man would not exist (paragraph above). Yes, as to same sex attraction -- in time. The mortal body will be perfect, thus any deviation from that (any ideology of the world) will be resolved. At the same time, it may not be because same sex attraction is a choice (I understand the world doesn't like this thought -- it tells them to behave and control their thoughts), and any choice could remain. The difference in this place no one will be raising a "rainbow" flag -- a telestial ideology.

This sums it up nicely. We can see this concept with the popular "ideologies" of our day.

I'm unfamiliar with this teaching, and I find it very interesting. I'm in agreement though with @Just_A_Guy in that a translated being isn't going to die. John the Beloved is to have been plunged into boiling oil and no harm came to him. If no harm came to a translated being from boiling oil I have a hard time believing then any human could destroy their translated flesh -- fulfilling the prophecy that these two died and then were resurrected. We learn from the Book of Mormon that a translated being will feel no pain and will not die (as to our temporal death experience). In order for this to be true concerning Moses and Elijah or Enoch and Elijah, then the promised blessing of becoming a translated being would have to be removed. I mean, it could be possible that -- voluntarily -- either of these individuals would give up such immortality to fulfill another purpose, but I would highly doubt it.

@clbent04 I'm late to the answers, but here are my thoughts. Why did the universe demand Jesus Christ have to sacrifice and die on our behalf to save us from sin? Do you suppose it’s a universal law that we as imperfect beings can never have eternal life without a Savior interceding on our behalf? Yes, this is a higher law -- according to the Father's knowledge -- that allows our Father in heaven to remain perfectly just and merciful. Yes, if we choose to sin, a way must be prepared. We learn that clearly in our temple ceremonies, and the Book of Mormon highlights this pretty well. The relation between our agency and our Savior. Did a law in the universe crack when Adam and Eve committed the first sin where all hope was lost without a Savior? I’m trying to conceptualize why the universe demands sacrifice for us to reach certain levels of progression and if it's necessary for our existence. Have you had the chance to read or listen to Boyd K. Packer's analogy/parable "The Mediator"? If not, I would recommend listening to it, as it breaks down a more complex doctrine into smaller bits that are more easily understood. If not, this link -- The Mediator -- will take you to it. In relation to that, this is a great seminary video (very 80's) that helps break down agency. How we explain a concept is important. Nothing "cracked". If someone breaks a law, even a simple law, the law acts upon that individual. When Adam and Eve committed "sin" the law now "acts" -- not cracks -- upon them. Sacrifice is required because we are unable to recompense the law on our own. If I steal I can return what I stole. If I break a neighbors window I can repair that window. If I "sin" how would I recompense and make myself clean? How do you make something unclean, clean? Thus, reiterating why Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the only way to the Father. If we are eternal and have always existed and always will exist, and if the atonement never happened, how do you suppose we would exist after this life? This question is already answered in scripture. We would be like the devil and his angels who rebelled against God. Does God’s plan work without sacrifice? An interesting question. The Lord was perfect, he chose to be perfect. Was there any sacrifice for him? Sacrifice is part of God's plan, because we choose to sin. If we loved God like our Savior loved God no sacrifice would have been required. In that light, our Savior is the center of the gospel. Because we do not love God (look at today how many sons and daughters of God know more than God and his servants the prophets) like our Savior does, and we choose to sin, thus a sacrifice was necessary. The easiest modern day "love of the world" rather than "love of God" is how clear God has said he made "male" and "female." Yet, despite the plainness even the "elect" fight to say otherwise. If sacrifice and suffering are meant to continue in the next life? We hardly grow in this life without suffering, so why would that formula change in the next life? If we are considering "sacrifice" like our Savior, no, at least for us. Suffering, what do you mean by suffering? We have perfected bodies, so there is no suffering with mortal ailments. We are immortal. Animals are immortal. Once immortal (spirit and body joined) there is no more death. So the suffering of death is no more, swallowed up in Christ. If we are exalted, this highlights a different perspective in life. If we are not "exalted" then we know to some degree their is a form of suffering -- a type of hell. In scripture we are told that even our Savior learned obedience via the things he suffered. What is possible for us to suffer in the next life though? Is God the Father suffering? He sorrows for the sins and decisions of his offspring, his heirs. He even cries due to their decisions that he knows do not bring eternal and mortal happiness/joy. And along those lines, why does human life need to be sustained by less intelligent animals such as chickens, cows, and pigs...? Eternal concept here to our eternal existence needing to be sustained at the expense of less intelligent life forms having to die for us? It doesn't. The word "immortality" -- no death -- should be sufficient to answer the next question.

Yes, I agree with these thoughts from Joseph. I also believe the Savior, who is "one" with the Father, knows when the day and hour he will come again the second time. I find it odd actually when people/members say the Lord doesn't know when he will come again. He knew the day of his birth, he knows the day of his return. I agree also with the second to last sentence. The last sentence one shouldn't think to hard. It simply states the Lord will reveal to his servants when he will come, if not, it is not yet the hour he will come. Similar, a city will not be destroyed unless it is revealed to a prophet and that prophet or servants cry repentance unto that city -- a forewarning is always given. If not, the city will not be destroyed. God is both perfectly merciful and just.

I would say the "it" before the "it" you mention are referring to the same thing -- every tree.

The tree existed mainly for -- opposition. There was a tree of "death" (and knowledge). There was a tree of life. I can understand your puzzlement, and yet in your response to Carb you mention Alma 12:26 which pretty much says that. If they partook, then they would have been miserable forever, the plan would have been frustrated, and the word of God void -- and this is the kicker -- "taking no effect." And yet, the whole concept of "one" man (Jesus Christ) -- the bread of life -- with "one" sin (a single choice) could have also made all mankind miserable forever, the plan would have been frustrated, the word of God void -- the atonement taking no effect. Both the tree of life protection and the Atonement of Jesus Christ were according to the foreknowledge of God. A way was already prepared in both cases. The option that something, even a single choice, could frustrate the whole plan of Heaven appears to be plausible by more than one account. As of right now, according to my current knowledge and understanding of things this is accurate. We agree, that opposition already existed outside of the creation of the earth. Satan is evidence for that. However, remember, we are discussing a specific time period in relation to the spiritual creation of the earth and its fall. We are looking at a point, where Adam and Eve were provided a choice -- opposition -- between eating of the fruit of other trees while being counseled not to partake of a specific trees fruit. They didn't have much opposition other than that that we know of from scripture -- at least what has been revealed. So, if we go with what has been revealed, that becomes clearer. Until more light and knowledge is provided, the concept (my opinion) is clear.

The first and foremost idea that presents itself is -- opposition. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was "death": physical and spiritual. The tree of life, while in the garden was "life": spiritual. It was a tree they could freely eat of previously. If Adam and Eve partook of the tree of life after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil it would have overcome "physical" death, but not spiritual death. There would have been no resurrection. There would have been no Savior, as death or the great sacrifice could never have occurred if they were immortal. This means, both man and women, would have been lost forever and ever, and to forever remain in their sins. Thus, a protector was placed to protect Adam and Eve from partaking of the tree of life. Immortality was already achieved in the Garden with Adam and Eve, but not in the same sense as a resurrected body with glory. Eternal life/exaltation and immortality (Moses 1:39), on the other hand, can only be achieved through death of the body -- whether that means through translation or actual death (a time of separation of body and spirit). Once again pointing to some idea of the "Fall" had to have occurred.

I would say, not becoming a son of Perdition is a great advantage of faith over knowledge (in this scenario for sure). There is one aspect I think is very important to "faith" given in the book by Joseph Smith that faith is the power and action of all intelligent beings. Knowledge and faith form a symbiotic relationship of principles. We may have the knowledge of how to build a house, but the action to build that house is accomplished through faith. At times, the desire for knowledge is the reason why there is no action. I won't move until "I know", as doubting Thomas is a great example of this. Another example, think of Laman and Lemuel who said, paraphrased, "God has made no such thing known to us." In contrast, Nephi acted in faith, faithfulness, and as a result of his faith he gained knowledge -- the Lord softened his heart toward his father and made things "known" unto him that Laman and Lemuel did not because Nephi acted with faith, while Laman and Lemuel were "waiting" for knowledge. Abraham 1:2, is a great verse of scripture that highlights faith leading to obedience which leads to more knowledge. So, I would say the biggest benefit of faith is "action." Knowledge doesn't always lead to action, as has already been mentioned with Satan and his minions who followed him. They know, but do not believe in the Father's plan and fight against it. A marriage works through faith, and more so it works even better where there is faith in Jesus Christ or in true principles. I would make mention again, the greatest gift/benefit of faith is the power to act -- action. Without action there isn't any faith, it is either knowledge or belief. With faith there is action, or wisdom. Wisdom being who we place our trust in, and who we act for.

Semantic...no. Abraham couldn't have been a Jew. Jew is from Judah. Judah is the great grandson of Abraham. Abraham wasn't a Jew as Abraham followed a "higher law" not the lesser law which was given through Moses to the children of Israel. So there was no Judaism with Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob as all followed a higher law at the time. Judaism is represented of the lesser law. The point of the question, was to highlight the difference between Judaism and Moses (who obviously wasn't part of Judaism). It would be similar to saying Catholics today are no different than the Protestant Christians of our day. Catholics were the first Protestant Christians? They weren't. Or even more highlighted, Catholics today who say the Apostles were the first Catholics. Were they? So no matter what we "hold" as true, doesn't make it accurate as with saying Abraham or Moses (who were both higher law followers, Moses himself subjecting to the will the Lord followed the mandated lesser law although fully capable and probably did follow the higher law as well. If records are true, which I can't see why not, that he eventually was translated). It wasn't "Judaism" that Moses instituted, otherwise, do you consider the Nephites to be part of the Judaic religion?

Judaism is only called Judaism because they were the remaining tribe that kept the records in that part of the world, and the tribe our Savior was prophesied to be born and raised in. Judaism being "good enough" for Christ is an awkward question that is flawed. Good enough meaning....? Judaism was the only religion, people, who would crucify their God. Is that what this question means by good enough? It was "good enough" because they crucified him? Judaism is the same religion followed by the Nephites and Lamanites (or at least should have been without apostacy from the children of Israel). So, was it Judaism that was good enough? Did the Nephites and Lamanites call their religion "Judaism"? Or was it the teachings of Moses from the Lord who wasn't a Jew that the children of Israel (not just the Jews) were to follow? Was it Judaism when Moses created the laws that the Israelites were to follow? As already pointed out the Lord came to fulfill the law, and fulfill it he did. The scriptures are clear also, after what name should "Christ's" Church be known? Judaism? No. After his name. So to say, Judaism was good enough once again is an inherently flawed question.

Correct, and that was the point of the question. Saying Judaism is good enough for Christ, why not us, is inherently a flawed question to try to prove a point.

Was Moses a Jew?

This conversation leans toward the following principles: 1) The repentant vs. the unrepentant. 2) The Saint vs. the sinner. In both cases, each individual is a sinner, or better said -- has sinned. The repentant individual is no longer "in sin" as they are alive in Christ. If we think the repentant (Saint) is "in sin" then what does this tell us of the blood of the lamb? When we come unto Christ, our perfection is through him -- who is without sin. As we are alive in Christ, through repentance, we are no longer "in" sin because he is without sin. This verse pays little respect to the individual (the fallen nature of man) as it highlights more of what the Savior does, not who we are -- but who we are becoming. In that light, without Christ we are all "in" sin and there is nothing we can do ourselves. We are lost and we are fallen. Those who continue in this fallen state, by their choice, will to some degree be in their sins. Those who have recognized their lost and fallen state, the need of our Savior, will then repent and become perfected in Christ -- once again his perfection saves us -- or makes us holy without spot. If we are without spot, and are holy, then we are for sure not "in" our sins, but saved from our sins because we know in whom we trust. Only confirming once again, that Christ is the only way to the Father. This verse all the more testifies and witnesses the need of a perfect Savior, a perfect sacrifice, by which we become holy without spot (even while we progress toward perfection) otherwise we would never be able to enter the presence of God until we were perfect. But we will be long in his presence until that time in the eternities because of Christ.

My thoughts with God's "approval" was inline with your thought here. I don't see this as a "seal" of approval (as with the Holy Ghost and righteousness). This is why I brought up Joseph. After the experience, if I am remembering history correctly, Joseph felt like his soul was damned. If it were "God's permission" then there wouldn't be any consequence with regards to our soul. Yes, I agree, God honored Joseph Smith's agency, and let him suffer the consequence. Anytime, we go with our "own will" it tends to fail miserably (eternal perspective), especially when contrary to what is taught plainly and clearly. Joseph "clearly" knew the Lord's first two answers.

Yes, that would be a good description of what is highlighted with Joseph Smith and the 116 pages. Joseph learned through a very sad experience.

I'm not sure "lose" is the most correct word; however, it does fit the connotation behind it. In light of being agents unto ourselves we are informed that we can be "acted upon." In our judicial system, when someone breaks a law and is caught the law "acts upon" them. When a law acts upon us our agency is "lost" to a degree, as we are now "acted upon" and lose the choice to act unless we want further recourse of the law. If the breaking of the law is severe enough, the law "acts upon" the individual and places that individual in prison. Our agency is now delimited. We now have a fixed set of choices we can make. We are in essence, no longer free, as we are now acted upon. If we can be "acted upon" then to some degree our agency is delimited, or lost. This is what makes our Father in Heaven fully free, an agent unto himself. There is nothing that acts upon him. He breaks no law. He creates laws according to known principles and truths -- his higher laws and ways we do not yet comprehend. We share the same understanding here, otherwise Satan would not have become a Son of Perdition nor his followers. This is an idea that we will probably agree to disagree with regards to "determined" and "chosen" as I don't fully comprehend how you are implying these words. As to my level of understanding, and the connotation of these words I do not believe this. As to "The Plan" plan of Heavenly Father. Yes, there was a plan. The garden of Eden was part of that plan; however, the outcome and decision by Eve could have been different, which then would have made the decision from Adam different also. I am currently in understanding, that Eve could have waited and spoke with Adam. They could have sat in counsel together regarding the knowledge Eve felt she gained in her conversation with Satan. Adam and Eve were already waiting for further light and knowledge from Heavenly Father before they sinned/transgressed. We do not know, nor has it been revealed what the Lord would have taught Adam and Eve. I'm convinced the "Fall" could have happened another way. I openly admit I could be wrong as I haven't received any spiritual witness either way. But it seems to me there were other choices, and where there are other choices there are also other outcomes. We agree.

If a man is dating a woman because he is interested in them that is a heterosexual act. If a man is dating another man because he is interested in them. That is a homosexual act. That is as plain and clear as it can be. There isn't any slippery slope, it presents the same idea of attraction. If you are OK with a men dating a man and assuming it is just a date, then you must also be OK with a married man dating other women (despite the marriage contract) because it is just a date. There is nothing slippery about it, it is the reality. Choosing to be Ok with one, while saying the other is inherently wrong is the slippery slope. The Church has been very clear. The Lord has been very clear on this matter. Because members choose to ignore the counsel, or seek to find a loop hole in the counsel doesn't make the counsel and teachings unclear. We are judged by the desires of our heart, as well as our actions -- both for good and evil. If they are speaking of "gay" romantic relations, and the "Spirit" approving -- then they are listing to obey the wrong spirit. That is the slippery slope. What else then will they convince themselves of the Spirit approving when it is obviously against the commandments of God? In that same light, I once listened to a married man seeking to convince us that the Lord told him it was OK to commit adultery. Does that make it so? Obviously not. Yes, same sex romantic relations are forbidden by God, there is no question on the matter, unless we are listing to obey the wrong Spirit. The Lord is an author of truth, not of confusion. EDIT: I'm wondering also (upon further thought), if there belief of God approving is similar (to the principle/idea) to God approving Joseph Smith saying "Go ahead" and then letting his children face the consequence of their decision. This "Spirit" approval is very different than God's actual approval.

I'm just going to point this one thing out, which is clearly and plainly taught in scripture: 1) The serpent "beguiled" Eve. 2) Eve made a choice and had agency From this it is easy to recognize the above statement is inaccurate. Eve is clearly known to have had agency, and she was beguiled by the adversary to partake of the fruit of the tree. We can have agency, and we can exercise agency even if we are beguiled at any level. EDIT: We can also clearly see, which is plainly taught in scripture the following, "Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived aseek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given;" That even with our agency and the exercise thereof, we can be deceived if we ourselves do not exercise our agency (there is the kicker) to learn and seek the best gifts. Deception is a synonym to beguile.

That is a valid point JAG with regards to the bishop. At times, we also hear what we want to hear.