Anddenex

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.

Agreed.

This line of thinking is so very odd for any bishop to suggest. Dating men is a homosexual act. He isn't just going out with friends. I wonder if his bishop would say to a married man the same thing if he came to him saying, "I love my wife, but I'm going to start dating other women. It isn't adultery, as I'm just dating other women I'm attracted to." I still don't understand how easily some people seek to split hairs when it comes to a decision with homosexuality. It is as clear as the day light is from the dark night. It is as clear as a married man deciding to date other women -- although technically not adultery. The debate is there due to people listing to obey the wrong spirit.

I'm not sure "limitations" is the right word; however, there are bounds set according to the knowledge, mercy, and justice of our creator -- Heavenly Father. We know from scripture, and modern day prophets, that all are saved -- except for -- the sons of perdition. The atonement of Jesus Christ covers: 1) Telestial glory 2) Terrestrial glory 3) Celestial glory (and its kingdoms) We know that only one tier in the Celestial kingdom is able to receive all the Father hath. Our brothers and sisters who will be in a lesser degree of glory are there due to the atonement which continues throughout eternity. This doesn't change. We know there is some form of progression in each kingdom of glory, only possible through the atonement of Jesus Christ. We know that even after judgement we are still accessing the atonement to become perfected like God and his Son well into the eternities (Celestial kingdom). In that sense, the atonement is limitless, there is no bound, for the Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial beings/glories. It continues forever and ever, it is everlasting. One might say, the only limit, is the sons of perdition, but then again is there a limit on something a person fully rejects? In that sense also, it appears the atonement of Jesus Christ does also have a boundary by which the atonement won't cross or can't, much like the justice and mercy of God -- which can not be robbed. Is it then limited? Is mercy limited? Only as far as it can not rob justice, and justice is limited only as far as it can not rob mercy. Needless to say, as others shared, its limit (so to speak) is due to our personal choice.

I agree with your whole thought. In context Nordic was specifying the ambiguity might only be in English, whereas the original interpretation was in Greek.

The member of the Church who introduced this, who shared this, used the Greek version to seek to prove the interpretation.

First, are you in a work position that makes you privy to some changes that might be happening, or might be addressed this weekend? As to why the Church chooses to use, and still uses the KJV, I think this article is a pretty good thought as to why -- "400 years of the King James Bible." The end of the article shares the following, "the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than recent versions." This has been my understanding of why we have held to the KJV. I would also think, like others have shared, its connection to the Book of Mormon and words pretty much quoted from the same books. As to the second question, this is a great pondering question, but I have no clue. The next edition looks like the current edition is my best guess.

As the world ideology becomes more apparent, and as it appears to be the natural man's ever changing canon (as often as modern morals change). I was just introduced to this "itching ear" interpretation from a historian who is a member of the Church -- obviously being promulgated by ex-members with an itch or who like to kick against the pricks. "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." I have read this scripture multiple times and have never included Andronicus and Junia "among the apostles." It's pretty clear here that "note" means the following, "to notice or observe with care." They are "noticed and cared for among the apostles." Much like my children "who are of note among the bishopric in my ward." Does this mean my children are in the bishopric and called to the bishopric -- No. It appears the adversary has been very clever once more to get people to wrest scripture to a modern ideology in order to have others be miserable like unto himself. Have you heard of this interpretation before?

The primary doctrine in the gospel of Jesus Christ is agency; however, intertwined with the agency of man is another very important doctrine and that is the "foreknowledge" of God which takes into account the agency of his sons and daughters. In scripture, I find how Satan seeks to overthrow God's work, but then we read how according to the foreknowledge of God no one is able to stop the work from progressing. And yet, that progression even takes almost two millennia to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ. In this light, we are able to see then how perspective is vastly important, and why the Spirit is very important because it helps us to see things as they really are, were, and will be. As to the Lord's perspective and the Father's perspective no unhallowed hand will stop this work from progressing. They aren't seeing with natural eyes. We only have to look at the beginning of the Church, church history, to see how the transgression of the Lord's covenanted people can hinder the work, but the work of the Lord still progresses in the direction his foreknowledge takes. The fact we are not living the law of consecration right now is evidence to the transgression of the Lord's people that stop "a" work from progressing, but not the work in totality. Right now, as members of the Church we to some degree are hindering the work from progressing as fast as it could be. Those who have left the Church, due to transgression (all of them), to some degree hinder the progression, but they do not stop it no matter how hard they try to convince themselves they are now doing the right thing in fighting against the Lord -- kicking against the pricks. The most important detail though, as to my knowledge (right now), we are the only generation to receive a promise that the Church will never apostatize ever again -- collectively. So, in that light, no unhallowed hand will stop the work from progressing, because there will always be a generation (even if a fourth of the covenanted members) who will continue the work forward -- always.

I'm glad to read the 90% rate of success for your treatment. As to "lot" in life, it is one aspect of this life I completely do not understand where God's mercy/justice, fair/unjust, or curse/blessing meet and do not cross/rob each other. Reminds me of Ammon and his brethren whose lot (the brothers) fell among a more hardened Lamanite society. This Telestial world brings with it laws and mortality that are confusing, sorda like a child being diagnosed with Lukemia when they only thought it was a tough cold. Reminds me of the young husband who lost his wife in a horrific car accident and the only consolation he found was from a widow who said, "I know people want to be faithful and say faithful things, but let's be frank this really sucks"! I can't offer anything worthwhile except what you petitioned and that is prayers and a listening/reading ear through this time for ya.

I doubt he is bluffing, but at the same time it could be simply a threat that hopes will detour any conflict outside of Russia and the Ukraine. Simply put, Putin appears to be no different than the mind of Hitler. If Hitler had nukes, I'm pretty sure he would have used them. Putin seems to be saying, if you attack I'm not going to lose without heavy damage on both sides. But I agree with @LDSGator, I'm hoping he realizes that if he did it would be a very bad decision as to then how many nations would then retaliate with greater force than he has.

This, so to speak, is equivalent to the Jews when Christ lived among them. They believed in the scriptures, they taught the scriptures, and yet they couldn't recognize when the Savior walked among them. We have modern day spiritualist who believe in all scriptures, or in anything that teaches a better way of living; however, although they believe in scriptures (truths they feel are important) they deny the existence of Christ as Lord and God. They accept Christ as a great teacher, and that is as far as it goes. Deist so to speak could easily fall into this realm. They believe in a Supreme being. They believe the teachings that are taught in the scriptures, but do not believe in the deity of the scriptures themselves.

I honestly believe in this life that is the case, and when we immediately return after death we carry with us our same desires and thoughts. In that light, yes, there are people who will initially think "nah." In the end though, when light and knowledge is given (the purpose of our creation known) I believe these individuals will recognize what they missed and how ignorant that belief was. This is part of the "burning" in hell so to speak. Looking at what could have been and knowing that you (general) rejected it.

The only thing we know for sure are these items: 1) We dwell with the Father and receive all the Father hath 2) We remain "bound" (sealed) to our eternal companion 3) We have the continuation of seed 4) What Christ said in mortality remains true in immortality, what the Father doeth we do. (This is the only ambiguous statement regarding eternal life, exaltation)

In the MTC on my mission when Elder Holland he spoke, he addressed this concept with these words (paraphrased as I don't remember his "exact" terminology), "I understand some of you are concerned here in the MTC if you could qualify as a son/daughter of perdition. To put your minds at ease there is probably only one in this room who could qualify." To become a son of perdition, seems pretty small, and even Judas who betrayed Jesus Christ is not solidified that he became like Cain as there are different quotes from prophets that highlight a different meaning.

I'm inline with the thought that this means the Abrahamic covenant. It refers to Jacob's seed, relating then to a covenant that is associated with Jacob. We know Abraham received the covenant, and then Isaac sought to receive the same from the Lord, and then Jacob did also. I find it also interesting that in scripture I don't hear the same terminology with these three individuals (although it could be used) as with others, "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." We don't hear, "The God of Adam, Seth, etc..." However, scriptures tend to have more meaning than just one at times, and thus this could mean even the covenant of our first estate. I don't think it is as it specifically refers to the seed of Jacob. The second covenant could easily mean the promises given to the children of Israel. They were Manasseh's children, thus giving them the covenant/promises within being son's of Joseph and that particular branch.

This is one of the reasons why I love the movie "The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd" put out by the Church a while back. At one point the son says, "Why are you not happy for me?" To which the father replies, "I am happy for you, because you are happy. But I am sad because your happiness can not last." We indeed can respect the "agency" of another while morning their decisions (which are against God) that will not bring lasting happiness.

I understood what you wrote, that isn't the issue. That's fine you don't have to see it reflecting anything. I wasn't quoting or referencing the scriptures you shared.

That explanation is how I understand these concepts currently.

The scriptures already answer this question, and quite plainly (Moroni 7:16-26). Whatever persuades the sons and daughters of God to do "evil" is not from Christ/God. The other, if I am having to justify my thoughts, I know for myself I am not following God's will. I am indeed twisting things to make myself feel better, and to give a reason why I am doing something I shouldn't be or not doing something I should be. The other, follow the brethren. The Oath and Covenant of the priesthood makes it clear regarding the feelings of the Lord toward his servants. If you accept my servants then you accept me (Jesus Christ), and if we accept Christ, we are thus accepted by the Father. If in any way I am rejecting the prophets, the path the Church is moving, I can then know I am twisting things for mine own purpose. It comes down to a simple question, "Is Christ leading this Church (is he at the head or not)"? For me, it is really this simple, plain, and clear.