SpiritDragon

It was a general reference to how you are often received rather than confined to this one instance. I actually really appreciate your point of view, which even aligns with my own more often than not (sometimes to the point of making me feel obsolete in here because you've got my perspective covered and post more prolifically), but I find your delivery method can be offensive. I gather you don't intend it to be. Perhaps, you are trying more for humour which gets lost in translation. In this case, It's not so much the posting your point of view with supporting material linked as it is simply leaving it as "um...." which seems like you're saying, "well duh... what idiot hasn't thought about this possibility." That's how it's harsh. Or, interestingly enough, although you clearly see the following as different. To others, this is exactly what you said, just now using more vocabulary than um... which apparently can be interpreted very differently among a diverse group. Maybe, your um... followed by the link was intending to convey a message such as: Well God allows us to exercise our agency and doesn't always intervene to prevent us from making mistakes, even when those choices will affect innocent children. Have you considered why God let's addicts have babies?

Sorry about the delayed response. I wasn't aware these posts were here until today. Let me go straight to the biblical account: I fail to see how this suggests anything other than Adam being the father of Cain. I suppose it could be stretched to suggest the Lord is the father because Eve stated she got a man from the Lord - but that's clearly not the meaning, not to mention that it is about as far away from Satan or the serpent being the father as possible. It is interesting that you state that the serpent was a man, and that you attribute the name or title of serpent to this man. Where do you get that conclusion from. LDS teaching is that the serpent is Lucifer (Satan, the devil) so we agree that it's not actually a snake in the garden. Further to the idea of Cain being Adam's son let's look at few more verses of genesis: Using your same argument of silence, why would it not say that Eve bore Cain's half brother or that Cain talked with his half brother Abel? Not that a 1/2 brother couldn't simply be referred to as a brother, but because this particular method of evaluating scripture is problematic. Anyone knows that children don't always look exactly like their parents or act exactly like their parents. The fact that one of Adam's kids resembled him so strongly while others did not is simply a terribly weak basis to build on to suggest that because two brothers don't look the same one must be the milk man's baby. Again let's look at the scriptures to discuss: It seems to me that Cain fears his own death not because he looks different than his dad, but because he wasn't able to keep secret that he murdered his brother. He fears retribution from others for his brother's death. His likeness and image were known before he killed his brother, so why wouldn't he have needed to run away or be marked long before he ever slayed Abel?

1)He can seem pretty harsh, but I think he means well... most of the time. 2)It would depend on how long and how often a couple were trying. I wouldn't read anything into not having a pregnancy within a 3-6 month window of trying. If it didn't happen for a year I'd consider rechecking those health reasons. After all, God works through natural laws - so it would seem to me that the most likely reason not to be having a kid would still be due to some form of limitation in one partner's ability to procreate (assuming the reason isn't intentional contraception which should sort of go without saying here).

Monster painting sounds a lot like the idea of telling villain stories. One strategy to try when facing these situations is to ask oneself why would a reasonable and rational person do this. Oftentimes the actions of others can begin to make sense. However, sometime it may require actually facing "the enemy" and asking them why they do such and such i it can be surprising to learn that it's not because they are villains or monsters.

My wife's late grandfather was well known for using,"let's talk about the birds" to deflect conversation that was getting toxic.

It's hard to want to give up on a fellow-saint. Your optimism and hope is refreshing.

But not solid enough to believe that those He has called to lead his church understand His doctrine? I believe you have put a lot of time and effort into drawing your conclusions. I don't believe that flow charts and word association trump a 200 year history of apostolic witness to the contrary. To what avail, Rob? It's not that many here haven't successfully shown you more than enough reason to see the error in your ways. I could take the time to pull up well thought out rebuttals - but I've seen you go as far to say that when a revelations doesn't match your view that even the prophet Joseph Smith himself didn't understand his own vision. Why should I spend the time to portray more to you when with a wave of your hand you can decide that, "well Nephi was wrong here and Moroni didn't understand that there because my flowchart which can't be wrong says otherwise." Words are important and so is context. But words don't always have only one meaning or refer to the same thing. For instance, if I were to reference Celestial bodies I could be referring to human bodies resurrected to a Celestial glory or I could be talking about planets. You seem to cling to the notion that Hell can only refer to outer darkness, but it is plain to see that it also refers to spirit prison and likely can even be experienced in part in mortality.

I too have been amused by watching reactions on that particular show. I am equally stumped. My best guess would be that people yearn for a sense of belonging, for a tribe as it were. Some find it in politics, some in religion, some in gangs and some via family among other options. I think for some people just knowing that some one is related creates a greater sense of belonging. The spirit of Elijah is something of a complex topic to me that is intertwined with the restoration of the sealing power and keys of the priesthood which seems to also be strongly related to the Abrahamic covenant... all of which tend to seem like simple topics to others and are referenced often in church as though the meaning should be clear, yet I always feel as though there is something there that i can't put my finger on and understand completely. I only hope that with diligent study and prayer I will one day feel satisfied that I know what these entail.

Perhaps you need to take a step back and humble yourself and realize that your wrong already, Rob. The scriptures teach quite plainly the same things that elder Oaks is teaching - they are in harmony one with another. The only thing at odds here is your prideful conclusion that definitions in the scriptures mean something other than what they truly do mean. I could try to help you by pointing out flaws in your definition, but it would be as productive as pointing to a cockroach in your house while holding a picture of a cockroach that is labeled as such while you still deny there is a cockroach in front of you. Do you believe the church is true Rob? Do you have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Faith that He leads His church and would correct His apostles if they were teaching false doctrines directly related to the plan of salvation?

Interesting thoughts. I'll hopefully get back to comment at some point. For now I need to get to sleep - I'd be inclined to read 2 Nephi 2 for some source material about things to act and things to be acted upon. This just seemed like it would be useful to your discussion.

@Earl I'm not sure I follow your logic on this at all. Are you suggesting that because Seth is described as being in the express image of his father and Cain is not described the same way that Cain must not be Adam's son? My older brother apparently has an uncanny resemblance to my dad, although I don't see it like non family members do. I on the other hand look like my maternal grandfather and often people are taken aback when they realize my brother and I are from the family.

That is completely possible as well.

I find for myself that when I get too worked up I need to enforce a time out on myself when possible. So when I get too frustrated with virtual interactions I limit my time in them. In face to face interactions it can be harder. Especially when the person(s) making me frustrated are unavoidable characters in my life. Then I find it helpful to try to catch myself telling villain stories about them and/or watch for telling victim stories about myself. I admittedly take the gospel for granted and have a hard time recognizing how it has blessed me because I've always had it. I wonder sometimes if it isn't like having a sufficient oxygen supply in the air I breath - perhaps if the oxygen decreased a couple percentage points in the atmosphere I would realize how great I had it around 20%. Not having experienced life without the gospel of Jesus Christ, I just don't feel like I have reference point I can truly relate with to compare to.

Thank you for clarifying your position. I can somewhat understand your perspective, although I doubt I'll ever be able to agree with it on this issue. If you get bored with each other, is their no responsibility to reignite interest by doing things together and exploring? If you're committed to your wife how does the concept of falling in love with another woman even enter the equation? How do you suppose you'll feel if you're still hopelessly in love with her and she decides to "upgrade" to another man that she has fallen for? What's the point of marriage at all with this level of commitment to work on the relationship?

Yes she is lucky to have me as a husband. We could have a child we aren't immature or selfish. We have been caring for our 8 year old nephew for a few months whilst his mom is in hospital, we both know how to put someone else first. Welcome to the forums, by the way, @Lee. None of us know you personally and can only go on what we see posted. I hope you truly are a wonderfully committed and responsible adult who is happily married and concerned about doing due diligence in deciding when the time is right to have children. It can be a frightening leap of faith. Since we only have the online dialogue with you to go on, please also understand that some of what you have said in regard to your marriage makes it sound as though you feel that your marriage is expendable. Those phrases have already been quoted and commented on, so I don't know that it's necessary for me to bring them up again. While I don't condone sarcastic and judgmental remarks coming your way, I can see why many would jump to such conclusions (I've been guilty myself, but I'm striving to improve). As examples, the idea of being committed FOR NOW will strike many as lacking any real commitment at all. Perhaps, you are referring to if your wife became abusive to your children and/or was having extramarital affairs - I can't presume to know what is in your heart and I can't speak to when it might be appropriate for someone else to end their marriage. That would be between the couple and the Lord. I can say that since we can count on changes in this life that the commitment to a marital relationship and a parental relationship really needs to skew strongly toward the we-stick-together-no-matter-what end of the spectrum. Now to assert that you are responsible and selfless (and I want to believe you) perhaps you can explain more about just what you mean when you say things like you have said; particularly those quoted by @Just_A_Guy @zil and reiterated by @The Folk Prophet in the dialogue between you of which I quoted a portion here as a platform for this comment.

I feel this talk may apply to the topic of marriage and divorce: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/divorce?lang=eng As for when to have kids, I believe there are many considerations, but ultimately it comes down to when you are married and have sufficient faith and commitment to put someone else first for the rest of your life. My wife and I had some challenges bringing children into our family so from my perspective the lord still has the ultimate control over whether a child comes or not. Obviously, there are decisions we can make to influence that outcome - but people can still have kids while trying not to and can try hard to have kids to no avail. I would also add that now that I have two daughters my life has never been more fulfilling.

I can't help but think that if the Saviour had bled from every pore a second time we would have record of that (I would imagine it would have made it into at least one of the gospels or at the very least restored in Joseph Smith's inspired version of the bible). My thought would be that the equivalent depth of agony and pain could have possibly recurred without the same outward manifestation of the pain and agony. I don't see anything in Elder McConkie's words (or the others) to explicitly refer to the bleeding from every pore happening a second time, but that he suffered all the same agony and pain. I suppose I also tend to think that if the atoning process allowed Christ to perfectly understand all of our pains and sufferings without experiencing all of the exact same things could he not experience pain and suffering equivalent to his own without going through the exact same experience?

I like this explanation because it gives a clear definition as to when repentance is possible - i.e. anytime before resurrection. I'll need to search it out more before I can say that I fully agree however. I don't suppose you can offer more scriptural support or teachings of prophets to suggest that the day of this life includes life in the spirit world after our mortal life ends?

@Carborendum you've likely seen this before as it's your same question, but in the event it helps you at all... https://askgramps.org/christs-dual-suffering/

Clearly, it's an area where the particulars haven't been elucidated such that we have a plain teaching on the matter. We do believe and teach that now is the time to prepare to meet God and that after this life it MAY be everlastingly too late. On the hand we also do work in the temples for those who either didn't have access to the gospel in mortality or rejected it in mortality. This whole exercise of temple work would seem futile if those on the other side were not able to be partakers thereof. Clearly the ministry takes place in the spirit world and there is also some form of repentance and forgiveness available. I've always tended to go with the explanation that those who had the gospel in this life, but didn't take advantage of it are left with what they did with it. While those who never had the opportunity at all will be given every opportunity to repent and enjoy the fullest blessings available to them as if they had had the gospel in mortality. Another passage of scripture that often seems like it takes the 'agency/ this life is the time' out of the equation is D&C132: I've also discussed this passage for years and never quite felt like I've found a fully satisfactory explanation. One thing is clear to me though, the sealing power is serious business. I can only speculate that the sealing power leaves a door open to those who have proven faithful to obtain that which is promised them. Perhaps, in the case of a wayward child or spouse with a faithful parent or partner, where individual agency has been at odds there is a reckoning between family members (it would seem to need to happen before resurrection and judgment) wherein the two parties discuss the options available in the eternities and the unfaithful either chooses to fully repent and abide Celestial law (involving the requisite suffering of said repentance) or to continue in the path they have heretofore chosen leaving the faithful to either invoke further influence through the sealing power or choose to let them go. Perhaps, it is simply a matter of the faithful having visiting rights to see family in a state of lesser glory? One thing I find particularly interesting about the passage above is that it does specify that they will come forth in the first resurrection to their exaltation. So it would seem fairly plainly to not be referring to anyone being "saved" by the sealing power to a lesser glory - which I agree with you entirely seems to be no consolation anyway.

Does it count if you meet them online? I went through the public school system and begged my parents to let me homeschool and I still wish I'd had that option. In the years between grades 2-6 I found school so repetitive and slow it would have been so nice to be able to work at my own speed and learn faster. In Junior High School I found the learning pace was a better balance for me and by highschool I felt like I didn't have sufficient time to learn material adequately so I ended up just learning things well enough to do well on exams and then forget it. I really wish I could have learned things more thoroughly for better retention at that point. College was even crazier for how little time I had to learn material - which I understand is because people don't want to drag out post-secondary education timelines - not too many people want to spend 3-4 years on a 2-year diploma or 7-8 years on a bachelors degree. There is simply a part of me that would have liked to balance the learning timeline into a more personalized education plan that the public school did not afford me. I also wouldn't have minded hanging on to some innocence longer than I did. I didn't need to pick up a colourful vocabulary by the age of six. I might have been able to avoid some troubles with immoral thoughts if by second grade the topic of conversation at recess didn't revolve around sex - even if I didn't know what it was (I learned how when I was ten from an eight year-old - fortunately not a demonstration from her) I also have to say that while I have met homeschooled children and adults who do seem out of place in social situations - I've met plenty of other socially awkward people who were not homeschooled. I was considered awkward in grade 8 because when the boys in shop class shared their deck of cards with porn stars on them my instant reaction was, "that's gross" to which the boys went on about. "who could possibly think Pamela Anderson is gross?" Now, that's not to say that I couldn't have had those experiences elsewhere even if I had been homeschooled. I can't blame the school system on the time I learned my friends sisters had touched me inappropriately while i was sleeping over. I can't blame the school system for the boy from church who wanted to engage in immoral activity with me. But, I can say that i had more of those experiences in school than out.

Ok, that's what it sounded like you were saying. Now that that is clear, do you believe in differing glories of resurrected bodies, or are all the same?

So you believe that everyone who has or will come to this earth in it's current state is filling the measure of the Telestial Kingdom, while during the millenium the Terrestrial Kingdom will be in place, and after that everyone will be in the Celestial Kingdom? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth if this is not what you're saying, I'm just trying to understand your unique perspective at this point.

@Rob Osborn Can you clarify for me whether you believe all the kingdoms of glory represent salvation or if you only believe the Celestial kingdom is Heaven. You continue to go on in an speaking of an exclusive group who are saved when the scriptures teach otherwise. The scriptures are clear that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ all mankind is saved. The degree of glory attained is dependent on faithfulness.

Good find. Touche. I had thought the phrase should exist myself until I did some quick searching that brought up nothing leading to my question. Quick snippet from lds.org Salvation from Physical Death. All people eventually die. But through the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected—saved from physical death. Paul testified, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22). In this sense, everyone is saved, regardless of choices made during this life. This is a free gift from the Savior to all human beings. However, for a more rich read on the many possible arenas salvation can refer to according to that source please read: https://www.lds.org/topics/salvation?lang=eng I doubt this very much, and even so it opens up a whole 'nother conversation about what it even means to be condemned to hell. Is it a temporary state of being in spirit prison. Is it the agony of suffering endless torment (which doesn't mean it last forever). Does it mean being cast into outer darkness? How about living out the eternities alone in the terrestrial kingdom ultimately happy - yet tormented by regret that if you had made better choices you could be with your family and have eternal increase. These are all certainly aspects of damnation because there is a stoppage to the opportunities to progress, but are they all hell? Perhaps so... in a sense anyway. No, I guess you shouldn't ask, because that is what you already asked.Young children are innocent and uncorrupted before the age of accountability. However God works out His promises is up to Him. Just because you can't wrap your mind around one random scripture that you use as some sort of defacto argument to distinguish eternal life from exaltation doesn't make your finite understanding surpass the teachings of multiple prophets and apostles to the contrary of your position. There is a rich wealth of beautiful doctrine to be gleaned from Lehi's vision of the tree of life with many parallels. The fruit and the tree are compared to the love of god and the living waters as well as eternal life. The love of God and living waters are reference to the atonement of Jesus Christ as the quintessential act of love and conquering of death leading to eternal life. All of god's children are blessed by the love of God and have access to the atoning power of Christ. Little children will not be denied.