SpiritDragon

Hey @Sunday21 what province do you live in? I'm personally not in favour of minimum wage increases for many of the reasons that have already been stated. One possibly different perspective I can offer is that as someone who works for a not-for-profit charitable organization, the minimum wage hikes are particular difficult to deal with. Here in Alberta, a lot of my co-workers were excited to vote in an NDP government (a far left wing party for those not familiar with them). They thought it would be so good because the government would increase funding and grants for many of our services. Instead they've managed to lose funding because businesses that previously donated money to charities are not doing so and we have to pay the entry-level staff more on account of the soon-to-be $15.00/hr minimum wage. This complicates everything because we have a stratified pay-grid which needs to adjust up the chain of seniority so that people starting out aren't making as much as people who have been around five years. So we have more staff expenses and less operating budget in many areas. This is of course the opposite of what people seemed to think would happen when voting, but not surprising to me.

Excellent points! One nice thing in the church is having clear guidelines on appropriate dress. There is no doubt that intent is a critical piece, however, certain choices seem likely to be closer to inherently immodest. For instance, a person might prefer to wear more revealing clothes because it's hot (the weather, not the style) but this intent doesn't change how others are likely to receive the choice of clothing. Thus it becomes important to assess one's own desire and how others will perceive the choice. As far as standing apart from the world based on behaviour, I think you nailed it with attitude and intent. Choosing not to drink may or may not stand out, perhaps people will just think someone prefers other beverages. Quietly going about one's business is completely different than making a big issue of the behaviour in question and expressing judgment about others engaging in such practice.

@Carborendum @Snigmorder @Vort @Mike Your conversation really started to help me think more about modesty, and I thank Vort for bringing up the conversation topic to allow me this small insight. As I was reading through your comments particularly around the subject of modesty and arousal I questioned how I define modesty, or what it means. I was thinking in terms of housing how a modest home would seem to be unpretentious and humble. Such a home doesn't draw a lot of attention. When it comes to dressing modestly, I've always thought about it in terms of covering up everything the garments do. What I gleaned from this new perspective is the drawing attention piece. A baby or primitive tribal member without clothing doesn't draw much attention by lacking clothing. Keeping the garnering of attention in mind when making wardrobe decisions one needs to assess both their personal motivation for choosing a certain outfit and how that decision is likely to be perceived by others. While I'd assume it is fine to dress to be noticed, whether trying to make an impression at work or in the dating scene, there is obviously a distinction where the line is crossed into immodesty or being pretentious, prideful, or showy. Obviously there are differing social norms that influence perception within varying cultures as wearing what ladies do at my gym would definitely be considered immodest in a society where the expectation is for women to be fully veiled and don burkas. Could it not be equally attention grabbing though to wear a burka to the swimming pool where everyone else is in traditional western swimwear? Could the wearing of something simply inappropriate for the occasion be immodest? It certainly seems that in our culture a persons sex-appeal is a very valuable commodity and if you have an abundant supply of said commodity you flaunt it - in this case by dressing provocatively to inspire sexual thoughts in others. Could it be equally immodest to dress in such a way as to flaunt one's wealth? Perhaps very large diamond rings, designer clothing and so on. Anyhow, I think that from now on I won't quite look at modesty the same. Rather than just how revealing an outfit (or lack thereof) is, how likely is it to draw excess attention.

I haven't ruled out evolution as a possibility. No, I don't think Adam descended from great apes. I believe he was created from the dust of the earth.

Do you mean anciently? If so how do you know if it's not in the scriptures? Are you suggesting the early church leaders of this dispensation? Do you have credible quotes or journal entries from which to make this assertion? It's quite a claim, considering we have no teachings to suggest as much today.

Well, Rob, I'm going to assume that you are charitably trying to open my mind to something I'm not yet ready to receive. We learn and progress line upon line and precept upon precept. For me, the evidence isn't there. There are plenty of scriptural topics that can be interpreted in different ways. This is why it's important to look at the full context of revealed truth. You appear to be basing the idea that Adam is the literal descendant of God based on your interpretation of one verse, while ignoring the teaching of Christ being the Only Begotten, or at the very least accepting a definition of Only Begotten that to me is "quite a stretch." With the importance of the origin and destiny of man in mormonism it seems to me that if Adam were literally God's first born in the flesh (as opposed to Christ being the only) that we'd have an inkling of that revealed in the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, the Book of Moses or Abraham or even in the temple, somewhere. Instead, we have plenty of discussion from general authorities talking about the whole of the human family being a direct descendant of God in spirit, which is a logical and probable explanation to why Adam could be referred to as the son of God - we all are. So to me, there are more logical explanations that fit into my understanding of church teachings, which seem like less of a stretch than what you are sharing.

I interpret it as a genealogy statement which stylistically uses the term son of God to indicate Adam, the first man, to avoid confusion with Adam the prince of Eternia. Personally, I find picking this one verse out and conflating meaning into it (that may or may not be true) is how theories like the sons of God and the daughters of Eve are different species, or why didn't it just say the children of God or the children of man. The authors used some poetic licence.

Well, at least now I know a little of where you're coming from. I don't read the same into it that you appear to. I am of the opinion that Only is singular, and that the twist to suggest that it only counts if the mother is mortal is wordplay. I could go into examples, but I don't think they'd be befitting to discuss in the context of divine procreation. Let me just say that I think the only way that your theory could work is if it could be established that prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were not flesh. Otherwise they surely would have been begotten in the flesh, no? Since we know that their bodies could have lived forever without partaking of the fruit, it stands to reason that they were of similar composition to resurrected immortal bodies - which are still flesh and bone. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't agree with you based on my current understanding of scripture and interpretation of language.

How does that reconcile with Jesus Christ being the Only Begotten in the Flesh?

Just some quick thoughts. I have to run to work - 1st thought: There are too many scriptural and modern prophetic references to us being the literal children of God spiritually to put the idea aside. This alone suggests that there is a flaw with this conclusion. 2nd thought: Did Heavenly Father suffer any less during our Saviour's atoning sacrifice than the Saviour did? As a parent I can tell you when my child is in pain, I am too - It may not be the same, but I doubt it can be quantified. We also know that when Jesus accepted the role of of Saviour in the premortal realm, that he did so specifying that the glory be The Father's. To me these things make no reason to believe that the Saviour's part is deserving of more honour and glory than the Father's.

Perhaps it comes down to interpretation. When I read these three things, I don't personally see them being mutually exclusive. For that to be the case point #2 needs to read, "sin is (not part of) the plan of salvation." I don't see being in conflict with as meaning it can't still be part. As in 1. Sin = Deception 2 sin/deception conflict with (work against) the plan of salvation 3. sin/deception is part of said plan

Is your heat pump attached through your furnace vents to distribute air throughout the house? Does it rely on convection or forced air? You're clearly satisfied with your purchase, what suggestions would you give to any one looking into getting one. Does your furnace need to help out often in the colder months? I'm more than a little curious now. How well do you think it would work in a climate with temperature extremes from 40o C to -400 C (1040 F to -400 F)?

@The Folk Prophet I don't know everything that Traveller is thinking based on what he has expressed, but I do know that I liked that one phrase that I took out. To me your response appears to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. His whole premise could be in error, and you point out reasons why such could be the case. Disregarding all of that, I believe that their is a true principle in that when someone is doing something expecting a specific result and then gets a different result - they were deceived about some aspect of the process somewhere. If Abinidi had expected to be saved from fire like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and was allowed to burn anyway he would have been deceived. There is a difference between being open to accept whatever outcome God has to offer and expecting a specific thing. Abinidi was not deceived. I, perhaps like you, think this actually puts a greater importance on avoiding deception because I don't want to end up at the judgment bar of God thinking that I did the right things and espoused the right attitudes only to find out I've been deceived and can not inherit the expected glory.

I think hermaphroditism/intersex could definitely complicate things. I'm sure god knows though.

This is a gem of a statement. I wonder, though, if there isn't room for simple ignorance over deception in some cases, but I suppose even then the ignorant is being deceived, aren't they?

10 And according to the power of justice, for justice cannot be denied, ye must go away into that lake of fire and brimstone, whose flames are unquenchable, and whose smoke ascendeth up forever and ever, which lake of fire and brimstone is endless torment. While reading this I started thinking about how the Saviour has atoned for the sins of all, but it is the repentant who benefit thereby. It is my understanding that because he has suffered for their sins that they will not have to suffer as he did, because they repented he has them covered. So then I thought to myself, if either way justice has been met, either by Christ's suffering or by one's own suffering - well, once the price has been paid what's stopping anyone from going to any particular kingdom if that is where they want to go? On the one hand the suffering is said to be endless, so it would seemingly infer that clearly it will continue indefinitely. But the doctrine and covenants teaches us that endless is the Lord's name, and that endless punishment is the Lord's punishment - not necessarily actually indefinite. So if the suffering is not indefinite, can some one possibly choose to abide a Celestial Law after suffering for their own sins? I don't think the gospel works this way, but I'm curious what thoughts others may have on the matter.

I think the seed analogy fits well in both contexts. In Matthew 17:20 the Saviour states the simile of faith (as or like) a mustard seed which apparently is a powerful package of faith sufficient to move mountains. Alma's analogy is similar, because he is discussing faith and the planting of the seed (the word). I find both helpful. Now to substitute (the word) for (faith) let's see... Sorry, I'm visual - I see that you said to play it out in my mind and I've put it into print. I think the seed analogy works quite well from both perspectives with minor changes to how the analogy is interpreted.

Well, I think that asking the questions give more deep and impactful answers. Why hast thou fallen? This question allows for introspection as to the depth of emotions and the mortal capacity to wield those emotions. Also,it creates an opportunity for the spirit to bear witness in the response. Imagine the spiritual witness MM received as he stated that he saw the finger of the Lord, he is bearing testimony - the Lord asked him a question that would result in him bearing witness of an amazing event and gaining a spiritual confirmation. This is important because many others have seen angels and seemed to fail to grasp the significance, I believe because they failed to experience it spiritually. The antemortal Christ didn't want to waste an opportunity to teach his charge with all the tools available. This is very loving, because no doubt after such a witness, Mahonri was under greater condemnation if he ever fell away. I'm sure Jesus wanted to help ensure that would never happen. Sawest thou more than this? This question opened up a teaching opportunity, not only for MM, but for us in reading the account. Had the Lord simply showed himself after his finger was seen, some learning opportunities would have been lost.

I think the Lord is an expert coach, and realizes that by getting his charge to come up with his own answers the answers become more powerful than when simply given. By making the Brother of Jared look within and share his experience it carries more weight, because it came from within.

Hey @Carborendum, further to your earlier question about why the Brother of Jared (MM) was given the Urim and Thummim, I started thinking about how the earth will become a great urim and thummim when it receives it's Celestial glory. I wondered if MM didn't need the U&T for continued progress in a line upon line, precept upon precept sort of way, where he advanced to such a point that was the next step. In any even I wondered why in the Celstial kingdom would there be a need for a great U&T and then looked into it more and discovered that many citizens of that Kingdom will have their own U&T's as well, which I found even more fascinating. Why, indeed? It does appear from the verses TFP produced above that the answer for MM and possibly for the Celestial Kingdom as well is as part of a promise to reveal all things. Thoughts?

@Carborendum @The Folk Prophet Fascinating discussions on faith gentlemen. Your descriptions are rife with insights and analogies. I wonder if we were to stick to the analogy of faith being like a seed what could be unpacked. A seed if left unplanted will not grow, but has the potential to lying dormant within. In time though, it will dry up and die and lose the potential even to grow. Once it begins to grow, it needs to continue to grow - it is either flourishing or it is withering, is it not? I believe that this leaves a lot of room for both of your thoughts on faith to come together. The seed, much like belief (or the belief aspect of faith), holds the potential to grow, but cannot do so without works or it will eventually die or as put in the book of James is dead. It needs to be planted and nourished or it is as good as dead already, the belief will whither and the seed of faith will die. So the life of the faith is contingent on it being planted and tended to. As the plant grows it becomes more resilient and brings forth fruit and with that fruit more seeds to plant to continue the life cycle. One could look at these seeds as having possibilities for missionary work or look at them as new avenues opened by cultivating faith in the first place in a line upon line fashion, ie. after exercising faith in the Lord by attending church meetings, faith is increased in principles such as scripture study, prayer, tithing, sabbath observance? I could go on, and would find it interesting to see what might come up, but I thought perhaps it molds your two thoughts together in one to an extent - because I think you're both more or less right with your ideas about faith. Let me attempt to more clearly break down how I see these two thoughts fitting together: If we look at the seed like we look at the idea of belief creating the spark by which good works come forth, we won't be disappointed, because the seed has within the potential to grow into a plant and bring forth fruit. If we look at the seed as a stage in faith that will die if not accompanied by works, we'll also not be disappointed. Or perhaps just as poignant, the seed is of no efficacy without works. This fits my understanding of the points you've both shared, does it fit your understanding and intent?

Keep in mind that Maureen is not a member of the LDS faith and may not be fully familiar with your references... As to what it means that any one presides in any position in this church, it means that they offer guidance and direction in harmony with gospel teachings and then those they have a stewardship for (preside over, if you prefer) choose to either follow the guidance or reject it. It is a moral government only, not one of force. Correct principles are taught and people govern themselves. Presiding in the home is more of a sacred responsibility to teach correct principles and attempt to to right the ship as needed, but not a position of privilege to be lorded over faithful subjects who must toe the line, or else... Presiding in the home the righteous father has no more "power" (in the forceful sense) to make family members live the gospel, than the Bishop has to make members of the ward do so, or the Stake President has over his stake, right on up to the President of the Church. However, an observant and involved father in zion should have more "power" (in the sense of influence) within his home because he is more intimately involved in the lives of his family then various ecclesiastical leaders. He has a stronger relationship of trust, his actions are known to come from a place of love, even when they are stern (not domineering).

I was just reading over this verse and found it interesting that the word natural fruit is used here to represent the sweet or good fruit, while apparently the wild fruit, which would seem to be unnatural, is corrupted and undesirable to eat or lay away. Not that it has to be a direct comparison, but the message almost seems to contradict the idea of the natural man being an enemy of God. Is not the fruit representative of people? To be clear I'm not trying to suggest the natural man is good based on this, possibly unrelated verse. I just thought the terminology interesting and it seemed like as good a place as any to begin dialogue for this chapter. Thoughts? how is the natural fruit different than the natural man? Is it because the fruit is referring, not only to the mortal, but the immortal soul? In this state the nature of God's children who have kept the first estate would naturally be good fruit?

Some important points on rejecting false messengers: D&C 129 teaches about offering to shake hands and determine if it be resurrected soul, the spirit of a just man made perfect,or a premortal or disembodied spirit and how to tell whether a spirit is trying to deceive or is honest. Interestingly, Joseph also taught that hair color could be used as an important clue as on one occasion he explained that a messenger with sandy colored hair was an impostor.

Thanks for tracking this down JaG. The bolded part is definitely what I was remembering and roughly paraphrasing. I appreciate your take on it, and now see the quote as two-fold. On the one hand it still speaks to me of the concern about being lead to destruction, by blindly following a man and not confirming for oneself that he is the spokesman for the Lord. On the other hand it speaks of the loss of dedication to the leadership by not confirming for oneself that he is indeed the Lord's chosen servant.Great insight.