• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


askandanswer last won the day on February 25 2021

askandanswer had the most liked content!

About askandanswer

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday October 12

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
  • Religion
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Recent Profile Visitors

5405 profile views
  1. askandanswer

    Tree of Life

    It either existed physically, in which case it was possible to partake of the fruit, or it existed symbollically, in which case it was possible to take symbollically take of its fruit. In Alma 12:26 Alma discusses the precise scenario and comes to the same conclusion. I believe that the impossibility of Adam taking the fruit after he had eaten from the other tree was not because it was symbolic but because a cherubim with a flaming sword had been placed to keep the tree. 26 And now behold, if it were possible that our first parents could have gone forth and partaken of the atree of life they would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state; and thus the bplan of redemption would have been frustrated, and the word of God would have been void, taking none effect.
  2. askandanswer

    Tree of Life

    I understand what would have happened if Adam had partaken of the fruit of the tree of life. That's not what I'm curious about. I'm curious as to why the tree existed. You suggest that if Adam had eaten of the fruit of that tree, it would have terminated the whole plan of salvation. I'm a bit puzzled by the idea that God, after having worked so hard to set up the Plan of Salvation and creating the setting in which it would take place, would then risk everything by placing a tree in a garden, whether literal or symbolic, that could have ruined everything if Adam had eaten from it. The idea doesn't seem to make sense to me. I think that all that God does is in furtherance of His plans and that He doesn't engage in self-sabotage or do anything to put His plans at risk. It may be, as you claim, that the tree of life, while in the garden was life, spiritual, but then again, that might also not be the case. I'm not sure what this idea is based on or where it comes from. I'm also not immediately seeing how the existence or absence of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, whether literal or symbolic, had any impact on the nature or degree of opposition that was already in existence well before this earth was created.
  3. askandanswer

    Tree of Life

    Let me point out a few areas where your analogy/interpretation doesn’t seem to fit. In your interpretation, you suggest that the Tree of Life is “symbolic of the spiritual light that and truth that sustains eternal life.” However, in the Genesis account Adam was warned not to partake of the fruit of the tree of life. If the Tree of Life was symbolic of the spiritual light and truth that sustains eternal life then it is more likely that Adam would have been commanded or encouraged to partake of it, as we all have been, rather than commanded not to partake of it and prevented from doing so. God wants all of us to partake to the full of the spiritual light that sustains eternal life and is unlikely to place barriers in our path to stop us from doing so. A second area where your interpretation doesn’t seem to fit well, to me, is the idea that the Cherubim with a flaming sword that turned every way to keep the tree of life is actually Christ. This characterization of Christ doesn’t fit well with how Christ is often characterized in many other scriptures as the one who inviteth and enticeth all of come unto Him, as the good shephard who is out searching in the wilderness for His sheep, and who is forever doing all He can to help us return to Him. He beckons us to Him with a hand of love rather than keeps the way with a flaming sword. In most of the references to Genesis 3:24 that turn up on, almost all of them indicate that the role of the cherubims was to guard, not keep, the Tree of Life.
  4. askandanswer

    Tree of Life

    Does anybody know what the purpose of, or reason for, the Tree of Life was or what its function was? I can't actually think of any good reasons why there was such a thing. I'm guessing that given that access to it was cut off after Adam ate from the other tree, if the Tree of Life did have a purpose, it must have fulfilled that purpose prior to access being cut off.
  5. askandanswer

    Like In The Days of Noah

    I tend to agree with the above statement, but all of the various ways in which I have seen this idea worded leave open the possibility that it may be possible to calculate the year, but not the hour or the day.
  6. askandanswer

    Feedback requested to Alma 11:37

    Thank you all for your thought provoking responses to my question of yesterday, which have helped to increase my understanding. Today I finished Alma 11 and started on Alma 12. In the chapter heading, which I realise is not scriptural, and is only a summary or reflection of scripture, it states that "The wicked will suffer spiritual death." So then I started to wonder how mortality and spiritual death are different from each other and wrote the following thoughts. Again, I would be thankful for people's feedback on this thought. Do mortality and spiritual death share the same characteristic of being seperated from God? Here in mortality, I cannot see or meet with God, I am seperated from Him. He can occasionally visit us, as He has occasionally chosen to do with some of His servants here and we know that He can visit the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms if He so chooses to do. It is also taught that God the Son, who is also God, and the Holy Ghost, who is also God, according to Alma 11:44, will be occasional visitors to kingdoms outside the celestial kingdom, so to that extent, occasional visits from God would seem to be a common characteristic of both mortality and post-mortal life outside the celestial kingdom. In mortality we can have a limited form of access to Him through prayer and I'm not sure if anything would or could prevent someone outside the celestial kingdom from having access to God through prayer. So it seems to me as if limited access to God is a common feature of both mortality and spiritual death.
  7. Could I get some responses/feedback to the notes I wrote to myself a few minutes ago during my morning scripture study please? Alma 11:37 And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their asins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that bno unclean thing can inherit the ckingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins. I have never understood this frequently referred to teaching. The way I see it, nobody is perfect when we die, therefore we all die in our sin. Our lack of perfection means that we are still prone to sin, still captured by, and enslaved by sin at the time of our death, so I think it can therefore be said that we all die in our sin. If what Amulek said was true - that Christ will not save us in our sins - and that none of us are sinless when we die, then none of us could be saved. But the reality is that some of us, even though we will not be sinless when we die, will be saved. So either I don't understand what is meant by the phrase dieing in our sins, or Amulek was not correct when he said that Christ will not save us in our sins. Of these two possibilities, its more likely that I am incorrect but I don't understand how or why. (After a few minutes of thinking about it a bit more………..) Perhaps I can follow Amulek's reasoning here. It is certain that many people, probably almost everyone, is not sinless when they die, so I think they die in their sins. It is also certain that many of these people will be saved. I'm happy to use Amulek's definition of being saved as meaning to inherit the kingdom of God. I accept the idea that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God and that our sins make us unclean. Taking into account all of the above, it would seem that when we die our sins that we die with make us unclean, and therefore we cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. The fact that many of us will inherit the kingdom of heaven, even though we die in our sins creates the possibility that there is a way whereby in between the time that we die and the time we enter our final reward we can cleanse ourselves of the sins that we die with, thereby meeting the requirements to be saved in the kingdom of heaven. We could call this repentance after death and because probably none of us are sinless when we die, probably all of us will need to repent after death. Could I get some thoughts/feedback/critiques/clarifications/corrections to these thoughts please?
  8. askandanswer

    It appears Roe Vs. Wade is about to be overturned.

    A wake up call for the woke?
  9. askandanswer

    Anniversary alone

    Happy anniversary. I like the idea of spending an anniversary in bed, but I suppose it depends on which bed, and where that bed is. Perhaps the existence of Third Hour might be somewhere on that list of unparalleled blessings God has showered on you? I've just had a closer look at your nickname here and was wondering if you've been experiencing a bit of gender confusion lately, mother of dragons? If you ever start to turn blue, rather than just feeling blue, I would suggest a return to the hospital, annivesary or not.
  10. askandanswer

    a limitation on the Atonement?

    So once the test is graded, if there are still things we don't know, even though the professor is still sitting nearby in his chair, his knowledge and wisdom can no longer benefit us, is that how it works? Its all good up until a certain time, and after that its no good in terms of helping us learn and increase in understanding?
  11. askandanswer

    a limitation on the Atonement?

    So is there repentance and forgiveness after the final judgement?
  12. It has been suggested, both in scripture and church teachings, that there is a certain point beyond which it will be difficult, or perhaps even impossible, to repent. This certain point is usually described as being at, or beyond, the day of final judgement. Alma expressed this idea like this, but this is far from being the only place, or the only way, in which it has been expressed. "therefore I say unto you the time shall come, yea, and it shall be at the last day, that he who is filthy shall remain in his filthiness." (Alma 7:21) If this idea is true, would that then place a limitation on either the power or accessibility of the atonement? It almost seems like Alma, and others who have expressed this idea are putting an end date beyond which it either cannot be accessed or will be of no effect.
  13. askandanswer

    Catholicism and the Nature of God

    I’ve always felt uncomfortable with the idea that God is unfathomable. I believe that He greatly desires to be known and understood by His children, and that He is willing to assist anybody to help know Him better if they go about it in the right way. This conclusion is supported by John 17:3 combined with 1 Nephi :7 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. for I know that the Lord giveth no bcommandments unto the children of men, save he shall cprepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them. There are also a great many verses of scripture where God promises to give knowledge and truth to those who seek it, and I believe those scriptures to be true.
  14. askandanswer

    Catholicism and the Nature of God

    I suspect that there are at least two primary sources of law. One source is what I will refer to as natural law and the other is what I will call created law. As I see it the existence of natural law is independent of any Being or being, and all Beings, including our God and every other god, are subject to those laws. This natural law has existed for all eternity and it is just a description of how the universe operates. I have no clear idea as to its origins. I believe that the requirement for justice, or the need to maintain some sort of balance, which is closely related to the concept of justice, is the basis for one of these natural laws. I believe that created law, in order to be sustainable and to endure over a long period of time- ie. from the time we were intelligences until the time we enter our final condition in the eternal realm - must be consistent with, or operate within the boundaries imposed by, natural law. If any created law is not consistent with this over-arching natural law, it will either not be established, or it will fail. I believe that the only created law that is sustainable over a long period of time is 1) law that is consistent with the natural law, and 2) law that has been created with the involvement and consent of those who will be subject to it. For God to find some free thinking, autonomous, self-aware intelligences and to then seek to impose His will upon them by creating His own law by which these intelligences would be governed, and which would enable their progression, without their consent and involvement, would be unjust, no matter how well intentioned such law was. This injustice would therefore make God’s created law inconsistent with the over-arching natural laws, meaning that it could not endure. If the above idea is true – that there is a close, causal connection between the longevity of a set of laws and the involvement of those subject to that law in its creation, then it follows that we and God, working together, are the source of the created law to which we are subject. As to origins of the longer lasting, greater natural laws to which created law must be subject, I have no clear ideas. It may be that natural law doesn’t require a being or Being for its existence and operation in much the same way that gravity doesn’t.
  15. askandanswer

    How are all the unfilled jobs affecting you?

    I've been seeing this in Australia as well, including hair dressing salons and other service=oriented businesses. The problem is greatly exacerbated in out-back areas where employers have relied on backpacker labour. There was a news report about a month ago about a barrista in a popular outback tourist town being paid 3 to 4 times the hourly salary of a city based barrista. In the city, a good barrista could get $30 an hour on a standard work-day, this guy in the outback was on $90 an hour. I have no idea how much they were selling his coffee for or how many cups he could make in an hour.