askandanswer

The doctor was wrong on this one - what he prescribed is exactly the course of action one needs to follow in order to live forever.

Splitting mountains is not particularly difficult although it does take a bit of time. This is the sort of thing that Australian mining companies regularly do. All that is necessary for the Mount of Olives to be split in two is for gold, copper, or oil to be discovered underneath. (Mount Tom Price, Western Australia, in the neighbouring mission.)

Zil's place? (Coober Pedy, South Australia, part of the mission I live in)

Exodus 3:14 14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

My personal opinion is that this is the best teaching resource for that question: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/collection/hear-him?lang=eng

Perhaps what President Nelson really meant to say was In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of A.I. I mean, its a lot more accessible, to a lot more people, and for many people, much easier to understand

It seems to me that a spirit in the pre-existence, never having had the knowledge and benefits that come from having had a body, is a somewhat lesser being than a spirit that has been combined with a body and then placed in mortality. It would seem unreasonable that a lesser being, with less knowledge and experience, could over-ride, or make better decisions, than a being with greater knowledge and experience. So I would think that a being in mortality has the power/agency to depart from any plan made in the pre-mortal life. No matter how carefully such plans might be formed, they would lack the knowledge that can only come from the experience of mortality If we are in mortality simply for the purpose of going on a pre-planned ride, planned by a lesser being, from which we could not depart, then that would make redundant the whole purpose of mortality, which, as I see it, is to test our willingness to make righteous choices in an environment where the reduced influence of the Father (in comparison to His likely high degree of influence in the pre-existence) makes it more likely that the choices that we will make in mortality will be our choices, and not the choices we think He would like us to make. And to address the second part of the question, I think that the actions and decisions of Judas Iscariot can be instructive when considering the extent to which a person can depart from their pre-mortal script. Who, in the pre-existence, would write such a script that would lead to them betraying Christ? I suspect that he did not write such a script, and in mortality he did betray Christ, so there must have been some variation between the script and what happened.

I've long felt attracted to Neal A Maxwell's teachings about the customised curriculum. It seems to make sense and helps to provide answers to some questions about the reasons for why things happen. This is what my AI powered search returned when I type in Latter Day Saints Neal A Maxwell customised curriculum. At first glance, the search results seem to accord with my recolletion of what Elder Maxwell taught. Including results for quote Latter day saints Neal A Maxwell customized curriculum Search only for quote Latter day saints Neal A Maxwell customise curriculum AI overview AI Overview Learn more Elder Neal A. Maxwell, a former member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often spoke about personalized trials and learning experiences. He taught that God, out of love, customizes the "curriculum" for each individual, presenting challenges and lessons that are tailored to their specific needs. Here's a more detailed look at the concept: Personalized Trials: Maxwell believed that life's trials are not random but are specifically designed by God to help individuals learn and grow. Customized Curriculum: He used the analogy of a "customized curriculum" to describe how God's lessons are adapted to each person's unique circumstances and weaknesses. Learning Through Experience: Maxwell emphasized that God often teaches us through experiences, even when those experiences are difficult. He noted that we may need to learn vicariously, but often, we must learn the hard way through lived experience. God's Love and Knowledge: He saw this personalized approach as a testament to God's love and his understanding of each individual's journey. Example Quotes: "He will customize the curriculum for each of us in order to teach us the things we most need to know," according to BYU Speeches. "The Christian receives a customized curriculum in life, which is but one of many signs that we have a loving and knowing Father in heaven," according to BYU Speeches.

Alam 40:8 Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

Perhaps by the unit of measurement used by Those who create, to be perfect, a created being requires agency, and without agency, the created thing is an imperfect creation. If this were true, it would follow that a perfect creation would result in a creation that makes mistakes and poor choices.

Now I'm full of curiosity and hope about how the first meeting goes..........

The fish was shot with a 9 mm round?

So some ballistics, such as a .44 are measured in imperial units, and others, such as a 9 millimeter, are measured in metric units? And I'm still not sure where the 207 rifle fits in.

Media outlets here are describing the sentence as a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce.

27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

How many pages is the list of conditions?

so a .44 is .44 of a centimeter across? Which would then make it slightly larger than half a 9 millimeter? And a .22 is half the size of .44. There was a reference to a 207 which I think referred to a rifle. Is that a different scale or is it something that is almost ten times bigger than a .22?

This sounds something like: I God, am talking to you in English, but I'm not going to tell you clearly what I mean. So that you can understand what I mean, I want you to refer back to the 200 year old English translation of what I said to a prophet in Hebrew more than 2,500 years ago, and which has since been translated multiple times with varying degrees of accuracy. If achieving understanding and clarity are the purposes of your communication, this seems to be an odd way to achieve it. Of course, these might not have been the purposes of this particular part of the communication - perhaps you're right and the intention of this communication was to prompt those who read this phrase to go away and seek revelation as to what it means.

I see a lot of numbers in this thread - .44, .45, 22. 207, 9 millimeter- most of which I guess are measurements. What are these measurements of?

It's not immediately clear to me why the Lord would use such vague and imprecise language, capable of multiple meanings, all of which seem to carry some degree of uncertainty. At first glance, it doesn't strike me as the most effective means of communication. It's possible that the only people likely to clearly understand this phrase are those who have made the same sort of effort as those who have participated in this discussion, and when compared with all those who read the phrase, that is likely to be a very small number. I kind of like the idea of say what you mean and mean what you say - its clearer, more precise, and leaves less room for misunderstanding. This style of language - sword is bathed in heaven - gives weight to the arguments of the clerics in the middle ages who claimed that interpretation of the bible should be left to trained specialists.

Would that be a black radio? As in Sirius Black?

You can't be Syrius?!

It seems to me that if the main support for the idea of a Priesthood ban for a certain group of people is based on certain scriptures, then all of those scriptures should be true, and not just a part of them. According to those scriptures, one part of the curse is that the descendants of Cain and Canaan would be servants of servants and another part is that they would be cursed as to the Priesthood. If it can be demonstrated that one part of the curse is untrue, or did not come to pass, or is not universally applicable to the group to whom it is said to apply, then that gives reason to be less certain about the other part of the curse. I think it is a matter of widely accepted historical fact that over the period from when the curse was first said to apply, up to the time of Joseph Smith, and up to the time when the curse was lifted, there were centuries, perhaps even thousands of years, when a very large proportion of the people to whom the curse is believed to apply, were not servants of servants, but were members of great and powerful kingdoms, exercising power and dominion over many others, and even over those who were descendants of Shem from time to time, up until the establishment of the state of Israel. In particular, its very hard to see how that part of the curse was true during the 400 years that the children of Israel were in bondage to the children of Ham. Who were the servants of servants at that time? Since it is clear that one part of the curse is completely false/wrong/incorrect/unreliable/misunderstood, I’m not sure why we shouldn’t assume that the other part is equally as wrong and miunderstood.

An interesting and useful site - thanks @zil2