askandanswer

I have not defined it as a sin. To quote from my post: Was it a sin Did he lie? by repeating an action that may be sinful I have asked questions, not made statements.

This is not a wildly hypothetical thread. It posits a situation of person who has lived a very good life but almost at the end, engages in a form of behaviour - stating a mistruth - that in some circumstances, (note the "some") might be worthy of condemnation, and then moves on into the next life before having time to repent, if indeed, there is a need to repent. I think there might be many who find themselves to be in a comparable situation. A reason to speculate on this situation is that coming up with a plausible response could provide greater insights into how the scriptures I referred to could be interpreted and understood. If we want to have a well developed understanding of what the scriptures mean, then it may be helpful to have an understanding of what they mean in all circumstances and the extent, and limitations, of that meaning.

Consider the following scenario: A young man completes an honourable mission. A year or two later he is married in the temple. Some time later, after having served as an Elders Quorum President, he is called as a bishop. A short time after being released as bishop he is called as a Stake President. Shortly after retiring from work, he and his wife go on a mission. Not long after they finish their mission, they become temple workers. Finally, he is called to his last calling, as stake Patriarach. One day, while he and his wife are preparing to go to a mission reunion, she turns to him and says “do I look good in this dress”? She doesn’t but as he has said a thousand times throughout their marriage, he says she looks beautiful. On the way to the reunion, he is killed in a car crash. Consider the following scriptures: (Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 9:34) 34 Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell. (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 82:7) 7 And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God. (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 1:31) 31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; (Old Testament | Ezekiel 18:24) 4 ¶ But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Having stated an untruth to his wife shortly before he died, something that he has done repeatedly throughout his life, and not having repented of it, what will be the fate of this humble, obedient servant of God in the next life? Was it a sin to tell his wife something that he knew was not true in the hope that she would believe it? Did he lie? Will God overlook it? Can he repent in the next life of things done here? Is it the case, as D&C 82 suggests that that by repeating an action that may be sinful that he has done repeatedly throughout his life, that his formers sin shall return, and as Ezekiel suggests, will all his righteousness not be mentioned? What will happen to this man?

Let's take things a bit further - perhaps staff/agents/friends of church leaders, acting under the direction of church leaders, actually post topics on here to gauge reaction to those topics, and then use that reaction to shape their talks?

Have you had a really close look at Elder Christofferson and Elder Anderson? The gospel is not just for this Earth,it is universal. :)

Yes, some of the country wards are like that. It would take about an hour to drive from the western boundary of my ward to the eastern boundary, but 99% of the ward population lives within a 15 minute radius.

No. Sorry, I should have looked further before posting the above. This article was in the same newspaper the very next day. THE Police Minister, Mike Gallacher, yesterday ruled out supporting changes to gun laws in NSW and said the state government would not consider introducing shooting as a sport into the school curriculum. This was despite the Shooters and Fishers Party saying they had received an indication from the state government that it would largely support their firearms bill, which includes allowing shooting as a sport in NSW schools. The Shooters MP Robert Borsak said he had not discussed the bill with the government since parliament rose for the winter break, but the government had shown a ''generalised level of support'' when they had talks several weeks ago. Mr Gallacher yesterday maintained there had been no discussion with the sports and education ministers about the introduction of shooting to the school curriculums and there would be no changes to the laws. Several private schools offer shooting as a sport, but Mr Gallacher said the government ''has no plans to change the current arrangements for sports shooting in schools''. He said the Shooters Party had lobbied the government for changes to gun laws but he said it was not something the government supported. ''The Shooters party have always pushed this,'' he told Sky News yesterday. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/shooting-out-as-school-sport-option-20110717-1hk9b.html#ixzz3nVWIzPT1 Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

From one of the two biggest selling newspapers in the Australian state of New South Wales, 4 years ago. At that time, with only elected two representatives, the Shooters and Fishers Party held the balance of power in the Upper House of the Legislative Assembly, so they got pretty much whatever they asked of the government. THE Shooters and Fishers Party has won the support of the O'Farrell Government to increase shooting as a sport in schools. The gun control lobby and even some in the Coalition see the minor party's long-held ambition to get more guns into the hands of children as the price the government must pay for the support of Shooters MPs, Robert Borsak and Robert Brown. It relies on the pair to get its legislation through a hostile upper house. At the top of their wish list is the relaxation of the tight system for registering firearms and an end to the ban on hunting in national parks. But the Shooters also want to remove red tape so NSW's 650 public and independent high schools are free to choose shooting as a sport. Under pressure to deliver something for the Shooters, the Police Minister, Mike Gallacher, has opened the door.Only a handful of schools, mainly in country areas, teach children to shoot. Some Sydney private schools have their own rifle ranges. ''We are open to finding ways to support those schools that wish to offer shooting as part of their sports curriculum,'' his spokeswoman said. Mr Brown (one of the two elected representatives) said: ''We've said time and again that they [the government] have the mandate to run the state. We're not going to stand in their way unless they screw around with our constituents: shooters, fisherman, hunters, four-wheel-drivers.'' Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/push-for-guns-in-schools-20110716-1hj5q.html#ixzz3nUse08aX The full article is at http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/push-for-guns-in-schools-20110716-1hj5q.html

I sometimes see the argument in defence of gun ownership that more good people holding and using guns would lessen the number of casualties when bad people do things with guns because the good guys can shoot the bad guys straight away instead of having to wait for the police to show up and do the shooting. Has this theory ever been empirically tested in a manner that would produce sufficiently reliable results as to inform the policy-making process? Could it even be tested or do we just have to rely on a bunch of anecdotes? If the validity of this argument cannot be tested, I think it would be prudent to exercise some caution when trying to draw conclusions from it.

I sometimes think that in addition to the universal, overarching, eternal laws, to which even God is subject, and which therefore form the basis of many of the commandments He gives us, one of the other rationales underlying His commandments is that perhaps God has preferences, and as our Creator, He is entitled to apply His apply preferences to us. No scriptural basis for this idea, just something that I occasionally think about.

I know someone who once sent a bill to the doctor because the doctor was running an hour late and this person lost an hour of work time while waiting for the doctor. I don't know if the doctor paid the bill, but I do know that that person was never kept waiting again. I've occasionally pondered the morality of this course of action. I guess it depends on the reason why the doctor was running late. The patient who was kept waiting was an accountant.

I have it on good authority that they were Roasting, not toasting, the marshmallows.The outcome is similar but the process is different. :)

I can't imagine the prophets and apostles ever telling us anything less than what we need to know and do to be saved. Since they are telling us the basics, then that is what we need to know to be saved. Since they are not telling us "the mysteries" then probably we don't need to know them to be saved. Nevertheless, I believe there can be great value in pursuing additional knowledge beyond the basics. I believe that as we come to better know and understand God's plans, and how He works, and why He does what he does, the knowledge we gain should help to increase our faith in, and reverence for, God and His works. And as our faith increases, so does our capacity to gain further knowledge. And yes, in many instances, it is highly probable that this increased faith and knowledge can aid in our quest for salvation, although it is probably not actually necessary for our salvation.

Learn to enjoy the harmonious sound :)

I hear you Syme. I've sometimes wondered what's to stop an unsealed family in the terrestrial or telestial kingdom from living happily ever after for eternity with each other. Will God withhold the blessings of being together as a family for eternity for unsealed families in places other than the celestial kingdom? Clearly, the blessings of eternal increase will not be available to those not in the celestial kingdom, but there are other blessings of being in a family, and its hard to see, on the face of it, why those not in the celestial kingdom should not continue to receive those blessings as they have in this life.

The church in your community? ie, how many members, number and location of wards and stakes, local church history, recent service projects, inter-faith relations with other churches in your community, missionaries in your area - who they are and what they do, prominent members of your community who are also members of the church. Or maybe address that silly question of whether or not Mormons are Christians? For reasons that I don't understand, some people still seem to have doubts. Have there been any news items from your local Public Relations office lately or any newsworthy items from your local Area Presidency about Texas?

Having a worry about something does not equate to the church not being true, But it we are not careful, having a worry about an aspect of the church could easily lead to a triumph of reason over faith. Just imagine what sort of world it would be, or if there would still be a world, if reason triumphed over faith every time. Or just imagine what kind of life it would be…..

Before they became apostles, Elder Holland and Elder Oaks both served as Presidents of BYU. President Eyring served as President of Ricks College in Idaho as did Elder Bednar. Elder Bednar and the recently deceased Elder Scott both held Ph.Ds as did former President Benson. Elder Nelson was a fully fledged medical doctor by the age of 22 and later became part of the team that built the the world's first ever heart/lung machine. Elder Oaks served as law clerk to the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and as an appellate judge in the Utah Supreme Court.Elder Christofferson also served as a law clerk, to the judge who presided over the Watergate trials. I suspect that if any of these men thought that the church had an unhealthy attitude towards healthy intellectualism, they would know about it and do something about it.

The Book of Mormon very clearly teaches about immigration 5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hathcovenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord. 6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

Australia to Utah?! Australia to anywhere?! Jojo, this life is meant to be about progression, not regression. :)

In many points, your post is very similar to the talk given by Elder Wilfred W Andersen last General Conference when he spoke on The Music of the Gospel. Its probably worth another look, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/the-music-of-the-gospel?lang=eng Here is how the talk starts: Years ago I listened to a radio interview of a young doctor who worked in a hospital in the Navajo Nation. He told of an experience he had one night when an old Native American man with long braided hair came into the emergency room. The young doctor took his clipboard, approached the man, and said, “How can I help you?” The old man looked straight ahead and said nothing. The doctor, feeling somewhat impatient, tried again. “I cannot help you if you don’t speak to me,” he said. “Tell me why you have come to the hospital.” The old man then looked at him and said, “Do you dance?” As the young doctor pondered the strange question, it occurred to him that perhaps his patient was a tribal medicine man who, according to ancient tribal customs, sought to heal the sick through song and dance rather than through prescribing medication. “No,” said the doctor, “I don’t dance. Do you dance?” The old man nodded yes. Then the doctor asked, “Could you teach me to dance?” The old man’s response has for many years caused me much reflection. “I can teach you to dance,” he said, “but you have to hear the music.” Sometimes in our homes, we successfully teach the dance steps but are not as successful in helping our family members to hear the music. And as the old medicine man well knew, it is hard to dance without music. Dancing without music is awkward and unfulfilling—even embarrassing. Have you ever tried it? In section 8 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord taught Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart” (verse 2). We learn the dance steps with our minds, but we hear the music with our hearts. The dance steps of the gospel are the things we do; the music of the gospel is the joyful spiritual feeling that comes from the Holy Ghost. It brings a change of heart and is the source of all righteous desires. The dance steps require discipline, but the joy of the dance will be experienced only when we come to hear the music.

Australia will be taking in 12,000 this year, starting in December. Each one of them will be required to make an oath regarding their committment to Australian values. I don't think the exact wording of the oath has been released yet. I believe the oath will be administered by a local public official, in much the same way as citizenship ceremonies for new citizens. I think its a great idea to have that oath administered by a local imam.

I'm struck by some of the similarities between the fleeing refugees and the fleeing Mormons, from Nauvoo to Salt Lake. Obviously, there are also quite a few major differences, but it is interesting to reflect on the similarities.

Feeling barred from helping others in their walk with God? That sounds like a curious and unusual kind of sentiment. I wonder where that is coming from? We all need help, and many of us will gratefully receive it from wherever it comes.

Sounds like there is some division within the church!