askandanswer

You really need to meet more martians. if you were a Catholic, I'm sure you would have met quite a few marians.

Lol, no need to be sad Eowyn, this is not what I think. I often word my posts in such a way as to avoid stating what I think because I don't want my opinion to restrict or overly influence the course of a discussion. I'm not trying to persuade anyone of a particular viewpoint here, I'm simply looking around for further light and knowledge. Additionally, there are many things about which I do not have a firm opinion and having too firm a view on some matters can sometimes inhibit further learning or get in the way of what could be a fruitful discussion. Many things discussed in this forum come down to an answer that is either more likely or less likely, rather than any definite conclusion. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am asking questions, not stating positions. If I get some well thought out responses, with good structure and lots of support, then I will have a better idea of what to think. The evidence that might perhaps lead one to think that God operates in the manner I have suggested is the scriptures I have referred to, although I realise that there are other scriptures that could be used quite effectively to support a counter-argument. So it gets back to a question of scriptural interpretation.

It comes down to a question of scriptural interpretation. The scriptures teach that sin makes us unclean and no unclean can dwell in the kingdom of God. They teach that lieing, in the first scenario, or violence and anger, in the second scenario, are types of sin, although perhaps in the first scenario, no lie was told. They teach that we need to repent of our sins in this life and that unrepented sin can keep us from returning to live in the presence of God. So I'm wondering, what happens when a person who has been good all of their life does something we would normally think of as bad, and then dies without repenting of it. Some scriptures seem to suggest that this person, because of his unrepented sin, would not be able to return to God's presence. This sounds somewhat unfair, and inconsistent with our natural sense of justice, but it seems to be what the scriptures are saying. So how do we interpret those scriptures that support the idea violence is sin, sin that is not repented of makes us unclean, and no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God?.

See below

Elder Holland and Elder Cook were companions on their mission in London. Try https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/meet-todays-prophets-and-apostles?lang=eng for background information about current apostles.

It seems like quite a few responses are centred on the question of whether or not the what the man said constitutes a lie. This is not the point I had been hoping the discussion would focus on so perhaps it might be better to change the ending of the scenario. Consider this: On the way to the mission reunion, the man's car is hit by another car travelling at high speed through a stop sign. The wife is trapped in the car and injured, the husband less so. He struggles out of the car and the other driver approaches. In his grief and anger and his frustration at being unable to get his wife out, he swears and curses at the driver and insults him and when the other driver makes a rude reply, he punches him on the nose, breaking it. The stress of the event triggers an asthma attack and he dies at the scene, gasping for breath, still angry at the other driver and unrepentant for breaking his nose. And some of the relevant scriptures: Luke 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. John 13:3434 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another 3 Nephi 12: 22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. So, the same question: What will be the fate of this good and righteous man who in one brief moment near the end of his life acted in a manner contrary to Christ's teachings, as recorded in the above scriptures?

"Perpetuating"? I thought you were Santa perpetuating being a Folk Prophet.

I guess this statement must have been made by, or cleared by, the First Presidency, because I can't imagine anybody else making a judgement as to whether or not the First Presidency are up to date with their work!

A very good question. And if we conclude that his lieing to the SS was ok, then immediately we are faced with the questions of how are we to interpret and understand the scriptures, and many others like them, that I referred to?

My question is not so much about what actions the man in the scenario might need to do to be saved, or whether or not his actions, or our actions will have any impact at all on our prospects for salvation. It is more a question of whether or not certain actions might be sufficient to prevent a person from being saved. You mention in your post that "If we exercise faith and repentance, Christ is merciful and saves us despite our errors and mistakes." I agree. My question is about whether a man who has exercised faith but has not repented of what might be a small sin at the end of his life, will still be saved, and if he can, what are we to make of those scriptures that teach about God not looking up sin with the least degree of allowance?

I disagree that this scenario does not reflect reality. As I suggested above, I believe that there may be many people who have lived good lives and then towards the end of their lives, whether that be at a young or old age, do something that is inconsistent with the overall pattern of their lives, and then are taken away before they have a chance to repent. The scriptures I have quoted seem to suggest that unrepented sin might out-weight the cumulative effects of a life of righteousness as sin brings uncleaness and no unclean thing can dwell with God. I also disagree that it is a waste of time to engage in thought and discussion about the kinds of actions, or inactions, that might or might not, have an impact on our eternal salvation. Hopefully we all often engage in such contemplation. In fact, giving consideration to this question might well fall under heading of the pursuit of saving knowledge you have referred to.

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 :)