askandanswer

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!

Enforceable influence

Our Sunday School lesson today included a discussion of 1 Corinthians 8. A closer than usual look at verses 7-13, particularly verse 13 led me to think that Paul, by refusing to do something simply because the doing of it might cause offence to someone in general, is endorsing and practicing political correctness. 7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I willeat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. But maybe he was just being mindful and responsive to the sensitivities and frailties of others? But perhaps that is what political correctness is? What do you think? Was Paul practicing political correctness here? If not, how was what he did different from political correctness? If it was political correctness, where/how do we draw the line between helpful and less helpful political correctness?

In some of the meetings I attend, some of what I hear is wheat, and some sounds like chaff. I don't mind that, that's just how things are. I keep in mind that my chaff may well be someone else's meat. I listen to what's said, make a judgement as to how helpful/useful/informative/interesting it is what I'm hearing, and then based on that judgement, decide the level of care and concentration with which I will continue to listen. I don't expect every meeting to focus solely on topics central to the gospel because in any large organisation, there will always be a diverse range of issues that need to be addressed at any one time. And if the "official' channels for involvement don't seem to be working the way you'd like, there are always the more direct friend-to-friend approaches that can often yield a multitude of opportunities for valued service. If you don't get called to a calling, then it might help to further strengthen your social networks so that you hear informally when someone is is need and an opportunity for service arises. And as for being spoon-fed perfectly prepared sermons, I'd argue that that is exactly why we listen to General Conference. And I've found lds.net to be a great place to ask questions and get lots of really well thought out, articulately expressed answers - with some occasional chaff of course, but that's how things are.

Lehi gave commandment that the authors of the plates do not occupy them with things which are of no worth and either he or Nephi specified that the plates were written for future generations. However, these directives were given more than 400 years before the events referred to in Alma 2:22. Perhaps later plate writers did not follow this direction as strictly as Lehi/Nephi intended. Perhaps there may have been some reason that was important at the time that Alma 2:22 was first engraved to include these four names, but which reason is now lost in the 2100 years that have passed since then. In the medieval records of England, it was often the case to record the names of knights who did important things, and there are accounts in the Old Testament that listed the names and deeds of David's mightiest men, for example 1 Chronicles 12.

I'm, not suggesting that there is parity between human and animal life. In fact Genesis 1:26 seems to slightly support the opposite conclusion - that man has dominion over the animals. So on the scale of values between man and animals, it seems to be man is somewhere above the animals. I'm suggesting that on that same scale of values, the incident referred to in Matt 8:30 - 32 points to another point on that scale, that of spirits, and that on that scale, humans are at the top, spirits in the middle, and animals at the bottom, the evidence for this very tentative conclusion being that Christ gave preference to the interests of evil spirits over the interests of the animals. Of course its a highly tentative and speculative conclusion, but I don't think it should be dismissed altogether at this point without having been further considered and discussed.

I wonder if from this event we can draw a very tentative, wholly unreliable, but possible conclusion that human spirits take priority over, or a more important than, animal bodies. This idea is not overtly taught in the scriptures or by modern day prophets and apostles, as far as I know, but if we drill down,as Traveller put it, we may find additional tidbits of information which could be used to support or demolish this conclusion. And if enough supportive tidbits are found, we could begin to build a less unreliable, better supported conclusion.

but back to the main question - is it true that Christ gave preference to the interests of evil spirits over the life of living animals? Evil spirits in the pre-existence were cast out, not transferred into other life forms.

(New Testament | Matthew 8:30 - 32) 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding. 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters. In allowing the evil spirits into the swine, did Jesus give priority to the interest of the evil spirits by granting them permission to enter another living body, even though those bodies only lived for as long as it took them to run into the sea, over the interests of the swine owner/s (?) and the swine herders who earned their livelihood by looking after the swine?

I guess that what Jesus was doing was using the gift of discernment, as explained in the Guide to the Scriptures. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/discernment-gift-of.p2?lang=eng&letter=d DISCERNMENT, GIFT OFSee also Gifts of the SpiritTo understand or know something through the power of the Spirit. The gift of discernment is one of the gifts of the Spirit. It includes perceiving the true character of people and the source and meaning of spiritual manifestations.

Or perhaps modern dress standards are actually a fulfilment of the prophecy that in the latter days "all things shall be revealed." :)

Just the usual stuff about father's responsibilities - providing for the family, leading, teaching, disciplining, setting an example, protecting his family from bad influences, setting the standard. For mums its usually about loving and nurturing, being close to their children, counselling their children, being a peaceful influence in the home, being someone who the children can always bring their problems to and just being there.

I didn't even know that the exact site was known. I thought that all we knew is that it happened somewhere along the banks of the Susquehanna river.

Most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. Surely the solution is to buy a split screen tv so that we can watch our sports and conference broadcasts at the same time thereby ensuring that we do not sacrifice the religious for the profane? :)

First paragraph, chapter 20, Jesus the Christ Had the Master been mindful of policy and desirous of securing official recognition, this opportunity to attach to Himself as influential a person as a scribe would have received careful consideration if not immediate acceptance; but He, who could read the minds and know the hearts of men, chose rather than accepted. Luke 9:47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, Mark 2:8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Luke 5:22 But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?