askandanswer

As long as any future husband/partner is attracted more to you than he is to anyone else, his attraction to others shouldn't be too much of a problem.

It looks like there might be a little misunderstanding between us here. I was thinking more along the lines that God probably has other sheep not of this earth to whom He is a God, and if that is the case then His Godliness would not depend on our existence. I think on the question of whether or not God needs spirit children in order to be God our thinking might not be too far apart.

Hi Ophelia, it's been a a little over a week now and I'm just wondering how things ended up?

This is only peripherally related to Vort's comment. In our stake, and several other Australian stakes that I've been in during conference broadcasts, there is always some confusion in the congregation in the last few bars of each hymn. No matter who the chorister is, conference choristers seem to have this habit of dramatically slowing down the singing in the last few bars of the last verse of the hymn and it "gets" Australian congregations every time. Some slow down to follow the conductor and some continue singing at the original pace and as a result, the final notes of the hymn seem to just fade away.

I think that, subject to the laws of the land, any organisation has the right to set its own rules and decide who it will admit as members and whom it will disallow. I was disappointed recently when the blue foot club kicked me out when they found out that my feet are actually green. I think this is an example of blatant discrimination against people with green feet and shows a complete lack of acceptance, respect and love for green footed people. Maybe this rule is based on outdated stereotypes of green footed people, but they are the rules, and the rules of the blue foot club clearly state that only people with blue feet can be members. It may be that at some future time, the rules of the club will be changed to allow green footed people to be members, but that's not what the rules say at the moment. Until that time, I'll do my best to continue to follow those aspects of the club that I enjoyed and found to be appealing even though I no longer belong to it. And I'll do my best to to accept that my right to live as I want is just as valid as the clubs' right to do what it wants and not become angry or bitter about the club.

I don't think God's"godness" depends on our existence. We are no doubt a product of his "godness" which status He would have achieved in its fulness prior to being able to create us.

I posted this in the forum about Adam - first man on earth a few minutes ago. Its something else to ponder about when thinking about how and when gods began. http://lds.net/forums/topic/56756-adam-first-man-on-earth/page-11#entry822184 I think that evolution must have something to contribute in response to the question of where did life come from, and how did we come to be as we are, because I can't think of any other satisfactory answer to the question of where did the first god come from. That first god must have come from somewhere and evolution seems to be the only answer around at present. To say that our God is a result of His god ad infinitum really doesn't get us very far.

It sounds like he has taken my advice and gone to a place where he can rest and recuperate! Nice if you had the same opportunity. Why would the courts consider taking the kids away? They generally like to have a reason. In this country, the courts would be unlikely to grant custody of the children to a parent who had been admitted to hospital only a few days ago with suicidal tendencies. And what is your strategy for making it through until Friday? Try to do a lot of research in preparation for the meeting with the lawyer about your situation, your options and possible outcomes, what you are prepared to agree to and what you won't agree with, and bring a list of questions. In any country, the legal system can be confusing, and its even worse when you are not in your native country.

I like to think that intelligences existed independently of God, possibly even way before He became God and that it was He who organised them to the point where they were able to progress. Those that progressed well, God did whatever He did to enable them to become people, and those that did not progress as well, He still rewarded with a body, but not a human body. I don't think an intelligence chose to become an animal, but that becoming an animal was a consequence of its choices.

I think that part of the difference between humanity and animals might be attributable to the differences in the natures of the intelligences that God had to work with. But I think the greater difference would be more attributable to what God did with those intelligences, and what He added to them.

I think that rather than frame this discussion in terms of good and evil, it's more helpful to talk in terms of progression and regression. All and only that which contributes to, or enables our progression is good, while all and only that which a) does not contribute to our progression, or b) contributes to our regression, is evil. If this is the case, then evil commenced the moment progression and regression became possible.

Well, perhaps not plants, but I think there is an arguement that can be made for animals. In the same way that God has prepared a multiplicity of rewards for differing levels of performance in this life, catering well for those who fail to make the top grade, I think that He prepared a multiplicity of different rewards for those intelligences who failed to make the top grade as intelligences, with the top reward being for an intelligence to be joined to a human spirit and the lesser rewards being some sort of animal spirit. I think it has been taught that animals have intelligence, so that intelligence must have come from somewhere. it also seems to be consistent with the economy of God that He would have done something useful with those intelligences that failed to make the grade.

Elder Oaks made a reference to texting during the presentation of the sacrament in his Saturday morning session talk. Young people, if that teaching seems too general, here is a specific example. If the emblems of the sacramentare being passed and you are texting or whispering or playing video games or doing anything else to deny yourself essential spiritual food, you are severing your spiritual roots and moving yourself toward stony ground. You are making yourself vulnerable to withering away when you encounter tribulation like isolation, intimidation, or ridicule. And that applies to adults also.

I had never seen a guitar in Sacrament meeting until a new counsellor was called in the bishopric. This counsellor and his daughter have spent years doing professional performances around town and elsewhere and they are both very talented. After he was called, we started seeing and hearing him and his daughter and his guitar in sacrament meeting about every month for six months or so. Then it stopped. I was quite surprised when I first heard it, I believe the previous Handbook of Instruction specifically prohibited a range of instruments, including guitar, but I've heard that the current Handbook does not contain any such prohibition.

Its my belief that certainly as intelligences some of us made better choices than did others. I think that's why some intelligences ended up as plants and animals, and others as people. And yes, our ability to choose between good and evil is and must be an ability that increases as we exercise it more. That's one of the main reasons why we are here - to further develop that ability - and probably one of the main reasons HOW we came to be here in the form that we now have..

This might be a helpful clarification on whether there was one plan or two. Bruce R. McConkie One of the saddest examples of a misconceived and twisted knowledge of an otherwise glorious concept is the all-too-common heresy that there were two plans of salvation; that the Father (presumptively at a loss to know what to do) asked others for proposals; that Christ offered a plan involving agency and Lucifer proposed a plan denying agency; that the Father chose between them; and that Lucifer, his plan being rejected, rebelled, and then there was war in heaven. Even a cursory knowledge of the overall scheme of things reassures spiritually discerning persons that all things center in the Father; that the plan of salvation which he designed was to save his children, Christ included; and that neither Christ nor Lucifer could of themselves save anyone. As Jesus said: 'The Son can do nothing of himself. . . . I can of mine own self do nothing.' (John 5:19,30) There is, of course, a sense in which we may refer to Lucifer's proposed modifications of the Father's plan as Lucifer's plan, and Christ made the Father's plan his own by adoption. But what is basically important in this respect is to know that the power to save is vested in the Father, and that he originated, ordained, created, and established his own plan; that he announced it to his children; and that he then asked for a volunteer to be the Redeemer, the Deliverer, the Messiah, who would put the eternal plan of the Eternal Father into eternal operation. (The Mortal Messiah, pp. 48-49 n.3) DGSM:15

After reading the posts here and thinking about it a bit further, I see that my original post can be re-written without any reference to Satan or his intentions. Leaving Satan aside, did we really sustain a plan that we knew, or should have known, would result in the eternal separation of many, perhaps most, of God's children from their Father in the hope/belief that we would be one of those who ultimately received the full benefits that were on offer under God's plan? Did we choose to sustain a plan that offered great rewards for the few and eternal separation from God for the many?

I think the answer to this might depend on your definition of evil. If evil is defined as choosing to act against God's will then evil emerged when (a) we first became aware of God's will and (b) when we developed the capacity to choose and act. I'm guessing that both our awareness of God's will and our capacity to choose and act occurred gradually, over a period of time. If the existence of evil is dependent on the existence of sin, and sin is defined as acting contrary to law that we are subject to, then evil would have come into existence no sooner than the existence of law. I suspect that law, in some form or another, has always been around.

I think it might be helpful if you went to a quiet place for a while where you can rest, recuperate and reflect, away from the daily stress. Sort out what you want and then make some decisions and plans. Then build your resolve to the point where you feel confident in what you have decided and your ability to carry it out, whatever it is you may decide.

Whatever it was that Lucifer was offering, it must have been fairly convincing, or contained some truth, if one third of the hosts of heaven thought it was worth fighting for. Any ideas on what he was offering that made so many fight so hard for it, or what made it so appealing to so many? I'm also a little uncertain that God would allow an alternative based on a lie to be seriously considered. If it never had any prospect of succeeding, ie, offering the possibility of exaltation, would God have allowed it to even be put forward for consideration?

In church today, the Stake Presidency circulated a letter and lesson guide they have prepared. They have asked that the members of the stake focus their personal and family scripture studies and lessons on the atonement for the next six months and have given us a reading guide for every week. I think it’s a good idea and it got me thinking. All the important stuff you need to know about the atonement you learn before you finish Primary and I think that one of the main purposes of further study is not so much to increase understanding, but to increase appreciation. However, if we were to study the atonement for the purpose of gaining additional knowledge, it raises the question of what it is about the atonement that we do not know. What are the known unknowns about the atonement and what role might a study of existing materials play in helping us to reduce the number of known unknowns about the atonement? To partially answer my own question, one of the known unknowns that I’ve sometimes thought about is who/what determines the price of sin, ie, who, and by how, is it determined how much sin will generate, or result in, how much suffering? I’d be interested in hearing of any other “known unknowns” or unanswered questions about the atonement that people have thought about as well as responses to the question about how the sin to suffering ratio has been determined.

I think that the hundreds of millions, or maybe even billions, who were born, lived and died during the almost 1,500 hundred years when the church was not on the earth might not agree that the period of apostasy "means little."

There was a counsellor in our stake presidency who was also a lawyer. When I was talking to him in a church context, it was President last name. When I was seeing him in his legal offices, it was, as his request, first name.

In the pre-existence, both God and Satan presented us with different plans and we were given the opportunity to choose between them. God’s plan offered maximum opportunities for growth, learning and progression, with the likelihood that relatively few would reach the ultimate goal of the celestial kingdom. ( See Luke 13: 23 – 24). Satan’s plan offered minimal opportunities for growth, learning and progression, but a guarantee that we would all make it back to the presence of God. We chose a plan that provides for maximum benefits for the few over a plan that offered fewer benefits, but with those benefits being available to everyone. In making our decision, we knew that under the plan we were choosing, many, perhaps even most, would not make it to the final goal. My question is, which weighed more heavily on our mind when we were making the decision about which plan to choose – our own self interest, or concern for the greater good? Did we give more weight to thoughts of what it would be possible for each of us to get and become under God’s plan than we did to thoughts about what would be in the best interest of the group as a whole?