askandanswer

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?

I know this post is kind of old, but I just came across a teaching from President Packer relevant to this topic that I thought was worth sharing. It gives the rationale for the Word of Wisdom. “The habit-forming substances prohibited by that revelation—tea, coffee, liquor, tobacco—interfere with the delicate feelings of spiritual communication, just as other addictive drugs will do. (in Conference Report, Oct. 1994, 78; or Ensign, Nov. 1994, 61).

I like it when what the judges take 50 or more pages of complex verbiage to say can be reduced down to a few points that are easy for everyone to understand. Thanks JAG :)

Ophelia, you are new here, so you don't really know these people who have responded to your question. But I've been reading their posts and watching their discussions for several months now, and I can tell you that they are strongly rooted in the gospel with excellent insights into a broad range of matters, and their responses to your question are well worth listening to.

I've never come across any restriction on post-baptismal refreshments. I agree with those who have said its for the Ward Mission Leader, with the approval of the bishop, and not the RSP to decide how baptisms should happen. In our ward, the question of whether or not there will be refreshments is usually up to to organiser of the event. In the case of convert baptisms, that's usually the WML, and he sees post baptismal refreshments as a great way for any non-members the baptismal candidate may have invited to mix with the members. In the case of member baptisms, then its usually up to the parents, and most, but not all parents, will organise for refreshments. Even when the baptism is taking place on a Sunday at a time when the other ward is using the chapel, there will still be post baptism refreshments.

Who would prepare the medication?

If you're not contemplating your coming wedding with joy and excitement, something is wrong. And most of the time there is nothing too wrong with over analysing a situation (other than the lost time it takes, and the stress and confusion it can generate) as long as you then humbly, sincerely and faithfully seek for divine confirmation of whatever conclusion you come to, and are willing to abandon that conclusion if no divine confirmation is forthcoming.

The Lord's preferred method of cleansing is baptism by full immersion. This should take care of your whole computer, not just the screen. If you let it soak for a while, you'll probably never need to clean that particular computer again. :)

Just to clear up the possibility of any uncertainty, I want to state here that I completely agree that the Book of Mormon was written for our time. The OP was asking about a possible book that could be written for some future time, based primarily on latter day sources.

Just out of curiosity, I'd be interested in hearing how these chapters have influenced you and what important lessons you have learned from them that isn't taught equally well or better in other scriptures?

An interesting question, Yes, my OP assumed that whoever might read this latter day book would also have read the Book of Mormon. I'm not talking about a future book that replaces the Book of Mormon, but a latter day Testament of Christ made up of teachings from latter day prophets, just as the Book of Mormon is made up of teachings from ancient American prophets, with a few additions from Isaiah and Zenos. So, what to include in the latter day Testament of Christ, from existing standards works? hmm, The Sermon on the Mount. Nephi's prophecies in 1st and 2nd Nephi. Sections 84, 88, 20, 107, 134, 135, JS-H, most of Moses, Abraham 3, Mormon 8 and 9, Mormon 7 and 10.

Well done david. You've made the right decision, and if you stick with it, you and your posterity will be eternally blessed.

There are a few parts of it that don't quite ring true with me either, but I haven't taken the time to nail down my questions. I still think its a really helpful talk and I made several references to it in my lesson. My dad thinks it contains some doctrinal inadequacies but I haven't asked him what they are. My daughter loves the talk and says it has helped her a great deal.

It sounds like a good idea in principal, but our bishopric members are often close to the last to arrive for opening exercises, and things would be even further delayed if we then had to wait longer while they wrote the announcements on the board.

I agree with you - hence my use of the quotation marks around the word "refined" in my post. perhaps I could have used the more twisted or distorted, but I did not want to be disrespectful to Elder McConkie. I'm more inclined to believe the way Joseph Smith used the word salvation than the way Elder McConkie did.