askandanswer

I would be surprised if a sentient spirit that needed an experince in mortality missed out on that experience because of a decision to abort the body intended to house that spirit. I think its far more likely either that the spirits of those who are aborted did not need much in the way of a mortal experience, or that an alternative body is found. The works of God cannot be thwarted and His purposes will roll forth without significant impediment by the actions of His children.

I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that leads to schools feeling that its a good idea to have special external doors as a form of protection. That is a response to and result of, certain beliefs about what's on the other side of those doors. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that many mothers feel in certain parts of certain cities where, when they send their children off to school, they wander if they will come home again. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that leads some organisations to have active shooter training drills. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity where people feel they need to carry a gun in order to protect and defend themselves. For many, that is a response driven by fear and insecurity.These kind of events and activities are far less likely to happen in societies where people feel secure.

As we develop a better understanding of why things are the way that they are, and why things have been set up to happen in the way that they do, we are more likely to gain a greater understanding and appreciation of He who sets things up. We can admire the power of a locomotive as it pulls a huge line of freight cars. When we understand the intricacies and mechanics that make up the operation of that loccomotive , we are likely to admire it even more.

I would prefer to place greater reliance on the words of living prophets in our culture today rather than the words of dead prophets who died hundreds or even thousands of years ago and who spoke in a time and culture far removed from our own. I see no reason why we should place Isaiah or Jeremiah or Alma or Nephi or Paul or Peter et. al above President Nelson, President Monson, President Eyring, etc.

I think the people that are most at risk of experiencing problems as a result of overthinking the gospel are those who place a higher value on knowledge gained by logic and reasoning rather than through spiritual confirmation of truth.

An alternative viewpoint REFERENCE A Texas House committee's report on the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde. (9.9 MB) DOWNLOAD

I think that all the works and doings of God are worth inquiring into.

The right of people to bear arms might or might not aid in maintaining the security of a free state. However, it seems that that right does seem to be adding to the insecurity of many of the citizens of that state. Is the increased security of the freedom of the state being achieved at the cost of increased insecurity of its citizens?

behold, the bvoice of the Lord came unto him, saying: 13 Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the asign be given, and on the bmorrow come I into the world, Does 3rd Nephi 1: 12 – 13 provide support for any conclusions about when the spirit enters the body? In these two verses, we have the voice of the Lord speaking to Nephi on the day before He was born. Obviously this is not enough to establish any firm or reliable conclusions, but does it at least suggest that some possible conclusions are more likely than others? I suggest that speaking to Nephi was not the kind of thing the Lord would be doing if His spirit was already in His body and if He had already passed through the veil of forgetfulness. I understand that various church leaders have said we don't know enough to be able to say when the spirit enters the body, but these two verses might have a role in reducing our level of ignorance on this question.

Covid has been on the increase for the last few months but there is no political appetite to reintroduce lockdowns, the population are thoroughly fed up with them. Most covid bans have been reduced except for the requirement to isolate for 7 days if you test positive and the requirement to wear masks in high risk settings, eg, hospitals and aged care facilities. Its possible to own and use firearms in Australia, but you have to go through a lot of regulatory procedures before you can own and use a gun. Here is a good discussion from the US Library of Congress about the state of gun bans in Australia. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2016-11-28/australia-import-ban-on-lever-action-shotguns-with-magazine-capacity-over-five-rounds-to-continue/ . The last controversy about gun laws, about 6 years ago, was the import ban on the Adler shot-gun. Current regulations allow for the use and possession of a pump-action shotgun with a 5 cartridge capacity but the Adler has an 8 shot capacity, so after some debate in Parliament, it was banned. Last time I checked, the borders of the evil telestial world seemed to be pretty closely aligned with the borders of Australia. I'm not sure if that's by coincidence or design. We have a big sign at most of our international airports saying "Please return home if you are from the evil telestial world."

Australia, of course, stands ready to provide a new home for any breakaway States who wish to attach themselves to a newer, more united federation

Yes, you are correct. These were green O-rings. Thanks to the quick work of the O-ring Loss Response Team, we were able to limit the resulting destruction to just 1 shuttle while keeping the rest of the universe intact.

I'm just glad it wasn't the green O=Rings that you lost. Otherwise, the foundations of the universe would be trembling, round about now.

Oral sex is clearly something that needs to be repented of. Once that fact is accepted, then it simply becomes a question of working out when is the best time to repent. I really can't see how the advantages of repenting after a mission could in any way outweigh the advantages of repenting before a mission. No matter how many times you draw up the list of advantages of pre-mission repentance and compare it with the list of advantages of post-mission repentance, it will always come out in favour of pre-mission repentance. And the advantages of repenting, either before or after a mission, greatly outweigh the totally non-existent "advantages" of not repenting at all. So since repentance is necessary, it makes sense to do it at the most advatageous time possible, which is before a mission. I am confident that your friend will have a far more saving, life-changing, fulfilling mission if he fully repents before going. I think that a full, honest, sincere confession and repentance to the proper authorities in the proper way may lead to a delay in going on a mission, because repentance takes time, but I don't believe the action on its own, once repented of, will actually prevent your friend from serving. Going back several decades, during my mission I knew a missionary in my District who concluded/remembered/realised that his pre-mission repentance had been inadequate. It troubled him for some time until he finally went to the Mission President and confessed. I heard later that the Mission President called the missionary's Stake President back home and they discussed if the missionary should be sent home. He came back to our District much happier than when he had left although I don't recall if his effectiveness as a missionary increased. I presume it would have now that he no longer had that extra baggage of unrepented sin to carry around. 5 For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to aforgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee. Psalms 86:5

I agree with this and accept that in the circumstances we are currrently living in, things have been arranged in such a way that for some reason, "mercy can only be extended upon conditions of repentance." It is that conditionality that I am thinking about. Does attaching conditions to the giving of mercy impact on the quality of that mercy and is there an objective or purpose for the attaching of those conditions that cannot be achieved in any other way?

I have felt a similar confusion, and pondered similar questions when considering the similarities and differences between the teachings in these two verses. My understanding of these two teachings is that they are both responses to the question of how should we respond to people with similar beliefs who are doing good deeds, sometimes in the name of CHrist, but who are not of THE church. Although both responses come from Christ, they are not the same. Luke 9: 49 ¶ And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is afor us. Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not awith me scattereth abroad. I think the words of Moroni 7:12 - 13 might also be relevant when considering these questions 12 Wherefore, all things which are agood cometh of God; and that which is bevil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to csin, and to do that which is evil continually. 13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do agood continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and benticeth to do cgood, and to love God, and to serve him, is dinspired of God.

The three degrees of glory seem to fit broadly within option C - Some mercy in proportion to which the condition have been complied with, ie, you only meet some of the conditions so you only get some of the mercy you need;

What got me thinking about this question are the many claims I’ve read that God is merciful. I started to wonder how well those claims stack up. With God’s full mercy being available to all, but only, those who strictly meet a very specific set of conditions, I started to think about just how merciful God is. Of course He is merciful, but does the conditionality of His mercy detract from the quality of His mercy? Can we say that an arrangement that offers a broader set of conditions, or does not require such strict adherence to those conditions, would be more merciful? ps. No one need have any concerns that I am on the road to doubt or apostasy. These are just things that I like to think about from time to time. I think about such things in the hope that it might lead to a greater understanding of God and His character, why He does what He does, and the environment in which He operates. The answer to this question, in the short term, is unlikely to have any impact on my faith and testimony, amd hopefully it will lead to increased understanding. Increased understanding can often help to strengthen faith in the longer term.

Many thanks @Vort

A few years ago on this forum, I can’t remember exactly when, and I haven’t been able to find it, I posted a question that went something along the lines of whether a person who was paralysed and had to spend their whole life living in a iron lung had just as much an opportunity to prepare for salvation as any person who was not paralysed and not in an iron lung. I think the general consensus in response to that question was yes. If it is the case that one’s ability to strive for salvation is completely independent of the amount of personal freedom one has, then I’m not going to be too concerned about the loss of few or many liberties here or there. The loss of such liberties might make the pursuit of salvation more difficult, but they won’t prevent it. The primary purpose is still achievable regardless of what obstacles may be placed in the way and that's what matters most. I don't think this is an unreasonably optimistic view to take and I continue to have faith in Joseph Smith's teaching that no unhallowed hand can stop the work.

Which do you think is the most merciful arrangement: a) Complete and unconditional mercy for all; b) Complete mercy for all who meet all the conditions on which it is offered, ie. You meet all the conditions so you get all the mercy you need; c) Some mercy in proportion to which the condition have been complied with, ie, you only meet some of the conditions so you only get some of the mercy you need; d) All the mercy you need subject to you keeping a broad, flexible, maybe even negotiable, range of conditions; or e) All the mercy you need subject to you making a considerable effort to meet a broad, flexible, maybe even negotiable range of conditions?

In my former ward, the teacher was the one who decided what they would teach. I think he only made up his mind about what he would teach after he had read through both lessons and decided which one he liked best. I don't believe anybody else had any input into his decision. It seemed to work fine.

I'm amazed that the lake is still green after all those years. There must have been a HUGE amount of icing on that cake!

It either existed physically, in which case it was possible to partake of the fruit, or it existed symbollically, in which case it was possible to take symbollically take of its fruit. In Alma 12:26 Alma discusses the precise scenario and comes to the same conclusion. I believe that the impossibility of Adam taking the fruit after he had eaten from the other tree was not because it was symbolic but because a cherubim with a flaming sword had been placed to keep the tree. 26 And now behold, if it were possible that our first parents could have gone forth and partaken of the atree of life they would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state; and thus the bplan of redemption would have been frustrated, and the word of God would have been void, taking none effect.

I understand what would have happened if Adam had partaken of the fruit of the tree of life. That's not what I'm curious about. I'm curious as to why the tree existed. You suggest that if Adam had eaten of the fruit of that tree, it would have terminated the whole plan of salvation. I'm a bit puzzled by the idea that God, after having worked so hard to set up the Plan of Salvation and creating the setting in which it would take place, would then risk everything by placing a tree in a garden, whether literal or symbolic, that could have ruined everything if Adam had eaten from it. The idea doesn't seem to make sense to me. I think that all that God does is in furtherance of His plans and that He doesn't engage in self-sabotage or do anything to put His plans at risk. It may be, as you claim, that the tree of life, while in the garden was life, spiritual, but then again, that might also not be the case. I'm not sure what this idea is based on or where it comes from. I'm also not immediately seeing how the existence or absence of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, whether literal or symbolic, had any impact on the nature or degree of opposition that was already in existence well before this earth was created.