askandanswer

Well, to be fair, there may be some validity to her point that she is already spending a lot of time with the kids through home schooling, and that becaues of your work, you are spending less time with them than her, hence her idea that you, rather than her, needs to spend more time with the kids.

It might or might not be correct to say that Christ did not suffer a legalistic style punishment for our sins, but I think it is reasonable to believe that the amount and nature of His suffering for our sins was not random, and that it was according to law. and that if there had been no sin there would be no punishment or suffering. So there is certainly some sort of relationship between sin, suffering, punishment and the atonement and that relationship is certainly defined by law. I accept that this does not necessarily mean that what Christ suffered was a legalistic style of punishment for our sins, but I think it leaves open the possibility that it was. I think that at some point, the demands of justice meant that an atonement became necessary, and this point was probably when Eve first ate the forbidden fruit. At a second point, those demands were met, probably when Chris said “It is finished” in John 19:30. I’m wondering what it was that defined, or determined, what or where that second point was. I suspect that rather than being randomly located, it was very precisely located, and that where that point was located was probably a function of the operation of eternal law. To suffer either more than was required, or less than what was required would be unjust, and that would be ironic, given that the whole purpose of the atonement was to meet the demands of justice. So I guess the original question could be re-written as what was it that defined, or determined where the end point of the atonement was and the point where it was no longer necessary for Christ’s suffering to continue, and what would we need to know to answer that question.

This reply addresses diverts a little from the main topic, but in the case of the final judgement, I think the term consequence might be more appropriate than the term punishment. For those who have lived their life in such a way that they have separated themselves from God, or at least not drawn as close to Him as they could have, to continue to not be close to Him after this life and for the rest of eternity probably will not seem like a punishment to them, but it will certainly be a consequence of how they have lived.

How can a finite amount of suffering, in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross of Cavalry, accomplish an infinite atonement? If we don’t know the answer to this question, what would we need to know in order to be able to answer it?

I think that the value of any cultural identities that inhibit or restrict or makes it difficult for a person to come unto Christ needs to be questioned and their continuation could be viewed as a detriment rather than an accomplishment. Whatever other good such cultural identities might be achieving may well be overshadowed by any impediment they may create to bringing people to Christ. I can also see how some might view the fact that many are still waiting for a Messiah who has already been and gone 2,000 years ago as evidence of the failure of the law that was intended to help people prepare for, and recognise, the Messiah when He first came.

Hymn 129 - Where can I turn for peace? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/music/library/hymns/where-can-i-turn-for-peace?lang=eng Lyrics 1. Where can I turn for peace? Where is my solace When other sources cease to make me whole? When with a wounded heart, anger, or malice, I draw myself apart, Searching my soul? 2. Where, when my aching grows, Where, when I languish, Where, in my need to know, where can I run? Where is the quiet hand to calm my anguish? Who, who can understand? He, only One. 3. He answers privately, Reaches my reaching In my Gethsemane, Savior and Friend. Gentle the peace he finds for my beseeching. Constant he is and kind, Love without end See also Mormon 9:27 27 O then despise not, and wonder not, but hearken unto the words of the Lord, and ask the Father in the name of Jesus for what things soever ye shall stand in need. aDoubt not, but be believing, and begin as in times of old, and bcome unto the Lord with all your cheart, and dwork out your own salvation with fear and trembling before him.

I think the events referred to in these verses have almost nothing to do with the Law of Moses, and are much more likely to be a result of the events referred to in verse 17. The fact that verse 17 refers to "his people" being in "a lost and fallen state" adds to the impression that "his people" failed to be positively impacted by the Law of Moses in the intended manner. See also Mosiah 14:3 and Isaiah 53:3

I think the events referred to in these verses have almost nothing to do with the Law of Moses, and are much more likely to be a result of the events referred to in verse 17. The fact that verse 17 refers to "his people" being in "a lost and fallen state" adds to the impression that "his people" failed to be positively impacted by the Law of Moses in the intended manner.

My understanding is that the law of Moses, like most, probably all laws, had a purpose, possibly several purposes, and that one of those purposes was to help the Jews focus on, and prepare for, Christ. This understanding seems to be supported by the quote from @mikbone. If that was a purpose of the Law of Moses, the manner in which many of the Jews responsed to Christ could be evidence in support of the proposition that the law failed to achieve that purpose.

The idea that we should be morally consistent in our boycotts and bans doesn't seem to fit well with the idea that it is wise to pick our battles.

To prepare the people to receive Christ.

How well did the Law of Moses fulfill its primary intention?

The prosecutors basically gave Puljos a slap on the wrist because they knew prosecuting him for “killing” a racist sex offender wouldn’t further their careers if they decided to run for higher office. I'm a bit puzzled as to how one person can simultaneously hold the same beliefs^^. Administering justice on the basis of political expediency, at first glance, doesn't appear to be a hallmark of a great legal system.

My scripture reading this morning took me to this phrase here from Mosiah 27:13 This is my church, and I will establish it; and nothing shall boverthrow it, save it is the transgression of my people. To me, this statement seems to be saying that the church can be overthrown by the transgression of the people. How much weight does this statement from an angel add to the conclusion that the works of man - in this case their wickedness and transgressions - can indeed stop or end or thwart the work of God - in this case the establishmen and ongoing operation of His church? If it is the case that the wickedness of man can hinder the work of God, there may be some difficulties in reconciling that idea with Joseph Smith's teaching that "no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing."

Just a question about political philosophy in general - is it a good thing or a bad thing when the operation of a system seems to be so reliant on one person? No doubt there are both good and bad aspects of having a system that depends so much on one person, but does the good outweigh the bad or does the bad outweigh the good? Of course I acknowledge that the system is not totally dependant on just one person, but I think its obvious that they system is at least heavily dependant on just one person. So is that a good or a bad thing?

Not quite defunct, but I believe, defunded. One can easily lead to the other in both directions.

I've been doing some reading in Helaman and found the most annotated verse in the Book of Mormon, according to Elder Nattress, who got his information from whichever part of church administration that keeps track of these things: Helaman 5:12 12 And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the arock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your bfoundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty cstorm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.

Is Woo Hoo a common kind of call name?

The commandment says SIX days shalth thou labor and do all thy work. Not 5 as has become the common practice. Not 7, as is also become too frequent. Six. If we are working anything other than 6, are we breaking this commandment?

Hebrews 4 relates to the 7th day. 4 For he spake in a certain place of the aseventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. I'm asking about the 6th.

Where do you get this idea from? The commandment clearly refers to working on the 6th day.

N Nothing that a good editor can't fix.

For those who rest from their usual labours on Saturday, and take the time to play sport or go hunting, or stay at home, do a rado trip or whatever, are they violating the 4th commandment? Most of us have become accustomed to working 5 days a week whereas this commandment clearly commands us to work for six days. Probably there are many of us that do work 6 days a week, but for those who only work 5, are we violating this commandment, or is there a teaching from the church somewhere that gives us an exemption? Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work;

In a sacrament meeting with Elder Nattress from our Area Presidency last week, he said that the church keeps track of which scriptures from the church’s website have the most annotations. In case you are wondering, the top five, from least to most are: Moroni 10:3 Moroni 10:4 Ether 12:27 1st Nephi 3:7 I can’t actually remember the most annotated scripture, but I think it might have been somewhere in Helaman and I think it was something about being able to do all things through Christ.

I think its a fairly common experience to initially feel that a calling is beyond your abilities. I've never turned down a calling and my wife and I have always strongly encouraged our adult children to never turn down a calling. Having watched the process over many years whereby callings are considered and extended, I have faith in the process. I've had some callings that I didn't enjoy, but I'm certain that was my fault. I was once called as a ward family history consultant when I had recently moved into a new ward where nobody knew me and I knew nothing about family history. Fortunately, that calling only lasted a few months. There's a calling that I've wanted for a long time but which has never come my way. I think that the Lord's representatives and servants generally know what they are doing when they issue callings, and when they don't, its best to act as if they do.