laronius

Yeah the water appears to be cooler around Florida so hopefully that brings it's strength down a bit before landfall.

How close are you to the currently expected landfall spot?

Well it's taken a while for this to be relevant (not complaining) but it looks like it could impact this storm.

I don't think God has or ever will set a point in time (i.e. the end of our mortal probation) where he says our fate is sealed no matter how much we might be willing to progress in the future. There is no perfect mercy in that scenario, in my mind. So that leads me to wonder if there is another reason which might allow God to make permanent assignments to kingdoms of glory following this life. We are taught that the past, present and future are always before God as one eternal now. However that is possible perhaps there was never any doubt in His mind (and possibly even ours?) where every single soul should end up or in other words how far each of us would progress and the conditions we find ourselves in this life are simply geared to further that reality. This could be one explanation of why so many followed Satan because they did not like where they were heading under God's plan for His children.

I appreciate the comments so far. I don't know that I have THE answer but perhaps it pertains to the fact that multiplying and replenishing the earth was one of the original commandments, even before the Fall. In fact Adam references it in relation to his decision to partake of the fruit after Eve had. So for them having children was required to both keep the commandment and to eventually pave the way, many generations later, for the Savior to come into the world. I think it's pretty evident that any particular person's individual salvation does not rest on the fact of whether they become a parent in this life, but collectively as a race I think the commandment still stands. Also, salvation in it's ultimate sense, exaltation, is defined in part as "a continuation of the seeds forever." So eventually all such person's will in fact have to father/mother children, if not in this life then definitely in the next.

JST 1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding they shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. This is the JST version where it says they instead of she. Does anyone have an opinion on the meaning of the underlined part? While childbearing is definitely a big part of the gospel we generally don't preach it's necessity for salvation.

For all intents and purposes Adam and Eve were simply children while in the garden. The joy they experienced while there was real but simple. And their lack of experience and exposure to negative influences meant that joy could not mature into the much deeper and fulfilling joy only experienced by those who have had a chance to mature emotionally and spiritually. When they partook of the forbidden fruit, whether through beguilement or somewhat knowingly, I think there was a recognition that there was something more out there than what they currently had. Eve may not have understood that the cost was having to give up the innocent joy they already had whereas Adam might have had some inkling. But the point is that as paradisical as their state in the garden was, it was also very limiting. Perhaps a good analogy would be to compare the exciting young love of a newlywed couple to that deep and mature love of a couple celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary after a life full of ups and downs, sorrows and disappointments, but also moments of great happiness as they endure life together. There is a depth and richness there that cannot be manufactured in paradise. Paradise, like childhood, had to be left behind to pursue what can only be obtained through experience. As such, we don't celebrate what was lost but rather the chance for something far greater.

I came across this article that I thought was really interesting and makes a compelling argument about what eternal progression really means, regardless of the kingdom we end up in. One problem I have with it though, at least in part, is that for it to be completely true then it kind of wouldn't matter where we ended up. But regardless I think there is some truth to the theory. https://latterdaysaintmag.com/switching-glories/

If we are talking about granting mercy as purely a means for avoiding the demands of justice then mercy without conditions is the most merciful. We see this enacted on behalf of those who live without the law, such as little children. But if we are talking about mercy as a tool for progression then conditions are necessary otherwise there is no progress and the mercy has not fulfilled it's purpose.

So at the Second Coming they become fried green tomatoes? Haha. JK. Yes, while often there may be a central message to a parable/allegory I think there are yet many truths that can be learned depending on it application.

Yep I think that's it. For some reason that distinction had slipped my mind.

In explaining the parable of the wheat and tares the Lord said: D&C 86:6 But the Lord saith unto them, pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender (for verily your faith is weak), lest you destroy the wheat also. 7 Therefore, let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe; then ye shall first gather out the wheat from among the tares, and after the gathering of the wheat, behold and lo, the tares are bound in bundles, and the field remaineth to be burned. This explanation implies that the tares are just left alone until the end. But in the allegory of the olive tree we read: Jacob 5:65 And as they begin to grow ye shall clear away the branches which bring forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good and the size thereof; and ye shall not clear away the bad thereof all at once, lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard. 66 For it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard; wherefore ye shall clear away the bad according as the good shall grow, that the root and the top may be equal in strength, until the good shall overcome the bad, and the bad be hewn down and cast into the fire, that they cumber not the ground of my vineyard; and thus will I sweep away the bad out of my vineyard. In this version the separation is gradual. Also, in the parable it is the righteous that are taken out from the wicked whereas in the allegory it is the wicked being taken out from the righteous. So why the difference? Are two different events being described?

That would be an interesting read. This is one of the things that I always found as being not in favor of the heartland model. The climate in my mind just didn't fit. Not having a lot of knowledge of mesoamerican climate I just kind of assumed that was the better fit. But perhaps that is not the case either. Looks like the book is free for Kindle unlimited subscribers. Lucky me!

Initially Satan encouraged men to treat women as inferior. Then he riled up women to demand to be treated like men. And because women can never be as good at being a man as men are (and vice versa) pressure is then put on men to be less manly in the name of equality. So the end result is non-feminine women and non-masculine men. Satan then puts his hands behind his head and his feet upon his desk and laughs.

Sounds like you are taking a literal interpretation on this, in which case I'm not sure what that might imply. But it is curious that Lucifer would be so out of the know on what exactly God intended. Was the fall not a part of the original plan as presented in the grand council? Or maybe he was the original Judas Iscariot where Christ's suffering is alluded to but not fully explained, with God waiting for Lucifer to get the ball rolling?

The way I guess I intended it is that Satan is the ring-leader, the father of all lies. So those who follow him in a sense become his son's and daughters. But I guess it depends on how you define perdition. So your question made me check on it's actual definition. In addition to meaning eternal damnation, archaically it meant utter destruction, which to me is interesting when considering the ultimate fate of such souls.

This was the closest to the thought that I had while writing the OP though many of the responses actually tie into it and it has to do with this verse: Moses 4:6 And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world. I think it was in this interaction with God that Satan finally realizes that he just got played for the fool. That his tempting Eve brought about the very conditions that allowed for a Savior to exalt God's children. So yes, tantrum insued. As for the cursing, I have two trains thought. First, maybe it wasn't so much a cursing as God simply pointing out that Satan had just shot himself in the foot and lost the war before it ever began. "Because you did this, here's the effect..." Second, perhaps is it possible that until there was a Savior there could not be a Satan? There must be opposition in all things, right? So while Lucifer had already fallen and been cast out and while Jehovah had already agreed to be the Redeemer of the world, both roles ultimately hinged on this event. So if there's any merit to this supposition, maybe Satan's "fall" was not complete until he helped bring about the fall of man.

That he throws a tantrum seems to be implied but God makes it clear that this cursing is a direct result of what Satan did in the garden and therefore something new.

I think you make two valid points. I have playfully wondered if snakes had legs before this event took. But your point about a snakes ability to strike makes sense.

Following the tempting of Adam and Eve in the garden, God curses Satan: Moses 4:20 Because thou hast done this thou shalt be cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life; 21 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed; and he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. In the temple Satan actually gives a response, which our scriptures are silent on. What Satan says isn't really what I'm getting after here, but rather the fact that he was not happy at all with this cursing. My question is, if Satan is already a son of perdition, perhaps perdition itself, what more can really happen to him? Why get upset? Had he not already fallen as low as he can get? ............................ In writing this I really didn't have any idea as to the answer to this question, but a thought just came to mind that I will share later.

I'm no expert, but from what I've witnessed in others is that things like PTSD can have specific triggers that set it off. It's not faith related, just your mind finding it hard to cope with certain situations. I am amazed by just how much influence our physical bodies have over our emotional and mental state. I use to think the things we thought and felt were always reflections of our true selves. Manifestations of our spirits. But more and more I'm seeing that's often not the case. The chemical processes of the body can have a very big influence over these things . This makes it tricky in dealing with. For example, when we break our leg we know to take specific physical action to fix it. But our minds seem to exist in this crossover state between the physical and the spiritual so it becomes harder to know how to treat it when part of it is "broken," for lack of a better term. For some years now I've experienced anxiety leading up to certain types of travel activities, such as going backpacking. It made no sense because there was absolutely nothing about the trips that I was worried about, rather I knew I would really enjoy it. But over time the anxiety has gotten worse. For a while I felt the Spirit encouraging me go in spite of the anxiety, which I have come to see was because the time was coming when the anxiety leading up to the trip was just too much to make the joy of the trip worth it. But it has really frustrated me because there is no reason I've been able to identify for the way I feel. Fortunately it has not bled over into other things in life that we would normally consider as stressful so I am left to deal with this perplexing limitation in a certain area of my life.

Ah yes, relationship stress. That's a difficult one because relationships are kind of what it's all about and yet it's not something we can completely control. I am reminded of Enoch's experience with God and how the Lord wept over his creations, namely us, because of our poor choices. Moses 7:33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood; I'm not saying your situation is THAT bad but I think most relationship problems stem from forgetting that underlined part. I hope your situation finds a quick and lasting resolution.

I like how you insert Christ in my example because really that's the only way to know for sure how perfect faith might alter what person feels in a situation. As I mentioned in another response I think there is definitely physical and mental stress that exists independent of the question of faith. It's not stress due to the outcome of a situation but rather the limitations of our mortal condition. But my original question mainly concerned stress in relation to the outcome of a situation and whether faith can completely alleviate it. I think inserting Jesus into a situation (kind of like "What would Jesus feel?" Instead of "What would Jesus do?") makes for a great point to consider.

Without getting into the specifics of your personal situation, what would you say is the cause of your stress? Each year I go through a period at work that just so wears on me that physically and mentally I feel that my mortal condition gets taken to it's breaking point. It's not a question of faith, just mortal limitations. I just need a break and recoup. Is this what you are experiencing or is it more of not knowing the outcome and whether it's going to be good or bad?

I agree with your conclusion that stress is part of the growing pains we experience in life. But does this mean that it should lessen, even to the point of disappears as our faith matures and becomes perfect? This of course does not include anguish which even God experiences now, but not the stress and anxiety we experience.