laronius

In Alma 32, Alma compares "the word unto a seed" which we are to plant in our hearts. This seed, upon maturity, is called by Alma "the tree of life" "springing up unto eternal life." Viewing the Garden of Eden from this perspective, something within us, opens up new meaning. I agree with @Carborendum that "the" Garden of Eden is largely representative of childhood and a state of innocence for Adam and Eve. We know the garden literally existed and I have no problem with the two trees being literal trees, placed there to help tutor the childlike Adam and Eve, one that gave life and one that brought death but knowledge also. Once cast out of the garden the tree of life became a symbol of returning back into God's presence.

I agree. I specifically set out to contrast knowing and believing but still ended up equating believing with faith and sometimes they are used synonymously. I did though try to clarify myself after that. But really it is believing and knowing that are being contrasted here, as faith as a gospel principle is a much broader doctrine.

Thanks for the link. There are some good comments made there. I agree with you that faith is its own thing. Faith is a principle of action, It involves belief but is also a companion to hope with motivation to do. Belief alone and even knowledge can exist without any of that. They also do not of necessity require desire. I may know working out will make me healthier and that I ought to do it. But if my desire is to sleep in or be lazy then that knowledge remains barren whereas faith always carries with it an assurance of things hoped for. So there is definitely more to faith than a stepping stone to knowledge. But I don't think we are intended to be content with merely believing either. Alma 32 specifically instructs us on how to acquire knowledge. This knowledge comes by way of experience and we come to know pieces of the whole little by little, so that we can come to know some things and yet not have a perfect knowledge. But what exactly does it mean to know? In the Sacred Grove we say that Joseph came to know that God the Father and His Son are two distinct beings. But what if his encounter was really just with two members of a super advanced race of aliens pulling a joke on him? And yet Joseph came away from that experience knowing that was not the case. He KNEW who he saw. But how? Of course our sensory perceptions help us get along in life but those senses could not 100% reliably distinguish between God, aliens, or even a delusion. There had to be something more that granted him knowledge, qualifying him as a prophetic witness of God and His Son. I believe this is knowledge granted on a spiritual level, directly to our spirits, to our very beings. We are by definition intelligences after all. But at what point a person evolves from believing to knowing is tough to put a finger on. But with this in mind I have no problem with people saying they know the Church is true. I am curious to "know" does your argument and thought experiment disprove just knowledge of the Church's truthfulness or all knowledge altogether, a philosophical "How can we Know anything?"

In Alma's classic discourse on faith he contrasts knowing vs believing and speaks against those who have to know as opposed to merely believing and then says: 19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression? Is this the only benefit to not knowing and only having faith or are there other benefits to faith that knowledge does not give us?

I think to understand the verse we must understand what it means to be saved (as used here). This is a pretty major point of departure from what many of our Christian friends believe. To many, saved is simply akin to being forgiven. You are a sinful being but God forgives you. I think we could use the word justified here. But we know there is a second part, being sanctified. Becoming a new person that no longer wants to commit the sin in the first place. This is being saved from sin and it's influence over us. This is the process of becoming not just forgiven but holy. I think @Anddenex did a good job of elaborating on that process.

The law the Jews were supposed to be living was fulfilled in Christ and was officially ended by Him. In its place he gave a higher and holier law, which in large measure was rejected by the Jews.

Personally worthiness is absolutely an element of the principle. But it extends beyond that. As Jacob explained it: 19 And we did magnify our office unto the Lord, taking upon us the responsibility, answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence; wherefore, by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments, and we would not be found spotless at the last day. There is a responsibility to others that must be met in order to be free of their blood and sins. And as mentioned earlier, we apparently take it upon ourselves when we receive the priesthood.

And this kind of speaks to my point. We associate this principle with the priesthood because it's not mentioned to the women, therefore it must be a priesthood thing. And I agree with that, but it seems like there would be some more directness in saying "when you receive the priesthood you are taking upon yourself an obligation, not just to fulfill your callings, give blessings, etc, but an obligation towards humanity in general to bear the sins of all the people in your day unless you rid yourselves of those sins by doing such and such." It's never taught that way and yet that seems to be the implication.

The necessity of becoming clean from the blood of one's generation is a firmly established doctrine in our church but not one that seems to be commonly spoken of or elaborated upon. It is referenced multiple times in the Book of Mormon as well as the D&C. I will site one instance for reference: D&C 88:74 And I give unto you, who are the first laborers in this last kingdom, a commandment that you assemble yourselves together, and organize yourselves, and prepare yourselves, and sanctify yourselves; yea, purify your hearts, and cleanse your hands and your feet before me, that I may make you clean; 75 That I may testify unto your Father, and your God, and my God, that you are clean from the blood of this wicked generation... 85 Verily, I say unto you, let those who are not the first elders continue in the vineyard until the mouth of the Lord shall call them, for their time is not yet come; their garments are not clean from the blood of this generation. So is this requirement just for those who hold the priesthood and then fulfilled upon faithful completion of a mission or does it extend to one's whole life and perhaps to women as well? And how does one know one's standing in this regard?

Women often have very close relationships with other women that men generally don't experience with other men. There isn't anything romantic about it but it's more than just hanging out with the guys and it helps meet a need on an emotional basis. So if two guys want to have a similar relationship because they are just hardwired differently than most men I don't see how we could say one is wrong and the other isn't. The problem though is when we want to take on the appearance of something more and yet pretend its not. Men and women don't "date" each other unless they are at the very least exploring the possibility of taking the relationship further than just friendship and as soon as it's decided that the relationship will not progress further than friendship the dating stops. So in my mind there is no such thing as "just dating" between same-sex individuals.

Prior to the final judgement everyone but the sons of perdition will be redeemed or saved. It may come after a lengthy stay in hell but to inherit a kingdom of glory it will have to happen. So to that extent any repentance and forgiveness that is going to happen must happen before then. Now what happens to these individuals in the eternities we just don't know.

I guess it depends on how you are defining punishment. Eventually all, except those of perdition, will be assigned a kingdom of glory. And this, to my understanding, is merely matching up what law someone is willing to obey with the kingdom requiring obedience to that level of law. So to me this isn't punishment but of course this is all contingent on the atonement of Jesus Christ. If it were not for that, a person who commits a single sin would be condemned for eternity, which does not seem just or merciful. But 2 Nephi chapter 2 appears to be saying that it must be that way in order for the opposite to be true: 10 Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement— 11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. So if opposition must exist, does this mean that law cannot exist without atonement?

From what I've read I would say there is no official doctrine on this matter. Some Church leaders firmly believe the Exalted Man theory while others have stated that it just didn't feel right to think God wasn't always God. I too have wondered some of the same things. And while having an established doctrinal statement on the matter would be nice I fail to see why such knowledge should be pivotal to your faith in God and in the restored Church. Must you know everything to believe anything? Cannot the answers you do have be true without having every piece of the puzzle available to you at this point? The questions you ask are valid questions but to make your willingness to believe contingent on having the answers to them is not how God wants us to approach Him.

Oh the irony! I was writing a response using the exact same scriptures @person0 except coming to a completely opposite conclusion. So I'm interested in comparing the two perspectives. I'll post mine as is first though: I think these verses point us in the right direction (with some slight modification which I think is appropriate): Alma 34:11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another... 12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath [sinned]; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. "The law requireth the life of him who hath [sinned]." The law requires it. Therefore an "infinite" atonement is one that somehow enables one being (God) to stand in the place of another. To me this use of the word infinite defines the sufferer more than the suffering. We see the same distinction made in the preceding verse 10: "for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice."

While we can be edified by every talk not every talk is specifically meant for us. I'm sure that talk addressed specifically what many needed to hear. For the rest of us, we glean what we can through the Spirit and wait for that talk that is meant for us.

The Law of Moses, as we see in Nephite society, was a very adequate stepping stone, at least for those who were spiritually in tune. It's interesting to note that during the Savior's mortal ministry he often taught in parables, or in other words, he taught in a way that those who recognized the true meaning of the law of moses would also understand what he taught concerning the higher law.

Maybe it's just me but when I read that verse I translate "among" to mean "by" or in other words they are known by the apostles though I can see how it opens the door to those hoping for the scriptures to say something different.

In general I agree with @scottyg that there is special promise extended to our dispensation. But I think you could also make the case that the "unhallowed hand" in the quote from Joseph Smith is not the same as the "transgression of my people." The unhallowed hand to me speaks of the external threat of those who seek to stop the work from progressing. This of course is all in vain because if there are righteous individuals willing to do the will of God then do it they will. But if those same righteous individuals, "my people," turn from Lord then that will of course stop the work to the degree to which they were engaged. And if it be a universal turning from the Lord then the Lord's church will cease. This is true even of our day but God will not allow it to happen again so he sends to earth those he knows will remain faithful.

I have no problem accepting science in its attempt to explain things. But next to every scientific theory I make a mental asterisk which at the end says: "unless God decided otherwise." The known laws of science cannot explain everything and the things it thinks it can explain are still subject to divine intervention. Kind of like the practice of polygamy as commanded in Jacob 2, "here is the law, unless I say otherwise." To me that is how all of science is. For example, Darwin may have gotten it all correct, except for the part that Adam and Eve were literally created in the Garden of Eden. To me that is completely plausible. Concerning the book of Genesis, the more I learn the more I take a symbolic approach to its interpretation and the less I care about whether it is literal or not because the symbolism is what often conveys the true message.

When I was younger, I think pre- to early teens, I would from time to time try to comprehend the concept of eternity. I did this by envisioning myself ascending into the sky, through the clouds and breaking through into the sunlight in hopes of imagining that onward ascent forever. And right when I felt I was about to grasp something my vision would fail me like a bungee cord was attached to my waist and snapped me back and that comprehension slipped away. I felt that was knowledge beyond my present state. Another experience. I remember a time after my mission that I had been diligently studying the fall. After some days of trying to understand the how's and why's of it all, all of a sudden it was like sudden comprehension filled my mind and I was blown away by the beauty, the importance but also simplicity of this part of God's plan. And then just like that the window of understanding closed and that level of comprehension was gone and I was left with only how I felt about it, which I still remember. So I get what you're saying @Traveler about the elusivity of knowledge. I also appreciate your telling of your experience in the temple. It's further evidence that the Lord is willing to reveal a great many things to us if we diligently and patiently seek it.

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord... The commandment is not about how often we should "work" but when it is allowed.

It doesn't say "Six days thou shalt only labor." I think the point is that any labor that needs to be performed are to be limited to the first six days.

First of all, thank you for recognizing that I do mean well even if my words don't always go over well. 😀 Specifically, concerning this situation it's quite normal for there to be ward goals when it comes to missionary work, goals that are in fact set for us. But there is always the understanding that individual adaptation may be required, as with many gospel programs. But frankly, being told what to do happens a lot in the Church: ministering, callings, etc. It's not an infringement on our agency, we can still say no. But more generally, and this is mainly what I was getting at, is that regardless of how you think things ought to be, even if you are totally right, your overall experience at church is really up to you and the approach and attitude you have going in. Even if it's "That guy should not be telling us what our goal should but I'm going to focus on finding someone sitting alone and be friendly to them." Don't allow others to get you riled up. Keep a positive, let's do some good attitude and don't allow others to put you in a bad mood. Easier said than done sometimes? Yes, but worth the effort.

Why would that make you want to leave? So they propose something that doesn't fit your situation, why should that bother you at all? It sounds like your approach to church worship needs a little tweaking. I personally recommend shifting your focus to individuals who need a smile or encouraging word. Not only will you find your time at church much more meaningful but we are promised that as we bless others we find our own burdens made lighter. Makes all the difference for me.

I have always been fascinated with the question of why people die when they do. Obviously agency plays a big roll but the Lord can intervene if He sees fit to do so. And if the experiences we have in this life are SO important why do some depart so early in life? Just yesterday I was talking to a friend of mine in a very similar circumstance. He is in his early 60 but has lost two of his closest friends in the last year, one in an auto accident and I think the other from illness. I know there's a lot of work being done on the other side as well but it still makes me wonder why their early departure was not avoided by divine means. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying I don't know to your question. Though clearly it has to mean that you still have a ton to work on @Traveler before your time is up. 😄