laronius

47 But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him. The first part of that verse is the part we all remember. But the wording of the second part is interesting: "whoso is found possessed of it." It sounds like charity is more than just an attribute that we seek to add to the other desired Christlike qualities but rather something that is all encompassing and affects everything we do, beyond those things we normally associate with the usual manifestations of love. This seems to bear out in other descriptions of charity such as "rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth," and "beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things."

It is an interesting distinction. Even an otherwise wicked individual seems to be capable of feeling love towards a parent, spouse or children. Where as charity is a gift, reserved only for the more righteous. In Alma 5 Alma asks whether we have felt to sing the song of "redeeming love." That's an interesting way to phrase it but very synonymous, I think, to the pure love of Christ.

This is actually very similar to thoughts I've had recently on consecration and it's connection to charity. In the sacrifice of Jesus Christ we see the physical manifestation of God's love for us and also Christ's willingness to total consecration of his will to his Father's. I think those two principles go hand in hand. In Moroni 7:48 we learn that the Father bestows charity upon all who are "true followers" of his Son Jesus Christ. I think that is God's way of qualifying us for the work because we could not do as the Savior did without that ability to love and sacrifice.

The scriptures teach us that charity is the pure love of Christ, a very succinct answer. The problem with succinct answers is that sometimes we fail to dig any deeper feeling we already have THE answer. But the scriptures also hint, or perhaps more than hint, at charity or God's love being more than a divine attribute. In Lehi's vision the tree of life is the ultimate goal of the righteous. Nephi later learns that it represents the love of God and that it "is the most desirable above all things" and "the most joyous to the soul." We also learn that if we advance in perfection in every other way but charity we are still NOTHING. In Moroni 8:25-26 perfect love seems to be the end goal of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are other treatments of this topic in the scriptures that also seem to encourage us to not be so satisfied with such a succinct definition of charity, the pure love of Christ, not that it is inaccurate in any way but that it in itself is so deep with meaning that we are only scratching the surface if we stop there. So I'm interested if anyone has more in depth definitions or light shedding experiences that can flesh out this incredibly essential quality, if quality is even a broad enough term to call it.

I think the Lord is perhaps also factoring in degree of difficulty points. When speaking to the three Nephites he talked about them still experiencing sorrow for the evil in the world that apparently the dead are largely free from. John would likewise be willingly subjecting himself to this sorrow in order to work in far less pleasant circumstances than I think we find in the spirit world. But these conditions also create opportunity and so John was willing to make that sacrifice because he knew of the increased good he could do. But like @Vort said that's a difficult thing to desire. I think we see a microcosm of this in the experiences of Alma and Ammon. Alma was an absolutely amazing man who would go preach the gospel, sometimes amidst horrifying circumstances, and would then go home, rest up and then go out again. Meanwhile Ammon dedired to commit the rest of his life if necessary to the hated enemy the Lamanites, perhaps never to return home again. Upon meeting years later Ammon experienced a depth of joy that even Alma couldn't. This is nothing against Alma nor should we think less of Peter but there seems to be a whole nother level of love and willing sacrifice that very few in this life attain to. I think Alma and Peter would have agreed to similar assignments if called but there are those who seek such service out and that's a rare trait.

I think the work on this side of the veil is "greater" at least in a quantitative way in two ways. One is that the dead are reliant on the living to perform any needed ordinances. So the work on this side truly affects both sides. Also the ability to progress seems much more enhanced while in the flesh and there is a deadline attached, death, both of which makes the work here perhaps more urgent and even substantial, though maybe that's not the best word for it. But from a qualitative perspective it's all the same importance.

I'm not sure where exactly we would draw the line between good news and doctrine but in this week's reading the Lord defines his doctrine as "whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church." (D&C 10:67) Of course there is a whole lot implied in that "repenteth and cometh unto me." But 1 Nephi 15:14 gives what I think is a good description of how the good news and the doctrine work together: "wherefore, they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer and the very points of his doctrine, that they may know how to come into him and be saved." To me the coming to the knowledge of our Savior is the good news but it's in the doctrine that we learn how to truly come unto him.

I guess I would need to know your definition of doctrine as opposed to gospel to answer precisely but to me if using "good news" as the definition of gospel I would say that this news is what inspires hope and the desire to believe. It is the promise of a better world. But it's a knowledge of the doctrine that makes full bodied faith possible. We can be inspired by the good news that God wants us to be happy but without the knowledge of His divine attributes can we really have faith in those promises? We can find hope in hearing that Jesus is our Savior but without learning about the doctrines of the gospel and what is required to be born again our hope is no more that a wish.

I'm not sure what you mean by "members of Christ's church." There are many who are currently technically members of the Church because they've been baptized but who chose not to live the gospel so being a member does not necessarily imply a certain degree of righteousness. So while certain ordinances do need to be performed for all those who will eventually inherit the Celestial Kingdom it is obedience to the associated covenants that will be the deciding factor. As to whether there are "churches" as we know it in the differing kingdoms of glory is not something, to my knowledge, that has been revealed.

One of the oft repeated themes of the Book of Mormon is the promise/warning: If ye will keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land—but if ye keep not his commandments ye shall be cut off from his presence. It would seem, at least in part, that the Lord in 3 Nephi 9 is trying to be very clear that the horrific destruction of life they just witnessed was not a rash reaction of a vengeful God but rather the fulfillment of their conditional existence upon the promised land they've been warned about for centuries. It also stands in stark contrast to what they would experience about a year later when they themselves behold the face of the Lord in the flesh. I think it's a literal fulfillment of that promise made by the Lord as early on as 1 Nephi ch 2.

I think the main difference is obedience is easier in a group. Social pressure, for both good and bad, can make it easier or harder to live the gospel. Though we have great examples like Mormon, Moroni, Abinadi, and others who show us obedience is possible even without that group support. To your point we know Elijah was taken up in a chariot of fire and I believe there were individuals who were taken up before the great flood. It takes a strong person to remain faithful alone but it is possible so not having a group to support us does not excuse us but it sure is a lot easier.

I have always simply translated it as restored as well but as I have thought more closely on it I kind of came up with a thought that I think touches on both of your comments. To me reveal could also be interpreted as granting perspective. Elijah wasn't the only one to restore priesthood keys but what he restored really addresses the role of the priesthood from an eternal perspective. Family government is the real lasting form of government in the eternities and what is priesthood if not a governing power. So this sealing power Elijah restored and with it the knowledge of eternal families puts the role of the priesthood here on earth in it's proper perspective. Those keys go beyond simply the granting of authority to act but brings with it the motivating force to act by helping us see more clearly. This comes in the spiritual connection we receive to those who've come before which we call the Spirit of Elijah. It's also found in the thinning of the veil that enables us to work more closely with those in the Spirit world. And the work of forming and building families here on earth can be done with the knowledge of their eternal potential. I'm sure there are other ways it grants perspective as well.

"Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet..." I thought this wording was interesting. There were multiple prophets who "restored" keys but here the Lord says "reveal." Any thoughts on what about the Priesthood is being revealed?

Everyone will inherit a kingdom with a glory equal to the law a person is willing to live. If an otherwise righteous individual chooses not to live the law governing celestial marriage then they will be rewarded with a righteous person's inheritance less the blessings that come by obedience to the marriage covenant. Apparently that is within the Celestial Kingdom but not the higher degree of that kingdom. This person will not be considered disobedient because that law is not required of them. This is to my understanding how all the kingdoms of glory will operate and why their number are like the stars in the heavens.

Three things came to mind as I read your post. 1. There is nothing wrong with seeking confirmation on something. Even if there is one correct answer and it is being taught to us having a spiritual confirmation can be greatly helpful in living that commandment. 2. Being as objective as possible when seeking to interpret revelation is huge. I think in many instances the Lord cares far more about whether our greatest desire is to do His will rather than whether we kept the commandment exactly how he intended. 3. While there is a fairly established ideal that we pursue in life our individual uniqueness and missions in life do in fact cause deviations from that ideal. But these deviations can only be known to us through revelation and as I said before by not allowing our own desires to get in the way of what God wants.

I think 1 Nephi 3:7 states how we should approach any commandment from God but all the while acknowledging that He at any moment could change, void, reverse course, or alter in any way his command.

I think there can be multiple things that factor in with these situations. I think the same qualifier we find with the promises of God pertain to his commandments as well. Heb 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us... When fulfilling the original commandment is no longer best suited to bringing about the exaltation of man it is completely within God's purview to alter that commandment or at least give a temporary reprieve. In connection with that point I think timing could also be a factor. A commandment was given to establish Zion in Jackson County. The early saints failed to do so but the commandment still exists and will one day be accomplished. There is also the element of grace to be considered. In many instances the fulfilling of a commandment is not entirely within the power of man. So the "keeping" of a commandment as it pertains to us is necessarily restricted to that part we can control. If God chooses in His own wisdom to withhold His helping hand and the ultimate end of the commandment is not attained it could still be argued that for our part the commandment was indeed "kept." And it all could just be a test as with Abraham offering up his son. That is why faith is the First principle of the gospel. There is simply too much going on both behind the scenes and beyond our comprehension to fully understand the workings of God.

This for me as well but I would also include humility though it has less to do with what's going on in the world and more with where I'm at in my progression. These are the two prerequisites found in Ether 12:27. For me I think this is the year to give up my favorite sins and to cease holding back part of myself from being "all in" as it were in my devotion to the Lord.

I totally agree that it's not just a position or job but I think there is a distinction to be made between the use of "God" as a personal reference to our Heavenly Father and when describing the position held by a member of the Godhead. And I wasn't taking your comments personally, just seeking clarification.

. 😂

Thank you @CV75 that is a good response and straight from the prophet's mouth. Nice. I think you are right in that "gathering" is far more than a matter of geography. And implied in all this is the fact that we ourselves are also in the process of being gathered, regardless of our past activity and commitment.

I guess I don't understand why you are taking issue with this. Here is the definition of title: "a name that describes someone's position or job" To me that is accurate and in no way minimizes who He is or what the name/title stands for. I think I get your point in that when used without a clarifier it generally refers to our Father in Heaven but my initial response was in regards to it being applied to the Holy Ghost and as such I was making the distinction between the multiple Beings who use that name/title.

One of the main themes and point of major emphasis for Pres Nelson thus far is the gathering of Israel. I think the importance of this ongoing event is obvious and everytime he brings it up in my mind I think to myself "Got it. The gathering is very important." But I still haven't really come to any firm conclusion on what is different now, if anything, from before and my role in it all. I think it started a couple years ago when Pres Nelson came to our area where tens of thousands of saints gathered together to hear what he had to say and it was mostly on this topic. Afterwards I remember thinking "Okay, so now what? Is this just a renewed call to participate in the three main missions of the Church or is there something more to it?" And I am left with these same thoughts everytime he brings it up. It's obviously a point of focus he is emphasizing and I would like to respond accordingly but I feel like I'm missing something. Has anyone else had similar thoughts or insights they are willing to share?

I don't that we can ever say that being saved is merely an "aside" to any message about the Good Word as that is the focal point of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is being saved that gives meaning to and defines everything else, not the other way around. But I do agree with your assessment of being reconciled to God as the context in which this statement is uttered.

@maklelan after reading your paper I think you make a pretty convincing case for Joseph's original intent on that verse. I think the fact that seemingly so little was said by church leaders over the first 50 years about this verse tells us that not only did they not have an issue with the wording but also with the doctrine it implied, unlike today where there is much debate and even a lot of doctrinal twister going on to try to make a modern interpretation of that verse fit with the rest of our doctrine. I think it is possible, depending on how you define things, but I was never comfortable with the idea that a teaching so much at the core of what we believe could be anything but simple and straight forward to understand. Interpreting "after" as "despite" doesn't negate the essential role of our works in the process but rather focuses on the essential element of the role of Christ in all this which is exactly the context in which this verse is being spoken of. As a side note I am really coming to like Moroni 10:32 in understanding this doctrine as to me it more clearly teaches exactly what is going on. The principle of being "perfected in Christ" is very descriptive and conveys, to me, a much clearer picture of the importance of what we do and become without minimizing the overarching role of Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer.