laronius

Doctrine doesn't mean canonized. I may teach a completely true gospel principle but my words aren't canonized. Same thing with the prophets. But what we learn in D&C 68:4 is that anything the brethren teach when moved upon by the Holy Ghost is "scripture." Again, not necessarily canonized but when something is taught and received by the Spirit it can nonetheless be of equal value. Without the Spirit even canonized works can be misinterpreted.

What @romans8 is referring to is a picture of what I presume is the premortal spirit world that shows a black young man among others. So I'm guessing his question is about race in the premortal world. I don't know that any prophet or apostle gas ever commented on that subject before but the picture is clearly just pointing out that we are all God's children and lived with him before we were born. I don't think anything can be inferred beyond that.

I think the brethren have been pretty clear about our duty in that we are to participate in the process and to stand up for what we believe and to do so civilly. We see the same thing in the Book of Mormon. We even read if a righteous chief judge giving up his place in the government to preach the gospel because the laws had become corrupt. To @Colirio point if we aren't a righteous people we shouldn't expect a righteous government. I've always believed in the statement that our system of government can only govern a largely righteous people. So while it can be very disheartening to see what's going on it really doesn't change what we should be doing.

All ordinances must be performed prior to judgment. The sealing ordinance, whether performed in person or by proxy is the same.

I said resurrection but I think judgment day is more precise though I think they go hand in hand.

That's just it. If the doctrines of continuing revelation and personal revelation are true, which are fundamental foundation stones of our church, then there is no end to knowledge. At least not until we become like God. Damnation is always self emposed.

If the Church was as we define other Christian churches as having much of the truth but not all then I think we would simply find which ever church most closely resembles what we feel is right and join ourselves with it. But to say we wouldn't leave the Church even if it wasn't true is not something we could know, in my opinion, because if you take away things like actual prophets and the priesthood the Church would be drastically different.

I think you make a good point in that what we are experiencing is the natural, perhaps even self-existing progression of an "intelligence." So in that general sense we are simply following the same course as all who have come before, even our Father in Heaven. But as this course could not proceed without the devine planning of our Heavenly Parents on our behalf it does make it their plan for us even though they may not have been the originator of that plan. Though it could be argued that because each of us is unique, while the overall plan is the same for us all, all of the details that help us individually do in fact make for a unique plan for each of us. As to your question of where did it all begin I think you could add it to the list of timeless questions found in the hymn If You Could Hie To Kolob.

I think the Lord works with people on whatever level they are at. If televangelism is the only way he can reach certain individuals then I think he will work through televangelists to do just that. But I'm pretty certain the Lord is not happy with those who grow rich teaching His word. So while they may be doing some good in this world I fear their reward in the next will not be what they hope it is.

I'm not sure about the time mentioned. Perhaps it is a specific period of time or something more general but the woman represents God's people or more specifically His church. Being driven into the wilderness is referring to apostasy. Similar to the Israelites spending 40 years in the wilderness due to their disobedience. The wilderness is a condition of being chastened and prepared to entering into a promised land to live a more holy existence. This is a pattern that has played out multiple times throughout history both for individuals and groups of people. I think in this instance it is referring to the Church falling away from the truth after the time of Christ. Eventually it would be restored through the prophet Joseph Smith but in the meantime it had to endure what we call the dark ages. I think the feeding referred to was the fact that Christianity endured even in it's fallen condition and then with the inspired help of Martin Luther and other reformers and the invention of the printing press which allowed much greater circulation of the Bible and in the formation of a new nation where religious tolerance existed, all of which helped to breath new life into Christianity, the way was prepared for the Lord to re-establish His Church and bring it back out of the wilderness to enjoy it's full blessings and standing before the Lord.

The premortal Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost were/are also "Gods," not THE God but Gods nonetheless. It is a title that can also be used as a name. Is there something upon which you are basing your definition of God as Father or is that just your personal belief? I've never tried to define it before so I'm just curious.

God is a title. I don't know how I would even define it specifically. But it encompasses the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost notwithstanding their varying roles and missions. And while there is much we do not know about who the Holy Ghost is we do believe that he will have all the blessings, such as eternal marriage, made available to him at some point.

I guess that makes you a demigod, emphasis on the demi. 😀

Eternal marriage is definitely part of the plan. So yes Jesus was either married in this life or if his specific mission precluded him from marrying in this life then he married after. But if I understand it correctly marriage has to take place before the resurrection so that would not have given him much time.

I think they have lost or perhaps never had the proper prospective on what matters most. She estoles the virtues of being a stay-at-home mom and then turns around and says having a career is of equivalent value with the only virtue of that course of action being "because that's what you want to do." The false doctrine of "self fulfillment" has taken hold and I hope they root it out before their families pay the price.

Perhaps not first in terms of when it was recorded but first in the timeline is the fall of Lucifer.

On a somewhat unrelated but interesting sidenote, the name Mary is believed to have been brought out of Egypt with the deliverance of Israel and is believed to be derived from the Egyptian word "mry" meaning beloved. Could thus be part of the reason or symbolism behind why God always introduces Jesus as His "beloved Son," maybe?

I found this on a non-LDS website (I think it was Catholic) that I think is helpful: "In Revelation 12:1-6 we see into heaven and there behold the woman, the dragon, and the woman's child. In verses 7-12 we read of the archangel Michael and the dragon who move from heaven to earth, and then in verses 13-17 of the dragon, the woman, and her child, all of whom are on earth. It would appear that the woman has a primary reference to the people of God, Israel, and the church, with a secondary reference to Mary, mother of the Messiah: she is a "type" of the church." So we aren't the only ones with this interpretation but you are right in that often the Church represents the wife or intended bride of Jesus and we are the offspring of that union when we are born again. Though we know that Jesus does fill the roles of both Father and Son at times and if we compare the description of the conception of Jesus Christ it sounds a whole lot like the process of being born again. Such as this verse in our scripture: D&C 5:16 And behold, whosoever believeth on my words, them will I visit with the manifestation of my Spirit; and they shall be born of me, even of water and of the Spirit-

I think you make a great point about His relationship with other exalted beings. I also like this part of the definition from the link you provided: Gratitude is an uplifting, exalting attitude.

First of all let me make the point that I am not saying that I do not believe God feels gratitude. My thoughts are still in fact evolving as it is a thought I have not really considered in the past and have had no more than a few moments to consider. My hope is to flesh out the idea. But to address your specific comment while the feeling of joy and gladness are often accompanied by the feeling of gratitude they are not actually the same thing.

When I sat down to define for myself what gratitude means to me I defined it as: the feeling evoked by the recognition that something of value to us and yet not entirely within our ability alone to obtain is yet made available to us. After writing that out I thought it sounded a whole lot like the definition of grace. After a little research I found out why. Both words gratitude and grace have close original ties to the Latin words gratia meaning kindness, favour, and esteem and the word gratus meaning pleasing.

On the surface this seems like an obvious answer but when we consider what gratitude means and we also consider how all things are God's already is gratitude a godly attribute or just a divinely appointed attribute for those who are to any degree less than He is? Obviously how we define gratitude/thankfulness will factor in so it would be helpful to maybe share your definition of it when expressing your views but I thought it would be a worthwhile discussion in coming to better understand the importance of gratitude in our own lives.

Vs 9 "Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I will take upon me flesh and blood..." What do you suppose he saw that would lead him to this conclusion? Even though his assumption was incorrect, the Lord seems to imply that there was something about his appearance that revealed the fact that he would one day have flesh and blood.

So I came across something today that made me reconsider the interpretation of the duration of the half hour of silence. The most common interpretation is using the 1 day = 1000 years calculation. But that's assuming that 1 day had 24 equal units termed hours. What I learned today is that the ancient Hebrew calendar had 24 hours but the duration of each hour changed throughout the year. They were known as relative hours. In other words the daytime (when the sun was up) was divided into 12 hours no matter what time of year it was. So an hour during the summer was longer than during the winter. The night also had 12 relative hours. Not that this proves anything other than don't get your mind set on any one interpretation.

I think some of the confusion here is because people are talking about two different things: the doctrine of grace in total vs what specific element of that doctrine Nephi is focusing on. One doesn't make the other untrue but it does create misunderstanding.