laronius

You are comparing a properly run boy scout troop to a current youth program that is not run properly. That's not exactly a fair comparison. LDS troops (in general) were always a far cry from non-LDS troops. Why? Because everyone in a non-LDS troop, leaders and scouts, really wanted to be be there. In the Church leaders were called to lead and scouts were told to go. Did it still produce some good results? Yes. But only to the extent that the leaders were willing to lead and scouts were willing to scout. It's no different with the current youth program. The current youth program does have written standards, it's called the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and a covenant path of advancement, though we usually call it progression. But if leaders are not enforcing the standards then that is a problem with leadership, not the program. Your grandkids' parents need to be having some frank discussions with ward leadership.

3 Nephi 5:12 And behold, I am called Mormon, being called after the land of Mormon, the land in which Alma did establish the church among the people, yea, the first church which was established among them after their transgression. Is anyone familiar with what Mormon is referencing here regarding their transgression? At first I thought it referenced the people under King Noah falling into wickedness and Alma preaching after being converted by Abinidi. The scriptures state he established a church among them. And maybe that is what he is referencing concerning their transgression. But I find it curious that after leading his people back to Zarahemla King Mosiah authorizes him to establish churches their as well. So it would seem that a formal church organization did not exist there nor did it likely exist when Limhi took people back to the land of Nephi. If that is true then the transgression Mormon is referring to likely took place before Limhi ever left Zarahemla. My line of reasoning is based on the premise that the transgression referred to was the reason an official organized church had stopped functioning in the first place. But of course that could be incorrect.

I agree but it's a pretty accurate construct of what we read in the Book of Mormon. Over and over it speaks about how the people became wealthy, turned proud, indulged in sin, and disaster followed. But of course this is taking a macro view of society. You seem to want to be wanting to create something that takes a micro view of this pattern accounting for exceptions to the general rule.

If our interpretation of a thing supports a false teaching, perhaps it's our interpretation that is in error and not the thing. Moriah 2:41 And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual... I think this is the definition of prosperity that the pride cycle chart refers to. I also think there is merit in pointing out that prosperity does not necessarily equate to being rich. Though financial prosperity is in fact often an outcome of righteousness because the gospel reinforces those principles that lead to such but it obviously is not a guarantee of such.

At the temple I work at we have been instructed that, though not ideal, ordinances for the dead do not have to be performed in order. They simply are not activated, spiritually speaking, until the prior ordinances are performed. Though admittedly this is not completely the same as God administering the ordinances out of order to a living individual. Ordinances don't have any power in and of themselves. It is God who has the power and ordinances are the ordained way to access it. Even then, God has the final word in that the Holy Spirit of Promise must at some point seal that ordinance for it to be recognized in Heaven. So if God sees fit to change up an ordinance sequence because it better serves His purposes I think that is entirely within His purview.

In addition to what's already been said, if someone is worthy of exaltation but simply lacks the marriage/sealing ordinance either because they did not have the opportunity in this life or because their spouse did not keep their covenants, the general understanding is that person, in the next life but prior to the resurrection, will be allowed to be sealed to a worthy companion. No blessing will be withheld from those worthy of that blessing.

I haven't watched it all yet and look forward to it, but the first example she gives of Jesus coming as a thief in the night may in fact have dual symbolism going. That's not uncommon. But the scriptures make it very clear that the symbol being used in this instance is an actual thief, not the high priest (though there may be an additional symbol there as well). Some people don't like Jesus being compared to a thief. Of course all analogies have their limitations beyond which the symbolism is not intended to be taken. In this instance though, I believe Jesus being compared to a thief is from the householder's perspective (a wicked householder of course). This analogy is especially enlightening when used in conjunction with the symbolism of Jesus standing at the door and knocking. The righteous will open the door and let Him in as a welcome Guest. But those who reject Him will in the end not be able to refuse His entrance and what ever was in that house that was more important to them than He who sought admission will be lost to them in the eternities. I think these contrasting symbols elaborate on how the Lord's coming is both great and terrible.

A couple thoughts on how many "make it." 3 Nephi 14:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, which leadeth to destruction, and many there be who go in thereat; 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. So what's a few? That's a rather relative term and we don't know how broadly it is to be interpreted. For example, a lot of children have died before reaching the age of accountability on this earth. They are saved by virtue of the atonement. Are they included in the "few" or are these verses only specifically speaking of those who live long enough to choose between the narrow and broad paths? And what about all of God's children on other worlds? I've read nothing that says those worlds are as bad as this one. I mean, we did get Satan after all. So maybe those from this earth that reach exaltation are but a drop in the universal bucket of exalted beings. I'm sure there are many other variables as well. But my point is that it's impossible to even guess at numbers or percentages.

Apparently they have three meeting times. That sounds fairly accommodating to me. I think administering the sacrament is a significant logistical factor.

I think this is an important distinction that is perhaps not fully understood. Certainly a person can intellectually know or understand something and yet not believe it. A person can also know something intellectually and even believe it and yet have very little actual experience with it (which provides a much deeper level of understanding). So when we talk of losing light (spiritually speaking) what exactly is being lost? Is it just belief or is it something more, actual knowledge of something? I don't think Satan could do his job so well if he had knowledge erased. After all, it's difficult to oppose something when you don't even know what you oppose. As far as belief goes, it makes we wonder whether that was even an issue in the premortal world. When God presented his plan, was it even considered possible that it might not work? Did Satan disbelief the plan or did he simply reject it? At the present, I think Satan had/has a very clear recollection of all that was discussed in that grand council. But what exactly was discussed? @Vort your comment here touches on something I've wondered about. We just assume that when we talk about the grand council in heaven that it was specifically for those on this earth. What if it wasn't? What if all the inhabitants of the other worlds were there as well and the general plan is what Lucifer heard and then after his rebellion and expulsion there was another council held specifically for those coming to this earth to explain the modifications. This would certainly leave Satan in the dark to a degree.

This comment made me think of this verse: D&C 45:7 For verily I say unto you that I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the light and the life of the world—a light that shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not. I think this doctrine was definitely a contributing factor in Lucifer's mental and spiritual state both in the premortal world and the garden.

You have provided much to chew on, though I will specifically address your last point of Satan's arrogance. I have often wondered, and I know others have as well, about how Satan thought he could prevail against God in the premortal world. He clearly isn't stupid. But there had to be something, even if mistaken, that made him think he stood a chance. It's very possible that this lack of understanding in the garden is a continuation of his original rebellion.

It would be interesting to know exactly how much comprehension they had, including Satan. I guess it's possible that even they had some type of a veil placed over them on coming to earth. Though clearly not to the same extent as us.

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. The interpretation I've heard in regards to the underlined part is that Satan did not realize that God planned for Adam and Eve to fall so Satan was really just playing into God's hands. If that is correct, does that mean the fall was not explained in the council in heaven? And what did he think Jehovah's role in all this was? If you don't think that is correct, what do you think it refers to?

In short, yes. But this fullness of joy can still be limited by ones willingness to receive it. D&C 88:32 And they who remain shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received.

His ability to be perfectly faithful to us is the foundation for our ability to have complete (though perhaps imperfect) faith in Him.

Your comments about a broken heart made me think of Enoch's experience where he witnesses God crying and it confuses him. How can the God over the universe be overly concerned because a few (relatively speaking) of His children rebel? The Lord then explains the source of His great grief and helps Enoch see as He sees. We then read: Moses 7:41 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Enoch, and told Enoch all the doings of the children of men; wherefore Enoch knew, and looked upon their wickedness, and their misery, and wept and stretched forth his arms, and his heart swelled wide as eternity ; and his bowels yearned; and all eternity shook. This to me is the exact opposite of a hardened heart. A heart so soft and pliable that there is no limit on it's ability to feel compassion and love, as much for the one as the masses. Enoch and his people were taken up. I have to believe that the condition of their hearts was a controlling factor in that process.

Verse 39 is the outcome. Verse 26 describes how it's brought to pass. Though it could be argued that because we become yoked to Christ and one with Him, verse 26 also describes the same thing as verse 39 but I still think the author is specifically describing Christ's ability to save us in verse 26, not the result of us being saved.

Sure. But once it's recorded as scripture then it's doctrine, either true doctrine or false doctrine.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Nephi is perfect, just that he wasn't guilty of this particular imperfection. But even that really isn't the issue here. The issue isn't who Nephi was but what was recorded as scripture and what those scriptures teach. And while I don't know that I'm prepared to say that the Book of Mormon is perfect I am willing to say that it does not teach false doctrine and yet that seems to be what this author is implying.

2 Nephi 5:22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. There are two ways to interpret this and Nephi "making a mistake" isn't one of them. Either the Lord told him to say this and Nephi is completely justified in his comments or the Lord didn't tell him to say this and Nephi is a false prophet.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison. I think spirit prison is actually a better term to use when teaching those not of our faith. Hell in our beliefs is quite different than what most Christians believe.

It's exactly these kind of people who make it out of the primaries (generally speaking) and then who consequently get elected. So while I don't think the run of the mill members of the other party are evil, I do feel that way about many who do get elected. Not all of them of course, but it seems the ones with greatest influence tend to be rather diabolical.

Because we also worship Jesus Christ (though not exactly the same way we do our Heavenly Father) I think henotheism works too.

I would be curious to know what source Daniel Ludlow cited in his book for that information. There needs to be a reliable original source. So far we just have one commentary citing another commentary. I would not ascribe too much salt to the claim without additional information.