NeedleinA

Related to the first confederate female spy to be imprisoned. Family members in Tennessee had slaves, learned the gospel, freed their slaves and all of them, freed slaves included all moved to Utah. Family members founded pleasant grove utah. 

Related to the first confederate female spy to be imprisoned. Family members in Tennessee had slaves, learned the gospel, freed their slaves and all of them, freed slaves included all moved to Utah. Family members founded pleasant grove utah. 

2 Nephi 9:7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.
Alma 34:12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.
2 Nephi 25:16 And after they have been scattered, and the Lord God hath scourged them by other nations for the space of many generations, yea, even down from generation to generation until they shall be persuaded to believe in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement, which is infinite for all mankind—and when that day shall come that they shall believe in Christ, and worship the Father in his name, with pure hearts and clean hands, and look not forward any more for another Messiah, then, at that time, the day will come that it must needs be expedient that they should believe these things.
Works for me.
Lehi

This would be a new limiting term for mankind, for me. All of God's creations, on this earth and all other like earth's (temple), receive a mortal body. Even animals, all of God's creations receive a resurrected body -- corruption to incorruption -- as specified in LeSellers verses shared. All is accomplished through the Lord's atonement.
Mankind, as I have understood, is any of God's creations who have taken upon themselves his image.  This would include any of our brothers and sisters being born on other planets (temple).
If God is God over other earth's, than it would be logical/rational to conclude that the Savior would be Savior over other earth's also; however, this leads to many other questions which I can't see being answered in this life, and if it was revealed, I assume then this would fall under what Nephi and other prophets experienced, "And I was constrained by the Spirit not to reveal anything more."

The concept of Jesus not "stopping" or "rebuking" doesn't mean the action was "right." This is no different than when a father/mother recognizes a child who attempts to do good, but does not, and the parent smiles and accepts the "intention" of the giver, even if the giver is in error.
How often have I been in my garden and one of my children pulls up a good plant. I don't rebuke and I don't stop, because I am grateful they are in the garden pulling weeds even if they pull a healthy plant thinking it is a weed. Instruction then comes later, without rebuke, knowing full well the intention was to do right.

Okay, I'll bite, just for fun. I had the day off yesterday painting the house and reading things here. So I thought about your gristle question while painting. Do I have an answer? Nope. Just some thoughts.
1. What does "give birth" mean? A woman laid down in the bed, squeezing her husbands hand until it is purple in the earthly type of "give birth"? I would doubt it.
2. I would say yes, "give birth" perhaps in some other way/form.
3. My understanding is the spirit is in fact physical matter, simply a super refined physical matter. 
Thoughts?

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_relationship-lord/
This address includes these insights by Elder McConkie:
We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense—the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator.
[...]
There are yet others who have an excessive zeal which causes them to go beyond the mark. Their desire for excellence is inordinate. In an effort to be truer than true they devote themselves to gaining a special, personal relationship with Christ that is both improper and perilous.
I say perilous because this course, particularly in the lives of some who are spiritually immature, is a gospel hobby which creates an unwholesome holier-than-thou attitude. In other instances it leads to despondency because the seeker after perfection knows he is not living the way he supposes he should.
Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed. In this connection a current and unwise book, which advocates gaining a special relationship with Jesus, contains this sentence:
"Because the Savior is our mediator, our prayers go through Christ to the Father, and the Father answers our prayers through his Son."
This is plain sectarian nonsense. Our prayers are addressed to the Father, and to him only. They do not go through Christ, or the Blessed Virgin, or St. Genevieve or along the beads of a rosary. We are entitled to “come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16).
And I rather suppose that he who sitteth upon the throne will choose his own ways to answer his children, and that they are numerous. Perfect prayer is addressed to the Father, in the name of the Son; and it is uttered by the power of the Holy Ghost; and it is answered in whatever way seems proper by him whose ear is attuned to the needs of his children.

Greetings Mountain - I am a scientist and an engineer and I am also an active 5th generation member with a personal conversion to LDS covenants, doctrine and theology.  I am by training a physicist and mathematician that works in the field of automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  It is my opinion that the question of literal or symbolic understanding is the wrong question and will lead to poor conclusions.  First off, language itself is symbolic - so also are written words which introduces a second level of symbolism.  There is in reality no such thing as "literal" meaning.  What there is - is interpretations.  For example the word tree is a symbolic word that conveys a meaning that is spoken and then understood.  Seldom is the understood meaning preciously identical to what was spoken or written - there are many different kinds and species of trees.   There is more to understanding the symbolism of language than just understanding each word and how they are put together in language.  Each word heard or read has what we call an array of extent of possible meanings when it is interpreted by the receiver.  But when it is spoken or written there usually is a singular intended meaning.  It is called the intent.  So there is a difference between the extent of possible meaning and the intended meaning.  Sometimes something that is spoken or written will have multiple intended meaning - sarcasm is a fine example of communications with multiple meaning.
Another form of speech that often or usually has multiple meaning is called poetry.  A great deal of ancient scripture is written specifically in poetic format indicating that the intended message is Gnostic or hidden and requires divine assistance to grasp the intended understanding or meaning.  Genesis for example is written in an ancient Hebrew poetic format - which would indicate that the intended message is somewhat hidden within the textual symbolism used.  This type of communications with man is not strange to G-d or to Jesus Christ.  Jesus taught by parables that were specifically intended to have hidden messages for the faithful that would be lost or confused by those that do no have eyes to see and ears to hear. 
The economy of divine communication is very interesting in that G-d always employs multiple witnesses - with different symbolism.  An example is the dream of Pharaoh that were interpreted by Joseph.   In fact Joseph tells Pharaoh that the two dreams are one (the Hebrew term ehad) and that the message was doubled so that Pharaoh would "Know" that the message was from G-d. 
Lets consider another message in scripture call the epoch of Noah's ark.  It is interesting to me that scriptures do not call it Noah's boat but rather use the word ark.  This is the exact same term used to describe a sacred relic in the temple called the "ark" of the covenant which definitely was not a boat.  I personally believe that the reason the term ark was used in scripture was for special symbolic meaning.  A meaning that I believe will not be uncovered by literal analysis.  The epoch of Noah's ark is simple enough for a child to understand yet challenging enough for a disciple studying to be able to devote a lifetime of study, prayer and meditation to discover much hidden to the unprincipled that see only what is at the surface. 
I wish you well in your journey of discovery - and for the record - I believe the empirical witness that is interpreted by the scientific community is much more consistent than are the interpretations of scripture by the religious community that tends to have an agenda of apostasy.
 
The Traveler

Q: Did Noah really build an Ark?
A: I care. Why, truth! Noah really did build an ark the same way and method Nephi built a ship, after the manner the Lord had showed him.
Q: Why are there structures built by humans 5,000 years before Adam and Eve?
A: I care. Adam and Eve were the first son/daughter of those that have the ability to become like the Father. Brigham Young speaks of the notion of Adam and Even "replenishing" the earth. This has been republished by the Church more than once and was spoken (and published) by the First Presidency of the Church back in 1909, "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men." (Source)
Adam and Eve were real people, a real son, a real daughter, otherwise the Church would be false. How is a symbolic, fictional, character to lead a general assembly before Christ comes again in Adam-Ondi-Ahman? How does a fictional, symbolic character receive priesthood and pass this priesthood down to his posterity?  If Adam is symbolic, fictional, than Abraham would also be fictional, symbolic, Noah would be symbolic the City of Enoch would be symbolic, as Enoch (one of Adam's posterity) would not exist either.
I have never understood the notion from any LDS saint specifying Adam and Eve, are symbolic people, especially since Adam will one day return to lead his children again in a general assembly. How could there be any atonement if the fall was merely symbolic?  There are three pillars of truth: Creation, Fall, Atonement -- without Adam's literal existence there is no "Fall" and without the "Fall" there is no Atonement, and how could a fictional, symbolic character, be Michale the Archangel?  
Q: Was the Earth literally created in 7 days, or even 7,000 years?
A: I care. Why, I want to know truth. At this moment it is understood that days == periods, how long those periods are is unknown. Reading in the Doctrine and Covenants a scripture passage stood out to me while in the temple this night, that each earth, planet's time, is according to its sphere. We have to then understand a reckoning of time according to truth. Here is truth: In answer to the question—Is not the reckoning of God’s time, angel’s time, prophet’s time, and man’s time, according to the planet on which they reside? Whose time then was the earth created and do we actually know the reckoning of God's time?  I think not.  I care, and am looking forward to learning this truth -- not through science -- through God and revelation.
How do I account for science and gospel truth (faith)? Science == arm of flesh == theories of man == who have very limited knowledge according to what they suppose.  How often do we see science argue against itself after more researches provided? How does a theory last 100 years (spoken as fact) and then put down by another research article? Arm of flesh.  Faith == trust and confidence in God. I simply wait for his witness, once received, science can say anything it wants, if it contradicts -- science isn't wrong -- the man who profess the falsehoods are wrong.  Pure Science and Pure Religion will never contradict, it is always the theories of science and postulated theories in religion that cause contradiction. I also recognize some truths will not be revealed during a "Telestial" earth, as Telestial beings will not be able to handle "Terrestrial" or "Celestial" knowledge who are not spiritually minded.
Also, am I going to the Telestial Kingdom because I think Heavenly Father and Christ probably have some pretty stellar spaceships? YES
EDIT: Caveat -- when I am referring to science in the beginning I am referring to postulated theories put out by man/woman as fact which aren't factual.

Sadliers, I "Liked" your post above for the first paragraph, which I think is completely true. As for the second, I disagree. I see no important conflicts between the gospel truths and current scientific models on any topic.

I ignore probably 99.999% of science (a fraction of which is known to mortal men), because "Who cares, let’s focus on what is important."  If you want to study one science or another, go for it.  But asteroid compositions and the latest rocket designs and such don't impact my daily decisions.  There are so many things to study in mortality, that I have no problem with anyone studying almost anything.  IMO, apparent conflicts between science and revealed truth is nothing more than evidence of our own ignorance.  I choose to trust revealed truth and acknowledge that we have no clue how God brought many (most?) things to pass, and how he did it isn't the point - the Bible isn't a world-building manual, it's a faith-building manual.  Personally, I believe Adam and Eve were real people created as described in scripture* and that the endowment is overflowing with symbolism meant to teach us about a lot more important things than how Adam and Eve passed their time.
*Note that the D&C leaves no doubt they were real people, not symbols or fictional characters.  As for how they were created, I believe the scriptural description is completely accurate - as far as it goes.  Whether I understand it, or how much of the irrelevant-to-me bits were left out, is a whole 'nother (unanswerable) question.
And I think the same thing about every other scriptural story that some people see as "far fetched".  Some people willfully limit their capacity to believe in the miraculous and in powers beyond their comprehension.  For example, I believe Christ walked on water (or slightly above it so that he appeared to be walking on water).  I believe he was able to do that because he understood the various natural forces (laws of physics and other laws) needed to accomplish the goal, and used them the same way an airplane builder understands and uses natural forces to enable the plane to fly despite the fact that gravity really wants it to stay on the ground.
Those who think they must choose either science or faith are severely limiting themselves (and severely misunderstanding what faith is).  I find that life is far better when I let go of skepticism, which is only good for areas where self-preservation is the goal.  Where self-expansion is the goal, I believe all things are possible (by definition), even the things science doesn't yet understand.

I am a professional scientist (an ecologist, to be specific), and a faithful member of the church.  I find that both roles actually enhance me overall, because they address different aspect of life.
 Like looking at a forest from a scientific standpoint, I see so much marvelous complexity working together in such interact ways, science can only roughly approximate-- remember, science by definition doesn't actually prove anything, but just disproves stuff.  Looking at the same forest from a spiritual standpoint: I see a marvelous masterpiece with the fingerprints of deity all over.  Spirituality tells me why things are- something science never can.  Science tells me the how things are- understanding the mechanism which is not elaborated on in scripture (after all, the point of scripture is talk about God, not the chemical structure of rubisco).  

And here's at least one of the problems we Saints have with the Gospel:
We don't know the doctrines of the Church, and assume things that are not part of the doctrine are.
To wit: there is nothing in scripture or anyplace official that indicates the earth was created in 7 day, years, months or millennia. All we know is that there were seven creative periods. And we don't know much about even that, since we have three differing accounts of the creation.
We are not "Creationists" as are many in the Christian world: we do not have, as doctrine, a position on evolution, for instance. There are two official statements to that effect, and nothing to the contrary. Most LDSs are anti-evolution, but the Church is not.
So, while what we do know is not always in agreement with science, there are very very few places where doctrine and science are at odds.
So, who cares? Let's focus on what is important.
Lehi

That is kind of the crux of the whole matter isn't it?
There is a saying that "Doing what you have always done will get you what you have always gotten..."   However in threads like this it seems that the common complaint is "The world is not changing to my liking"
If your life isn't going the way you like, instead making excuses... grab your Faith, and exercise your agency the way God intended.   Doing so might not get you where you want to go, but it will get you where God wants you to be, and there can be a lot of peace when you know that.
 
 

1. Appears you'll have to speak to CHQ about that one.
2. Simply because the judicial system might be involved, how does that in any way negate the need for a church record down the road? Is the judicial system following each convicted person around for the rest of their life and informing/alerting all their future Bishops? If that person moves, or moves to a different country, who is watching out for the flock then and how, if not for the member's church record?
There are many aspects of the Church that members in general might find "new", however, I hope that no one tries to give off the impression/infers that these matters are some how secret. Perhaps the "bureaucracy back in Salt Lake" (CHQ) is not common knowledge, however, disciplinary councils and the fact that records are kept is open to any person on planet earth with internet access, assuming they care to read it. 

I share the following quote, not directed at anyone in particular, just an observation I tend to agree with:
”It is a paradox that men will gladly devote time every day for many years to learn a science or an art; yet will expect to win a knowledge of the gospel, which comprehends all sciences and arts, through perfunctory glances at books or occasional listening to sermons. The gospel should be studied more intensively than any school or college subject. They who pass opinion on the gospel (insert: policies) without having given it intimate and careful study are not lovers of truth, and their opinions are worthless“ - John A. Widtsoe

Here are some starter links, open to anyone interested:
Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings - Elder Ballard, lds.org
Handbook 2: 17.1.7 - "disciplinary councils...including the requirements for submitting reports"
tech.lds.org - Run a search on "disciplinary" in the forums 

1. Appears you'll have to speak to CHQ about that one.
2. Simply because the judicial system might be involved, how does that in any way negate the need for a church record down the road? Is the judicial system following each convicted person around for the rest of their life and informing/alerting all their future Bishops? If that person moves, or moves to a different country, who is watching out for the flock then and how, if not for the member's church record?
There are many aspects of the Church that members in general might find "new", however, I hope that no one tries to give off the impression/infers that these matters are some how secret. Perhaps the "bureaucracy back in Salt Lake" (CHQ) is not common knowledge, however, disciplinary councils and the fact that records are kept is open to any person on planet earth with internet access, assuming they care to read it. 

I share the following quote, not directed at anyone in particular, just an observation I tend to agree with:
”It is a paradox that men will gladly devote time every day for many years to learn a science or an art; yet will expect to win a knowledge of the gospel, which comprehends all sciences and arts, through perfunctory glances at books or occasional listening to sermons. The gospel should be studied more intensively than any school or college subject. They who pass opinion on the gospel (insert: policies) without having given it intimate and careful study are not lovers of truth, and their opinions are worthless“ - John A. Widtsoe

Here are some starter links, open to anyone interested:
Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings - Elder Ballard, lds.org
Handbook 2: 17.1.7 - "disciplinary councils...including the requirements for submitting reports"
tech.lds.org - Run a search on "disciplinary" in the forums 

GoogleFu powers, level up and activate!
Pew Research Center, December 2015: "Half of men and a comparable number of women say they ever play video games on a computer, TV, game console, or portable device like a cellphone."
Entertainment Software Association, August 2014: "Women older than 18 are 36 percent of the game-playing population, while boys younger than 18 are only 17 percent, according to a recent study by the gaming advocacy group Entertainment Software Association. [...] Men still make up 52 percent of the game-playing population, but women, now 48 percent of the gaming population compared with just 40 percent in 2010, are closing in.
Internet Advertising Bureau Great Britain, September 2014: "Based on interviews with 4,000 UK residents, the research asserts that women now account for 52% of the gaming audience, up from 49% three years ago."zc
Random Wikipedia graph, assembled from various sources and doesn't list PDA/cellphones:

Appears Kelli was not only told, but was told prior to a council. 
 

1. Appears you'll have to speak to CHQ about that one.
2. Simply because the judicial system might be involved, how does that in any way negate the need for a church record down the road? Is the judicial system following each convicted person around for the rest of their life and informing/alerting all their future Bishops? If that person moves, or moves to a different country, who is watching out for the flock then and how, if not for the member's church record?
There are many aspects of the Church that members in general might find "new", however, I hope that no one tries to give off the impression/infers that these matters are some how secret. Perhaps the "bureaucracy back in Salt Lake" (CHQ) is not common knowledge, however, disciplinary councils and the fact that records are kept is open to any person on planet earth with internet access, assuming they care to read it. 

I share the following quote, not directed at anyone in particular, just an observation I tend to agree with:
”It is a paradox that men will gladly devote time every day for many years to learn a science or an art; yet will expect to win a knowledge of the gospel, which comprehends all sciences and arts, through perfunctory glances at books or occasional listening to sermons. The gospel should be studied more intensively than any school or college subject. They who pass opinion on the gospel (insert: policies) without having given it intimate and careful study are not lovers of truth, and their opinions are worthless“ - John A. Widtsoe

Here are some starter links, open to anyone interested:
Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings - Elder Ballard, lds.org
Handbook 2: 17.1.7 - "disciplinary councils...including the requirements for submitting reports"
tech.lds.org - Run a search on "disciplinary" in the forums 

It might be worth noting, in passing, that "discipline" need not be something to be dreaded.  Discipline is merely the process through which disciples are made.
Re the two scenarios you post here:  There's pretty decent authority in LDS teaching that if I am forgiven of a sin, and then repeat it--that's an indication that my repentance for my first offense is not yet complete, and that first offense "springs back", as it were, into the Lord's memory.  So it's perfectly logical that, if I find myself facing a council for a particular offense, any prior discipline for the same offense should also be brought to my council's attention.
And, re the possibility of being perpetually ineligible for certain callings:  As far as I'm concerned, that'd be a silver lining.  But if I'm not a predator, and if my services are needed desperately enough--either by the Lord, or by the other people in my congregation--then the calling will come, regardless of what's on my membership record.
Beyond that - it sounds like there's a lot of uncertainty amongst a lot of board members here about precisely what is recorded, where that information is stored, and who can re-call it for future use; and the folks here are a pretty well-informed bunch.  So do consider the possibility that--in spite of your bishop's worrisome statements--he might actually not be very clear on that sort of info, either.  The handbooks to which he has access talk about the procedures he's supposed to follow; not about the procedures that the bureaucracy back in Salt Lake are supposed to follow.

Okay, a little clarification about what is written down during a DC so that this doesn't turn to further misunderstanding. 
 
1. When you speak with your Bishop, you may speak on a highly detailed level. (This is not recorded by anyone, NOR does the Bishop write it down anywhere).
2. No visit with a DC is audio recorded. It all comes from the notes of the Ward or Stake Clerk. The Clerk takes down "general" notes. He is not there to write a book or a love novel about an affair. Nor does he have the time to do so. His job is to write down a couple of key things:
a. General nature of the sin
b. What "in general" led to the sin
c. What church restrictions are in place, if any
d. Timeline for those restrictions
e. What counsel has been give to help the individual person avoid/repeat the same mistake (see item "b")
f.  What counsel has been given to help the individual heal/repent/feel the Savior's Love, etc. 
All of the items take up about 1 sheet of paper at best, and the smallest item usually is item "a", the item you are way too focused on.
While individuals in the room may hear "details", the clerk's job is to record in general terms. 
 

I'm in the middle of getting ready for church, listening to MoTab Choir on Pandora. I was thinking about this thread, and grateful that Kelli posted here about her concern. I believe all the answers and thoughts here are also beneficial for anyone who has ever wondered, "Am I being passed up for callings because of my record". Perhaps an Elder, who thinks he will never become a High Priest or a Sister who feels she is only good enough to be a primary teacher. (PTs are wonderful by the way). Thank you to everyone for sharing your thoughts. 
As I listened to MoTab, on came the song: Be Still My Soul. I thought instantly about Kelli or anyone else worried about confession and these words stood out to me:
"Be still, my soul: The Lord is on thy side; ...
Thur thorny ways leads to a joyful end...
When disappointment, grief, and fear are gone,
Sorrow forgot, love's purest joys restored.
Meeting with your Bishop to repent is simply helping an individual to have love's purest joys restored.

The trouble with that argument is that the sort of "reuniting with Christ" that traditional Christians imagine, is extremely similar to our perception of the Terrestrial Kingdom.  In Mormon theology, the Celestial proceed on to a plane of existence that traditional Christianity adamantly denies exists; whereas all those Christians who reject Mormonism--and Mormons who fail to keep a Celestial law--end up getting exactly what they've always said they wanted.
So, a conventional Christian who makes that allegation is making it from either a) ignorance, b) disingenuity, or c) a frankly juvenile obsession with being Number One (or at least, Better Than The Mormons) throughout the eternities.
I think there are a couple of things going on here, actually.
First--and I'm not really qualified to comment on this, but it's my perception, so take it for what you paid for it--the early 19th century converts to Mormonism who heard about eternal marriage/eternal families, seem to have considered it a very novel idea.  My understanding is that the traditional Christian position was something along the lines of that in the eternities, people have no individual identities--they are all part of a single mystical union with the Lord Himself.  The idea of being together with--or separated from--one's loved ones, simply didn't compute.  What's the point of talking about physical proximity, when we all coexist as a single entity that may or may not even have a corporeal form? 
Even now, you'll still find a number of Christian clerics who insist that there is no marriage in the eternities.  But the notion that the same sociality that exists here will exist in the hereafter--and that of course we will be with our loved ones!!!--seems to be gaining currency in orthodox Christian circles; and that strikes me as a relatively new development that is perhaps even, in part, a response to Mormon discourse on the matter.  At any rate, I think the Church has been a little tardy in adjusting its rhetoric to address the rapidly emerging Christian consensus.
Second--the scriptures and truly authoritative prophetic statements about eternal families tend to focus on what happens if we do get temple-sealed, not on what happens if we don't.  Certainly, a lot--maybe even the majority--of Mormons tend to draw a negative inverse conclusion; and that in turn permeates our teaching at the local level.  But frankly, I don't think it's right.  Barring a couple of anonymous Church manuals produced by the correlation committee; I see very little authoritative support for the notion that non-sealed families, or families whose members end up in different kingdoms, are "eternally separated" from each other--certainly no more than I have been "eternally separated" from my earthly parents just because I moved out of their home.  Marketing aside, I rather think that temple sealings don't really create eternal family relationships--they elevate them.

Thank you Lehi, great find! This clearly looks like, yes, the Church is defending the name "Mormon". 
Where is JAG when you need him? 

As best I can tell: 
1. The LDS church both "does" and "doesn't" own/right to the word "Mormon". 
2. The Church holds trademarks etc. through a division/company called: Intellectual Reserve, Inc.
3. It appears we (LDS Church) have the rights to "Mormon" when it comes to Educational Classes/Institutions.
4. It appears we do not have the rights to "Mormon" when it comes to Religious Services.