CV75

The reason I say that doing good does not yield the same results as exercising faith in Christ and walking the covenant path comes from Moroni 7: 16 For behold, the aSpirit of Christ is given to every bman, that he may cknow good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. 17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do aevil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him. 18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the alight by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same bjudgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged. This passage explains that every thing which invites us to do good and believe in Christ comes from God, but that which persuades us to believe not in Christ and deny Him comes from the devil. This renders a situation where people can be persuaded do good (glass half full) and yet deny Christ at the same time (glass half empty). We are all sinners but the Spirit strives with us. As you point out, our doctrine allows that this can be rectified, at the latest, in the spirit world where the fulness of the gospel is preached and proxy ordinances are extended. Where you believe going good and exercising faith in Christ are the same, how is your belief that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" consistent with the possibility (you use “if”) that there is not “one and only one true religion out there”? How is “choose with sure knowledge” the same as “know with a perfect knowledge” sufficient to “choose with faith.”? There is a certain point in Alma 32 (see verses 34-36) where sure (perfect) knowledge is gained, and yet it is still not perfect. I think this is where equating the glass half full (predominant attitude that people have faith in goodness) with the full glass (the predominant attitude that people have faith in Christ), while disregarding the empty glass (the predominant attitude that people deny Christ), breaks down. The three distinct dynamics (faith in goodness, faith in Christ, and denying Christ) can co-exist in the same person.

Semantically, and on a logical/formulaic level, yes. And at the same time, no -- it depends on your assigned definitions and your experience with the specific Person, Jesus Christ. A formula is objective, lending itself to be a tool meeting the subjective purpose of whomever accepts and applies it. You mentioned how this formula frees you from judging others who do not yet recognize the specific name of Christ, because deep down, by this logic, they really do have faith in Him. But what about those who, deep down, really don't, as humble as they might be since it is a different kind of humility (a "different gospel/Jesus")? This is why I tried to personalize your description by asking, "If you never heard of Christ, at what point would you be able to acknowledge your faith in Him?" Faith in Christ, or in anything, is a subjective experience, a product of your "mental states" (which for me includes spiritual processes) in response to the world around you ("...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God"). Alma 32 discusses how people who lack faith in Christ can develop it through an experiment with their subjective experience, already being humble (in the right way!), and does so without judging them even though deep down, they haven't yet had such an experience.

And I beleive it is this aspect of faith in Christ that frees you from that worry which you had previously. What other principle of light would have freed you to see God's mercy, understanding and forgiveness (to the same degree as a personal faith in and relationship with Him)? Who would worry about God's condemnation if they had not known of it or had no faith in Him?

If you never heard of Christ, at what point would you be able to acknowledge your faith in Him? Or, what is the difference between holding to an "anonymous" principle of light (such as compassion), and faith in Christ, or the difference between the fruits of compassion and faith in Christ, who has many other attributes? At what point does human compassion become perfect in the form of life eternal for self and others? Jesus is aware of our heeding His light, and He knows our names, but for many, and for so long, we do not know His name and gospel, what He did for us and why, and what He invites us to do in His name, and why. Until we learn the fuller picture. Doing good does not yield the same results as exercising faith in Christ and walking the covenant path. So. I think the difference is a matter of degree at best. The only way out of spirit prison is through faith in Christ, and many good people are stuck there until they accept the Gospel message, which begins with faith in Christ. This prison exists in this life as well as after we die.

Many people who do not have the restored gospel or even religion at all can still "follow and embrace the light" by abiding the principles of truth they do have. Over time we believe this will lead them to faith in Christ and making and keeping His covenants. I suppose this can extend to Church members who have faith in the Word of Wisdom, Tithing and other principles of light such as chastity, honesty, service, etc., and keep them and enjoy the blessings thereof, but may not yet connect these blessings to Christ personally, or think about Him much, or have a solid or valiant relationship with Him. They functionally "follow and embrace the light inside or outside the name of religion" and hopefully will eventually become converted to Christ. Many saints make and keep covenants without what they may feel is a sufficient level of faith in Christ but keep striving (which itself I consider to be an attitude and act of faith in Christ).

Faith in Christ is the first principle of the gospel, but choosing it is a matter of the receptivity of the heart to discern that which is good as illuminated by the light of Christ. We all have this opportunity to choose to have faith in Christ and act on it, but do not always condition our hearts to do so.

I addition to what @Carborendum shared, our hearts are what choose faith, so their condition is paramount. They cannot choose faith without the light of Christ to shine upon the "word" they hear. I consider this a form of grace, for everyone, everywhere has it, though it may be disregarded by some to a great degree.

The Parable of the Sower reminds me of the condition of the heart (mind, spirit) into which the seed (the word of God, Alma 32) is planted. Faith, belief and the desire to believe require a place (the heart) in which to operate and are prompted, or awakened and aroused, by choosing to heed the light of Christ as it shines within our heart. This capacity can be reduced through disobedience and tradition as the quality of the soil is affected.

This is a great analogy, but we don’t have a kid spending his own time, money and energy seeking to attend or attending college that never had or doesn’t have a desire to learn. To me, that is more analogous to the desires of any spirit (and all spirits) in the first estate choosing to come into the second estate (desiring what Heavenly Father has). What is not malleable is that indispensable, incipient desire to become like God [or a lawyer] and do what it takes to enter the second estate [college]. My rhetorical question about patriarchal blessings was meant to show that whatever transpires in this life, and whatever lesser desires one might cultivate in this life instead of godhood, it all began with a desire to be just like Heavenly Father: any spirit coming to earth had that desire. The variations in spiritual intelligence and talent only meets a corresponding degree of foreordination and opposition, so all things are equal in the probationary aspect of mortality. The Lord is more intelligent than they all and so He sets the balance and atones for any disruptions. Three cheers for big families! However the earthly generations were organized beforehand, the Lord had a plan for them all to be one (Spirit of Elijah, and also Acts 17: 26-28).

I don't either -- it was more a rhetorical question to point out why I don't subscribe to what was shared by another poster, as much sense as it might make initially.

I think this I why President Nelson emphasized the need to "think celestial" in this world's probation. A person who thinks celestial does not murder or even desire to murder (even better, put, he does not get angry with his brother, have contempt and deride him, or condemn him) and is thus prepared for the celestial law in that kingdom, where the law is to love everyone and foster life. I think this is one way in which the celestial inhabitants minister, or bring sustenance and life, to those in the terrestrial world who cannot steward it themselves (D&C 76: 87).

It may not, in which case you can only surmise what your pre-mortal desires were. But to the point that was made that less-than celestial desires in pre-mortality play out in this life (i.e., the person who did not desire celestial glory as a pre-mortal spirit, and who was BIC in this life, and leaves the Church because, consistent with their pre-mortal character, they do not want celestial glory), are the patriarchal blessings mistaken which said such Indviduals desired to follow God's will as a pre-mortal spirit? Sometimes this is phrased in different ways, in terms of valiant, desiring to preach the Gospel, enumeration of spiritual gifts and callings to build God's kingdom, etc.

This makes a good deal of sense and explains why people leave the Church, especially when BIC: they had lesser desires all along and the Lord provided a way to accommodate them if they would not come around to better desires while in this life. Paraphrasing Abraham 3:25, “…we will prove them herewith, to see if they will [come to desire] all things whatsoever the Lord their God [desires of] them.” The bolded conditional conjunction indicates nothing was written, or known, in stone. I can accept that someone like me did not want to be born into the Church, and that most of the human population throughout the ages did and does not want to be BIC, but my patriarchal blessing suggests that my premortal desires were consistent with God’s. Since all patriarchal blessings make this same or similar pronouncement, are the patriarchal blessings of those BIC who leave the Church mistaken?

I think you’re fine in what and how you said it, I was referring to the alternate assumptions that I carry because of my own background. Our assumptions still have us testifying of Christ as we discuss the ideals in our lesson topics. What I think happens sometimes is that teachers simply read and parrot the material, which thoughtlessness gets in the way of the Spirit and meeting the needs of the students.

I've been impressed that the opening instructions of the Come Follow Me lessons always encourage us to record our thoughts and impressions as a way to facilitate and grow into the principle of personal revelation by the Holy Ghost.

As a convert, my assumption was that not everyone wants to live in the Celestial Kingdom, that not everyone wants an eternal marriage, that not everyone wants an eternal family, that not everyone wants resurrection and immortality, etc. However, I have come to realize that, at some point, everyone wanted these things (after all, we are in the second estate for that very reason!), but they come to not want it as a result of denying our conscience (the light of Christ) through disobedience and the traditions of men (D&C 93: 38-39), with or without a knowledge of the restored gospel. This happens to many Church members also, so even more reason to preach the ideal first and foremost. The testimony of Christ should be given in connection with any of these "appendages" to His resurrection and His Atonement which made it possible. I still carry that same assumption, but I have also grown in the power of the Lord's Redemption and to emphasize the ideal blessings which describe the fruits of His redemption.

I see the two views as compatible in that Christ invites us to be one with Him (John 17, and is that not something to put first?), but many parables show that we do not place that vision foremost. Jesus uses the phrase “may” and “might” constantly with regards to our receiving His blessings, because He leaves the choice to us. Our Church must put it first just as Christ does in His Intercessory Prayer.

My opinion, since the handbook has been shared: The decision and instructions are solely hers, and you are simply honoring her request for representation. The medical personnel in turn perform the procedures to remove life support in good faith. They consult with you, and you consult with the Lord.

One way to look at this, I think, is in terms of stewardship. The celestial stewardship is the business of creating life (in addition to maintaining and using), terrestrial stewardship is the business of maintaining life (in addition to using), telestial stewardship is limited to the business of using life. Each kingdom's limits and opportunities are ours, according to our agency's alignment with God's ideal. The celestial scope (especially exaltation) is perfectly aligned, terrestrial somewhat, and telestial less so. He used the word "comfortable," which tends to eliminate striving for improvement at that point. Adam and Eve lived the terrestrial law in Eden; after the Fall their wayward posterity lived the telestial kingdom, and in the resurrection Adam and Eve are exalted. I think it is very interesting that President Oaks framed his remarks in this fashion, as if to say, "If you don't want to be part of pursuing the ideal, you can go someplace else more comfortable, but respect our mission. God still loves you and prepares a place for you." As if the Church is going to spend less time and energy addressing the demands of detractors and more wherewithal proactively building Zion (as Elder Bednar pointed out in terms of those in the "last wagon").

So how did it go?

Review the priesthood manual on giving blessings.

He is bearing testimony, so any particular school of logic that I am aware of hasn't much to do with it, even though he does suggest he is proving the truth of the coming of Christ (verse 4). His method for proving this truth is to provide more than one witness of the coming of Christ (his, Jacob's, Moses' and Isaiah's -- verses 2 - 4). His soul delights in this testimony (per Alma 32: 28, so it is real). 6 And my soul delighteth in proving unto my people that asave Christ should come all men must perish. 7 For if there be ano [coming of] Christ there be no God [for Christ is God and Nephi and the others only vainly imagine His coming]; and if there be no God [or Christ, there is nothing to be saved, and] we are not [for we have an end], for there could have been no bcreation [but just a "thing of naught" and not fulfilling the purpose of creation, which is to not have an end, i.e., resurrection and spiritual rebirth -- see 2 Nephi 2]. But [I will reiterate my testimony, that] there is a God, and che is Christ [and thus creates and saves by "coming down" -- as He did in creating Adam and Eve and as He will do again in the Second Coming] and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

Elder Oaks' talk: The Teachings of Jesus Christ (churchofjesuschrist.org) I was impressed how the order of the quotes in this talk detail "the stages of eternal progression and attainment" (I took this phrase from the 1916 Doctrinal Exposition) in this world or estate, both covenantal and developmental.

Here is where tracing the origins of various texts get complicated (an example here: Beatitudes Found Among Dead Sea Scrolls, Benedict T. Viviano, BAR 18:06, Nov-Dec 1992. : Center for Online Judaic Studies (cojs.org)). We do not know exactly where or how Jesus learned the Sermon on the Mount (or Plain as in Luke) in his mortal life; it could have been a combination of revelation, oral history, the religious texts of his day (known and unknown to us today). It makes sense to me that He wrote it down and others copied it, though that is just my supposition. Do you have the translations of the Sermon on the Mount from the Dead Sea scrolls other than similar phrases that were also used throughout Old Testament text? Do you have references to show that Jospeh Smith did not consider the Book of Enoch (as we have it) to be apocrypha (D&C 91)?

I would say from verse 30, he had in mind to build Zion and prepare for the Second Coming: to do away will evil, do good continually, come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be saved. He also counsels us in verses 23 - 26 to search the prophecies of Isaiah (a reference to the latter-day restoration of all the keys), remember the covenant made to the Book of Mormon prophets and people upon the land (a reference to building the New Jerusalem) and the Book of Mormon itself.