Rob Osborn

To me, having Mormon's name in the title testifies of its historical importance and thus of greater worth.

Thanks for your defense. I do believe it was a pile on. I quote a lot of scripture, it's my usual source. People seem enamored with manuals and opinions of prophets over scripture. This past week, as I have contemplated while in purgatory, I have come to a better understanding of truth and how it's separate from "doctrine" as doctrine is merely "that which is taught". But thanks for the defense.

We are taught that men are to preside and provide for their families. In an ever changing world where gender equality is the new task force of current philosophy I am left reserved to defend gender roles in the traditional sense. Men and women are indeed equal partners in the home and society. Each has their advantages and skills. But I am getting more troubled with this movement in gender equality in the workplace. I am all for both men and women in the workplace- we need both sexes. Im even for more equal pay, especially for single mothers raising children. But the flip side is the trend to make "all" jobs as equal opportinity and equal pay. D9nt get me wrong, if a women wants to be a lumberjack and she can handle a heavy chainsaw and axe everyday then by all means- go for it! But, the reality is that in general, men are biologically at advantage on average amongst all jobs. It has nothing to do with sexism, its just reality that God created the male to be a worker to provide for and protect his family. So, why do we feel so threatened by this fact of reality? Why are we so concerned to try to even up the genders in the task of "providing"? Its not like we can engineer the women to bulk up the needed 35% muscle mass to get them on par with the male anatomy. I was reading one study that suggested that what was needed is to get men to work less so that women arent at a disadvantage! No joke! Another article and study about women soldiers on the frontline in war proposed that in order to equalize the roles, perhaps men soldiers in training should be held back while women get extra training so that they were more equal in the end. 
I think we are taking this "equality" well beyond the equalness God sees in his children and their roles. God never meant that we should be equal in "all" things. Obviously our creations are similar and yet very different. In the church we see this in practice all the time. A typicsl "work project" carried out by the elders quorum to reroof a house will see pretty much all men doing that work whereas with a funeral almost all of the meals and compassionate care are handled hy women in the relief society. We all have work, its just so different as viewed through Gods eyes. 

Well, if you remain in this predicament then you will find your place in hell eternally. In order to be saved from this eternal hell one must accept Christ through faith, repent and be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost, then follow on the path receiving other ordinances of salvation in the holy temple and showing obedience to them until you receive salvation.

So, you can offer no logical explanation then why there will be wicked souls (unrighteous) saved from the eternal hell after resurrection and judgment. It's okay if you don't know, I just thought perhaps you had a logical explanation. That's all.

I was stating what our scriptures say for the type or state of person in that predicament.

Ah...the perplexities of man's understandings. Between cultural trends and expectations we have sort of invented these standards in my opinion. In dreams I have seen passed ones wearing white raiment and they are both very well dressed and covered alike.

Humm...well enough, I respect your opinion. I disagree but who's to know, right?

I hear you. Under my own personal beliefs he will most likely accept the gospel and when he does he will be put on the same path as all the rest of the saved to inherit all that the Father hath.

Seen from a much broader perspective, the Nephites realized there was an ocean on the west of both the North and South countries and on the east. We use this same designation today. Even without technology the early explorers were aware of this fact also. They didn't differentiate the two oceans as north-south but rather east-west.

My favorite is still the wheat and the tares. Wheat is used to make bread and thus the bread of life as symbolic to Christ and the sacrament, or, life is in the wheat. We are the wheat. But, what's interesting is that in the Rexburg temple the wheat motif is symbolized throughout but only in the sealing or marriage room is the wheat motif blossomed and ready for harvest.

These are all really just theories, except that the final battle took place in New York and the plates were buried in Cumorah. We have no idea where the rest took place.

My favorite is still the wheat and the tares. Wheat is used to make bread and thus the bread of life as symbolic to Christ and the sacrament, or, life is in the wheat. We are the wheat. But, what's interesting is that in the Rexburg temple the wheat motif is symbolized throughout but only in the sealing or marriage room is the wheat motif blossomed and ready for harvest.

As apostle Neal A Maxwell and other Church leaders have taught, the “day of this life,” spoken of in the Book of Mormon, includes the time spent in the spirit world after death. In other words, “the day of this life” is the fallen state, which continues in the spirit world, and we will remain in the fallen state until we exit the spirit world in the resurrection. As long as there are living proxies on the face of the earth who can perform the saving ordinances of the gospel in behalf of the dead in the temples, as far as God is concerned it’s just as if the dead are still alive and receiving those ordinances while in the flesh. This is why Peter taught that the dead who receive and live the gospel in the spirit world will be judged as if they had received the gospel while in the flesh.

Thanks for the satire...

For those following, one can clearly see my case has been the same since my very first post. Please look past those infantile posters who can't understand simple concepts and attack others because they lack understanding themselves, they genuinely mean no harm, they are just insincere and we love them anyway.

You know what? Discussions with you are fruitless. You are a condescending immature individual.

You know what? Discussions with you are fruitless. You are a condescending immature individual.

I feel to defend Rob -- at least a little bit. Considering how many mistakes that I think Joseph Fielding Smith made, I don't want to fault Rob for choosing to believe that Elder/President Smith made mistakes. I kind of see an irony -- since the things I think JFS got wrong (his young earth creationism) are things that Rob seems to think he got right. IMO, the hard part in this is not deciding if apostles and prophets can have made doctrinal mistakes. The hard part is deciding that they have made these kinds of doctrinal errors, but still retaining belief that they are prophets and apostles.

Whether we like to admit it or not we must be motivated by outcomes in order to act. For instance- I go to work everyday and I'm motivated by several rewards. They are- finishing the project at hand, recognition by the customer and others for a job well done, money, being busy and staying productive, learning, serving others, health, etc, etc. There's also the flip side that motivates me if I don't do the work, they may be- not finishing the project, unhappy boss and customers, not getting paid or possibly fired, becoming lazy, bad health, not serving others, etc, etc.
In my job we are always looking for ways to be motivated and productive. Rewards and punishments always come into play. It's not that we don't like to work it's just that we must use tools of rewards or punishment to keep things in order. We can't just say- "ahh, I'll get to that job one of these days, no big hurry, let's go fishing instead". No, there has to be goals and goals need to be looked at in the light of accomplishing a result. For God, his goal or reward is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. That's what motivates him, it is a reward to help others and bring about happiness. On the other hand, with Satan and others who follow him it's about being motivated by becoming more powerful and feared, being able to have more power over the hearts of others. The difference is however, there is no real reward for them, just greater depths of misery. But that's how evil is when it gets at that low level- they somehow glory in misery and making others miserable. It gets to a point where they truly can't see how to find joy anymore, everything they do just worsens things. But yet, they won't stop either because they love that dark power.

I find it interesting that we know there are son's of perdition and yet to hear conversations in here it appears, in some people's eyes, it's impossible for anyone to become such! I think these same people are of the belief that there isn't a single identifiable son of perdition!

There isn't another reasonable view in my opinion. Pretty much the whole Christian (including LDS) world views chapter 17 of John to be Jesus praying in behalf of his disciples. And when you read the whole chapter there really isn't another alternative, it's really quite sound that is what is taking place. As such, Jesus lost none of the other disciples, just the one- Judas Iscariot. There isn't really any other possible meaning here. If one interprets it wrong here they do so without understanding the whole chapter in how Jesus is praying for his disciples that after he is gone they can be strong and united and that through them those who hear their words will believe.  To not leave any doubt, the Book of Mormon states in this verse-
32 But behold, it sorroweth me because of the fourth generation from this generation, for they are led away captive by him even as was the son of perdition; for they will sell me for silver and for gold, and for that which moth doth corrupt and which thieves can break through and steal. And in that day will I visit them, even in turning their works upon their own heads. (3 Nephi 27:32)
There is no doubt that this is in direct reference to Judas Iscariot. I don't really see how it's possible that people get this wrong or a different understanding.

Humm...not really. There's nothing to interpret. Jesus states quite factually that Judas is a son of perdition. So, I see it like this- one can dismiss this on the basis that Jesus either lied or the account is wholly incorrect. I'm not quite understanding how people get something like this so far off the rails when it's very simple and straightforward. Honestly, in John 17:12 do people really not interpret that Jesus is speaking about Judas as a son of perdition?

My bias is with the scriptures. I trust the testimony and witness of the Holy Ghost. I think one thing that hurts us as a general body of the church is that we have to go to a separate source for clarification in regards to the scriptures. Are we not capable of searching it out on our own?

You are without sound understanding. The scriptures state Judas is a son of perdition. The scriptures teach that son's of perdition are unredeemable in eternity. Jesus said Judas is lost. It's connecting the simple dots and acknowledgement of the facts. That's not judging.