person0

As we all are aware The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was formally organized on April 6th, 1830. A great many of the General Authorities of the Church have opined that a portion of this dates significance is that it was the actual date of birth of Jesus Christ. There are many references, but here are a few from Church resources: However, there have also been General Authorities who have offered a differing opinion: Most who accept the date of April 6th, still point to D&C 20:1 as a source. We now know that verse was not part of the original wording, and regardless it would not necessarily mean, when read with knowledge of the particular writing style used, that it was a statement of an exact day. Personally, I am inclined to wonder why Elder Bednar's talk would not have been edited before presenting it in General Conference if the April 6th date is not accurate (regardless of year). Additionally, if April 6th is not the accurate date, what else would be the significance of that date? Because, we do in fact know it was received by revelation that the Church should be organized that exact day of April 6th, 1830. With these two thoughts in mind, I am inclined to accept the April 6th date, while also recognizing others may rationally conclude otherwise. Do you believe Christ's date of birth was actually on April 6th? Why or why not? If you do not believe it is on April 6th, what do you believe would be the special significance of that date as to why Joseph Smith was commanded to organize the Church that day?

Ice cream is my favorite desert in the world! Interestingly though, some ice cream has a very interesting ingredient known as castoreum, which is extracted from beavers (from an unpleasant area). Some people might rather eat pigeon 'milk'. Don't tell too many people, or they may all stop eating ice cream! I will keep eating my ice cream though, come what may. The Word of Wisdom says nothing about beaver extract!

You are absolutely welcome to have whatever personal opinions you wish. That being said, you seem to have a lot of opinions that have been brought up in this thread which are in disagreement with the doctrines of the restored gospel.

I would refer you to Lectures on Faith 3:2-5 which states: If you can say that you are temple worthy and are sincerely striving to live the commandments of God, striving and learning to live by the influence of the Holy Ghost, then there is no reason for you to doubt that you are following the course that God wills for you to follow. Following that, then if you can say that the course in life you are pursuing is according to God's will, then there is no reason for you to doubt that your ordinances have been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. You do not need a special witness or event to confirm that this has happened. However, you may pray to the Lord and ask if it has; so long as you do not feel a withdrawal of the spirit when you ask, then you can take that as an additional confirmation.

There is really no pomp an circumstance around it. Assuming he doesn't pass away first, the next President of the Church will be Russel M. Nelson. There will be a ceremony known as a Solemn Assembly where the First Presidency will be reorganized and we will sustain the leadership of the Church. There is nothing inherently special about a prophet of God except for the fact that he is a very righteous individual who has lived in such a way, and holds a character such that the Lord is able to use him; to call him to labor in that role. He is a man, just like any other, and both you and I are individually capable of being equally righteous and attaining the same knowledge, blessings, and personal revelations. Members should never view the prophet in the same way as as the woman with the issue of blood saw Jesus: A prophet is a holy man of God, nevertheless: All that being said feel free to wear a cape and red hat if you want as long as you post some pictures

He probably repented seconds before dying, so i'm sure you're fine since you did him a favor

BYU Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Holy Spirit of Promise I'd say that sums it up pretty well Just in case though (directly from church resources): Mormon Channel: What is the Holy Spirit of Promise Elder Bednar: Holy Spirit of Promise (This one is a really simple explanation to help understand) And one final one just to add to your arsenal: A realistic example where all this applies: If a person enters the temple and receives his/her endowment, but lied during the temple recommend interview and is actually not worthy, the individual will receive their endowment, but it will not be ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise. It will therefore remain 'invalid' in the eyes of God and celestial law until the person confesses the sin, forsakes it, and fully repents sufficient to be truly worthy to receive the endowment. After the repentance process is satisfied, the Holy Spirit of Promise would validate the endowment. However, this validation could be lost again should the individual not remain true to his/her covenants.

I have decided after doing about an hour or so of research that it doesn't matter If the Lord decides there is enough confusion on this, he will direct his prophets to clarify it. For the time being, I will continue to to believe what the Church and general authorities have stated as the interpretation, which is that the celestial kingdom itself is comprised of 3 degrees. I remain open to the consideration that the passage could be interpreted otherwise. However, even if it were, it still wouldn't matter because I intend to live in such a way as to go to the highest degree possible.

So, for those of you who think that there are not 3 degrees within the celestial kingdom, do you then also conclude that those who are not sealed to a spouse will enter the terrestrial kingdom? It's not unreasonable, considering that I believe that everyone who is sufficiently worthy, and who wants to enter the everlasting covenant of marriage, will have the eventual opportunity to do so. I simply had never considered it.

I really agree with you most of the time based on what I have read of your posts so far. However, in this instance, if we need a doctrinal source, I hope that we can look to General Conference and the Ensign as sufficient as they are published/sanctioned by the church. Here is something I found: Here is a quote from an official church statement pertaining to our understanding of the celestial kingdom: I think the Church's position on this is clear.

Too much of society seeks to validate homosexuality based on the theory that it is genetic, and if so the individual did not have a choice in the matter and so it should be accepted because it is 'natural'. There are many decisions we must make each day that pertain to things that are out of our control, yet there is never sufficient justification for wrongdoing. When one takes into consideration the Gospel of Jesus Christ and its doctrines, it does not matter one way or the other. Whether the root of homosexuality lies in a genetic trait, a social development, a personal decision, or anything else, the only thing of real importance is that it is contrary to the commandments of God for an individual to act upon homosexual attraction.

Ummm. . . If the marriage covenant is eternal, and you enter into the marriage covenant with more than one person, then you have 2 eternal marriage covenants. 1 Eternal Spouse + 1 Eternal Spouse = 2 Eternal Spouses = Eternal Plural Marriage

This reads like you are excitedly anticipating plural marriage.

I think most of us agree with you on that. I would like to refer everyone to a wonderful speech by Spencer W. Kimball that pertains to this discussion. Here are some quotes and links: God did not send us here to suffer. However we knew, and he knew that upon coming here we would suffer, and yet we fought for the opportunity to do so. Each of us waited on the other side of the veil for our opportunity. Given that it is 2017, we waited 6000+ years from the time of Adam. In my opinion, we probably had the opportunity to know what was going on down here, we could see sickness, affliction, pain, suffering, death, disease, evil, etc, and we still chose to come. Consider the following: I would argue that the sorrows we experience here are a portion of the intelligence we must gain to be prepared for our eternal destiny. That which we do not learn here we may be expected to learn by the spirit on our path to becoming like our Savior and our Heavenly Father. In the context of all these sources I feel comfortable concluding that while we are that we might have joy, the path to joy and our eternal destiny includes sorrow, at times great sorrows. Yet God in his infinite wisdom and love, allows us to experience these sorrows. It is compassionate, because to remove that opportunity from us, in the course of our eternal destiny, would be uncompassionate.

I agree with you. I was coming from the perspective of the Lords compassion toward us rather than our compassion toward others. The woman caught in adultery is a well used example of the Lord's compassion, however, so is the example I provided. The Lord allowed those who followed him to knowingly suffer and often be martyred on his behalf, this was still a sign of his love, which other's may not normally note because of the nature of the incident. When Stephen was stoned, he suffered greatly but in the compassion of the Lord he saw God and Jesus as a witness to him that he had followed the truth through to the end. The love and compassion of God is present in both our greatest joy as well as our greatest sorrow. Our responsibility is somewhat different than the Lord's because we are imperfect judges. Most of the time I feel we are encouraged to consider Mosiah 2 in that regard.

I believe that this was an act of compassion by Christ. All those who were driven out were given a new opportunity to evaluate their actions in ways they had not previously done sufficient to repentance. Giving them this experience as an opportunity to repent so as to be worthy to one day enter God's kingdom was likely the greatest act of love and compassion Jesus could fulfill for them at that time. If we all read the scriptures with this mindset, I wonder how it would affect our interpretation of compassion?

By failed prophet, I interpreted the OP to mean something like, 'one who was fore-ordained, but never received the calling in the first place since they chose an unrighteous course', based on the OP statement of, ". . . those foreordained that come to earth to find they were unworthy . . .". I had never previously heard the term 'failed prophet' and only heard the term fallen prophet, so in my mind there was a distinction. I have made the correction.

Sidney Rigdon was a member of the First Presidency of the church who apostatized after Joseph Smith was martyred. That would put him in the category of fallen prophet. He failed his mission/responsibilities by apostatizing, became unworthy, and started his own church. Joseph Smith said of him: He did not continue faithful, God will not uphold him. If he had repented, the atonement of Jesus Christ would apply, however, God cannot save his children in their sins.

Common Sense Gun Control (More like an aerosol phrase, but I'm okay with that)

I think we need exactly the amount of female leadership that the Lord has revealed he wants. As soon as the Lord reveals additional female leadership positions, I want those too! Until the Lord reveals the need for additional female leadership positions, I will trust that the Church is being run as it should be. Kind of reminds me of a little ditty I learned as a kid, I think it went something like this:

Actually, for all you know, there might have been a gay speaker who, ". . . yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man. . ." sufficient to live a worthy life and be called to such a holy calling. Remember, the temptation of homosexual attraction in itself is not the sin.

Yes, infants will be resurrected as infants, but their body will develop to its 'prime' state, which sounds like something with which you already agree. This does not mean they will need to be baptized. Christ was capable of committing sin, even though he never did. However:

During the millennium they would be resurrected beings, they would not be brought back to mortality, but to immortality. Based on my understanding, once your spirit is eternally sealed into your immortal resurrected body you can not experience further progression pertaining to the commandments given to men on earth. This is why all temple work, etc, will be done for every person prior to them being called forth into resurrection, this is partly why it will take 1000 years. Christ said that all men are commanded to be baptized. His prophets expanded to clarify that infants need no baptism, this is interpreted to be ever and not exclusionary.

Okay, okay, touché. But in my defense, that one has been done many many times.

I agree with you. Many people seek to disregard the truth's taught by modern prophets and follow after their own wisdom, while still claiming to sustain the prophet. On an unrelated side note: Does God really have very many 'opinions'? I mean, if you consider the extent of his knowledge, there's not really much room for opinion as everything is based in absolute truth. There are some truth's that will be different in the specific details for everyone such as the healthiest thing to eat for breakfast, but even God's 'opinion' on that would be fact. I could imagine the only true 'opinions' being things like, what is God's favorite color/food, etc? Now you've got me curious about those things We know that Jesus ate fish and honeycomb in his resurrected form, but did he like it? Or was he just being polite?