brlenox

You are right in all of your observations. My apologies.

Nice Hat!!

“When men open their lips against [the truth] they do not injure me, but injure themselves. … When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.” (History of the Church, 6:477; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on June 16, 1844, in Nauvoo, Illinois)

I have worked with a few people on getting through these issues. I do recommend the church's approach as continuity is extremely important. There are a couple of pointers I would share if you don't mind. I do sympathize with your issues. They are terribly debilitating and cause a tremendous blight on the spirit of a man. The issue that must be observed is that most cannot just quit but will fail from time to time. When you fall - get up. For as many years as it takes - get up. I'm just going to use Porn as the presumed addiction for this discussion. Generally before one falls there are a couple of things that occur first. If you just happen on something salacious it say while looking or clicking on a link from a news article that takes you to the Daily News or Huffington Post websites. English news is so much more visually oriented in a titillating sort of way. However, you have about 3 seconds to shut that window down before it will take hold. Though the material may not be porn it is adequate enough to stir up the mind and then you are caught. When you read online news avoid the articles about teachers seducing students and rape etc. It starts very slowly but again it starts to capture the mind, even though the material is not "wrong" per se at all, it starts to create images that will not leave you alone. There is another issue that Neil A. Maxwell used to warn about. He referred to it as dalliance. It is where you don't really have any particular intent, you are just passing the moments by fleeting from one thing to another until all of the sudden you have subconsciously put yourself in harms way again. In this day and age frequently this is computer dalliance. Dalliance is one of the biggest issues I have noticed that those striving to overcome get involved with. They start out with no intent to do wrong at all and that why sometimes Satan will bring an interesting point in your mind that has nothing to do with porn but by and by he will lead you down a path until through dalliance he has you again. Maybe the thought will be go to Youtube and listen to some music or something. For some people this is the start of the fall. We have to get smarter than his wiles to ever turn us. When you notice this starting up it is best to physically remove yourself from the area and find another person to engage in conversation or throw ball with the children or something to get your mind back. Finally, the greatest tool of all is your priesthood. If you note a thought enter your mind that is going to lead to trouble it is perfectly acceptable to raise your hand to the square and cast that tempter out. One week in one of our Bishop's meetings where we met with the Stake Presidency the stake president took about 30 minutes to teach us this principle to assist the Bishops in maintaining the level of virtue in thought that would facilitate their callings. He stated that we might have to cast Satan out 5 or 10 times a day on occasion but that if we would do this and then when possible quickly engage in some other activity that we would be amazed that hours later we would look back and note how instantly we were freed from the tempters voice. This works every time ... If you are sincere in truly wanting to be free. Couple this with anytime you shut down a window as mentioned above or anytime you feel even the slightest nudge of the adversary. Don't sit and fantasize for twenty minutes and then as a last ditch effort try this but do it immediately the moment you feel the slightest bit of any thoughts you need to be rid of. All of this presumes you are repentant and have been addressing the issues with your Bishop as required. There is no strength or priesthood power in transgression so if you fall, repent immediately and work as necessary with your Bishop. One other thought, and try to understand what I am saying because it sounds kind of odd. Sometimes when you fall, you are always hopefully immediately remorseful however you may not be clear of the woods yet. Pray for strength but even those prayers should not dwell on the points of failure and in fact maybe should be short while you get away to find some distraction with others or family or something. Anyway, enough for now. Try to get back in the Church group and make it work. Too much at stake not too. NOTE: One more thing, if your smart phone is an issue then it is best to change out and find an old flip phone or such that puts that temptation out of reach for the time being. When you are stronger you can handle such but in the beginning it can be too easy.

To those who … can assist in this great work, we say, let them come to this place; by so doing they will not only assist in the rolling on of the Kingdom, but be in a situation where they can have the advantages of instruction from the Presidency and other authorities of the Church, and rise higher and higher in the scale of intelligence until they can ‘comprehend with all Saints what is the breadth and length, and depth and height; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge. (History of the Church, 4:186; from a letter from Joseph Smith and his counselors in the First Presidency to the Saints, Sept. 1840, Nauvoo, Illinois, published in Times and Seasons, Oct. 1840, p. 179.)

“Joseph Smith taught that every man and woman should seek the Lord for wisdom, that they might get knowledge from Him who is the fountain of knowledge; and the promises of the gospel, as revealed, were such as to authorize us to believe, that by taking this course we should gain the object of our pursuit.” (George A. Smith, Deseret News: Semi-Weekly, Nov. 29, 1870, p. 2.)

A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, and consequently more power than many men who are on the earth. Hence it needs revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God.” (History of the Church, 4:588) Can you illustrate the unknown paths you see being discussed? And can you perhaps tell me what you think Alma 12 means?

Ah yes, I can see what you are saying. Actually, that was a very astute observation. As I consider it though, would not yours be in error as well? Askandanswer as a name to start a sentence with though, is perfect

I know you mean well but I just can't conceive of advising someone to just hang with the basics of the Gospel - justice and mercy notwithstanding. This isn't just a process of knowing stuff but is the means most of us have at our disposal to learn how to truly be guided by the spirit. And it is a slow process and it takes a remarkable amount of genuine effort to move forward in the process. It does have it's risks, I'll grant you that, but the gospel should never be treated like it is suitable for only kindergarten level understandings: Please consider: There is so much to know and what's more is it is filled with joy and excitement as you actually do get a sense of understanding God and His Son so much better when you put the effort forth. Seek the greater portion of his word...

It's always worth something to understand motivations. Nonetheless, for myself I think it is far more valuable to show him or her how to study the gospel than to simply tell them "watch out" !!. Forums are saturated with opinions and side remarks and spurious comments about fountain pens. What difference does it make for OP whether he hears the opinion of a 30 year member of the church who does not really study the gospel and a 4 year member who doesn't study the gospel. Neither has taken the gospel to heart to understand that it is according to the "heed and diligence" (Alma 12:9) that they put into the process that can bring the rewards of understanding. Thus what the OP owner has seen thus far is an example, from one who can example such, of how to study the gospel, how to use all the resources available, how to contemplate upon the eternities, and to do all of this and stay within the boundaries of the gospel net and still see that there is so much that can be learned without making it all up and being self affirming. For what it's worth my point to my response to your comment was basically how do you expect to be taken credibly as a critic of a Rembrandt when all you know how to use is crayons (except of course where it comes to hats)...and frankly why would you. If you had been of a more refined understanding you would not have just blasted out the obvious as if it was Einstein but you would have engaged the OP owner to illustrate where you find departures, or perhaps where you observed that which was redeeming. Maybe you would have added some depth to the process with valuable insight and we all could have shared together but I suspect that actually you could not do that because of what you defined as your short comings when it comes to gospel study and or Gospel explanation. Anybody can play the gangsta' and do a drive by shooting and drive off having robbed somebody of 20 years of existence. But it is never appreciated. The value to the OP is I have showed, taught, educated how he might advance his own grasp of the Gospel. Can you do that? I didn't just leave him with a disclaimer on how to be your average forum participant who knows little and whose opinion is valued even less. However, you can do better. You can become a person who actually studies the Gospel and who merits consideration because you actually know what you are talking about. That would be a benefit and blessing. What you classed as an understanding of a few, I brought right up to a quote by Elder Eyering. In fact if you go to 1 minute hour and 4 seconds into the FACE to FACE he and Elder Holland presented you'll hear a couple of things that he says trying to disabuse the members from the more common errors of how they understand the atonement: https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2017-03-1000-face-to-face-with-president-eyring-and-elder-holland?lang=eng Is what Elder Eyring presented a bit of the atonement understood by a few - absolutely - should you file it away because few understand what he said? Absolutely not. In other words, we need to be qualified to comment on matters of gospel knowledge otherwise we simply perpetuate the same old common excuses for not making a personal investment into the gospel - and frankly I wouldn't want to be held accountable for teaching that lesson ever.

Most of your issues rest on problem number 2. As long as these things dominate in your life it is just next to impossible to feel good about spiritual matters. You are not alone in this issue. When I was first made a Bishop, that was the most shocking thing was how many came through my door who were the "upstanding" stalwart types in the Ward that had problems in this arena. It was difficult if not crippling for their spirituality as well. Have you looked into the addiction programs that the church now offers?

Having learned to read Hebrew some years ago, I can assure you this is not an issue from a Jewish perspective. Here is a link to a interlinear translation of Genesis 1 and even if you just find the first words of each sentence it is apparent that while it is common to have an aleph it is not required. https://answersingenesis.org/hermeneutics/have-we-misunderstood-genesis-11/ This link is written in a left to right reading format which is not traditional Hebrew which is read from right to left. If you prefer this page has a traditional viewing: https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm Aleph has the distinction of serving as one of two silent letters in Hebrew, useful so that words that start with a vowel can be spelled with an aleph which then forms the place holder for the vowel marks or when the vowel marks are not used it still indicates as a place holder there are vowel sounds to be anticipated. Still there are other claims for legitimacy - one of which is discussed here: https://answersingenesis.org/hermeneutics/have-we-misunderstood-genesis-11/

The size of your hat is apparent and surely I cannot compete with even the stylish way in which you adorn yourself in said hat. Because the size of your hat is clearly more impressive than my own , I would never presume that I could wear your hat nor would I see any value in tipping my hat by pointing out things about your hat that I simply do not know. Is it a true hat? Is it sanctioned by the official act of a hat making committee? Did you buy it in France? Is it made of sheepskin? Is the rim decorated with clever little markings made by leather punches and awls? You see, I really do not know anything about hats, especially yours. So, in wisdom, I forgo commentary about something I simply have not put the effort into understanding to the degree that you clearly have as it is obvious that you excel far beyond my capacity. Were I to challenge your hat lore and understandings somehow it would seem a small and puny thing to do with my clear lackings in hatmanship. No, I do not have a hat like yours nor a belt buckle for that matter, but I respect the fact that clearly you, my dear man, are the purveyor of the finest that hats have to offer. If the day ever comes forth that I can intelligently comment on hats maybe then I'll feel a little more like I have something legitimate to offer concerning hats. However until then, I will quietly observe and genuinely appreciate that you have earned the rights to much higher standard of privilege and that your commentary on hats does not require or benefit from a naysaying faux-leather coat wearing hombre like myself. If in your commentary on hats you say something that I do not understand, I will inquire and be taught of the master that which I lack. I would not dream of detracting with negative observations that I cannot provide any form of confirming source to validate my observations. No it is all too apparent that I don't wear a hat like you do. <sigh>

With one difference. I am meticulous about having the words of apostles and prophets and scripture to reinforce considerations, directions, and conclusions. You do not have to believe me, but it is very wise to consider their thoughts in these matters. These are the tools that allow the spirit to guide in the process of understanding. What you are classifying as my "pet theory" is a collection of "pet theories" of apostles and prophets. I do not claim a fullness of understanding but I do know that I am not making empty guesses, self-affirmations, and otherwise in a vacuum and it maintains the integrity of the gospel standard without wandering off into oddball considerations. So, while I am willing to grant some degree of agreement with your observations, where you can separate official doctrine from official sources of LDS apostolic resources and commentary would be a better distinction. However, my guess is that you have never studied anything, and documented it and prepared it sought insight to the degree that I have this material and much more. Perhaps if you took the kind of effort that it takes to understand these things you might be a tad more generous and recognize how well reinforced these observations are but anyone can be a critic - I believe that is worth noting as well.

A couple of times I have reflected on this very concept thinking I needed to point that out as that is a very key aspect and tell of who Jesus Christ is. That you got there on your own is far more satisfying to me. Props to you...

Reviewing your statement on evolution and that all evolves from a single cell is potentially a very singular to you definition of Evolution. If you mean the traditional form of evolution of academia then we have something different. I'm not going to really move in the direction of evolution in this thread. For myself, that I may be as clear as you have been, evolution (Darwinian) is an abomination and was Satan's rightful claim via the law of opposition to restore as powerful a deterrent to bringing God's children unto Christ as the Gospel was to bringing them unto Christ. So we understand each other on that point. It is correct that we all choose to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and it is of no consequence the degree of our first sin as it is counted the severity of the transgression of Adam and Eve. The ideology of God cannot tolerate the least degree of sin is predicated upon the repercussions of first sin as whether it is eating a pomegranate, or stealing an Oreo from the cookie jar etc it still results in a breech of celestial law and requires the shedding of innocent blood to restore the breech. However, that does not take place until the age of accountability. If I am understanding that you are saying that they were removed from God's presence and partake of the tree in some fashion prior to birth, what you describe makes the doctrines of baptism for little children less than eight years of age an okay doctrine when because of their innocence it is an abomination - something I explained tangentially in an earlier post. As I understand what you are saying, It also does not square with that to which parents are held accountable - to teach their children right from wrong. As you can tell, I put a lot of credence in someones thought development and whether it follows patterns of scripture and prophetic utterance. Thus far I have been a little disappointed that you have not provided any sustaining witnesses for most of your observations and there seems a very strong element of self-affirmation.

If you are finding things and learning new stuff be sure to toss it back out here into the mix.

I have thought about this for a bit since this afternoon. First questions are relative to fundamental LDS theology. One of Joseph Smith's great departures from traditional Christianity was that a location existed for the Garden of Eden and it was in Missouri not the Middle East. We have quotes from Joseph that at some future date the tree of life will be returned to the earth and from it healing power will go out to a ravaged world. The Church has been engaged for many years in building up Adam-ondi-Ahman a secondary site to the Garden of Eden etc. etc. etc. I have had a few times in my life where I found a line in my line upon line or a precept in my precept upon precept which was errantly laid and over time what alerted me was the fact that from the line or the precept that I laid would spring a direction of thought that in order to be perpetuated and allowed to expand would come into more and more LDS theology that had to be explained away in order to preserve the wrong line or precept. Now I do not have a clue what this part of your statement above means, "You take on the “Law of the Garden” seems to go a very different direction. What you outline as the “Garden Law” I find as odd (meaning something critical is missing) – because the law as you have stated it us unsustainable – in order to be obedient to the law and fulfill the covenant (which should keep them in the Garden) Adam and Eve would have to leave the Garden and become mortal." I am hoping for further explanation and supporting material to guide me in coming to understand your intent. However, I do recollect that last week, maybe the week before you made a statement on a different thread that you believed in evolution. If that is why you have to have a non literal go to for the Garden of Eden, and perhaps even Adam and Eve I would expect then to me that is analogous to an errant thread in your paradigm fostering an arm of thought that in order to be sustained requires certain adjustments be made to LDS theology in order to sustain the evolution priority. For me that was an alarm that required me to readjust my paradigm of thought. If this is relative to your take on the Garden of Eden I wonder why it is not alarming to you as well.

Thus far we have been careful to not expand the subject too far too fast so that we have at lest a moment to allow a hint of saturation to take place. This is heady material that we want to last in our understandings so that we can continue to build on it in the multitude of ways. However, I think Elder Packer makes a comment that is germane to your thoughts: Everything gospel takes on living substance because of the atonement. The ordinances, covenants and other aspects of gospel significance are downstream from the efficacy of that great sacrifice. It is not that they are missing we just only have so much time to properly develop each leg of this process without excessive dilution and subsequent loss of priority. I will toss in one quote that speaks in what I considered a profound way to your inquiry:

This was one of the most challenging areas of spiritual inquiry for me. In my mind I formulated a very simplified scenario, stripped of all the what ifs and maybe's, that if Christ was walking down the road one day and camel broke loose from its tether and began careening down the road with its camel cart in tow and Christ did not hear it coming and so it collided with him and ran him over and he died, why would that not be an adequate offering for sin? In general, all things are the same except for the suffering. Maybe he takes three days and lays dying in an Israeli hospital suffering horribly. Neither would that be an adequate sacrifice for sin. So I began piecing together from the scriptural resources and any apostolic commentary I could to solve the puzzle. The principle here, we discussed earlier but we can come back to it again. The essence is that there is something about the expectations of justice that insist that suffering that is not justly deserved be recompensed. Here Elder Christofferson is outlining the principle as it relates to mankind but of necessity it must relate to the Savior as well. We see the same principle in this Hebrews verse: What an interesting understanding but the implications are that some would not seek deliverance from being tortured and suffering great pain as they knew that this gave them greater rights in the resurrection. So we now see the same principle as it applies to Jesus Christ. Part of what justice demanded was that if he suffered in behalf of mankind that he was building a foundation upon which to predicate his request of the Father. It gave him rights of request to seek something equal to the measure of his suffering. So where Alma predicts this aspect of the atonement we see in D & C 45 the actual reference which validates this is exactly what the Savior uses as part of his justification for the rights to the children for whom he has suffered: Really if we are discerning this mirrors a specific aspect of Mosiah 15 that we discussed earlier where his suffering is specific to the particular blessing of allowing "they whose sins he has borne" to return to the Celestial kingdom. The essence of all of this is what I have come to understand as the law of justification as it relates to Christ. We each in the course of our existence build up justification claims, if we suffer without cause, then Elder Christofferson informs us that justice requires a recompense. Matthew 5: couches it more specifically if we suffer in the name of Christ, "when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." If we take all of these little pieces and put them together we see a principle unfolding as to the requirement of Jesus Christ's suffering was, at least in part, to justify his request of his Father that he had a legitimate claim in seeking all become his. This ideology is embraced in this quote by Brigham Young: Now at this point I feel that this is a correct summation, however, I do not have a sense of completeness in my understanding on this one and so continue to revisit it from time to time as I encounter further scriptural or apostolic commentary which adds to the ideology. Again understanding this element of the atonement causes me to observe how willing Christ was to do whatever it took to redeem mankind. He suffered horribly and all that willingly and for such as I. Remarkable.

This is a new thought to me. That mankind as a whole was remanded to a lower level at the time of the Fall. Do you have any resource material for me to consider?

Just wondering ... I am recognizing a bit of Gileadi in some of your commentary. Is he a reference point you are using?

Would you elaborate on your final sentence? I do not grasp your meaning.

Basically I do not address the law at all as to what it's strictures were. It could be never eat Neapolitan Ice Cream and don't pick your nose on Tuesdays and it would not interfere with the fact that the breech of the law caused a domino effect that the atonement was designed to rectify. It is the after effect of breeching the laws that I have been addressing. We also have avoided thus far identifying specifically what the sin was that Adam and Eve committed that resulted in their receiving a death sentence. We have alluded to it in the last post or so answering Wades question but I haven't come right out and declared the burden that is all of our charge relative to the life of Christ. That said, about 8 months ago I began collecting the references and scriptural resources working on the nature of the two laws themselves and the peculiar situation they create of can and cannot obey. So I do not have that as part of what I know, only what I am trying to gain insight to understanding. If you have a working solution I would encourage that to be thrown in the mix of our discussion with any resources you use to validate your direction.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I reference the law that Adam and Eve transgressed in the Garden of Eden as the Law of the Garden. Specifically, of course it entails the ideology of be fruitful and multiply and do not partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, inherent in the simplified rendition of the law is the implied "or". "Or" if you do it will require that you are exiled and charged with a very severe crime which will define your relationship to God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ hereafter. My last post is beginning to elaborate but it is always better a slow approach to allow discovery over blurting the whole deal out.