Luke

I had to read your reply a couple times...wow, the 3 groups a very different way of looking at things. Not sure I totally accept that as I've never heard that taught anywhere else and it seems that church authorities often interpret this scripture to mean 1/3 of God's children. But I hope your understanding is right...the idea that 1/3 of our brothers and sisters are going to suffer the most awful torment imaginable for the rest of eternity....makes me want to weep like Enoch. Back to the actual topic: the idea of our pre-mortal existance like our spiritual childhood and mortal life as our spiritual adolescence when our decisions have the greatest effect on our final path as adults makes a lot of sense to me. So perhaps as spiritual children sin and accountability were different.

Interesting point. I hadn't thought of it that way. Makes a lot of sense.

I was hoping someone could help me work through an apparent contradiction of the following three doctrinal facts: 1) that we lived in God's presence before coming to earth 2) we had free agency and most of us did not live perfect pre-mortal lives. That is we committed sin in our pre-mortal existance. 3) No unclean thing can dwell with God, in fact, God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance So, how is it we lived with God if we were sinful? I was trying to work through this but haven't been able to find a satisfactory explanation: Perhaps sins in the pre-mortal life were more like transgressions not sins....like a child taking a toy from another child...not the same as a grown man steeling...but that didn't make sense since we had no veil over our memory and any sin committed was with our eyes wide open. Then I thought, well, maybe the types of sins that get us cast out of God's presence are those that can only be committed with a physical body. But that doesn't appear to hold water since 1/3 of God's spirit children were cast out of his presence for choosing Lucifer....they didn't and never will have bodies. Perhaps we didn't fully live in God's presence. Perhaps when we committed sin there was a spiritual distance put between us and God. Only problem with this is that I can't find any doctrinal/scriptural support for this. My best theory is that while we could sin we could also repent. If we could repent then obviously the Atonement of Jesus Christ extended back to the pre-mortal realm....which is a pretty cool thought. But then the pre-mortal council seems to contradict this idea, that it is, it would seem that Jesus wasn't the designated Savior until this council was held. Also, baptism is part of full repentance and we can't be baptized without bodies...so was it really possible to full repent in the pre-mortal realm? Anyone have a better idea to resolve this apparent contradiction?

?

I just hope they are of the same quality of the Bible videos.

Does anyone know what is going on with the BOM videos that were supposed to be released in Sept? First the church announced the BOM videos would be released in Sep 2018, then Fall 2018....It is now Jan 9, 2019 and I haven't heard anything. I sent an email through lds.org on Dec 22 but no response...which is odd in itself as I have always gotten a prompt response to all of my queries through lds.org. I'm suspecting no news is bad news and that the new church leadership has either decided to cancel the project or do some major re-work of these videos....or perhaps the videos turned out so good they are going to do a nationwide cinematic release?! The suspense is killing me. Someone in the know, please throw me a bone.

That IS what the 12-step program is about. I don't mean to be rude but you give the impression you don't know what you are talking about.

"This part of myself that I’ve spent my whole life fighting isn’t my enemy. This part of myself that I’ve shoved into a dark dungeon deserves light. " You are going to embrace your inner demon?! This cannot end well. Put it back in the dungeon/closet while you still can!

This discussion motivated me to reduce my fast offering donation and increase my donation to humanitarian aid. Working in India for several months completely changed my perspective on what poverty is. It is for millions a situation of bare survival and it is truly soul wrenching to see up close. And for better or worse, since then I have lost a lot of my compassion for Americans in "poverty". A friend told me he was talking with an immigrant one time and when asked why he wanted to come to America he replied: I want to live in a country where even the poor people are fat. I'm not writing this to be offensive, but I found there to be a lot of truth in that statement. The more common poverty found in America is a poverty of character.

Spot on. The last Bishop I served under, whenever there was a question about correct course to take, his first question was: Well, what does the handbook say. And if there wasn't a clear answer there: Let's pray about it.

Yet, it is not theirs to deny. God determines who is a true Christian and it appears this is one of His tests for determining. I would be uncomfortable if the "Christian" world did whole heartedly accept us....and it would probably mean we were doing something wrong (sort of like RLDS complete apostasy and transition to Community of Christ).

I have been in two bishoprics and just this last week assisted the Bishop with a welfare issue. Based on my experiences with church welfare situations, I wish there was more "guilt trips" given. And by that I mean, making recipients accountable for the help they receive. The easy option is to just hand over the help and move on. Too often it is the Bishop that suffers the guilt trip and not the one requesting the help. The situation last week I could tell the Bishop agonized over it. One situation comes to mind when I was in a bishopric 15 years ago the Bishop asked me to interview someone requesting help. I did and found that he had four cars, etc. I asked him if he had considered selling one of his cars and he seemed to give rather lame reasons for why he couldn't. I went to the bishop with my recommendation that he not be given assistance and instead request him to do a little self-sacrifice. But instead the Bishop gave him the assistance. Side note: I've heard that when the movie the Grapes of Wrath came out and was viewed in foreign countries like USSR they had a totally different perspective: the poor farmers fleeing the dust bowl were viewed as being wealthy since in their countries only a small select class of people could afford automobiles.

For the sake of this discussion: someone who sincerely believes the Bible. Although, LePeel's definition is probably a better one.

Good point!

In Mormon 7:9 Mormon states, "if ye believe that [The Bible] ye will believe this [The Book of Mormon] also" Does this mean that anyone who was presented The Book of Mormon and rejects it, does not actually believe The Bible and is not a true Christian? Is this an absolute, infallible litmus test of the claim of someone to be Christian?

From everything described I am more sympathetic to the Stake President. My wife is YW president in our ward and is a bit fed up with having to entertain the girls. When they organize service activities a couple show up. When it is a pool party or social event they come in droves. All the girls are slacking on personal progress. Seems like the youth don't "get" what being a member of Christ's Church really means...just another social club for some of them.

Church changes policy all the time. A few examples: The temple ordinance wording has changed. At one time blacks could not receive the priesthood, now they can. At one time polygamy was allowed, now it is not. These were all significant changes. So, I think it is entirely possible that at some future date the church clarifies (or reminds) that sacrament is only intended for baptized members.

Agreed, but sometimes it takes decades before it is cleared up. Think about our cultural acceptance of title "Mormon" to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint and the recent revelation from Pres. Nelson. I also agree that since little children can't sin, it is not a sin for them to take the sacrament. But perhaps it is a sin for the parents to encourage them to take the sacrament....but I honestly don't know the answer. I do think that the scriptures and church doctrine seem to align more with the idea that all non-members (including little children) should refrain from taking the sacrament. Also, I think that teaching little children to wait until after baptism helps to create more respect for both ordinances and more anticipation for their baptism.

Agreed. To be clear, that is not what I was referring to. I was referring more like something where a husband feels prompted to take some action that relates to his family...say, moving the family to another location. I think best practice would be for the wife to also seek her own confirmation. Cheers,

I have searched many times for an answer to this question but never found any official church statements on this. So I was excited when just this morning I came across an article on lds.org entitled “Little Children and The Sacrament.” (https://www.lds.org/liahona/2016/10/little-children-and-the-sacrament?lang=eng)…but was disappointed to find the article was more of an editorial by a member rather than an official statement or clarification by a church leader. It didn’t even have any quotes from church leaders. And the rational used in the article seemed like quite a stretch. Here are some quotes from the article: • Jesus commanded His disciples to “give [the sacrament] unto the multitude.” That multitude included “little ones.” • When priesthood holders today pronounce the sacrament prayers, they ask Heavenly Father to bless and sanctify the bread and the water “to the souls of all those” who partake. All. Each person who partakes—including each little child. There simply isn’t enough detail in the story to know whether the sacrament was given to small children. And to imply that the “all” in the sacrament prayer includes small children….again, I don’t see how you can draw that conclusion. Given who strongly God condemns the baptizing of little children (Moroni 😎 and given that taking the sacrament is to help us repent and renew our baptismal covenants (neither of which applies to small children)…it would seem to me the best thing would be for little children not to partake of the sacrament, but rather emphasize to the adults our need for the sacrament so that we can repent and become pure and innocent again like little children. Thoughts? Has anyone ever found anything official from the church on this topic? Should or should we not give the sacrament to children before they are baptized?

Sunday21, this is a great question. I have struggled with this as well. For what its worth, here's how I try to avoid deception: - I know that any type of inspiration that contradicts revealed truth and God's written word is false and I can immediately reject. There is an important balance between The Word and The Spirit....and if we focus too much on one without the other we open ourselves to deception: whether it is hyper spirituality without being grounded in the word or a legalistic following of The Word with no regard for The Spirit and the spirit of the law. We are constantly told to pray and read the scriptures....if we focus on one without the other I think we can get off course. - For important decisions, I seek multiple confirmations. For minor stuff, like "Go visit that person"...I try to follow immediately. If it is, "Resign your job and move to another location" I am going to really try to fast and pray to get this one right. - Seek out the inspiration of others that also have interest in the issue. I seek my wife's personal revelation to keep my own in check. Whenever we feel the same thing or receive the same revelation, things have always turned out well. Going it alone can open either of us up to deception. She was starting to get caught up in the Julie Rowe movement...and so I helped to point out how that movement is inconsistent with gospel pattern. Likewise, she helps keep me in check. Do you have any siblings that also have interest in the well-being of your mother.?...perhaps you could seek out their advice and involve them in the revelation and decision process. - Make sure you're living the gospel. When I am not worthy or living the gospel as I should my view of things becomes distorted and I open myself to deception. Hard to see things clearly when I don't have the Light of Christ, let alone the Holy Ghost. - Seek out counsel from priesthood leaders. I would take any advice from me or anyone else on MormonHUB carefully because we don't have any priesthood authority that encompasses you....also, these are almost all anonymous posts on a non-church sponsored website. So, for those difficult decisions, talk to an EQ president (or RS president) or Home Minister or Bishop. My experience is that God does guide us and provides a means for us to discern correction inspiration from false promptings. All the best!

I was summarizing in my journal what I have learned from re-reading the discussion threat and further meditation. Here is what I came up with: First, there are only two possible answers to the question, “Can a mortal person know with absolute certainty that God does not lie?”: “Yes” or “No”. “Yes”. Here is a summary of the best arguments, evidence and testimonies of the “Yes” group: God is a God of Truth and cannot lie. (But this just begs the question: how do you know? Because the scriptures say so? This is a circular argument that brings us back to another form of the original question: How do you know God didn’t lie in some of his recorded revelations?) The Spirit confirmed to my spirit that God does not lie. (This testimony holds more weight for me but still doesn’t completely convince me because, again, it brings us back full circle to another form of the question: what is to assure us that The Spirit doesn’t lie? I know this sounds blasphemous and it is not my intent to offend The Spirit but it is a question to consider. However, perhaps there is a type of spiritual experience or “knowing” that is so direct, clear, unmistakably true (yet indescribable in any mortal form of communication) that it permits no doubt. While I feel I have had many experiences with The Spirit, nothing of that nature…for me I still am looking through a glass darkly, as I imagine it is the case for the great majority of church members.) Of the individual nature of the Godhood and their individual testimonies. The fact that the godhead consists of three separate beings means that they can provide independent testimony of The Truth. The Father bears record of the Son. The Son of the Father. And The Spirit of both. This argument makes sense to me, but I have not have not had such intimate experiences where I can personally distinguish a spiritual communication from The Father vs. The Son vs. The Holy Ghost. It would seem that any spiritual experience I have had has been through The Spirit. Also, I see no reason that all 3 could be in agreement to deceive. Living the gospel will lead to a sure knowledge. “If any man will do his will, he shall know”…I like this argument. But it seems to me that we can’t arrive at CERTAIN knowledge until after this life. As long as there is a veil, there is a degree of “cloudiness” and uncertainty. There are other arguments, such as: If God lied he would cease to be God….but again, how can anyone know or verify that statement. It seems that any argument or evidence I entertain I keep running into the same problem: I get to a question that cannot be answered with 100% certainty. “NO”. Here is a summary of the best arguments and evidence to the contrary: Mormon theology takes us further than any other religion or philosophy in terms of what we can know and the depth and intimacy with which we can know it, but even with the Mormon methodology of seeking, reading, meditating, praying and receiving personal revelation…even this methodology cannot get us an answer to this question….it is like the event horizon of faith. We cannot, at least not in our mortal frame & framework, get pass or see beyond it. Like a star or galaxy moving away from us at a speed greater than the speed of light, we will never be able to detect it or “know” it. There is in fact hints in the scriptures that God does intentionally deceive “that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men” so they are more motivated to repent (see D&C 19). There is a veil over our spirit and intellect that prevents us from obtaining this type of absolute knowledge. It may be that we can only have absolute certain knowledge when we have comprehended all things. Because truth is one great whole, it cannot be fully understood in independent pieces. To borrow from Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk, we cannot comprehend what elephant is until we can comprehend every part of the elephant. And this type of knowledge is only possible in a state of godhood. And then there were also responses like, “No”, but why worry about it, since you can’t do anything about it. Or, “No”, but if God does lie occasionally it is probably for good benevolent fatherly reasons. My conclusion: In a mortal state it is impossible to know with absolute certainty that God does not lie. There may be some inescapable truth of reality that will horrify and terrorize us, but we can’t do anything about, so no need to worry about it. Mormon theology provides the most consistent, rational and evidential argument for an intimate, benevolent Heavenly Father whose every action is for our welfare. I will continue to hold to that belief even if I can never know for certain in this life.

By "lie", I mean communications with the intent to deceive or create a false understanding of reality. For example, trying to scare someone to do what is right by telling them they will burn in hell for eternity if they don't (when in fact, you know that they won't)....that sort of thing. I also agree it makes more sense to assume God doesn't lie....but I simply don't see anyway to get to a certainty that God does not lie.

I thank the two of you that I actually responded to my question. I don't see any further benefit to anyone to continue this conversation thanks for everyone's participation.

You are confusing things and trying to take the discussion in a different direction. Are you still confused about what I mean by the word you know?! Seems bizarre that almost nobody can give me a direct answer