GaleG

Thank you Anddenex.
I found something similar echoed at
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1973/09/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/why-did-the-lord-command-adam-and-eve-to-multiply-in-the-garden-of-eden-when-they-could-not-have-children-before-the-fall?lang=eng
and
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/lessons-1-5/lesson-2-the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng
Gale

This is  a good question to ask that sometimes can be utilized to analyze how we interpret the situation.
Could Adam and Eve have had children in the Garden.  Preliminary thoughts seem to indicate that they could not.  Lehi states
Thus, at first glance it indicates that in the state they were in, they must have remained in the same state.  This could be used to infer that the reason we come to this earth is because change is able to occur.  That, mortality is the only place where change can happen, while eternal states nothing can change.  However, this is a surface view, for if this was so, then how spiritual children created and how would one continue to have children in the eternities?
Something to note in the verse I quoted above which is one of the chief verses we use when stating this idea that the fall was necessary is that it DOES NOT state that Eve fell that men might be, but that ADAM fell that men might be.
This is important, for it indicates that only Adam's fall was necessary that men might be, not Eve's.  Why would this be?
If we think about how we proclaim about the family today, and that both men and women were necessary, then we realize that a man by himself cannot have children.  In the same way, a woman by herself cannot have children.  There needs to be both of them for children to occur.  Thus, by partaking of the forbidden fruit, Even was going to be cast out of the garden/die in that same day that she partook of it.  Adam would then have no woman there to have children with.  Thus, if he were to follow the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, he would need to also partake of the fruit in order to also be with Eve (though other questions could arise, such as did he realize that he wouldn't die physically the same mortal day as he partook or not, though obviously he died spiritually that day, as well as within the 1000 year day idea that was given as a heavenly day time period as well).
Hence, for there to be children, and men, Adam at that point had a choice.  He could not partake of the fruit and remain single in the Garden...or he could partake of the fruit and take his chances.  Only in this manner could men be born.
This thought that Adam had to fall in order to be with Eve ALSO follows the argument of why only ADAM is listed as being the one that had to fall so that men might be and not Eve.
Of course, it still does not answer whether they could have had children in the Garden, and the first portion of the verse indicates that they could not have children in the garden anyways on their own. 
The next justification to look at is that the reason they could not have children was that they were in a state of innocence.  In otherwords, they were as children in many ways.  This could mean that though their bodies may actually have physically been able to have children, they did not have the knowledge to act upon this.  They may have been able to have children, but the simply did not realize how.
Then comes the first portion, which I discussed, which is problematic with our current ideas of eternal progression and progeny.  If things cannot change, then there cannot be children.  However, this would apply to any changes which goes counter to the idea of having children in the eternities.
Brigham  Young presented ideas in relation to this which are controversial to a great degree to this day, but answer many of the conundrums that we see regarding our current beliefs/ideas about eternal progression and the scripture above.
Brigham Young tried to explain that the name Adam was utilized in several different ways in the Scriptures.  He would explain it as such.  It is NOT a doctrine taught in the church today, though you can see some of it's element remaining in our teachings, and hence why at times what we teach today can seem in conflict with other things we teach today.
Adam is the word for MAN, or Mankind.  Thus, another reading of the scripture above is that when it says Adam it is both referring to the Man-Adam as well as the Man-Eve.  They are both the entirety of Mankind at the time.
However, it goes deeper than that.  Brigham Young also explained that Adam is also a specific name.  Adam, our mortal father was specifically also named Man, as Adam means Man.  This name was ALSO his Father's name.  Thus you have Father-Adam, and Adam the Son, or the Man-Adam.  Father Adam set forth a plan for his sons and daughters to follow.  Adam the Son thus came to the Garden of Eden with Eve.
Brigham also taught that Adam (the Son) was an immortal being and had already received his Celestial Glory prior to this life.  This idea has Adam bringing Eve his wife and coming to the Earth and consuming plants of food of this mortality.  This caused blood to run through his veins and enable him to have physical children.  Thus, he condescended, or came to Earth and mortality, and this was in fact his fall.  Much of what we see otherwise in Genesis is allegorical to help us understand what took place, but Adam and Eve came to earth not out of sin, but a spiritual thing in order to make it so that man could be.
Thus, they could have had spirit children, but without taking the fruits of this earth, they could NOT have physical children.  The spirit provides the essence for spirit children, but flesh and blood is required for physical/mortal children with physical bodies.
As I said, the above is NOT doctrine and merely was Brigham Youngs opinions on the matter, rather than what we believe today.  However, if we look at that, it could provide some plausible ideas a great many things to me. 
It explains that Adam and Eve were in that holy state where they could not have physical change.  Thus, they could not have a physical change in their bodies and they could not have physical children.  It might have been possible for them to have spiritual children, but the state of innocence meant that they would not have spiritual children either.  In order for this to happen, they needed to have the fall.  When Eve partook of the fruit she became mortal, and as mortal, she was to be tossed out of the Garden.  She literally died, or started to die by becoming mortal, the instant that she partook of the fruit.  Furthermore, she would die spiritually as she would be separated from the Lord in that day.  If Adam was to be with her, he also needed to partake of the fruit, or he would not be able to follow the other commandments of the Lord.  Given this situation, he had to choose between to terrible choices, whether to stay in the Garden or to partake of the fruit.  He had to choose which was the greater commandment I suppose in this case, for he could not obey BOTH commandments (not partake of the fruit and to multiply and replenish the Earth) in this instance.  Thus, he did not sin, but a transgression.
Just some thoughts on the question asked.  I think many will answer in a specific and absolute manner, but I think that at times some questions are more nuanced in their answers then it seems on the surface.

Ok.  As I understand it, professional historians (and the Bible itself) tell us that Zedekiah reigned for about eleven years, beginning right after the Babylonians’ first sack of Jerusalem and ending with the second one.  If the Lehites leave during Zedekiah’s first year, then by necessity the first fall of Jerusalem would already have happened (else Jehoiakim/Jehoiachin, not Zedekiah, would have been on the throne) and the next fall of Jerusalem would still be at least ten years off.  The alternative would be that Lehi actually spent about ten years preaching in Jerusalem (all of which would be covered by 1 Ne 1)—but I’ve never seen anyone in LDS circles make that suggestion; and as you note, even Mormon himself (who wrote the header to 3 Nephi that you’re referring to) didn’t read it that way. 
As I mention in my preceding post, in what would be the eighth year of Zedekiah’s reign Nephi says he doesn’t know if Jerusalem has been destroyed yet.  About twelve years after Zedekiah’s coronation, Lehi announces that Jerusalem has indeed been destroyed.  Jeremiah 39 tells us that Babylon besieged the city in Year 9, and that the city fell in Year 11.  (It’s also worth noting that Jeremiah had several brushes with the law in his lifetime, some apparently even before Zedekiah was on the throne; so Nephi’s referring to Jeremiah’s imprisonment could have been made early in Zedekiah’s reign.  See https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-could-nephi-have-known-about-jeremiahs-imprisonment)
Furthermore, because we know that Jerusalem was under siege for at least a year and a half, there’s absolutely no way that Jerusalem could have been destroyed “immediately” after the Lehites’ departure, unless they left after the siege was already well under way (which doesn’t jibe with Nephi then slipping in and out of the city three more times, including with Ishmael and his entire household). 
That’s why I don’t take Nephi’s use of the word “immediately” thirty years after the event in question, very seriously. 

The manual on page 92 (see attached) seems to supplement the teaching
that the destruction of Jerusalem occured immediately after Lehi left; as it
references 2 Nephi 25:10 - Wherefore, it hath been told them concerning the
destruction which  should come upon them, immediately after my father left
Jerusalem;  nevertheless, they hardened their hearts; and according to my
prophecy  they have been destroyed, save it be those which are carried away
captive  into Babylon.
 
The introductory notes for 3 Nephi 1 says "And Helaman was the son of  
Helaman, who was the son of Alma, who was the son of Alma, being a  
descendant of Nephi who was the son of Lehi, who came out of Jerusalem  
in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, the king of Judah."
 
If you don't believe this, it would help if you could explain your toughts on what
year in Zedekiah's reign was Jerusalem destroyed and when he was carried away
captive to Babylon.
I don't know Jim but on the surface he appears to be ex-LDS.
 
Thank you,
 
Gale

Great question. We can see from the record that the answer is both. If not for the wickedness of those who were seeking to take his life the Lord wouldn't have commanded him to leave. So, in this light, I would call this, a combining of two events.
1) The people of Jerusalem sought to take his life
2) The Lord knew this and forewarned Lehi and commanded him to leave with a promise of a promised land.
Thus, the wickedness of the people drove him out of the land.

Hello,
 
Would you help me understand this verse.
2 Nephi 1:4 says "For, behold, said he, I have seen a vision, in which I know that
Jerusalem is destroyed; and had we remained in Jerusalem we should also have
perished".
Do you think Lehi was aware of the Lord's revelation to Jeremiah that the good figs
(chapter 24, verses 5-8) represented the people who remained in Jerusalem and were
taken and preserved by the Lord in Babylon?
Thank you,
Gale

Speaking personally, I think it's VERY important to be upfront in explaining what "the fullness of the Gospel" means.  Because it's not what folks assume by default (that "the fullness of the Gospel" = every detail about God's Truth is in there) cause it's not.  We are a faith that very much believes that we STILL don't know everything about God's Truths (see Article of Faith 9).  
Rather  "the fullness of the Gospel" is talking about the centerpiece with IS the Gospel: that Christ, the Son of God, was born, lived, died, and rose again as our Savior.  That's the huge centerpiece and foundation.
Ordinances, while important, aren't the counterpoint of the Gospel.  Rather, they are branches springing from the trunk which is Christ's life. 
 

I found another opinion posted here.
"Jonah felt that the repentance and salvation of the people of Nineveh was so abhorrent that he'd
rather die than even consider it. He had avoided the call--not out of fear that he would be ineffective,
but fear that he would be effective! His worst nightmare happened, so he decided he no longer
wanted to live".
Thank you,
Gale

What weakness, according to the flesh, did Nephi believe would prevent him from making an accurate record?   
@mikbone covered this pretty well. I have interpreted this to mean his "weakness" in writing. Later on Nephi says the following, "And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men." (emphasis mine)
Due to our weakness in writing we can see how some people will take advantage (make an offender for a word) out of something that is inspired. Nephi is in this verse providing two important aspects:
1) God supports us in our weakness when we are doing as he has commanded
2) He recognizes his own weakness, he recognizes the weakness of others, but he does not condemn them. Mikbone provide the verses of scripture pertaining to Moroni and his father Mormon.
Did Nephi 'think' or 'know' his recordings of the wars, contentions, and destructions of his people were sacred?
Nephi had two plates that he wrote upon and handed down. The small plates is what was considered sacred (revelations and teaching as given by the Holy Ghost). The large plates, or other plates, contained the history of the people.
Nephi knew that journal keeping (or record keeping) was sacred and important.  You can read 2 Nephi 25:26 and Jacob 1: 1-4 for further understanding of why they kept records, and why we have been commanded to do the same.
Nephi would have know that even in keeping the large plates that there would have been sacred things recorded, or that others might consider sacred; although, usually "sacred" refers to the small plates.
Which others of old did he believe erred?
It is not made clear as to who Nephi was specifically referring to. In my opinion, he would be meaning any and all the prophets before him. This would include his father, Lehi.

I respect this sacred practice of your church so I tread carefully and politely.  I hope
I have not offended anyone.
Thank you,
Gale

Does verse 6 show Jesus giving a greater commendation to John for desiring to undertake a
greater work than Peter?
Thank you,
Gale

Amen to that.  This reminds me of Isaiah 64:6 - But we are all as an unclean
thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as
a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Thank you,
Gale

Never thought of that (Jews representing the eldest son).  I would say no because the parable
does not portray a redemption for them (if representative of the eldest son).
Jesus gave another parable of two sons in Matthew 21:28. One son represented the chief
priests and the elders; those who rejected Christ. The other son (the publicans and the
harlots) are those who repented and entered the Kingdom of God.
Thank you,
Gale

Thank you Jane.  That's the nicest thing anyone has ever commented about me on this
forum.
Gale

GaleG is an investigator, a very thorough one at that.  She/He has been on here several times before with good questions and really listening.  

i found a good examination at https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-prodigal-son.html
The aspect of the eldest son acting like a Pharisee was something new to me.
Thank you,
Gale

I would view it as a prophecy of the consequences (punishment) that would befall the people
if they chose a king to rule over them instead of God ruling over them.  I could not find a similar
warning in the Book of Mormon.  Maybe the Nephites having a king was viewed as positive?
Thank you,
Gale

Maybe instead of the word 'rebuked', I would use the word 'punished'.
One thing I noticed is that both Adam and Eve play the blame game. Adam blames Eve. She
in turn places blame on the serpent. Both fail to take responsibility for their own disobedience.
Their first sin leads to other failures (hiding and trying to cover their nakedness their own way
with the fig leaf aprons). I feel it's the same thing today - people still wearing their own fig leaf
aprons (good works, thinking they are not bad enough to deserve separation from God, idols,
etc) instead of approaching Him by his prescribed way.
Thank you,
Gale

I understand that it was special for another reason. Elder David A. Bednar said in the April 2014
General Conference address ("Bear Up Their Burdens With Ease") that revelation teaches April 6
is the actual and accurate date of Christ's birth.
Thank you,
Gale
 

Thank you Zil.

Urim and Thummim.  There's an "and" in there, like "this and that".  Further, in Hebrew, the "im" ending indicates plural:
...(from the Bible Dictionary entry).  Therefore, it's really, "these and those", thus, were.
The Urim and Thummim were given to the brother of Jared.

He's a quick typer 🙂
 

Hi Gale, always good to see you!
First things first, I'm going to start off with a big obvious statement: none of this has anything to do with "black people" (gag, awkward words there).  Someone who is "black" in the 21st American vocabulary is someone of African descent.  No one being talked of in the Book of Mormon is of African descent or in others words "black".   
A big picture thing here: we really don't know how literally or symbolic the "dark skin" was.   Things can be interpreted either way.
*If* we take these verses in a literal fashion, we don't know anything about how sudden any literal darkening might be.  It's very possible that a literal darkening could have been gradual over centuries, either due to genetic drift, intermarrying other ethnic groups, due to tanning from a more outside-focused lifestyle, or a bunch of million other options.  We don't get a 21st century scientific explanation, because the Book of Mormon is not a science book, it's book about Christ.  
So there's a lot of "we don't remotely know the specifics" here.  Honestly, I don't really think it's that important.  
 

Of course they did.
But this new (to me at least) interpretation, relates that Jesus was found in the same manger in the which the Passover lambs were kept...  
This gives the sign some significance.  

God's grace works with you the ENTIRE time.