Starwatcher

I agree that it appears he was being piled upon. Having read some of what Bart Ehrman has written about the New Testament texts, I find that I have modified the 8th Article of Faith in my own mind to read: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it was transmitted accurately and is translated correctly". Witness the Johannine Comma, and tell me that even if that was translated correctly, it represents true doctrine. I trust the New Testament, and love it, but I only trust it implicitly so far as it correlates with modern revelation and the Book of Mormon. See DC 91:2 in connection with the Apocrypha: "There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men." Besides the Apocrypha what is there in the NT besides the Comma that is an "interpolation by the hand of men"? The Book of Mormon itself verifies my caution: Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. [1 Nephi 13:28] (see 1 Nephi 13:20-29 for the full context) As for Sons of Perdition, I'm pretty sure King David is not one. Don't know about Judas, but it he is a member of that club, so be it.

Heh. Not being a citizen, my voice on this is meaningless, except as background noise. I do have an opinion, however.

Indeed. He wrote in Ps 32:5 "I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah." Either he was actually forgiven, meaning that his sin was not against the Holy Ghost, or this was wishful thinking. I don't see how one could regard what David did as the unpardonable sin, in any case. In and of itself, at least. I'm uncertain about this.

Of course. I wrote what I wrote because the OP was implying that just because a fish does A means that so should we. The fish Kobudai doesn't "decide" to change gender -- or maybe it does, I don't know, but it has both sex organs so it's equipped for it. Another fish that changes sex is the clownfish -- the one portrayed in "Finding Nemo". The clownfish is a protandrous hermaphrodite, meaning that clownfish are born male, but may change to female according to the social hierarchy of a particular social group. Nemo doesn't "decide" to change gender. The dominant male of a female-less group changes to female, and the next most dominant male becomes the breeding male -- the rest stay male but celibate. Humans are not hermaphrodites nor protandrous hermaphrodites. We are obligate anhermaphrodites. Don't worry, I just made the word up, since there doesn't seem to be one available.

Nice! I'm retired, so have far too much time I could devote to posting here! I hope to keep the lid on it.

I'm just an amateur. I don't even own a telescope -- so perhaps using "watcher"is a bit of an exaggeration. But I do read and study a great deal about astronomy, because I find the subject endlessly fascinating. I was tremendously excited when New Horizons launched, and closely followed news about its progress. One of my favorite YouTube videos was this:

Yes, yes, I know, but... He doesn't seem to be saying anyone has said it explicitly, but he infers that is what they believe from what he has seen them post. That's what I'm trying to say. And for the record, I don't see what he sees. Nobody's saying it doesn't happen. There's only been some equivocating over whether Judas has joined the SoP club. And even if this is true, that he's the club vice president, even Rob can only come up with two names: Cain and Judas. Two out of how many people who have ever lived? Comes to a very very minuscule fraction. This makes it, in fact, nearly impossible for anyone to become such, just judging by the numbers. But as someone or other once pointed out, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The Book of Mormon only mentions two women by name: Sariah the wife of Lehi, and Isabel the harlot. This is not evidence that there are no other women in the book. So perhaps, and surely, there have been more than 2 SoPs. But it still seems to be a very very exclusive club. I do wonder if the bar to membership is as high as some think it is, however. DC 76:35 - "Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame." I believe I have received the Holy Spirit -- in other words, having been confirmed by the authority of the priesthood, it having been commanded to me: "Receive the Holy Ghost", and afterwards having actually received it, in multiple experiences. Can I therefore not become a SoP by denying the experience? Therefore there would be tons of potential candidates. Or does it require having received more than this? Say, for example, having received a visitation of the Son? That would really contract the circle of potential members of the club.

Here he gives a deduction from what some have said here, he interprets what they have said to support the notion they don't think anyone can become such. He's not saying anyone actually has explicitly said so. Classic mind-reading, I think. The only people from scripture I am aware of who could be labeled as an SoP is Cain and possibly Judas. Don't know of anyone else.

Who are these people, anyway?

I don't think he's said anyone here has said so.

I've wondered about this, too. There seems to be two parts to the plan. The first is this: choice between doing evil and not doing evil. I.e. obeying the commandments or not obeying the commandments. It is from this that we get the choice between accepting Christ and his Atonement versus not doing so and suffering for our own sins. The second is: choice between being valiant in the testimony of Jesus or not being valiant. I.e. do we sit around on our salvational laurels, or do we get off our metaphorical duffs and actually work to further Father's work among His children. And this involves the further obedience to higher laws and covenants, such as are given to us in the Temple. If you carefully read DC 76 it seems that the population of the Telestial Kingdom ((DC 76:81-90)) will consist of those who refused to accept Christ as their Savior at any time (v.82: "These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus.") and possibly those whose crimes put them beyond the reach of the Atonement (if that's possible), and all of these had to suffer for their own sins (v.84: "These are they who are thrust down to hell".) And that the Terrestrial Kingdom ((DC 76:71-80)) will consist of those who did accept Christ at some point and who received the saving ordinances (as a symbol of their acceptance), including those ("... who died without law; ...the spirits of men kept in prison ... who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it. ... [the] honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men ... who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus") Finally, the Celestial Kingdom ((DC 76:50-70)) will consist of those who both accepted Christ and obeyed Him, but who also went on to be valiant in the testimony of Jesus ("who are the church of the Firstborn ... into whose hands the Father has given all things ... who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory ... priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son ... they are gods, even the sons of God ... all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s ... And they shall overcome all things)

No more? Just FYI, in connection with what you wrote earlier, I would never had said there weren't any.

Must it be perfectly literal? I have a full head of hair, even at age 67. It's gone quite gray, but it's pretty much all there. My 28-year old stepson has classic male pattern baldness. It's perfectly natural for him to be this way. What will he get in the resurrection? Will there be balding resurrected beings? Also, what about baby teeth? Will they be restored? Or the permanent teeth? Do Downs-syndrome people get to keep their condition? We get "restored", do we not? If a Downs person is restored, surely they must therefore be resurrected Downs, right? (I actually had someone I know claim that they did. As if it were a good thing, since they are so sweet.) I tend to think of the resurrection as a restoration to what we should and would have been, if things had been perfect. So someone born blind or deaf won't be resurrected blind, and deaf just because he was that way from the beginning.

I do understand where you are coming from. But I disagree with you. As does Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith. And so also does the Church, apparently, since the quote from BY does appear in correlated doctrinal teaching materials issued by the Church. They could have disagreed with Pres. Young and omitted that bit in the manual where he is quoted as saying resurrected beings don't have blood. They certainly have omitted any mention of Adam-God. But in one sense, what does it matter? Blood or no blood, it will be what it will be. So perhaps disputing over it is a waste of time.

Well, how many do you think there are, and aside from Judas, can you name any?

So, two prophets of God, presumably better instructed than you, understand a verse from scripture differently from you, and so you characterize their understanding as a MISunderstanding? Meaning that your understanding is superior to theirs, I suppose.

Joseph Fielding Smith and Brigham Young. In one of JFS's "Answers to Gospel Questions" chapters, which was used back in 1973 as the priesthood study manual, he indicated that immortal beings didn't have blood, but when the immortal Adam fell and became mortal, blood came into his veins for the first time. I was on my mission in Germany at the time, and when this came up, it caused a recent convert 's eyes to bulge and jaw to drop. It was the last we saw of him. At least for a while. It really thrrew him for a loop. You haven't noticed that whenever Heavenly Father is spoken of, it is never as having a body of "flesh and blood" but one of "flesh and bone"? And then we have this, from chapter 37 of Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, speaking of Christ: The blood he spilled upon Mount Calvary he did not receive again into his veins. That was poured out, and when he was resurrected, another element took the place of the blood. It will be so with every person who receives a resurrection; the blood will not be resurrected with the body, being designed only to sustain the life of the present organization. When that is dissolved, and we again obtain our bodies by the power of the resurrection, that which we now call the life of the body, and which is formed from the food we eat and the water we drink will be supplanted by another element; for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God [see 1 Corinthians 15:50] (DBY, 374). I Cor 15:50: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

Will we have appendixes? Without blood, what function will our spleens have?

The illustration doesn't need to be illustrating a metal helmet, I don't think. Not that the Aztecs were Nephites or Lamanites, one suspects that the equipment might have been similar. For one thing, the Aztecs had protective equipment that was pretty good, even if it weren't made of metal. Have a look at Aztec warrior appearance, and some of their equipment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_warfare#Appearance_of_warriors

<Chuckle> When this talk was brought up over at MDDB you should have seen the hissy fits some of the more marginal sorts got into over it. You'd think Elder Corbridge had been speaking in groundhogese or something. One of the reasons I am so glad I found this place.

I guess I am somewhat amused by this because if we're going to go "all in" on transgenderism because a fish species does it, then we ought to go "all in" on polygamy because deer do it. Or on monogamy because wolves do it. Or every which way because dogs do it. Or not at all, because amoeba have no gender. Last time I checked, we are created in the image of God, not one of his other creations, and as He put it God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Gen 1:27) If fish were created in the image of God, well, then, that would be another God, wouldn't you say?

I've got what amounts to a very odd concept on this, a concept that kind of follows the Hindu model in some way. You might have been a slime mold once upon a time, but having fulfilled the measure of your creation (as a slime mold), you may have been advanced to a sponge. And so forth, over billions of years, until you advanced to human. Gender may not have been an eternal characteristic for you in many of these formats, but by the time you became human your gender had become fixed and eternal. Or I may be completely out to lunch.

Not answering for the person to whom you presented this question, I would say that Yes, punishment for any broken law with a mortal consequence is necessary to preserve the law. A law without consequences is not a law, but wishful thinking. Repentance is a lifelong process. You have not fully repented of a sin until the opportunity to repeat its commission is gone. Some sins under the Law of Moses were considered by the Lord to be so serious that the law required one be removed from the possibility of repeating its commission. But by being removed from the circumstances in which the sin was or could be committed does not remove the sinner from the ability (or need) to repent of it -- and even if the commission of the sin requires being in the body (can't rob a bank when you're dead), one can still have godly sorrow for committing the sin, and one can still be of a mindset to not sin again even if the opportunity presented itself. The Lord said of adultery, 27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. If you can commit adultery in one's heart, without having committed it in the body, one can certainly repent of it in one's heart.

The problem with allowing an exception in this case is illustrated quite nicely with the situation that your grandson has observed: the 10 year old who was confirmed at the water's edge in contravention to the policy. Exceptions should be rare and for clearly exceptional circumstances, because if they are observed to occur frequently then exceptions become more the rule than the exception, and then expected. An experience I had on my mission can help demonstrating the importance of following rules, even when it might seem unreasonable to do so. I had sought an answer in prayer to something important to me while at the MTC (it was before the MTC, actually, but in an equivalent facility), even though I sensed that the Lord had the answer and was willing to give it, He wasn't giving it. After attempting several times, I took the matter to one of the advisors at the MTC. The circumstances were that I was getting up after "lights out" and everyone else was asleep and going into a classroom on the same floor level in order to pray. The advisor told me that by doing what I was doing I was violating mission rules, because we were to remain in our beds (except for calls of nature or other emergency) upon "lights out". He said that if the Lord were to answer me in that circumstance He would be in effect be teaching me that the rules may be freely broken. I objected that there was no other time to be alone to pray, but he told me that this was not so, since while we were in the building it wasn't required that I be with my companion at all times, and all I needed to do was to find a free period and an unoccupied room to pray in during the day. I took his advice to heart, and in following this advice a couple of days later I got my answer. All while obeying mission rules (for the MTC). If it had been the advisor forbidding me to pray in that circumstance it might have seemed like a petty thing to require, but he didn't, it was the Lord requiring it. I learned something important by this experience. It might be a bit more complex trying to explain the need to hew to the rules to a 9 year old, under the circumstances. But perhaps you could take the opportunity to pray with him over the matter, in order to obtain assurance from the Lord that the indicated course of action is what the Lord wants. This might be a good teaching experience for him.

Heck, who knows? I sure don't, but when I write that I think Jehovah only created this earth/solar system, I am uncomfortable with it. I do not believe that this kind of information is something we are intended to know at this time. Because we don't need to know. He created US spiritually. Although one is perhaps reminded that spiritual and temporal are the same to the Father. I believe that Father called forth the Universe, and it was initially matter unorganized. Much of it is still matter unorganized, but over time it becomes organized, as need for organization grows.