roytucker

I would like to examine your interpretation here a little more closely. The purpose of Isaiah's statement was not to instruct that getting contact from spirits is a bad thing. He is instead demonstrating the way that the people were going about it. The chapter is explaining how the house of Jacob is not looking to God, and in verse 19 he is pointing out that the people prefer to go to dubious sources for their spiritual guidance rather than ask God directly. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon version clarifies the last statement: "should not a people seek unto their God for the living to hear from the dead?" That is, if you desire contact from an angelic source, such a request should always be through God. Roy

The scriptures speak plainly of the existence of both angels and evil spirits. The scriptures also speak plainly of communication between man and these angel/spirits. My own experience is that many of us have angels attending us, usually more than one. They are often, but not always, related to us, or we may have had a pre-mortal connection with them. They are best described as guardian angels. The scriptures make it clear that angels appear as a result of faith, either our own faith or through the faith of those close to us (e.g. Alma the younger and his Dad). The danger is not in communicating with angels. The danger is in mistaking all supernatural manifestations as sent from heaven.

Fair enough. :)

The answer is simple. If Adam had partaken of the fruit of the tree of life, he would no longer have been mortal. He would have been immortal again. His mortal days would have ended. Alma implies that were it not for the cherubim and flaming sword, that is what might have happened. (Alma 12:21) and they would have been denied a "probationary" time in which to repent. *Therefore*, the Lord lengthened their *mortal* days (ie. allowed them to live a mortal life and die at the end of it rather than gain immediate immortality) or as Alma puts it, granted them a "space", in order to repent. The key here is repentance. It must be done while still mortal. Alma and Lehi are essentially teaching the same lesson. I should also point out that both Lehi and Alma are speaking of a broader group than just Adam and Eve. Lehi says "children of men" and Alma references "mankind" so these scriptures are actually relevant to us today. (as all good Book of Mormon scriptures are ) Now, I realize that Lehi's statement is a centerpiece in your explanation of why the early generations lived a long time. I just don't think that interpretation is as strong as you think. Roy

You'll have to excuse me, skalenfehl, but I love a challenge :) I think I see where you're coming from with the "lengthened by what standard" thing. I would therefore like to call Alma the Younger to the witness stand. Alma gave a very similar type of discourse in Alma 12:21-26. Alma explains that if it had not been for the cherubim and flaming sword, Adam would have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life and "would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state" (Alma 12:26) He also explains, "And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death which has been spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death; nevertheless there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead." (Alma 12:24) Alma is saying the same as Nephi, but using "space granted" instead of "days prolonged." So, when you ask by what standard their days were lengthened, the answer may be that their mortal days were lengthened in comparison to an immediate partaking of the fruit of the tree of life. (I originally said immediate death/judgement, which was wrong, but same result) So I would conclude again that both Nephi and Alma are talking about mortality generally rather than a special life-extender for the first 30 generations that call in the next 15 minutes. Thank you Alma. You may step down. (Hope my poor attempts at a comedic tone are not offensive) Roy

Here is a slightly non-standard, but nonetheless scriptural, snippet of my perspective: The Father sent His Son for a purpose, to do all things which the Father commanded Him. He was obedient and by so doing became one with the Father and will inherit all the Father has. We are asked to believe in the saving power of Christ and by so doing He becomes OUR Father. We are likewise asked to do all that the Father (Christ) commands to the end that we become one with Christ as He is one with His Father. At this point, we become joint-heirs in inheriting all the Father has. Everything else is just the fine print :) Sample References: John 5:19-20; 8:29; 10:30; 14:8-9; 17:4, 22-23; Mosiah 3:8,19; 5:7-8 Roy

Hi Doc T, I notice you're including four quotes from the same guy. :) I think Paul was reasonably clear regarding his interpretation of salvation through grace and made his case forcefully. The focus of his explanation was not the focus of other writers. James, Peter, the Lord Jesus himself, and modern day prophets, all stressed the importance of obedience to ordinances and commandments as a critical test of our saving faith. Roy

Sorry skalenfehl, but I would offer an alternative interpretation of the 2 Nephi scripture: I believe these scriptures are referring to the fact that the Lord has granted us a mortal probation in which to repent, rather that instant death/judgement for sin. (2 Ne 2:21 "...prolonged...that they might repent while in the flesh"). It does not specify that any one group is being given special extended life privileges. It will apply to all "the children of men." In these scriptures, I believe the shortened "days" mentioned refer to the days preceding the Second Coming rather than a person's lifespan. (JSM1:4 "... what is the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world...") Obviously, my interpretation may be incorrect, but I thought I would share it anyway. Roy

In the final analysis it is a moot point. Anyone who truly accepts Christ as their Savior will demonstrate that faith through obedience. So whether an LDS receives the temple ordinances in this life, or a non-LDS receives them (by proxy) in the life hereafter, the ordinances that Christ requires of us will be administered. It's not Jesus or temple ordinances because it was Jesus who gave them to us!

My experience has been that the President of the Church and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles usually give very balanced, thoughtful counsel that stands the test of scripture and the promptings of the Spirit (especially when they release a joint statement). It is the local leadership at the ward and stake level that sometimes counsel inappropriately, as per D&C 121:34-40. In fact, as you read those verses of D&C, you learn that virtually every man in the church is prone to unrighteous dominion, so one must be very careful and stay very close to the Spirit.

Luke 3: We have so few details of the actual teachings of John the Baptist. Sometimes I think we assume he just talked about the coming of Christ. But Luke gives us a tiny insight into his teaching philosophy, one that obviously had a strong social justice component. (3:10-14) Later, of course, we learn that Jesus had a similar philosophy. I believe it is these teachings that have been carefully watered down in our modern times and church. While I realize that the church as a whole does much in the way of humanitarian aid and general welfare, I also notice that scriptural accounts of avoiding riches/wealth and giving away all but the essentials often generate a very defensive response in Sunday School Luke ends his chapter with a very long genealogy. There's certainly no skipping over bits with Luke (ie. we get to David and you fill in the blanks from there). No, we get the whole thing back to Adam. Perhaps Luke felt at this point it was important to establish the Lord's credentials as heir to the the throne of David. My favorite verse, though, has to be 3:22 where the Father establishes Jesus' true lineage. Roy.

Luke 2: As I read chapter 2, I started to wonder if Mary herself may have been one of Luke's chief sources for these first two chapters. There are details here that only Mary would have known (2:34-35 Simeon's prophecy to Mary). Once again, we see Luke's high regard for holy women in the mention of Anna the prophetess. In this chapter, a continuation from the previous chapter, we see Luke's effort at establishing a heavenly entrance for Jesus into the world, through the appearance of the heavenly hosts and the visions of shepherds. I wonder why he omitted the star and the wise men? I find it interesting that Luke goes to some pains to show that everything about Jesus' birth was in conformance with the Mosaic Law (2:21 circumcision, 2:22, Mary's purification, 2:24 temple sacrifice). This further strengthens my assertion that he was writing to a Jewish audience. Finally, Luke relates the story of Jesus in the temple at 12 years old. To me, this sounds like Mary is being interviewed about interesting events from Jesus' upbringing. In some ways, it is such a random story. I mean, in the first 30 years of Jesus' life, this is the only story we get! I sometimes wonder why there isn't more. Roy

Hope noone minds if I join it late. My comments so far: Luke 1: It's interesting to see the angle that each writer gives to their telling of the gospel. Luke decided to begin with two conception miracles, perhaps to emphasise that both babies were very special and could not have come about without direct intervention from God. (1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible). It's also interesting to see Luke's preference to emphasise the important place of women in the history of the church, underscored by a rare discourse by Mary herself (1:46-55). Finally, we have a prophecy from Zacharias that confirms the divine role of both John and Jesus in fulfilling both scripture and the Abrahamic covenant. It seems to me that Luke's intended audience is definitely Jewish, those who would have an appreciation of the OT, in contrast to, say, Paul's approach which is more Gentile-focused.

Hi everyone, I've been a member of the church for about 18 years, though I grew up Catholic. My testimony has evolved over time, going up, down, sideways, and diagonally. I served a mission, married in the temple, been active the whole time, and served in a variety of callings (Ward mission, Sunday School, YM, Activities, Elders Quorum, Bishopric, High Council). But in some ways I don't feel like the average member. I question a lot of LDS assumptions about life, the gospel, and everything. I'm hungry for truth. As you get to know me, you'll find that I am always looking at scriptural context rather than the one-liners. Paul is my favorite writer, but I love the whole Book of Mormon. Isaiah is pretty cool, too. Hope I can add something useful to the forum. Roy