Poseidon

I assumed it was because even the angels have to operate on some degree of faith. They are on their path to perfection and exaltation just like us, and need to learn to be patient and submissive just like we do.

We are often told that Adam and Eve's first two children were Cain and Abel. Now, it is clear that those two are the first named children, but I think that leads us to wrongfully assume there were no children born before Cain and Abel. I'm going to lay out my reasoning from Moses Chapter 5 below and you all can tell me what you think. V.1 Starting here, Adam and Eve have been kicked out into the world, earning their bread by the sweat of their brow. No children yet. V.2 Even bears children, sons and daughters. At this point, none of their names are given. V.3 The children also divide two in two in the land and have children of their own. Still no names given. V.6 The angel comes and explains to Adam the reason for sacrifices. This means there was a time where Adam and Eve had children AND were offering sacrifices without knowing why. V.10-12 Adam starts to teach and prophecy to all the families of the earth (implying they've been spreading and multiplying for awhile now). V.13 Satan draws away Adam's sons and daughters, and they become devilish. Still no names given. V.14-15 Some repent, other don't. V.16 Eve bears Cain and says "I have gotten a man from the Lord, wherefore he may not reject his words." The order of events here is important. If Cain was the first person born, that would mean that the narrative would be going back in time, which isn't unheard of. But we see above that Adam already had children before he learned the gospel and the reason for the sacrifices. If the children came before the angel explained things, and Cain was the first of those children, there shouldn't be any words of the Lord for Cain to reject yet. Also, the phrase "he may not reject his (the Lord's) words" only makes sense in the context of other children having already rejected them. Otherwise, what was the point of saying that? V.19-25 The Lord rejects Cain's sacrifice and warns him that if he doesn't keep the commandments he will become Perdition. V.26-27 Cain doesn't repent and parents mourn. V.28 Cain gets married to "one of his brothers' daughters". Look carefully at the punctuation, specifically the placing of the apostrophe. It's after the 'S'. In English grammar, to show possession, if the subject having the possession is singular, the apostrophe goes BEFORE the 'S': brother's. If the subject is plural, the apostrophe goes AFTER the 'S': brothers' The fact that the apostrophe here comes after the 'S' shows that the woman Cain married was a daughter of one of the multiple brothers he had. We're not told the name of this brother, so its clear the scriptures aren't giving us all the names of the first generation. In other words, it confirms there are other of Adam's children who are alive at this time but not being named. Consider also that it would be very strange for Cain to have waited this long before getting married if he really had been the first born. Think about it: If he was the first born, that means he waited for 1) Adam and Eve to have Abel, 2) Adam and Eve to have at least one other son, 3) and at least one other daughter, 4) waited for those two children to grow up and get married, 5) waited for those two sibling to have children of their own, and 6) waited for one of those women of the second generation to come to an age old enough to marry. That's a lot of waiting, and it would be very odd. It's far more likely that Cain had many older brothers and sisters who reached that age of sexual maturity long before he did, had children, and those children were pretty near in age to Cain for him to marry one of them. V.29 Cain makes an oath with Satan. The oath again refers to "brethren", implying that Cain had more than one brother at this point. V.32 Cain kills Abel.

“Where doubt and uncertainty is, there faith is not, nor can it be. For doubt and faith do not exist in the same person at the same time.” Joseph Smith, “Lectures on Faith,” Lecture 6, Para. 12. “Faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.” Thomas S. Monson, “Be an Example and a Light,” General Conference October 2015.

Would that imply that the strength of one's faith is determined by the number of principles of which he's gained a testimony?

Some times we talk about faith in degrees, like saying faith is strong or weak, other times we talk of faith in absolute terms, like saying faith cannot exist in the same mind at the same time. These seem mutually exclusive. Is faith something that you have in degrees, or is it something you either have or don't have? If it exists in degrees, how do you measure it? How do you distinguish strong faith vs weak faith?

I once asked to be released due to mental health concerns and the bishop was really understanding.

I wonder if the Church keeps track of this. Although I'm not sure what purpose it would have.

Likewise. I've learned that times I feel let down were times I made false assumptions about what it was he promised. The story of the women and children being burned is a good example.

Have you, or anyone else, ever felt you relied on the Lord and he let you down?

You remind me of something Elder Bednar taught: Assurance, action, and evidence influence each other in an ongoing process. This helix is like a coil, and as it spirals upward it expands and widens. These three elements of faith—assurance, action, and evidence—are not separate and discrete; rather, they are interrelated and continuous and cycle upward. And the faith that fuels this ongoing process develops, evolves, and changes. As we again turn and face forward toward an uncertain future, assurance leads to action and produces evidence, which further increases assurance. Our confidence waxes stronger, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2007/09/seek-learning-by-faith?lang=eng

That would be awesome, thank you for looking.

A person's main reasoning for having faith in Christ should be the witnesses of the Spirit, but the Lord also offers us other witnesses to strengthen our belief when our ability to rely solely on the Spirit's voice is weak. Some people lean heavily on the testimony of trusted loved one, others lean on archeological evidence or historical evidence. And while these shouldn't be the foundation of our testimony, they can be helpful while someone is the process of building their testimony. So I'm wondering, what are some other pieces of "supplemental evidence" (i.e., evidence in addition to the Spirit's voice) that has aided the growth of your testimony?

It reads: "the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews." Where does it say whether the words of the lost tribes will be had before, during, or after the gathering?

This was my understanding as well, but I don't know where it comes from. Do you have a source?

I love that. Did you come up with that or are you quoting somebody? Either way, well said.

If it had been important to the Lord's plan for his kingdom on earth to continue practicing plural marriage, he would prepared a way for it to happen regardless of what the U.S. government did. Instead of preparing the way to defend it, he choose to discontinue it, so we can infer that whatever purpose the Lord had in commanding the early saints to live plural marriage was fulfilled by the 1880s and the practice was no longer necessary. To my knowledge, what those reasons are hasn't been revealed.

Growing up in the U.S., nearly everyone I knew was from the tribe of Ephraim. When I served a mission in South America, nearly everyone was from the tribe of Manasseh. When I spoke to a member who grew up in Nigeria, he told me nearly everyone he knew was from the tribe of Benjamin. So it got me wondering, does anyone know of other areas of the world where a particular tribe is concentrated? *This is, of course, just asking for anecdotal evidence, as far as I know there's been no revelation on the subject.

That is a good point. It reminds me the first Official Declaration, a lot of members were disappointed in what they felt was President Woodruff surrendering to the Federal government over plural marriage, but given the attacks that would have occurred on the Church if it hadn't, abolishing the practice was the wisest course of action. I think there are some parallels there to today.

Part of the error of this thinking is the assumption that if the leaders of the Church were aware of the present dangers, they would act the way I would expect them to act. We shouldn't make any such assumptions, not only do they receive revelation about which dangers are a threat to the church and its mission, but they also receive revelation on how to respond to those dangers, revelation were not always made privy to.

It makes me sad they can't speak more bluntly on things, but I get it. It just makes me have that much more of a desire to be there in the times and places where they do feel free to speak bluntly.

That sounds accurate to me. Anyone who falls short of exaltation, either by an inch or by a mile, is "lost" to some degree.

Notice that in verse 33, it says "we heeded them not". I think the "we" there only refers to Lehi, Nephi, Sam, and Sariah. I don't think the "we" includes everyone who made it to the tree, and the fact that many of them DID he heed the hecklers would support that interpretation.

1 Ne. 12:17 And the mists of darkness are the temptations of the devil, which blindeth the eyes, and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men, and leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost. As far as when they arise in historical terms, I don't think the vision was meant to be chronological. It developed one concept at a time, first it taught Lehi what the tree was, then it taught what the rod was, then it taught what the mists were, but that wasn't meant to imply those things came into existence in that order. The temptations of the devil (mists of darkness) have been on the earth since the Garden of Eden.

Given his infinite foreknowledge, can the Lord be surprised by anything?

How do you mean "by himself"? He still would have needed to be transfigured to endure God's. Did the Brother of Jared "breakthrough" the veil on his own, or did he fulfill all of God's requirements so that God was then bound by his promise to bring the Brother of Jared through the veil?