zil2

Yes, but not just that. We believe that the Melchizedek Priesthood was known to Adam and all the "patriarchs". (Whether they knew the name "Melchizedek" or knew it by its proper name, I don't know. If the Church website version of the scriptures wasn't down, I'd point you to the Bible Dictionary entry for Melchizedek Priesthood... From the Bible Dictionary entry for Melchizedek (the person), it does indeed seem that Salem was Jerusalem. I believe that when Abram returns from winning back Lot that he met Melchizedek and paid tithes and then met with the other kings (Sodom's among them). The book of Jasher (non-biblical, not considered scripture by the LDS, but I like it) makes this more clear - it also states that Melchizedek was Shem, Noah's son.

Alma 13 v1+: Alma assumes the history of the Melchizedek Priesthood to be common knowledge. But the details of this seem to be lost both to the Jews and to modern Christianity. @Jamie, he's talking about pre-Lehite, old world history here. v3: Some were foreordained to receive the priesthood, but first they had to demonstrate faith and good works in mortality, and then they were called. (The "with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such" sure makes me think of the Aaronic Priesthood - don't know if that's the intent, but that's what it reminds me of - prepared through the Aaronic Priesthood to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood.) v4: Some who were foreordained hardened their hearts in mortality and thus never had the privilege of receiving the priesthood. v6: Those who received the Melchizedek Priesthood were to teach others how to return to God. v7: ...through the Son. v13: Be humble and repent, so that you can receive God's blessings. v16: The ordinances of the priesthood should help us look to Christ. v17-18: Just because people have "waxed strong in iniquity and abomination" is no reason to give up on them. Teach repentance! v20: Don't twist what scripture says. Study carefully and fully. v21: It's interesting to me that he recounted the history of the Melchizedek Priesthood. In some ways, it doesn't seem to make sense with this audience. Except, then he does what he said Melchizedek did - preach repentance.... v22+: I wonder if there will be angels "declaring it unto many" before the Second Coming. While it's supposed to be "like a thief in the night", that appears to only apply to the wicked, not to those who are waiting for him... v25: Perhaps Alma hadn't read the part about Christ coming 600 years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem. Or perhaps he just meant that he didn't know when in that year... v27: Don't procrastinate. v28-30: Good counsel for every day. Alma 14 v1: This is the important part. v6: The pains of hell include: to be conscious of your part in causing others to reject the truth. So don't do that, not by word and not by example. v7: Zeezrom began to repent. v7-8: How much more evil can you get than to just drive out (and yes, throw stones at) the men, but burn alive women and children? These people worked hard to earn their destruction and got better than they deserved (er, spoiler alert). v11: Sometimes God tells you not to do something which otherwise seems like a good, or even noble or heroic, thing. Trust that the Lord will bless all who suffer in or for his name. v11, 14: They were preaching longer than a single scene on the street - how else did they get copies of the scriptures ("records") and know who did or did not believe. Alma must have begun to organize and perhaps baptize believers. v17-18: Sometimes it's just best to keep your mouth shut. v24-29: This is right out of a superhero movie. v28: Have faith in Christ, and then build more faith, and don't stop. Cliffhanger...

I assumed he was responding to the text she quoted - she quoted something and then wrote "s" - at least, that's what was there when I arrived in this thread.

I guess I didn't get that the first sin was not repented of. (Obviously, refusing to forgive is an unrepented of sin.) So, in that case: Are you sure that D&C 64:9 says that [refusing to forgive sin X] is worse than [committing and refusing to repent of sin X]? I've spent a couple hours on this so far, and have not found another scripture (and can't remember one) that teaches this principle. Unless the search engine is flawed, the phrase "greater sin" doesn't occur anywhere else in scripture. The Lord establishes truth via 2 or 3 witnesses, so this may suggest that the principle being taught is closely tied to the situation. ...So, the section is addressed to Church leaders. The preceding verses seem to suggest that this is a case of forgiveness being asked for but withheld. In verse 7, the Lord says, "I forgive people who repent" (the subtext is, "so should you"). Verse 8 suggests the disciples in question looked for reasons to hold grudges against each other - trying to remain offended, refusing to forgive even when asked (yes, I'm reading that in, but I don't think the interpretation is unfounded). Verse 9 talks about brothers and trespasses. This does not sound like vile sins (Hitler can go back in the drawer for some other thread). The phrase "there remaineth in him" seems like the one who won't forgive is the one where something remains, but not so with the original trespasser (nothing about his sin here) - but we know from a multitude of witnesses that the only way that trespasser is forgiven is if he repents. Subsequent verses do say we are required to forgive all and let God mete out justice, but it doesn't repeat the "greater sin" part, nor is it entirely clear about "forgive when they ask for it" or "forgive whether or not they ask" - it's silent on this aspect. This principle is repeated many times in scripture: It then goes on to teach how to deal with those who don't repent (also taught many times), and hints at forgiveness regardless of repentance: So, is [refusing to forgive your rapist (which is an unrepented of sin, BTW)] worse than [unrepented of rape]? I don't know. We only have this one verse to suggest it. If it is, then it is. But the question is academic - any and all unrepented of sins are enough to keep us from salvation and exaltation, no matter how great or small. Personally, I think the verse in context seems to be saying: [withholding forgiveness when asked to forgive] is worse than [tresspassing against your brother and then repenting]. But for the non-academic record: Just repent, already! (And forgive!)

IMO, @Vort's interpretation of the text is the most logical. This: ...also makes perfect sense. As do many of the other comments here - there doesn't need to be only one answer - the answer can be that this simple principle contains a multitude of wisdom. But either the first scripture I link below means what it says or it doesn't. And if it means what it says, then every last thing any of us does, whether to ourselves or to others, we do to our Savior, no differently than if he were standing beside us and we spoke the words (or thoughts for what we think at ourselves) or did the actions, or somehow built in him the feelings we build in ourselves. In some way we cannot comprehend, He experienced everything that we do to each other and to ourselves - good and bad, even if that way is only through omniscience. And if that is true (and it is my testimony that it is), then for his sake and ours, we must forgive all, because forgiving all is forgiving Him, retaining offense against anyone is retaining offense against Him. I cannot see any way that this is not true. Matthew 25:31-46 Mosiah 2:17 D&C 42:38 Alma 7:11-13 D&C 19:16-20 Matthew 6:12 & 14-15 Luke 11:4 Matthew 18:21-35 And the list could go on for as long as you want to study, which I highly recommend: Forgive, Forgiveness (don't forget all the "see also" topics at the top); and if that's not enough, go with Humility, Humble and then Pride. ... Just reading through the entries is enough to humble me and fill me with gratitude for the overwhelming mercy the Lord extends to us. And I don't know how to feel that and not feel a desire to forgive others and hope for their reconciliation with God. (NOTE: I recognize that others have received far worse harm at the hands of specific individuals than I have, and those others have a harder task than I do. I don't condemn, rather, I encourage all to seek understanding and divine help by studying scripture and praying, fasting, etc.)

The wording of this suggests either: 1. The false prophets have seen spirits who gave them false teachings (the prophets were deceived by lying spirits). 2. The false prophets are knowingly preaching lies and they themselves are either the "spirits" to be tested or are causing people to believe in spirits who are teaching lies. (Apparently this was written during a time when gnosticism was on the rise, so there may have been folks experimenting with things they ought not and thereby being deceived by Satan and his followers.) If you receive a witness (whether from the Holy Ghost, a person, or a spirit), unless this witness testifies that Christ came in the flesh, it is not of God. But any witness from God will "confess" (or testify) that Christ came in the flesh. At least, this is how I read it. I think in these verses, "spirit" can really be interpreted as any "witness" in any form - a person, an idea, a spirit, a prophet, a prompting, etc.

Allow me to put it another way: "I want God to forgive me, but I don't want him to forgive those who have sinned against me." Is not this wanting to murder someone spiritually (since without forgiveness, one suffers spiritual death)? Can you want God to forgive those who have sinned against you while you yourself refuse to forgive those who have sinned against you? NOTE: Refusing to forgive someone is not the same as, "I can't figure out how to forgive him, yet, but I'm trying."

I did say, "if you persist" - meaning, even after all the suffering of hell, you reject the Atonement.

This is exactly how we see it. Precisely. God makes covenants. He promises blessings if we obey. Scripture is full of the fulfillment of God's promises (both for good and ill, actually). So while God may not technically owe us anything - remember King Benjamin's sermon about how we're worse than dust and unprofitable servants and whatnot - He has made promises, and God keeps his promises.

Christ took upon himself all our sins. If you refuse to forgive someone else, you refuse to forgive Christ. In essence this is what Christ does via the Atonement - he takes their sin upon himself and says to you, "forgive me, your Savior, and let me worry about their sin". By refusing to forgive, you reject Christ's Atonement which, it seems to me, is - if you persist - the unpardonable sin. So, yeah, worse than any possible sin anyone may commit against you.

Alma 11 v20: Why integrity matters. Why checks and balances are a good thing. Etc. v23+: Go Amulek! v34: Some people fail to see the difference between "in" and "from". v46+: Fun as it is to see Amulek "trounce" Zeezrom, it's even better that Zeezrom begins to be convinced of the truth. Even if he were the only one redeemed by Alma and Amulek's teaching, it would be worth it. And this exchange demonstrates how important it is to be guided by the Spirit. Alma and Amulek couldn't have known who needed to hear what - but God knew and could guide them in their words. (12:3+) Alma 12 v5-6: "plan of thine adversary" - Satan seeks to betray even those who do his bidding. v8: When God calls you on the carpet (so to speak), take the chastisement and seek understanding. v9: Many may know more than is commonly known, but they are required to keep it to themselves. Keep that in mind if you seek revelation about something that has not yet been revealed publicly. v10: The more you align your behavior with the truths you know, the more God will trust you with additional truth. v11: I knew someone once who had forgotten an amazing amount of the gospel she grew up in. Fortunately, she later returned to full activity in the Church. Don't let Satan steal the truth from you. v12: Lots of "bar of God" in this event - something that Zeezrom could relate to, being a lawyer. v14+: Try to live so that you can stand upright in front of God - or at least fall to your knees in love rather than shame. v21: An example of how knowing only snippets of scripture can lead you to false beliefs. v24: How much better might I behave if I could always remember that the point of mortality is to prepare to meet God? Believe in Jesus Christ and repent!

I just created the topic for next week:

Please see the Book of Mormon Reading Group thread for details (and discussion of 1 Nephi 1 - 5). Our goal is to read the Book of Mormon by the end of the year. I'll make a new post before each Monday so that it's ready to go - weeks go from Monday to Sunday for our purposes. This week's schedule: Oct 30 Alma 14 Monday Oct 31 Alma 15 Tuesday Nov 1 Alma 17 Wednesday Nov 2 Alma 19 Thursday Nov 3 Alma 21 Friday Nov 4 Alma 23 Saturday Nov 5 Alma 25 Sunday Last Week: Book of Mormon Reading Group: 23 Oct - 29 Oct 2023 (Alma 1 - Alma 12) Thread Index

Yes, that is mentioned up thread and in the essay.

The post had the letter "s" in it.

I seem to get one fly per day sneaking in during this season when it's not cold enough to kill them all, but cold enough that they find their way in... Anyway, my back (south-facing) door has a full-height (basically) glass pane and so the flies go there ("Go to the light, little fly!"). When the flies hang out at the top, I know it because I can hear Klaw scratching at the glass. So I go hold Klaw up with a hand under his hind feet and one on his belly for support and help him hunt. Less messy than a fly swatter.

Excellent reading comprehension!

Welcome to ThirdHour, @Stacy Riddle! I look forward to reading more from you.

Meanwhile, Klaw has become quite the skilled fly-hunter. He seems to think they're quite a tasty treat. I'm just gonna take his word for it without testing that claim.

Very well written response. I believe I agree with every word. It expands on my comment about how it really depends on what one means by "hate". We all think we know, until we're experienced enough to realize that we might not, and that whether we do or not, our understanding may differ from everyone else's at which point, one word isn't enough to communicate with.

Per the Joseph Smith Translation, it wasn't God, but Pharaoh who hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Alma 10 v6: "I knew...yet I would not know" - how often do we resist the things we know to be true, wishing other things were true, or acting contrary to what we know? Quit rebelling and choose better. v7: Don't wait for an angel - do good whenever the opportunity presents itself. v10: Amulek has two witnesses (Alma and the angel); Alma and Amulek make two witnesses. There's always more than one. v11: The prophet doesn't have to be physically present in your house for you to receive the prophet and be blessed thereby. v13-16: Be wary of the lawyers... v17: How important it is to have the companionship of the Holy Ghost! v22-23: If ever the righteous are cast out, make sure you're among them! v25: Amulek was "all in". v31: @Jamie123, if you haven't found it already, there's a pronunciation guide at the back of the Book of Mormon (even in the app), should you wish to check your pronunciational assumptions for names like Zeezrom. v32: Conflict of interest - this will be expanded on in the following chapters.

A child of God, yes - as in, God is the Father of our spirits. Loved by him is up for disagreement - there are scriptures wherein the prophet who wrote them states that God hated such-and-such group or person. But then there's the scripture I quoted where God weeps for the loss of some of his children who have chosen to be so wicked that there's nothing left to do but end their mortality. So, were the prophets wrong? Do they have a different definition of "hate"? (I'm convinced that though we all use the word, we don't all have the same understanding of what it means, since we can't feel each others' feelings.) Does God now hate Satan and those who chose to follow Satan? I don't know. Pretty sure @Vort would say God does hate Satan, at least. I sometimes wonder if he (and those prophets mentioned above) define "hate" as a collection of words and actions rather than as an emotion one feels. If so, one could feel the emotion of love and yet speak and act "hate" - thus God weeps as he destroys the wicked. I don't know. I said somewhere else that for a brief period (maybe a year?) I felt what I consider real and complete hatred for someone. Eventually, I came to myself. I recognized this as something straight from the depths of hell and rejected it. It had taken some duration to "build up" into the blackest and most evil of emotions, but it vanished (if I recall correctly) in an instant. And at that time, I promised I would never let myself feel that emotion again. And I haven't. Should I "hate" Satan? Not if it means feeling an emotion that I believe only Satan could inspire. Is there a "Godly hate"? I don't know. I'm certainly not going to follow Satan or give him place in my heart. No idea where that leaves me - indifferently opposed to him? Dismissive? I don't know. Well, actually, and I think I mentioned this in our reading, there's no conflict between this and the above proposition. God is the Father of our Spirits. And Christ adopts us through covenants and becomes our adoptive father if we keep our covenants. At least, this is the only way I can understand it. This article that @mikbone posted (thank you, @mikbone!) goes into detail on the ways in which Christ can be called "father". For some reason, I have no trouble whatsoever believing that God knew each of us so well that he knew what decisions we would make given a set of conditions. And thus, by initiating the sequence with Adam and Eve, he could predict with perfect accuracy what each of us would do. While it may seem the same as controlling our actions, the reality is simply that he knows us completely. We are still free to do whatever we will, but he knows us well enough to know what we will. And with that knowledge, he arranges the best possible mortal experience for each of us (where "best" is truly the best, not our mortal perception of "oh, my, this is wonderful"). For some reason, others struggle with the idea.... Well, all is "now" with God (or so it's suggested), so no zipping needed. Either way, the mortal mind does indeed boggle. It's unfortunate that Hugh Nibley's work is no longer available online for free (that I can find). I think you would enjoy the chapter of Approaching Zion where Nibley talks about how God's mind is infinite and ours singular.

I know what it says. I can go read it myself (and re-did that before posting). I asked what you meant. It shouldn't take paragraphs of quoting to answer what you meant. Nowhere does the essay say that the priesthood ban was revealed by God. Nowhere does it say that the priesthood ban was not revealed by God. The essay is silent on whether the ban was by revelation from God or was of man. Anyone who thinks otherwise is lacking in reading comprehension. The essay comments on the facts of the ban (who did what when). The essay comments on after-the-fact explanations and justifications which various parties used to explain the ban. Only these after-the-fact explanations are rejected. Nothing in the essay negates that statement. Other parties can twist and distort and believe what they will. That was not my question and cannot be my concern. My only concern is to reiterate and ensure there is no confusion on your part (nor on the part of others who will read this) that the essay is silent on the question of whether the ban was instituted by God. Therefore, no one can use the essay to say "it wasn't revealed by God" (nor to say similar things such as, "it was instituted by Brigham Young because he was racist") - you cannot use the essay to support such an assertions, because it doesn't.

(The sad reaction is teasing only. You have remarkable will power! )