zil2

Pretty much guaranteed.

Come to the dark side1, @Jamie123! Not only do we believe God is a person, we believe his is literally the Father of your spirit - the very definition of personal and approachable. (And we have cookies - at 7pm, in the gym....) 1By which, of course, I mean the light, aka, the light of Christ.

You accidentally stabbed yourself with your extra-fine nibbed fountain pen that happened to be inked with Noodler's Heart of Darkness?

Got it! (Meant no disrespect to your grandfather, either!)

It's a joke. Dorcas Lane is a character on the British show Lark Rise to Candleford. She's all the time calling things her "one weakness" (meaning she has a zillion one weaknesses). Boston Cream donuts are my one weakness.

"They're my one weakness." -- Dorcas Lane

Boston Kreme - serious yums. ETA: Though I remember the days when they were just Boston Cream - I suppose there's no cream anymore, so they have to say Kreme...

Good point. I meant after the Millennium, after all from this earth are resurrected and sent to whatever kingdom they will inherit - that portion of his work.

Scriptures make it pretty clear that resurrected bodies will be perfect - if you were missing a limb, it will be back, for example. Nearsighted? Not any longer. I seem to recall Brigham Young suggested, though, that one will still have to overcome problems like being over weight. I'm not sure I buy that, but who knows. My dad thought that we would learn how to be immortal - that it wouldn't be a condition so much as a way of life. I've always thought that when the Savior's work was done, he would be able to lose the marks of the crucifixion, but what do I know. (Actually, I assume he can lose them at will, but that's me...)

Whatever you do, @pam, stay out of the compound! Escape isn't easy...

FWIW, if he did, he didn't do it in Doctrines of Salvation using the words tattoo, suicide, or inflicted. (I have them as PDFs, did a search.) Yes, this suggests it's possible. Agreed on both counts, but also keep in mind that the Church is here to lead people to exaltation, not to any lesser glory, so all of its teachings are to that end. Thus, it may still be theoretically possible. When I first ran across D&C 88:28 and saw that the "same body which was the natural body" promise for those who are celestial was not repeated for the terrestrial or telestial or sons of perdition, I came to the same conclusion before discovering it in Doctrines of Salvation. Further, that gender is an essential characteristic doesn't necessarily mean that one can't / won't lose or have that characteristic altered as a consequence of sin - after all, we are made with the intent that we choose exaltation - but should we fail, we may well lose whatever characteristics we have developed to that point... And it can be argued that they will still have a gender, just not the same gender as they had mortally - and the altered gender will be an essential characteristic of their eternal identity and purpose... Meaningless speculation - the Lord's will will be done.

Or perhaps he's detailing how those who are perpetrating the gender identity crisis are trying to make it tricky - grasping at every straw to twist it to their use. I couldn't say which (JJ's posts often seem to me to be unclear in what they're trying to accomplish).

1. Other than your posts, no one here seems to be talking about trying to argue or reason with the people involved in the current gender identity crisis. Though I suppose what I interpret as @mikbone's curiosity could be interpreted as a desire to build arguments. 2. That some people think things are relevant to the issue do not make those things relevant to the issue. (NOTE: Irrelevance does not exclude these things from #3, but their inclusion in #3 does not make them relevant, just necessary to address.) 3. If someone does want to argue with those involved in this crisis, then yes, by all means, they should learn the enemy's arguments to the point where they could win in the enemy's favor. 4. I would never dream of arguing with the people involved in this crisis: Perpetrators - evil people on whom reasoning would be pointless Victims - confused or delusional, and driven by overwhelming emotion - again, reasoning would be pointless Leaches - evil people seeking to benefit from the victims - again, reasoning would be pointless

Phew! What a relief!

Looks like mud man to me.

Well, it's only September, lots of the year left... But setting yourself on fire would be extremely painful, and we'd miss you, so please call a suicide hotline instead!

That some languages use gendered nouns (and their accompanying articles, adjectives, etc.) is true (e.g. Spanish and Russian). That some have three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter, is also true (e.g. Russian). But yeah, these can't be used in any meaningful way in discussion of the current human gender identity crisis - they're just a fact of language, nothing more. The same is true of the tendency of humans to anthropomorphize inanimate objects, regardless of whether the language uses gendered nouns. While I have no time to study it, ancient Israel's choice to separately classify those who could not reproduce, or who were born with genetic / birth defects is equally irrelevant. Both issues are irrelevant to the question of how many human sexes / genders there are. Biology is all that's relevant when it comes to discussing human sex or gender (which are synonyms). The answer is 2 with some small percentage of people being indeterminate (not additional genders, just indeterminate) due to said birth/genetic defect. The problem is not whether @JohnsonJones was presenting facts, it is that he was presenting facts that are either not relevant to the modern human gender identity crisis, or that he presented the facts in a manner which obfuscates reality rather than clarifying it.

I think it's important to note that this section is talking about those who died before learning of the restored gospel and having a chance to choose it in mortality. So I think "according to the desire of their hearts" is modifying "their works" - whatever your works, if your desire (or intent) was to do good, but you failed, or didn't know better, then the desire will in essence elevate the work. And, like @mikbone points out, the desire can negate the work, too. God cares about our intent. See: Moroni 7:5-10 and Alma 41:3-5. I also believe that our desires lead to the work we do, and can be changed over time as we choose the better desires, so that in this way, it's our true desires that are judged. To quote Nibley (Approaching Zion, chapter 10 "Funeral Address"):

I can't seem to let this go by without adding this: Feel free to blame my poor education for my impulsive behavior....

The Prussian education system in our country is so absurdly lacking that, IMO, every child who grew/grows up under it should have the right to imprison the people who made it the norm and then the law. Once the first couple of generations were indoctrinated, few of their children stood a chance (thus hard to blame the parents). Generations of potential squashed by a Satanic plan. Parents who take their children out of the school system and give them a classical education are saints!

No wonder children these days are confused.

I believe that agency and (free) will are two different things: 1. Will is self-existing in the eternal being that has sentience. It has the ability to make decisions as to what it will do. (I believe that all that is required for this is intelligence and options.) 2. Agency is something offered by another - if I make you my agent, you now have power to act in my name (to the extent of the agency I grant you). I believe that God gave us agency in that he gave us the option to choose between being agents unto ourselves (and ending up in hell) or acting as agents of Jesus Christ, and ending up in heaven (to keep it simple). (That's a very rough outline, but it's basically what I think.)

(aka: Build a bridge and get over it.)

... Ah, yes, this should have occurred to me! Thank you - not only taking the name and becoming one, but also joining his family could be part of the symbolism - adopted into Christ's family. And all the rest - thank you for the expansion! Hoping others have more - I think this is the sort of think we can't think too much about, and I find it easier to think more if I can expand my thoughts as well as deepen them.

I'm wondering if you saw the post over in the revived dead thread where someone commented on this. IMO, this is not saying what the other poster asserted. I think the verse in question is logic working it's way backwards, à la: The Atonement is central to God's plan, per scriptures. Therefore, if you argue there is no Christ, you also have to argue there is no God (because Christ is central to God's plan). And if you argue there is no God, then you also have to argue that we don't exist, since without God, there's no one to create us (apparently, the idea of evolving out of primordial soup, sans creator, hadn't occurred to anyone yet).