zil2

"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).

Background In my personal study of the scriptures, I try to keep notes in my journal. This helps me think deeper - in part because I feel like I'm not trying hard enough if I can't come up with anything to write while reading my scriptures. I also read from the Book of Mormon every day and yesterday was Moroni 4 & 5 which are the Sacrament prayers. Put these two things together, and I wind up thinking more deeply than I might otherwise about verses I have already memorized. I don't think there's anything earth-shattering here, just a clearer realization on my part... Item for Discussion In the prayer for the bread, it lists these things that we witness (aka testify) to the Father: willing to take upon [ourselves] the name of [His] Son always remember him [the Son] keep his [the Son's] commandments I was thinking about the first of these. If you ask in a Church class how we take his name upon ourselves, some of the answers might include: "acting like Christ would act", "making and keeping covenants" (I'm intentionally avoiding getting specific on this one), "keeping the commandments", or "being an example". That last one is very popular - people like to use that one as how we do missionary work, too: "just be an example". It's such a nice, easy, passive option. I now realize this isn't complete - all of those could qualify as #3, "keep his commandments". I'm certain the Lord didn't give us three items just to be redundant. So, I tried to figure out how exactly we take his name upon ourselves (feel free to share your thoughts - this is the question I want to explore). Another way that this (and also agency) has been explained is by comparing it to wearing a uniform or similar identifier of an employer - as long as you have that uniform on, you're representing the employer and what you do will reflect on the company / person employing you. And this was my conclusion - as important as it is to "be an example", if people don't explicitly know of whom you are an example, you're not fulfilling the requirement: take his name on yourself. We take his name upon ourselves when we let it be known that we are his disciples, when we act in his name, speak and teach of him. No more easy out. Anyone have other thoughts on this? Other ways we take his name upon ourselves (in addition to covenant and letting people know we are his disciple)?

I'm waiting for legal counsel before answering.

I'm not in denial of reality and risks, but I'm not going to make the possibility into a probability, let alone a certainty. Good thing I'm not an infant. Perhaps so, but I have no children, just one little pet that brought along some wormy friends (these were in him, as eggs / larva, when I got him - the timing allows no other explanation). We're dealing with them properly, not panicking. By all means, people with children should take that into account, along with all the other variables. I just don't believe in sterilizing the universe because someone somewhere might get infected with something. If petting your cat came with a high probability of infection, people would have stopped doing it a long time ago - and I would be infected many times by now. Risk != certainty. I'm mitigating the risk, not acting as if it's certain unless I put Klaw in a cage and never touch him. Meanwhile, you're welcome to avoid my house and my kitty like the plague. We promise not to be offended by our "leper" status.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure the 5 year old has a good argument for entrapment - what do you say, @Just_A_Guy?

Welcome, @Lucasanen! IMO, the scriptures cited in this thread support your position. And I'm not sure Brigham Young did have a different opinion - it seems to me that James was reading too much into the quote he cited: I personally believe that each Savior is also the creator of the world he is to save. After he has finished his work he will become a God and will have sons who will become Savior's of yet other worlds. This is how the worlds are exaulted. First, we need to keep in mind that Brigham Young isn't limiting his text to God the Father, Elohim. The idea that God was once as we are suggests that he too has an Eternal Father, and had a world to live on that was created by someone, etc. back through generations in eternity. So, just because eternity may be full of worlds and creators of worlds that doesn't dictate that each individual world had one Savior, nor that each individual Savior saved exactly and only one world. Second, in the wording of the second paragraph, every world gets an Adam and an Eve, but it's every Father who gets a first son who has the privilege of being a Savior (not of the world, but of the family). That every world was created on these principles, doesn't dictate a 1-to-1 ratio of worlds and Saviors. God the Father has only one first son - Jesus Christ - but many worlds (per scripture). I'll note that scripture doesn't actually say that sentient beings in the image of God dwell on any world other than this one (as far as I know), only that God created them for a purpose and that he's keeping that purpose to himself. But scripture does say that Christ redeems all the things he creates, so he will redeem those worlds and whatever may be on them. FWIW. ETA: Don't know if Brigham Young was more explicit elsewhere, but from the passage James quoted, I'm not seeing the 1:1 ratio.