Anddenex

If you haven't seen Cabrini, I recommend going to see it! It is a great movie! https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14351082/ My wife and I loved it. If there is anything praiseworthy, lovely, or of good report we seek after these things. This movie is definitely praiseworthy and of good report.

I really like the scripture that specifies, "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence." The "gap", so to speak, is the mind and heart. The reward, the significance is the glory added upon. In that sense, yes, the gap is very significant. An individual needs to be quickened by the Spirit in order to see God. Does a person need to be "quickened" to see an angel (where glory has not yet been received)? My personal opinion, the gap between Terrestrial and Celestial isn't that wide, but the gap between Terrestrial and Telestial or Celestial and Telestial is much wider. They rejected both the Son and the Father, and thus live without the Son and the Father.

I'm would think it is the same process that Abraham followed on an individual level, except with the city it was a collective decision accomplished by individual choices by each member of the society (Abraham 1:2). I also think it helps to have a leader to who lived as long as Enoch. If we were to take the 10 commandments, and every one in a society/village decided to follow those ten commandments (with full purpose of heart and with real intent) imagine in three generations how strong that society would be/become. There would be no: Adultery Fornication (including rape) Stealing Lying Dishonoring parents (one of the great doorways of our society toward evil) Perversions of Sex/Gender Murder War Welfare Occupation This is a society that can only be accomplished through a belief in Jesus Christ, and we would start seeing: Stronger families Honesty in all dealings Service Industry Forgiveness Repentance

I really like this thought, and I'm reminded of mine own experience with this type of change myself. My parents taught me who I was as a son of God, and made it very clear I was a child (son) of God. Despite the very clear teaching it wasn't until my mission when I received personal witness/revelation that I was a "son of God." It to this day, is the most important revelation I have received outside of receiving witness of who Christ is and what he accomplished. Enos's father was a prophet. He didn't neglect teaching his children about who Christ was, the law of Moses, and many other things, and despite all these teachings Enos still required his own personal revelation/witness. This also reminds me of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham received covenant, taught his son, and Isaac sought after the same blessing to receive it for himself. Jacob did also, they both didn't rely on the witness from their father, but they let the teachings of their father to have full sway in their hearts to seek after the blessing themselves.

Yep, this is a pretty significant purchase by the Church.

When I think of this scripture a few things come to my mind. The first is when Christ said to Peter, paraphrased, "Before the cock crows thrice you will deny me thrice." The hour or time for this to come wasn't known but it did come quickly. In the moment, Peter could have easily seen what was happening, but it wasn't until the third crow that the prophesy did prick him. This highlights that members of the Church who are not read (prepared for) the signs of Christ coming will come as a thief in the night. Also, Peter did not believe this would be the case, so when the cock was crowing his mental state dismissed the first and the second. For some, they will dismiss the signs because they do not believe these are the signs. The second is that we are aware of a general assembly that will happen. We understand Adam will preside (if I'm remembering correctly) and Christ will come to his people at this assembly. These people will not be surprised as to the day and hour the Lord will come again. This brings back to my remembrance the words of Nephi when they were in a time of need and the Lord said, "Tomorrow I come into the world." (paraphrased) If we believe in the signs, if we have studied the signs, we will be watching and we will be prepared. The Spirit, like with Nephi, will bare witness of the Lord's return to those who are listening. To those who are not, it will be similar to the Nephites at Christ's first coming to them. The Spirit spoke (or the Father here) and they comprehended it not. Or like Amulek, who said something to this nature the Lord did call but I did not listen.

This is the type of question, at least to me, that doesn't change the fact that God said no, and then said yes ( @laronius beat me to it). This happened also in the Old Testament when the children of Israel asked for a King. The prophet and God said no, but after time God finally said give them what they want with further light and knowledge as to what would happen, and it happened. The original version still answers the questions just fine.

The glory of God is "Light and Truth". I take this verse to be both figurative and literal. Our bodies are wrapped in glory (light), even such that it has the ability to kill a mortal body unless that body is quickened -- light increased.

I think this is a great question. I think these type of questions allow us to ponder truth a little more as we seek further light and knowledge. I would take a different approach and simply say focus on these aspects within their sphere of truth. I really like this teaching in the Doctrine and Covenants where it teaches us the following, "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence." (emphasis mine) Let's review this independent truth, "the only true Church." This is a very important truth that shouldn't be replaced by the "most correct," which is pointing toward the Book of Mormon in reference to other scripture (Holy Bible). Within its independent sphere of truth it should never be compromised to "most correct." There is no other way back to the Father, except through Christ and his Church. If we were to solely focus on "most correct", then it could lead some to remove themselves from the Church because it may be the most correct but there are still other paths that are correct. This would result with some members making a choice to follow a forbidden path, letting go of the iron rod. As truth is a sphere, independent, spheres of truth are also interwoven with each other. Remember, we believe the "restored" Church of Jesus Christ, and as President Nelson has made clear that restoration is still very much occurring. This is also taught in our Article of Faith #9. We believe that God will continue to reveal truth to his Church. This revelation may result from another church's teachings. This is why I find Mason theory from anti-Church individuals to be humorous. If the Lord preserved a "truth" for his restoration through another faith or culture, then the Lord has every right to bring that truth back into his Church -- without question. All truth is Christ's -- for he is the way, the truth, and the light. As we properly focus on each of these two truths, "most correct," and the "only true Church" we will profitably grow quicker. If we focus on one more than the other we will lose that independent truth and eventually look beyond the mark. It needs to be announced unapologetically and unequivocally that this is the only true Church. This is the straight and narrow path. There is no other way to the Father, and this is why we have work for the dead (as you know). We also need to keep aware that the Book of Mormon is the "most correct," because this allows the right and privilege of the apostles and prophets to make updates, corrections, or clarifications to scripture.

So here are the questions? "Continuation of the lives", what does it mean? My understanding of this verse currently, is that it simply means that our lives will continue beyond of the grave as exalted beings. It does open the idea of a continuation of God's work and glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of the sons and daughters of God. Speculation of course. When did Jesus Christ enter into his exaltation? Before the pre-mortal existance? After the atonement? He is already there. There was never a time where he was without the Father (so to speak). My thoughts entertain Christ's baptism. Some things just need to be done, but he was already there baptism didn't change his glory, his body. Curiously, I don't think that Able entered into his exaltation yet. I'm inline with other thoughts in this thread. Able probably was not the first to die of Adam and Eve's sons and daughters. It's humorous to me that I never really thought about the first person to die and being alone in the Spirit World. That had to have been a very interesting experience, seeing how often I have read and heard from others how they are looking forward to the family/friend embrace once they pass on from this earth life. Able, at my current knowledge, would be no different than Adam, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Nephi, Sam, Lehi, and any other righteous saint. I believe it is doctrine that all who were righteous (kept their first estate) would have been resurrected after Christ was resurrected. We know that Able was a righteous man, the Lord appears to make that known to Cain. There is no reason to think Able wasn't resurrected as with others, and that he is currently doing what others are doing also who died before Christ and his resurrection. If Cain still walks the Earth, he would be the obvious source of secret combinations. That is an interesting thought regarding Cain. I don't have much to say with regards to Cain. I'm more inclined to believe the apostles experience as noted in the Miracle of Forgiveness. What an awful punishment, but for one to introduce murder and other things it doesn't seem to bad either.

The answers you are looking for are found within 1 Nephi 8.

I'm a big fan of the American Heritage dictionary, and I find these definitions with regards to estate to be helpful to your question: In relation to #4, we have our first estate. If we keep our first estate it then gives way to our second estate, and if we continue with this one might say the second estate gives way to the final estate meaning a kingdom of glory and increase. In relation to #5, this seems fitting also because of the wording here, "and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever." If we keep our social position/rank, then we receive a higher position or rank. If we think about scripture, those with bodies have power over those without bodies. Let's take Joseph Smith's teaching for this one: “All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not. The devil has no power over us only as we permit him. The moment we revolt at anything which comes from God, the devil takes power” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 181). (emphasis mine) Our social rank/position increases if we keep our first and second estate. If we keep not our first estate than our social rank and position decreases as we have no glory and no increase. In my opinion, this fits well with why estate may have been used rather than another word.

Please DM the insider scoop.

Thank you for the insight regarding the Canaanite woman. I'm in agreement with your interpretation, it is how I have interpreted it and understood it. The OP's question though wasn't if Jesus went after Gentiles, but more along the lines did he offend them: Can you think of any time he offended non-members? Offense is often personal perception. I don't think Jesus went after the Pharisees, Scribes, or Saducees either. His response in their direction was in direct response of them going after him. His responses were for them to think, become more aware, and then hopefully repent. With what little we have of what Jesus said, the unknown, we can't really say what he said to every Gentile or non-member he met. If a Gentile came after Jesus like the Pharisees I don't think he would have had any problem giving a similar speech to them also. It wasn't just the Pharisees Jesus was strong with words toward. I mean he even told his first and foremost apostle Peter to "Get back Satan." I mean, that isn't a compliment. I can't think of any scenario where Jesus, from the scriptures we have, were he went specifically to go after and attack/offend any Jew.

If we are strict with interpretation, the Canaanite (not considered a member) woman was not a member and most people would be offended at being likened to a dog at a master's table. But she took no offense, accepted the metaphor, continued with the metaphor, and her daughter was made hole. I'm thinking, most people would be offended at this type of straight forward analogy.