CV75

I would say He did organize them, and at the time, they were all good, but with time and opportunity some decided to do rebel. Even the devil is "somebody," he was an intelligence organized into the premortal council of children, and even holding some higher level of authority, but he ended up not being "somebody" I'd like to be like. The third part felt differently!

I can think of no example of a child of God who was/is inherently evil, but we certainly become bad/wicked/evil of our own volition until the point that we repent or become sons of perdition. This has been the case since Satan and his followers rebelled in heaven. In this way, God has bad offspring. He is dealing with this bad and evil fruit in the parable of Jacob 5 Abraham 3:22-23 indicates there were intelligences (which had no beginning and are gnoulaum), a subset of which were souls and spirits, a subset of which were noble and great, or good, and a subset of One like Him. I guess that leaves some that were not so good, or even bad, but I wouldn't call these His spirit offspring; they couldn't progress that far (yet, anyway).

How do you understand the third part of God's children being cast out of heaven, in relation to a sinless God having so many sinful spirit children?

He uses "good" and "bad" but never mentions sin, light, or wickedness (or righteousness)... but the does mention "evil" fruit as "bad" fruit. The fruit wasn't inherently bad or evil but became such through apostasy and pride; even the wild branches brought forth tame fruit when grafted into the covenant. Similarly, I think we can surmise that the fruit of the original, tame tree was good only so long as the branches did not draw upon apostasy or pride to instead of the root (Christ).

So, there's no such thing as the perfect sin!

Not my circus.

My opinion is that Heavenly Father could well have been flawed and sinful like us, just as we can become like Him. He may have been a Savior like Jesus, or a savior like we are (“saviors on Mount Zion”) – I do not think it matters as long as we are becoming sanctified and justified with whatever understanding we possess at any given moment. Yes, Jesus was the only one of our “generation” who was sent in His unique role. No two people are exactly alike, but when we are “one” as Jesus prays for in John 17 (the church of the Firstborn in exaltation), we see and do the work of the Father just He does.

Jacob 5 talks a good deal about good fruit (tame, or covenant-keeping children of God) and bad fruit (wild, or children without covenant). It seems that bad fruit is the product of decay (v.3; apostasy) and loftiness (v. 48; pride), not whether the fruits' origin could be traced to the mother/natural or other/wild trees, or where their branches were placed.

If we are speaking strictly figuratively, I think the change in bodies becomes a symbol of two "naturally paradisaical" people who have become "one flesh" in an eternal marriage ("paradisaical immortality") bringing forth many bodies that are not yet married, i.e., not in a state of eternal marriage, which by comparison is "natural mortality." Figuratively, the laws Adam and Eve complied with in the paradisial earth to bring about the telestial/mortal earth, and the laws to for them (and us) to obey in the telestial/mortal earth to bring about our return to paradise (The Millennium) and God's presence (exaltation) are the laws of Redemption (the plan of happiness) that were prepared from before the foundation of either the paradisiacal or mortal worlds. I would say in summary, the law of choosing light over darkness and repenting accordingly with the aid of a greater Intelligence. As the stakes get higher (as the estates progress from premortal through this life), the required aid becomes greater.

Spiritually-speaking, in fulfilling the commandment we know what it is to be as gods, and as our Father, generating life and choosing to love that life. The other commandment is to steward all living and other material things, including our bodies, accordingly. As a married couple, I think Adam and Eve must have acted naturally and normally before they partook of the forbidden fruit and fell; they were learning and stewarding to a paradisaical extent, having sex but not generating life as a result.

I think Abraham 3: 18 - 19 helps us understand that we have no beginning, so whenever it was that we picked up our Father-(Parent-)child relationship, we already possessed a level of intelligence. Jesus was evidently firstborn, but given we are all "gnolaum" this must have been in the sense of development, where we told our Parents we are coming when we were ready, and they lovingly obliged (similarly, how much control does a mother have over the timing of her delivery)? A third part fell far from the tree, though all were gnolaum and capable of choosing to follow the Father's will.

"Research shows"... confirmation bias, and the rationale flows from there. Yes, I am biased too, given the plan of happiness, the attainment of which comes by a much broader integration of knowledge types than secular measures alone, and by invitation than by imposed "oughts" and "shoulds."

Q1: There are only so many relics to distribute before the 2nd Coming. Q2: If you have to return the relic, it was real.

From my experience, I think some people experience President Kimball as absolutist and others not!

I would think DN might want to begin distancing themselves from normalizing controversial media figures. If our own cannot make a good point, we need to do a better job of making it on its merits.

This is the kind of thing where laziness really does bite the lazy in the butt.

It depends on the point to be made. It is still a useful way of conveying spiritual principles. We are responsible for ourselves and our earthly stewardships even though we are woefully lacking in capacity and expertise and bound to fall, fail and eventually ruin, destroy and/or lose everything we touch, necessitating the aid of a Redeemer. Just as Adam and Eve.

And there is still room to equate it with Adam and Eve being the first of God's children to live in paradisaical Eden.

One of my favorite LOTR scenes.

You're supposed to be quiet in libraries anyway.

I think he might be suggesting that there are other non-negotiables that might prevent us from walking away. For example, the hyper-sexualization of children in the media over the past many years, in a subtle way perhaps, leads those dependent on entertainment (and our society is increasingly more dependent on it) to gradually adopt the not-uncommon notion that consensual sex between adults and minors (at least older minors) is OK, or at least understandable, tolerable or negotiable. Continuing to interact with these neighbors might help change their mindset on this point of morality.

So here we have examples of things that, on the surface, are immediate turn-offs, things we cannot abide, adopt or do ourselves (like the woman taken in adultery). Like the scribes and Pharisees, maybe we do abide, adopt and perform these things to a degree, or the very opposite mindset, with equal lack of charity and proper regard for the Lord. So, some introspection is in order. Then, we can still leave judgement to the Lord, rescue them from immediate harm as the case requires, give them space to consider our good-faith example, and invite them to repent and sin no more. This last one is usually irrelevant with the non-negotiables you describe, since they are not necessarily sins. I think the council approach is superior to the debate approach when minds come together, though it takes more work the further apart we are.

I have come to appreciate the Lord's example in not condemning the adulterous woman, leaving judgement for later (which in our case means leaving it to the Lord), rescuing her from immediate harm, giving her space ("go"), and inviting her to repent and sin no more. I once faced a dilemma in dealing with such a non-negotiable, and to boil down the above principles, my answer from heaven concerning what to do with such a person: "Nothing". Except to follow the Lord's example.

Excepting the elements of His incarnated history, I think He enticed us to join Him then in much the same way as He does now. I suppose we similarly made rebellious, repentant and righteous choices in relation to the light of Christ, including rebellion and repentance, as we do in this life along the continuum from birth to death. We were less intelligent than He, but that did not separate us from His love, work and glory.

Hey buddy, can you spare a dime?