marineland

One should pick their authority and deal with the consequences if any.

I haven't seen a Catholic teaching where humans will lose their gender in the resurrection so I can't explain where that theory comes from. Prior to Adam being created on earth, I don't believe angels were marrying or being given in marriage in heaven.

One needs to decide and act upon the authority they deem correct. Choosing wrong has its consequences.

Many reject the First Vision account so no need for a restoration. My authority is Jesus saying he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail. The Roman Catholic Church and the other groups I mentioned defend their authority but you don't accept their defense.

Regarding the premise you ended with: In conclusion, the oddity of this strain of Protestant apologetics lies in its tactical choice: a reflexive retreat to offensive polemics instead of building a robust, positive defense. By defining themselves primarily in opposition to others, these ministries risk becoming purveyors of misinformation and hostility. Ultimately, this focus detracts from the true scholarly work of both defending one’s faith and engaging with others in understanding By claiming to be the only true church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), the hostility lies in claiming all non-LDS ordinances are invalid because they lack proper priesthood authority. The misinformation began with the First Vision account - "... all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Which one?

@Pyreaux Several other groups claim to be the only true church - Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Seventh-day Adventists, Iglesio ni Christo, The True Jesus Church, La Luz del Mundo, Church of God, the Christadelphians, The Church of God International, etc.

Agreed. The teaching is that the change in skin color was only the sign or mark of the curse, not the curse itself. "And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:15).

It was lowered for women from 21 to 19 back in 2012 https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-lowers-age-requirement-for-missionary-service

If it's been fully vetted, why does the seminary manual still teach black skin upon the Lamanites was the sign or mark of the curse? "Make sure students understand that the curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God. The changing of the Lamanites’ skin was only a mark or sign of the curse". (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2017). Its in the latest version too. "The Lamanites remained in the land and rebelled against the Lord. They “were cut off from his presence” (2 Nephi 5:20). The curse mentioned in this chapter was separation from God (see 2 Nephi 5:20–24). The changing of the Lamanites’ skin was a mark or sign of the curse. The nature of this mark is not fully understood. The mark initially distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites. Later, as both the Nephites and Lamanites each went through periods of wickedness and righteousness, the mark became irrelevant as an indicator of the Lamanites’ standing before God". (Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2024).

One could make the same claim for the church in the past - which went through its own correlation process in publications and General Conference talks.

Even when you existed as an eternal, uncreated intelligence?

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do". https://journalofdiscourses.com/1/8

I equate Satan's desire to become powerful like God meant his desire for Godhood. From this LDS manual, "Satan because he sought to exalt himself above God and rule over Heavenly Father’s other children (see Isaiah 14:12–20; see also D&C 29:36; 76:25–28; Moses 4:1–4)". This rule would include worship, some examples being Jesus and Moses (Matthew 4:9, Moses 1:12). Moses 4:1 indicates Satan wanted the honor belonging to Heavenly Father whereas verse 3 depicts Heavenly Father viewing this as Satan wanting to be given His power. Satan could not be more powerful than God; could not receive more power that God already had. But it's not clear why Heavenly Father would need to cast Satan down by the power of Jesus, who may not have even been a God at this point in time, instead of by His own power.

How did Heavenly Mother become a God?

Like when Heavenly Father and Mother travelled on their road of eternal progression?

I am like God in some ways now. For Satan, I believe he had worship in mind.

I see your points but do spirits have a divine nature before getting mortal bodies?

He wanted to become like God.

Is there any indication of the distance between the city that Enoch built in verse 19 with the land that came up out of the sea in verse 14? "There also came up a land out of the depth of the sea, and so great was the fear of the enemies of the people of God, that they fled and stood afar off and went upon the land which came up out of the depth of the sea". What "all nations" and "land" is verse 17 a reference to? "The fear of the Lord was upon all nations, so great was the glory of the Lord, which was upon his people. And the Lord blessed the land, and they were blessed upon the mountains, and upon the high places, and did flourish". Verse 22 said "And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them". Did the fear of the Lord which fell upon all the nations include all the seed of Adam or was it focused entirely on those nations of the seed of Cain?

Lust.

I'm not keen on what appears to be solely philosophy. I don't see much scripture in what he said.

Choice has a structure of obey or disobey. He knew. For the same reason, he knows we break some of the Ten Commandments yet he still gives us rules and consequences. He wanted to be like God.

The article ends with his testimony: That article breaks it down into 3 categories for analysis. I. The Logical Problem of Evil II. A Soteriological Problem of Evil III. The Practical Problem of Evil What thought process of Joseph Smith in his writings would explain this aspect of evil? Would "evil" in these scenarios just symbolize God's punishment instead of him being the origin of evil whereas "good" is symbolic of blessings? "Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the Lord was against them for evil, as the Lord had said, and as the Lord had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed" (Judges 2:15). "For I have set my face against this city for evil, and not for good, saith the Lord: it shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire" (Jeremiah 21:10). "And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them: and I will set mine eyes upon them for evil, and not for good" (Amos 9:4).

Their God-given ability to think and make a choice.