Nofear

I agree with Ben that we really don't know anything about what occurs before our creation of spirits. The best we have is that they are uncreate and self-existent from the D&C. Just recently had Gemini find me several quotes that assert we specifically don't know know about the nature of how intelligences are joined with spirit bodies. Turns out there are several. That being the case, I am quite certain that it has no real relationship to viviparous conception and births. Numerically it just doesn't work out. Whatever the process is it has been specifically withheld from us in mortality. Perhaps it would offend our sensibilities. My assertion that intelligences are simple is a logical deduction not a revealed position.

Nobody responded to you. The last question is, of course, yes, God created our spirit bodies. It is in that sense They are our literal Heavenly Parents. To the first question, what can intelligences do without a body, my position is not much. Since intelligences are uncreate and self-existent the only philosophically coherent position to me is that they are are simple (i.e. without constituent parts). Being simple the intelligences would lack the ability to perceive or remember information. Consequently, anything action taken by an intelligence would be indistinguishable from random. Our intelligences only truly show our capability when embodied --- linked with a machine (body) that provides us perception and memory. While the core of our identity is self-existent, in some sense we didn't "begin to be" in any non-trivial sense until our Heavenly Parents gifted us with bodies.

Michael is like unto Christ, who is also titled the Son of Man (one of God's name is Man of Holiness, Moses 7:35). If you want to interpret it differently, that is ok by me. Not that my opinion on it being ok or not matters one whit.

I personally think the following framework is more enlightening, and theologically coherent: Christ = Son of Man (of Holiness) Michael is pretty darn awesome himself. Not as awesome as Christ, but, perhaps more like Christ than the rest of us. Thus, like the Son of Man. Or like God (since Christ is also like the Father). But, I suppose one can go with your interpretation. After all, knowing who conducted the meeting or just said a few words here or there is probably pretty important too. Here is my rephrasing of Abraham 3:24-27: 24: And Christ stood among the various rulers, the noble and great ones (vs 22 and 23). Let's go organize an earth for all of these (all of us in this particular cohort) to dwell on. 25: We will test our cohort to see if they will do all things whatsoever I, Christ, shall command them (now that I was selected to be their God and Redeemer). 26: Those that go shall advance. Those that don't go won't advance. 27: Christ continues to address this group of noble and great ones. We are going to need an Adam for this world (just like all the other worlds before us). Who shall it be? Michael, being one of the noble and great ones most like Christ, the Son of Man, volunteers. Lucifer, also being among the noble and great ones, volunteers. Christ picks Michael. 28: Lucifer gets really upset and boycotts this earth. Many follow Lucifer's tantrum. Theologically I find it entirely coherent with LDS doctrine. Could it be otherwise? I suppose. But, I don't see much of a reason to adopt the more traditional/historical reading.

I don't see God as punishing us for putting forth ideas when we are asked to provide them. Coming to earth was a voluntary act. God didn't force anything on us. The Plan was presented and we were asked to consent. An alternative proposal was put forth. As wrong headed and filled with ulterior motives as Lucifer's plan was I don't think the act of actually presenting an alternate was wrong or what got Lucifer in trouble. The son of the morning was able to rally a significant minority (the "one third part, though I seriously doubt 33%, just less than 1/2 more than 1/4). Upset at his rejection, certainly. But no outright rebellion yet. Lucifer still could have gotten on board the soul train with the rest of us. Lucifer then opts for plan B. Jesus, now selected as the number one head for this earth's experience needs to organize his own help. Organizing the earth and becoming the first man was apparently, in prominence, position 2*. Lucifer immediately volunteers and points to all his backers. Wisely unpersuaded, Jesus selects Michael (of lesser seniority). With that rejection Lucifer gets really torqued off and causes a ruckus and gets his posse to agree not to participate in this go around. While still holding their picket signs "No Lucifer--No Earth" and "Earth No! We won't go!" they were kicked out of the celestial courtyards. The story then proceeds as I've advocated on this board before: Lucifer goes full sabotage mode, becomes Satan, and has his travel visa revoked. * I agree that the Adam position was actually an Adam and Eve combo. That being the case, I wonder who was Lucifer's Eve running mate? Maybe the old traditions just got the whole Lilith story mixed up.

Note the sequence of Abraham 3:24-27. 1. One "like unto God" says we are going to go create an Earth and those that keep their first estate will have opportunity there. (v24-26) 2. The "Lord" ask who are we going to send? Send to do what is left implicit. 3. One who isn't the Son of Man but like unto the Son of Man volunteers. The premise of the argument is that individuals referenced by Abraham, the one "like unto God" and the one "like unto the Son of Man" are not the same individual.

Moses 4:1-3 and Abraham 3:27-28 are often interpreted as the same event but Jonah Barnes argues that they are two different events, perhaps two action items for the same Grand Council. Proposed interpretation: First Agenda Item: Select a Redeemer. Lucifer volunteers. So does Jehovah. The latter is selected. Second Agenda item: Select an Adam. Michael* volunteers. Lucifer volunteers. The former is selected. Lucifer is passed over twice. The first time by his senior (Christ) and second time by his junior** (Michael). Lucifer gets really annoyed and consequently rebels and is cast down. What think you? PS: I also think there would have been a third agenda item, the selection of Eve. But that must have proceeded without any complication and so got less text time. * name meaning who is like unto God ** as told by extra-biblical literature

Given that the garment is a symbol of the skins of clothing given to Adam and Eve and the Atonement, I don't see it being necessary to have the symbolic reminder post-resurrection.

There are 55 new missions, often for re-balancing efforts. E'lder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who chairs the Church’s Missionary Executive Council. “These additional missions help to balance the number of missionaries in each mission, allowing mission leaders to better support and mentor the missionaries they lead,” he said.' https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/55-new-missions

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/about-the-scriptures/adjustments?lang=eng -> 2025 (https://assets.churchofjesuschrist.org/py/hd/pyhdfzughzeeiu6wbi4qkkeap63t4p4m38x7ar6j/summary_of_approved_adjustment_to_lsd_scriptures_awareness_document.pdf) Almost all are in the summaries. Some nice historical house keeping.

Since Tolkien conceived of the world of Middle-earth as being the same planet as this earth, in Tolkien's mind the God he worshiped and Erū Ilúvatar would be the same entity.

Two things and to some extent I agree with both. The first is that our primal agency is not guaranteed when we are embodied. It is very true that with my physical body that I do not and cannot control everything it does. I agree with what I think Teancum (my apologies if I error, just a quick pop in to the thread) is trying to say and that Lucifer's plan wasn't to redefine sin away but to simply make it so we would not choose sin. I think it entirely plausible our spirits could have been put into bodies that would dissuade any activity that would have been sinful. I call moral agency a miracle because it is not a given. God balanced our physical bodies in just the right way to make our mortal experience tenable and allow us moral agency. The second is that you are also right that as we are uncreate beings we did not "choose" to be who we are. But, we can't say that we push back a "step or two". There are no more steps to push back. The turtles don't go all the way down. It is the end of the road. And if we can't assign responsibility to an entity for the nature of its uncaused existence then we can't assign responsibility to anything at all. Nothing is culpable or ever could be (not even God). So, I don't push it back a step or two. I can't. The buck stops with me and who I am. Another miracle is that because of the technology of the Atonement, I have opportunity to choose to change and better my fundamental nature. That will be my choice. Now, am I, by inherit nature the kind of being who will choose to afford himself of the opportunity or by nature one who will not make that choice? Well, I am what I am. I hope I am the former being and trying to realize that hope by what I do.

Setting aside for me the moment what evil is (plenty of discussion on thoughtful-faith.com 1.6), my perspective is more from the physics side of things (e.g. determinism). While not everybody accepts Galen Strawson's Basic Argument, I personally tend to find their objections inadequate. The Basic Argument is as follows: You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do Creatio ex nihilo cleanly falls afoul of this argument. The common rebuttal is that God gave Adam and Eve free will and they chose to take the "apple". Their choice, not God's. The simple answer to that is why didn't got (in his infinite foreknowledge) simply create them with the character and personality such that they would have freely chosen to rebuff Satan's temptations. There is no reasonable response to that. And by extension, all the other problems associated with humans choosing evil. LDS theology, however, provides a clean escape from The Basic Argument. It's been over two decades since I read Paulsen's argument (and he doesn't bring up Strawson) but if I recall correctly, he does point out that escape hatch.

These are the actuarial tables for the US of continued life expectancy as one ages. No time to run the probabilities of a group of 12 males all living from 80 to 90 (but that's not what we have exactly either). I suspect it won't be all that high. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

Something that may not rise to awareness is that the First Presidency is a priesthood quorum (D&C 107:22). The bishopric isn't a quorum (bishop is president of the priest's quorum). Stake presidency isn't a quorum (stake president is president of the high priest's quorum). But the First Presidency is a quorum in of itself.

We ought not be amazed. Seeking counsel from the sisters should be the norm from branch leadership to the quorum of the First Presidency. Seeking counsel won't change the gender disparity in the administration and bureaucracy* of the Church, but we have been told more than once that the Lord wants the counsel of the women in the councils of the Church, formally and informally. What's nice is that this is an explicit example of the President of the Church doing so. If he can do it, we all can and should. * I don't use bureaucracy as a bad word here. It's necessary.

I personally don't think it was extraordinary at all. God often inspires His servants (be they the prophet, bishop, RS pres, etc. etc.) with something that He wants done and sometimes a specific message for those in their stewardship. It is much less common for the Lord to tell us how we are to achieve that goal or much less how to present that message. Reading between the lines of the 2018 talk this seems to be one of those cases. God wanted the sisters to have greater participation in the gathering of Israel. I personally don't think Christ told Pres. Nelson what he should say specifically as to how to encourage that. He brought his own wisdom to the table there. Recognizing the potential bias of his gender in influencing his perspective, he asked for feedback on what and how to deliver that message. The point is that knowing our leaders can be cognizant of potential short coming that our mortal experience can bring to the table is something we all should be aware of, irrespective of position in the hierarchy of the Church. One of the reasons councils are so emphasized---they can and ought to be venues that help overcome that.

A very interesting anecdote about his first general conference talk as President of the Church to the Relief Society.

Huh, I didn't realize it was Dave Butler who organized the GoFundMe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlqWo08xbag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNh490uHM9Y

Another member raised money for the shooter's family to help them deal with things. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/us/lds-church-michigan-grand-blanc-township.html

One of the wisest things I've ever read on this board!

Steve Soelberg will feel very vindicated if he knew! As for which one's I don't like, none specifically come to my mind. There's just several hymns that are more maudlin or droll to me than reverent. I bet there is a top 75 songs that every ward sings with another 25 or so variation (different by region to region) and the rest are mostly ignored.

To be fair, there's plenty of those in the current hymnbook.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/music/songs/go-tell-it-on-the-mountain?crumbs=hymns-for-home-and-church&lang=eng Go Tell it on the Mountain is one of the songs that makes my Christmas playlist every year. My first thought with the song "Can You Count the Stars in Heaven?" was, with the naked eye, yes, yes you can. Though the question isn't well posed. One night, over the course of a year, from every where on earth? If the latter two conditions are met than we are looking at 9,110 stars (http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/catalogs/bsc5.html). Not the point of the children's hymn of course.

I remember the second half being even more so. Some try to hold that we received the Truth unvarnished and more complete in the first instance and that decay has been the only real consequence since then (kind of a creedal Christendom perspective we inherited). My perspective is that we know and understand the Gospel better than at anytime in humanity's past ... and we still have a ways to go.