Free May 2012 Visiting Teaching Printables

Tue, 01 May 2012 14:52:00 -0600

source: mormonmommyblogs.blogspot.com

Happy May Mormon Mommies!

The Visiting Teaching message for the month is up to you! We encourage you to pray about your sisters, and follow the direction the Lord gives you. NOW, that being said, we have a lot of printable options for you this month!

Free LDS printables

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:30:00 -0600

source: mormonmommyblogs.blogspot.com

Mormon Mommy Blogs offers a number of LDS art prints with great quotes and scriptures for free!

Never Let a Job be More Important printable

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:29:00 -0600

source: mormonmommyblogs.blogspot.com

Never let a job to be done be more important than a person to be loved - printable from what we heard at BYU Women's Conference.

Click on the forwarding link to download.

Free Family History Subway Art

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:17:00 -0700

source: mormonmommyblogs.blogspot.com

This week's printable combines two of my most favorite things in the world: Family History, and Subway Art.... And in case you didn't know, if YOU have a blog, then that means you love family history too. WHOA, I bet you never really thought about it like that, did 'ja?

I Am a Child of God printable

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:26:00 -0700

source: mormonmommyblogs.blogspot.com

You would like more LDS printables, yes?

We thought so.

Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 6

Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:55:00 -0700

source: MormonLife.com

Mormon Life says: Lesson 6 focuses on the beginning chapters of 2 Nephi, Lehi's last words to his family. The following materials by Elder Dallin H. Oaks and John W. Welch shed light in the topics of free agency and Lehi's last testament.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks on Human Agency:

First, because free agency is a God-given precondition to the purpose of mortal life, no person or organization can take away our free agency in mortality.

Second, what can be taken away or reduced by the conditions of mortality is our freedom, the power to act upon our choices. Free agency is absolute, but in the circumstances of mortality freedom is always qualified.

Freedom may be qualified or taken away (1) by physical laws, including the physical limitations with which we are born, (2) by our own actions, and (3) by the actions of others, including governments.

Lehi taught his son Jacob that "men are free [have freedom] according to the flesh" (2 Nephi 2:27). For example, in the flesh we are subject to the physical law of gravity. If I should hang from the catwalk in the Marriott Center and release my grip, I would not be free to will myself into a soft landing. And I cannot choose to run through a brick wall.

A loss of freedom reduces the extent to which we can act upon our choices, but it does not deprive us of our God-given free agency. . . .

Other limitations on freedom are self-imposed, such as the immobility we seek when we buckle our seat belt or the commitment we make when we sign a contract. In these examples we limit one freedom in order to achieve a larger and more important one.

Many losses of freedom are imposed upon us by others. The science of government is a consideration of the procedures and extent to which the official representatives of one group of citizens can impose restrictions on the freedom of another group. Decisions on the extent to which government power should restrict the freedom of individuals are among the most difficult ones we face in an organized society. How much should zoning laws restrict a person's right to use his own property? How many taxes should we extract, and what compulsory functions should government perform with them? How much harm can society allow a person to do to himself, such as by self-mutilation or drug abuse? These are all questions of freedom.

We have to accept some government limitations on freedom if we who live in communities are to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A condition of uninhibited individual freedom would allow the strong to oppress the weak. It would allow the eccentric desires of one person to restrict the freedom of many.

Interferences with our freedom do not deprive us of our free agency. When Pharaoh put Joseph in prison, he restricted Joseph's freedom, but he did not take away his free agency. When Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple, he interfered with their freedom to engage in a particular activity at a particular time in a particular place, but he did not take away their free agency.

The Lord has told us in modern revelation that he established the Constitution of the United States to assure "that every man may act . . . according to the moral agency which I have given unto him" (D&C 101:78). In other words, God established our Constitution to give us the vital political freedom necessary for us to act upon our personal choices in civil government. This revelation shows the distinction between agency (the power of choice), which is God-given, and freedom, the right to act upon our choices, which is protected by the Constitution and laws of the land.

Freedom is obviously of great importance, but as these examples illustrate, freedom is always qualified in mortality. Consequently, when we oppose a loss of freedom, it would be better if we did not conduct our debate in terms of a loss of our free agency, which is impossible under our doctrine. We ought to focus on the legality or wisdom of the proposed restriction of our freedom.

Third, we receive assurance from our doctrine that Satan, who sought to take away our free agency in the pre-existence, is not permitted to take it from us in this life. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that the devil cannot compel men to do evil; he has "power over us only as we permit him" (TPJS 181; see also 187, 189). . . .

Fourth, as suggested by these teachings, Satan is still trying to take away our free agency by persuading us to voluntarily surrender our will to his.

This subject has a morbid fascination for mankind. The long-lived German legend of Faust concerns a man who sold his soul to the devil in exchange for knowledge and power. This is also the theme of Stephen Vincent Benet's "The Devil and Daniel Webster." A variety of modern practices tend toward this surrender, and they carry eternal dangers. As Elder Faust warned us at conference, "The mischief of devil worship, sorcery, casting spells, witchcraft, voodooism, black magic, and all other forms of demonism should be avoided like the plague" (Faust 33).

Fifth, we should also avoid any practices in which one person attempts to surrender even part of his will to another person or another person attempts to take it. Whether the means are chemical, behavioral, electronic, or others not yet dreamed of, such attempts run counter to the heavenly plan and further the Adversary's. Free agency, the power to choose and direct our thoughts and our actions, is a gift of God, and we should resist any means that would compromise it.

Sixth, we should avoid any behavior that is addictive. Whatever is addictive compromises our will. Subjecting our will to the overbearing impulses imposed by any form of addiction serves Satan's purposes and subverts our Heavenly Father's. This applies to addictions to drugs (such as narcotics, alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine), addiction to practices such as gambling, and any other addictive behavior. We can avoid addictions by keeping the commandments of God.

Seventh, we should be aware that some people are more susceptible to some addictions than others are. Perhaps such susceptibility is inborn, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called "a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure" (2 Cor. 12:7). One person has a taste for nicotine and is easily addicted to smoking. Another person cannot take an occasional drink without being propelled into alcoholism. Another person samples gambling and soon becomes a compulsive gambler.

Perhaps these persons, as the saying goes, were "born that way." But what does that mean? Does it mean that persons with susceptibilities or strong tendencies have no choice, no free agency in these matters? Our doctrine teaches us otherwise. Regardless of a person's susceptibility or tendency, his will is unfettered. His free agency is unqualified. It is his freedom that is impaired. Other persons are more free; because when they unwisely sample the temptations, they seem immune to the addiction. But regardless of the extent of our freedom, we are all responsible for the exercise of our free agency.

As Lehi taught, in mortality we are only free "according to the flesh" (2 Nephi 2:27). Most of us are born with thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim "I was born that way" does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal. . . .

Eighth, beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was "born that way" is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.

Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children.

I suppose it is inevitable that those who have surrendered to impulse would try to use the defense of "irresistible impulse." But in the courts on high, this defense will be transparent to the Great Judge, who sees our actions and "knows all the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Alma 18:32).

There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental.

(Dallin H. Oaks, "Freedom and Free Agency," Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., Second Nephi: The Doctrinal Structure [Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1989], 16-18.)

John W. Welch on Lehi's Last Will and Testament:

Lehi was doing many things as he spoke officially to his posterity for the last time. One of the most enduring legacies of Lehi's last will and testament appears to be the organization of his descendants into tribes. Just as the ancient patriarch Jacob left the House of Israel with a family structure composed of twelve tribes, Lehi addressed his posterity in seven groups. This seems to be the precedent that established the legal order that lasted among these people for almost one thousand years. After speaking to several of his sons collectively (2 Nephi 1:1-29), Lehi spoke (1) to Zoram in 2 Nephi 1:30- 32, (2) to Jacob in 2 Nephi 2, (3) to Joseph in 2 Nephi 3, (4) to the children of Laman in 2 Nephi 4:3-7, (5) to the children of Lemuel in 2 Nephi 4:8-9, (6) to the sons of Ishmael in 2 Nephi 4:10, and (7) to Sam together with Nephi in 2 Nephi 4:11. The seven groups recognizable here are exactly the same as the seven tribes mentioned three other times in the Book of Mormon, each time in the rigid order of "Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites" (Jacob 1:13; 4 Nephi 38; Mormon 1:8; see also D&C 3:17-18). Though kingships and judgeships might come and go in Nephite history, the underlying family fabric of Nephite society attributable to Lehi's testament remained permanent (e.g. 3 Nephi 7:2-4). Even in the final days of the Nephite demise, Mormon still saw the general population divided along this precise seven-part line (Mormon 1:8). The fact that this exact organization persisted so long is evidence that Lehi's last words to his sons in this regard were taken as constitutionally definitive—just as the organization of Israel into twelve tribes in the earlier age had been essential to the political, social, religious and legal structure there.

I see Lehi here acting like Jacob of old. Both Jacob and Lehi pronounced their blessings to "all [their] household" who were gathered around them shortly before they died to organize a household of God in a new land of promise (2 Nephi 4:12; cf. Gen. 49). Seeing Lehi in the patriarchal tradition is borne out by the fact that Lehi was remembered by Nephites from beginning to end as "father Lehi." Just as Israelites have always known Abraham as "father Abraham," so the Nephites including Enos, Benjamin, Alma the Younger, Helaman, the later Nephi and Mormon, consistently remembered Lehi as "our father Lehi" (Enos 1:25; Mosiah 1:4; 2:34; Alma 9:9; 18:36, 36:22; 56:3; Hel. 8:22; 3 Nephi 10:17). Since Lehi is the only figure in the Book of Mormon called "our father," this designation appears to be a unique reference to Lehi's patriarchal position at the head of Nephite civilization, society, and religion.

In Israel, the tribal structure served several purposes: religious, military, political, and legal. For example, the tribe of Levi was given priestly duties (Num. 3:6-9), the armies of Israel were numbered according to tribe (Num. 1), and the chiefs of the tribes assembled to act in the case of the Benjamites (Judges 20:1-2). Land law was also fundamentally interrelated with the tribal structure of Israelite society—the land of Israel being divided legally among the various tribes. Accordingly, tribal or paternal lands, for example, could not be permanently sold outside of a given tribe. Moses ruled: "So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers" (Num. 36:7). A "land of inheritance" is unthinkable under the law of Moses without a correlative family structure and a legal system that gave rights of family foreclosure, redemption and preemption to next of kin (Falk 87-89). It would be consistent with Nephi's report that his people observed the law of Moses "in all things" (2 Nephi 5:10) to conclude that they followed the law of Moses regarding their land laws as well, and that Lehi divided his family into paternal tribal groups partly for the reason of establishing a system for recognizing property and territorial rights in the new land of promise.

The fact that land was on Lehi's mind when he spoke in 2 Nephi is readily apparent. The land is mentioned over a dozen times in the first ten verses alone. While his main emphasis was to speak of the land in general as a land of promise, Lehi's words were couched in legal terminology and probably would have been understood as defining some basic legal rights of tenancy and transferability.

First, Lehi acknowledged and thereby legitimated the group's right to possess the land. He qualified their right, however, making it contingent upon righteousness (2 Nephi 1:11). By speaking in terms of possessory interests in the land, Lehi seems to have been working within the Mosaic concept which held that God's people have only a right of possession in the land, not title in fee simple absolute as we speak of ownership, for the land itself belongs to God: "For the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me" (Lev. 25:24).

Second, Lehi referred to the land as "a land of inheritance" (2 Nephi 1:5; 1:8; 3:2). In my opinion, he was doing more here than duplicating the idea in verse 9 that "this land" collectively was their "land of promise." The law of Moses required that "in all the land of your possession [and Lehi had clearly designated theirs a land of possession] ye shall grant a redemption for the land" (Lev. 25:23). This right of redemption was none other than the preemptive power held by the next of kin to prevent the sale of the paternal or tribal lands to people outside that lineage group. Making the land subject to such a perpetual inheritance right was a critical part of keeping the land a "land of inheritance" for that family in perpetuity. This seems a likely part of what Lehi was doing when he organized his posterity into paternal kinship groups. Implicitly, we may understand the existence of a right of redemption within that group with respect to the portion of the land each group was to possess. Apparently the importance of preserving this traditional right was a significant factor motivating the followers of Zeniff to repossess (Omni 27) and redeem (cf. Mosiah 12:22) the land of Nephi.

The idea that Lehi partitioned the land, the land of first inheritance, into tribal areas receives further support from the fact that Lehi called this area "the lands of their possessions" (2 Nephi 1:11; emphasis added). His use of the plural terms "lands" and "possessions" provides considerable evidence that Lehi himself perceived the land as divided into several "lands" or territories.

Thus, for example, it appears that when he blessed Joseph with an interest in the land (2 Nephi 3:2), Lehi was creating in Joseph and in his posterity a durable right to possess some specific share of the land. By the same token, when he said to Sam, "Thou shalt inherit the land like unto thy brother Nephi. And thy seed shall be numbered with his seed . . . and [shall be even] like unto his seed" (2 Nephi 4:11), Lehi was saying that Sam would not have a separate tribal interest in a particular part of the land, but would merge legally and tribally with the seed of Nephi. Consequently, there are Josephites in the Book of Mormon, but never any Samites.

(John W. Welch, "Lehi's Last Will and Testament: A Legal Approach," in Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., Second Nephi: The Doctrinal Structure [Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1989], 68-69.)

Mormon Life - Free tag

Free May 2012 Visiting Teaching Printables

Free LDS printables

Never Let a Job be More Important printable

Free Family History Subway Art

I Am a Child of God printable

Thoughts on Gospel Doctrine Lesson 6