mikbone

Its actually D&C 132:6-7 that is the prerequisite. But you knew that already.

What is your logic there? And I don’t think of myself as married. I’m sealed to my wife, and children. You can get married on the love boat or in a drive thru Elvis chapel in Vegas.

I concur. I haven’t seen it.

Joseph was martyred 16 years prior. Brigham had previously argued his point with Orson Pratt, but that apparently made Orson Pratt more obstinate. Sometimes it is wise to just step away from a battle and let others take up the fight in our stead. The outcome of this meeting was beneficial. Orson Pratt chose to fall in line and stopped challenging the the Prophet. Even though time has likely proven that on this single point of doctrine - Orson Pratt was in the right. Although Orson Pratt had taught multiple concepts of incorrect doctrine in the past... Eventually, this document and many more will come to light. The church is doing amazing things with transparency.

Journey before destination - There are always several ways to achieve a goal. Failure is preferable to winning through unjust means. Protecting ten innocents is not worth killing one. In the end, all men die. How you lived will be far more important to the Almighty than what you accomplished. Brandon Sanderson - The Way of Kings

Do you believe that Lucifer and his followers have the potential to change? Do you believe that they have been damned? Or can they come to their senses and be redeemed?

When we were first produced as our Heavenly Parent's spirit children we began the pathway that led to Eternal Life. But as we know, a third part of the premortal spirits decided to rebel against Heavenly Father's plan. We don't know why they rebelled. They had belief systems or personalities or prejudices that precluded them from following Jehovah. People be crazy! The homeless people on the street don't have to live that way, they choose to. How many people are on the dole because it is easier to claim disability then go out and work a difficult job. How many people choose to never have children because it is a cramp in their lifestyle. If you don't want to work and have a large family then the Celestial Kingdom is not for you. And there are lots of people out there that want neither. Moses 1:39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. And I loved Dallin H. Oaks October 2018 talk - Truth and the Plan. It is Core / Eternal Doctrine and an instant classic. It was my favorite talk of the entire conference. Other than the announcement of the 2 hour block.

i really love the Orson Hyde quote.

Well that works only if as you assume that the PW is the CK. But if the PW is seperate from the CK it makes things different. For example purposes only: lets assume that my home is the PW for my children. My wife and I maintain it for them and teach them. The CK for me is my home town, the Universities I attended. The hospital where I work, etc. But they see me go off to work and occasionally I take my wife on vacations and leave them with baby sitters. My children learn lots but eventually want to leave the house so they can experience more, and become more like me. They have to leave my home and experience life. Get a real education. Find a spouse. Learn a trade. And eventually build a home of their own. And start their own family.

Over the years while I was doing some research I ran into an interesting meeting. Minutes of the Meeting of the Council of the Twelve in the prayer room of the Church Historian's Office, April 5, 1860 I recently went to the LDS Church History Library in attempt to review the original document but it was unavailable. The delayed response for my request was the following, "We have located these minutes but are unable to provide access due to their confidential nature. Thank you for your request, and good luck with your research." The above image is documentation that the meeting occurred, but does not include the actual minutes. The best source for the meeting, I found in a book by James Bergera, Conflict in the Quorum. Wherein Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had differences in points of doctrine. Apparently Bergera had access to the source material decades ago before it was moved into a more secure location. Anyway, the following text is the meeting from what I gather from the internet and from Bergera's book. It is important to know that Brigham Young was not present at the Meeting. I got the feeling that Brigham Young was quite exasperated with dealing with Orson Pratt and wanted the other Apostles to assist Orson Pratt to come to his senses. It is obvious that Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had differences in option on esoteric points of doctrine, and neither one of them was willing to admit their error. Minutes of the Meeting of the Council of the Twelve in the prayer room of the Church Historian's Office, April 5, 1860, Present Elders - O. Hyde, O. Pratt, W. Woodruff, G.A. Smith, J. Taylor, E. Snow, C.C. Rich, E.T. Benson, F.D. Richards. Thomas Bullock acting as scribe. O. Hyde To acknowledge that this is the Kingdom of God, and that there is a presiding power, and to admit that he can advance incorrect doctrine, is to lay the ax at the root of the tree Will He suffer his mouthpiece to go into error? No. He would remove him, and place another there. bro. Brigham may err in the price of a horse, or a House and lot, but in the revelations from God, where is the man that has given thus saith the Lord when it was not so? I cannot find one instance. W Woodruff If bro. Pratt has taught a false doctrine, it is no worse for him, than me, or bro. Hyde, and should retract when a man takes a stubborn course, all Israel feels it; I desire that he may right that matter up. The moment we launch out into the unrevealed doctrine, we are liable to get into error bro. Pratt ought to make the thing right with Pres. Young. O. Hyde Who is our Heavenly Father. I would as soon it was Father Adam, or any other good and lawful being. I shall see him some time, if I do right. What do I know about Adam, in the Councils of the Great God before he came here, or his privileges. I dont know. O. Pratt I do not see how I can mend the matter, one way or the other. I think the brethren are laboring under a wrong impression, in all of my writings on doctrine, I have tried to confine myself within revelation. I do not remember one item that I consider new, many of the exceptions what I made last night, are not in writing. On my subject of pre-existence, I have quoted largely from Genesis and the Book of Abraham, I have give it, how Adam and Eve came here and took bodies of flesh and bones, the doctrine was in the Church when I came into it, and I have always rejoiced in it, in regard to Adam being our Father and our God, I have not published it, altho' I frankly say, I have no confidence in it, altho advanced by bro. Kimball in the stand, and afterwards approved by bro. Brigham. . . . One [revelation] says Adam was formed out of the Earth, and the Lord put in his spirit; and another that he came with his body, flesh and bones, thus there are two contrary revelations - in the garden it is said, that a voice said to Adam, in the meridian of time, I will send my only begotten son Jesus Christ. then how can that man and Adam both be the Father of Jesus Christ? O. Hyde When there is a want of union, it requires us to speak plain, bro. Pratt does not claim any vision or revelation, but keeps within the scope of Joseph's revelations. The Universalians have their belief, The Presbyterians do the same, they consider they believe they are in the pale of revealed religion. all the Sects do the same, yet how widely they differ, then here comes a man (B.Y.) who says he has a revelation, but it means the sects, if is Antagonistic. I see no necessity of rejecting Joseph's revelations, or going to War with the living ones, that is the nearest to us. bro. Pratt is like the Jews, who garnish the sepulchers of the dead, but reject those that were the nearest to them. I do not see any contradiction or opposition between B. Young & J. Smith. O. Pratt it was the Father of Jesus Christ that was talking to Adam in the garden - B. Young says that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ, both of his Spirit and Body, in his teachings from the stand, bro. Richards publishes in the Pearl of Great Price, that another person would come in the meridian of time, which was Jesus Christ. O. Hyde David in spirit called Jesus Christ, Lord, how then is he his Son? it would seem a contradiction, I went to Joseph and told him my ideas of the Omnipresence of the Spirit, he said it was very pretty, and it was got up very nice, and is a beautiful doctrine, but it only lacks one thing, I enquired what is it bro Joseph, he replied it is not true. J. Taylor spoke again "if Christ is the first fruits of them that slept" there must be some discrepancy, he must have resumed his position, having a legitimate claim to a possession some where else, he ought not to be debarred from his rights. the power of God was sufficient to resuscitate Jesus immediately, and also the body of Adam. O. Pratt I have heard brother Brigham say that Adam is the Father of our Spirits, and he came here with his resurrected body, to fall for his own children; and I said to him, it leads to an endless number of falls, which leads to sorrow and death: that is revolting to my feelings, even if it were not sustained by revelation. E. Snow Is there any revelation saying that the body of Adam should return to the dust of this Earth? O. Pratt if you bring Adam as a Spirit, and put him into the tabernacle, runs easy with me; another item, I heard brother Young say that Jesus had a body, flesh and bones, before he came, he was born of the Virgin Mary, it was so contrary to every revelation given.

In my opinion, the Premortal World (PW) is not the Celestial Kingdom (CK). I can't find concrete evidence either way. But there are many drawings like the above. And in most of those illustrations, the PW does not look like the CK (although the 3rd one does for contrast)... I really like the first one with The Presence of God Venn diagram. Anyway, things that make me think that it is not the Celestial Kingdom. 1) We had no body in the PW thus we had limited interactions with Heavenly Father. I'm sure that the CK has objects of matter that we can interact with. 2) There was an ugly war in our PW. I don't see that happening in the CK. (Kinda like, I was allowed to rough house outside in the yard. But Mom would not let us hang out in the master bedroom and goof off) 3) In the PW we noticed that there was one like unto God. (Abraham 3: 24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;) If we had been in the CK there would have been many like unto God. 4) Why would we have left the PW if it was already the CK. Heck I would have preferred to just stay there and learn by osmosis. And enjoy all the benefits of Heaven. 5) When we enter into the Celestial Kingdom I don't imagine hanging out with other people's spirit children.

I posted this topic to illustrate that sometimes General Authorities do make mistakes on points of doctrine. And it is important that we make this recognition. There are different types of doctrine. I love this BYU academic paper for its excellent description and categorization of doctrine. Core or Eternal doctrine is eloquently explained by Jesus Christ in his visits to the Nephites as found in 3 Ne 11:22-41. Whenever we get off into the esoteric realm (even if it be an apostle, or president of the church) we are on unsteady ground. And it is obvious that Joseph Fielding Smith was making a supposition statement about the "TK Smothies' because he said, "I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be—neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection." The Family: A Proclamation to the World is revelation that trumps, Joseph Fielding Smith's musings. Joseph Fielding Smith in that same book wrote a section strenuously condemning Birth Control. As I have eleven children I obviously have taken his council on this point. But, I know that the Church has greatly toned down its stance on BC... McConkie make all kinds of statements about African heritage and priesthood that were just plain wrong. And he made apologies. And most people don't know that McConkie actually penned the OFFICIAL DECLARATION -2. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_alike-unto-god-2/ https://gospeltangents.com/2018/06/bruce-r-mcconkie-wrote-official-declaration-2/ But no one in the Church should ever make mistakes on Core Doctrine. We should be very familiar with Core Doctrine I was so happy to hear Dallin H. Oaks last conference talk, it is a perfect example of Core or Eternal Doctrine. You have likely noticed that the General Authorities have stopped trifling with esoteric doctrine in general conference. Truth and the Plan

There have been some commentary on Joseph Fielding Smith’s commentary, That led to TK (Terrestrial & Telestial) Kingdom Smoothies ( as in the crotch of barbie & ken dolls)

Yes Doctrines of Salvation Vol 2, 287-288 But it is no longer in print. Just like Mormon Doctrine

The following excerpt is a portion (13%) of my favorite General Conference talk of all time. Joseph Smith's April 7, 1844 discourse. Joseph Smith never gave the talk a formal name, and in attempts to draw attention to the importance of the lecture, in my mind I have given it the title "The Great Secret" - as Joseph Smith uses the term in the talk. In the following seven paragraphs, I have done some formatting. The italics are portions of the talk that are only found as recorded in Wilford Woodruff's journal. The words in bold draw attention to the title. And as Joseph Smith rarely quoted scripture by book and verse, I have used [brackets] and underline to indicate scripture reference. The doctrine is quite profound. And it is particularly amazing that Joseph Smith used a dozen verses from the bible to weave a new ideology. If you see any other biblical verses that Joseph Smith is referring to, PLEASE let me know. I suspect (from the words and tone of the text) that Joseph felt that the information needed to be supported from the bible (as opposed to the Book of Mormon or Modern Revelation), because many 'Mormons' in the audience (including Sidney Rigdon) were claiming that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet at the time. And they refused to believe anything that was not contained within the Bible. I am going to inquire after God because I want you all to know God and to be familiar with Him. If I can get you to know Him, I can bring you to Him. And if so, all persecution against me will cease. This will let you know that I am His servant, for [I speak as one having authority and not as a scribe]. Matthew 7:29 What kind of a being was God in the beginning, before the world was? I will go back to the beginning to show you. I will tell you, so open your ears and eyes, all ye ends of the earth, and hear, for I am going to prove it to you with the Bible. I am going to tell you the designs of God for the human race, the relation the human family sustains with God, and why He interferes with the affairs of man. First, God Himself who sits enthroned in yonder heavens is a Man like unto one of yourselves—that is the great secret! If the veil were rent today and the great [God that holds this world in its sphere and the planets in their orbit and who upholds all things by His power] Hebrews 1:2-3—if you were to see Him today, you would see Him in all the person, image, fashion, and very form of a man, like yourselves. [For Adam was a man formed in His likeness and created in the very fashion and image of God]. Genesis 1:26 [Adam received instruction, walked, talked, and conversed with Him as one man talks and communicates with another]. Genesis 3:8 In order to understand the subject of the dead and to speak for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary to understand the character and being of God. For I am going to tell you how God came to be God and what sort of a being He is. For we have imagined that God was God from the beginning of all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil so you may see. Truth is the touchstone. These things are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. The first principle of truth and of the Gospel is to know for a certainty the character of God, and that we may converse with Him the same as one man with another, and that He once was a man like one of us and that God Himself, the Father of us all, once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the flesh and like us. I will show it from the Bible. I wish I were in a suitable place to tell it. I wish I had the trump of an archangel. If I had the privilege, I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. The scriptures inform us (Mark it, Brother Rigdon) that Jesus Christ said:—What did Jesus say?—[As the Father has power in Himself, even so has the Son power in himself. To do what? Why, what the Father did. That answer is obvious; even in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? “To lay down my life as my Father laid down His body that I might take it up again].” John 10:17-18 Do you believe it? If you don’t believe it, you don’t believe the Bible. The Scriptures say it and I defy all hell—all the learned wisdom and records and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it! [Here then is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God]. John 17:3 You have got to learn how to make yourselves Gods in order to save yourselves and be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done—[by going from a small capacity to a great capacity, from a small degree to another, from grace to grace], John 1:16 until the resurrection of the dead, from exaltation to exaltation—till you are able to sit in [everlasting burnings] Isaiah 33:14 and everlasting power and glory as those who have gone before, sit enthroned. I want you to know that God in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you nor me. I want you to know the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, father, wife, mother child, dear relative, or friend, to know, though they lay down this body and all earthly tabernacles shall be dissolved, that their very being shall rise in immortal glory to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sorrow, die, and suffer no more. And not only that, but to contemplate the saying that [they will be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ]. Romans 8:17 What is it? [To inherit and enjoy the same glory, powers, and exaltation until you ascend a throne of eternal power and arrive at the station of a God], Revelations 3:21 & 21:7 the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus Christ do? “[Why I do the same things that I saw my Father do] John 5:19 when worlds came rolling into existence.” Saw the Father do what?” I saw the Father [work out His kingdom with fear and trembling] Philippians 2:12 and I am doing the same, too. [When I get my kingdom, I will give it to the Father and it will add to and exalt His glory]. Moses 4:2 He will take a higher exaltation and I will take His place and I am also exalted, so that He obtains kingdom rolling upon kingdom.” So that Jesus treads in His tracks as He had gone before and then inherits what God did before. [God is glorified in the salvation and exaltation of His creatures]. Moses 1:39 It is plain beyond comprehension and you thus learn that these are some of the first principles of the Gospel, about which so much has been said. When you [climb a ladder], Genesis 28:12-13 you must begin at the bottom rung. You have got to find the beginning of the history and go on until you have learned the last principle of the Gospel. It will be a great while after the grave before you learn to understand the last, for it is a great thing to learn salvation beyond the grave and it is not all to be comprehended in this world.

'He/She' pronouns banned during hearings - California LGBT activism. The above nonsense reminded me of a teaching found in Doctrine of salvation. Serves them right! But then the question arises, is gender eternal?

This reminded me of my favorite childrens author H. A. Ray of Curious George. He was also an amateur astronomist. And a genius. He wrote and illistrated a book about the constellations and drew reasonable pictures that actually represent the stars

Of course. Especially if the math teacher is incorrect. Granted these instances will be few. Just out of curiosity, which comment of mine (that disagreed with a GA), did you find offensive?

Ahhh. Is it ok to disagree with General Authorities? I’m pretty sure I don’t disagree with scripture. Although I commonly disagree with other people’s interpretation of scripture. Scriptures are written in a style that allows inspiration and wide variation of interpretation depending on the situation of the reader. And if you notice the tone and instruction of recent general conference talks the church leadership have been doing a wonderful job teaching Core and Eternal principles and staying out of esoteric doctrine. In the past many authorities made commentary / books on esoteric topics. It is understandable that they would make mistakes here and there.

I’m confused. I make a statement that disagrees with an absolute comment from Talmage in a book that is 2 inches think and you label me as someone going down the road of apostasy. Jesus the Christ is not scripture. Its not even doctrine. It’s commentary. Scripture is amazing. As explained by Dallin H Oaks in Jan 1995. “The idea that scripture reading can lead to inspiration and revelation opens the door to the truth that a scripture is not limited to what it meant when it was written but may also include what that scripture means to a reader today. Even more, scripture reading may also lead to current revelation on whatever else the Lord wishes to communicate to the reader at that time. We do not overstate the point when we say that the scriptures can be a Urim and Thummim to assist each of us to receive personal revelation.” I’ll give you another example. I hear all the time how people explain that Jehovah / Jesus Christ is our Brother or Older Brother. It is a personal pet-peeve of mine. I understand the logical trail that leads to this familial association. And there are a few scriptures that can give the perception that we have a brother-like relationship. But there are thousands of scriptures that state that He is our Lord, Savior, and Father. If my children treated me as a brother I would not be pleased. If you have seen my posts you know that I use Scripture and General Conference talks to support my idieology. And I don’t require you or anyone to agree with my perceptions. And I don’t castigate anyone who agrees with any of your statements. You don't know me and I dont know you. But the tone, animosity, and quarrelsome nature of the arguements in some of the these forums I find dissagreable. And I’m not singling you out. There are many comments from many posters that are less than saintly. Perhaps if we were in a classroom our comments would be less personal. Or we would be less likely to share doctrinal perceptions that are esoteric and loaded with feelings. I don’t know. I like to discuss esoteric doctrine and always have. And I appreciate learning others perceptions from my brothers and sisters here on this site. I have learned from you, and I have thanked you. Don’t worry you haven’t hurt my feelings. My wife jokes about my feeling. I think that you have misperceived my intentions. And, I would like to continue having a discourse with you.

I assume that this applies to the Millenium when blood sacrifice will be reinstituted. Pretty sure the first presidency has yet to invoke this rule and call a direct descendant of Aaron https://www.google.com/amp/s/ldsscriptureteachings.org/2016/09/16/literal-descendants-of-aaron-and-bishops/amp/ https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_Smith_teach_animal_sacrifice_as_part_of_the_"restoration_of_all_things"%3F

My point is that the legal gymnastics are probably not important. Jesus is the Son of David. He proclaimed it himself. I don't care if it was direct, adoptive, or implied. He is the Son of God. Jesus did not use the title, Son of David, to as a means to claim the Jewish Throne. He lived a modest life and didn't have many possessions. He allowed others to use the title (See Matthew 21:15) to give the Jewish leadership cause to crucify him. When Jesus Christ returns to the Earth to set up His kingdom, He will be King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and there will be no legal disputations. His authority is absolute via his power and authority that came from his Heavenly Father. He is our God, our Savior, and our Father. Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh Revelations 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. Because Jehovah created Adam, The bloodline that is David is from Jehovah. The conception of Christ is complicated. WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED. There are all kinds of beliefs inside and outside of the LDS church that have attempted to explain how it happened. 1) Heavenly Father had physical intercourse with the Virgin Mary - And an immortal celestial sperm fertilized Mary's Mortal egg. 2) The Holy Ghost artificially inseminated the Virgin Mary with Heavenly Father's immortal celestial sperm. There are many more possibilities... I have no idea if celestial beings have sperm and eggs? How were Adam & Eve created? What makes sense to me is that Heavenly Father for this specific purpose temporarily became mortal in order to produce a mortal God. And if this is possible, then I don't see why the egg that became Jesus couldn't have been supplied by Heavenly Mother. And then the Virgin Mary would have simply been a surrogate mother. Because the Virgin Mary nurtured the Embryo that was Jesus with her womb - Jesus is the Seed of David according to the flesh. Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father.

But the Catholics don’t annoint or crown the Jewish King. It might be nice to have the input of an LDS member that has a Jewish background. Reguardless, David himself wasn’t in-line for the throne until annointed by Samuel. He was a shepherd. The legalities of King appointment has always been the same throughout time. Whoever has the power makes the laws.

I found this https://www.google.com/amp/s/thejesusquestion.org/2015/12/21/the-two-genealogies-of-jesus-the-curse-of-jeconiah-and-the-royal-line-of-david/amp/ and this “Tribal lineage passes only through the father,(Numbers 1:18, Ezra 2:59) while being Jewish passes through the mother. So one cannot claim to be of a certain tribe if there is no earthly father. As someone else stated Jesus claims descent through the mother. Inheritance does go through the male line first, but if there is none then bloodline and inheritance can pass through other relatives. (Numbers 27:6-11). However with king David having so many kids it's very likely the paternal line was established and carried on, which would more than likely leave Jesus with no inheritance, or claim of kingship.” So Inheritance could be argued for (possibly) but tribal affiliation can't be in his case. Historical records of descent of king David were destroyed a long time ago.” Most of the material I found was Christian / Catholic commentary of Jewish law likely because Catholics want to prove Jesus legal rights. The Jews who are still awaiting the arrival of the Messiah have no intention of proving Christ’s legal rights to the throne. Its pretty complicated. And I’m no jewish legal scholar. My wife took jewish law @ BYU but wasn’t interested in the conversation. This is a Jewish take on Jesus’ claim to king https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/the-jewish-concept-of-messiah-and-the-jewish-response-to-christian-claims/ And then there is this http://www.schechter.edu/what-does-jewish-law-have-to-say-about-surrogacy/

I am interested in this. I didn't do to much research. I found a few sites with superficial info. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adoption-in-judaism if you have a link to a more substantial discussion, I'd appreciate it.