Seminarysnoozer

To answer this question (which I have had myself from time to time) one has to really consider the value of faith. Why is faith so important and why is it our first principle? Obviously, the final judgment has to take into consideration choices that are faith based. What is the opposite of faith or what destroys faith is complete knowledge. Our test here is a test of devotion and trust, not a test of logical application of information. I'm sure we already had those kind of tests before we came here. That essentially was what the battle in heaven was. We had all the information about the different pathways and we all agreed after getting that information that we wanted to go onto the next step which is a test of devotion. By all of us being here we already agreed that God's plan is the right one and that we needed a Savior. All of us have already agreed that we believe Jesus is our Savior when we had full disclosure of all the facts. Now we have to continue to agree with that plan based on faith, trust and the heart. I think God will use both pre-mortal information, based on our valiant or non-valiant choices prior to coming here and our faith based choices to decide what Kingdom we go to. The reason I say that is because we know those that are born with conditions such as Down's syndrome will go onto the Celestial Kingdom without a test of faith. So, this thing about choosing with full disclosure of the information is something we all have already done, in my mind. Now, we are being tested for our spiritual connection and discernment. I don't know if I fully understand all the reasons why God only wants individuals in the Celestial Kingdom that are obedient because of their faith. I think one of the reasons is that that is a faster way of learning. When we learn from any teacher there is some amount of faith that goes into that. You have to believe what the teacher is is saying to you. For example, if each generation of humans had to start all over again in their learning and never trusted anything their elders told them we would all be cavemen still. Trust and faith allows us to learn line upon line without having to learn everything for ourselves. Likewise, I don't have to murder someone to know that murder is bad. Faith is required to know all without having to experience all. Those that don't allow faith to be part of the way they learn will never know all.

Our assignment to a Kingdom is not based on an informed choice. It is based on choices made when we are mostly uninformed, so God can see the true desires of our heart. If the assignment could be made based on informed choices then we would never need the veil. The purpose of the veil is to put us in a situation where we reveal our true natures. This situation exposes our true nature and it is that information as well as what we come into the situation with (i.e. - where much is given, much is expected) and our previous pre-mortal valiant or not valiant nature that God makes that decision. If you say the assignment of Kingdoms should only be based in full knowledge and appreciation of the consequences then what is the purpose of the veil? Once the veil is removed, I don't think you could make that determination any longer. Like trying to change the grade of a test after the test is over, I can only see that as a possibility if one was retested. But, that doesn't happen, we don't separate from our body again after the assignment to our Kingdom. I think a lot of people are saying here that our assignment to a Kingdom is based on our choices but it is more than that. It is based on God's view of the desire of our heart as we are making choices and only His full understanding of all the variables surrounding that specific choice for that individual. And, by nature of our current existence, it has to based in mostly uninformed choices.

Sorry, I was just trying to propose a way in which God our Father could be accredited with everything His predecessors have accomplished. But, looking at my post I realize it is hard to just say that in a few simple sentences without discussing a lot of other doctrine like inheritance and what 'glory' is. I kind of liken it to when a scientist claims they have discovered a new gene. Yes, they may have, but they are not the ones who discovered glass, or electricity or the discovery of the human genome etc. that was a prerequisite for their specific gene discovery. That person wasn't even born yet when glass started to be used or electricity. And yet they take credit for the discovery. Sorry, this is too deep and I don't have enough time today to go any further. But thanks these are interesting topics. Maybe you can state why there is a problem specifically with God once being a man, if that is the case. (I don't know any more than anyone else if it was a personal view of Joseph Smith or not, to answer your original question.)

What is the problem with saying that God was once man? I don't see any inconsistencies with our known doctrine to see a problem with that statement. If our goal is to one day inherent all that the Father has then, if I do make it to that point of a full inheritance, what aspect of what the Father has will be left out of what I get? Are there parts of His kingdom that He will say I don't get experience the joy out of that which He has. And Our Heavenly Father likewise, is there anything of His Father's that He could not claim as His own with His inheritance? The importance of families relates to this heart of our religion that all the Father has can be ours. A fullness of joy comes from this aspect of the fullness of our gospel. It isn't just the introductory benefit of being with our earthly family forever but the shared glory that comes from being sealed to my heavenly Celestial family and the eternal nature of that family both past and future directions.

As a reminder, there are many that meet that description. All the souls that are born with bodies that have conditions such as Down's Syndrome or those that die before the age of accountability that have reached a state of progression that does not require further refinement like the rest of us need in this life to go onto the next step.

I would think it is permanent because the body that one receives pertaining to that specific Kingdom is never to be separated from your spirit again. For the Celestial Kingdom there is one body comparable to the glory of the Sun and the Terrestial also one body comparable to the moon in its glory and for the Telestial there are various bodies as one star varies in brightness from another. ... paraphrased.

I think your metaphor of throwing a stone is a little off. "... I threw a stone in the pack and the one that yelped is the one what was hit." It should be "... I threw a stone and the one that came over and put their arm around my shoulder and said, 'please don't throw stones' is the one that got hit." Three things to think about .... 1. Just as much as one cannot tell the desires of another's heart one cannot also know what is requisite for them to learn in this life or not. 2. The "truths" that we are supposed to learn in this life are not factual but experiential. When talking about 'spiritual truths', if a person says "there is truth here, go figure it out" there is no amount of knowledge or truth passed on by such a statement that the receiver gets from the giver of the statement. Spiritual truths are learned spiritually and through the spirit. We can testify to others and they can feel our spirit and then they will be touched by the spirit to help them comprehend the truth but ultimately the spirit is what teaches, not the messenger giving the message. When one teaches through the spirit there is no amount of 'credit' the messenger assumes as the teaching was through the spirit. 3. Any amount of secular knowledge we amass in this life is minuscule to what we have already learned in the pre-mortal existence. All of that previous learning will come back to us once we have the veil lifted from us. The value of learning ancient languages, names, history etc. is not in the accumulation of facts. That, will amount to next to zero compared to what your spirit already knows. However, the opportunity secular knowledge might open to provide more spiritual experiences and service is where the value of secular learning comes in. There are many types of secular learning that one person might have aptitude over another that for that person would provide spiritual experiences over another field for someone else. For example, I am a nurse. I have found many spiritual experiences through that kind of learning that I wouldn't get if I studied ancient languages all my life. It has given me experiences of service and sacrifice and love that are valuable to me. For another person, though, those experiences wouldn't be as valuable. Maybe they would have more of what they need from this life in another type of study and pursuit. My sister has wonderful experiences with the music she writes that I wouldn't get out of that kind of work and study. My brother is an engineer and he finds experiences out of that kind of work that I am amazed he can find any spiritual link, but he does. You can't assume that everyone would gain from a specific field of secular knowledge just because you did. This is a very personal thing that some may benefit from but certainly not all "the Elect" as you put it. My strong belief is that my knowledge of ancient languages will surpass any amount of study from the best scholar there is in this world once the veil is lifted from my eyes and I remember all the billions of years of training before I came here ... as it is with any specific secular field there might be in this world. The facts are meaningless without the spirit being touched and gaining a spiritual experience with it, as far as knowledge we will carry with us for our advantage in the next life.

I think that polygamy is one of those concepts that we may find is a higher law that really only works when everyone and everything around is perfect. I think it is hard to plug into a world that is corrupt as ours. I think it is kind of like the law of consecration that would take 100% effort from everyone in the community. I do have a couple thoughts though about some of the things people say are good reasons to have it that I don't think will necessarily be of issue in the next life. 1. If it is a matter of having more "help" around, from which one of your brothers or sisters in the Celestial kingdom would not already "help" out as if that person was a family member already? We will all be sealed to each other as one family in the Celestial Kingdom already, isn't that part of the purpose of the spirit of Elijah already? Why would there need to be a separate unique "sealing" to another individual other than maybe the issue of procreation which is my second point. But if it is just to have more "help" around like you say in your list of reasons for it, like bringing in another person for their opinion or financial help or moral support etc. I don't think those things will be lacking in the Celestial Kingdom anyways. I don't think there will be a need for a second marriage type relationship so that there is more moral support or a third opinion. Think about how close the Godhead is right now. Is HF married to Jesus, no, that is ridiculous and yet they can be of one mind and thought without being married. So, that to me is not a reason for polygamy. 2. Second point. (Maybe estrogen talking here, sorry) We really do not understand the procreation process for having spirit children. We do not know, for example if there is a gestational period. How do we know it is not instantaneous? If it is instantaneous then there is no need for multiple wives as far as procreation goes because there would be wives waiting around. Here we deliver in pain, and let me tell you, after 4 children it isn't just the actual birthing process that is painful, a lot of the pregnancy is too. I am kind of hoping, as suggested, the painful aspect of childbirth and pregnancy are not there in the next life, if it is a similar process. To assume that a man can impregnate several women at the same time is too much of a blinded assumption. So, we really don't know if it is necessary to have multiple wives to have numerous offspring. If one man can have numerous offspring I believe it possible that one woman can have numerous offspring. If I have any say in how the perfect body is designed that I get in the next life I might recommend that the birthing process last about a twinkling of an eye's amount of time, then my husband won't have to have another wife, I'll be ready for the next one before he will. (that's enough for now, ....I think I need an Advil)

The truth is that we don't really know what the exact real meaning of the name is because we use an imperfect language. If you could say what the meaning of the word is using a perfect-God language and we all understood perfect God language, maybe then there would not be so much anxiety over a single word like "light" or "Christ". For us, "light" might be used because of its symbolic significance. But knowing our language is imperfect and that God has to communicate with us in this imperfect language, words carry a symbolic and wider meaning than it's more specific and uniquely identified word might be in a perfect language. Because of that I think it is best not to box in the meaning of the word so narrowly. I think it has greater significance when it is left a more encompassing definition as it was probably intended to be used. As with many words in the gospel, they can have different meanings for different people and even change their significance for the same person over time. But, that does not mean one definition is more right than another for everyone. Even our "anointing" here in this life is symbolic. Even if you are to call it "anointed with light" that is simply a symbolic phrase of something that we could not describe any more specifically than relating it to our symbolic ordinances here in this imperfect life. The actual event that that is describing, even if that is the true meaning, is not that important because we wouldn't have knowledge or the right words to even comprehend or talk about what that was right now. I think it is wrong to over-interpret words that are meant for symbolic meaning.

side note .... In essence, "I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ...." should be sufficient too. Such as what is said in Conference talks. I think that is what is meant when the congregation responds with "Amen", we are saying "I realize what you just said was inspired".

I think the other thing that gets misrepresented is this notion that progression in general starts with "man" and ends with "God". In reality our progression starts as God-child to God. I think that is a better way of saying it. Our time spent as a "God-child" far outweighs our time spent as a "man" and happens before we are "man". I don't know how much time that is but try to put that in perspective, maybe millions of years as a God-child progressing, then reaching a point where we couldn't go any further in our progression and have to step through this relatively blink-of-an-eye existence that we call being "man". This life is really intended to be a probationary period, a test period, not a progression period. This life is like going in to take the MCAT after one has gone through grade school and college. There are times where I have taken a final exam and actually learned something during the exam but the hope is that you go into the final exam not having to learn anything more, that you know everything you need to pass the test. I would liken this life of being "man" to a final exam because I know there are actually many souls that are so prepared before that their test is really nothing, they just need to get a body and move on. Like those, for example, that are born with Down's Syndrome. If this life was the only "progression" time we had available to qualify for guaranteed Godhood status then when did those souls progress? Obviously, we keep progressing even after this life but those souls that pass through this one without having to take the "test" have had to have had a sufficient amount of progression before this life. Luckily, for a lot of us that don't get a free pass through this life, Heavenly Father allows us for a little more refinement as we take our test, like a partially open-book test, as we have the gospel to guide us, like an MCAT prep class, so-to-speak. Being "man" is just a little blip of time in the progression from God-child to God, in my opinion. It is an important moment in that timeline as it is a fork in the road that may take one off the God-child to God path but it doesn't account for much of the road itself. Going off the path would make it a changing path, staying on the path would make it "unchanging". Our God, our Heavenly Father, obviously, did not change paths. He stayed on the path from beginning to end and beyond, which includes we are told, a probationary state. Going through the probationary state makes it an "unchanging" pathway.

I think this is much simpler but it may just be my simple mind. "Unchanging" just refers to the course not the point at which one is along the course. Being a "God" refers to the ability to have eternal progression. So long as a person is on that course still then they could be considered a God, and an unchanging God at that. If I take myself off that course then I am no longer a "God". In the pre-mortal life we all progressed until we couldn't go any further without going through a probationary state and receiving a body. Even though this state is a fallen and imperfect state, I still have not changed my unchanging path towards a fullness of joy and eternal increase, unless I choose not to continue by not repenting and following Christ. But If I do what Christ has asked and receive a place in the Celestial Kingdom then my course in unchanging, that of eternal progression. The refiners fire of this life is part of that unchanging course. We were told before we came here that it was needed to reach that end and I still believe it. There was another opinion given though in pre-mortal life, that to become a "God" and have everything God has does not require this fallen state. I didn't believe that then and I don't believe that now.

I guess this is why I first said one must have a testimony about the power and authority of the Priesthood first, otherwise there is no real concept of "covenants". Sorry, but I don't understand covenants without Priesthood authority as you are suggesting is sufficient.

To me, asking for a name also reinforces the idea that there is power obtained by being sealed to each other as one family, as in the spirit of Elijah. We take on Christ' name by participating in ordinances that adopt us into the same family name with which Christ claims His authority. They probably knew of that importance without really understanding what that means, to ask for a name. Like you quoted there, name has to do with authority but they probably had a post-exile understanding of the power of a name. For us though, we know the name has to do with our taking on the name of Christ and our falling under the Abrahamic covenant. ... through our family sealing.

That is kind-of my point. Spiritual matters are not proven they are only discerned. We either recognize truth or we don't. We are given the ability to do so through the light of Christ and can build on that with the gift of the Holy Ghost. There are some things of a spiritual nature that can be "proven" through physical eyes but because the physical in this life is inherently flawed it is never a perfect proof anyways. It is like second-hand proof at best. To have a perfect knowledge of spiritual matters requires seeing through the "right eye" only. Most people have at least some obscuration through their "right eye" though and some to the point of not being able to see through it at all. Zechariah 11:17

Thanks, I was about to say something similar to this. I think "Godhood" in some respects could be a description of a species that has the ability to gain glory eternally. So, "progression to Godhood" to me seems a little different than saying "progression to becoming a God". This is all probably semantics but I would agree that we now all are Gods except those that have purposely stopped their desire to eternally gain glory. To me, "progression to Godhood" is like saying we are undergoing "progression to becoming Human". A baby is a human just as much as a grandmother is human. We are the same species as God and so we are all Gods in that respect, unless a person has chosen to not continue their development, such as Satan did. I think some people get hung up about "progression" on this forum because they carry a concept that is hard for me to understand which is an ideal of a God that does not experience the passage of time. I believe in a God that experiences the passage of time which is a requirement for progression by its very definition. There is no experience in something that doesn't also experience the passage of time which would make God a God that lacks emotion and reaction to events. It would make God an unconcerned God as well. For example, If I have a 5 year old daughter then I would not be concerned about her ability to reach the age of 2, nor would I celebrate her 2 year old birthday if she is already 5 (If there is no difference for me in time between when she is 1 versus 5 years old). I don't know the purposes of God, I am not trying to claim I do, but I do believe that God has not yet experienced the joy He will have the moment I am admitted into the Celestial Kingdom, if I am fortunate enough to make it there. He may be aware of it or not but He will not celebrate it with me until it happens and therefore He progresses with my progression. This is the Godly nature of families. This is my belief and part of my drive to do good, to give glory to God, as the angels say "glory to God in the highest". If one believes that God does not react in someway to what we do at that moment then there is nothing given to God in the highest, ever, as it was already given or taken, making God a static God. I don't understand the non-experiencing, unemotional, non-progression of time, non-endless works God.

Yes, this is why I mentioned Abraham and not Moses. I agree with what Rameumptom is saying in his last post. I think it is good to ask oneself, what is God consenting to, that isn't already part of a promise given for simply obeying the commandments? In other words, there is something more to being righteous under a covenant with God then being righteous without a covenant. When one understands the value of that additional consent from God (as you show in your Webster's definition) then one can start to appreciate the need and meaning of covenants in a true religion.

Yes, good points. I knew that you understood that. I was curious what he thought about the need to establish Jerusalem there.

I think there are many LDS that believe that "Essence" may go beyond just purpose. I may be one of them. There is a lot that we don't know in terms of the spiritual oneness the Godhead have. How is it that God knows my thoughts and the desires of my heart and through the power of the Holy Ghost be in all places without there being some kind of "essence" that is shared or at least connected. If God can hear my thoughts and communicate with me immediately through the power of the Holy Ghost and prayer in Jesus' name without having to arrange for a special personal visit then I would assume that His connectivity with the other members of the Godhead is possible too and likely continually maintained without missing anything. Maybe the only disconnect we know about is the reference Jesus gave at the ninth hour because He had to pay it by Himself. I am not sure what to call that, but a shared "essence" probably isn't far off.

It is the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is "new" only after a period of apostasy. But it is the same given to our fathers, Abraham, etc. What is your understanding of the word "covenant"? I think understanding Priesthood authority is a prerequisite to understand the real meaning and purpose of covenants. If one doesn't understand or have a testimony about priesthood power and authority then 'covenant' becomes synonymous with commandment which really isn't what covenant means.

I think "unchanging" refers more to the course and direction He takes as opposed to where He is heading or the result of His purposes. It references Alma 7:20 which says it a little more clearly; "I perceive that it has been made known unto you, by the testimony of his word, that he cannot walk in crooked paths; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; neither hath he a shadow of turning from the right to the left, or from that which is right to that which is wrong; therefore, his course is one eternal round." ... In other words, God doesn't choose one way then change His mind and do it a different way. To me, I think that is all the "unchangeable" is referring to in Moroni 8:18

I appreciate your comments and discussion with Rameumptom because it is deeper than I could really participate in and has allowed me to ponder it more. I am curious though why you think Jesus has to physically rule and establish His rule from the physical location, Jerusalem at the second coming. Why could He not rule from any location or any temple? Why does the temple in Jerusalem specifically have to be rebuilt there and not somewhere else in your opinion? Because I too, tend to think of "Israel" in the 'children of Christ' and priesthood sense more than I do a physically, genetically related and physical land sense. But, at the same time I know there is some significance to the physical, just hard to appreciate and comprehend. I am more of a "the home is where your heart is" kind of person.

I'll open another "can of worms" on this topic ... maybe not for most. But when you say "God" are you saying "God" the office or "God" an individual (or defined married couple if you want to call it that)?

I am just saying that a person can't serve two masters. If "proof" becomes the motive then the other master gets neglected which becomes an obscuration of the right eye. All we know in this world is faith based at some level. One has to trust their mom or dad at some point to learn the basics of life, then teachers, friends, text books etc. So, the proof one seeks here is put into a context of trust based knowledge. ... is that really "proof" then? We are only going to clear up the muddy waters completely when we can see clearly, through spiritual eyes alone. For the majority of us that is not going to happen in this life. I haven't "proven" to myself that there is a planet out there that people are calling Jupiter. I have never seen it with my own eyes (to my knowledge), or touched it. But I can trust what other people say about it to the point that I would say it is a fact that there is a planet called Jupiter. I doubt that many would argue with that point and yet it is a "trust" based "fact" for most of us. Why, is it so different then for spiritual matters. Why can't I say that because I read about it from a trusted official of God in a book then that is proof enough? Why would I need any more proof than that?

We have already proven our spiritual belief in God and God's plan, all of us here have in the pre-existence. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. Our test isn't to develop a belief, as we already have. The test is to let our belief shine through our physical being. To not let our physical being be so much of a thick veil that we can't detect the spiritual influence at all. I think it is important to see it this way as it will help with the concept that we don't have to formulate anything with the physical mind. Our physical mind just has to accept the spiritual influences. This also, of course, applies to ones ability to detect what has been spiritually formed by others versus a "scholarly" work generated by the carnal mind. ... as we say on Sunday, "to feel the spirit". I believe one reason this is a "must" for future development is the fact that it is always easier to learn faster from a trusted reliable source than it is to try to work it out yourself. Imagine if, to use this computer I first had to discover electricity on my own, then figure out how to forge metal and make wires etc. ... we would never be having this conversation as I don't think I would get even close to making metal, let alone a computer in one lifetime. But, because other people learned from others and trusted their discoveries they built on what was told to them and we have all these wonderful things based on their trust of basic science, electricity, physics, metallurgy etc. Well, the same applies to future, spiritually learning. God wants in his "advanced class" of future Gods, individuals who will trust what He says and not have to "figure it out" on their own. Those people will learn a lot faster than those that get bogged down in their own disbelief. That is the benefit of faith and trust in God. The beauty of God's plan is that we learn from others. Trusting in our own knowledge is the opposite of that. I would say that I am about 50% of the way there but that is my goal, to have 100% faith. ... it helps to know why, though.