Seminarysnoozer

What is the difference between birthright and inheritance as it pertains to after this life? I realize that birthright relates to the inheritance of the firstborn and seems to be practice seen in the day before Jesus brings the higher order. Bible Dictionary: "Birthright Birthright. Under the patriarchal order, the right or inheritance of the firstborn is known as birthright. This generally included a land inheritance as well as the authority to preside. The firstborn of flocks and of human families was considered as belonging to the Lord, and was expected to be dedicated to him. This dedication could be either literal or by the payment of redemption money (Ex. 13:11–16). From time to time certain prerogatives, opportunities, and blessings have attended those who were born of a particular lineage. Thus the office of high priest (of the Aaronic order) and the office of the patriarch to the Church (in the Melchizedek Priesthood) are hereditary in nature. Lineage alone does not guarantee the blessings or spiritual power of the office, but the opportunities are offered to the firstborn of the selected lineage. There are several instances in the scriptures of the one who was the firstborn losing his birthright because of unrighteousness, and his office being given to another; such is the case with Esau (Gen. 25:24–34; 27), and Reuben (1 Chr. 5:1–2; Jer. 31:9)." So, the question is; Does birthright, especially as it pertains to inheritance of the firstborn, in effect after this life? Or are we all "firstborns" if we are worthy. In other words, is there really a "firstborn" amongst us who are not Jesus? If our inheritance comes through Jesus (if that is the case), who receives all the Father has as His inheritance, then do we also receive all, if we are worthy? ... it wouldn't be divided by any birth order, just based on worthiness alone, right? Also the term "birthright" make it sound like there is an opportunity to receive that would eventually have to be earned an worked out, whereas "inheritance" sounds like something gifted, not made on one's own. It seems that one could not change their birthright - it is either there or not, except to loose it, whereas inheritance is mostly dependent on one's actions and desires of the heart - its up to them.

Yes, that is why I put "with righteous Priesthood action". I think you summarized that. Righteous priesthood holders see their partner as a help meet. There is a lot more that goes into that but when we all answer to our maker about our little stewardship we have over the family, I know that my husband will be doing most of the talking. And, I will be held accountable for my responsibilities as well. The point is that accountability cannot be given without responsibility and responsibility has to be taken with authority. If the family does not respect the authority of the man of the house (priesthood holder) then there is no possibility for responsibility and accountability to take place. Respecting the power of the priesthood, for me, also requires acknowledging the keys that go along with that priesthood and teaching my children about the importance of them. I would not want to minimize the power of the priesthood and the keys held by the priesthood holder in front of my family, the relief society or my God.

Yes, but the "doctrine of Christ" is not just the first four principles and ordinances of the gospel, it is also the admonition of Paul, or the 13th Article of Faith; 2 Nephi 31: " ...20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a asteadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life. 21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the away; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen." So, even after baptism, which is spoken of in the verses right before these, the "doctrine of Christ" includes; 1. pressing forward in faith, 2. having a brightness of hope, 3. Charity (love of God and all men), 4. Feasting upon the word of Christ, and 5. Endure to the end. The "feasting upon the word of Christ", I think, would include the discussions in church classes etc., that are spoken of in above posts. And just like our Articles of Faith say, #4 states the first steps and #13 explains the rest of the straight and narrow path. Baptism is the entrance to the straight and narrow, it is the gate, then we walk down the straight and narrow by following the admonition of Paul and Nephi and King Benjamin and Joseph Smith, etc.

I think one of the "growing problems in the media and society" is the demasculinization of men in general. Many popular TV programs and commercials depict men as bumbling idiots or overgrown children that the woman has to come in and save them from the problem they created. Watch any Simpson's, Everyone loves Raymond or King of Queens and you will see the "man of the house" being treated like an idiot in which the woman of the house has to chastise him and correct his mistakes, constantly. Almost every commercial on TV portrays a man who chooses the wrong brand or doesn't recognize the value of a particular brand until a woman points it out. Look at the Progressive Insurance ads, Flow knows what is right but the other "bad" insurance is represented by two dumb men. This is the kind of image our boys grow up with now. As a mother of a son and three daughters, I am becoming more aware of this. Luckily, in our home, my husband is the head of the household. (I know that might seem hard for some of you to believe, reading some of my posts) I sometimes slip and say things like "I am the one who is in charge" but try to rectify that image by deferring important decisions to my husband; "lets wait till your father gets home and ask him." I have to swallow my pride sometimes to do that, but I think it is important for my son's development. I want him to take charge and provide for his family but that isn't going to happen if he gets the message that that is not something boys do. I have a sister who has not given up her matriarchal ways. She lets everyone know in her family that the "woman" is in charge in their house. She has two sons that are struggling with those very things posted in the OP. I think in part it is due to the fact that they have not been given roles of leadership and responsibility throughout their lives. I think this is why it is important to embrace the things that have made our men, men in the past, such as the Boy Scout program, competitive sports and father-son time. This whole thing perpetuates itself when there is no father around to teach the young male mind about being the head of the household and the mother who constantly reminds everyone that she is "really" in charge. That minimizing the importance of men as a young boy grows up is what turns them into an oversized child when they reach adulthood. Even in advanced education this is continued. My husbands medical school graduating class was 60% women, and this was back in 1995. I am not saying that is bad, just a reflection of where men are being relegated to other jobs and other levels of importance in terms of being the primary provider and the leader of the family. If a man is not seen as the leader of the family, what is left for him to do? .... to act like a follower, an overgrown child. There are many women who, in essence, say that that is what they want by exerting a desire to be in charge. Can't have it both ways, either the woman is in charge and the man is left with little responsibility and accountability or the man is given responsibility and hopefully through righteous Priesthood action, is in charge without being oppressive.

You have to take into account that we believe we are dual beings here in this mortal existence. We are both body and spirit. We are influenced by both the carnal mind of the body, which is corrupt and by our real self, the spirit being. Our test in this life is to see which influence we listen to. Do we listen to the carnal, corrupted influence or the pure spiritual self. Romans 8:7 is just talking about the carnal part of our dual being. You have to include versus 5 and 6 with the above perspective to really understand what is being said there; " 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." and then it says; " 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." We believe that the natural man is an enemy to God. In other words, the person who listens to nature - the natural body, is an enemy to God. If we have the spirit, which means we listen to our spiritual self over the carnal influences, we can reach life, life eternal. But if it is in us to listen to the carnal influences, that leads to death because to sin is death. My carnal body, though, is not me. It is a temporary situation, a mortal probation that gives me an opportunity to be tested with these influences. My real self, my true nature, is not carnal, it is spiritual ... as it is with everyone. Therefore, we are not an enemy to God, flesh is, carnality is. You have to take our dual nature into account to make sense of those scriptures.

Thanks, we are in agreement.

Of course, as there is no such thing as being a purely temporal being (even though being completely evil might be described that way, there is still a spirit there). There is no point in our existence when we are just a mortal body alone, without a spirit. Temporal mannerisms, therefore, can never be separated from spiritual influence unless a person is completely carnal, but they didn't start out that way. They started out spiritually prepared. My point is that we were all spiritually prepared before coming here, 100% prepared. There is no task that we are given here that God does not prepare a way for us to accomplish. So, it is possible to be spiritually prepared without being temporally prepared. Temporal preparedness is of no long-lasting value if not done out of obedience and done for the right reason. For example, the people who are doing it because they are preparing for "doomsday" and not because they are obeying inspired leaders do not receive any long-lasting benefit from such preparation. They may think they do but the benefit is, at best, only for this life, which all turns to dust in the end anyways. The benefit of the law, in other words, is not out of the actual temporal preparedness but from the obedience, which is a reflection of spiritual integrity in the setting of temporal distraction. The "priestcraft" version of this is when people prepare for doomsday to save their "stuff" - i.e. worldly stuff, food, shelter, property etc. Then they live for things, they fight for temporal things, in a sense temporal gain (at least preventing temporal loss). I am just talking about Matthew 6:19 " 19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." "Heart" of course meaning a spiritual desire. If a person is disobedient to the urging of the leaders to prepare temporally, then by definition they have lost their spiritual preparedness. So, that situation of being "spiritually prepared but not temporally prepared" would not apply to such a person, they are not spiritually prepared.

Yes it is possible to be "spiritually prepared without being temporally prepared". I think that is how you would describe every one of us before coming to Earth. We all kept our first estate, we were spiritually prepared and matured, we passed the spiritual test. Then we are sent here to take the temporal test, to see if we will do the things we said we would do. This is one of the most unique things about our religion, we really believe that we have to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. If all one had to do was believe, then passing the first estate test would have been sufficient, there would be no further need to learn to grow and be tested any further. We have to be tested with a little stewardship to see if we can handle greater stewardship. In all things temporal, though, the trick is to do it with an eye single to the glory of God. The heart of the test is not only to see if we do the things we are asked to do alone but we do them with righteous desires of the heart which is a spiritual focus monitored by God. The other difficult part of being a good steward is to not seek reward for one self in the process of doing good works. D&C 4:5 " 5 And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work." As opposed to 2 Nephi 26:29 " 29 He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion." In other words, being temporally prepared often times means doing it anonymously, in private and giving praise to God in all things.

What do you mean by "adjustment"?

Maybe because this, what you are saying, is pretty well accepted. I don't think I have ever thought anything different. It has always been - 'are you in or are you out?' kind of a program. The 'restriction' is always internal based in how much we are wanting to be like God and Jesus. What price are we willing to pay to be like them? That is an internal restriction. However strongly one believes this though, I think, also determines how strongly they believe that the result of the test we find ourselves in right now will be permanent. Because if we truly say, 'in our heart', that we are 'out' then we wouldn't waver on that, it will always be that we are out just as strongly as someone who receives exaltation would never say - 'okay, I've had enough, let me try a lesser kingdom now.'

But only with exaltation can a person have the fullness of knowledge, the other Kingdoms are limited in their knowledge and their glory. Gospel Principles says in chapter 47, talking about what is different about exaltation from the other glories: "5.They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original)."

This is a good point. One of the things that it does point out, though, in isolation is the fact that we won't be punished for Adam's transgression and I am assuming all the things that are brought on by that transgression. For example, a corrupted body and it's influences. When the apostles fell asleep in the Garden of Gethsemane it was made clear that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We will be judged and punished according to our spiritual decisions but God will take that within the context of the limitations of our transgression-caused corrupted body as we are not responsible for that. If a person had a manic episode for example, caused by the corrupted parts of that person's brain, having nothing to do with the person's spirit or spiritual choices and during that manic episode kills someone, I believe God, using this principle of not being responsible for the corruption brought on by Adam's transgression will not be looked at as sin. The judgement of course, can only be done knowing all the variables, which we do not have at our disposal in this life.

What you are saying is true, "to truly teach another is through the 'pure love of Christ'". But to know that it is done with the "pure love of Christ" cannot be based in words alone, the "pure love of Christ" is based in the desires of one's heart. I have not mastered the ability to determine the 'desire's of one's heart' and it isn't necessary because that is God's job. I think we always have to err on the side of believing the intentions of posters on both sides are good. Just like Mygraceabound said, 'I want to understand your point of view'. As soon as we judge another person's intentions, whether a post is done out of anger or to pick a fight or to put it "in your face" as you said requires knowledge of what is in a person's heart. The pure love of Christ is not easily offended and it does not fear the judgement of man more than the judgement of God. The righteous are not easily offended, they are not hurt by words that are true. To turn the other cheek is to not be hurt by the offense. On the flip side of what you said, sometimes testimonies and truths are left unspoken for fear of the judgement of man. I think it is also important not to promote the fear of offending man (to be politically correct) over sharing one's testimony and passion for what we believe. Of course, like you said, it has to be done with kindness and respect and charity (which is something God knows). D&C 3:6-7; " 6 And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men. 7 For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—" And John 12; " 42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: 43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." I hope nobody feels like they are going to be put out of the forum (not post something) for fear of offending man or because they love the praise of men more than God. Don't let the chastisement of man keep you from posting what you feel in your heart, the praise of God comes from what is in a person's heart which is something man cannot see.

I'm sorry, you are right. I agree with your second paragraph, I think that was my point too. I gave another possible explanation for words that I think are being interpreted a specific way. I have heard others say even the idea of "Adam" meaning the 'first father' and in that sens the word "Adam" could be used for the Adam senior or the Adam junior. I think a little of the AGT topic relates to the thread at hand in that there are some that are insistent that Adam's body was born in similar fashion to how babies are born in the mortal sense and therefore would have a certain set of genes or whatever other method of "genetic" inheritance is had with immortal bodies, whatever that is. They apply some meaning or significance to that type of birth as if it is necessary but without really explaining why that is necessary. As opposed to the idea that Adam's spirit is a child-offspring of God and the immortal body was created which would carry with it the lack of importance of certain genetic material passed onto Adam's body (not the spirit). Depending on how one rests on the side of creation of the body versus birth requiring "genetic" information from one parent and a set of "genetic" information from another then there is also a given level of importance to the genetic make up of any individual in mortality. The reality is that everyone's body is "cursed" in a sense, it is corrupted as a result of mortality. If people want to be so politically correct as to say that genetic make up plays absolutely no role in the connection between the spirit and the body then they would have a hard time explaining why we see people with trisomy 21 or other such diseases the way we do. I think we see clues to the importance of genes in the scriptures on various levels but we don't really understand it and can't use it to judge anyone based on appearance. Some clues are that Able and Seth were in the image of their father more than other sons. And Jesus is in the express image of His Father. If "genes" weren't so important than I think nobody would get worked up about whether Adam's body was simply put together as a specific model based in "genetic" programing that came from previous realms versus a body that needed to be "birthed" from random mixing of two sets of "genes". For me, being a spirit daughter offspring is sufficient enough. I don't see the need for this body, mortal body, to be anything higher than the dust it will return to. There is nothing in our doctrine that says it has to be during this probationary period.

I think it is incredibly hard to find the line between discussing and pondering the meaning of statements made by prophets versus "undue public speculation ...". The only reason I posted my statement was to suggest that there are other possible explanations besides the MMP possibility that a previous LDS poster suggested was 99.9% sure was true. I understand that you think it is better to just not talk about these things but on the flip side, I think some people get closed into their understanding because an opposing possibility is never proposed. I think that is why members sometimes stay with beliefs like MMP. I think never pondering and never discussing one's thoughts with like-minded thinkers also does not lead to good .... otherwise I will skip Relief Society next week. Of course, ideas that are direct opposites of known doctrine are not good ... but if one thinks they are "wrong" then the person should have a pretty good understanding of why they are wrong.

Is there anything wrong with keeping an open mind about the possibility (especially since we don't really have it as doctrine) that "Adam" is a type of body? If one reads through the Adam-God quotes and the veil lecture etc. with that thought then it could fit into that kind of interpretation without any threat to our known doctrine. Michael getting an "Adam" body in the garden was a "Celestial" type body, it was perfect and immortal. Jesus' body, being the Only Begotten, is also of that type and therefore He was part "Adam" body and the son of man (the fallen Adam body genes). And when everything is restored to its original creation, the "Adam" design, then He will look like Adam and God. If this "Adam" model body was made in the express image of God, maybe even the exact same genetic structure, then it's origins were not from this world. The model, the DNA code, or whatever other structural design specifications are used with immortal bodies, whatever that might be, was kept the same. Therefore it is God the Father's body as well. We are told that when we see Jesus we are seeing God the Father. I could ponder the idea that that would be true also for the perfect body formed in the Garden of Eden. Also, there are many souls that we know about who have earned exaltation before coming here, they just had to get a body. All those that die before the age of 8 and those that have severe debilitating disease. There are also some noble and great ones, I would believe, that have their calling and election made sure before coming here and therefore have "earned" their exaltation before actually being born. I would imagine that the job that Adam and Eve took on would require souls that were so valiant that they already "earned" their exaltation. They had come here to fulfill certain assignments that require valiant souls. These are just some thoughts to ponder while thinking about Brigham's words.

I don't think you understand what it means to receive a full inheritance. Look at the story of the prodigal son. What thing of the father's did the son not have? This inheritance is not divided up into pieces and parts. There are not parts that some have and others don't. If part of the inheritance is everlasting than everlasting is what is received upon receiving a full inheritance. Luke 15: 31 "And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine." If "all" means something else to you, then I could see how you would disagree with this opinion. To me, "all" means all including all that happened before, just like the Father received all.

Sorry for your loss. I mostly agree with your view. I think "looking through heavenly eyes" should also include the perspective that all those who make it into the Celestial Kingdom will be sealed to each other. I would also pose a question to ponder, What is a stronger love, the pure love of Christ or the love a temple sealed spouse has for the other spouse? Depending on how one answers that question I think we will find that we won't be so worked up about who is sealed to whom, if we make it into the Celestial Kingdom. We will probably want to be with the one that we shared experiences with here but a worthy partner for eternity is a worthy partner. One other thing is to ponder is the possibility that the percentage of people within the Celestial Kingdom who died before the age of 8 or who had diseases like Down's syndrome may outnumber the people who didn't have those conditions. We are ultimately judged by our words and the desires of our hearts. If by words we say "till death do us part" and God-be-the-judge we say in our heart, I don't plan on aspiring to anything more than an earthly joining, then that is probably what it will be. The stewardship of "eternal marriage" is offered here so that we can have the opportunity for greater stewardship in the next life. But, if we don't take on certain stewardship that was intended for us in this life then we will not be worthy of greater things in the next life. In other words, if God commanded us to live eternal marriage lives here, if I pass that opportunity (if it is available) for something less, why would God give me a greater stewardship?

Well, I think that is a doctrinal question as to whether it really was family or genetic or both. If it is in any way genetic, that carries many implications. Even if it was in the past, the fact that there is a genetic component to this concept says a lot about our belief of the role of the body in our existence here. At least for me, that is the bigger picture.

Thanks, I can appreciate this view. So, in your view, the curse or the blessing has nothing at all to do with any genetic resemblance of one generation to the next. In that light, I find it interesting that Abel and Seth looked like their father. It is interesting that Jesus is in the direct image of His father. It seems that the scriptures try to play both sides of this issue, genetics is a factor versus it is not a factor as the covenant is the thing passed on.

For me, there are two possible implications in this matter that are hard to understand. 1. I don't appreciate the significance of a curse being passed on to generations beyond the lifespan of the original insult. Is this somehow a retroactive punishment for the original sin of the person who is the "father (or mother)" of that lineage or does it have no significance to the original sinner who received the "curse"? In other words, why would Cain care who his great x100 grandson is who didn't get the priesthood because of Cain's actions and not the great x100 grandson's worthiness? He doesn't care for family anyways. Or, how is it possible that a curse that goes on generations affects the first in the lineage? ... To me this sounds like it was more risky to be one of the first to come to this earth if that is what we believe. 2. Can the form (i.e genetics, race etc.) of one's body affect their spiritual potential in this life or not? If a "curse" is based in genes, family lineage and the blessings of being born into a certain family allow for certain privileges then that seems to imply that we believe the limitations of one's body determines the potential for spirituality in this life and that limitation or potential can be passed by genes many generations down the road that would not be affected by first hand teaching or traditions. If an African decent baby was adopted by a white family, members of the church before 1978, that baby still would not be able to receive the priesthood because of the genetic make up, not teachings, traditions or background, right? ... Whether it was a direct revelation from God or not, the issue, for me, is the acceptance of the implication that the genetic make up of one's body can limit or promote spiritual behavior. Is there any limitation or promotion of spiritual behaviors based in genes alone, controlling for environment? What do we believe on that matter?

That is my point, or question, that the "lineage" we are discussing has nothing to do with genes passed on at birth. It is a different kind of lineage, one of passing on the covenants and learning associated with those covenants. So, the word "lineage" is a bit misleading to someone who doesn't understand the use in the gospel. It really has nothing to do with our genes or genetics or race, at least in the mortal sense of those terms. Right? I am not sure why we don't use terms like, line of authority, or something similar instead of lineage. I think lineage is very misleading in that way.

How does this relate to the Priesthood? Then why wouldn't it be that an African descent member of the church who was baptized, received the Holy Ghost and otherwise worthy, who, by this description would have had the seed of Abraham purge out the old blood, not be able to have the priesthood before 1978?

Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about. Thanks for saying it more clearly than I did. I think what you said should be placed in the "one drop of the blood of Cain" perspective. To me, the idea that we are all spirit children of our Heavenly Parents outweighs any possible effect from mortal lineage. ... As Moses said, man is nothing.

The priesthood is denied to "some white, Latino and black people". To whom is not worthy, the priesthood is denied, regardless of genetics. All of the covenants made depend upon personal worthiness. Lineage is a non-issue. In reality, if we are to ponder this a bit, it is the circumstances a person is born into or adopted into that provide the blessings, not the genetics or the lineage. If a baby is adopted into an LDS family, does that not speak louder than who the biological parents were? Really, lineage - genetics, means nothing. Well, that is the question ... knowing what we know about genetics, how does that relate to worthiness of any kind? If anything, in our religion, we believe if a person is born with "bad" genes (for example - trisomy 21) then they are more worthy, they go straight to the Celestial Kingdom. I tend to believe that there is no linear relationship with the body we are born with in this life and the pre-mortal "worthiness" of an individual. The only relationship between what type of temporary body a person gets in this life and their pre-mortal worthiness has to do with what a person was called to do in this life, or not do for that matter, and the associated set up to make that happen. If a person has gotten straight "A's" throughout the semester, so much that the final exam really doesn't count for much, then the final exam for that person may look a lot different than the final exam for the person who really needs to earn the "A" with the final exam. In other words, the tests in this life and the stewardships we carry in this life are not, as a whole, linearly related to how well we did in the previous life. I think that is a highly judgmental stance to suggest that it is. Each person may have some insight as to how well they did in the pre-mortal world based in personal revelation and the patriarchal blessing etc. but as a whole we don't know, just by looking at someone or their circumstances (who are their parents) how well they did before. Only God knows that. Did Lamen and Lemuel do well in the pre-mortal life? Did Cain do well in the pre-mortal life? Did they get their blessed circumstances at birth from their mortal father or the opportunity was based on their own pre-mortal works? We don't know.