Seminarysnoozer

This is interesting. I would like to hear from you why there is a difference in public opinion (maybe I am wrong about this) about Lawyers versus Judges. If you think the public view lawyers the same as judges, I guess you can't respond to that. My guess, about that difference, is that Lawyers are paid to tell one side of the story, whereas Judges hear both sides of the story and don't have a financial or vested interest in who wins the case. Maybe that perception is wrong. And of course, I am not talking about all lawyers but more talking about their hired responsibilities.

Thanks for your responses. This is educational. Please explain the last sentence here, "... might make us dislike the defendant ...". I am not sure about how, as a lawyer, whether the lawyer likes someone or not is supposed to be at play anyways. If both sides, meaning both sets of lawyers had access to both sides of the story, the judge could say, okay lawyer A take the defense and lawyer B take the prosecution for this case, after all the information has been gathered for the actual court appearance. And maybe even mid-case, switch the lawyers from one side to the other. Or even have both lawyers argue both sides of the case at the same time. What would be lost in such a system? Lawyer confidentiality ... is the typical answer. Then the question is what does "lawyer confidentiality" provide to any case? The only thing I could think of would be the ability to limit the outflow of information. Whether it is "germane to the case" could be determined by either lawyer if they are not partial to one side or another. In fact, what is germane to the case should be agreed upon by both sides, both legal counsel. To me, again a limited perspective - I realize, the system promotes secrecy and manipulation of words. Why is it that one lawyer is any better than another? I think the common perspective is that they know how to present material in such a way that is more favorable for their client. Truth should be truth no matter how it is spoken. If it is possible to say truth in such a way as to change a persons perspective about the "truth" than it really isn't truth anymore, it is truth possibly but laden with fluff or deceptive presentation to change opinion. That is what deceive is, to give a false impression, or even an incomplete one. If Lawyer A uses the same words as Lawyer B when they present the case and they both do not have any financial interest in who wins the case, then it is more likely to be spoken truthfully. Words are powerful, we believe in words that save us and words that deceive us. In fact, that is part of our test, to discern, therefore, deceptive words are all around us.

Don't forget though that we believe the glory of the Telestial Kingdom surpasses all understanding. D&C 76:89 "And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding;"

I didn't call anyone to repentance, simply asked how it is possible to deal with what seems to be, from an outside point of view, an apparent conflict. Which is exactly what the OP asked. I didn't say the lawyers had ought against each other but it seems that they are promoting the 'oughts' by their support of the 'oughts' between the two parties. It is similar to the argument of selling liquor if you don't drink it yourself. One could say, we are never going to get rid of it. People want it, and say they need it, so why not sell it? I could support the need but not be a part of it, at least justify it in my mind because I am not the one drinking, just supporting it. Or, how could I operate a large restaurant chain if its not open on Sunday, or a large Hotel Chain that has to sell alcohol in it's restaurants etc. We all face similar contradictions, whatever the field. This string of posts is about the legal field specifically. I don't know what your field is, sounds like you have experience with it. If so, do you know of lawyers that tell their client to not divulge information to the 'other side', the accuser or the defendant? That seems to me, again an outsider but personally familiar with what happens in a court room, to be a form of deceit and a lie when the truth is being asked for. That seems to be a common practice from my point of view. In other words, the 'other side' has to work for that knowledge, to ask the right questions or discover it themselves, luckily, they get paid by the hour. So that deceitful, withholding information, client confidentiality system, increases the cost of the legal system for one and it is to tell a lie to get gain. From an LDS point of view also promotes a secretive, manipulating the truth, withholding information necessity to some extent (not always, not all lawyers, not every case). My assumption, maybe a wrong assumption, is that that situation comes up often with court lawyers. Just for point of discussion, not knowing anything about this case of the OP, say the defendant divulged to the defending Bishop lawyer that 'he thought he would like to get together with the accuser in this case and spend a passionate night with he or she'. Maybe not, but likely the lawyer would say something to the effect of "keep that to yourself". "Have you mentioned that to anyone else?" "Have you written those thoughts in a journal or by email?" "No, okay good, that is just between you and I then, I wouldn't mention that in your statement or in court, unless specifically asked that question." Any, "good" lawyer would give that kind of advice. If that defending lawyer said to himself or herself, "wow, I can't defend this guy now, I am going to tell the prosecutor exactly what he told me and resign from being his defense attorney." And if he did just that, he would be out of a job pretty quick. To me, that is a moral, 'LDS' conflict that I can't see any way out of, other than losing one's job. If you say, 'well, that never happens' .... I don't know, I have seen it happen myself, several times.

There have been many discussions on this forum about things like 'did Adam have a belly button?' or 'did Adam have a mother?' etc. as well as evolution in relation to the Genesis story. So, I am just pointing out, that if we believe in this Jesus' miracle of raising Lazarus then we (it seems to me) have to believe that God can make an adult body from scratch (meaning basic materials), that the body doesn't have to be 'birthed' or 'procreated'.

It takes two to argue. Obviously the forgiveness quote is directed towards the prosecution and not the defense but it is part of the same system as the above described “officers of the law” argument given above. Defending this system of law is to promote accusations, blame, convictions, and charges which are all antonyms of ‘forgive’. I don’t follow your examples of sports and ad campaigns unless you are talking about arguing over a bad call or something. In that case, I would say the umpire or referee should ref the game without argument. But then, if we are comparing a system which has the potential to destroy peoples lives financially or being locked up in jail, I wouldn’t compare that to a game. I never said “all” lawyers. I have heard many advertisements on television (In fact if I look right now for 10 minutes I bet I might hear one) that say in some form or another “get what you deserve”. Or “don’t settle with your insurance, make sure to call a lawyer first”. Tell me how “get what you deserve” attitude is in conjunction with forgiveness or spreading a message of peace. The only argument one would have for that is some kind of an ‘eye-for-an-eye’ reason.

We discussed the story of Lazarus in Sunday School yesterday. I think it is interesting how Lazarus was dead for four days before being brought back to life, back to himself. When a person doesn’t breath or move oxygen to the brain, the neurons are completely destroyed. Some of the tracks still exist in skeleton form, but the cytotoxic process of sodium and calcium rushing into the cells, increased glutamate in the synapses, cellular edema and subsequent breakdown of the cell wall, a pulling back of the neuron’s connections, would leave the brain completely destroyed after 4 days. The return of Lazarus is not like he was in a coma, on a ventilator and the tissue was kept alive and then he woke up. With the story of Lazarus the brain was completely destroyed. The amazing thing about this miracle then is that Jesus, through God’s power completely “rebuilt” the anatomy of Lazarus’ brain back to where it was before he died. I am assuming that he was Lazarus again, able to sit and eat 6 days before Passover and people recognized him as Lazarus and not some other person. To have him be “Lazarus” again would necessitate the duplication of all the 10,000 connections each of the 86 billion neurons in the exact same connection pattern as before, in the exact same 3 dimensional, spatial relationship to recreate the same Lazarus as was there before in terms of his mannerisms, memories, learned behaviors, speech, action, ability to sit and eat, etc. The point I am trying to make and consider, ‘out loud’, is that the body of Lazarus was re-created without birth and contained all the learned neuronal pathways and connections of his mortal life. He was not reborn. Therefore it is certainly within God’s power to create an adult body, in his image or whatever image with certain, pre-programmed neuronal pathways containing memories, learned behaviors etc. without birth and from basic organic material. Just as Lazarus body was ‘dust’ after 4 days … there was a little bit of a shell left over, but mostly destroyed. Just something to ponder …. Creation does not require a new running of evolution. It may have been a part of it but it is certainly within God’s power to create an adult body and put a spirit into it to bring it to life. I think that is the reason Jesus performed that miracle, so we can “see His glory” and either believe it or like some of the Jews did who even saw it, not believe it. I am not trying to debate whether evolution happens or not, just pointing out that God can make a ‘human’ adult body from scratch (basic organic elements and material), as what happened to Lazarus without having to “procreate” it or rebirth it, as Lazarus was not made a baby upon his return.

I think everyone understands the reasons behind having two sides presented but unfortunately that creates a situation that is not in line with being Christ-like. It creates a spirit of contention, of withholding information, to use words in such a way as to alter the truth and deceive. For those of us who do not work in the legal system it seems that the practice of withholding information is commonplace. I was asked to present testimony in a case where the lawyer told me what I should say and what I shouldn’t say. Part of what I “shouldn’t say” was part of the truth. What he wanted me to say was truth, so I wouldn’t be telling a lie, but he didn’t want me to mention part of the truth as to not call attention to certain facts … to me that is a lie and deceit. … So, I didn’t follow those instructions and I told everything I knew when the trial came around and the lawyer was upset with me. This lawyer was LDS, by the way. I see this as a common scenario in our legal system and wonder how someone of our faith deals with that contradiction. Does the “job” of defending someone really take precedence over the admonitions of God? I think a better situation would be if there is no lawyer confidentiality. Maybe one laywer could present the case of the defendant and the other for the accuser in court and the parties have no idea who is presenting which side of the case until court time. But, before the court case is presented both lawyers have equal access to both sides of the story. Or maybe have only one law entity gather information from both sides before trial, the lawyers who present the cases then would have no “confidential” contact with either party. That would also eliminate “hiring the best lawyer money could buy”. And then they would truly be "officers of the court" as you say and not hired gunmen. That way, if there is a lie, it is on the heads of the parties involved and not the “workers” of the law. 3 Nephi 11:29 “For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Mark 11;25And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may bforgive you your trespasses. 26But if ye do not aforgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. D&C 10:28 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, wo be unto him that lieth to deceive because he supposeth that another lieth to deceive, for such are not exempt from the justice of God.”

I agree that their job is to not make moral judgments but there may be a problem with that and maintaining the spiritual connection a Bishop needs to see everything in a moral light. How does one turn that off? I think the problem with this situation is not the 'moral judgement' part, its the 'client gets a fair trial' part that comes in conflict, I think, with gospel teachings. In making sure the 'client gets a fair trial' lawyers often times tell their clients to not say certain things or to present certain facts in a certain light. They protect the information given to them under confidentiality, i.e. - in secret, to 'protect' their client from unfair judgment. To do that correctly requires Jesus-like insight as to the thoughts of the accusers. How does a man know how others will judge his client? Does he really have that amount of insight to say, we will say this but we won't say that unless he knows what the accusers are saying and is willing to testify to that in the next life. If the lawyer withholds any bit of information or conversation he has with his client than he runs the risk of being accused of being in cohorts with the client in the next life, in my opinion. Why put yourself in that position as a man of God?

Eating of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" (in other words 'the tree of death') is the same thing as saying that they did not want to eat of the tree of life. In the situation they were in, the Garden of Eden, those two choices are mutually exclusive. If we say they were kicked out so they wouldn't eat of the tree of life that is the same thing as saying they were kicked out because they ate of the tree of death. These "trees" are symbolic. They are symbolic of wanting to have a probationary period to be tested versus staying under the watchful eye of Father and Mother without the chance for individual success or failure. If an 18 year old wants to move out of the house and live independently from Mom and Dad for a while to prove that she can do it on her own, then that means she does not want to live under the 'completely provided for' roof of her parents. In honoring her decision, the parents may say, "okay, then you are on your own for a short period of time, lets see how you do, this will allow you to grow and learn". "If you really need help, just ask and we will help you." Heavenly Father allowed this to happen because there already was a plan in place for a Savior, knowing that we really couldn't 'do it on our own'. Satan's plan was one of saying from the beginning that he could do it on his own and that he didn't need help from anyone, which is a lie. He wants us to still think that we don't need a Savior, which is a lie. Eternal life is to share in the successes of everything and everyone that is successful. Then, to have an attitude of being able to do it on one's own, by definition is evil. This life is a test to show our true attitude, one of dependence (shared glory) versus one of independence (I will earn any glory on my own and it will be all mine). If we show that we prefer to do it on our own, then God will give us that just like Satan got exactly what he wanted, to be on his own. To value dependency requires a bit of sense of what dependency is (a knowledge of good and evil). My 14 year old thinks she can live on her own today, that is "innocence" not knowing all it takes. She will later appreciate all her parents do for her when she finally does move out and then really develop a sense of dependency. Then she can truly find joy in all that her parents have done for her. Just like now, we can better appreciate the sacrifices and love of our Heavenly Parents, having gone through this life, then share in their glory forever.

Any "kind of time"? What about the passage of time? .... as in "to bring to pass".

It doesn't have to be 'Satan'. Most of the time it is relying on one's own understanding that people think is the right answer. It is like the pharisees who were so tied into their traditions and prideful thoughts about what is right that they didn't even recognize the Savior talking directly to them. They said, this man is not learned, how could he be teaching us, the sons of Abraham, what is right? So, they gave their own understanding more attention than listening to the spirit so they didn't recognize truth. This is why, I've heard some people say it is good for people to attend some sort of church before they get a chance to receive the gospel. That may not always be true. Sometimes people get emotionally attached to religions for various reasons, tradition or family etc, then they harden their hearts to truth when it comes around. This is probably why Joseph Smith was told to join none of them when he was looking. The promptings of Satan are darkness and confusion. Satan has dominion over the earth and everything in it which includes our bodies. We are instructed to not be carnally minded but spiritually minded, then Satan will not have power over us. If one listens to their carnal mind mostly it may seem like an answer or seem like a prompting when they can't hear or feel the spiritual influences any longer.

I agree with all the answers already given. The blessing can be a road map of what God expects out of us in this life and so those things should be pursued. Just realize it may not come about the way you thought it would. Sometimes God makes it happen in an unexpected way. So, we should be prepared for those things as best we can and keep ourselves in circumstances and a level of worthiness which makes it possible.

I doubt there are many LDS that would say Adam was ignorant. They would call his situation innocent. He, at that point, had never been outside of God's direct influence. In the Garden he had walked and talked with God. Your OP, by the way, also describes the situation we had before this life. In the pre-mortal life we were in God's presence and the thought was that we could live that way forever. This is probably why Satan's argument was so appealing to many. But one condition that would not make it possible to stay in God's presence is to stop the potential for eternal progression. Once an individual falls off the scale of that potential to progress eternally they pull away from God's presence. The 'what if' of staying in the Garden would have been a cessation of progression and God would not associate Himself with that situation. It would have also been an impossible situation without the potential to move forward. We don't know exactly how long they were in the Garden before eating from the tree of death. I've heard this metaphor used several times, so I use it myself from time to time. If an 18 year old wanted to become an adult and see if they could learn how to manage on their own and rely on their own abilities, she could only do this by actually leaving her parents home. If she stayed at home there would be no developing of those skills. If she chose to leave her parents home of course then she would have to be cut off for a period of time and not have access to all those resources to truly test those skills. She could still get advice from her parents if she wanted it. But to really reveal her abilities and have that opportunity to gain that kind of experience she would have to cut herself off from direct help and venture out on her own, not really knowing what to expect as she had never done that before, even though she may have had many conversations with her parents about how tough it will be. ... I think it was that type of conversations Adam and Eve had with their Holy Parents and took that leap of faith downward and forward knowing the eternal rewards involved.

The thing is, I never said 'faith alone'. I think we did learn anatomy. If some of us helped in forming this world, we likely had to know how everything would be formed. I think Adam naming animals is somewhat symbolic of that. I think many gifts of the body are just that, not of the spirit. We don't know if Mozart was musically talented before coming here. It depends on how much you think your spirit shines through in your knowledge and personality. If the spirit was that influential in our current natures then wouldn't that shine through at birth? If our spiritual talents were really available to us we would be born talking and playing the piano etc., at least within a few years after becoming physically able to do so. The story of the ten talents suggests that we are given talents to see what we will do with them. Also, where much is given much is expected. We believe in being given a set of circumstances, including talents, a little bit of responsibility, so that we can be stewards over greater things in the future. These are borrowed talents. Often times they are even borrowed likes and dislikes, borrowed passions and preferences. Otherwise, you are going to have to explain why some people have obsessions, some people have a predisposition to depression, some people have a predisposition to anger, etc. You might say those are diseases ... they are just identified diseases, but our whole body is diseased, we are in a fallen state. This is why Moses said, man is nothing. As a whole, I think we put too much of a love of our personal talents as if that is who we really are. That is part of the test, to not fall in love with your carnal state but to use it for the good of others as if it never really belonged to you in the first place. If Mozart claimed musical prowess from his own spiritual ability then he runs the risk of not being thankful for the gift that was given him in this life. The ungrateful servant. All of us will face the risk of not being thankful enough if we say the reason that I am the way I am is because I must have had some special skill in this or that. I think that is dangerous thinking, prideful thinking. Man is nothing. The unskilled person in this life may have been the most skillful in the previous. Do you think Moses had trouble speaking in front of large groups before this life? Do you think Hitler was a great speaker before this life? This is one of the major problems of this world, the world looks at the outside where God looks inside. The world glorifies athletes and models and people with outward talents more than talents based in spiritual power. A perfect body in the next life will have the same amount of 'brain power', agility, beauty, skill, aptitudes etc. as any other perfect body.

The glory associated with keeping my second estate. We are talking about after this life. This whole thread is after this life. What becomes of Christ's wounds after this life. Yes, man is nothing in this fallen state, that is how far we have fallen. The glory that we will receive upon completing our probationary state is so far above where we are now. That is why it is important to understand what kind of learning we are talking about that will be valuable to us in the next life. Our spiritual self is 'more advanced' than any man could be or will be. Sure, that is why the Holy Ghost is 'more advanced' than any of us right now, because man is nothing. We forget how advanced we really are, that is what the veil does. To remember that requires faith. This life is an entrance exam. It's like taking the MCAT. You may learn a few things during the test that you didn't really know before but the majority of the things we are being tested on, which is the true nature of our spiritual self, is already formed. We advanced as far as we could without having a body. In other words, we advanced as far as any spirit could without having a body, including the Holy Ghost. If anything, we are more advanced than the Holy Ghost because we have received our bodies and have taken a step forward. Of course, it doesn't seem like it, it only seems like a step down, but it is also a step forward. The Holy Ghost hasn't taken that step forward yet.

If I can't claim glory from the atonement where else can I claim glory? It is through the atonement that all glory is possible. ... I don't know if you really meant to say that.

It did work, you just don't acknowledge it. Along the lines of your learning you had to have faith in what others told you. When they told you about the clotting enzymes, did you research it yourself? Did you take the decades of research behind that knowledge to figure it out yourself? Did you discover how to make metal instruments by yourself so that you could have a scalpel in your hand? Did you yourself discover the techniques you used, sterile techniques and surgical techniques? No, so you must have had faith in what your instructors were telling you that it is the correct way to do the procedure. Sure, you may have built upon that knowledge and perfected a few things about it. But the majority of the knowledge you have received over the years of training is based on trusting what you hear from your instructors going all the way back to Kindergarten. The statement was how to learn faster. Not whether it was necessary or not. Faith is the fastest way to learn and it is necessary. The reason we have experience here is to learn how to trust in our faith even more. To refine our ability to have faith. That is the purpose of experience. Experience learning requires no higher thought process other than recognizing success or failure. To take experience and learn from it requires faith. To expand on the experience to other situations requires faith. The learning we do in this life is simply to give us opportunity to exercise our faith or develop it. It is not so we will somehow have more factual knowledge in the life to come. How much did we learn before coming here. I thought we are taught that we learned as much possible as a spirit and our growth and ability couldn't go any further without having a body and having a test of faith, the desires of our heart. So, how to overcome body or carnal passions, how to rely on faith and how to develop righteous desires of the heart is the only 'learning' we advance with in this life. As soon as the veil is passed I will guarantee you that I will know more, as well as everyone else, than the greatest surgeon that ever lived in this world about anatomy and surgical techniques. Even from a historical sense, I could look back at this world's events and learn quickly all that took place in terms of medical science. On top of that I will have a perfect body so I will be more adept and agile than any physician ever was. This would be true for every profession and every bit of secular learning if we have perfect faith in this life. In the next life Monson would be just as good of a pilot as anyone if that were something available. I don't see how that kind of question pertains to the value of learning in the Eternities and the pattern of learning for the Eternities. To me, the amount of learning we get in this life is similar to the amount of learning that takes place during a final exam. Sure, one might gather a few facts from the questions themselves but we hope to have all the knowledge we need before we take the test. The majority of the learning has already taken place. We just have to acknowledge it and recognize it by listening to the spirit.

I think part of the reason we may clash a little in these ideas is that I believe glory can be shared. It is something that all those around will be edified by and be a part of. Jesus could not keep the glory for himself if He wanted to. That is not what glory is. And so the Father being glorified in His Savior would have all that glory as well, as if He did all that His Savior did, making it endless and Eternal. When I read, John and the other gospels, I think Jesus' service here in this realm is completely a vector. He says it over and over again that He is only doing what the Father tells him to do that He is not here to judge of to receive honor. I really think that this is the heart of what makes Eternal Life possible. It is possible when every act we have is charitable, not for ourselves. A savior cannot be a savior without someone to save. Just like a teacher cannot be a teacher without someone to teach. We know that when we teach with the spirit, the teacher and the student are both edified. This is the same with our relationship with our Savior. Being the Savior cannot be separated from the people that are saved and so they become equal and receive the fullness of that act. This is how God's glory can go on forever because He is constantly sharing in the glory of all that do good. We have that ability too. The Celestial Kingdom is made up of those that truly care about the success of others, including the success of Jesus. So, when He is successful, we are all successful and we all equally rejoice. To only rejoice in one's own successes is limiting. This is the opposite of the gospel of Christ. I completely disagree with the idea that the fastest way to learn is through trial and error. The fastest way to learn is by faith. This is why the people in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom are not those that simply endured the worst forms of trial there may be but those that exhibited faith when there was no trial. Those that kept their faith during hardships will receive their just reward but also where much is given much is expected. As each circumstance is different, God will determine what the passing level of faith is for each circumstance. But the pass is not determined by how much was endured but by how much faith was exhibited during those trials. The reason that being "like a child" is the fastest way to learn is that they don't question the authority of the person or ask for 'credentials' or say 'prove it'. (Yes, there are some kids that do that, but the metaphor of "like a child" represents one who is submissive) We learn the fastest when we don't have to prove every little concept for ourselves. I don't have to touch the flame to know that it is hot and will burn me, I have faith in those that tell me it will. I don't have to descend as far as Jesus did because he did it for me and if I really have faith in Him, enough to follow His gospel teachings, then that is good enough, it is as if I have done it with Him. Just like we don't all have to be the Bishop or the Relief Society President or the Prophet for that matter. We can all be edified in each other and receive the fullness. When my children do well in something, they get an A on an exam or they behave well, I feel their joy almost as if I did it myself. I know this concept is hard to understand in this life but that is what the love of Christ is all about, that is what being charitable is. God is a charitable God and therefore shares in all of our successes and we can share in His too. The members of the Celestial Kingdom will have to have that same attitude, which is brought about by having real faith in Christ, that we can be one through Him.

The atonement only works on continued progression? So it does not work on people that make it into the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdom? I've never heard that before. What is "sacrifice" in the next life? What is it that one would have in the next life that they could give up? I can't think of a single thing. If it is self-sacrifice or service that you are talking about, that would be just who we are, whatever level of service we offer is who we are nothing more and nothing less, it doesn't vary depending on being pulled this way or that. Sacrifice only really has meaning in this life, in a probationary state where there is choice between right and wrong, where the carnal mind pulls us in one direction opposite of the spiritual drives. What adversarial force are we going to be facing in the next life? I don't think we will be faced with "difficult" tasks in the next life. That can be found nowhere in our gospel. They would seem difficult to us here, of course, in this fallen state and interpreted through carnal eyes. Our work will be what we love and we will find joy in our work without interpreting it as "difficult". Struggle, difficulties, trials etc. are not part of the Eternal Life that I am shooting for. Which is different than saying there will be a love of hard work, industry and performing God's errands. I think if one interprets that kind of work as "difficult" or "sacrifice" then they wont be doing it.

Unfortunately, I have been really busy lately and haven't been able to put in as much thought to my responses as I normally do. I appreciate your exchange and patience. I am trying to understand your viewpoint more. I wish I had more time to put into this right now because I think these are interesting topics. ... In my view, by honoring the office, we are only honoring the power of God and His authority. Even Jesus gave all glory and honor to God not for himself. I think authority and honor are different. I would like to know where you got that information that you know who the Holy Ghost is and how advanced you think he is. Of course, we are in a fallen state right now, anyone who is not in a fallen state, I suppose we could argue is more "advanced" then us just by definition of what the fallen state does. I am sure his office also gives him power and authority that the rest of us don't have but that is not a measurement of advancement or not, that was my point about offices. We do not believe that if a person gets put in as bishop that they are more "advanced" then any other member of the high priests who is in good standing who has not been bishop. If one makes it to the Celestial Kingdom, the highest level, on Judgment day, and (as you agreed above) they receive all the power and authority then what other probationary period do they need to pass through? Of course, I am not saying they get it all at that moment, don't get me wrong. I agree with there being plenty of work, but not trials. To me a "probationary" period means that there is a chance for failure. And 'trial' also implies a chance for failure. "Probationary" and "trials" are not guaranteed advancement. The way I understand the gospel of Jesus Christ is that the judgment day is final, the "rest" comes in that there is no more probationary status, which has nothing really to do with work. We are currently in a probationary period that will end all probationary periods, unless you think there is some "third" or "fourth" estate, etc. You think I have that wrong?

You are now saying words I didn't say. I never said "easy". Matthew 27:46 is part of Jesus life here. Are we talking about the fullness of His glory or not? In D&C 76 it says that those that make it into the Celestial Kingdom will be given all things. I guess for you, "all" doesn't really mean all. As for the previous post about the Holy Ghost, I don't think we are taught in the Church anywhere that when a person holds an office that they are somehow better than someone else. Where does it say that the Holy Ghost is more advanced than anyone here? We honor the office, not the man.

This is exactly why I think "rest" means rest from trials. I agree with continued work. What does "rest" mean to you then?

I agree with continued learning but I don't know about continued trials and tests. Why anyone learns from the specific experience they have in this life is something that we don't know and even the person themselves would have to be spiritual in tune to barely understand the meaning of why they have to go through things in this life. That is part of the test of faith we face here. Having faith building experiences will allow us to learn faster in the next life. Some people, though, apparently have shown their valiance sufficiently in the pre-earthly life that not much of a test of faith is necessary, for whatever reason. Everyone has been given a different set of circumstances that I think will be sufficient, combined with the things that take place in the spirit world to make a final decision about their eternal status. That is the plan of Salvation that I know, I don't know of other off-shoots that say we may some day alter our potential by passing through other probationary states. I don't think learning has to continue in a place or circumstances where failure is an option or turning away from the course is an option after this life. I think 'come unto my rest' means just that, no more trials. Work yes, learning yes, but not by trial and error and not by 'refiner's fire' techniques.

From those same quotes it says under reference 4; "The statement evidently refers to the fact that the Holy Ghost has yet to receive a mortal body. The word "probationary" referring to all who have not received the resurrection" So, that would still fall under this probationary period, not another one. From the point of our 'first estate' test through the completion of the 'second estate' I suppose could be called a probationary period. .... is there a "third", "fourth" estate? From those quotes it sounds like the Holy Ghost is still between the first and second estates.