Seminarysnoozer

My question was not aimed at you Seminarysnoozer. I was hoping Crypto would come back to the thread and reply to it.
 
M.

We believe that all that are here believed in Christ plan before coming here and thus passed the first estate test.  All here freely obtain everlasting life from Christ' atonement. They will all go onto resurrection because they believed in Him and had faith in His plan.  Now, we face the test of doing what we said we would before this life, to do the things that are asked of us, in faith.
All here will receive a degree of glory because of their faith in the plan exhibited by even being here in the first place.  Those that did not believe in Christ' and God's plan are not born here in this life.
The plan of happiness (also known as the plan of salvation) is more happy and glorious than most people realize, it allows for a merciful and loving God to reward His children with everlasting life because they believed and had faith in His plan. 
 
Christ stated, forgive them for they know not what they do.  How could fogiveness be given if they don't believe in this life and don't know what they are doing?  Because they already passed the first estate test. 
 
The idea of only saving those "15 million" who demonstrate faith in this life is certainly not a belief of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  That must be based in some other understanding.

That is your emotional reaction to my posts.  I made a post in reaction to the OP and then you started to pick apart my post trying to find motive behind it.  It was not the other way around.  I did not make a post to make others not post. I gave my opinion (that is what this forum is about and the OP) which is what the OP was asking.  You expected me to post something other than that defined by me with a question about how "you live the gospel"?  You expected me to post something about how other people live the gospel?  I don't understand your desire to find motive behind why I post the way I do.  If you disagree with me, fine, that happens all the time.  Please go ahead and disagree with me, that is what the forum is about.  Post your beliefs.  Tell me why I am wrong.  I am okay with that.  I am open to learning and growing.
 
My belief is that the full "gospel" is contained within the church.  That is what I have been taught.  If I am wrong, I do not know it despite my many prayers over many decades of life in search for truth.  This does not mean that other religions could have parts and pieces of the truth and parts of the gospel.  To live the gospel to me, means to live it fully.  If you think one can live the gospel partially then go ahead and post that, you don't have to pick appart my motives to do that.  If you believe the LDS church is not the gospel or does not encompass all of the gospel then go ahead and post that, I am not stopping you.  I am not a moderator.

I think I can't, I think I can't .... choo choo!
 
If you can't stand it and can't believe it and can't have faith in it, why are you posting on this forum?   There is some other motive.

Yeah, but when there are conflicting things to obey, as Joseph Smith discovered, one has to decide which teaching to obey. That makes it not so simple for someone who hasn't discovered the truth.

It doesn't.

I am a little confused, are you suggesting that if we think upon philosophical questions then we must not be doers of the word?
 
Is a person able to be a doer of the word while pondering other questions, even philosophical ones?
 
I assume we are all subject to our personal opinions of what is vain and what is not.  As a bishopric member, although this doesn't make me anymore special than any of my brothers and sisters -- I don't have any issue with pondering philosophical questions while magnifying my calling, serving the youth as we go to the temple 3 times a month, they are invited to my home for duty to God, they help index and are now even finding temple names for our temple visits.
 
We serve in many other ways...yet, I agree, if we forget the basic principles of the gospel then we have missed the point. 

Thank you, everyone. I agree. Exercising agency in one direction does not equate to no agency. I love my wife and so I would never do anything unfaithful to her. It doesn't mean I have less or no agency, I've already exercised my agency and am sticking to my decision. It would be the same in the Celestial Kingdom. I have already exercised my agency here on earth, after careful deliberation, to Follow God. Once I'm in the Celestial Kingdom (provided I have lived worthily enough) I am just sticking to my decision. I would only ever exercise my agency to disobey God if He chose evil.
P.S., Thank you to the mod/admin who cleaned up my accidental duplicate thread.

Thanks, I completely agree with your quotes and statements here.
 
I guess I am trying to explain to those reading this that the term "man" and the use of the word "flesh" of man refers only to beings that are the offspring of God.   I also believe that Adam and Eve are the first of our race as you have quoted but that does not preclude the preparation for mortality including creations that are human-like but not man.
 
I would also consider the idea that "our race" really is not the current body we have.  Our current body is a fallen one which is in the image of God but had to be transformed from the Garden of Eden version that Adam and Eve first received.  Our race is the type that lives forever.  Our current body could not fit that description any more than one could say that an ape is like a human.  Our bodies (not spirit) have more in common with an ape right now with this current fallen body than we do with a being that lives forever.  And that is why I think it is easy to forget who we really are and people start to accept their fallen state as self.  Part of our Earthly test is to avoid spiritually internalizing carnal traits, to avoid calling the physical carnal body, self.   Of course, if one believes that we did not fall that far from the paradisical state to our current state then one would believe there hardly is any difference.  But if we did not fall that far, then Christ' atoning act is no big deal.  The magnitude of the Fall is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Atonement.  To me, those were big events. If those were big events then our current physical body is far from being like "our race".
 
To become "our race" a humanoid body would have to have been first created as a perfect, paradisiacal body in surroundings that were perfect and then fall from that state.  Obviously, that does not describe the process of evolution, it is more lke the opposite direction, a down grade. The down grade or temporary state will be reversed and then we will go back to being "our race".   Human pride centers around the idea that we are upgraded versions of previous forms and that is the evil of the theories of evolution.  Whereas, humility comes from realizing that we are in a fallen state from the original creation, fallen so far that we can't get out of the pit without help, we couldn't naturally get back to that state. Satan loves to try to teach people that they don't need God or His ways to be like God, that they can somehow naturally get there on their own.

Science is only good as according to the evidence and knowledge of the time.  Science hasn't disproven the flood, only the idea of what they understand the flood to be according to their limited knowledge and limited resources.
 
If you can provide me any evidence regarding macro evolution I would be welcomed to it.  There isn't any empirical evidence of a fish becoming anything else but a fish.  There isn't any evidence of an ape becoming anything but an ape.  There isn't any evidence of a human becoming (the change of alleles) anything but a human.
 
What evidence, common or empirical, is science able to provide regarding this? We have plenty of bacteria but all bacteria reproduce more bacteria.  What single celled organism do we have for evidence of becoming anything but a single celled organism when it reproduces?  
 
Edit: The only answer to this I receive, "It takes millions of years for a macro evolution to occur".  Isn't evidence then, but a supposition according to their understanding of what exists.

I agree. There are some laws out there that make me scratch my head, too.
I was intrigued by you stating that you fail to see the how the virtue to appreciate love connects to/is the same as the virtue to abide by law. I think the answer is rather simple, for me at least.
I abide law because I love God.
John 14:15 - "If ye love me, keep my commandments" could potentially read as, "If ye love me, abide by my law." So, if the first great commandment is to love God, then along with that comes a mighty commandment to abide His law ("keep my commandments.")
My wife asks me constantly to do little things that are seemingly insignificant, and seemingly have nothing to do with my commitment to love her. However, I do them because I do love her.
This brings back our prior discussion from a previous thread: morals emerging in, and becoming sensible because of, relationships. We can also say that law becomes sensible because of relationships. And, in particular, law becomes sensible to us because of our relationship with Heavenly Father. I close with an example:
On the surface, I see very little reason why Heavenly Father as asked us to abstain from tea. It makes no sense to me. There are as many (claimed) health benefits as health risks. Maybe more benefits. Without the relational context between myself and Heavenly Father, it does make no sense to follow that commandment (law), and therefore, I do have a right to be suspicious. However, once the context of my relationship with Heavenly Father is brought back into the picture, then it makes sense. He loves me and would only command something He believed to be in my best interest. Because I love Him, I want to obey. I can receive an answer from Him in prayer confirming what He does and does not want me to do. He and I have a relationship. We work together and I trust in His guidance.

Excellent. I very much agree with your sentiments regarding love and virtue. One could argue that without virtue there can be no love.
I appreciated your points about love and faith regarding abiding a particular glory. I also must admit that I have wondered in the past how a religion can be the deciding factor on such matters.
Another point I'd like to add to Seminarysnoozer's great response to your post is that of law. When you read D&C 88:20-32, law is mentioned. People will decide which glory they can abide based on which law they chose to live on earth: a celestial, terrestrial, or telestial law. And, they will likely choose that law based on their personal degree of faith.
In order for us to live by Heavenly Father's law, we must know it. He could choose any medium He wanted to inform us of His law, but he chose to have His church, led by a prophet of his choosing, be the meduim through which he informed us. I know you know this, I apologize for digressing. Please, bear with me.
With love comes the principle of agape: loving people enough to not enable them to escape their consequences. What my baseball coaches sometimes called tough love. But, agape requires love and love requires virtue. Law also requires virtue, as does living by it require virtue.
It is virtuous for Heavenly Father to have law, and it is virtuous of Him to exercise justice and mercy according to that law. Justice is where agape comes in.
Now let's consider seminarysnoozer's point about covenants and authority. We covenant with Him to abide by His law. The priesthood is required to fulfill many of the saving ordinances that His law requires. A church is needed (de facto Heavenly Father's decree) to administer that law and the authority to perform the ordinances required of the law. Those who make and keep their covenants to abide this law will be able to abide a celestial law. Their spirits will be capable of abiding it (similar to how a hand with an oven glove is capable of abiding a 400 degree oven). Those who don't abide it here will be unable to abide it in the hereafter.
So, you are intuitive, and impressively so, to pick up on love and faith in this debate. The additional piece is law.
I really hope this provides a puzzle piece or two for you. Let me know if I can explain anything a little differently.

I believe the various accounts of creation that we have are focused on telling us the Who (God) and the Why(To fulfill his purposes) of the creation.
 
I think we are not on very solid ground when we try to figure out the How from those accounts because that is not what they were intended to teach (Beyond it being by God's power)

I think, too, being debt free and having food storage alleviates the need to focus on carnal things so much. We have finally got out of major debt recently and I find I have more time to focus on spiritual things.  I am not spending half my day trying to go over hospital bills and home bills and pushing money here and there to make sure we don't get into trouble.  Also by doing food storage I have found that we don't go out to eat as often and waste money that way.  Maybe that is a strange association but I have been more careful with my food purchases as well. 
 
By not focusing on carnal things as much we make ourselves more spiritual even if the "big event" doesn't occur soon.  I think it puts a new twist on the scripture verses; "31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
 34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
 
If one is living from paycheck to paycheck then the thought is always "what shall we eat, wherewithall shall we be clothed" etc. In other words, by not living on the credit card we dont think so much about where we are going to eat tonight or what clothes to buy.  Those options are often off the table when living within our means.

Morals do exist objectively, the same as wave lengths do. But those morals only become sensible to us in the context of our relationships, the same as those wave lengths only become sensible to us when our eyes perceive them as colors.Imagine if Plato had posed this dilemma with God and colors instead of God and morals. Charles Taylor's book The Sources of the Self: Making of Modern Identity, and John Macmurray's book Persons in Relation speak to these issues very coherently and convincingly. Consider taking a gander at these sources.

I will respond quickly – I believe this subject is critical in understanding the purpose of life and divine nature.   If we try to judge anything of life or of G-d using only the empirical parameters between an individual’s birth and death – the only possible conclusion is that actual justice and a G-d of divine character is at best a deceptive and cruel fantasy.    If however, we look at life as one of many opportunities to gain understanding of an eternal conflict between “good” and “evil” we can realize that a “one size fits all” heaven or hell is neither necessary nor sufficient solution to good and evil as well as a loving companionate G-d verses a cruel enslaving Satan.   
 
Heaven and hell is not so much what we may believe or even want as it is the reality of what we desire most has in evolving our character.

I disagree with the idea that our vices and virtues are down to our own choices directly. (key word being directly)  I am sure some will disagree with me as far as that goes.
 
We have all been given different challenges and trials in this life.  For some it may be a genetic propensity for alcoholism, for example.  If one chooses never to drink alcohol then it is not a problem.  If one, however, chooses to drink and there is a genetic drive for alcoholism then the trap has been sprung which may be very difficult to get out of. The why's related to why someone has this trial vs another is something we are not privy to at this time.  Another might be given a genetic drive towards same sex attraction, etc. We can say for sure that our carnal body's drives will be different than our spiritual inclinations and that is what presents the test we face, that is what sets up the test and the challenge. We are not expected to overcome the challenges of this life on our own and this seems fair because we did not cause the challenge on our own. 
 
As Christ answered the question of who sinned to make the blind man blind from birth and He answered it was neither the blind man or his parents.  At the same time, it is not an accident.  Certain challenges and trials are specifically placed for our test in life and our development.
 
Also keep in mind that again we believe that we are currently dual beings with opposing natures, one carnal and one spiritual.  The carnal self is not really self, it is a temporary stewardship from which we are to show our faithfulness.  See the parable of the ten talents.  The talents were given in the beginning of the parable, the stewards did not come up with the talents on their own, they were temporary stewardships.

I disagree with the idea that our vices and virtues are down to our own choices directly. (key word being directly)  I am sure some will disagree with me as far as that goes.
 
We have all been given different challenges and trials in this life.  For some it may be a genetic propensity for alcoholism, for example.  If one chooses never to drink alcohol then it is not a problem.  If one, however, chooses to drink and there is a genetic drive for alcoholism then the trap has been sprung which may be very difficult to get out of. The why's related to why someone has this trial vs another is something we are not privy to at this time.  Another might be given a genetic drive towards same sex attraction, etc. We can say for sure that our carnal body's drives will be different than our spiritual inclinations and that is what presents the test we face, that is what sets up the test and the challenge. We are not expected to overcome the challenges of this life on our own and this seems fair because we did not cause the challenge on our own. 
 
As Christ answered the question of who sinned to make the blind man blind from birth and He answered it was neither the blind man or his parents.  At the same time, it is not an accident.  Certain challenges and trials are specifically placed for our test in life and our development.
 
Also keep in mind that again we believe that we are currently dual beings with opposing natures, one carnal and one spiritual.  The carnal self is not really self, it is a temporary stewardship from which we are to show our faithfulness.  See the parable of the ten talents.  The talents were given in the beginning of the parable, the stewards did not come up with the talents on their own, they were temporary stewardships.

I disagree with the idea that our vices and virtues are down to our own choices directly. (key word being directly)  I am sure some will disagree with me as far as that goes.
 
We have all been given different challenges and trials in this life.  For some it may be a genetic propensity for alcoholism, for example.  If one chooses never to drink alcohol then it is not a problem.  If one, however, chooses to drink and there is a genetic drive for alcoholism then the trap has been sprung which may be very difficult to get out of. The why's related to why someone has this trial vs another is something we are not privy to at this time.  Another might be given a genetic drive towards same sex attraction, etc. We can say for sure that our carnal body's drives will be different than our spiritual inclinations and that is what presents the test we face, that is what sets up the test and the challenge. We are not expected to overcome the challenges of this life on our own and this seems fair because we did not cause the challenge on our own. 
 
As Christ answered the question of who sinned to make the blind man blind from birth and He answered it was neither the blind man or his parents.  At the same time, it is not an accident.  Certain challenges and trials are specifically placed for our test in life and our development.
 
Also keep in mind that again we believe that we are currently dual beings with opposing natures, one carnal and one spiritual.  The carnal self is not really self, it is a temporary stewardship from which we are to show our faithfulness.  See the parable of the ten talents.  The talents were given in the beginning of the parable, the stewards did not come up with the talents on their own, they were temporary stewardships.

this really requires knowing a "first cause" sort of situation about god on which there there is little to none info.

I'd say both, with more leaning towards God wills good because possibly Good was already there. If Christ was literal in saying that he does what he's seen his Father do, then this would seem to suggest a cycle of Gods and Saviors in which there were conditions already present within which God works. However this really doesn't answer the question just moves it along to another notch on the ring it travels.

You can probably do well with either reasoning, either way to be "Good" we must abide God's laws whether they were first or not.
 

Well, per my post above, I'm not overly fond of using modern terms like "Mormon" in discussions like this that (theoretically) span thousands of years.
 
In the prior life ("pre-mortal life" or "pre-existence", in Mormon jargon), there were those who agreed to follow God--and those who fought Him.  Only those who agreed to follow Him were allowed to be born on this earth.  Per Mormon teaching, every person who was ever born made this agreement, regardless of what religion they currently follow--by "keeping the first estate" (remaining true and faithful to God in the pre-mortal life) they qualified themselves for their "second estate" (receiving a physical body here on the earth).
 
 
Again, avoiding that pesky presentist word "Mormon"--yes, the population of the celestial kingdom will be determined by the degree to which we accept and follow the true gospel of Jesus Christ (or as much of it as we have had an opportunity to hear).
 
 
Partly, yes (Mormons call this stage the "spirit world", by the way).  The righteous, faithful spirits are in a state called "paradise", and Mormons believe that those in paradise spend this period teaching the true gospel both to those who have wandered away from the true gospel; and to those who never had an opportunity to hear the gospel.  Collectively, both of those classes of individuals are in a state called "spirit prison". 
 
Individuals who never had an opportunity to hear the full gospel in mortality, but would have accepted it if they had had a chance to hear it and lived their lives in compliance with whatever degree of light and knowledge they actually had in their lifetimes, are still eligible to enter into the Celestial Kingdom if they accept the gospel when it is taught to them in spirit prison.
 
 
Substituting out that term "Mormon" again--that's essentially how I see it, yes.  In Mormon parlance, the event is called the "resurrection and final judgment".
 
There are some nuances/complications to the above (as a general principle, for example, not everyone is resurrected at once--individuals who have obtained a celestial glory will be resurrected before those who receive a terrestrial glory); but those are the fundamentals.  :)

Thats one reason why we have ordinances for the dead. Those who weren't eligible or unable to receive the ordinances and covenants in live have the option to do so in death. God wasn't saying that they never would receive the ordinances... He said that from the time of Brigham Young to 1978, it wasn't a good idea for them to be ordained... in this life. No matter how we might think of it, or how unfair it might seem, God ALWAYS has reasons for how and when he does things. He has not chosen to disclose those reasons to us, because it isn't really necessary for us to know. We can speculate on why, but we will not know until He chooses to confide in us. It is quite possible that some of the reasons he restricted the priesthood we couldn't simply comprehend fully in our mortal state.
 
As for speculation... (And this is my personal believe as to what one of those reasons might be.) IF you think about it a certain way: up until the late 1970's, racism was a very big part of the culture within the US, to the point of lynchings and mob violence. Knowing that, how do you think the racists and bigiots (Both within and without the church) would react if African Americans were ordained to the  priesthood before the late 1970's?
 
By 1978, the Civil Rights movement had wound down, and people were just now starting to accept that as the norm of things. The right circumstances which were necessary for Official Declaration 2 had come. African Americans were freed from slavery, and were now on completely equal terms with others, and thus it was much safer for African American church members.
 
How's that for reasoning?
 
 
Now, This also deals with speculation and personal belief. What I express is what I feel is the truth. I cannot speak for the whole church, or for other members.
 
1. Does God worship His Father?
 
I cannot say for sure, but I would imagine so. The word "Worship" has many meanings, one of which is "adoring reverence or regard", which basically means that when we are commanded to worship God, he is simply asking us to honor Him, be respectful, and to love Him. 
 
Another meaning of the word worship, (more of a connotation than an actual definition) is something along the lines of "To imitate" or "to act like"; or in other words, by trying to be like Christ, we are worshipping him.
 
Why am I explaining this? I'm sure you can see it. God worships his Father: He is like His Father, in the sense that He is a divine being. He honors, respects, and loves His Father... just like He loves us., and as we honor and respect our Father.
 
2. Does God live with His Father in the Celestial Kingdom?
 
Extrapolation based off of what we know of Heavenly Father would seem to suggest so, although I cannot say for certain. It could be that He literally lives with our Heavenly Grandfather, or it could be that He lives with His Father figuratively.
 
I would probably guess it would be figuratively.
 
3. "Do you ever feel that introducing all these other Gods detracts from Heavenly Father's glory? I mean, if there are Gods before Him then He's no longer the Almighty, or the Most High, or anything like that."
 
To put it simply, I do not. Heavenly Father's creations are His own. 
 
The easiest way to think about it would be to include the theory of Multiple Universes. Each God has their own set of creations, their universe or universes, with each having their own set of laws that determine how they are governed, set up as its Creator sees fit. In each of these universes their respective God is the Almighty, or Most High, because they were created by that being, and that God governs His universe.
 
So by that logic, Heavenly Father is still the Most High... of our universe, because He is the highest authority in this universe, and therefore to us. We answer to Him.
 
4. "If God has a physical body does He walk around, talk, touch, hug, etc, other people (his wife/wives, spirit children, etc) in Heaven?"
 
Yes, God can walk around and talk, touch, hug, etc. After all, thats what Jesus did, right? He ate food after being resurrected. Since Jesus is like the Father, it stands to reason that he can do so as well. I think He does, if I am to believe what the Scriptures indicate about Him, HOWEVER, I must also point out that he may have other ways of communicating and expressing His love.
 
"Do they have houses?"
 
Well, I did read in the bible that there were many mansions in Heaven, but that could quite easily be a metaphor. I think they may have houses, but I'm not so sure that there is any real need for houses up in Heaven, except maybe as a way for people to show their depictions of beauty or something like that.
 
5. "If there is a chain of God's (eternal regression along with eternal progression) then where did it all begin? Is there a God out there that always was? I think atheism is irrational because it requires an infinite regress of causes in order to explain existence, and to me the LDS conception of God seems to suffer from the same problem. It's 'turtles all the way down'."
 
"Turtles all the way down" is quite literally how I see it. In order to understand it, you also need to understand how we view Time, which has a very similar "issue" as you call it.
 
The easiest way I can think of to describe it would be to quote from one of my favorite book series, The Wheel of Time: "The Wheel of Time turns, and ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legends fade to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called the third age by some, an Age yet to come, an age long pass, a wind rose in the Mountains of Mist. The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings or endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning."
 
Its kinda like that, except time is linear instead of circular, and nothing is forgotten. (The whole time being circular is based on the fact that history repeats itself anyway...) We believe that we all have existed in some form or another for all of Eternity. Eternity literally means infinity... or no beginning or ending... just one continuous line that stretches onward and onward. There is no "THE beginning" or "THE END", but there are beginnings and endings to many things, such as our mortal life, but there is no beginning or ending to Time. Time is the literal definition of Eternity: Infinite. 
 
Its very hard to wrap your mind around. It makes sense, in theory, but when you try to wrap your mind around it, you just can't comprehend infinity. Our minds just cannot take that implication, so we segment time, and place a mark here, and another mark there, and call one the beginning and the other the end.
 
So likewise is the reason why the phrase "Turtles all the way down" seems so illogical. Our physical minds are programed to see in limits and absolutes. Birth and Death, the beginning, and the end.
 
As far as I am concerned, there are an infinite number of Heavenly Beings and generations of Heavenly Beings, just as time itself is infinite. It seems logical to me, based on my understanding of Eternity. If time is infinite, and God is Endless, why couldn't there be an infinite number of Generations of deity?
 
(tl;dr: Really? Go back and read it, one bite at a time.)
 
 
 
 

Mormons believe that we all believed in Christ and His plan before coming here.  There was an assessment of that belief that we call the First estate. If one believed and had faith in a Savior then one passed the first estate test.  If not then they followed Lucifer in his rebelion against that plan, they essentially did not believe that a Savior could help them.  So, the weeding out of who believed and who didn't believe has already taken place.
 
Now we face a test of integrity, in other words, to what degree did we believe in Christ.  Do we believe in Christ despite being behind a veil of forgetfulness and being tempted by carnal things or do we give into the carnal nature and forget about our spiritual upbringing.  Kind of like when a young adult leaves the home, do they follow what their parents taught or are they swept away by the temptations of the world.  That is the kind of test we face now having already stated that we believe in Christ before the test began.  To what degree do we believe in Christ and have faith in God.  It is a test of Character, a test of integrity or what we sometimes say; 'the desire of the heart' or true nature.
 
The various challenges we face in life do not reflect in a one to one way our spirituality.  Some that were very successful in the previous life are born with conditions like Down's syndrome others that were very successful in the previous life might have special callings such as becoming a general authority for the church or maybe being the first one in their family to accept the gospel which allows for generations to follow in the same path.  Some who were successful in the previous life might be born at a time when the gospel was not around or in a place where it could not be received and so will receive it in the spirit world. The degrees of glory in the next life can hardly be measured by our acts in this world because it has to be judged in light of the desire of the heart and what was given in this life.  Where much is given much is required.  God will be the judge of that, looking at all the variables we cannot see at this time.

@Just a Guy
 
OK. Let me try again, suitably corrected.
 
The celestial is populated exclusively by Mormons who came to believe in their mortal lives.
The terrestrial is populated by unbelievers (including other Christians) in their mortal lives, who find Mormon belief after their temporal deaths, but before the last resurrection.
The telestrial is populated by those who do not find Mormon belief until the last resurrection. (Second coming?)
The rest don't make any kind of heaven at all, damned by their stubborn unbelief.
 
Any better?
 
Best wishes, 2RM.
 
@seminarysnoozer. Just seen your post. I'm going to need to mull it over. I'm not ignoring you.

Romans 10
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
 
Verse 13 sets it up why its important and 14 and 15 explain the role the missionaries fill.
 
Missionaries will preach.  Some will hear and act on that thus being enabled to find God themselves.  Others will not hear and continue looking for God in some other way.
 
The missionaries will talk you you about God, Christ, Prophets.  Then they will present Joseph Smith as a modern prophet and the Book of Mormon as additional scripture and invite you to read and pray about the Book of Mormon and ask God if it is true.
 
Having pointed the way it is then up to you.  If your personal study and prayers lead you to accepting the Book of Mormon then the missionaries will preach to you about other things Joseph Smith did as a prophet of God and invite you to continue your personal quest in finding out more about God.
 
If you reach a point where you don't believe what the missionaries are preaching, you tell them that and they go away.