Bensalem

I guess the fact that I was not sure whether you were 'scolding' or (educating) proves your point well enough. But that doesn't mean I didn't make a judgment of sorts. When I cross the street with an approaching car I look at the driver to judge whether or not they see me and whether or not their car is slowing down. It is true I don't see into their heart (they may actually want to run me over), but I am making judgments (aka, assessments). Same as when I am speaking to someone of our gospel. I am asking questions of them to try to determine where they stand with God. That is a judgment I have to make before I can teach them anything. As for my daughter, she does not acknowledge God and does not understand a thing about Christ or his purpose. She therefore cannot do her good works with "an eye single to the glory of God". Does that diminish her good works? Not in the eyes of the poor and underprivileged students she serves. She does, however, understand that good is rewarded and evil is punished. This principle remains with the covenant of accountability Noah made in God (Genesis 9:5). So her good will serve her well as a spirit child of Noah. Even if she does not know it, her service to the poor serves Christ. My daughter has a lot to learn before she can accept the covenants which may some day bring her to me in the tribe of Ephraim. But she has more than a Millennium to progress.

Thanks for the quotes. I'll add them to my side of the discussion with my daughter. Although my views have changed in lieu of the following post by 'HiJolly':

I'm not sure if you are 'scolding' (educating) me for judging or my daughter for being a mere 'hireling'. Could you please be more specific before I attempt an answer?

I can't abide by such a statement. We do not choose which kingdom we end up in. God must still judge our heart and our deeds. If we are judged worthy, He blesses us by placing us in the appropriate kingdom (glory).

But neither is Christ complete without a female component.

I have no problem with the idea or practice of celestial martial relations.

I agree with you. It may have gone that way.Do you acknowledge that it could also be as a describe in #2?

So it is a command, not a covenant. And judgment of "heed and dilegence" is granted. It is akin to not feeding meat to those who are still nursing on milk.

That is exactly why I prefer the concept that a perfect (celestial) being came to Jesus in this life from the Father as fulfillment of a promise sealed in the Holy Spirit. (See post immediately before yours.)

Sorry for not remembering your engagement of my comment on the "Glory Days" thread. Both threads have educated me on the root of the problem (sorry again, I'm a slow learner). Please correct me if I'm wrong. Jesus had to be married before his mortal death because he was resurrected in three days and marriage does not occur after the resurrection of the dead. (I'm not mentioning the fact that marriage is required for exaltation since I never disputed that point.) This understanding is imposed by LDS revelation and Mark 12:18-27. It all comes down to the limitations of this three day window of Christ's resurrection. As it stands, this leaves only two options: 1) Jesus took an earthly and mortal wife. 2) A wife was sealed unto him by the Holy Spirit of promise and God fulfilled the promise of a wife in a celestial way while Jesus was still on earth. Since I do not sustain the first purely terrestrial version, I stand witness to the second celestial miracle.

I'm thinking of starting a new thread: "Why would anyone abhor to discuss our Heavenly Mother".

Please explain. I went through the entire 'program' of the LDS church including the Temple ordinances and don't remember ever promising "not to share (my) private revelation(s) with the world".

After all I've said on this thread (and the one I started before this one) about the marriage of Jesus, why would you have to convince me that he is married? Of course, he is (now) married. We could not be Christ's spirit children born in the Church if he was not married. I just don't think he was married to an earthly wife 2000 years ago. I said in one of my posts, he could have been sealed to a wife by the Holy Spirit of promise and that marriage could have been consummated in a celestial way 2000 years ago, but nobody followed up with a comment. As far as "reject(ing) to many of the eternal principles that should be a part of our understanding of the covenant of marriage and commitment to family", I would point out that I acknowledged both the unique form of exaltation married pairs represents and the promise of exaltation God made for all in Zion (His commitment to family). What was dropped by others was the latter, I hope I refreshed the idea of a larger exaltation outside of eternal marriage with D&C 124:9.

The link also says: “The Bible is silent on the issue of Jesus' marital state, and there has been no modern revelation stating he was or was not married. This leaves the issue an open question. Some Latter-day Saints believe he was married, but the Church has no position on the subject.”

I'll stand by the voice of heaven to my heart, but I will not close the book toward justification of my words. Please see two posts back.

Thank you for your reasoned analysis. You have correctly identified the issue between 'Bytor' and myself. I hope my previous post resolves the issue and we can move on.

But 'Bytor' argued that eternal life is exaltation, that the two are inseparable, that eternal life does not apply outside of exaltation. Whereas, I agree with you that, "Eternal life in Christ is attained through the Atonement."I have acknowledged the unique exaltation obtained by married pairs in the priesthood. I am in concurrence with that teaching. Where I differ with 'Bytor' is that I use the term exalted outside of the marriage limitation. I have stated that even single priests and the unmarried daughters of Israel are exalted, that they have eternal lives, and share in God's divinity. 'Bytor' disagreed with these assertions. I believe we can be exalted in degrees. I pointed out to "Bytor' that the whole celestial kingdom is exalted, not just the married pairs in the highest exaltation. LDS doctrine teaches that the celestial kingdom has three glories within it. And I could argue that I am using the word exalted to be synonymous to the word glory, but so did God in D&C 124:9 when He said, "And again, I will visit and soften their hearts, many of them for your good, that ye may find grace in their eyes, that they may come to the light of truth, and the Gentiles to the exaltation or lifting up of Zion." If God can say that the whole of Zion will be exalted than so can I.

Instead of all that personal stuff, why don't you just address John 17:3. It defines eternal life very clearly. Specifically missing is any reference to a marriage requirement. Would you teach an investigator that he does not receive eternal life in Christ, or that they do not share in His divinity? That's absurd. You can still teach of the greatest glory marriage in the priesthood brings without denying the faithful eternal life or a shared divinity through baptism in the LDS Church. Common sense; not word battles.

I attend every week. I prefer GP class over GD class. It's where you meet the investigators, and as a ward missionary it is better to be there. As we both know, the book Mormon Doctrine is not scripture. It has not been accepted as such by the LDS Church, so we should not fight over it's words. They are not the Word of God. They were written by an inspired man and have much value in its pages, but in the preface Bruce R. McConkie said, "For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility." I profess one understanding and you profess another; Bruce will decide between us who is right. Let me leave this discussion with a scripture that does support my point: "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3) Peace brother.

But His disciples did profess him to be the Christ and that is recorded in scripture. What is lacking in scripture is the disciples calling him married.

I don't believe we are going to resolve this. The Bruce R. McConkie quote I provided (and his whole article on eternal life) is clear. The quote you provided speaks specifically of the highest form of exaltation obtained through marriage in the priesthood, which allows for eternal increase in the form of creating spirit children in the resurrection. This does not mean that single priests and the unmarried daughters of Israel are not also in an exalted state of being, which is also divine in nature. Nor does it mean that their lives are not eternal.

The effects of chemotherapy is temporary, so the marijuana treatment would also be temporary.

We both quoted the same GA from the same book he wrote. I can't be wrong unless Bruce R. McConkie is wrong. Maybe some others here can add their views to overcome this impasse.

Smokeable weed certainly has legitimate medical purposes not received from the pill form. Recovery from chemotherapy comes to mind, since the treatment effects the stomach and digestion.

Where did you get the idea that I made that conclusion? You must be misunderstanding one of my posts.