james12

I completely agree with this conclusion. I might even consider taking it further and state it more broadly. A body must ever and always be earned through obedience, be it spiritual, physical, or celestial. Each body increases capacity and depth of emotion. Because of this, the test will be increasingly difficult but the opportunities greater.

Vort already answered clearly that we experienced good and evil. From scripture this statement seems obvious to me. Then you qualified your question but continue in the same thought by saying, How did we experience good and evil? The form of that experience probably can't be completely and fully answered and of course it wasn't a mortal experience. However consider Revelations 12: 11-12. After Satan and his followers are cast out of heaven we get a glimpse of how this happened, This to me is a significant scripture...How did Michael and his angels cast him out? By the blood of the Lamb: They defeated Satan through the blood of the atonement. By the word of their testimony: They openly testified against him. They loved not their lives unto the death: They were willing to die for their testimony of the Lamb. The NIV gives it thus, "they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death". And then this extremely interesting phrase, "Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them." From Strong's Concordance the Greek word is σκηνόω with the following definitions: 1) to fix one's tabernacle, have one's tabernacle, abide (or live) in a tabernacle (or tent), tabernacle 2) to dwell Young's Literal Translation reads, "because of this be glad, ye heavens, and those in them who do tabernacle..." In no way does this sound like inexperience. We knew what we were doing. It was no small matter to pass our first estate. Eternal consequences were at stake.

Truman G. Madsen once talked about ritual and symbolism in a talk entitled "House of Glory". I don't have the talk right in front of me so I will just paraphrase his ideas in the first two paragraphs and then give you a few of my own... Separate The Symbol From The Symbolized: Sometimes as members we have a hard time with ritual. We cannot get past the symbol. This of course includes clothing and other actions. Brother Madsen says we are in essence throwing out the baby with the bath water. We don't believe in "pagan ritual" but we do believe that God has revealed certain ordinances, certain rights and rituals anew. Ordinances Are Eternal: Ordinances are vital to salvation. The Lord has said, "Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live" (D&C 84:20-22). You cannot receive the power of godliness except through ordinances! God has establish certain symbols, certain rights of passage that are necessary to enable a person to reach the Father. The more I study the more I believe these ordinance are eternal. They are and ever will be gates through which one must ascend to receive exaltation. Ordinances Are Participatory: Almost all ordinances are more than just listening. They are active and participatory. Baptism and the sacrament are good examples. We do not merely listen but we are lowered in the water, we eat of the bread. The ordinances in the temple are no more "strange" then what happens with these ordinances. We are simply used to them. Covenants Make Ordinances Precious: What makes baptism and the sacrament meaningful is the covenant. Temple ordinances are the same. Covenants cannot be separated from saving ordinances and saving ordinances from covenants. Truly honor the covenant and the ordinances are sacred. Without the the heart they are mere forms. I could go on explaining but ultimately one must feel for themselves the truth of these things. If you keep going with the right attitude I promise you your feelings will change.

FAIR has a brief explination which is probably a good starting point for understanding these scriptures. Mormonism and temples/Made with hands - FAIRMormon

I admit this may be overly pessimistic, but just from my personal experience, I don't find this yearning for a heavenly life here and now that common. Oh, sometimes in an abstract sense when there is a promise of loses being made up. But in a practical, put forth extra effort sort of way, I don't see a lot happening. Brigham Young once said, "You hear brethren talk of coming to Zion to enjoy the blessings of this land; but do you not see that it is the shortsightedness of men which causes their disappointment when they arrive here? They read in the Bible, in the Book of Mormon, and Book of Doctrine and Covenants, about Zion, and what it is to be; but brother Park and others could not realize, before they came here, that they were the ones to help to build up Zion. They gather here with the spirit of Zion resting upon them, and expecting to find Zion in its glory, whereas their own doctrine should teach them that they are coming here to make Zion." (Journal of Discourses 5:3-4) I don't know that we've change that much in the last 150 years. Are people really concerned with "making Zion"? There may be a few reasons why people do not think much about the future, the millennium, and what might be. There is no pressing need. They deal with the here and now. Who wants to add on the concerns of tomorrow to today? Some are generally content with the current situation. Why work so hard for the future if everything is fine now? They have not caught the vision. What are we really working for? Just my thoughts. Maybe others feel differently.

This comment applies to this thread but also others. Much is debated on this form and interesting statements and commentary from authorities are provided by posters. I for one enjoy these quotes. They often cause me to consider my opinion. I have found that I cannot brush aside their comments lightly and if I do I often find myself on the wrong side of an argument. That being said, there are a number of other things that should be determined after reading any statement by a general authority... Where the teaching was given: Was the quote given in general conference? Was it an official declaration? This can be contrasted with comments that were made at firesides or in books published by the authority (many of which state that they are the personal responsible for the views and opinions expressed). When the teaching was given: In some cases specific instruction was given to specific individuals. It was right for that time and for those people. It may not apply to me now. Who gave the teaching: If the teaching comes from the source (Christ) it is clean and pure. Teachings may come from the prophet, then the apostles, the seventy, etc... As others provide teaching it does not carry the same weight as if given by the prophet. Their conclusions are more suspect. What was said: Authorities are often very careful about choosing their words. This is because misunderstanding can and do occur. Read with care any statement and do not read more or less into it then is intended. If in doubt study context and words. Multiple sources: Has more then one authority confirmed the teaching. This adds weight and clarity to the teaching. Now in regards to your question, "I thought that Heavenly Father would not let the prophet of our church lead us astray?" I believe this is true. However this statement should be considered. I have always, and only, seen it applied to the prophet (not general authorities). I also consider the term "lead". To me this implies a change of course. A teaching that causes me to do something different. Seriously no one should be "lead astray" by any quotes provided in this thread. I doubt anyone is seriously considering not following commandments because of a few quotes that are certainly not doctrine or definitive. Even if it was true that one can progress between kingdoms there is still "eternal punishment" and eons of time an individual would be relegated to one kingdom. Our minds cannot even fathom the extent of such ideas. I value the thoughts expressed by general authorities. They can add insight into doctrine and teachings. It is my personal oppinion that when statements are misinterpreted and misundersthood fewer ideas can be shared.

Personal taste plays a major role in book preference. I tend to enjoy SF/Fantasy that has a deeper meaning or that causes me to think. Here are three... Lilith by George McDonald - Fantasy with a religious under current. To get a taste for his fantasy style you might try a short story he wrote called The Golden Key that has a similar feel. If you like that try Lilith. I also like Phantastes. Dying of the Light by George R. R. Martin - I'm not really a fan of his Song of Ice and Fire Series, but I loved this SF book. It has a real haunted feel to it and I couldn't guess what was going to happen. The world imagery is beautiful. Till We Have Faces by C. S. Lewis - C.S. Lewis considered this his best book. It's a spin on the Psyche and Cupid story.

Other prophets do tell names. What of Isaiah and Cyrus. The whole section is instructive. God knows us by name. Who are we to question what He chooses to reveal to his servants the prophets or how he confirms their words. Continuing with chapter 45 of Isaiah: Thankfully hundreds of years later Cyrus heard the call much like Joseph Smith... Not only Ezra, but Josephus confirms Cyrus' works... http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-11.htm Why question the Lord and his ways. He may call any by name he so chooses. And those whom he calls are only special in that they have a grave responsibility to heed His word.

Sure there was no physical pain because we did not have physical bodies. But are you saying there was no pain, excitement, or sorrow of any sort in our first estate? If so, based on what experience or statements?

What? Yes they can choose. My 2, 5, and 7 year olds make choices everyday - and I might add that many of them are not the correct choices. Little children do not sin because they cannot choose, rather, they are not accountable for their choices. Therefore they need no repentance or baptisim. In essence Christ has atoned for their mistakes before the age of 8.

Check out this link and let us know if you have any other questions. Kingdoms of Glory

I believe this change is more profound then you give it credit. It is not a returning but a complete transformation a revolution of the inner man as President Benson, President Kimball and President McKay pointed to. Here is the quote from Born of God - Liahona Oct. 1989 - liahona: As we have discussed before, we live in a fallen world. Because of this we have a corrupted body. All deal with physical or mental problems of one sort or another. I agree with you in this respect, there is not a one to one relationship between our physical fallen self and our perfected body. However, this does not mean our spirit cannot change. Joseph Smith stated this plainly, Every last spirit sent to this earth may grow in some way. It may seem small to us but who knows what challenges some spirits have to face. A corrupt body does not equate to no spiritual growth. I believe the quote you are referring to says this, “Day by day, hour by hour, man builds the character that will determine his place and standing among his associates throughout the ages." Please note the words. First, "day by day, hour by hour..." Each day, each hour is another chance to progress and to improve our spirit and body. Second, "man builds [his] character..." He does not simply reveal, he does not only uncover who he was as a spirit. Instead he builds a character! He constructs and forms who he is and who he will become. Third, this character will, "determine his place and standing among his associates throughout the ages." The character we develop here extends beyond this earth life even throughout the ages. Character growth here and now will help determine an eternal destiny. Indeed Pres. McKay says it is the grand aim of our creation! I would be careful about discussing the spirit as opposite the body. Yes the body is corrupted but it is not opposite. From Gospel Principles chapter 45, “Spirit beings have the same bodily form as mortals except that the spirit body is in perfect form (see Ether 3:16). Spirits carry with them from earth their attitudes of devotion or antagonism toward things of righteousness (see Alma 34:34). They have the same appetites and desires that they had when they lived on earth."

I think I will first comment on the level of our progression and the maturity of our spirit. Joseph F. Smith said, About our progression we get this statement from Gospel Principles, So during our pre-earth life we were raised to maturity and could only progress so far unless we left him and gained a body. Is this life a test only or does our character change based on how we live here? Since entering this second estate our body and spirit determine who we are. I will quote again Elder Packer, "Your body really is the instrument of your mind and the foundation of your character. (Ye Are the Temple of God, GC Oct 2000) And Elder Bednar, "And in this dispensation the Lord revealed that “the spirit and the body are the soul of man” (D&C 88:15). A truth that really is and always will be is that the body and the spirit constitute our reality and identity." (Things as They Really Are, CES Fireside May 3, 2009, italics added) Now knowing who we are how does earth life affect us? From President David O. McKay, We build our character each day of this probationary life. President McKay says it is our grand aim. Yes we reached a high level of maturity during our first estate, but we reached a point where we could not progress much further without a body. Our body amplifies our spirit. It deepens emotions and allows us further progression. However, Satan has special control over our body and also uses this fact to tempt and to try us. When we give into sin we also change our spirit. This can be seen in the spirit world. There we will only be spirits yet our decisions made during mortality will affect us there. Brigham Young said, Our spirit acquires the habits gained in mortality.And now with regards to the resurrection. Does it magically change who we are? No! We must work to build our character which now includes our body and our spirit together. Justice has commented well on the issue. I will simply give one scripture, This scripture plus others help us understand that only through repentance and hard work will we change who we are, both body and spirit.

Almost all would say we change while in this life. The confusion comes when we try and determine the nature of the change and their effects. For some the question boils down to an issue of the body versus the spirit. The real difference comes about when we begin trying to understand who we were before this life and who we will be after. Let me try and present the questions as I see them: 1. Does our spirit change? We spent an almost infinite amount of time in our first estate perfecting our spirits. We reached a high level of progression. If this be the case why would we lose it all? Is not our spirit fixed such that nothing can change who we "are"? 2. Are we perfect in character after the resurrection? This question is related to the first. In essence this life is simply a test. The end of that test occurs at the resurrection. Based on our performance during the test we will be rewarded accordingly. However, the resurrection is the end. We are received into a glory there to be happy. There we rest from our labors. Our progression during our first estate determined our character not the second estate. After the resurrection we simply gain a perfect glorified body but our character/attributes did not change. I'm out of time. I'll take a stab at them latter.

Seminarysnoozer, My post was in relation to two comments you made. First, "I guess the biggest issue I have with the view of "Kingdom hopping" is the idea that a person who is placed in the Terrestrial or the Telestial Kingdom is left with some kind of wanting, that they have some kind of regret that they are in the position they are put in." Then this comment about happiness you made, "If they don't receive it, they don't want it." I am not trying to discuss the method or exactly how happiness is to be achieved. I am using my example of the piano to point out that persons in the Telestial or Terestrial Glories will still be left wanting more. While they will be happy I don't think they will be satisfied for eternity. To me the whole idea of "you get exactly what you want" while not entirely wrong is very simplistic. I feel it can lead to a couple of fallacies: 1. "I want the Celestial Kingdom so I'm going to get it." This is a kind of feel good philosiphy. It encompases the thought, "I'm not willing to work for it much but I sure do want it so I'm going to get it!" 2. Anyone who doesn't receive the Celestial Kingdom must not have wanted it. And since they didn't want it they will be completely happy. It's a form of "ignorance is bliss".

So you are saying people will not have the desire to be completely happy? And because they will not have the desire to be happy they will be completely satisfied? Even Satan, who will be confined to outer darkness, wants the glory of the Father. Let me try and define these ideas of "want", "satisfied" and "desire". Let's suppose I want to be a master pianist. I would love to be able to create a masterpiece. The teacher is ready and the piano is in front of me. However, I am not willing to practice. I am unwilling to put forth the effort, the sacrifice, and the time to achieve this end. Therefore I cannot master the piano. Because I am unwilling to put forth the effort does not mean I don't even want to play beautiful music. I am simply unwilling to do what it takes in order to achieve the desired outcome. I would never say I am completely satisfied. However, I would understand that everything was prepared for me and that based on the effort I was willing to put forth I received what I deserved. So I believe it is in the gospel sense. The master teacher is ready and willing. All is prepared for me to achieve. Through the effort I invest I recieve the absolute maximum I can qualify for even a "fullness". Therein lies my happiness.

Maybe I have missed something? Who said that all individuals within each kingdom will have complete happiness? Yes each kingdom contains happiness but there are differing degrees. The word degree itself implies levels. Sections From Gospel Fundamentals Chapter 36... Only the happiness they are prepared to receive. He cannot give them more. They would not recieve it! Hence they are left with some level of wanting.

Actually I do believe there may be limits in how far forward some can progress. They will progress to a certain point and no further. What I am questioning is the notion that some can reach a certain point and not progress forward or backward. I question the idea that for the eternities some stagnate and remain forever the same. I think the quotes I provided make it clear that this is not the case. I disagree they are only related to our first estate. However, let me take what you do agree with, namely, that spirit bodies may be disorganized and over an infinitely long period of time be required to start the processes over again. Why is this not the same for our physical bodies? Interesting the large dichotomy you see between our first and second estates.

In relation to this topic of final judgement I find this thought interesting from John A. Widsow who said, I don't have Widsow's book but apparently in it he refers to a discourse of Brigham Young's found in the Journal of Discourses 1:118 Duties and Privileges, Etc., by Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 112-120). A couple of quotes I found interesting... He goes on... If there is eternal increase doesn't it stand to reason that there is eternal decrease? If this be the case for some then I ask, can any person remain stationary in time or eternity? Elder Widsow asserts that one may move down to disorganization and then begin again through the eternities to progress.

Mormonmusic, you ask some very good and sincere questions. I think sister_in_faith's response is also sincere but misses the mark. For instance, if it's good to take a break from church for a time then why not always? If I took this thought to it's extreme I could say, "receive ordinances by doing the bare minimum and then avoid all responsibility by not participating." If it works short term why not long term? That being said, I understand the feeling of being overwhelmed with demands. I don't have a great answer yet. In relation to this issue I believe I can boil my thoughts down to two questions. 1. Should my membership in the church provide increased joy now? Should it at least give peace? 2. If so why does experience sometimes prove otherwise?

I would agree that God's master plan would be ultimate joy. But it is of a tempered, knowing sort. It is a joy that understands deep loss, profound sorrow, and pain. I also would consider another aspect. In order to increase our joy from our pre-earth life we must be gloriously embodied in a physical tabernacle. When we have a physical body we gain deeper feeling and understanding than we had before.

I don't believe there is a way to separate the sacrament from repentance. In essence the steps we must take to receive the covenant are faith, repentance, baptism, and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. To renew the covenant the steps are similar, exercise faith, repent, partake of the sacrament, receive the Holy Ghost. In your statement you speak of a broken heart and contrite spirit and doing whatever the Lord wants us to do. Partaking of the sacrament is what the Lord wants us to do. Can someone truly have a broken heart and contrite spirit yet refuse to take the sacrament? The commandment is clear. Here are the words of Christ. First from the Book of Mormon, after Christ had broken the bread for the sacrament these words, "And this shall ye always observe to do..." (3 Ne 18:6). From Matthew, "Take eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt 26:26-28) Just after the feeding of the 5,000 Christ testifies even more strongly of the need to partake of the sacrament and renew the covenant, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6:53) LittleWyvern explained the covenant clearly. I would simply say, who would dare even put the covenant at risk? It is the most wonderful blessing. From the moment of baptism Christ covers our sins, we are perfected in him. When we partake of the bread and water we recommit to the covenant. If we have the opportunity to partake and knowingly decide not to partake, our commitment is lost. Willingness is the key. It is in the very prayer each week. By not partaking we have demonstrated through our actions that we are unwilling to remain in the covenant.

I admittedly only half pay attention to these threads regarding the Trinity and the infallibility of the Bible. However, I feel these posts have proven, by sheer volume of evidence, the truth of Joseph Smith's statement, "...for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible." That being said, my biggest disappointment is not those threads which start with the intent of discussing this issue, but instead the threads that have been hijacked to carry on this Trinity discussion. I've decided not to start at least one thread because I was almost sure the topic would veer into a discussion of the Trinity.

Traveler, Very good thought. Such is the marvelous power of repentance and the atonement. It is not simply the removal of the punishment (justification) but the cleansing of the stain of sin (sanctification). Rameumptum had a very good post on another thread which I think relates very well to this topic http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/42539-god-once-14.html#post631452. I agree with you that even one who has sinned can, if he will, ultimately be perfect. On the macro level and in the long term you are, and must be, correct. Of course this does not mean that before redemption sinning then repenting is the same as never committing the sin. President Kimball said, "That man who resists temptation and lives without sin is far better off than the man who has fallen, no matter how repentant the latter may be." (God Will Forgive, Ensign Mar 1982) Righteousness is, and always will be, the most direct, happiest, and easiest path to perfection. Elder Christofferson said in the last General Conference, "It would mock the Savior’s suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross for us to expect that He should transform us into angelic beings with no real effort on our part. Rather, we seek His grace to complement and reward our most diligent efforts (see 2 Nephi 25:23)." (The Devine Gift of Repentance, Oct. 2011). So true.

The whole premise of this original post reminds me of a statement in Section 7 of Lectures On Faith, "But to be a little more particular, let us ask, where shall we find a prototype into whose likeness we may be assimilated, so we may be made partakers of life and salvation?" I have always found the word "assimilated" rather repellent. It sounds too much like the Borg from Star Trek. I don't know that I want to be assimilated.