The Folk Prophet

Here's another take on it. This according to "church" (as opposed to "the church"): When and if we make the Celestial Kingdom we will theoretically have all time before us constantly. Time will be meaningless, past, present and future. Also, for those of us exalted, we will be omniscient. Therefore, those who are not in the Celestial Kingdom only have access to others when-and-if others literally, physically visit them. Those exalted, on the other hand, know all things, including the constant thoughts of all others, and view all times at once, including the time they are/were physically with others (past, present and future) and in that way are literally with them at all times. Thereby we are together forever if exalted and not together forever if not. It's a theory, at least. :)

I've researched it a bit, and pondered it some more, and I have concluded that I have no idea. I'm honestly stumped.

Didn't you ever watch Seminary videos? Of course I understand that what you're asking is where does the idea come from scriptural (or even prophetic/apostolic) quotes. The obvious answer is D&C 132, but it is not explicit therein, nor does it speak of the eternal relationship of the earthly father to son dynamic. Of course, there is also the hymn. Families can be together forever... Short of that, it's fairly easy to search lds.org for the term forever families and get a myriad of information on it. Clearly it is doctrinal, regardless of the origin of thought behind it. Which also leads to -- why establish the doctrine of the importance of forever families/together forever if the reverse is not true? See your own comment on the 3 forms of Salvation. I have yet to experience discussion with you wherein I felt you were coming off as a jerk. In this specific case I think your question brings up an interesting thought that behooves further research. Where does this idea come from? I've had some other similar/related conversations regarding the meaning of sealing. I would dare bet that the answer to this query can be found in research as to the what sealing actually means. That being said, I have never had a problem with the sealing of husband and wife to be together forever, as it follows that a man and a woman are required for procreation. Hence, no eternal sealing, no eternal seed. By why do we have to be sealed to our children/parents? I mean, is it really only about visitation rights? Also, why do we have to be sealed from Adam down as one large Celestial Family. What is the real reason for that?

Well, the very concept of eternal sealings and being together forever, forever families, etc., automatically implies the opposite if one is not sealed or does not live up to the sealing covenant. So there is the natural inference from that where I believe the strongest viewpoint can be and is drawn from. If we can be together without sealing, then why are we sealed? Related, and along the same lines, the core concept (I'm sure this could be scripturally validated) of salvation is to live forever with the Father. So, once again, applying in reverse, then not being saved must needs mean NOT being with the Father.

I do not think, in any sense, that Elder Bednar was discounting these statements. One thing I liked that Elder Bednar pointed out in the article is that we do have the advantage of continuing revelation and clarification. Consequently, I have no problem with the idea that whereas there very likely were great truths being expressed by Orson Whitney and Brigham Young in these statements, there is also a possibility that the full understanding of it was not yet there, and therefore some of the ways they are saying things may be mistaken. If, for example, as already mentioned, Orson Whitney meant exaltation when he said salvation, then it is at odds with other revealed truths (not to mention the clarifying teachings of Elder Bednar). Brigham Young's statement, likewise, is also at odds with other known truths. Similar to our understanding of comments made by Brigham like unto the Adam-God doctrine, I feel confident in responding to these sorts of things by simply saying that we don't know what he meant, but we have living prophets and apostles to clarify truth, and we can safely follow and believe their guidance.

I understand what you are saying here. I think this turns it into a semantic argument though. You are, essentially, changing the meaning of "glad". Literally it doesn't "seem" a contradiction. It is a contradiction. But, yes, I can see what you're saying. Like a surly teenager being "happy" to be "sad". Sure. I get it. If you define "glad" as "intentionally choosing by preference" then yes, you are right. Regardless, where I disagree, and I think the scriptures clearly support, is that we will be able to change our minds at judgment day, as the clarity of what we have chosen hits home, and that by begging for mercy we will be given that which we did not choose in life. I do not believe that at that moment that any will be "glad" they are being given less than the reward they could have have had if they had chosen to be faithful instead, regardless of which of the above definitions of "glad" one goes with. At that day, if we have chosen anything less than to return to our Father in Heaven, receiving our full inheritance, I do not buy for a second that we will be saying, "It's okay, this is what I prefer anyhow." Although we will admit that His judgments are just and that we are getting what we deserve. But if we have not chosen salvation according to the words of God, we will regret this. Your suggestions in this regard rings too close to "eat, drink, and be merry" in my opinion. "...and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be..." happy in whatever kingdom of salvation we are in--and we wouldn't have been happy in the Celestial Kingdom anyway. We'll be glad to be damned, so it doesn't really matter.

Hmm. Well, let's see. You said, "Rather is seem proper to me that everyone will be quite glad and pleased with the outcome." So I posted scriptures with the following points: ...my intention being to refute the idea that everyone will be quite glad and pleased with the outcome. And you honestly cannot understand why some would interpret these scriptures to mean that? I think they mean what they say? It's not like the Book of Mormon is, for the most part, hard to understand or requires a whole lot of "interpreting". Can you back up this belief with scriptures? Because I honestly believe that we will acknowledge His judgments are just to our everlasting shame if we have not brought forth fruit meet for repentance. And I can back it up with scripture. We will all come to our senses. But this life it the time set apart as a probationary state, and repentance in this life is requisite for mercy. (Repentance only being necessary for those who have been given knowledge of truth and are thereby accountable). And repentance can not "come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul." (Alma 42:16) All of this is plainly taught in the Book of Mormon...no interpreting necessary. This is good advice.

I agree with you. Which is why my take on it is that Orson F. Whitney was simply mistaken in that quote. But I also acknowledge that I could be wrong. Even God cannot save us in our sins. For He has proclaimed it so. Alma 11:34 And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. And :37 And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.

Oh...and Alma 12:13-17

Helaman 12:20-26

My wife has flare ups every once in a while, even though she's never really had a temper (though her father does). High stress causes it, along with various hormonal related things (time of the month, fertility treatments, etc). Two things that have helped. 1. Medication/Anti-depressant. 2. When she's calm and happy (most of the time) we discuss the behavior and set expectations of appropriate response to feelings. She cannot necessarily help the initial emotional swell. She can, however, keep from throwing things and/or yelling, etc. But in order to maintain that control she must be aware and on her guard prior to the emotional volcanic moments. I don't know if that's helpful. Just sharing our experience and what has made a difference.

There's an article in the latest Ensign by Elder Bednar called Faithful Parents and Wayward Children: Sustaining Hope While Overcoming Misunderstanding In it Elder Bednar clarifies the oft repeated idea, based on the quotes by Joseph Smith and Orson F. Whitney, that the covenants of righteous parents will save their children too. I have often struggled with this concept because it seems so contradictory to agency. Elder Bednar sets the record straight here, but does so without simply discrediting the idea entirely. He clarifies what our understanding should be. He specifies that covenant keeping can and does affect wayward children. However, he also makes clear that agency is not taken, obedience and repentance are still required by choice, and that "salvation" does not necessarily mean "exaltation". This is a sensitive subject for those with struggling children, and so I have often avoided direct discussion of it because my manner is frank and callous enough that I'm as likely as not to offend. Elder Bednar, I believe, handles it frankly, but with enough care to help parents retain hope without embracing false ideas. Anyhow, it is a nice clarification. This is one of those ideas that I think fits into the category of perpetuated pseudo-doctrine long misunderstood by many.

One thing being less foolish than another doesn't render the first wise.

Insane? Selfishness is always destructive. The world would preach otherwise, as if selfishness is the highest value. But it's dead wrong. If having that opinion makes me insane then I best be locked up -- 'cause I'm clearly cuckoo.

You know, it's an interesting thing isn't it. There's a balance I think, in mortality. There are 3 tiers of motivation, as I see it. The bottom level is fear of punishment. The middle level is hope for reward. The top tier is love. Ultimately we all must reach the top tier. Here's my take on it, for what it's worth. I think the Lord fully understands that we, as imperfect mortal beings, will only be able to brush the surface of what love actually is. In other words, we aren't actually capable of truly being only motivated by love. If we could, then awesome. And after a lifetime, perhaps some of us may start to get there. But mostly...not so much I think. Take home teaching as an example. My elders quorum pres is constantly preaching to us in terms of how we need to love our neighbors more so we'll do our home teaching. Want to guess how well that works? The bottom line is, I don't love my neighbors. Some of them I can barely stand...at first. But I do my home teaching. Why? Because I don't want to be punished and because I want reward for obedience. And...partially...because I do love the Lord and want to obey Him. I hope that last reason is the strongest. I strive for it to be. Here's the thing though. The obedience comes first. I have, surprisingly, learned to love my annoying neighbors. I have home taught them, served them, given them blessings, etc., etc., all from sheer obedience. And lo-and-behold, I find myself loving them. Amazing. This also builds the love I have for the Lord. So I agree with you, very much, but I think the Lord knows that we as mortals cannot, actually, truly love. Therefore He gives obedience to us -- accompanied by threat and promise of reward -- and by these means He teaches us love. Teaching our children to behave because of love is right on. But teaching them motivation by fear and promise of reward is important too, because just like all of us, they will fail to love perfectly in many, many instances. But they can learn to obey nonetheless.

Fear is a form of motivation. Some are motivated by one thing, others by another. God knows this. It is better to be motivated by fear of destruction than it is to be unmotivated. It is better further to be motivated by love. That does not negate the reality that threat of destruction is, without a doubt, part of the wording of God to us.

I dunno. I've always taken fear God as literal. I mean, He does tend to destroy with wrath those who displease him. In point of fact, He promises to destroy those who are wicked. I am honestly scared of that, as should we all be.

O......k.....???

I appreciated your post, however, I wanted to add a clarifying thought. What you say here is true, but not the full extent of it. This is only one of the reasons. The other reason is so the familial relationships we have here in this life will continue into the next life. So it's not just a broad Kumbaya thing that binds us all together. There is a specificity to the sealing we have with our direct families that matters very much as well.

A nice summary of agency.

That's not much of a reason. "I'm trying to gather information so I have information." The question is, what does she intend to DO with that information?

Ask the missionaries. :) Seriously, congrats. You don't need to bring your own white clothes.

It should be stated (and I think you implied this in the rest of your post) that this is because if you don't agree or don't understand a C.K. principle you won't be there anyhow, not that you'll be able to go to the C.K. anyhow and just opt out.

Reminds me of your avatar, strangely.

What a lucky girl. Anyhow, sure, it may work for now (depends on what one considers a "working" marriage). But I question this attitude in anyone. A refusal to sacrifice but a willingness to accept the reward. I'll take the good but all the bad goes to my wife? This is problematic and will undoubtedly lead to major problems unless this guy grows up.