The Folk Prophet

Right. This remains true across the board. Specifically, "I can see, though, where a person could have major difficulty on this particular issue. Unless you have a sure testimony of Joseph..." There are things we can address with logic, science, and historical evidence. There are things that we cannot, nor will we every likely be able to in this life. That is because, imo, the Lord wants us to rely on testimonies of faith. He could prove the gospel true if He so desired. So many anti style criticisms of the church disregard this important fact. We are to rely on faith and testimony. This is important. For the Lord to provide more sure evidence of truth would hurt His purposes. We are to come to Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, relying upon faith, and by this means we become who we need to be. If not so, there would be no purpose in the veil of this world. We could have come down simply to gain a body but have retained a remembrance of our pre-earth life.

You are confused. The sealing power is not a covenant. It is contingent on covenants, yes. But it is the keys (held by one man on the earth at any given time) to bind in heaven what has been bound on earth. That being said, the ordinance work (including the ordinances and covenants attached to sealing) must be performed in this world by those who are in mortality. There will be no swapping around of ordinances after this life. All marriages must and will be done in this life. And, no, sealings cannot have meaning if not continued in the next life. That makes no sense at all. Eternal sealings are explicitly for the next life. The very idea that they don't have to continue in the next life flies in the face of the entire value of eternal marriages. Eternal means eternal. You're trying to say that some eternal marriages are not, actually, eternal. You're arguing that when a marriage is polygamous that "time and all eternity" really means "'til death do you part". Yes, sealings are contigent on keeping covenants. That has no bearing on the discussion. A man who is sealed to two wives, wherein they keep their covenants, will still be sealed to those wives in the next life. They will not and cannot be discarded because of your discomfort.

Regardless, you're talking about breaking sealings. As if sealings actually have no real meaning. The theology of sealings alone gives us reason to suspect.

It is a matter of curiosity. But not a matter of concern. It is the words of the Lord that matter, not the words of John. Maybe Joseph added to it. If so, I am confident that it was the Lord's will and that it is the Lord's words. I agree it would be of interest to know, but beyond that...'sall good.

Changes have never troubled me. They fall under my understanding of continuing revelation and within the scope of the church being ultimately led by the Lord. Either the Lord leads the church or He doesn't. If he does, changes to scripture are part of it. Line upon line, etc...

My opinion, for what it's worth: Weird is weird. It doesn't have to do with sheltering or homeschooling. Weird parents cause problems for their kids. (Normal parents do to, of course, as everyone is imperfect, but less so, I think.) The truth is, imo, that as the world goes further down the devil's path, what was once considered sheltering and overprotective will be the only recourse of protection. Homeschooling has been mentioned. 20 years back, homeschooling was a rather extreme choice. 20 years hence and I expect that any sane parent will be homeschooling. There are those who would claim any teaching values to children, any punishment, any discipline, etc., is overprotective sheltering. I think that it ends up being a cost/benefit thing. Are their costs to sheltering? Yes. Are the benefits? Yes. Does the one outweigh the other? I don't know.

You're saying that the Lord hasn't let us know with surety. But He has. You want to minimize the King Follet discourse. The church does not. The parts of this discourse that speak to God once being a man (the question at issue here) are oft quoted by the church. Moreover, your implication that the King Follet discourse and the scriptures saying Christ does what He saw the father do are the ONLY two sources of this doctrine is false. You are disregarding many other prophet and apostle statements supporting the idea. This concept was clearly taught by Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McKonkie, etc. You make it out as if these teaching don't exist, as if the only statement ever made on the matter was the King Follet discourse. That is simply not true. The latest church essay on this subject makes the it clear. Yes, it can be argued that not all Mormons believe this. But what Mormon's believe does not define doctrine. Doctrine is defined by the prophets and apostles, as clarified here. Obviously many details concerning the matter have not been revealed. There are statements that have been made that we can argue back and forth as to whether they constitute "doctrine" or not. But the prime question here as to God once being a man...this is doctrine.

A new criterion for doctrinal determinations. I love it!!

Lies about the meaning of love.

You may have heard the phrase (or something similar) that faith is an action word. To put this more scripturally, we have James 2:17 And James 2:20 A lot of people take this to mean that faith must be accompanied by works as a separate thing. But it is, I believe, saying that works are a part of faith and that without works there is no faith at all. This understanding makes the whole saved by faith or works discussion pretty irrelevant. We are, indeed, saved by faith and faith alone. But without works, there is no faith. It's really quite simple. Point being, if you have no works, you have no faith. Faith IS works. A choice to act is a choice of faith. They cannot be separated. Giving up a job to not work on Sundays is faith. It is a work that is based on a hope that is substantiated by something that is believed. One believes they will be blessed by keeping the Sabbath holy. They hope for the blessings that will attend. They believe that working on the Sabbath is not keeping it holy. So they act. This is faith. Same with having children. A person believes that having children will result in blessings. They hope that they will be blessed by prioritizing that because they believe it. So they act. Faith is the substance of things hoped for. This means that it is the foundation of our hope. Faith comes first. No faith = no hope. And faith without works is dead. No works = no faith. We have faith, so we have hope, so we act. If we do not act it is because we do not hope because we have no faith.

The church has a new article on Becoming Like God This article should put to rest at least the core doctrine on the matter. Whereas there are extended theories that it does not put to rest, we can more confidently affirm these points as doctrinal now. My favorite paragraph:

Not many men reading fifty shades of gray is my bet.

Or vice versa?

Here's where I'm taking that from: D&C 132:20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. Emphasis added. This in no way makes anyone more powerful than the Father. The Father has all power. When those who are worthy inherit all that He has, they will inherit that power too. As noted, they will always honor, love, and worship him.

I don't know if I lump the atonement in with principles. It depends on what we mean by principles. In terms of principles like faith and repentance, no. In terms of principles as in concepts, yes. You are absolutely correct that the Atonement is the central doctrine of mankind's salvation. Thank you for emphasizing that.

I have been quite clear that my phrasing may have been less than clear sometimes, that I am inferring things, and that these are things "I think". It is entirely possible that it doesn't mean what I think it means. Though, to be fair, how anyone can take "all things" to not include all things, including people, places, sentient beings, etc. escapes me. But, like I said -- "I think". My reference to awkwardness and pseudo-humiliation was a generic point not directed at any person, (though I think it was Just_a_Guy who originally said "Awkward!") but meant to imply that I believe there is an underlying motivation for struggling with these concepts that lies in a desire to be humble. But humility is not about awareness of capability, it is about a realization of dependence on God. You're presumption that I'm labeling you somehow with these terms is inaccurate. I'm not quite sure what to make of this. I meant to attack your method of debate. I did not mean to personally attack you. If you feel personally attacked then I apologize.

The reason for the existence of the plan of salvation is that we may become like our Heavenly Father. This is what I mean. We are told, very clearly, what that means. Full details? No. But we know that it means inheriting all that he has, we know we'll have all power, we know all things will be subject unto us, and we know what His work and His glory is. We know what our work and our glory is, and will continue to be. This is not speculation. Except those things we have been told. I agree that it is less important than what it means to have faith. Worlds different. But I don't believe it is speculative to take "all" to mean "all". It means exactly what it says. We are gods in embyo, capable of becoming eternal fathers and mothers. And this, as I've said, is what being God is all about, according to Him. This is His work and His glory. We inherit that. Some see that as speculative. Fine. I have no qualms with that. But I do not see it as speculative in any regard. There have been plenty of very clear teachings that make this very plain to understand at a basic level. To state those basic things as truth is not improper. The "Just look at what those weirdo Mormons believe" point is not compelling. We believe different things, so they think it's weird. That's on them. It's true of almost all of our doctrine. Some find the word of wisdom weird. Some find tithing weird. I doubt you could find a single principle that isn't viewed as wierd by the majority of the world. It does not validate hiding heads in the sand, nor has it ever. Truth is truth, whether seen as weird or not. This is word banter and not meaningful. So you use the term "meat" of the gospel differently than I do. Okay. By the way you are using it, I agree. I don't agree that these things are childish fantasy. Not when the prophets and apostles have taught the same. (To be clear, a few of the things stated are speculative and haven't been explicitly taught by prophets and apostles. Most of the ideas expressed have been.) I didn't say deep. I said deeper. I agree they are not deep. Where I don't see eye-to-eye is in the idea that if something is beyond our capacity to understand that it renders it hands-off for discussion. I would dare say, for example, that the most difficult-to-understand concept in the gospel is the Atonement. ???? I read the entire talk. Didn't disagree with anything. My reference to "mysteries" was in response to a presumption that I read into your comments, the common expression that we should stay away from the mysteries of the kingdom. In other places we are clearly commanded to search the mysteries. McKonkie is addressing mysteries from another perspective entirely, or, rather, defining them for the purpose of his talk. From a certain point of view a mystery is anything a person doesn't know. Regardless, word banter again. Mysteries are to be explored is, actually, my point-of-view. But only within those things that have been revealed to us. I guess we have a difference of opinion on what is and isn't revealed to us.

Of course it's what I think. Everything anyone proposes is what they think. The words mean what they mean. Subject means what it means. All means what it means. Seed means what it means. And worship means what it means. You're condescending approach to shame me into relinquishing the obvious does not compel me.

No one ever said anything about more powerful. As has been clearly stated, we will always revere, honor, and give all glory to our Father in Heaven. Always. But, yes, a hope for reward is, certainly appealing -- and part of why anyone seeks salvation. We hope for reward, and hope to not be punished. I leave the nature of the reward to God and trust Him that what He says that reward will be will bring me and all others who achieve salvation the greatest joy. My personal feelings on what is and isn't going to bring me joy are suspect. I am mortal and therefore unknowing and unseeing. So I turn to faith in God and His word for truth. Obtaining these things, or a feeling that you need to, is not really the point, as you say. The point is to accept Jesus and obey the covenants you've made. Spot on. But the promised reward is the promised reward, regardless of our feeling a need or desire for those promises. We cannot possibly comprehend the glory of salvation. So we trust the Lord. But He has giving us some limited knowledge on this. Accepting this knowledge, as far as it has been revealed, and as far as we understand it, as true, does not mean we are craving after power or trying to usurp the Lord's position. Well.... Questions asked. Questions answered. The fact that they are or are not important to discuss in church doesn't bear weight on their truthfulness or usefulness. They are, I agree, less useful. That doesn't necessarily mean entirely usefulness. This is an opinion. And any given person is certainly free to see what is and isn't glorious about life and the gospel. But for me these principles do not take away from anything. I find that they enhance the glory of life and our existence and God's plan for us. They are wonderful, beautiful principles that show me how much our Father in Heaven truly loves us...that His greatest desire is that we may share in His glory, power, and all that He has. I am humbled by this knowledge and amazed at His love for us as manifested within them.

Technically, I suppose, yes. But also, perhaps no. Hard to say. Do we need to truly understand the Atonement to keep the commandments? Maybe. I think, personally, that understanding the Atonement assists with faith and enduring to the end. However, one could, theoretically, go through life entirely obedient to the commandments, receiving all ordinances, and never really understand the Atonement. Would that person then be eliminated from eternal life for that? But that's sort of a silly assertion on my part to make, as I don't think one could reasonably go through life faithfully enduring and keeping the commandments without learning of the power of the Atonement. Regardless, understanding the Atonement was not given by the Savior as one of the criteria for our salvation.

Personal hope and theological principles do not need to coincide for the theological principle to remain as a viable reality. Moreover, desire has no bearing on truth whatsoever. But, fairly enough, I did put it in terms of "Mormons believe". To declare that all Mormons believe anything is invalid. And even presuming what most Mormons believe is invalid (a point I called Vort on earlier). So my phrasing may have been unfortunate in my attempt to express the idea. Nonetheless, a sense of awkwardness and pseudo-humility concerning a principle does not render the said principle illogical. Read of it what you will. But "all things subject unto them" reads to me as worship. It's not arrogance. The words just mean what they mean. Unless, of course, we're presuming that our seed will be subject to us because we are monstrous tyrants. We know that is incompatible with Celestial existence. So....well, there you go.

I don't think you will, or should, get advice from anyone here to leave your husband. It is not their business. Moreover, no one is truly going to understand the situation from a story in internet-land. But I would advise you to discuss this closely with your bishop and, above all, listen to the Spirit. Divorce is a terrible thing, and a particular burden on children. But there are, obviously, times when it is necessary. The scriptures give teachings on this. Study them with prayer in your heart.

I disagree that it is entirely pointless or harmful. Some of these things are at the very core of the plan of salvation. Others are natural questions that stem from those core concepts. I find the idea of, just ignore it if it doesn't directly apply to your salvation, patronizing to anyone with a basic level of intellect. Frankly, there are a lot of things that aren't necessary for our salvation that have been revealed to us that are freely discussed and considered important to our understanding of the gospel. Does God have a body? How many kingdoms of glory are there? Who are the judges of the 12 tribes of Israel? Where will the New Jerusalem be? And so forth. The only things that are important to know for salvation are the ordinances, principles, and commandments that we must follow. Beyond that all information is for our benefit and understanding. But discussion and understanding of the gospel and the details of the plan of salvation beyond this are entirely appropriate and useful. I also disagree that anything complicated, or what might be categorized as "meat" of the gospel, means it also falls into the category of a "mystery" of the gospel. There are many things about the nature of God in relation to these questions that have been revealed and clearly taught. The righteous will inherit all the Father has. Then shall they be gods. They shall they be above all. All things are subject unto them. They will have all power. They shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths. Their glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. All of these are directly from the scriptures, of course, except the last one, which is however clearly taught in manuals and other sources. These things are complicated, sure. They are certainly deeper doctrine. But they are not mysteries. Mysteries are more akin to questions like: How will the Holy Ghost get a body? Things where there are no clear teachings or revelations whatsoever. Some of the outlier questions that naturally stem from the revealed teachings do fall into "mysteries". And with those, of course, it is appropriate to respond that we don't know. But to naturally infer from "All things are subject unto them" that we will, indeed, be worshiped at some level is not some crazy theory that shouldn't be discussed. Along the same lines, if we know that God was once as we are now, it is a natural follow-up question to ask if that means God had a Father. If there had never been a single thing said in regards to this, then sure...we don't know. But there has been things said on this. There have been teachings that have never been repudiated, disregarded, disavowed, or otherwise contended by other prophets and apostles. Sure, the teachings have never been officially canonized, but that's true of a lot of teachings that we accept. It's not important to accept these teachings as far as worthiness goes, but it certainly isn't wrong to accept them and share with others what has been taught by our prophets concerning the matter.

Spirit children. Just as we are spirit children of our Heavenly Father.

Do you honestly believe I was talking about our earthly children?