Crash

Please refer to the part of my post about Celestial hosts visiting the hosts of the other kingdoms. That doesn't mean that they reside in those other kingdoms. And you're still misunderstanding what Elder Holland meant. Christ said that He is the vine and the door. Is He an actual vine or door? No. Methinks you take some things way too literally. But whatever. Peace out. I'm going to go discuss the definition of insanity with Albert Einstein.

Please reread my post about being saved. First, please read D&C 76:112. It clearly says that where God and Christ reside, they (those not in the Celestial Kingdom) cannot, so you're wrong that Christ resides with them. The only other thing I will address with you is the difference between nouns and pronouns. Nouns are persons, places or thing. Pronouns are both persons, places or things that have names. The word boy is a noun. The words country or planet are nouns. The word Earth or David are pronouns, as signified by having specific names and pronouns always have a capital letter at their beginning. In Elder Holland's talk, he said telestial, not Telestial. He referred to our current status of being in a fallen state in a mortal world (physical and imperfect). This is spoken of throughout the BofM and why Adam and Eve were cast out of their celestial paradise. They had become fallen, not able to dwell in God's presence (no unclean thing), so they became mortal in a telestial (physical and mortal) world. This is NOT the same thing as being in the Telestial (name of a place) kingdom in the afterlife. You have misunderstood what Elder Holland was saying.

I'm not sure why you are putting words into my mouth when I have given pretty detailed information about the state of those who do not inherit the Celestial Kingdom/are cut off from the Lord's presence and how it fits into the doctrines of the church. It seems that you are so hung up on anything but outer darkness is not hell that you are ignoring the Doctrine and Covenants and the points I have made, so I'm going to speak more plainly. There are three degrees or worlds or kingdoms in the afterlife, the Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial. There is also outer darkness. In the Celestial Kingdom there are three degrees of glory (glory being where God's Kingdom is). Only those who are saved in God's kingdom will be in the Celestial world, no matter the degree in that world. All other worlds, including outer darkness, are cut off from the Lord's presence. Those in outer darkness are eternally cut off, never having any contact with anyone from any other world. The Celestial hosts may visit the hosts of the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms. The Terrestrial hosts may visit the hosts of the Telestial kingdom. The hosts of the lesser kingdoms may not visit the kingdoms greater than their own. All those who are in the lesser kingdoms are cut off from living in the Lord's presence, hence being in an eternal state of grief or hell. Nowhere in the scriptures or modern revelation does it say that those who are assigned to the lesser kingdoms are fully saved to the same degree as those who inherit the celestial kingdom, so when you say that I said they are saved into a state of misery, you are twisting my words because you assume that your understanding of these doctrines is the only correct one and the rest of us are misled. Furthermore, the earth is not the Telestial kingdom. The words of modern day prophets is that the state of the earth as it is now is likened to what the state of living in the Telestial kingdom will be in the afterlife. If you say that we're currently in the Telestial kingdom, you would be wrong. In a nutshell, if you are not in the Celestial Kingdom, you are not saved into God's presence and you will be in hell. You can only progress in the afterlife if you inherit the Celestial Kingdom. There is no progression anywhere else. The other kingdoms are eternal. All of the kingdoms and outer darkness are eternal. I hope that you will humble yourself and seek the Lord's guidance on this. Please don't put words into my mouth or twist my words to mean something I did not say. I have spoken very plainly and what I have said is what I mean.

I gave great study on this topic years ago. First, we have been warned not to assume that the narrow neck of land in the Book of Mormon was Panama. Second, the majority of ruins in Central and South America are dated as post 400 AD. Watch Ancient Ruins of America with Jack H West. Third, early church leaders like Parley P Pratt, who taught the school of the prophets, said that the Hill Cumorah in the BofM is the same Hill Cumorah we know in modern day New York State, and that the Nephites and Lamanites resided in what is now modern day North America. American Indians and anthropologists also teach of a massive ancient city in the Illinois area and that they taught 10 commandments or rules to live by, what we know as the Ten Commandments given to Moses. I have books on ancient sites around North America, including the mass graves dating back 2,000 years or more. Also, is it any coincidence to others that the Anasazi in the Four Corners area disappeared around 400 AD? Fourth, the lands in the Western Hemisphere were dramatically changed at the time of the crucifixion. The narrow neck of land could easily have been the space between Florida and Cuba. The truth is, we just don't know. There is a series of quotes from early church leaders affirming that North America is the geographical location of the Book of Mormon. I'll need to dig them up. Also, Central and South America are not the lands the Lord promised to set above all other lands in the last days, the same land He sent Lehi and his family to. North America is.

In terms of living with God for eternity, no, they are not. The souls that will reside in those kingdoms will be cut off from the Lord's presence. They will not reside with Him. That has been revealed through modern-day revelation. The problem with labeling only two distinct possibilities in the afterlife is that it disregards latter-day prophesy and revelation about the degrees of glory and outer darkness. Please reread the part about there being state of endless misery and grief. If you are cut off from the Lord's presence, you are in that eternal state of misery and grief (i.e., hell). I believe this confusion stems from taking certain doctrines very literally and dismissing others, particularly the very detailed ones about the afterlife.

Um, please reread my post. I never said that those in God's kingdom will be in an eternal state of misery.

True, they do not progress but the question was if they will be damned. Clearly, they will not. It's a good question in terms of thinking about what they will be used for in the afterlife. Hunting and fishing, I hope.

One thing I did not address and that's about animals being damned. It's simple, animals do not sin, so they cannot be damned.

My understanding of the claims being raised here is that: 1. There is progression after souls are sent to the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms. 2. Our definition of damnation is wrong. 3. After the term of progression, all souls will either be in the Celestial Kingdom or Outer Darkness. 4. The Doctrine and Covenants and all church manuals are not in line with the Bible or the Book of Mormon. Here are my thoughts: 1. We do not believe in or teach of purgatory. After the final day of judgement, there is no progression outside of the Celestial Kingdom. All souls in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms will reside there for eternity. This has been revealed through modern-day revelation. The description of there being one heaven and one hell does not omit these modern-day revelations. The Book of Mormon also says that Jesus is both the Father and the Son, but we know through modern-day revelation that they are separate and light has been given to what the Book of Mormon was saying. 2. In terms of damnation, all those who are cut off from the presence of the Lord are damned. They cannot progress. They will remember their sins forever, wallowed up in their grief forever. Thus, all souls outside of the Celestial Kingdom are damned. This is the "state of eternal misery and grief" and is not necessarily a place but rather a state of being. 3. There is no purgatory. That is a false doctrine to entice souls to put off the day of their repentance. Modern-day revelation has clearly revealed what happens in the afterlife. The idea that something is taught in the temple but contradicted outside of it is false. 4. All church manuals are written under the direction of the First Presidency. So, we either have a testimony that the Lord leads His church through them or we do not. No modern-day revelation omits the doctrines of the other standard works but rather they expand on the doctrines in them just as the BofM expands on the doctrines of the Bible. Furthermore, the last dispensation of the fullness of times also refers to all of the mysteries of heaven pertaining to salvation will be revealed, though they were not revealed in older times, at least not publicly. How many times is it written in the Book of Mormon that there were things that the prophets were commanded not to reveal? Today, however, all things pertaining to salvation have been revealed. Be careful about claiming doctrines that are unsupported by modern-day revelation and are taken out of context. This leads to apostasy. David O. MacKay said in his 90s that he was just beginning to understand the endowment ordinance. That's quite a humbling statement coming from a prophet of God. Be humble and seek the Lord's guidance just as President MacKay did.

I am perplexed by these statements. Are the revelations and teachings of the latter-day prophets and apostles muddled up? Does the research, papers and charts on one person who is not ordained of God to receive revelations of doctrine in the last days trump those of His servants, the prophets? Are the false doctrines, cracks and false teachings of the degrees of glory (by Christ, Himself) in the Doctrine and Covenants being taught by latter-day prophets and apostles? Wherein are the degrees of glory wrongly taught in the church?

So, I'm reading this while sitting in the foyer during Sunday School. That's just funny right there!

Fortunately, repentence isn't between you and your bishop. Being a bishop doesn't make one a good bishop. There are wonderful bishops and not so wonderful bishops. There are bishops who are very warm and kind and others who are emotionally hardened. Blah, blah, blah, and so on and so forth. There is only one who has the power to forgive. Remember that it is your relationship with Him is all that matters. God be with you.

As a staunch Constitutionalist, gun control laws stifle the God-given right of Americans to own firearms. Not a single gun control law written or soon to be written has or will ever stop a mass shooting. Owning a firearm has nothing to do with hunting or protection from harm but everything to do with the protection against tyranny. Once the anti-gun lobbyists remove all firearms, the government controls everything. What is the source of gun violence? Satan. What is the source of all violence? Satan. You do not need to be in a family, a marriage, or a two parent home to be free from violence. All you need is to live with Christ as your center. As a single parent, my child knows how to handle a firearm and to show it respect. He also knows very well how to treat other people kindly and I'm pretty sure that there are millions of single-parent homes where their children will never resort to violence of any kind. The Book of Mormon is full of examples that show how the more the people lived Christ-centered lives, the more peace they had, but the more they chose wickedness, the more violent they became. Basically, we live in a very wicked society and firearms are just one of the weapons the wicked uses to be violent towards others. Take away God, then having firearms is a right that can be taken away. Take away guns and the government will control everything. Exactly what Satan wants.

Do explain. The only thing I can think of where you took my words as an insult against you was saying that you were displaying sociopathic and narcissistic behaviors by actually flinging insults at TFP and his wife instead of intellectually arguing the issue substantively. That's not an insult. It's an observation. If I was calling you a sociopath, I would have said that you're a sociopath. I didn't say that, though, and I was deliberately choosing my words distinctively. You're passive agressively trying to dismiss your insults against TFP and you're continuing to display apathy in the wake of your apology. At this point, you really should just move on instead of continuing to requote yourself with further apathetic and defensive responses.

This apology is apathetic. "I apologize if anything I have written anything that MAY have been or APPEARED offensive." When you insult a man's relationship with his wife, summarize that he is lustful and doesn't care for his wife's feelings, and then say that you feel sorry for his wife when you know nothing of their relationship, you don't APPEAR to be offensive and it's not open to interpretation. You ARE offensive. I came to his defense because I've known him and his wife for nearly 20 years and I will not apologize for doing so. I said what I said about your behavior because I've personally dealt with the exact same behavior and attitude for 12 years on an extremely close level and I recognize it when I see it. So, it gets personal to me when someone uses insults against a friend in what should have been an open and civil discussion. I couldn't care less about this topic but you insulted some very close friends of mine and that's why I jumped in. You didn't APPEAR to MAYBE insult them. You DID insult them. Your apology should be directed to TFP.

And yet you are the only one to have brought up sex and men's obsession with it in your argument. Everyone judging here is doing so with the opinions you have provided, and there are many. How is it that everyone's perception of your views is so alike and you continue to dig in your heels in your position? I'd say that gives us a very good idea of what you think and why we are judging your words.

Again, you're resorting to insults. I've had way too much experience with a textbook sociopath and narcissist than I'd care to and your response and insults are EXACTLY the type of response and insults that come from one. Your reply to my post is childish and continues to weaken your position.

I wish I could remember the name of the man whom Joseph Smith was explicitly instructed by the Lord to command that he take a second wife. It wasnt a suggestion, it was a commandment. The man (one of the church's future leaders) was so distraught that he could not eat or sleep. He was told in his patriarchal blessing that he and his wife would never be separated, so how could he be commanded to do such a thing? That's what he thought, anyway. For days he could not sleep or eat and his wife could not get him to tell her why. So, she went before the Lord and was told by the Holy Ghost about her husband's command to take another wife. She straightaway went to her husband and told him that it was ok and that he must do as the Lord commanded. Doesn't appear to be any obsession with sex and his wife had solid faith that the Lord commanded it. I wonder, too, how did Joseph feel at first when he learned that his virgin wife was pregnant and it wasn't his son? That's a rhetorical question to prove my point that man's ways are not God's ways.

I've had enough of this. Your defensive posturing is leading you to insult. You definitely have a very low opinion of men and it reeks of sociopathic and narcissistic behavior. I know all too well how a woman obsessed with sex can destroy her life and alienate herself from all those around her. Sex and the obsession thereof is not a male-only vice. I've had to deal with the repercussions of such for over 12 years. As for you suggesting that TFP is obsessed with sex, doesn't love his wife and is insensitive to her feelings is way out of line and I won't stand for it. And before you come at me, I've known both he and his wife for 19 years and they are among my closest friends. There are just a few that I would entrust my son's life with and whom I respect more highly than he and his wife. I don't care how you take this but for you to respond by casting insults to support your argument shows weakness in it. You have an opinion about polygamy, fine, I don't care. Polygamy has absolutely nothing to do with my personal salvation at this moment in time. As President Nelson put it at the news conference earlier this month, man's ways are not God's ways. Who are you or I to judge what is or isn't the reason He commands it? Keep your argument on point. If you choose to insult or suggest something about someone you do not know, take it somewhere else!

The question about defending the gospel (apologies if someone else already made the same remarks) comes down to principles. Do we stand for something or don't we? Going further, I mean to say, is the gospel a tradition, thereby rendering us to habits, or is it near and dear to us, something that is the core of everything we believe and stand for in everything we Do? If the answer is the first, then no, there's no defense that will hold much weight with others. If the answer is the latter, then we have everything to defend. Through the ages, the prophets constantly defended the gospel. Christ Himself defended it. In a modern world of naysayers in and out of the church, I believe that righteous defense is warranted but not to the point of contention. That's not to say that you can't contend with someone (Alma contended with Korihor) but if gets to the level of name-calling and bickering, it's contention and profits nobody. I defended the church/gospel on my mission. If someone wrongfully accuses the church of something, I'll stand with the church and will defend it. Joseph Smith constantly engaged others in defense of the gospel and its principles. He didn't seek out those opportunities but he stood his ground when he was confronted. Don't fall victim to the narrative that being Christlike means apathy. Stand vigilant and defend the gospel for righteousness sake.

Haha, that's awesome! We love that movie. Been a tradition to watch it every Halloween since it came out. Where did he serve?

You're a bully, too!

Do I call you Ernie or Ice?

Stop bullying me, bully!