CV75

One way to look at this, I think, is in terms of stewardship. The celestial stewardship is the business of creating life (in addition to maintaining and using), terrestrial stewardship is the business of maintaining life (in addition to using), telestial stewardship is limited to the business of using life. Each kingdom's limits and opportunities are ours, according to our agency's alignment with God's ideal. The celestial scope (especially exaltation) is perfectly aligned, terrestrial somewhat, and telestial less so. He used the word "comfortable," which tends to eliminate striving for improvement at that point. Adam and Eve lived the terrestrial law in Eden; after the Fall their wayward posterity lived the telestial kingdom, and in the resurrection Adam and Eve are exalted. I think it is very interesting that President Oaks framed his remarks in this fashion, as if to say, "If you don't want to be part of pursuing the ideal, you can go someplace else more comfortable, but respect our mission. God still loves you and prepares a place for you." As if the Church is going to spend less time and energy addressing the demands of detractors and more wherewithal proactively building Zion (as Elder Bednar pointed out in terms of those in the "last wagon").

So how did it go?

Review the priesthood manual on giving blessings.

He is bearing testimony, so any particular school of logic that I am aware of hasn't much to do with it, even though he does suggest he is proving the truth of the coming of Christ (verse 4). His method for proving this truth is to provide more than one witness of the coming of Christ (his, Jacob's, Moses' and Isaiah's -- verses 2 - 4). His soul delights in this testimony (per Alma 32: 28, so it is real). 6 And my soul delighteth in proving unto my people that asave Christ should come all men must perish. 7 For if there be ano [coming of] Christ there be no God [for Christ is God and Nephi and the others only vainly imagine His coming]; and if there be no God [or Christ, there is nothing to be saved, and] we are not [for we have an end], for there could have been no bcreation [but just a "thing of naught" and not fulfilling the purpose of creation, which is to not have an end, i.e., resurrection and spiritual rebirth -- see 2 Nephi 2]. But [I will reiterate my testimony, that] there is a God, and che is Christ [and thus creates and saves by "coming down" -- as He did in creating Adam and Eve and as He will do again in the Second Coming] and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

Elder Oaks' talk: The Teachings of Jesus Christ (churchofjesuschrist.org) I was impressed how the order of the quotes in this talk detail "the stages of eternal progression and attainment" (I took this phrase from the 1916 Doctrinal Exposition) in this world or estate, both covenantal and developmental.

Here is where tracing the origins of various texts get complicated (an example here: Beatitudes Found Among Dead Sea Scrolls, Benedict T. Viviano, BAR 18:06, Nov-Dec 1992. : Center for Online Judaic Studies (cojs.org)). We do not know exactly where or how Jesus learned the Sermon on the Mount (or Plain as in Luke) in his mortal life; it could have been a combination of revelation, oral history, the religious texts of his day (known and unknown to us today). It makes sense to me that He wrote it down and others copied it, though that is just my supposition. Do you have the translations of the Sermon on the Mount from the Dead Sea scrolls other than similar phrases that were also used throughout Old Testament text? Do you have references to show that Jospeh Smith did not consider the Book of Enoch (as we have it) to be apocrypha (D&C 91)?

I would say from verse 30, he had in mind to build Zion and prepare for the Second Coming: to do away will evil, do good continually, come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be saved. He also counsels us in verses 23 - 26 to search the prophecies of Isaiah (a reference to the latter-day restoration of all the keys), remember the covenant made to the Book of Mormon prophets and people upon the land (a reference to building the New Jerusalem) and the Book of Mormon itself.

That is the same supposition as Enoch getting it from others who in turn got it from Adam, orally (which includes angelic and divine ministrations and interviews) and in writing for as long as Adam's book of remembrance was accessible to them. But Moses might as well have written the first chapters of Genesis based on revelation (see our Peral of Great Price, Moses chapters 1 -4 ("...these are the words which I spake unto my servant Moses...") as any other source such as inspired recitation of oral history, sacred records not made available to us, etc. The three apocryphal books of Enoch that are acknowledged today were written in 1st - 5th centuries AD and these sources seem to be mostly based on oral tradition and lost texts. But the doctrine of the dispensations allows for a fresh restoration of the creation account each time. My personal opinion is that the New Testament Sermon on the Mount was authored by Jesus and passed down orally and in writing, which is why the Book of Mormon version is so similar.

Yes, I see Adam’s as the first covenant record (genealogy, doctrine, testimony, revelation, etc.). But I believe our current version of Genesis, originally authored by Moses, is the result of oral and written traditions of those writings and other oral and written histories; I see much of the Bible the same way. This takes nothing away from the revelations as discerned by the Spirit. Symbolic or literal, I take history among the most subjective and interpretive scholarly discipline of all the arts and sciences. Nephi understood the manner (symbolic and literal communication, reckoning and prophesying) of the Jews but within a generation that appreciation was lost, and so he reinterpreted and organized the records for his descendants. As far as profiting from differing opinions and perspectives, I believe the most successful saints are those who approach their devotional communications with others in the spirit of council as taught in the D&C and elsewhere. The Spirit is absolutely essential in interpreting the Bible correctly. I think this applies in understanding God’s will for us, and in the case of some scholars, making important discoveries that advance the promulgation of faith in scripture (see Elder Holland’s speech to the Maxwell Institute on disciple scholars, a term coined by Elder Maxwell… I cannot seem to locate it online, but here’s an article on it: Be Faithful Disciple-Scholars Even in Difficulty, Elder Holland Says at Maxwell Institute - Church News and Events (churchofjesuschrist.org) ).

Since we process nothing in a vacuum, and there are different kinds of knowledge and experience, I believe we take all the things we come across in life and integrate them the best we can into a working model for life. As a result, for me: I believe the Book of Genesis to be an accurate representation and testimony of the nature of God, His children, and His covenant path relationship with us. I think the dispensations represented in Gensis are real. Ongoing revelation addresses anything that one might consider to be missing from Genesis. The Old Testament is not a science book, and science in my opinion is great tool for helping us manage our earthly stewardship first, and our relationship with God second, as set forth in Genesis. I believe that each of the items you listed in paragraph 2 exist literally, since that is the nature of oral and written transmission. The disadvantage is a lack of understanding the mindset and experience of those who first and authoritatively presented them, unless we too are ancient prophets and know exactly what they meant. I believe that faith and knowledge work together; the empirical evidence of revelation is provided by the written and oral testimony; our acceptance of it depends on the kind of knowledge we use and integrate. Science and religion at some level are the same kind thing and so can be reconciled. I have seen no consensus of science or of religious opinion, hence we have different (and often contending) schools of thought in each discipline. But as I apply both kinds of principles in my life, I can as an individual see how they help me progress along the covenant path.

Mosiah 28 describes how King Mosiah, a seer, translated and wrote them down for his people, and then gave all the plates (brass, gold, large and small) and his other records to Alma for safekeeping. Most if not all of these materials ended up in Mormon and Moroni's hands, so when Moroni writes this verse 4, he may well have had Mosiah's translation in his possession as well as the 24 plates. However, Jospeh Smith may or may not have found the 24 plates apart from the plates he received from Moroni in 1827 and translated himself (they we not included in that transaction), but if he did, he certainly had power "that he may get the full account" -- "may" being the operative modal verb, indicating the uncertain possibility of whether Jospeh did or didn't decide to peek and get the full account.

My take on the "second death" part of this verse is that it is spiritual separation from God after the first death or separation is redeemed in and by the resurrection and we are brought back into His presence to be judged (or ruled) in a kingdom. -- see Death, Spiritual (churchofjesuschrist.org). The second death for sons of perdition is outer darkness, complete and utter personal separation from God after the resurrection. Every other kingdom has some degree of God's ministration or glory, however small that may be (See D&C 76: 85-88). The light of Christ has some functions that are non-relational or transactional, and objective or impersonal (as in the existence and operation of things that do not act but are acted upon) throughout all existence. Not a tangent at all, in my opinion !

Several Hebrew words have been translated as “worship” but they do have different meanings. For example: shachah, to bow down, falling on the face in fear and reverence. Hence every knee shall bow, out of fear (the wicked) or reverence (the righteous). barak, kneeling in reverence, bending at the waist in submission, to bless in adoration. todah, thanksgiving, thank offering, act of adoration, holding out the hands in worship, extending and casting the arms outward zamar, to make music in praise of God, usually the voice but instruments also halal, to render glory openly and without shame, to shine, to celebrate, to praise hwh, bow down abad, serve I see God wanting these for all of us, several are indicated as part of temple service and many as part of our ministering work. Here are a couple of interesting articles touching pon these subjects: Worship: Bowing Down and Serving the Lord | Religious Studies Center (byu.edu) "Biblical Hebrew Words You Already Know and Why They Are Important" | Religious Studies Center (byu.edu)

That is a good point: a merchant that doesn't sell anything is still a merchant, just as "wells without water" in 2 Peter 2:17 are still wells and "clouds they are without water" in Jude 1:12 are still clouds. These are a certain kind of gospel teacher. And more precisely, I am calling outer darkness a kingdom.

You used the word "assume" earlier in relation to intelligence ("The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth" -- D&C 93:36), and with this assumption use a strict and exclusive definitional alignment between "intelligence" and "glory." These semantics are necessary for your working model. And yet, "no glory" is still less than a "little bit of glory," and sons of perdition exist to comprehend it, so both they, "no glory" and "outer darkness" all exist. From D&C 93:30, "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence [light and truth per verse 36] also; otherwise there is no existence." If there is no glory (or by your definition, intelligence, or light and truth) in the existing kingdom of outer darkness where the sons of perdition exist, then "intelligence" of some other kind than that associated with God's glory, light and truth must also exist, meaning there is more than one context and use of the term "intelligence" than just God's glory, light and truth. It seems to me, contrary to your assumption, there is more than one kind of intelligence, specifically for this discussion, one that is not God's, and exists outside His kingdoms of light (hence the name, "outer darkness."). It is a matter of semantics, context and perspective. My original post equated "a kingdom of glory less than the telestial" with "a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.” Outer darkness is less than the telestial in two senses: (1) its glory (the intelligence which exists there which is not the glory of God) makes it less, and (2) "no glory" is still less than a "little bit of glory." I initially and now continue to call it a "kingdom of glory" for discussion purposes, without which the questions and challenges would not have come up and the points I'm making presented.

I did not accidentally misspeak. The glory of outer darkness is less than the glory of the telestial kingdom. It has to be, for there is no glory there. But souls still abide there, so there has to be something for them to comprehend.

"Outer darkness" is just another name for this kingdom for the sons of perdition. "Heaven" can be used for the other kingdoms.

Elder Packer had a great talk about the difference between fact and truth. From D&C 88: 24 And he who cannot abide the law of a atelestial bkingdom cannot abide a telestial cglory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory. So, here we have "a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory," which in my mind renders it a lesser kingdom than the telestial. The only differentiation between kingdoms is their glory (or lack thereof, in full or in degrees), and whatever countless attributes and qualities thereof this basic measure yields.

To be clear, my desire is not to blunt anything, especially the severity of that which has not been revealed except to sons of perdition (D&C 76:43-48). Semantics can be cleared up and interpreted correctly with a few brief and impartial exchanges. Such discussion using different terms reaches more people than a relatively small group that speaks exactly the same language in exactly the same way -- even in Zion where we are of one mind and one heart, but not necessarily one language and culture (in this world at this stage, anyway!).

Correct it is not a kingdom of glory and it has no glory. Which semantically is correctly less than the telestial glory. As I noted, it is not a kingdom of glory. It has no glory, but the kingdom still exists. Souls still abide there, and they still possess a measure of intelligence in order to understand their condemnation (D&C 76:48).

For me, "no glory" is "less glory" than the telestial, yet "not a kingdom of glory" is still a "kingdom." Just different wording / semantics which to me mean the same thing.

There is a kingdom of glory less than the telestial in which people abide. I speaking of “the resurrection from the dead, or the redemption of the soul,” which is our “spirit and body” (D&C 88:15-16),” we learn in verse 24, “And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.” If this is “outer darkness,” D&C 101:91 seems to suggest that those who abide it weep, wail and gnash their teeth -- a body is required to do these things. “Vessels” and “vessels of wrath” are term used in scripture to describe souls (as is “tabernacle” also). At any rate, a voluntary choice is required to obey the ordinances (“For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God” – Romans 14: 11, 12). This brings to my mind that it may be that the physical position in which we are resurrected is in the bent knee.

I believe the doctrinal term is "demonymic possession" !

Yes, although some may have had Lamanite or other nationality or ethnicity, as I previously indicated, they were called Nephites in a demonymic sense by their contemporary Book of Mormon prophets who wrote the synoptic headers (and so in turn by us).

From the synoptic header for Chapter 11 (and 11:1) we learn that Jesus visited the “people of Nephi” (subsequent italicized chapter summaries refer to them as Nephites). The land Bountiful where this arrival and first visits took place was a Nephite territory. The twelve disciples were chosen from among them (3 Nephi 12:2). So, I (and I assume the chapter summary foe Chapter 28) use the term “Nephite(s)” as a known demonym, for the people, the multitude, the disciples, and the three disciples accounted for in these chapters.