Rob Osborn
-
Posts
3852 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rob Osborn
-
-
16 minutes ago, Fether said:
So do you believe God is trying to find out who will be good and who will be evil? THEN he will destroy the wicked?
In a sense yes.
-
6 minutes ago, Fether said:
Regardless, do you believe Satan has the power to prevent Hid from getting rid of him?
You claim evil is here purely because Lucifer rebelled against God and that evil was not meant to be a part of the plan. So does that mean God is unable to remove Satan? Is Satan to strong for God?
God allows Satan because the line is still being divided and the Father is trying to reclaim all that is possible. Once the Father has reclaimed those he sets out to reclaim then Satan and his angels will be utterly destroyed. It's not a matter of if but when. The "when" is most important. Why? To allow people to divide out as they will now that a line had been made.
-
34 minutes ago, Traveler said:
Recently I encountered the idea that if we are all on and stay on the same path – we will all end up at the same destination. In our modern culture the idea of a path or way is entirely encased in the concept of a road – which is the means to get from point A to Point B. Our culture is deeply imbedded in the idea of maps, roads and orientations as the means to get us to our desired destination. I am well acquainted with this concept. I am an expert in automated material handling and artificial intelligent routing techniques. I understand all the problems and complexities of following path choices to get to a destination.
In the religious context most modern Christians view the ancient wisdom concept of way or path in the same manner they perceive our modern road system. That is that the only purpose of a path or was is to eventually get to a destination. We are all familiar with Google maps and using our smart phones as a navigation device. There are many good and wonderful concepts of geo-navigation to get us to our destination that fit so very well into or religious paradigm of a path or way to salvation. But as we navigate with Google we often experience off or strange variances in our travels. It is not uncommon for Google to send us on different routes between the same two points – or on a different route when we return.
Here is a rhetorical question – if we use Google and we discover that we end up traveling different routes – does our way or path change?
In many cultures (especially ancient cultures) a way or path was not intended to mean following a road from place “A” to place “B”. The way or path was a method of discovery. This may be a difficult or impossible concept for some to grasp but the way or path in such cultures was not so much about a destination or even the specific route as it was an keen awareness of discovery. To put this into perspective. Modern Christians are likely to interpret the term “way” or “path” encountered in scripture to mean how to get themselves to Heaven or the Celestial Kingdom. Is that the measure of a child or Saint of G-d? A self-aggrandizement intended for nothing more than to satisfy the ego?
Using this modern application of a way, we can imagine two travelers together in the same automobile traveling from New York to Los Angles. Since they are in the same car they take the same path but end up with one discouraged vowing they will never again travel by car from New York to LA and the other so happy to have traveled across America by car, seeing so many things and with desire to do it again and perhaps explore things that were possibly missed. I would liken these two travelers to types of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Both are born under the covenant, are baptized, attend church meetings, participate in all ordinances and ordinations, serve missions and marry in the temple. One is happy, grateful and full of thanks but the other discouraged feeling that life has passed them by and they had little freedom to do what they really wanted.
If we see the way or path as a method of discovery, especially spiritual enlightenment – then there is a possibility that two individuals utilizing the same way (method) could very easily end up in extremely different locations or places of spiritual resolve. I suggest that the way of Christ is not so much to get us to some place as it is to become. There was a time when all intelligent spirit children of G-d began on the same path but a third part quickly found a compulsion of self and pride as the path or way was only a means of self fulfilment. So when I say become – I am not referencing an ego fed narcists seeking their own glory but a loving compassionate individual more interested in personal sacrifice of individual achievement for the glory of others than for themselves.
The Traveler
The way, the path, etc, is the same in regards to salvation unto eternal life. The process itself of entering into the path and progressing is in fact who we are becoming. The destination itself is as much as who we become as it is why we end up where we will. That said, there is only one type of individual Christ can save. Christ can't save the miserable, the weak, the stubborn, etc,. The path of salvation itself is our own willingness to become the type who becomes like God.
-
2 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:
How much do you want to bet that if you asked Jeffrey R Holland whether or not he believes in both a pre-resurrection telestial world (our presnt fallen world) and a post resurrection telestial kingdom of heavenly glory that he would wouldn’t say yes?
All speculation. What isn't speculation though is his belief that we are currently in the Telestial Kingdom.
-
3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:
He is a liar, but his plan as presented was that we could not choose, we would not have free agency and thus all would be saved. This plan was that there would be no choice to do evil, but we could only choose good.
If this plan was selected, it would overthrow the other plan, which was the Father's plan. In doing so, the Adversary would usurp the Father and seize his glory and power (or attempt to). This was his real intent, not to save us, but to seize power. Thus he came in open rebellion and was trying to throw down the Father to raise himself up.
The worst part is that his plan COULD NOT WORK, at least not to bring us up to the level (or even some of us) to that the Father's plan would. We could never learn the differences between good and evil, thus we would never have joy and never could achieve a state where we could practice a worthy exaltation. As such, all that was created would be subject, us never having learned that evil and wickedness were wrong, to having evil overthrow righteousness and goodness (which was also part of the plan of the Adversary indirectly one could say).
Thus the whole plan was to bring up a tyrannical dictator who would have us as puppets with no free agency, to overthrow the goodness and light of the Father, and rule in darkness.
All this, under the guise of the plan of doing away with free agency, or the ability to choose good and evil, to experience it and to show that we would choose the good.
In a way it was all part of the beginning of the plan of salvation right there (and who knows, as it is one eternal round, maybe by statistics it is almost guaranteed that in any family that size you will always have those who rebel and present this type of idea) where we got our first taste of having to make that choice between choosing the Good or choosing the Evil. Between choosing following the Lord or following wickedness.
We mustn't believe Satan when he said he would save all and connect that with the destruction of agency. That's bad on our logic. The scriptures state he very much did say he would save all. But in the very same verse Moses also says he was a liar. Thus we get the real context of what was going on. One of the antonyms of "agency" is "captive". Let's put it all into place then- Satan said he would save everyone, but he was being deceptive in this, he was lying, instead he sought to bring men into captivity and destruction. This is what the scriptures really mean.
-
2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
As nothing is canon, I will provide additional theory pertaining to mansions. If I were to liken many "mansions" pertaining to where God dwells now, I would first think upon our Celestial Kingdom. All who live on this earth that receive a Celestial glory will live on this earth once it has received its glory as the Celestial kingdom.
Then the theory I would propose is that the many mansions where God dwells currently are the individuals who also lived and received Celestial glory -- his brothers and sisters. Again, as not much is revealed about the Father, this is all theory.
I have always taken "father's house" to mean the kingdom of heaven or Celestial kingdom.
-
18 minutes ago, Edspringer said:
Great observations. Thank you
Well, I`ve been thinking about children not living with their parents, especially when they are growing. If things of this Earth are in the likeness of the things which are heavenly, as Paul said, then we must concluded that we, indeed, lived in the home of our Heavenly Fathter and Mother. But in John 14:2 we read that in the house of our Father there are many mansions, so it sounds plausible to consider the pre-mortal realm of spirits as a different place, where our Father and Mother, who own everything in the universe, would come and visit us. What do you think of that?
That's bizzare. It's the "glory" of God that states what kingdom he is in. We lived with Him there. It was a Celestial glory.
-
10 minutes ago, Fether said:
I don’t think a measly little Lucifer is strong enough to create evil where it wasn’t meant to exist.
Sure, maybe it didn’t need to happen the way it did, but I can’t fathom how a child of God rebelled in such a way that it forces evil upon the earth when God himself did not want it here. That backs my immature childhood belief that Satan has some power over God. Otherwise, why would he be here if it wasn’t in line with God’s original plan?
If God needed to, he could have removed Satan and all his followers from existence. But he didn’t. Why? Because evil needs to exist for us to choose good.
btw... the plans mentioned above seem to be approaching Satan’s plan. To have no choice between good and evil, but rather be forced to choose good.
It isn't, nor ever was Satan's intentions to force obedience. He wanted us to fall so that he could rule over us.
-
10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:
Evil is the opposite of Good. I added the scripture and statements from Lehi to hopefully explain it above.
I FEEL that there can be a place where evil cannot exist. This place is the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity. I believe that good can triumph and extinguish evil in the end, totally and completely.
However, we MUST learn and prove ourselves while we are here. As Lehi tells us, in order to understand many things there must also be an opposition. Without it, the law becomes meaningless and purpose therefore becomes moot.
The idea that we could not fall and everyone of us would be saved was the Adversary's plan. It is the plan that we could not choose for ourselves between good and evil, but rather that we could only be good and he, as enactor of this plan would thus attain the glory beyond that of the Father's, because his plan usurped the Great Plan of Salvation that the Father taught and that his Son (who would become the only begotten) championed.
This indicates that while the Father cannot allow wickedness or evil within his kingdom, that it is still necessary for us to experience it and see it for ourselves to understand WHY Good is better and WHY Evil is so terrible. If we are too obtain exaltation, then understanding these fundamental ideas about Good and Evil are necessary so that we know to emulate the Father rather than his fallen children that fell away from him.
Ironically, they fell in rebellion because they felt that there was no need for evil to be a choice, or that free agency to choose between good and evil should be necessary, but in doing so, choose to follow the path of wickedness from the start.
One purpose for us to be here to attain eternal life and have joy. It Is a great purpose, but how can one have joy if they cannot understand what joy is? Part of this is knowing the differences between good and evil. That does not mean we have to experience evil or choose evil, but that we see the effects it has, and at times personally experience the hardship and difficulties that it can cause. In this way we can know just how wonderful the good is compared the depravities of wickedness that we understand. In the same light we can experience joy because we can comprehend the opposite and what it does.
Adding: Would evil exist without the Adversary...most likely. We know that the natural man is an enemy to God, and as such has temptations of the natural man to withstand. That said, we would still have this challenge to choose the Good or to choose the evil, and to see how evil can be manifested so that we know the qualities of wickedness and what it brings to also understand why Goodness and Light are the best choices to choose and what path wisdom would have us follow.
Satan is the destroyer. Satan's plan was always to get us to fall and get chained down to destruction. He never wanted to save anyone. He is a liar, he lied in saying he would save all, he never was going to do that.
-
4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:
A community reflecting better qualities does not in and of itself stop one from sin or choosing evil. For example, a flaw in the gun control argument is that if they ban guns than gun deaths will cease, or even stranger, that there will be no more murders.
However, Mexico is a prime example where banning guns did not cause gun deaths to decrease or murders to end.
A society that does away with evil products and of itself can hold to it of their own accord only reflects the morality or desires of that community, but not necessarily every individual in that community.
If we banned pornography it would go a long ways at preventing people from viewing it. However, if we ban fornication (which has been done in the past in communities), there would still be fornication. Individuals still have to choose whether to choose to do good or to do evil.
As for the City of Enoch, we know precious little about the goings on there. It could be they are having children, or it could be that they are translated and are immortal to a degree similar to the three Nephites and that all in the city were translated. It may be that they do not have children, or if they do perhaps those children are like those we have in this life that pass before the age of accountability who may have had no reason to be tested or are rewarded in accordance with how they have or have not been tested. Such things are known to the Lord but are not really expounded upon for us in the Scriptures pertaining to the City of Enoch and children.
I have never bought into the belief that evil is required for there to be agency. I think that we have evil here on this world because Lucifer fell. Was it required that he fell along with the third of the hosts so that the plan could proceed? No.
-
2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
When the choices are only between good choices, rather than the choices to determine who we will follow, the Lord or the Adversary, I feel that would defeat a great purpose of our having free agency in the first place here in mortality.
So, what about the city of Enoch that was taken up? Certainly they are still having children, generation after generation? What about the command for us to build Zion and drive out wickedness? Is a city better off to ban porn shops or have them? If we decide to remove the wickedness in our society does the very exercise of our will destroy our will?
-
8 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:
Can you name just one past or current LDS Church leader who have indicated they believe as you do? If there is such a person, please provide quotes that will substantiate that they did or do in fact believe as you do.
Does the following passage from D&C 76 mean there will be saved people in the celestial kingdom who, even though they are in the celestial kingdom, will never get to see nor personally be in the presence of God and Christ?
109 But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;
110 And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever;
111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared. 112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.I have shown on many occasions that Jefferey R Holland believes we are currently in the telestial kingdom. I have also stated many times that our temple teaches that we are now in the telestial kingdom. I have also stated my beliefs many times that the vision Joseph Smith saw, as now recorded as section "76" was a vision of the progression of our earth and thus why he sees son's of perdition (verse 103) in the telestial kingdom.
-
4 hours ago, askandanswer said:
Some questions occurred to me this morning about which I think it would be very helpful to get the thoughts of others.
At present, the Plan of Salvation is set up in such a way that progression and learning is linked to, when choosing between good and evil, the making of right choices, ie, choosing the right and rejecting the evil. This seems to be one of the main mechanisms for growth. Under the current arrangements, the necessity of, and ability to make such choices, is the, or maybe one of the, central elements of the whole plan. When thinking about this, this morning, the following questions came to mind.
How might things be different if, instead of being required to choose between good and evil, the range of choices was simply between good, better, best, or between good and more good?
Could the objectives that are intended to be achieved under a system of choosing between good and evil be achievable under a system of choosing between good better best? What objectives could not be achieved, or could not be achieved quite as well?
If the same, or similar objectives could be achieved under a system of choosing between good better and best, is the existence of evil and a tempter still necessary?
What are the pros and cons of a system where the choices are between good better best as compared with a system where the choices are between good and evil?
Could an examination of the range of differing possible mechanisms – ie, one mechanism characterized by a system of choosing between good and evil, and another mechanism characterized by a system of choosing between good, better and best, and any other mechanisms that could exist – and an examination of the option that is ultimately decided upon, and a comparison between the option that was decided upon with the options that were rejected help us to better understand the mind, the preferences, the values and intentions of the Decider of that decision?
Your thoughts and comments are most welcome because I have no clear idea about this. But it does seem to me that values, preferences, and intentions can sometimes be glimpsed when we can better understand the choices that have been made and what the alternatives were.
The plan was in place before Lucifer fell and there was division in heaven. It's human nature to sin, we don't need an actual temptor. During the millennium Satan will be bound and the conditions will be much more ideal to make good decisions and keep them.
-
1 hour ago, Jersey Boy said:
That contrary to what both LDS scholars and anti-LDS critics often claim, the plan of salvation as presented in the Doctrine & Covenants and the Book of Mormon are actually in perfect harmony with each other. A thorough reading and comprehension of D&C sections 19, 76, 88, 131, 132 and 138 contain the keys to unlock the mystery that reveals there is no doctrinal conflict between the Book of Mormon’s binary presentation of the plan of salvation and the D&C’s three degrees of glory presentation of the plan of salvation.
Rob discovered some of the basic elements that resolve the mystery, but then unwisely went too far with the claim that there aren’t degrees of glory but that one is either fully exalted or totally damned to outer darkness with the sons of perdition. As you know, the Doctrine & Covenants clearly teaches that there are degrees of glory, even within the celestial kingdom, but Rob finds ways of explaining away such scriptures with the claim they were written before the full spiritual illumination on the subject that only he, and not the past and living prophets, has received.
Whoa there, you are making some false claims about my beliefs. I have never taught there weren't three degrees of glory within the Celestial kingdom. I actually advocate that doctrine. Where I differ is that after resurrection and judgment there is only the Celestial kingdom left on the right hand for all the righteous or the eternal hell on the left hand for the wicked. There won't be separate world's of glory for the saved to go to.
My belief is that everyone falls into one of two general places- either immortality unto eternal life in Celestial glory or immortality unto eternal damnation where damnation is hell.
I also have never claimed that only I received this by revelation. This is just not true. My beliefs is that I put together what prophets have already revealed and teach. That's a huge difference.
-
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Well, we’re assuming here that the lesser “degrees” represent final, rather than a transitory states. Which I am inclined to believe; though my understanding was that you believed the opposite.
But assuming arguendo that the Church is right about that: what does it mean to “be married”? What makes the difference between a man and a woman who are in the permanent friend zone, versus a man and a woman who consider themselves—and whom God considers—“married”?
The only defining characteristic of exaltation that I am aware of, is continuation of seed; and if a man and a woman don’t have that, does it really matter what they choose to call their relationship?
All who follow Christ (all of the saved) and who wish to be eternally married will be granted that blessing in eternity.
-
I would like to propose an analogy. Think of marriage like a college degree. There are lots of people who have college degrees. Certain jobs require this degree but one can still have the degree without having the job. Just because one has a degree doesn't necessarily mean he has the certain job which requires it. So too it is in the eternities. The highest degree of the Celestial kingdom requires marriage. But, just because one is married doesn't necessarily mean they are in the highest degree.
Who isn't to say God allows his children to be married in all of the degrees in his mansions? Certainly there is no scripture that states otherwise.
-
22 minutes ago, clbent04 said:
This goes back to your thinking that 99 percent of us are going to the Celestial Kingdom, doesn’t it? In which case, I have to respectfully disagree
Without bringing that into the equation, all those Christ saves are cleansed and pure. Do you think Christ will save the unrighteous?
-
29 minutes ago, clbent04 said:
My opinion is if we don't hold sacred the powers of procreation in this life, we are deemed too reckless to be entrusted with such powers in the life hereafter.
Except, in the resurrection all those Christ saves are forgiven and they become righteous.
-
4 minutes ago, clbent04 said:
Procreate does not equal having sex.
My personal opinion, we all will pair up eventually in eternity and fill the measure of our creation.
-
4 minutes ago, clbent04 said:
I was referring to how are existence will be after being judged and resurrected. We are told only those in the Celestial Kingdom will continue to procreate in the life hereafter.
All resurrected bodies will be restored to their perfect orders with fully functioning parts.
-
2 minutes ago, clbent04 said:
Is that a real quote from Joseph Fielding Smith? I wonder if that was the Church's general understanding of how we are and aren't identified by gender in the life hereafter. But it does make you question, if no procreation is going on in the Telestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms, what's the point of being male and female?
Well, we are procreating away, lots and lots, here in the telestial kingdom right now.
-
14 minutes ago, mikbone said:
'He/She' pronouns banned during hearings - California LGBT activism.
The above nonsense reminded me of a teaching found in Doctrine of salvation. Serves them right!
But then the question arises, is gender eternal?
Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong, plain and simple. The Proclamation teaches otherwise.
-
1 hour ago, wenglund said:
Another way to conceptualize this salient point is to read the Parable of the Laborers in conjunction with the Parable of the talents. The laborers may receive the same wage/talent, but what they do with that wage/talent may produce quite different results.
Not all who enter the gate reach the end of the path.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
It's true that not enduring to the end results in damnation. But, they aren't saved either if that's the case. Thus, all who are saved reach the destination at the end of the path- that destination is eternal life.
-
1 hour ago, Traveler said:
I will try again - Christ healed 10 lepers but only one was made whole. I believe you are trying to compare apples to oranges. They were all blessed the same and they were all healed and yet one benefited more by becoming whole. The assumption that all benefit the same in salvation - even if all have the same blessings; I am not sure that means all benefit the same.
The Traveler
Christ cleanses "all" those he saves from "all" their sins. If clean, then pure, and all pure.
A possible different system of choosing
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
No.