JohnsonJones

How much do baristas at Starbucks make I wonder. I imagine one getting tips in San Francisco or New York could be making bank compared to some other professions. Probably more fun too! Of course, the discussion isn't really on that. It seems that for bachelor degrees, unless you want to work retail or management in sales or retail arenas (which are dying in some places) you want a degree in either something you'll get your doctorate in, something that can lead to a doctorate (such as law or medical school) or something practical in the US today (so engineering, education, nursing, Physician's assistant, etc). Then again, the closest I got to a Liberal Arts Degree is my history degree...soo....

VM is a Virtual Machine I think. You can run windows on the side if one wants. I use an Android Phone, that's a deriviative of Linux. I believe apple OS is also a deriviative of Linux, though that's more of what my wife uses. I recently got an Android Tablet. Other than that, I am not using Linux right now. I've used it in the past. I used Linux Mint at that time and booted it up via a separate drive from the computer. I've also run a Linux machine for a desktop. For games, you can utilizing Wine, though you have to know how to trouble shoot a tad bit. I am about as non-techy as you can get though, so I'm not the one to ask that much about how to get it tinkered with enough to get it running (Linux can run really fast and smoothly, boots faster than windows and takes less resources, but takes a little bit more love. You have to know how to configure it in some cases in order to get it to do what you want). I know GOG games supposedly has games that you can just download and run on Linux, but you have to make sure it's from their Linux section first (you don't want to get a Windows game that only runs on windows because that may be difficult for Linux without Wine.

Welcome to the forums.

I don't think you understand what I am saying, but that is okay. If you truly feel differently than I do in regards to loving your fellowman, we will probably simply just need to agree to disagree.

As I said, there are two paths, one is the easy way which many have stated above, the other is the harder path. The goal in this life is to have joy. We do no one any good by trying to tear them down by noticing their sins and pointing them out. We each have enough sins on our own. We can be happy for someone else when they are happy. That does not mean we condone their sins, but if they are more at peace or happier with their choices, we should not try to destroy that happiness simply because we want them to be unhappy. Think of the Lord in the New Testament. Even those involved in the gravest of sins who were brought before him were not condemned, but at the same time he did not condone what they were doing. Our goal is to be more like him. We are not to go around trying to make the world a miserable place, or lose our patience with those who would assail us. The Lord almost always remained calm, collected, and loving towards others in the New Testament. When he did react, it was calculated (such as in the temple) and in regards to violations towards more holy subjects. The easy way is more the Law of Moses, which is perfectly fine in how to choose to react.. The harder way is the beatitudes and the example the Lord set. In your example, I'm going to stay out of that situation and commenting on it unless I'm your ecclesiastical authority. I will be neither happy nor unhappy about what you are doing, as time will eventually bring about a state of unhappiness from what you are doing. HOWEVER, if you are then excommunicated, or leave the church, and your wife divorces you and you continue living a style of fornication and are happy, my response would be different. If you are happy in the lifestyle you have chosen, I'll be happy that you have finally found a way to do what you wish without destroying your marriage (now that you are divorced) or trying to wrestle with the church from the inside out. I'll feel that your choice of lifestyle is not in accordance with the way the Lord has chosen, and is in fact the wrong way to conduct yourself, but as you are my friend, and no longer part of the church itself, then you must make the choice for yourself whether to once again follow the Lord or go your own way. All I can do is try to present myself in a good example and try to follow the Lord in the hopes that some day you may feel a desire to return to him as well. You've already made it clear what way you want to go before that when you chose a lifestyle that would get you excommunicated. You already know what is right and what is wrong. Me, condemning you over that is NOT going to change anything except maybe make you angry at me, and eventually make it so you decide we are NOT friends. As a friend, I should love you as a friend and remain happy for you in moments when you can find happiness. The best thing I could do is to try to remain your friend. Being sour and hating on you because I don't approve your actions is not going to help a friendship, be a good example you can reflect on, or do anything that would bring you back to the church with most people I have known in that type of situation.

There's the easy way and the hard way. Neither is the wrong way, just different paths. The easy way is what people have proposed already. The hard way is to treat this individual as you would want to be treated if positions were switched. Or, to simply love the individual whether you agree with their actions or not. You do not have to accept their actions or what things that may be sin. You can reject the sin, but love the sinner. That can be a very hard thing to do, especially if they become antagonistic. If the individual is male and dating another male and doing things that are romantically involved with that person, be glad for him. You should not celebrate the sin, but be glad if he is out of the church because he has chosen the path he wants to go and hopefully is happy with it. If he is bothering members about this type of choice, it could be that outwardly he has chosen, but inwardly he is still struggling. These things he is doing to you and others could be signs that he is still trying to prove to himself that the path he has chosen is the right one...but something inside is still bugging him enough that he may think he has chosen the wrong one. If he is truly happy with his choice, then be happy for him, but NOT for his sin. Love him because he is a child of our Father just as each of us are. This is a very tough path to follow, and the other path suggested may be the easier and better path. The other path suggested above may even be the right path to choose in this instance. However, if we can love those who have fallen away, or even moreso, those that hate us or despise us, I think we can grow closer to the Lord and understanding how he can love us, even when we are involved with sin.

What type of law are you in and dealing with. This is MY thoughts, rather than much of anything else. My experience is limited to contract and administrative law in dealing with individuals (and no, as I tell everyone, I'm a HISTORIAN, NOT a Lawyer. Also, history is MUCH more fun). I don't know how the partnership may be done at your office, so what I say may not be doable. First, get a REALLY good secretary and paralegal. Have them screen people. Next, if the individual seems really hostile, have a dedicated phone line (so that phone line can also receive all the telemarketers and items that you may get when those angry with you give out the number to whomever) where you can take a call from them instead of being in person if needed. It is much easier to hang up (and vice versa for them) on the phone than it is to get away from a really angry person...in person. Third, if it is a case where they should have a lawyer, communicate with their lawyer instead of dealing with them directly. It helps both of you be on the same page more often (even if you are opposite sides of the table) with a common understanding of the terms and legal language. Finally, remain calm. Realize that almost every individual that is angry or mean are angry and mean at the system, their situation, or something other than you. You just happen to be in the seat that they can currently see. Stay objective and polite. Sometimes anger is because they do not understand something, in that instance, do your best to explain what is going on and what is happening and redirect blame where it belongs rather than on yourself. If it is a client, they'll appreciate the effort you are doing if you can emphasize how you too struggle to help them through the system. If it is on the opposite side of the table, even if they know you are not their friend in this instance, they can hopefully understand that you are doing this for the system, rather than against them personally. If all else fails, do NOT stay in the same room as anyone who starts appearing like they are going to get physically aggressive. Get up and leave. Always have a way out. A little time for heads to cool is a good thing. If you start to feel heated or disturbed yourself, on the phone, in person, or otherwise, find some way to give yourself a 60 second break (at least). Tell them you need to go out of the room for a second, or you need to do something really quick so you can take a deep breath, close your eyes for a second, recollect your thoughts, and then re-engage. I had one guy that I had to work with in regards to a contract that would call me at least one week to chew my ear out. He had a good right to be angry as those I worked with constantly broke the contract. It was a nightmare on both sides as I then had to assuage the angry individual's concerns, while at the same time trying to protect the interests of those I worked with in that contract from losing it, or other legal ramifications. I absolutely hated his calls, and dealing with that particular agreement was painful. Sometimes, you just have to remain calm and deal with it, because you are going to be the only one involved that is going to remain calm. Sometimes things just happen like that, it's part and parcel of the job. If you get angry, it will just make matters worse. On the bright side, though the individual who was angry could swear like no one's business on the phone, in person they were EXTREMELY well behaved, cordial, and polite. You'd never guess they were the same person. Glad to hear about your promotion, I prefer research myself. Congratulations on the new doors being opened and hope you enjoy the opportunities provided!

I suppose it depends on what you mean correlated. There sometimes is a general theme or idea given for talks, sometimes there is no idea given. However, almost all the talks are written and then "turned in" prior to the conference. I imagine there are people who read through them. Here's something that one friend of mine did not realize before the conference. When up on the stand, many of those talks are actually being read. If you look closely, there are these little panes of glass on stands in front of the podium. These are see through on the audiences side, but have the text of the talk on the speakers side. This is so they don't constantly look down at their talk written on paper. It also keeps them able to look out at the audience as they read their talk. It also enables those who are doing close captioning or translating to try to keep up (well, that's a guess on my part, I imagine that since they have the text they use it to try to keep up, but not sure on that part). Now, there is an occasional time that the speaker may not follow what they've read, or using what they read just to jog their memory, at which point if closed captioning is going on, or translating and they actually go off the text rather than what the speaker is saying...it can show a little different than what came out. Some speakers are pretty smart people. I don't think some of them actually use the written talk as much as others, for example, I think Bednar is pretty good at memorization or at least knowing his talks, typically. Anyways, as per being "correlated" as in their is a General Conference correlation meeting to address who says what and how it is said...I don't think there is one of those, exactly. There has been an occasion in the past when the one conducting has mentioned how well all the talks came together as if it were correlated, but in that instance they are referring to how miraculous and guided by the spirit those giving talks were as there was no direct correlation to that effect, thus any correlation in that manner was due to guidance of the spirit. My thoughts on it at least.

Thanks for the response. Interesting. How do you go about getting your name out there? Is it via facebook, or an advertising agency or some other method? Thanks again for the response.

You should honor your parents, but sometimes, if they aren't being the most righteous about something, you should take what they say with a grain of salt. My oldest son reminds me of this all the time when I suggest something, he smiles, and ignores any advice or anything I may say and does his own thing. There are times we live vicariously through our children (maybe it's not living vicariously, but I want my children to be as successful in the world as I see them able to become, and am disappointed when they do not accomplish that). I need to be reminded at times that I love them no matter what, and material goods are temporary things. More important than things of this world, is that they have a testimony of the gospel and are firm in the faith. If we have the gospel, faith in the Lord, and live obediently and righteously we have more in heaven than any wealth on this earth can purchase.

I don't know if Mormon gator was saying that specifically (yes, what he stated about those who suffered and died, but that would apply to a LOT of movies out there, some of which I'm pretty sure most on these boards have never heard of). I think Mormon gator finds things in the movie which they feel is good. I think Mormon Gator feels there are messages and things in the movies that are noteworthy enough that these messages are things everyone should understand and appreciate. In that light, and with the greatest respect towards Mormongators opinion, I would hope to expound on my reasons why I might not feel it specifically would apply to me. A movie may affect different people different ways, so what may be good for you, may not be good for me. We are different and should hold no grudges against each other for our different views and opinions. Schindler's list would not be uplifting for me. I recognize the things Schindler did for the Jewish people, and that for many he was a hero. He saved up to 1200 Jews. This is notable. However, to hold him up simply because of that, while ignoring that his sacrifice was not all that great compared to others, for me, does not make the film something that I NEED to see, especially since I think the message could be portrayed in a way that would NOT make the movie Rated R. It was an artistic choice, and as art, we have our choices of what we choose to see or not to see. However, there are other heroes out there, some with movies that could be just as notable, but which most Americans will never see. Some of these individuals were at the same time as Schindler, but paid a heavy price, sometimes heavier. One such individual would be Chiune Sugihara who saved between 6000 and 10000 Jews. For a reward he spent much of the war in a Russian Prisoner Camp, then after being released came home to be dishonorably released from his job for dishonoring the Japanese government for what they called "that dirty Lithuania incident" (where he had disobeyed a direct order and instead issued thousands of visas to try to save as many Jews as possible). This led to a life of menial labor and poverty. He lived as a dishonored individual with no acclaim in Japan, and finally moved to the Soviet Union, where he still continued a life of small and menial labor. It was only in 1968 was finally found by the Jews and then continued his life onwards. Unlike Schindler who one never could get a straight answer as to why he did what he did, Sugihara actually DID have an answer. I would like to note, for the Japanese of that period, HONOR was held to be even more important than status and money. Sugihara knew that when he says there would be some that would complain (he had been told 3 times NOT to issue the visas, by direct order from Tokyo) his actions would be considered dishonorable. He was LUCKY Japan lost the war as it could have been an worse than an execution for what he did. You did not disobey orders from your higher ups in Japan, HONOR is a much bigger deal there than what we see in the West). There are many notable people in the world and many have done notable things. Some at great sacrifice. I do not feel I need to watch a specific movie to know about their accomplishments. For me, I do not feel Schindler's list is appropriate watching. That does not mean it is inappropriate for you, it may be the best movie for you. For me, however, it is not something I choose to watch, anymore than people try to hunt down movies on Sugihara that were made by communist or Israeli governments and feel they should be on everyone's watch list. In all, movies are art. They are artistic. We all have different forms of art that we may or may not appreciate. An artform or piece of art which you may feel is the greatest thing for you, may do nothing for me. In this light, while I may find movies or stories on Sugihara and think that it truly enlightens the sacrifice an individual makes for their fellowman, it may do nothing for another, while they may feel Schindler's list is the greatest movie in that regard, but it will not be a movie that is necessarily for me.

My and my wife recently went to an LDS run store and picked up the DVD Hair. We made it about 5 minutes before turning it off and returning it. I think that movie might have needed to be rated R, but then I am probably over sensitive to this type of stuff.

It is a common LDS tradition that I don't have problems with. I have no problem with it being on that day, though I must admit I do not spend an overly huge amount of effort or thought on it. What is more alarming is it is also my Father in Law's Birthday and I, not only have not called them yet, but forgot to mail a Birthday gift! I probably SHOULD spend a little bit more time and thought pertaining to the events of April 6th in that light.

I don't think there is any penalty for watching R-rated movies. It is encouraged that you watch wholesome movies. There is no requirement that we avoid Rated-R movies or other such things to be good Mormons, or hold a temple recommend. There is encouragement to watch wholesome and uplifting movies, but it is not something that is specifically asked about in a Temple Recommend. This encouragement to watch wholesome movies goes back decades. Back in either the 70s or 80s, one of the things that was pushed was to avoid R-rated movies. The reason is because it was deemed that these movies were rated R for content that was more violent, sexual, and profanity laced than other movies. It was thought that this was not something that encouraged the spirit to be there or built one up spiritually. This was later continued in an even stronger front when it was published in the Strength of the Youth pamphlets to avoid R-rated movies. This was problematic in several arenas. The biggest obstacle that I dealt with was that I was spending time (I'm a historian, and as such, when doing research I would be in various nations around the world) in nations that did NOT follow the US's rating guidelines, and sometimes had no rating guidelines at all. This meant, that I had to make personal choices in what were appropriate or inappropriate movies in regards to what my standards were. I am obviously not the only one in this situation, hence, despite the encouragement in that regard, there was no way for me to know (especially pre-internet days...yes...there are those of us who existed prior to the internet being a widespread phenomenon) what a movie was or was not rated in the US rating system. Those nations which have rating systems, sometimes rate movies differently. A prime example would be the recent Beauty and the Beast film that came out. In the US it is rated PG, but in some other areas it's almost been banned! In the US some movies are obviously rated R and rated for only Adult audiences in other nations, other movies may be rated R in the US, but a PG12 or other such rating in another nation. At other times, a US movie rated PG (though normally more likely a PG-13 rating) will be rated for audiences 16 or older or worse! It makes it hard to utilize a statement made for US audiences to a worldwide audience. I don't think the LDS church is pushing the rated-R movie policy as strongly anymore, if at all, but there is still an encouragement for us to participate in wholesome and uplifting media. I've been in war zones and I've been other places where I've seen some really terrible things, and personally do NOT consider Schindler's list or Saving Private Ryan a wholesome and uplifting movie, but personal values differ from person to person, just like they do from nation to nation. My lesson that I think I've learned is that each one of us has to make that determination for ourselves. We know, for each of us, what is really wholesome and uplifting. Some of it probably would (or should) be obvious (for example, I'd have a very hard time if someone brought a straight up pornographic movie and tried to convince me that it was wholesome and uplifting), but overall, how a movie may affect us and our families may be different for each individual. Their was a talk many years ago, even when the encouragement to not watch Rated-R movies was in effect. As I was not in the US most of the time during that period, it is what I've utilized as my guiding light in what movies would be wholesome and uplifting. That talk was by a Seventy I believe, so not even an apostle but I considered it good advice. It basically stated, if we would not allow our little children to watch it, why are we watching it? Even worse, if we would deem it inappropriate for our little children, would it not also apply to us. In a nutshell, I try to have it so that the movies I think are appropriate for my life are those that I would also allow my little children to watch. We recently watched Aliens together for family home evening and followed it up with the Exorcist.. .(sorry, that last sentence is a joke...I've never seen those, only clips from ads and other things, though I did have the tune for the exorcist on a CD...I think it was Pure Moods. Those are not movies I'd actually watch with my family, just so people realize this LAST sentence/paragraph about these two movies is actually a joke...).

Adding, this is not really a response to your post, but using your idea of agency and will as a jumping off point in response to the post you responded to... Personal opinion... I personally do NOT believe in pre-destination. I think it is contrary to the designs of the Lord, it is the path that the adversary of the Lord would have had us do and participate in. The Adversary's plan was one where we did NOT have freedom to decide for ourselves whether to be good or evil, but that agency was taken from us and controlled by him. It is the Lord's plan that we are given the freedom to choose between him or against his father and the Kingdom of Heaven. I believe this requires that we have the freedom to choose something, whether that is merely the ability to make a choice whether to be good or evil, or if it is far more than that, I believe we STILL have a choice in this life that will reflect eternity. WHY? If one was about to hand someone ultimate power, power that if abused could wreak chaos in the heavens, where it would be equal to any other great power, how do you test that individual to ensure of who they are? You already know what they will choose if given a choice with the knowledge they have...but what about when they have that power? Ultimate power corrupts ultimately...or does it? When you see little children, you can see what they will be when they grow up. They have pure emotion which, though it may be hidden, still rises to the surface even as adults. This then, is why I think we are here. To see what we are truly like inside, whether we can be trusted to always choose the right choice, or whether, when we are left to our true selves, we will deviate and choose the wrong. I think the ONLY way to see our true nature is to erase all memory of what we were and what we knew so that we cannot use that to mask who we really are. In this way, it can be seen if we truly will follow our heavenly leaders for eternity, or whether we are fallible enough that such power may not be right for us. In addition, it shows what our true desires are in this life. Part of this may be from choices in the pre-mortal life. Perhaps we choose to have a life of comfort and wealth, but one where we would not have exposure to the church or a great chance to reject it over a life where we may struggle, but have the teachings of the Lord in it. It shows whether we truly would WANT to even have that power in the first place. I think our pre-existence had many choices which reflect on this life. I think we had a great many things which we knew would happen in this life and each of us mapped out our own life in conjunction with our heavenly leaders. In that way, it may be that most of what happens in this world that will occur is known overall, that we each also have specific missions we wish to participate in and accomplish in this life. However, I think some may discount just how important this life is, and how important the things we choose in this life are. It is far more than just a body that makes this life important, it is the growth that we can achieve personally, and it is the TEST (and I think this is a test) to see the truth about each and every one of us and our choices in this life. I believe, in this way, that we are fore ordained to things, that there is fore-ordination, but there is NO pre-destination. Pre-destination is a Calvinistic teaching, and one which I believe the LDS church has firmly rejected.

There is one other location that has the Celestial Kingdom, and it is divided into three different areas. Everything is symbolic, though whether one realizes this or not and it's application in this instance. However, it's sort of too sacred to really discuss this or the meanings of the symbology here. They DO coincide very closely with what the LDS church states about the Celestial kingdom, as well as the ideas which I mentioned in relation to the prophets and the Joseph F (and Fielding) Smith's comments, but that's about as close as I can really go in this discussion in relation to the other places where the Celestial Kingdom is specifically mentioned in LDS theology.

As Person_0 already stated, his articles are excellent upon it. If I perceive what you are asking though, is not what it is, but HOW YOU KNOW if your ordinance has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. That can be far more difficult to answer. There are multiple answers to that question that various people have given at various times. I think if you have hope and charity and seek to endure to the end, you probably do not have to worry. ON the otherhand, if you murdered Mr. John Doe in the back of the building and concealed that fact and then got baptized without ever repenting of it...you might want to worry somewhat. Or, if you had been fornicating and then went to the temple and got sealed...you may want to be a little worried, though if you've repented you probably can be a lot less worried. The ordinance in that case was performed, but it is awaiting your own personal worthiness to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

No, there isn't any harm. There have been opinions previously that were not in accordance with our modern beliefs (and one reason I bring up that Bruce R. Mckonkie was the compiler of Doctrines of Salvation, or at least my copies...he is particularly famous for one of his statements that later proved to be incorrect in regards to modern revelation).

I doubt it, I'm not going to be any more clear or explicit than the prophets have already been (or section 131 and 132 already are) on the topic. I'm no Brigham Young or Wilford Woodruff. I'm definitely no Joseph Smith, if one wants to believe when he writes Celestial he actually means the Terrestrial or Telestial, what can I say in that instance more than I have already, or that others have not stated? However, it is not necessary for salvation to know all things (or even this thing). It can be illuminating but as I said, it is more important to be obedient and follow the Lord than knowledge on this. It is highly possible Vort is far more obedient and faithful than I, in which case, there is no woe to him, more like I'm the one in trouble.

If you do not accept the obvious in regards to Joseph Smith's phrasing, I cannot help you. It is very specific WHY he is talking about the Celestial kingdom. If it were different he would NOT specify the Celestial Kingdom. It is made very clear in the Doctrine and Covenants the differences between the Celestial, the Terrestrial, and the Telestial. They are NOT confused about the differences, nor are they ever grouped as the same kingdom. Joseph Smith would not make that mistake, and if he stated it was the Celestial glory, than he was talking about the Celestial glory, not the Terrestrial, and not the Telestial. However, if one rejects that doctrine (and it is doctrine and is taught as such), even after referring to more clear teachings on it, what more can I say? In regards to Doctrines of Salvation, you are correct. It is NOT specifically doctrine, but you will find most of the Mormon culture and traditions that many consider doctrine (but are not) are descended from the items found in those volumes (which is interesting to see how they've evolved, the children who die but have the opportunity to receive all blessings including Celestial Marriage is one that is a descended tradition from those books, as in it is extrapolated from those teachings into something different later on in LDS culture). You can also find many traditions of our LDS culture also descended from another set of works he wrote called Answers to Gospel questions. One interesting things about Doctrines of Salvation. My copy was NOT written by Joseph Fielding Smith, it was instead compiled by Bruce R. McKonkie. This is a fascinating thing since it is likely he may have crafted some of the way they were quoted to reflect his own personal ideas on them. That these than became Mormon traditions speaks volumes about the influence Bruce R. Mckonkie has had on the evolution of our modern church's culture. Another thing of interest is that some of the volumes I have of Joseph F. Smith were compiled by Bruce R. McKonkie's son, Joseph McKonkie. The same would probably apply in his case as well. I don't think he addressed the Moon in the DoS though...he addressed a lot of other items. I could be mistaken, but don't recall that specifically being a topic of discussion.

Doctrines of Salvation has a LOT of the Mormon traditions and ideas that are held today (for example, just in the little section I'm going to list, it also discusses the idea that those who miss things in this life can have all those blessing in the next (this is a step beyond Josephs revelation on Alvin where that brother obtained the Celestial Kingdom). It talks specifically that woman who are faithful in this life, but do not have the opportunity to be married will have that opportunity in the next. It is from this line of thinking where people draw upon the infant idea or little children also having that opportunity, despite the fact that this is actually NOT expounded in the volume (and even stronger, that men who refuse to marry are actually condemned very strongly in it). However, in regards to the faithful children, it is found on page 90- 92 of which I'll paraphrase some of it together...

yes, but Definitely NOT here and not in this discussion. There are plain things discussed, but if one discards that section 131 is talking about the Celestial kingdom and instead feels it is the Kingdom of heaven, many of those items could be seen the same as anti-Mormons see them, which is NOT useful for an uplifting discussion. Give me a second in regards to Folk Prophet's item though, I'm looking it up in the book right now.

You are correct of course. On this particular thing, I know the sources of it. There is a lesser known one by Joseph F. Smith (which had a LOT of things in some subjects, but ironically ONLY one of them made it into the Doctrine and Covenants, that being the revelation on the Spirit World). The more popular and accessible one, and the one that I feel is actually normally utilized as the source document is found in Doctrines of Salvation Give me a minute or two and I can give you the exact quote. I have to look it up manually as I don't know an online reference for it. It may also take me a minute to type it out. The particular volume is Volume II of that (and I believe it is also addressed in his Answers to Gospel Questions). These volumes were particularly popular during the latter half of the twentieth century, but not so much into the 21st century that I've seen. This is also the same volume where we get other Mormon traditions and ideas such as that of Families ONLY being sealed as a unit in the Celestial Kingdom rather than other Kingdoms (there isn't much reference that the sealing bonds done are not still enforce outside the Celestial kingdom, only that of Celestial Marriage is in regards to that of the Celestial Kingdom, but the sealings of those to their children is not specified. It is in Doctrines of Salvation that it is specified that family sealing bonds are ONLY in effect in the Celestial Kingdom itself, which is another LDS/Mormon tradition).

The LDS church in all it's apostles and prophets have always referred to the three degrees in the celestial kingdom as different than the three degrees of glory. It is very explicit in that it is discussing the CELESTIAL kingdom, and NOT the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdoms. Reading into 131 to be discussing all degrees of glory when Joseph was WELL aware of the differences, is in my mind, probably reading into it something different than it explicitly states (and one reason why it STATES the Celestial rather than the degrees of glory in general). He would NOT mistake the three degrees of glory and group them into the Celestial Glory, which is itself, different than that of the Terrestrial or Telestial. To assume Joseph would do such a thing seems to render a thought that Joseph Smith did not comprehend the differences and mistakenly stated the Celestial Kingdom when he meant the three Kingdoms instead. If it were the three Kingdoms he would have stated the Kingdom of Heaven is divided rather than the Celestial Kingdom. The fact that he states it is the Celestial Kingdom is very specific in what he is addressing. It puzzles me HOW and why such a teaching that goes contrary to the traditions of the church, the teachings that have come out in general conferences about the degrees of glory and such are even grabbing hold of anyone's opinion. HOWEVER, in the end, it is not necessary to understand these in context of salvation or exaltation. What is important is to follow the commandments, love the Lord and endure to the end.

I'm not certain why you think that as this is talking about the Celestial Kingdom and exaltation. Where do you think the Angels reside? The Telestial Kingdom? 132 references to Angels, NOT Terrestrial or Telestial beings. Section 132 is one that is problematic at times as anti-Mormons latch onto it fervently in one of their condemnations of the LDS Church as it also talks about polygamy. I talk about polygamy and various aspects on these boards at times, but in regards to section 132 and Joseph Smith's teachings in regards to it, these can be VERY touchy subjects. (or one could say sensitive). Many may take it in the wrong way (I'm not anti-Mormon or anti-LDS by any means, but when discussing this stuff, some may take it very offensively). The references in some of these documents refer directly to Joseph's actions in references in regards to plural marriage. I'll think about it and whether to go into detail, though I may end up PMing you when I have more time as some of this stuff may be taken rather poorly, even from those who are very strong members otherwise. However, you are correct, it is rather easy to find on your own, if you are searching for it. The biggest problem is that anti-Mormons also enjoy latching onto some of these stories and statements and portray them in a very negative light. If one does not already accept the idea of three degrees in the celestial kingdom, following their logic on these stories, and thus then out of the church is a very easy thing to do. Most of this focuses on Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, their teachings on the subject, and their actions in that regards (Actually Brigham Young was VERY talkative on this subject in many of his recorded talks, along with some other interesting subjects which are misunderstood. Another prime example is the Adam Theory which, as understood by many and even explained by anti-Mormons and some FLDS is disavowed as a doctrine for the LDS church, but still taught in certain religious classes and discussed by General Authorities in it's actual meanings (which is nothing like what people explain or understand it as).