Eydis

Members
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Eydis's Achievements

  1. Maybe the better way to say it is that a the future cannot be described as events that have already come to pass. Like I said before, I may know that I will leave this body some day but I wouldn't say that I am a resurrected being right now. I cannot know that I am a resurrected being until I am resurrected. I could know that I will someday be resurrected but that does not carry the same significance as saying I am resurrected. I can see the value in saying that there is something gained by bringing the act 'to pass'. What I don't understand is why there is such a strong push in these arguments to say that God does not gain anything by bringing things 'to pass', that it would carry the same value as it had before He brought it 'to pass'. How is that idea supportive to the LDS doctrine?
  2. The present could be defined as the moment something could be acted upon. One cannot act on (or change) the past or the future event other than what is done in the present.
  3. D&C 132 does not explain it that specifically, it does not say "Eternal Plural Marriage". When recent prophets are asked these questions, this is what they say; " Sealings. Former Utah senator Jake Garn was reluctant to remarry following the death of his first wife, Hazel, in 1976, but he soon realized that he could not be both a father and a mother to his children. When he began dating Kathleen Brewerton, who would become his second wife, questions soon arose about how his first wife would feel should he become sealed to a second wife. The couple took their questions to President Spencer W. Kimball. He said he did not know exactly how these relationships will be worked out, but he did know that through faithfulness all will be well and we will have much joy. Brother Garn later recalled. Kathleen told him that she was afraid of offending Hazel. President Kimball's demeanor seemed to change. From being somewhat hesitant in his earlier answers, he now became sure and spoke with firmness. He looked right at Kathleen and with a tear forming in his eye, he said, "I do know this: you have nothing to worry about. Not only will she accept you, she will put her arms around you and thank you for raising her children" (Jake Garn, Why I Believe [1992], 13)." ...and ... "Family members need not worry about the sealing situation of blended families as it might be in the next life. Our concern is to live the gospel now and to love others, especially those in our family. If we live the gospel to the best of our ability, the Lord in His love and mercy will bless us in the next life and all things will be right. I have seen some new blended families become torn apart by worrying about who will belong to whom and who will be with whom in the next life. My mother, who is sealed to my deceased father, is married to a widower who is sealed to his first wife, who died childless. My mother and her second husband have a son, who is my brother. We are not concerned about who will be sealed to whom. We simply trust in the Lord's wisdom and love and try to live righteously. . . . ("Uniting Blended Families," by Robert E. Wells, Ensign, Aug. 1997, p. 24)" Even in D&C 132 it says; "66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present." That is at the end of the chapter right after the section on plural marriage so there is no claim to this being an "Eternal" plural marriage. Let me ask you something, if a man in this life lives plural marriage, lets say with 10 wives but then breaks his covenant, becomes unworthy of it, what will happen to the 10 wives. Will they be given to one man or will they be divided and given to 10 different worthy men? Of course we don't know but would you say that it is possible that the 10 wives be given to 10 different worthy men? If yes, than it is certainly possible that every earthly plural marriage would be so divided. But keeping in mind that within the Celestial Kingdom all are sealed to each other, there is no break with the sealing of eternal families within the Celesital Kingdom, so all is good.
  4. I don't think I am explaining myself well, my apologies. I am trying to say there is something qualitatively different between knowing something will happen vs. knowing that it has happened. For example, I know that my son will graduate from High School in a year but I wouldn't yet call him a High School Graduate. Similarly, I think there is something qualitatively different when God brings something "to pass" as opposed to knowing that it will happen. What I mean by timeless, is the claim that there is no equation in God's realm that would require the factor of time. It is the belief that time simply doesn't exist for God. So, this takes away any relative time discussion, it wouldn't include any idea that for God time is faster or slower, it is the belief that there is simply no passage of time at any rate for God. I don't know what else to call it but timeless. In the First Vision, Joseph heard God speak. He heard the beginning of the sentence through to the end of the sentence, by his description. Joseph didn't say the sentence was instantly in his mind as if is happened in a twinkling of an eye, or something like that. He claimed that he saw and heard and watched God point even. To claim that God pointed means that at one moment He wasn't pointing and then He was. This implies the passage of time witnessed by Joseph Smith. If God was without time, then He couldn't do those things, it would be all one moment.
  5. So you don't think that Vort and you will be bound together in the same family bond? That you will be of different families if you both make it to the Celestial Kingdom?
  6. Not only is it "not unreasonable" (wow, three negatives in the same sentence) but Ezra Taft Benson discussed it; "I also recognize that not all women in the Church will have an opportunity for marriage and motherhood in mortality. But if those of you in this situation are worthy and endure faithfully, you can be assured of all blessings from a kind and loving Heavenly Father—and I emphasize all blessings. I assure you that if you have to wait even until the next life to be blessed with a choice companion, God will surely compensate you. Time is numbered only to man. God has your eternal perspective in mind." It is hard for me to understand how someone who would otherwise be worthy of a Celestial life, who is faithful and endures to the end, would turn down celestial marriage when it is offered so that they may be an angel in the Celestial Kingdom. That does not make sense to me. How could they turn down marriage and still be faithful? That would be a contradictory statement regarding the the description of the type of people that will be in the Celestial Kingdom, people that want the fullness of that glory. The opportunity for marriage will come before resurrection as we are told there is no marriage after resurrection. Resurrection comes before being placed into a Kingdom of glory (or right with it) so then if it is possible to be in the Celestial Kingdom and not be married then we would have to say that those individuals turned down the opportunity to take on celestial marriage. I don't see how that is possible.
  7. Is it a requirement to be like God? Will there be anyone in the Celestial Kingdom who does not have all that God has? Just like you quoted D&C 76; " 59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. " If they are not married then how can they have "all" as in 'all things are theirs'?
  8. In the Celestial Kingdom all is shared. One should ask their self, is there anything I could hide from God? Is there any experience, any thought, any passion, any joy that I could hide from God? No. If an individual makes it to the Celestial Kingdom and inherits all that God has, then what could one hide from that individual? Nothing. The sealing power allows anyone who makes it into the Celestial Kingdom to share the glory of all those who are also in the Celestial Kingdom. In other words, then news is that if one cannot love their neighbor as their self then they will not be in the Celestial Kingdom. If one loves their neighbor as their self then they have the capacity to experience what that person experiences which is the lesson taught by our Savior as He did in the garden of Gethsemane. If one man has one wife in the Celestial Kingdom and another man has 15 wives in the Celestial Kingdom (if that is really possible) then would they have different degrees of glory? No. Because all is shared. In other words, there is no reason for a man to have more than one wife in the Celestial Kingdom. At least we have no plausible reason for a man to have more than one wife. I can't see any revelations that say it is in the LDS gospel that a man will have more than one wife in the Celestial Kingdom. Please give us quotes as to where you see that as official doctrine of the church.
  9. Maybe they thought they would lose what they supposed they had, they weren't willing to take a chance. Despair, hopelessness, feeling like its not worth the effort are pretty powerful tools of the devil. Definition of lose by Webster; " to miss from one's possession or from a customary or supposed place " If one cannot live by the admonition of Paul, to hope for all things and endure all things, then by definition they take their self off the path of happiness.
  10. But we do believe that God can experience your experience and therefore obtain the same power which was exerted. We believe that Christ experienced all our sins and suffered for them and we can experience them too. That ability makes it so that there is no loss when one being experiences something that the other didn't do. So, one of our core beliefs as Christians is that it is possible to experience something someone else experienced in the same way they did. Christ gives all his glory to God and in the end we all can have all that God has. The omnipotent ability comes from sharing experiences, the only way to share experiences it to have the love of Christ, pure charity. The result of all the things you said God is all about (love, kindness, compassion ...) is that it gives Him the power to "live" vicariously and obtain glory vicariously. This is our goal as well. Whether it is His hand or the hand of His servants it is the same.
  11. I think one of the things that has helped me focus on the effects of pride is to realize that in the Celestial Kingdom we share each other's glory. If the people that end up in the Celestial Kingdom are ones who love their neighbor as their self then that means they value their glory as much as their own. That is a primary characteristic of those people. In other words, in order to qualify ourselves for that Kingdom we have to show that we have that character about us which is the opposite of Pride or seeing others as taking something away from us when they are successful. In our current political environment something that seems to always come up in my household is how a big part of the population seem to believe that if one person is rich it makes another poor when really it is the opposite. There is a belief, at least it seems that way, that the rich made the poor. So, they want to tax the rich more heavily, they want to redistribute wealth etc. In other words, there can be a lot of pride in those that have little when they desire more of what their neighbor has as opposed to being happy for their neighbor's success. It is a sin of pride when one cannot love their neighbor as their self and be happy for their neighbor's successes.
  12. I agree that there is purpose in these things but I disagree with Traveler saying that it just seems like it is random when it is not (maybe I am misinterpreting what he is saying). I guess the question is whether God could use random events for His purposes. For example, within genetics there are certain traits that can follow a dominant or recessive pattern. Do you think God then decides, 'I gave that trait to 3 of the children so I better give the recessive trait to the 4th child to maintain the pattern.' Or, does God just let the random pattern of who gets what trait based in the natural occurrence of genetic randomness. I think sometimes the child born blind is not based in any cause and effect but an occurrence related to the random events related to corruption and then used for God's purposes.
  13. You shouldn't be jealous but realize that a covenant is a two way street. We covenant with God but also God covenants with us to help us fulfill our promise. That additional help is not there without the covenant. A covenant is a contract of teamwork between the person making the covenant and God. That is the blessing of having priesthood authority in our lives that is binding and real. Those covenants will be made available to all those who desire them and remain worthy of them onto the next realm where they will be made available if they couldn't happen here. So, don't be jealous but at the same time remain desirous.
  14. So, when a terrorist bomb goes off in a crowd and the nuts and bolts fly in seemingly "random" directions killing one child in the crowd and not the other and taking out the legs of another but not the person standing next to them, that was determined rather than "random"?
  15. But what if the purpose of the test is to see what a person does in the setting of not being aware of the conditions? Like Adam not knowing why he performed sacrifices but doing it anyways. The way to set up a test of faith is to create a setting where the conditions are unknown to the person. If the test is who would a person turn to when the conditions are unknown, do the turn to their spiritual understanding, rely on Christ and the Holy Spirit for guidance or do they turn to their own understanding which is flawed and limited. Isn't that the test we face? In my understanding, the first estate test was the one where we had all knowledge placed before us, all the conditions were understood. We all here already passed that test. We don't need to take that test again. Now we face a different test, a test of the flesh, a test based in faith which is, by definition, a test in the setting of unknowns.