brotherofJared

So it wasn't a supernova. Replace the word supernova with a bight light in the sky that faded away within 36 hours

I think a miracle explained is still a miracle.

Same source, but not the same celestial event.

Heavenly Father is God of everything. He became that the same way Christ did. If you want to know how Heavenly Father did it, just learn everything you can about Christ and what Christ did is what Heavenly Father did.

Not sure what you mean here. I don't see how anyone could miss that Ross was set up for failure. He definitely didn't have what many of the rest of us got when he started his mortal life. If you think we all start the same, I would beg to differ and yes. I believe God knowingly places us in circumstances that are designed for failure, but only failure as we understand it. 2 Nephi 10:2 For behold, the promises which we have obtained are promises unto us according to the flesh; wherefore, as it has been shown unto me that many of our children shall perish in the flesh because of unbelief, nevertheless, God will be merciful unto many; and our children shall be restored, that they may come to that which will give them the true knowledge of their Redeemer. This passage is very meaningful to me in the context of the OP. To me, it seems that the author recognizes that many of their children are set up for failure and, I believe it is on purpose. They start out with less opportunity walking through life in darkness obtaining experience through their choices but that at some other time in the eternities, they can come to know Christ and accept him.

You mean our underwear? Yes. I don't think we'll need the temple garments that we wear under our everyday clothes in heaven.

How would you suggest that he encourage all to discipline themselves? In #5, you said, "efforts to "cure" a person can cause psychological problems that can become as dangerous as the addiction". So, how? It seems from your post that it's hopeless, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I have a problem with any show that seems to be about promoting or normalizing same-sex attractions rather than having a plot. In fact, I can't stand it when there is an episode that seems to drive some political agenda. I watched one episode about a teenage girl that was forced into a marriage with an older man. She killed her husband to escape the premature expectations of marriage and then offered her services to other teenage brides and killed their husband for them so they could escape it. The agenda was the harm these kinds of marriages cause is teenage girls. In the end, they decided to put the girl in juvenile courts which means that when she turned 18, her records would be expunged and she'd be released back into public life. IOW, the FBI convinced the DA it should be okay to murder people who don't fill a social norm that Hollywood happens to be promoting at the moment. Hollywood has always been in the business of driving social and political agendas. I don't agree with all of them, but I really can't see how we can avoid them or boycott them. Perhaps we can send a letter explaining our disappointment in the subject matter but you better have a lawyer write it because it could be misconstrued as hate-speech. However, if the show, like Starwars has a cameo appearance of two women or men kissing, it's unnecessary, even unwanted, but isn't going to make the world collapse or require a lengthy lecture about the evils of same-sex attraction to my kids who saw it with me. On that note, considering the fundamentalist Dad's reaction. It could be he was saying the same thing I am. It was unnecessary (for us, but necessary not to get blackballed by social outrage that it didn't have such a cameo), even unwanted, but at least it was a cameo and not a production about the social virtues of same-sex attraction.

Yea, but what alienates you may not alienate me. Frankly, I can't see how we can even know which entertainment isn't going to push the social agenda. I watched the movie. I saw the kiss. Will I see another Disney movie? Yes. Will I check to see if there is any same-sex stuff in it before I go watch it? No. Why? Because it doesn't affect my association with the Holy Spirit. What does affect it is when people think that such images should. But why would it? IMO, it's equally damaging to get offended by the actions of other people.

So, Telepathy is hearing someone else's thoughts or ideas, but I think our connection with God sometimes exceeds that level of communication rising to the level of knowing what someone else knows. I'm not sure if there is a word for it but it goes beyond communication. Revelation can be a thought or an idea but change/conversion requires more than simple communication. I've often thought that the Holy Ghost effectively acts as a conduit to the mind and will of God, but I feel my explanation is still not close enough to the real thing. If only I could communicate the way God does, then it would be clear.

But who do we worship? Please don't say it doesn't matter. That worshipping one is the same as worshiping all of them or the Main one. Suzerian - Vassal covenants only establishes authority. We all know where the power lies. It can be traced to a source. So, do we worship the source of that power or do we worship the Vassal? I struggled with your first sentence there. I understand it to say, "The fact is if mankind remained subjects of the Father..." But of course, there would be no need for a Savior, there would be no one to save. There would be no mortals and, unfortunately, there would also be no heaven. There would only he paradise, an eternal garden of Eden. If I understand your analogy correctly, we are still subjects of the Father. I'm not sure that we will ever NOT be subjects of the Father. Even Lucifer and the sons of Perdition are subjects of the Father, are they not? But your post is about our relationship to God and my post was about who and what God is, that the issue isn't that we worship a different Jesus. The issue is that we worship a different God. The God that non-LDS Christians worship is unknowable, a spirit without body parts or passions, a being that is somehow three and yet one that no matter how they explain this unusual being, it always breaks down into modalism, that Jesus is that One God, that the Father is that One God, that the Holy Ghost is that one God - that one being (that is modalism). You are right, Joseph Smith did get it right and your analogy fits correctly, but that analogy recognizes that Jesus isn't God the Father and that God the Father is a being separate from Jesus who was also born of a woman and lived as a mortal being who died and was resurrected, much the same way that Jesus was. No vassal was ever a vassal of himself.

I know that. I said that was the impression I received. But why is it a serious error then? This doesn't change my question. Why is it a serious error? No fair. That's my question. You said it was serious error, why? Ok. This makes no sense to me. You just used native Americans as an example. How did the scriptures and the Holy spirit get involved with their revelation since they had neither? True, it's for God to decide. But you said it was a serious error. I'm still waiting for the reason why it's a serious error. Yes. That's the reason we post here, but I'm still curious. You haven't answered the question. Am I to understand now, that you don't see it to be a serious error? We can worship the Father or all three as one or Jesus? There is no error in that at all?

I'm still of the opinion that regardless of this doctrine, people still procrastinate repentance. This doctrine would have nothing to do with procrastination. It would be interesting if Pew research did a poll on the question, if you knew that you could eventually enter the Celestial Kingdom someday in the many eternities ahead, would you procrastinate your repentance and if so, how long do you think you would? I think most of them would say, I'll make up my mind after I finish procrastinating my repentance for the reason I'm procrastinating now. And what would that reason be? Well, because I like what I'm doing now and I don't wanna stop. Why else would anyone procrastinate? --- I think the real reason it's not a doctrine is that such an idea would or could be confused with the idea of universal salvation and there is no such thing as universal salvation, not even if we simply exclude Sons of Perdition. There are people if given every opportunity will simply not accept Christ or the Father and don't want to live that kind of life and, I'm afraid, will not be able to get over the idea that some people they hate got into the Celestial kingdom (that is the danger of passing judgment. In itself, it is eternally damning).

See @Mores? This is hearsay. However, if we are to believe the OP, McConkie's kid Joseph Fielding McConkie did, in fact, say exactly this. That is not hearsay. The OP wasn't sure if Joseph Fielding McConkie who authored the book was the son of Bruce R, so I looked it up: Joseph Fielding McConkie was a professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University and an author or co-author of over 25 books. McConkie was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the son of Bruce R. McConkie and Amelia Smith McConkie. I don't know if the author of the book claimed that Bruce ever made this statement. My understanding of Bruce's position is based solely on his talks. When I first read the OP, it seemed to me that Joseph F was presenting an aspect of the gospel that Bruce would have disagreed with if it were the subject of debate.

One. But that doesn't mean it wasn't said.

Where would you get such a ridiculous idea? Wow. Just wow. Your dog was never your child, but that isn't true of those beings in other heavens besides the Celestial Kingdom, now is it. Aren't they all children of God? It's not like we expect them to grow up to be something they never were. Geez.

All I see is your speculations which, indeed, are dangerous. You assert the reason it should not have been revealed. That's your speculation and it appears to be something you inserted in order to make your point and that's the reason why speculation is dangerous. You make your speculation a fact stating, there is a common theme between the two possible answers when there isn't.

Well, there are class-half-full kinds of people and glass-half-empty kinds and then there are people who, I guess, try to say don't try to figure out whether it's half full or half empty regardless of the fact that it does make a difference. For the person whose glass is half empty, the idea that there is progression is really really helpful because it means they aren't lost and there is still a chance. It means that Christ's work still has value for them. I agree that it would be tempting to play around knowing there's always going to be that chance, but it doesn't seem to matter that this isn't a doctrine, people still play around believing that there is still going to be a chance even though GA's like McConkie preached that there is no chance after this life. It means that the woman who never found a husband and now, today, the man who never found a wife, will still have a chance to be exalted. We don't know how, but it seems that it is the general speculation that they will have a chance at exaltation and I suspect that it will be one that they will be happy with, i.e. they aren't going to get leftovers or rejects from another failed relationship or be forced into a polygamous relationship. We don't know how it's going to work, but if we are to believe Elder Oaks, trust in the Lord and lean not unto our own understanding... quoted scripture from his talk last conference ... then that glass is half full.

I'm okay with many of the things that McConkie taught, but even he admitted that he had to eat crow, specifically on race an the priesthood. So, we both have our examples of things he was right about and things he was wrong about. I'm not bad-mouthing McConkie. I'm bad-mouthing some of his teachings, namely this one. Just because McConkie said it doesn't mean it's true or that it's doctrine. It's not. When I read McConkie, there are things that I love and there are things that I can't abide by. In a talk given to BYU on marriage, he made the bold statement that a returned missionary got married outside the temple because of circumstances and while they were on their way to the temple to get sealed, they had an accident that killed them both. He basically said, too bad for them, they can never be married in all the eternity because they had their chance and blew it. I skip that portion because it's basically baloney. He also told a story of a woman who was married to a member of the church who chose not to live the gospel. She said that when she asked her husband about it, saying, You know it's true, why don't you take me to the temple and be sealed to me. His reply was that yes, he knew it was true, but he liked the kind of life he was living and he knew that when he died, she'd take him to the temple and be married and sealed by proxy for all eternity. Then McConkie said of the situation, He died and she took him to the temple to be sealed and it was the biggest waste of time. More baloney. This is the hard line that McConkie drove like a stake through the heart of people whose circumstances weren't perfect through no fault of their own. Basically... Too bad, you're going to hell. What was this woman supposed to do? Divorce her husband and find a better one? What if she didn't want another one? What if that one man was the one? She can't force him to do what she wants. But, even more to the point, was McConkie now advocating divorce to fix eternal issues, issues that aren't necessarily eternal? That's a new one for me. I don't recall any GA recommending divorce except for personal safety. There was one that I heard rumored where Brigham Young suggested it as an alternative for a couple where the husband was sterile and then when she got pregnant, she could divorce biological father and marry the first husband, but I hardly believe that's true. IMO, people love to be able to pigeon hole others and judge them to be in less than Celestial. There's just no way so-and-so can get into the Celestial kingdom because of this and that. So-and-so is telestial material and he'll never ever get into the Celestial kingdom because he can't advance. The only stipulation is that those who don't rely on Christ in this life will have to work it out themselves in the next life and that they will suffer for their sins even as Christ suffered for our sins which caused him to bleed at every pore. Tell me, if they suffered like this, why do you think they can't advance to live with that being who did the suffering for us? So sorry, but we are not capable of pigeon-holing anyone. Our knowledge is limited to this life. We have almost no knowledge of the previous one and just a little more of the next one and we still arent' talking about the resurrection and life thereafter. All I'm saying is that it is entirely possible that we can advance to the Celestial Kingdom so long as we have not sinned against the Holy Ghost. Why would the next life be different than this one? We are sinners in this life and have hope for exaltation, why shouldn't we expect to have the same hope in the next life before the resurrection? Is it because McConkie said so?

I'm really confused by your response. It seems like a statement I might hear from a politician... there are a lot of words but it doesn't really say anything or commit to a specific point. I thought I was pretty clear, it was McConkie who set the bar that most GAs march by today, but even his own son thinks he wasn't right about everything and specifically that he was wrong about this. I'm not even sure what you claim I'm in denial about. It's a gray area, so you're right in one aspect - there is no hard and fast doctrine concerning this topic. That being said, there is no doctrine that specifically states that no one can advance between kingdoms. That is speculation just as is people can advance between kingdoms. So, until there is a doctrine that clarifies it, both are equally correct and both are equally wrong. McConkie Jr offered his speculation on the topic and I happen to agree with him. I'm fascinated by the rules of order in the Celestial kingdom. Where do you get the idea that anyone who does not have a celestial glory can dwell in the Celestial Kingdom? What is the source for that piece of speculation?

That would be a discussion about God, the Father, not the traditional Christ or the Trinity. The New Testament is clear that there are three persons in the Godhead. The doctrine of what the Trinity is comes from a much later philosophy that flesh is corrupt and spirit is pure. That started a struggle with the idea that Jesus was God because he was a being of flesh and God is spirit (according to the argument). The New Testament tends to support that assumption (I've argued this idea here before but it wasn't well-received). The points about the traditional Christ that I believe we can all mostly agree upon is: He is the son of God He was born of a human mother Was human as well as divine Existed before he was incarnated Exists now as an embodied spirit, resurrected never to die again Saved everyone from permanent death, bringing everyone into the same resurrected state as He is in. Enabled those who believe in him to dwell with him forever by covering their sins; cleansing them through his infinite sacrifice in their behalf Where we disagree largely stems from our understanding of who God the Father is and from there all the issues arise. If Jesus was supposed to reveal the Father; bring us to the Father, then either He did a very poor job of it or it is not easily discerned. It requires help, but understanding who or what the Father is, is the key to understanding who Christ is. I believe when non-LDS Christians dispute our explanation of the traditional Christ, it is because they are arguing who God is. For them, God is totally embodied in Christ and there is none else and that is simply not what the scriptures teach. They leave out an important clause, "beside him" and have gone through extreme lengths to prove that it means exclusively, so they drop the phrase. I might also add the phrase, "to us" because this observation is relative. They refuse to consider the possibility that we are not God's only work where they would have also had an Adam and Eve and produced children in sin and would be in need of a Savior. What is that person's name? Does He have anything to do with us? If we stretch this out across eternities, we can be pretty sure that worlds can into existence and expired long before ours did and will continue long after ours. What will our Savior be to them? Could he have been crucified for a people who did not know him? These are, of course, rhetorical questions. When Paul presented this in the scriptures, he very clearly stated that there are gods many and lords many, but to us there is but one God, the Father and one Lord, Jesus Christ.

It makes sense that each of us had a set of heavenly parents but we have to consider the doctrine that we were neither created nor made but have existed from all eternity to all eternity. If that is true, then we cannot see those parents as our originators. We would be the same age as they are, the same age as God is. As such, the definition of parents cannot be the same as we understand it to be in mortality (but even that definition is different for us. The rest of the world believes we started, came into existence at birth. But we understand that is not true, that we existed before we were born). I personally believe that God, the Father can be our literal Father without any heavenly mother involved. I would suggest that the connection is similar to the connection we have with Christ as our Father in this life and still, we can have heavenly parents, both a father and a mother. It is possible that neither of them is God, the Father. Again, the same as is Jesus Christ is not either of our parents, yet He has spiritually begotten us and so, in that sense, He is also our Father. But also consider that God, the Father, started all this eons ago and no one that has ever been born in a mortal body could be born if it had not been for God, the Father's work. As such, even though his mortality is far far removed from our mortality that would make Him the great Father of us all, literally. These are just some speculations/ideas that some may wish to consider as we discuss heavenly parents. I'm not trying to prove anything or to disagree with our doctrine. But I believe everything I've stated so far is in our scriptures. The way we put them together sometimes doesn't quite fit when other things are considered.

In each of these verses, firstborn is a title. It is obviously not a literal statement. The title connects their calling with the calling given to Christ, namely that of a savior or a person through whom the blessings of the gospel would flow. However, I believe 89:27 to be messianic. This verse presents some interesting "ideas". The literal translation of the last part is "the most high above the kings of the earth". The phrase "the most high" is generally used in reference to El or to the Father of the Messiah. It is a reference to exaltation, making all the offspring of the Messiah one with the Father. Or, all the offspring of the Messiah equal with the Messiah, who is one with the Father, which makes all of them, "firstborn". There is a vast difference between being the firstborn and being made the firstborn.

The main point of his talk was why we are so important to God. It identifies what our relationship is to him. This relationship was then tied into the resurrection and eternal progression. I believe Joseph Smith rightly discerned the comfort the family members were seeking, for example, the question might have been, what will become of Elder Follett in the afterlife. If this the case, then almost the entire discourse was about him.

wash, rinse, dry, use, repeat forever. Kind of like housework. It's never done.