• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by brotherofJared

  1. Those opinions is what I'm questioning. I know there are people who insist that speculation is bad or even wrong. but where we have no perfect knowledge, there will always be speculation to fill the void and I'm questioning the current speculation that is promulgated in our literature (since you say there is no official church doctrine on the subject). So the question persists, how can co-eternal beings be the parents of beings who already exist? There are many "certain things" that have been revealed and I have presented one of them here and that is that we are co-eternal with God. I'm not denying that we are sons and daughters of God. I'm asking how we can collate these two doctrines so that they can both be true. I'm not sure what you mean by that, that his spirit is still there. So, God is a dual being who sometimes produces spirit children and sometimes produces physical children... Why can't we produce spirit children then? Is that a "godly" attribute that we will obtain after the resurrection? I don't know how to ask these questions without being pithy. So, apparently, God, before we have been exalted did personally produce billions upon billions of spirits through one or two of his wives? I wonder how long the gestation period is for that and how many women will be willing to go through that several billion times before a world can be formed. I haven't found any woman who wants to do that. All of that have heard it, appear to take it with a grain of salt. Yeah sure. Like that's going to happen. It is easy enough to see that a son from this family and a daughter from that family can create a whole world of beings. We don't need to give birth to all the beings who will ever live ourselves. It only takes two and, given the ability to reproduce and the commandment to reproduce, the billions that come forth seem to automatically appear all by themselves. It's automatic and saves a lot of wear and tear on one person. This is just looking at it logically. It doesn't make sense that God would do all that himself when there is already a means for reproduction. While I am repurposing Jesus words, John 3:6, Spirit begets spirit and flesh begets flesh. We are also spirit beings but none of us is able to produce a spirit being. We produce physical beings. I'm all over the board here and I apologize. I just can't see how God also being a spirit has anything to do with how spirits are "begotten". My reasoning came as a result of a witness of the spirit. I'm not concerned about how we can become like God. The scriptures are explicit on this matter. D&C 132:19-20 "...which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end...", This part will be immediate. Add to that perfection, knowledge and power we will be like him but we will never do what he did.
  2. I believe those are the same things. Whether he did it or does it, it is the same. I believe they are the same. Considering that the worlds will continue without end. There will be other Saviors and there will be other Heavenly Fathers. So What Heavenly Father did, what His Son did, will play out endlessly throughout eternity. We will never be able to do what he did. The fantasy that we will create worlds and for our spirit children is the false speculation that currently exists in the church. At least, that's the question I'm trying to discuss.
  3. mortal birt is a beginning. We are not the same mortal age as our earthly parents but we are the same age as God. Therefore, God the Father and his wife could not have given birth to us and thus created a beginning for us where we would be born as spirit babies and raised to maturity. That's my opinion too. And that means that God the Father and his wife cannot possibly be our immediate heavenly parents, just like He and His wife are not our immediate earthly parents. It is my opinion that my heavenly parents are the very same beings as my earthly parents and that my connection to God as a Father is the same there, as it is here. In a nutshell, I believe that we resurrected beings of flesh and bone have children, they are beings of flesh and bone, not spirits. Adam and Eve were born in heaven from different parents (not a brother and sister from the same set of parents) and placed in the garden. None of that process explains spirit children but I believe it happens exactly the same way though there is no garden and Jesus is the oldest, not Adam and spirits are not formed through sexual means. Families are formed by choice, by mutual agreement between. I just have a hard time with the idea that there are any such things as spirit babies or that spirits can give birth. There, the spiritual family would have been formed like the church of the firstborn is formed. Of course, God might have simply organized the family deciding for us who would be our parents and siblings. If that is the case, then we can say that God is our heavenly parent. but that formation is not the same as our mortal families. Again, the idea of being born and raised to maturity for beings who are coeternal with God just doesn't make sense.
  4. This question completely misses the point. There is no organization or creation in the formation of intelligence. It already exists had has always existed. While there may be some process of organization involved in creating our spirit bodies, there isn't anything involved with the formation of our intelligence. Now, I may be way off base here, but I believe that our intelligence is what makes us who we are. It is our identity. I suppose some may think it is some massive blob of intelligence which has no identity or it is God himself. This seems strange to me but it is an alternative and I'm willing to listen to any other ideas about what this intelligences is. Whatever it is, it can't be created by anyone. I'm not pigeonholing the process. I'm questioning the existing speculation in the church that is believed by many to be exactly that. That God the Father and his wife or his wives produced trillions of spirits through sexual means. I believe this is false and it assumes that our being had a beginning and there is, I believe, a false narrative that God and his Wife raised our baby spirit selves to maturity (there are GA statements that appear to align with this idea. I believe are using terms that we are familiar with but we have no idea how they understood the terms they used.) I believe this life is a shadow of things WITH all the details of how things will be done there. We don't have spirit children here. We will not have spirit children there. Spirits may very well have their own spirit children. Consider this. If our spirit's form had the same appearance as our bodies do (this is an idea that comes from Jesus' statement to the brother of Jared when Jared saw his spirit form. I don't see why that which is right for him wouldn't be the same for everyone), then don't you all think it's odd that we look so much like our parents? Wouldn't our spirit form have looked very much like the family we were born in? This would suggest that the entire human family was foreordained from the beginning. Organized. Since we already existed before we were born as spirits, I would suspect that this organization was no accident, but that it was formed by choice, our choice, but the "breath of life was put into that spirit form in the same way that our spirits are put into our mortal bodies. It's a thought, an idea. I have not yet stated how I think it worked but there are a few things here that need review. for example, who are our heavenly parents? If it is God the Father (literally, as we understand literal parentage here on earth), how did he do it? spirit begets spirit and flesh begets flesh. God is flesh. and if it is not God and his wife, can it be literal and, if so, how? Whatever the answers are, I believe they are right under our noses. Family, obviously, isn't something that was created for this life alone. It existed before this mortal existence and it will continue to exist after it. It is the very essence of the gospel. That tends to make me think that there is nothing new in the process of continuing the family. Spirit begets spirit and flesh begets flesh. To me, that is a guide for understanding family on both sides of the veil. There are things that we will never do that God did. One, is to live a perfect mortal life. Two, die for the sins of all mankind under his dispensation. Three bleed from every pore and not die. Four, turn water into wine. There is also the progenitor of all flesh, obtained his body without having a mother. Someone started all this and we followed, but we aren't even able to live this life and sustain absolute perfection. The plan was created for us so that we could become like him. But that will take a very very long time. But no matter what, there is no way that we will ever do what he did because we have already been born and obtained our bodies and were saved from endless damnation through a Savior. Jesus didn't need a Savior and His Father didn't need a savior. There are some obvious differences between Him and us. There is a conundrum here because there is more than just Him. Jesus' Father, the being we call Heavenly Father is not that great head to started everything. Our God and Father did, apparently, what Jesus did. That would mean that He was born of a mortal woman. We are not told anything about the great head of our species. We are told very little about our God and Father, but it seems apparent to me, that when we refer to God the Father, we are referring to a multitude of beings generally called Elohim (the gods) in the Old Testament. So I can say that the Father was born and that the great head of our species was not born of a mortal woman. Now, I realize that this will set off some fruitcake alarms but my conclusions are not set in stone. As I said, I'm fleshing this out in a public forum risking ridicule and rejection. My question, if I can remain steady is to address what it means to be literal sons and daughter of God. I have already stated that we are the same species as God and since he started all of this or they started all of this, it is apparent that they are our literal parents through removed by eons of world that have gone before us. The question remains, can we safely say that our immediate spiritual parents are God the Father and his wife or are we literally his spirit children through the same means as we are his literal sons and daughters in the flesh as well? Lots of reading here. Sorry, I'm so long-winded. We will be like God, yes. We will have, eventually, all knowledge, all power, all presence and glory added upon glory. But we will not do what he did. Our path is not His path. We will share the throne, but he will always be the owner of that throne. We are but permitted participants and I don't think that will ever change. I don't see how it can. I believe everyone will agree that we cannot replace God. I would go so far as to say that we cannot be God. Our experience is not his experience. Liking being God was not sufficient to know how to succor us. God had to live and experience what we experienced in order to know that. Likewise, since we cannot experience what he experienced (not just the pain and suffering, but the whole heartedness of such a being to be willing to submit to such suffering and pain... how can we know that experience?) we cannot be what He is.
  5. Agreed. If you mean from one state to another as in progress from intelligence to spirit to mortal to resurrected being. Those changes everyone had to go through and, of course, not everything was played out on the stage of mortality. Things happened before we were born into mortality things will continue to happen after mortality that will impact our salvation. Agreed. We will be like him in every respect, eventually. But he didn't bring any coeternal intelligences after him (unless I misunderstand what you mean by bringing them after him). All intelligences that have ever existed already exist and there will never be any more intelligences than there are today. This is what the scriptures tell us. "Intelligence ... was not created or made, neither indeed can be." There is a caveat that expands on what Intelligences is, "light of truth" and I don't know exactly how that applies but one thing is clear... God didn't create truth but he did expose it or shed light on it. Now, if you mean that we will participate in bringing already existing intelligences to the alter as he brought us along, then yes. That's exactly correct. It One point on this statement. Here in mortality, we already participate in the "continuation of the seeds". I don't see any need for the meaning and "process" to change in the next life. We already know how to continue the seeds. We don't even need to be perfect to do it. We just have to be sealed by authority both in heaven and on earth and remain reconciled to Christ. But none of this addresses my question. What can we conclude about our heavenly parents from the simple concept that we are all coeternal? How can God or anyone be our parent if we existed at the same time they did?
  6. I'm not questioning whether or not we are the literal children of heavenly parents. My question is about what that means in light of the fact that we are all co-eternal with God the Father. I agree, there is a lot of "whatever that is". But one thing is clear, there was no "process" involved with the creation of our intelligence. That would seem to indicate that being literal children of heavenly parents is not equal to our understanding of being literal children of earthly parents. Which is my point. I don't really care if there is speculation or not. The idea of literal parents is in question here, not that it occurred (I believe we are the literal offspring of heavenly parents), but the idea of what it means. The speculation that seems to prevail in the church is that literal parentage of heavenly spirits is equal to literal parentage of earthly children. I don't believe this is true. In other words, spirits do not grow up and mature. These spirits aren't born as babies don't start out as babies. Further, I believe it is ludicrous that God and one heavenly mother or even several heavenly mothers gave birth to an innumerable number of spirits in a way that resembles anything that would make us all literally, in the mortal sense, His offspring. I agree with you. Some speculation is harmful, but it is most harmful when it is wrong and can't be supported by the scriptures. The co-eternal nature of man creates an insurmountable problem for the current speculation as I understand it to exist. I ran into a problem with this when I thought through the implications of exaltation in that we would have spirit children of our own and create worlds and put our children on them. The statement is an oversimplification of exaltation and when it occurred to me that we will never "be" God the Father doing what He did, I had to question my beliefs. After some consultation, I concluded that being like God is not the same as being Him. I then realized that we will always participate with him under His jurisdiction in the work that He does. I found that acceptable but, at first, I felt that the narrative that I had been lead to believe difficult to deal with and for a time, unacceptable... Of course, I had nowhere else to go because no one comes even close to these ideas - along the lines where we teach exaltation. So, I'm just trying to process some ideas in a public forum. If this kind of discussion isn't welcomed here, then I'll go elsewhere.
  7. Not sure if I'm just late to the scene, but is the sound byte that goes with the church logo new? The words that go along with it, though not spoken, are impressive. After seeing the rest of Conference, I discovered that the sound byte is not played every time the logo appears. It was only played at the end of the conference session. I thought it sound byte was additional branding, but it appears not to be. It is the first 4 notes of "Come, Come Ye Saints". Being just the notes, members of the church would know the words just from the tune. I still think it was impressive.
  8. Considering D&C 93:29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. What must we conclude about heavenly parents? What does it mean that we are literally the children of God? Any thoughts?
  9. Sure. There are those who see evolution and creation as being harmonious.
  10. You said that "all mental processes are physiological" and then described an "influence" that isn't physiological. Could you explain that? Bodily sensations are physiological, but mental processes, like thought - how does the Holy Ghost influence that biologically? Personally, I think our mind is not our brain. It is a conduit through which we receive knowledge from all our senses which I think we can't or shouldn't limit to the physical world, IOW, not just the 5 senses. It is literally our connection with God and all things unseen. The mind, our thoughts, is our spirit. So, I disagree with the statement that All mental processes are physiological. That would mean that all that we are is the sum total of our environment and that is simply not true.
  11. I believe this is the key to understanding who or what this Anti-Christ is. Whatever it is, it's man-made. I also believe it is present, has been present and will be present until Christ establishes his kingdom on the earth. IMO, the first beast was sitting in the temple at its destruction in 70 AD. The second beast that exercised all the power of the first beast is a reference to political power. It was the same political power that established the Nicene Creed or constitution. I gather, from the scriptures, that the loss of the temple is the desolation. Daniel lamented about the loss of the temple for 70 years and it was explained that there would be a great loss of the temple in the not too distant future. Temples were then restored on the earth again, and we lost the temple for many years after the Nauvoo Temple was destroyed, so we also had experienced a desolation, not unlike Daniel's, but nothing like the loss of the temple in Jerusalem. I believe it is always an anti-Christ that destroys the temples. As for the would that was healed that cause all the people to marvel, that, I believe, was an effigy of the real thing.
  12. U assume that they knew it was evil. That would be incorrect. They only knew it would have harmful effects. It is not evil to touch a hot stove just like it was not evil to disobey God's command. Their innocence, not knowing good or evil, made it impossible them to understand it as evil. They did, however, have a choice. Just like the hot stove, we know it will burn us, but if something of value fell on the hot stove we might accept the consequences to save that item. In doing so, we still get burned but didnt do anything evil. So, having knowledge of good and evil is not necessary to make choices. I think the issue associated with this passage was the ability to reach our divine potential not just to have free agency. In the garden, Adam and Eve could not advance or reach their divine potential without this essential first element. We cannot be saved in ignorance. We must know good from evil or our choices, though they may have consequences, are irrelevant since the choice wasn't between good and evil. Just as Eve's choice wasnt between good and evil. Her choice was based on obtaining something that was more valuable such that she was willing to accept the consequences.
  13. It seems logical that he was referring to his mortal ministry and work. There was and is still much work to do. As for the atonement, we're not certain when that was finished. I believe the criss was nothing compared to what he suffered in the garden. I personally believe that the atonement was complete there, but we frequently hear that it was wrought in the garden and on the cross, but I don't thin the cross would have had any meaning if the garden suffering had failed.
  14. It's never been on my radar. This is all new to me.
  15. Church meetings can be difficult and sometimes uninspiring. When we held our 3-hour meetings on Sunday, I once explained that the Sacrament meeting was the highlight of the day. It would then drop considerably in Sunday School and Priesthood meetings were a complete waste of time, but I would give my ward an A for effort even though the result is the same. Now I know of people who claim that 'you get out of the meetings what you put into it', but I think that misses the mark. I can't put anything that I have into these other meetings. I read the lesson and come prepared and then the teacher teaches a different lesson because he claims that that's what the spirit led him to do. That might be true, but I have trouble following that. Or you offer a comment and it goes completely over the teacher's head, they say "uh huh" and then continue on with their lesson and not with a discussion. So these later meetings frustrate me. I feel far more uplifted in smaller intimate meetings that are of a personal nature. In fact, all my personal study and personal service is uplifting and regenerating. I can't seem to bring that into a class setting. Yes. Scripture study and daily prayer is a discipline that has to be monitored and maintained or we'll stop doing it, but it is these personal studies that recharge my batteries and personal one-on-one discussions with friends and family and service of any kind church or not. The spiritual drain comes from hostile interface, sometimes on the internet, sometimes in church, sometimes at home. I need the personal time to keep going.
  16. So, you would deprive her of doing what she thinks is right?
  17. That is a very interesting answer. It would mean that we are not now fully and completely cut off. But because this is the only existence we can remember, it is easy to not understand what it would mean to be fully and completely cut off. IOW, we take for granted what we have now, even though it's not much. Couple that with knowing what we had as we remember our previous existence, even if only for a moment. I imagine it to be a place that is literally void of any light whatsoever with people who went out of their way to reject what they once had and fight against it. I think it would be a horrible experience to be deprived of all sensory perception.
  18. I disagree. Homosexuality is the sin. Holding hands and kissing aren't sins. We permit is among women to an extent. Are you going to take two girls who are dancing together at a church dance and excommunicate them for breaking the law of chastity? Is kissing and holding hands between a heterosexual couple who aren't married breaking the law of chastity? I think you are confused about cultural norms and what constitutes the law of chastity.
  19. I have to wonder who Adam would have been the son of. If Genesis is about the origin of man there would be no "son of". I think Adam would be the exception to the rule about proper names.
  20. Does the Bible tell us anything about who and where the lost tribes of Israel are? If it were not for the Book of Mormon, they would still be lost. I mean, sure, archeology and other disciplines might uncover where some of them went, but it would never, even to this day have ever uncovered Lehi's and Mulek's parties. Then there is the fact that even though the Bible mentions the gathering of Israel, it never would have been instigated by any religions of the day as it was by the remarkable journey of Orsen Hyde, who, to my knowledge, is the only person of any religion to offer a prayer to dedicate the land to the returning of the Jews. That's indirectly connected to the Book of Mormon (no Book of Mormon, no Orsen Hyde or Joseph Smith for that matter). But the underlined statement was about the gathering of Israel which isn't being done the same as with the Jews. The Book of Mormon is the stick of Ephriam which is the kingdom of Israel and it is because of that book that they, the lost tribes of Israel are being gathered.
  21. In relationship to timing, I believe the United Order was timely and appropriate to accomplish the purposes of the Lord. Firstly, we needed to understand that there is a United Order. Secondly, we needed to have a goal or a Celestial objective to guide our actions. I believe we live the United Order within our capacity to live it. That being said, if the Saints in Kirkland had faith enough that God would not let them die, it could have been established in Joseph Smith's day, but it is difficult to continue a principle when you're being taken advantage of and once property is acquired it seems that we forget how it was obtained and then there are those who think that there should be no surplus, take for example the $38 Billion estimated surplus that some "whistleblower" felt was inappropriate. In fact, we forget who it all belongs to anyway, which seems to indicate that those who forget, also forget that there is a God. Like the forbidden fruit, I have no doubt that God knew the outcome when he revealed it. He knew that the saints would fail. It was all set in motion for a purpose and I believe that purpose will fulfill the Lord's objectives. IOW, the timing is the Lord's and therefore is perfect.