brotherofJared

I know that's what you meant. I just happen to disagree. I can see that this abortion statement, which I didn't think I offered as an option, I was just making a note that it could happen. In my scenario, they already had the child. Obviously, an abortion couldn't be an option. And if the mom works at a career and the father is working, they are both working against the greater good of the family? The point I'm trying to make is it's only good for the family if the mom wants to stay home, but what if she doesn't want to? Ok. I'm not trying to argue that the wife should work if she wants to. What I'm am arguing is that it can only work if the two come to an agreement as their situations in life change. That agreement, as your experience indicated, may require one or both giving up something they had been working for. That's the only way I see that equality can work in an unequal relationship. I like Paul's term for his wife that we find in the New Testament. He called her his yokefellow. I believe that term aptly describes an equal relationship in the bonds of marriage between two unequal persons.

Sorry. I can't help you if you don't see the difference. I've already told you what I thought Elder Oaks was talking about. He pretty much said what he was talking about right at the beginning of his talk. The relationships he was talking about were referring to polygamy, eternal marriage and where one will have to live, in the same house or a different one. I'm sure in the portion you quoted, the kids were worried about which parent they would have in the next life. I hardly think it had anything to do about salvation.

Well, this just turns in to a squabble about nothing. I'm not worried about me at all and I'm not worried about things like "conditions and relationships". Instead, I'm worried about the salvation of individuals I care very much about. Will I be able to reach them after death? Is it hopeless for them? If there is no hope for them, then the sealing ordinances are for nothing. Sorry, I am going to squabble: I received some time ago introduces the subject of my talk. The writer was contemplating a temple marriage to a man whose eternal companion had died. She would be a second wife. She asked this question: would she be able to have her own house in the next life, or would she have to live with her husband and his first wife? I just told her to trust the Lord. That's things and conditions of life in the hereafter. I'm satisfied that the Lord has all that under control. I'm also satisfied that he has the well being of my posterity well in hand and that includes all my posterity and that it will be their choice if they choose to stay in a lesser kingdom. Therefore, it makes sense to me that people can go up and down the ladder between glories and can advance from one glory to another. So far, no one has shown me anything that states the contrary. Bruce R McConkie said that it wasn't but I don't believe him.

Well. You and I appear to know two different things. I suppose they can't both be right. I hope your not. I don't know how "moral" got into that, but I believe you are right, it is through our agency that we can either accept or reject it. But if IT, is your idea of what's right... well, let's just say that I don't think that what you think is right has anything to do with salvation. I wasn't speaking about either. We're not talking about me. We're talking about people being able to advance from one glory to another. The atonement allows for change. The apostles exclaimed that it would be impossible for anyone to be saved, but Christ told them that with God all things are possible. I know, for example, for years I lived on the edge of the WoW. Some people will disagree with me on my understanding of the word of wisdom, but I came to know, through revelation what it means to me. At the same moment, I changed. It was through no power of my own that that change came about. I have wrestled with the commitment I know enjoy for many many many years, but on that day, no will power of my own brought about the change. It was all God. The scriptures are full of these examples and of prophecies that these things will occur, namely that the law will be written in our hearts. We don't know why we follow the law, we just do. There simply is no other way to live. At the same time, the way I read the Book of Mormon passage I've been repeating in this thread, it appears that some of our children will not know these things in their mortal life and will reject the truth as their parents have tried to teach them, yet we still do the work for them. For this reason, I believe that when they know, whether or not they lived a celestial life (which only one person ever did) or a Terrestrial life or a Telestial life, they can have the same opportunity that we have had and they can change and be changed and be saved in the same kingdom we have obtained. And I believe that this is true all the way up to the final judgment day, both in this life and in the next. The ability to choose is not taken away at death as to the mortal body. If that were true, then there would be no reason to do work for the dead. In Lehi's dream, did Laman and Lemuel ever enter the great and spacious building? I don't recall. I don't think they ever did. Are they redeemable? I think they are. In the overall picture, it seems that Laman and Lemuel's role were just as important as was Nephi's role. There needed to be that opposition or we wouldn't have the Book of Mormon today. I don't see where this has any relevance to this discussion. I do choose to change, but, I'm sure I'm not alone, that I frequently fail. It would be impossible for me to change on my own. It is not by my own power that I do change, it is by the power of God that I change. I want to change, I try to change, but I continually fail and then in the midst of my struggles, change comes through no effort of my own. We will always struggle against evil and fail. That does not make us evil. What we are not able to do, Christ's work will cover it. His grace is sufficient. But I know that any change that I've made in my life has come through the power of God and not through my own power. What I can do on my own, I do do. But what I can't do, I rely on the merits of Christ, not my own. But I believe, and the purpose of this discussion is not about what I've already accomplished, but what others, specifically my family, who have not had the same opportunity, regardless of being given everything I know to give them, to know what I know, to have the truth revealed to them. I believe, IAW the Book of Mormon passage, that some of our children will fail according to the flesh but are not beyond redemption. I refuse to accept that they can only rise the telestial kingdom. If they accept Christ and want to keep his commandments, there is no reason why they cannot live in the same glory with all those who also accept Christ and keep his commandments. That refusal may be my downfall, but until someone explains why that isn't true, then I see no reason to free myself from that bond. All you guys are doing is saying that I'm wrong and I'm not even sure you all know what you're saying is wrong. In the end, it appears to me that it is simply coming down to this. That it is me who is wrong. If I say it, it is wrong. 🤣

much like it is here. But it doesn't say why they are gnashing. That activity, just like the activity we're doing now, does not spell out endless doom. Are we not in a furnace now? Are we not wailing and gnashing teeth? Do we still have an opportunity to escape the furnace? Those that were thrown in, were "all causes of sin and all law-breakers" (Matt 13:41 ESV). If one no longer breaks the law, can they escape the furnace? What we are not told is what they are weeping and gnashing about. In medieval Christian times, they were depicted as mindless animals, like dogs in a fight tearing each other apart. I believe that depiction is wrong. same as above, same chapter. But what does it mean in the following verses, 51 and 52? “Have you understood all these things?” They said to him, “Yes.” And he said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.” What does "his treasure" mean? What does it mean, "what is new and what is old"? And how does it relate to the parables? Perhaps it is that what they understood, is old and being trained for the kingdom, they should recognize what is new. We are taught that we can redeem our children through the sealing ordinances of the temple. We have learned that hell is not permanent for anyone except those who have committed the unpardonable sin and we have learned what that sin is. All others can be redeemed. Just a thought. Perhaps that's what it means. This one is self-explanatory. That is a big IF. It would have to be revealed unto them or they cannot reject it. This is equal to turning altogether therefrom. It doesn't say when they turned, it just says that if they do, after it has been revealed. That revelation can come at any time in this life or in the next... I'd dare say, right up until the final judgment and I've spelled that out pretty clearly here, even then, it won't be condemnatory, it will be with pleading not to reject it. Yes. That makes sense. There will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth in outer darkness, but we know that many of those, most of those, will ascend to the Telestial kingdom. That sounds like the final judgment. Do you have a date for that?

Ur quoting him out of context. The "worry" was about things, not about people. I apologize about saying that I was sorry u dont get that. It was in appropriate. Specifically, Pres Oaks was talking about sharing a home with her husband's other sealed wife or.will she get her own. The context was, lean not unto thine own understanding but in all they ways trust in the Lord. That trust is what I'm relying on for the salvation of my family. U guys appear not only not to worry about it but that it's hopeless. I just disagree with you. It's not hopeless. I happen to believe that God will afford every opportunity to all of his children to accept his plan, even on the day of final judgment. I'm just sharing my thoughts. U dont have.to believe me or accept my opinion. The OP asked for our thoughts on it. It's not really ur job to fix my thoughts and if it was, so far u guys are not doing a very good job of it.

U may think so, but without god it would be impossible to be saved. Therefore, IMO, it is through God that we are saved and not through any works or merits that we do. Our job is to accept him, believe and learn and do (but since we.all.fail.at the doing, we have no choice but to rely on him). I could be wrong but I'm good with it and so far, so is God.

We're wailing and gnashing teeth here. That experience is not over lost opportunities. Or, it doesn't have to be. We arent told why they are and who is doing the weeping and who is doing the gnashing, but it does seem that they wont be happy. Could it not be that it's the parents weeping over children who wont repent and children arguing the merits of suffering as Jesus did to get what came so easily to those who accepted the gospel in life? I think that is a possibility. U might not, but we can both agree that there will be weeping and wailing a gnashing of teeth. We just disagree on the reasons for it.

I'm not worried about that at all. I know where I'll be, which kingdom I'll inherit. I have no worries about that at all. Like Lehi, my worries are exactly where they should be. Once partaking of the fruit, he turned to share it with his family. I'm sorry if u dont get that.

The question is why do we do it if our families lost in this life will be lost in the next? No. I don't think there's a single son of perdition that wants to dwell in the Celestial kingdom. But we know for sure they can't. That's what hell is. The controversy is over those that aren't in hell. 😉 Correct. And who are you to decide when a person qualifies? Where does a say in the scriptures that a person who QUALIFIES for the Terrestrial Kingdom can't go there because he used to be in the Telestial kingdom? Do you have a reference for that? Well, for one, we aren't talking about mortal existence. And that may be your idea of the objective for us, but it's not mine. I'm not here to shed anything. I'm here to let the power of God work in me by accepting his Son and his teachings. Whether or not I change is entirely up to God and so far, he's done a pretty good job of making a new me. Where salvation comes in, those two things are identical. The question is when is that time? Do you know? Has God told you? From what I can see in the scriptures, it doesn't come immediately after death. But what if my spirit has changed to qualify for it? It seems that you're saying that it can't or that it won't change after death, which makes me wonder, why preach the gospel to the dead at all if the dead can't do anything about it?

Really? What are you taught in the Plan of Salvation. References please. These points, I'm looking for Final is not final We know when final will be we will live in one of these kingdoms only after final judgment kingdoms of glory are only a place where any of these things have anything to do with the plan of salvation.

Yes. These are temporal things that are done in the flesh. Must like birth must come before death. Yes. Isn't that my point? Inheriting a kingdom isn't a temporal thing. I agree, final is final, but we don't know when final will be, do we? I'm certain that we will live in one of these kingdoms before the final judgment, simply because, as @Traveler suggested these kingdoms seem to represent more than just a place. They also appear to represent a way of life. IOW, we live in the glory in which we are willing to abide by its laws. The same is true in this life. We can live a Terrestrial law, perfectly here and in so doing, we would be living in a terrestrial glory. This is what separates us from the rest of the world. It is represented by greater light. But if we fail to live by the laws associated with this glory, we descend again into a telestial or lower glory. Right now, we symbolize this progression in the temple, but hereafter, what? We get slotted into a glory and are stuck there? The Book of Mormon alludes to the idea that some of our children will perish [as to this life] because of unbelief. To me, this means that despite being taught the right things and having the gospel, they will reject it and "perish in the flesh", meaning lost. But God is merciful. He will restore our children "that they may come to that which will give them the true knowledge of their Redeemer". These who perish as to the flesh, having been given knowledge while in the flesh of the truth and rejecting it perished, how can they be redeemed if they get a final judgment based on their life in the flesh? This seems clear to me that we don't get to decide what is a second chance and what is a first chance. It seems that we might have taught our children well, but being ill-equipped, it's unlikely that we really did well. We just did the best we could, sometimes making it worse. But God is merciful. It seems that if one received a "true knowledge of their Redeemer" in this life, then, yes. there wouldn't be an opportunity, a second chance in the next life. But God knows if they did. I have to believe that even if they had knowledge of all things from before mortal life and onward, it would not be enough (mostly because all of that experience and knowledge came before we had a body. Understanding the plan and living the plan are two different things). But having a true knowledge much much more. And these children who were lost, if given an opportunity to obtain that, then why not those who never had it? Obviously, there is some progression allowed after death or else there could be no salvation for the dead. The key here, again, is that they not altogether turn therefrom.

You must belong to a different church than I do. In your mind it might be, but not everyone in the church would agree with you. Sorry. That is simply not true. The intent was to seek out how they could work it out making to that both partners were equal and one. So, in making it equal and one, it appears that you'd decide that the wife has to give up something. How is that equal? In the perfect Mormon world, she'd not even consider pursuing a career in that direction but instead pursue a career in being a housewife and stay at home mom. But that isn't what she wants to do. Do you, as a husband support her or squash her dreams and insist that she do the "right thing".

I believe I explained that. The fact remains that men and women are not equal. I explained my reason for that as well. As for what you want, what you make or whether or not you want to participate has nothing to do with equality in unity. Equality in unity is a matter of sharing the make the two into one. It isn't a matter of whether or not you want beans or not. The problem is what you do when you want beans and your other half didn't bring any when you expected them to. Especially if you agreed that he would. We are always unequal we are always going to be unequal. We will always have wants that will not be met. Equality only comes in unity. I have no idea what you're talking about. Except for this one point, when I say you, I mean your argument, the ideal you are trying to present. Please note in the preceding response, I offered a "you" for your stated "I". "What if I want beans", "As for what you want..." I'm not attacking you. As I said, I'm not sure what you're implying, but if that's it, then that's not what I'm doing.

What ordered sequence are you talking about? Baptism before the gift of the Holy Ghost? or something else?

Final judgment isn't a reason. It's simply an execution of a decision. As discussed before, I believe that decision is mutual. The person being judged chooses not to advance and then and only then will the person not advance. If this wasn't controversial, we wouldn't be talking about it. The OP introduces controversy. Sealing families so that we can bring them up with us, introduces controversy. It's not cut and dried. But, it's also not clear how that would work. For that reason, there is a gray area that warrants a discussion. What I'm saying is that if we want to, we still can.

I did. I'll repeat it. There isn't a timeline. Eternity, meaning forever, has no timeline. If the point is moving between kingdoms, then it doesn't matter when we leave the spirit world or when final judgment is. We will have been slotted into a world and we get to choose whether or not we will advance or not. That is the point of advancing between glories. But, in case that's not clear. I don't think it matters whether it's before or after judgment. The whole point is that if we inherit one of the kingdoms, we don't have to stay there if we don't want to.

Sorry. Men and women are not equal. The only way to achieve equality is in unity and to do so usually means giving up something, sometimes a lot. In your scenario, if that's what you agreed to, then yes, you've achieved equality in unity. But you weren't raised as a slave and I'm sure that you wouldn't be happy as a slave, so it seems that your scenario is just smoke. It makes me wonder how you think anyone ever achieved happiness and harmony (if that's what equality is supposed to achieve) coming from cultures where that is the exact scenario you just described. Come up with a better solution.

Yes. Having children is a burden. That's a fact. Trying to get along with a person who is not your equal is also a burden. If we were to compare our micro family to the family of God, it's a huge burden with massive amounts of pain, frustration, and heartache. He lost 1/3 of his family before a single mortal was born. From that point, the pain and frustration his mortal children brought to him caused him to weep. So, yes. It is a burden and it is a chore and so is the travail of having a child and yet, women continue to have children. The point here isn't about whether or not it's a chore. The point here is whether or not we can work out a destination as equal partners. I'm simply pointing out that women and men are NOT equal. Equality comes in unity and, quite frankly, most of us don't do unity very well. Most of the time, and I'd dare say 99.99% of the time, someone, either the husband or the wife, has to give up things for the sake of peace. As far as the abortion talk... well that's just a reality. It happens. I didn't say it was right. Phrases like "[that's] straight crazy talk" and "If you believe in the teachings of the church" end up being hammers that destroy equality and unity. Sure, in a perfect world and a perfect marriage where everything goes right and everyone agrees then we'd all live happily ever after. But, this is the real world and these issues do exist. We aren't living in a fairytale world. "I don't think any active person with a strong testimony could go through an abortion and hide it for any extended period of time." 😂 That statement is laughable. You have no idea what other active people in the church are doing and it really isn't that hard to keep things to yourself. This might come as a surprise to you, but I remember things that I did as a child that wasn't so good and to this day, I've felt no reason to share it. You talk about equality, but you only accept equality if the other persons meet your expectations of perfection. I'm not saying that abortion is an answer. It's not my answer. But I cannot speak for my wife. We can agree together that it's not the right thing to do, but I can't stop her from getting one. Adam couldn't stop Eve from eating the forbidden fruit. In an equal relationship, we share each other's burdens. That includes the sins, the shortcomings, the ineptness.., in sickness in health. It is best, that as each catastrophe befalls a couple, that they handle it. What can't be undone will have to be accepted and move on, your expectations aside. That said, your solutions were all about what the wife has to do. That's not equal partners. She took the job and had a baby. None of those things can be undone. Now it's time to deal with it. You can cast her off or you can work with her. Which do you think would be the equal thing to do? What do you think Adam would do?

What difference does it make that they talked about it? Regardless of what they "agreed" to do, she is going to follow this career opportunity? If it wasn't something they agreed to do when they were planning their lives, is that grounds for divorce? Do what you said you were going to do or else? Is that being an equal partner?

What your suggesting is your idea. If the wife agrees, then it's a happy equal decision, but if the wife doesn't agree. How can there be unity in the relationship? I asked for a solution that would meet the requirements of unity and equality and you have given me the misogynist view of the woman's role. I don't believe the proclamation is that narrow, though many leaders in the church have taught that the woman's role is that narrow. That's the reason, I think, for some of the uproar. Personally, I don't think the priesthood is coveted by a lot of LDS women. That, IMO, is something that goes too far for most LDS women, not sure. But the idea that the woman's role is in the home raising children because the proclamation says that our responsibility is to our children is really going too far. The easy fix for all of that is don't have any children. That, unfortunately, may call for an occasional abortion. I'm not preaching this route, but it is a common route. The idea is that what the church authorities don't know about, won't affect our options in the church. And, unfortunately, that is also very true (though I don't know what is confessed behind closed doors but the impediments just don't seem to exist). So, is the right way to work together or to insist that the wife give up her career using the proclamation to shame her into giving in?

Well, change isn't always about the person. Circumstances do and will change. What we can't plan for is the way people will respond to those changes. I supplied a hypothetical situation. The change was an opportunity for the wife to advance her career. That was a change in circumstance, not the person. When these changes come around, it's anyone's bet what a person might do regardless of carefully laid plans.

I agree, but that doesn't supplant the role God plays in judgment. Hypothetically, I believe it goes like this. Judge: how do you plead? person: guilty Judge: are you sure? person: yes Judge: let's hear testimony person: no, please. Living it once was bad enough. Judge: No. I think you need to hear this Judge brings in all the people that person did harm too in life. Most of them plead in his favor, God only knows why. Judge: now how do you plead person: let me think about it. and so it goes. I see it as being mutual... though I doubt every sinner will have the same experience, but since all are sinners, I suspect that most will.

Equal means in agreement. There is no way that a man and a woman can be equal other than in what they agree upon. The same is true between us and God. It simply is impossible for us to be equal. We believe that God will give us all that he has, but that does not make us equal. He will always be God and we will always his sons and daughters. Can any of us die for another person's salvation? how about a whole world of people's salvation? how about all the people who ever lived or ever would live on that world, for their salvation? No? Will we ever be able to? No. So no matter how equal we are in power and knowledge, we will still not be equal to him. But, like the three members of the Godhead who are equal in power and authority and knowledge. It doesn't come from the sense that they can do what the others can do, because they cannot. The Father cannot die for your sins and neither can the Holy Ghost, but Jesus could. The equality is in what they agree upon. They are equal in that scenario if they agree and work together towards that scenario. But if the woman decides that her husband is too inept to hold the umbrella and tries to do it for him or replace him altogether because she can do a better job or because she thinks he can't do the job, then they are not equal even though she is very capable of holding up the umbrella. Even if the husband stays at home and gathers in the children and the wife brings home the money, the food and provides the shelter for whatever reason, if that's the way they choose to work it out, then they are one. It is a team effort working towards the one end of saving their children. However, and by whatever means, it is one. Now, they can be one is disagreeing with God's plan and decide to go with a church that lets the woman be the priesthood. I think they will still have opportunity to rise in the first resurrection because they worked as one. Take Margaret Baker, for example. She's a Methodist minister. For all I know, maybe her husband is too and they both hold the priesthood or she may not be married at all. But I see no reason that they or anyone who believes as they do will be barred from heaven because they choose to have equality in their relationship as long as they choose it together and agreed. This means that some may have to give up on things they hoped for. I don't think that anyone who chooses a direction with another person doesn't have to make compromises that sometimes will really hurt. But it's not the end of the road as long as they work together. Even Christ had to compromise a lot in order to bring about the salvation of men. And, I'm sure his compromises hurt a lot. Sometimes we have to condescend to the other. That's what I think unity or oneness or equality in the relationship is. It is, IMO, the only way two diametrically opposite people can be equal.

It's a joint venture.