Is the final judgment permanent?

[annewandering]

Perhaps the desire of the heart is the true final judgement.

[Justice]

What would the purpose of this life be, what would we be determining/deciding if the final judgment was not truly final?

H Judo, I appreciated your post. I just wanted to comment on this line.

I think it's common to think this because this is where we are. We have a natural tendancy to place ourselves, in the here and now, at the center. Much like the way man used to think the sun revolved around the earth.

We know we had a First Estate. We are in the Second Estate. Why is thisl ife not termed the Last Estate? First and Last go seamlessly together. If it were true it would have made perfect sense.

I wonder if in the pre-mortal existence we didn't feel that no matter how much we screwed up on earth everything would be OK eventually because we passed our First Estate... or our "here and now" (at the time).

What will our Third Estate be? Fourth? How many?

All I know is the gap is so large between myself and God that it will have to take an Infinity Estate to make me like Him.

[Justice]

I guess the biggest issue I have with the view of "Kingdom hopping" is the idea that a person who is placed in the Terrestrial or the Telestial Kingdom is left with some kind of wanting, that they have some kind of regret that they are in the position they are put in. That, to me, goes against the idea that all Kingdoms are Kingdoms of full happiness for those people. That does not seem like a Kingdom of happiness to me, if a person goes about their business saying to themselves, 'I wish I were in the other Kingdom'.

That's a very valid point.

The only thoughts I have right now are that it may be much like this life.

I am very poor to some, but I am very rich to others. I look at those with less and feel very blessed and have a desire to share. I look at those with more and usually decide that I wouldn't be any happier if I had more. I have everything I need. I'm happy for them who have more, but nah... I don't need it in my here and now.

I don't know, maybe my example doesn't do it justice, but I never really believed people would end up perfectly happy with where they end up. What if one family member makes it to Celestial Glory while another does not? Even in the Celestial Kingdom I can't help but think we would still miss them. Even the Father Himself cries, and shows feelings of anger and disappointment. I don't think we can ever truly be happy without some opposition.

If you scratch your arm just for fun there's no real magic, but if you have a seriously bad itch somewhere and you scratch it? WOW... Magic! It took the annoying itch to work the magic-happy-happy moment.

I don't know... what are your thoughts?

Edited November 16, 2011 by Justice

[rameumptom]

I don't like calling it "kingdom hopping", but rather progression. It doesn't make sense to me that progression ends. For anyone. While he was definitely a good prophet, I'm not very impressed with Pres Joseph Fielding Smith's or Elder Bruce R. McConkie's suppositions in some areas of the gospel. In fact, we can see that over the last 30 years, the Church has moved away from some of those beliefs.

We focus more on grace of Christ, rather than saving ourselves by our works. We are discussing new ways to view the atonement as all encompassing, rather than in a limited sense. Believing in evolution is not a heresy anymore. Believing that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is okay. Believing that the Catholic Church is not the great and abominable whore of the earth is also on the approved list now.

They sought to systematize our theology through their writings and talks. In doing so, they hardened the concept for decades in the Church that there was no progression between kingdoms. Mormon Doctrine replaced actual teachings from the scriptures sometimes. But as Mlkbone demonstrated, there are many GAs (including very smart ones like Elders Talmage, Widstoe and Roberts) who believed that progression was very likely possible. Today, we've pulled away from making a systematized theology again, and more towards how Joseph Smith viewed things: continuing revelation, focusing on the basic doctrines, and allowing ideas to be discussed and considered while we await further light and knowledge from God on a particular subject.

On a blog I occasionally frequent, they are having a discussion of God's foreknowledge. In the discussion, the concept came out that perhaps the Final Judgment does not occur as soon as we think. Maybe the Final Judgment is still eons away, giving us lots of time to progress. Perhaps the Final Judgment is that we will go to the kingdom we are ready for, UNTIL we are ready to progress higher?

I can imagine many decent LDS who will not enter into the Celestial kingdom with their families, who will experience regret in a lower kingdom. Once having a brightness of the knowledge of God, many would desire to change and get another chance to enter into his kingdom and be forever a family. Why would God deny such a desire, simply because they did not achieve it under the difficult challenges of earth life?

D&C 76:72 tells us that the Terrestrial Kingdom includes those who "died without law." How can that be fair to relegate them to a lesser kingdom forever, simply because they did not get a chance to hear the fulness of the Gospel? Wouldn't a just and loving God offer a way for them to get Celestial glory? And as noted in the quotes above by MBone, why does D&C 76 tell us that those of higher glories will visit and teach those of lesser glories, unless they also have the opportunity to progress higher?

[james12]

I guess the biggest issue I have with the view of "Kingdom hopping" is the idea that a person who is placed in the Terrestrial or the Telestial Kingdom is left with some kind of wanting, that they have some kind of regret that they are in the position they are put in. That, to me, goes against the idea that all Kingdoms are Kingdoms of full happiness for those people. That does not seem like a Kingdom of happiness to me, if a person goes about their business saying to themselves, 'I wish I were in the other Kingdom'.

Maybe I have missed something? Who said that all individuals within each kingdom will have complete happiness? Yes each kingdom contains happiness but there are differing degrees. The word degree itself implies levels.

Sections From Gospel Fundamentals Chapter 36...

The Celestial Kingdom

It is a place where people will be happy, and it will be more beautiful than we can imagine.

The Terrestrial Kingdom

Our Father in Heaven will give these people the happiness they are prepared to receive.

The Telestial Kingdom

Our Father in Heaven will give these people the happiness they are prepared to receive.

Outer Darkness

These people will live forever in darkness, sorrow, and suffering with Satan and the spirits who followed him.

Gospel Fundamentals Chapter 36: Eternal Life

Only the happiness they are prepared to receive. He cannot give them more. They would not recieve it! Hence they are left with some level of wanting.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Maybe I have missed something? Who said that all individuals within each kingdom will have complete happiness? Yes each kingdom contains happiness but there are differing degrees. The word degree itself implies levels.

Sections From Gospel Fundamentals Chapter 36...

Only the happiness they are prepared to receive. He cannot give them more. They would not recieve it! Hence they are left with some level of wanting.

? If they don't receive it, they don't want it. In D&C it says they will receive a "fullness" according to each Kingdom. What does "fullness" mean to you? For that specific person, it is their fullness, it is their limit based in the desire of their heart, at least the potential of their growth within that kingdom will result in the fullness of their happiness. I am agreeing with the idea that there are different levels for each person.

[Seminarysnoozer]

We know we had a First Estate. We are in the Second Estate. Why is thisl ife not termed the Last Estate? First and Last go seamlessly together. If it were true it would have made perfect sense.

.

In my opinion, because we have a spirit and a body, those are the two estates. Unless we will have more layers than that, I don't see the purpose of having other "estates".

[Seminarysnoozer]

That's a very valid point.

The only thoughts I have right now are that it may be much like this life.

I am very poor to some, but I am very rich to others. I look at those with less and feel very blessed and have a desire to share. I look at those with more and usually decide that I wouldn't be any happier if I had more. I have everything I need. I'm happy for them who have more, but nah... I don't need it in my here and now.

I don't know, maybe my example doesn't do it justice, but I never really believed people would end up perfectly happy with where they end up. What if one family member makes it to Celestial Glory while another does not? Even in the Celestial Kingdom I can't help but think we would still miss them. Even the Father Himself cries, and shows feelings of anger and disappointment. I don't think we can ever truly be happy without some opposition.

If you scratch your arm just for fun there's no real magic, but if you have a seriously bad itch somewhere and you scratch it? WOW... Magic! It took the annoying itch to work the magic-happy-happy moment.

I don't know... what are your thoughts?

I think that if you are to look at the track that leads to Godhood, there is only one track and then you could describe people on various points of the track or like Joseph Smith describes it, on different rungs of the ladder. But I don't think everyone is on that ladder and to force them on a ladder they don't want to be on makes it so they cannot be on the "ladder". A requirement to be on the "ladder" to Godhead is our desire to do it. That is why this life becomes a screening process for that desire, does one really really, at all costs want to be on that ladder or not. If they say by there actions and choices that they would not want to be on that ladder, then why would God try to change their spiritual make up to be a carbon copy of His own, in terms of their desire. If God could make spiritual clones of all of us, in terms of our spiritual selves, He would have already done that, before we came here. Obviously, God does not have control over the variability of our spiritual make up, some are more noble and valiant than others and that is just the way it is. Our spiritual intelligence, features, is unchangeable for God but it can be developed and matured and be made to reach the fullness of its potential. And that is the work of God to bring that to pass.

There are several examples of various pathways. I think Lehi's dream is a good example. If someone doesn't want to hold onto the iron rod, they won't be forced to do that in the next life. Is there only one pathway in the next life?

If you are not a doctor and I asked you to go perform open heart surgery without any guidance and the life of that person is in your hands, you would probably say, I don't want to do that, I would feel uncomfortable doing that. If, then I said, well go study how to be a heart surgeon and lets try this again in a few decades, you might say, no, I don't want to learn how to do that. Likewise, a person in the Terrestrial Kingdom would not feel comfortable with the duties and responsibilities of those found in the Celestial Kingdom, that would not make that person happy, just miserable. The Terrestrial individual doesn't have the capability of having 100% faith in Christ, they don't want to give of themselves 100% of the time, they may not like the idea of a large family unit or the idea of a shared inheritance, etc.. Maybe they are okay with giving some things but not all, and want to take some credit for their works but not give all glory to God, etc. Those aspects of their being (plus others) is what God is showing and bringing to pass by this existence.

[Seminarysnoozer]

And as noted in the quotes above by MBone, why does D&C 76 tell us that those of higher glories will visit and teach those of lesser glories, unless they also have the opportunity to progress higher?

Because all of us will have the opportunity to progress within the boundaries of our designated eternal pathways.

As a metaphoric example, a doctor can keep learning all of his life about the field of medicine but through that study never become a lawyer. And a lawyer can learn all of his life about his trade and never become a doctor. Etc. There is one pathway that is all learning and all knowing but there is only one way to get there and to be on that path. I don't think everyone is on that same path after they have made choices to designate other pathways. After passing certain forks in the road, i.e. - the first estate and the second estate, we are not going to come upon those forks in the road again. It is good to know that those "forks in the road" though are not decided by chance or mistake, they are based in 100% truth and exactness. The road we end up on is the one our spiritual self desires.

Maybe in the beginning we all had that potential, just as much as Lucifer had that potential but by making certain choices took himself off that pathway by his own desire and choice. He wasn't forced off the pathway, even though he might like to think he was, that was the result of those choices.

[james12]

? If they don't receive it, they don't want it. In D&C it says they will receive a "fullness" according to each Kingdom. What does "fullness" mean to you? For that specific person, it is their fullness, it is their limit based in the desire of their heart, at least the potential of their growth within that kingdom will result in the fullness of their happiness. I am agreeing with the idea that there are different levels for each person.

So you are saying people will not have the desire to be completely happy? And because they will not have the desire to be happy they will be completely satisfied? Even Satan, who will be confined to outer darkness, wants the glory of the Father.

Let me try and define these ideas of "want", "satisfied" and "desire". Let's suppose I want to be a master pianist. I would love to be able to create a masterpiece. The teacher is ready and the piano is in front of me. However, I am not willing to practice. I am unwilling to put forth the effort, the sacrifice, and the time to achieve this end. Therefore I cannot master the piano.

Because I am unwilling to put forth the effort does not mean I don't even want to play beautiful music. I am simply unwilling to do what it takes in order to achieve the desired outcome. I would never say I am completely satisfied. However, I would understand that everything was prepared for me and that based on the effort I was willing to put forth I received what I deserved.

So I believe it is in the gospel sense. The master teacher is ready and willing. All is prepared for me to achieve. Through the effort I invest I recieve the absolute maximum I can qualify for even a "fullness". Therein lies my happiness.

Edited November 17, 2011 by james12

[Seminarysnoozer]

So you are saying people will not have the desire to be completely happy? And because they will not have the desire to be happy they will be completely satisfied? Even Satan, who will be confined to outer darkness, wants the glory of the Father.

Let me try and define these ideas of "want", "satisfied" and "desire". Let's suppose I want to be a master pianist. I would love to be able to create a masterpiece. The teacher is ready and the piano is in front of me. However, I am not willing to practice. I am unwilling to put forth the effort, the sacrifice, and the time to achieve this end. Therefore I cannot master the piano.

Because I am unwilling to put forth the effort does not mean I don't even want to play beautiful music. I am simply unwilling to do what it takes in order to achieve the desired outcome. I would never say I am completely satisfied. However, I would understand that everything was prepared for me and that based on the effort I was willing to put forth I received what I deserved.

So I believe it is in the gospel sense. The master teacher is ready and willing. All is prepared for me to achieve. Through the effort I invest I recieve the absolute maximum I can qualify for even a "fullness". Therein lies my happiness.

Satan did not really want the glory of the Father, he wanted something that was not possible, that didn't exist. He wanted to have what the Father had without going through the steps that are required. He didn't want to give of himself, sacrifice, be obedient, give the glory to someone else. And the degree to which we do the same lowers our sights as to what our maximum happiness is.

One of the key principles in the plan of happiness, in my opinion, is to learn the importance of finding happiness in the success of others. Like the example that you gave, I think it is a misconception that happiness is based in self fulfillment, or personal achievement. It is more based in an ideal, a state of mind, or like what we like to call, the desires of one's heart. The desire of one's heart is not what one wants to get for themselves one day but more related to where that person finds joy. Does a person find joy in self achievement or do they find joy in giving of themselves? These are characteristics that are intrinsic to our spiritual make up.

There is a spectrum of where one finds joy that ranges from selfish desires to Christ-like love. Where God decides we are on that spectrum will determine what Kingdom we end up in, not how much we have achieved in a given amount of time. Just like the young prince that approached Jesus and said I have done all the things you ask, what more do you want me to do? And Jesus said sell all you have and follow me. This was a direct test of that spectrum, self centered joy versus joy obtained by serving and loving others. It was obvious where that young man fell on the spectrum.

If a person finds themselves on that spectrum of a made up, 25% self centered happiness and 75% Christ-like desires of the heart, why do you think they would be more happy in an environment where everyone is 100% Christ-like in where they find their happiness? They would only be 75% happy in that setting because that is not where they find their happiness, they get 25% of it through self centered acts. Their maximum happiness is found in a situation where they can live a 75% Christ like life and 25% self centered life.

The desires of one's heart have less to do with the "what", like wanting to become a master pianist. They have to do more with the "why". If one wants to become a master pianist to be in the service of others and does it, that is more of a Celestial being character trait then one who becomes a master pianist out of prideful, self centered reasons. .... and I don't think the "why" we do things is going to change much if any after this life.

[bay2boy]

All I know is that if you are sent to spirit prison that pretty much means you had gone through a pretty long period of darkness in your life that you refused to get out of and spent years denying God and his teachings that you at one time knew were right. In spirit prison you haven't had your final judgment yet but you cannot enter the Celestial Kingdom through Spirit Prison. The most you have to look forward to is a Terrestrial Life, which is of honorable people brighter than the Telestial Kingdom and hell, but still not with God.

And what about those who were never taught the truth. They are/will be in prison. There is no hope for them? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Justice]

A requirement to be on the "ladder" to Godhead is our desire to do it. That is why this life becomes a screening process for that desire, does one really really, at all costs want to be on that ladder or not.

This works for all those who know there is a ladder and have sufficient time to choose it. There are many who don't know, and when they know don't have the time needed.

Perhaps both are correct. Perhaps some are put in a kingdom because that is really what they will ultimately desire. Maybe there are some who are slower, or behind for whatever reason, and didn't get to progress as far in this life. Maybe it will be possible, but not mandatory to progress? Maybe that marrys both sides of the discussion?

[james12]

Seminarysnoozer,

My post was in relation to two comments you made. First, "I guess the biggest issue I have with the view of "Kingdom hopping" is the idea that a person who is placed in the Terrestrial or the Telestial Kingdom is left with some kind of wanting, that they have some kind of regret that they are in the position they are put in." Then this comment about happiness you made, "If they don't receive it, they don't want it."

I am not trying to discuss the method or exactly how happiness is to be achieved. I am using my example of the piano to point out that persons in the Telestial or Terestrial Glories will still be left wanting more. While they will be happy I don't think they will be satisfied for eternity. To me the whole idea of "you get exactly what you want" while not entirely wrong is very simplistic. I feel it can lead to a couple of fallacies:

1. "I want the Celestial Kingdom so I'm going to get it." This is a kind of feel good philosiphy. It encompases the thought, "I'm not willing to work for it much but I sure do want it so I'm going to get it!"

2. Anyone who doesn't receive the Celestial Kingdom must not have wanted it. And since they didn't want it they will be completely happy. It's a form of "ignorance is bliss".

[beefche]

And what about those who were never taught the truth. They are/will be in prison. There is no hope for them? Doesn't make sense to me.

I suggest you read this chapter from Gospel Essentials to understand the purpose and fate of those in spirit prison.

Gospel Principles Chapter 41: The Postmortal Spirit World

[Seminarysnoozer]

This works for all those who know there is a ladder and have sufficient time to choose it. There are many who don't know, and when they know don't have the time needed.

Perhaps both are correct. Perhaps some are put in a kingdom because that is really what they will ultimately desire. Maybe there are some who are slower, or behind for whatever reason, and didn't get to progress as far in this life. Maybe it will be possible, but not mandatory to progress? Maybe that marrys both sides of the discussion?

Of course, I was including in that statement the expression of those wants all the way up to the completion of the second estate, which for some is the spirit world.

Again, I think this idea that this life is one of progress mostly is not right. I am not sure where that idea comes from. It is a necessary step for our progression but that doesn't mean that it contains within itself much progression. It is like a fork in the road, or a final exam. Could someone learn something while taking a final exam, sure, but you go into it hoping that you learned all you could before you take it. The exam itself is not intended to be a teaching tool other then to teach the individual what they have learned to this point, where they are with their progression. To know that about oneself is important and is a necessary step in our progression. I don't think those souls that die after one day in this world have to somehow come back to a mortal existence to catch up on some process that is essential to their eternal progression any more than that one day provided. And I don't think those souls that have Down's syndrome, etc. need to come back and have an opportunity to live in a body with a higher IQ so that they can progress their spirit any further than they are. In other words, in this life it is not necessary to progress in that way, just to reveal how we act in the situation we are given for God known reasons. If it is necessary to "progress" in a mortal body then how would one account for the millions of souls that die before the age of 8, etc.?

[Justice]

I don't think those souls that die after one day in this world have to somehow come back to a mortal existence to catch up on some process that is essential to their eternal progression any more than that one day provided. And I don't think those souls that have Down's syndrome, etc. need to come back and have an opportunity to live in a body with a higher IQ so that they can progress their spirit any further than they are. In other words, in this life it is not necessary to progress in that way, just to reveal how we act in the situation we are given for God known reasons. If it is necessary to "progress" in a mortal body then how would one account for the millions of souls that die before the age of 8, etc.?

Easy. Some progressed farther in the pre-mortal world of spirits and did not need this life as much.

I certainly understand what you're saying. What I fall back on is that I know I have changed, and I know I have seen others change. The word repentance means to turn or to change. The purpose for this mortal existence is to see if we will keep God's commandments when outside His presence. The spirit and body are joined together, and we are introduced to evil, and thus opposition. Evil can be enticing, and all subject themselves to a taste of it (all but One). We must learn to overcome the desires that are inherent in having a physical body, and choose to keep God's commandments. Maybe this requires little chance for some, but for others it requires a complete and total change of the heart.

It's like courage... it's not the lack of fear, but the ability to rise above fear when confronted with it. In fact, you can't have courage without fear of some kind. Similarly, these desires of the flesh are there, and they will be as long as we have a physical body, mortal or immortal. The desires will possibly different when immortal, but physical desires are part of having a physical body. The ability to rise above those desires and choose the good is what we're striving for, IMO.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Justice

[sister_in_faith]

I found this today, and thought of this thread. I haven't read the whole thread, but I thought I would throw this in as a thought...

"General Authorities Bruce R. McConkie (in Seven Deadly Heresies), Spencer W. Kimball (in Miracle of Forgiveness), and Joseph Fielding Smith (in Doctrines of Salvation) have stated that once someone is within a kingdom of glory, that person remains within that kingdom for all eternity; no one can advance out of a kingdom. Many general authorities do speculate that there is advancement within kingdoms, though. "

Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial Kingdoms - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki

[annewandering]

I found this today, and thought of this thread. I haven't read the whole thread, but I thought I would throw this in as a thought...

"General Authorities Bruce R. McConkie (in Seven Deadly Heresies), Spencer W. Kimball (in Miracle of Forgiveness), and Joseph Fielding Smith (in Doctrines of Salvation) have stated that once someone is within a kingdom of glory, that person remains within that kingdom for all eternity; no one can advance out of a kingdom. Many general authorities do speculate that there is advancement within kingdoms, though. "

Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial Kingdoms - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki

I have read that other prophets have disagreed with that too. lol. I do not remember the references but they are out there somewhere. :) Probably over on Mormon Apologetics.

[rameumptom]

The Church is moving away from many of the speculations of the last century in the Church. Joseph F Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, and his son-in-law Bruce R. McConkie established a dynasty of teachings in the 20th century. That said, many of those teachings are no longer taught or promoted in the Church. With the death of Elder McConkie that dynasty of teaching ended, and we have gotten back to real doctrine.

While many general authorities may still hold to the concept of no progression between kingdoms, or that there is no evolution, more and more they are allowing for a variety of voices ancient and modern. Many of Elder McConkie's seven deadly heresies are no longer considered heresies. Our view of homosexuality today is very different than that of Elder Kimball, whereas we believe a person can have the temptation or innate genetic desire, but they can still be worthy of a temple recommend.

It is better that we view them as just a few voices among many General Authorities, and use all the voices together to see if there is a real consensus or not. So, when you compare their thoughts with those of Elders Talmage, Widtsoe, BH Roberts and others, we find that many of their teachings are not necessarily as solid as they claimed.

I fact, some of their teachings have been debunked. Elder McConkie admitted to being wrong about the curse of Cain. Joseph Fielding Smith taught that man would not make it to the moon, and when they arrived on the moon, said we should not leave the earth. Their teaching that we earn our salvation is plain wrong, and in the last 20 years we've seen GAs and LDS scholars reframe our beliefs on it. And their view on evolution and Creationism (insisting the earth is only 6000 years old) is quickly being left on the trash heap of wrong beliefs.

So, I would be careful in putting too much on old teachings. They do not have the blessings of current revelation and scientific instruction.

[sister_in_faith]

The Church is moving away from many of the speculations of the last century in the Church. Joseph F Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, and his son-in-law Bruce R. McConkie established a dynasty of teachings in the 20th century. That said, many of those teachings are no longer taught or promoted in the Church. With the death of Elder McConkie that dynasty of teaching ended, and we have gotten back to real doctrine.

While many general authorities may still hold to the concept of no progression between kingdoms, or that there is no evolution, more and more they are allowing for a variety of voices ancient and modern. Many of Elder McConkie's seven deadly heresies are no longer considered heresies. Our view of homosexuality today is very different than that of Elder Kimball, whereas we believe a person can have the temptation or innate genetic desire, but they can still be worthy of a temple recommend.

It is better that we view them as just a few voices among many General Authorities, and use all the voices together to see if there is a real consensus or not. So, when you compare their thoughts with those of Elders Talmage, Widtsoe, BH Roberts and others, we find that many of their teachings are not necessarily as solid as they claimed.

I fact, some of their teachings have been debunked. Elder McConkie admitted to being wrong about the curse of Cain. Joseph Fielding Smith taught that man would not make it to the moon, and when they arrived on the moon, said we should not leave the earth. Their teaching that we earn our salvation is plain wrong, and in the last 20 years we've seen GAs and LDS scholars reframe our beliefs on it. And their view on evolution and Creationism (insisting the earth is only 6000 years old) is quickly being left on the trash heap of wrong beliefs.

So, I would be careful in putting too much on old teachings. They do not have the blessings of current revelation and scientific instruction.

I'm a convert, so this is all news to me... But it deeply troubles me... I thought that Heavenly Father would not let the prophet of our church lead us astray? But apparently he will? Yeah, that shakes the foundation of what I build my beliefs on, and it kinda bugs me.

[james12]

I'm a convert, so this is all news to me... But it deeply troubles me... I thought that Heavenly Father would not let the prophet of our church lead us astray? But apparently he will? Yeah, that shakes the foundation of what I build my beliefs on, and it kinda bugs me.

This comment applies to this thread but also others. Much is debated on this form and interesting statements and commentary from authorities are provided by posters. I for one enjoy these quotes. They often cause me to consider my opinion. I have found that I cannot brush aside their comments lightly and if I do I often find myself on the wrong side of an argument. That being said, there are a number of other things that should be determined after reading any statement by a general authority...

Where the teaching was given: Was the quote given in general conference? Was it an official declaration? This can be contrasted with comments that were made at firesides or in books published by the authority (many of which state that they are the personal responsible for the views and opinions expressed).

When the teaching was given: In some cases specific instruction was given to specific individuals. It was right for that time and for those people. It may not apply to me now.

Who gave the teaching: If the teaching comes from the source (Christ) it is clean and pure. Teachings may come from the prophet, then the apostles, the seventy, etc... As others provide teaching it does not carry the same weight as if given by the prophet. Their conclusions are more suspect.

What was said: Authorities are often very careful about choosing their words. This is because misunderstanding can and do occur. Read with care any statement and do not read more or less into it then is intended. If in doubt study context and words.

Multiple sources: Has more then one authority confirmed the teaching. This adds weight and clarity to the teaching.

Now in regards to your question, "I thought that Heavenly Father would not let the prophet of our church lead us astray?" I believe this is true. However this statement should be considered. I have always, and only, seen it applied to the prophet (not general authorities). I also consider the term "lead". To me this implies a change of course. A teaching that causes me to do something different.

Seriously no one should be "lead astray" by any quotes provided in this thread. I doubt anyone is seriously considering not following commandments because of a few quotes that are certainly not doctrine or definitive. Even if it was true that one can progress between kingdoms there is still "eternal punishment" and eons of time an individual would be relegated to one kingdom. Our minds cannot even fathom the extent of such ideas.

I value the thoughts expressed by general authorities. They can add insight into doctrine and teachings. It is my personal oppinion that when statements are misinterpreted and misundersthood fewer ideas can be shared.

[pam]

I'm a convert, so this is all news to me... But it deeply troubles me... I thought that Heavenly Father would not let the prophet of our church lead us astray? But apparently he will? Yeah, that shakes the foundation of what I build my beliefs on, and it kinda bugs me.

Keep in mind that none of them have taken us away from the basic principles of the gospel that do lead to exaltation and eternal life.

Many opinions were based on the opinions of men. This church is so young compared to many other religions. The Lord reveals understandings as we are ready to receive them. Much speculation was done in the past but through revelation we have learned and gained a better understanding of many things. That's why it's so important to learn from the older prophets but to rely on what our present prophet teaches us. I truly believe that if a prophet were to lead us astray he would be quickly taken out of that position.

[Vort]

I'm a convert, so this is all news to me... But it deeply troubles me... I thought that Heavenly Father would not let the prophet of our church lead us astray? But apparently he will? Yeah, that shakes the foundation of what I build my beliefs on, and it kinda bugs me.

Don't let it bug you, s_i_f. Rameumptom sometimes gets a bit carried away in his prose. Tor example, President (Joseph Fielding) Smith did not teach that man would never reach the moon; he simply offered his opinion that God would not allow it. The men Ram mentioned were prophets of God and good, decent men, but like the rest of us were products of their time. They felt much freer to state their opinions on any given subject as if they were doctrine. Their understanding, as Elder McConkie once stated, was "it is our job to teach the doctrine, and it is your job to sustain us." I happen to think there is much wisdom in this, but I also think it is not a good idea for apostles or other General Authorities to broadcast opinion or deficient understanding as "the word".

This is a tough game to play, however. At what point should a General Authority consider his understanding sufficiently perfect to be able to preach it? Clearly, that's a judgment call. I am not convinced that the Spirit will always tell us which of our beliefs are too faulty to teach in sacrament or testimony meeting (or General Conference). We must speak with the Spirit, and listeners must listen with the Spirit.

Elder McConkie and others taught some things about the "seed of Cain" being the black African race and not receiving the Priesthood until certain things happened. When the 1978 revelation was presented to the Quorum of Twelve, they approved it unanimously -- including Elder McConkie. And Elder McConkie was one of the first, and most insistent, in proclaiming the revelation:

We have read these passages and their associated passages [about proclaiming the gospel to all people everywhere] for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, "Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things." There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say,

"You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

I think that's the right attitude.

Prophets are still people. Do not let this trouble you. The Lord will never allow his prophets to lead the Church astray. This is true, even if some of the doctrine is not yet perfect. Wheh the time is appropriate, we will understand the doctrine correctly.

[bytor2112]

If the church were moving away from "those" teachings of say Elder McConkie, one would think that the Institute manuals and other teaching manuals would not still be filled to overflowing with his comments. Perhaps Ram has moved on from Elder McConkie's teaching's and the like, but it is apparent that the church really hasn't. I would submit that the the current GA's are leaving their mark based on their personalities and insights from the Lord. We seem as a church to be focused more on mercy than justice....more come unto Christ than woe to those who don't.

Elder McConkie desired to drive "secularism" from the church as well as non-doctrinal speculation that could have the affect of leading people away from the church's teachings. Kind of like Prop. 8 and the controversy surrounding the church involvement.

As for the Seven deadly heresy's talk....which heresy is incorrect? His comments regarding harmonizing religion and organic evolution include the following:

These are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself what he will believe. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields.

I believe that the atonement of Christ is the great and eternal foundation upon which revealed religion rests. I believe that no man can be saved unless he believes that our Lord's atoning sacrifice brings immortality to all and eternal life to those who believe and obey, and no man can believe in the atonement unless he accepts both the divine sonship of Christ and the fall of Adam.

My reasoning causes me to conclude that if death has always prevailed in the world, then there was no fall of Adam that brought death to all forms of life; that if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; that if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, and no eternal life; and that if there was no atonement, there is nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. I believe that the Fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself.

Elder McConkie was a completely devoted disciple of the Savior and without a doubt a very inspired man. Moved on....perhaps in tone and message, but not in doctrine.