Glory Days (for time and all eternity)

[Bensalem]

You stated that within a gospel context, what ever that means, there is no difference between the words. Clearly isn't the case, but I suppose there isn't a word police to issue tickets.

Whatever. Anyway 'mordorbund' and I are on the same page; we understand each other's proper, yet varied usage. And I'm driving away from the scene of the 'crime'. Don't expect a check in the mail for the fine.

I remain a witness to Christ (meaning, in the eyes of).

Wow, still another possibility for (or is it of?) the use of the word "to".

[Dravin]

Whatever. Anyway 'mordorbund' and I are on the same page; we understand each other's proper, yet varied usage. And I'm driving away from the scene of the 'crime'. Don't expect a check in the mail for the fine.

I remain a witness to Christ (meaning, in the eyes of).

Wow, still another possibility for (or is it of) the use of the word "to".

Have fun going of church this Sunday.

[bytor2112]

Could you please explain why a sinless Christ would have "to work out HIS own salvation"?

Salvation is the rescue from having to pay the debt of your own sin. Christ redeems us; He required no redemption.

Never mind the fact that earthly marriage for Jesus was never articulated to be the will of the Father. Christ's mission was to do the will of Father in regards to the Plan of Salvation through the act of atonement and he accomplished it.

An earthly marriage does not follow the pattern set by the miracle between Elohim and Mary. That example will no doubt be followed by the Priesthood and some other 'Mary' on some other planet when Christ's own son will become the Only Begotten and Savior of that population of souls, who have not yet even been organized in a future premortal creation.

"Christ worked out his own salvation. This is something of which uninspired men have no comprehension. Truly, he was the Lord Omnipotent before the world was; truly, he was like unto the Father in the premortal life; truly, he was the Son of God here on earth—and yet, with it all, as with all the spirit children of the same Father, he too was subject to all of the terms and conditions of the Father's plan.

He also was born on earth to undergo a mortal probation, to die, to rise again in immortal glory, to be judged according to his works, and to receive his place of infinite glory in the eternal kingdom of his Everlasting Father. How well Paul said:

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

And being made perfect, he became the author [that is, the cause] of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." [Hebrews 5: 8–9] Elder Bruce R McConkie

Edited July 21, 2012 by bytor2112

[Bensalem]

Yes, I see that. You denounce it as offensive gossip that should go away or be validated, but really rejected because it hasn't been validated and was not a part of Christ's earthly mission.

But then at the same time we get to this:

Now let's apply your same standards to this not-so-random Internet quote. "Christ will be married literally after his metaphorical bride (the Church) has been cleansed." I wish it would go away or be validated. I reject as gossip that taking a physical wife is any part of Christ's mission or personal goal. He will also come "with healing in his wings", but I don't take that to mean that he will grow such appendages.

Now in reality, I don't necessarily have much of a beef with your pet notion. It might be fun to discuss it's merits and shortcomings. But before we do that, I'll need you to acknowledge that your "marriage theology" is not binding on anyone else, or rather, it is as binding as the notion that Christ is eternally celibate or was married in mortality. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I just need agreement on this point because I'm hearing an outright rejection of other speculation solely on the basis that you have your own preferred speculation.

Fair enough. I would never presume that anything I might say (meaning, write) is binding. I looked up the Streisand Effect and began hoping for more 'choppers' (symbolically speaking, more witnesses to 'jaw' about this discussion).

I'm glad you provided more support for my point of view in the internet quote, but the use of my own words to refute it does not minimize the fact that there is more scriptural support for a post-Millennial marriage in glory than an earthly marriage at the meridian of time. Come to think of it, there is a complete lack of scriptural support for a marriage at the time of Jesus' mission of the atonement in fulfillment of the Plan of Salvation.

[Bensalem]

Christ worked out his own salvation. This is something of which uninspired men have no comprehension.

Still another who wishes to raise himself above his brother with insults.

Christ worked out his mission; not his salvation. Understanding that he was born with a clean slate (no memory of the premortal state), he certainly learned of his calling and accepted it. But salvation is the rescue from having to pay the debt of your own sins. So Christ redeems us. Christ had no sin. So he required no redemption.

Please address my words, not my inspiration; for we both know it comes from the Holy Ghost.

[Bensalem]

Have fun going of church this Sunday.

Thanks, I always enjoy it. Learning inside (or outside) the church is always a joy.

[bytor2112]

Still another who wishes to raise himself above his brother with insults.

Christ worked out his mission; not his salvation. Understanding that he was born with a clean slate (no memory of the premortal state), he certainly learned of his calling and accepted it. But salvation is the rescue from having to pay the debt of your own sins. So Christ redeems us. Christ had no sin. So he required no redemption.

Please address my words, not my inspiration; for we both know it comes from the Holy Ghost.

So, Elder McConkie, an Apostle, a man sustained as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, the most oft quoted GA in the church wishes to raise himself above his brother?

The quote was Elder McConkie and I dare say I believe his understanding over yours....respectfully.....and NO, I don't know nor believe your words come from the Holy Ghost.

Edited July 21, 2012 by bytor2112

[Vort]

Still another who wishes to raise himself above his brother with insults.

How is this an insult? Elder McConkie was providing a rather obvious observation: Uninspired men, pretty much by definition, do not understand the things of God.

I feel quite sure that Elder McConkie was not wishing to raise himself above anyone else. He was simply fulfilling his commission to preach the gospel.

[mordorbund]

Fair enough. I would never presume that anything I might say (meaning, write) is binding. I looked up the Streisand Effect and began hoping for more 'choppers' (symbolically speaking, more witnesses to 'jaw' about this discussion).

I'm glad you provided more support for my point of view in the internet quote, but the use of my own words to refute it does not minimize the fact that there is more scriptural support for a post-Millennial marriage in glory than an earthly marriage at the meridian of time. Come to think of it, there is a complete lack of scriptural support for a marriage at the time of Jesus' mission of the atonement in fulfillment of the Plan of Salvation.

I shared with you the scriptural support. It starts with marriage being a requirement for exaltation, is further built up around the principle that marriage is an ordinance that must take place in this life (else why do it for the dead? "for in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage"), and concludes with Jesus is resurrected. All three are scriptural supports for a marriage at the time of Jesus' mortality.

I don't know how effective my posts have been. I feel like I've brought logic to a crazy-fight.

[Bensalem]

I shared with you the scriptural support. It starts with marriage being a requirement for exaltation, is further built up around the principle that marriage is an ordinance that must take place in this life (else why do it for the dead? "for in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage"), and concludes with Jesus is resurrected. All three are scriptural supports for a marriage at the time of Jesus' mortality.

I don't know how effective my posts have been. I feel like I've brought logic to a crazy-fight.

Sorry, it took a while to get to it. Btw, it is not crazy, it is important.

The arguments in favor of a married, mortal Jesus is

1) that being sealed to a spouse is required for exaltation

2) such sealing can only be performed in this life (otherwise we wouldn't have to do it for the dead), and

3) Jesus has received his exaltation

The classic supporting example is that Jesus still had to get baptized, despite being sinless, and despite being the head of his own church. Additionally, early apostles have openly speculated that Jesus was married - and what's more - to more than one woman!

1). Never debated that point; I agree with it.

2). We do ordinances for the dead because they are dead, both physically and spiritually; also, because these ordinances are sequential. Christ never was dead; his sinless state upon mortal death guaranteed his eternal life. His spirit was never spoiled, hence he was resurrected in just three days. And he had received the precursor requirements of water baptism from John and the gift of the Holy Ghost from his Father in heaven. His lineage was sealed after his death in scriptural recordings by the apostles, yet no record of his wife or wives. The fact is that we become his children through rebirth in the church, the church is his wife not yet glorified. We are Christ's spirit children through his and our union in the word he brought to his church. He still has to seal us to him after our resurrection the church's exaltation.

3). Certainly He has received His exaltation, and the Church in heaven is exalted, and His lineage is, and those in the Church who have past on are added to it, and the faithful in the earthly LDS Church will be also.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Bensalem

[Bensalem]

How is this an insult? Elder McConkie was providing a rather obvious observation: Uninspired men, pretty much by definition, do not understand the things of God.

I feel quite sure that Elder McConkie was not wishing to raise himself above anyone else. He was simply fulfilling his commission to preach the gospel.

Elder McConkie didn't insult me by his revealed truth. The poster did by applying it to me.

[bytor2112]

Elder McConkie didn't insult me by his revealed truth. The poster did by applying it to me.

The poster answered your question with the quote....so, apparently you were insulted by revealed truth. And now since you have as much admitted that I was right and you are wrong.....maybe you should just say so. Learn and grow......

[mordorbund]

Sorry, it took a while to get to it.

1). Never debated that point; I agree with it.

2). We do ordinances for the dead because they are dead, both physically and spiritually; also, because these ordinances are sequential. Christ never was dead; his sinless state upon mortal death guaranteed his eternal life. His spirit was never spoiled, hence he was resurrected in just three days. And he had received the precursor requirements of water baptism from John and the gift of the Holy Ghost from his Father in heaven. His lineage was sealed after his death in scriptural recordings by the apostles, yet no record of his wife or wives. The fact is that we become his children through rebirth in the church, the church is his wife not yet glorified. We are Christ's spirit children through his and our union in the word he brought to his church. He still has to seal us to him after our resurrection the church's exaltation.

3). Certainly He has received His exaltation, and the Church in heaven is exalted, and His lineage is, and those in the Church who have past on are added to it, and the faithful in the earthly LDS Church will be also.

I'll try to say it a little differently. Only mortals marry or are given in marriage. If a resurrected person can be married, there would be no need to perform sealings for the dead. Let them take care of their own ordinances, we have enough to focus on here. So I don't see Christ cleansing the Church and then choosing a bride. If he is single today, I suppose he will remain single throughout time.

The "no record" argument doesn't fly with me because we also have no record of his priesthood ordination or his endowments. Even the descent of the Holy Ghost as a dove doesn't really sound like an ordinance, so I would also have to suppose that he never received that gift, nor was he confirmed into his own church. Nope, sounds like the only saving ordinance he received was baptism.

[Bensalem]

So, Elder McConkie, an Apostle, a man sustained as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, the most oft quoted GA in the church wishes to raise himself above his brother?

The quote was Elder McConkie and I dare say I believe his understanding over yours....respectfully.....and NO, I don't know nor believe your words come from the Holy Ghost.

Oh, how the trap's jaws snapped quickly. Nice try.

It was your insult I was addressing, not Elder McConkie's truth.

If I was so inclined, I would point out that his words could also be applied to you and your lack of understanding. But I prefer not to. God will be the judge between us and our views. For now we can both stand by our presentations and no one is right or wrong. We each understand the scriptures (and gossip about them) differently. So be it. No need to make it personal.

[Bensalem]

The poster answered your question with the quote....so, apparently you were insulted by revealed truth. And now since you have as much admitted that I was right and you are wrong.....maybe you should just say so. Learn and grow......

Who are you trying to deceive? You are the poster who insulted me. The quote didn't insult me. Your application of it to me did.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Bensalem

[bytor2112]

Who are you trying to deceive? You are the poster that insulted me. The quote didn't insult me. Your application of it to me did.

If you are referring to the uninspired men portion of the quote, feel free to exclude yourself and read the quote in the context of answering your question. Though, observing many of your posts, it may indeed be applicable.

[bytor2112]

If I was so inclined, I would point out that his words could also be applied to you and your lack of understanding. But I prefer not to. God will be the judge between us and our views. For now we can both stand by our presentations and no one is right or wrong. We each understand the scriptures (and gossip about them) differently. So be it. No need to make it personal.

No...no you couldn't. Again, if his comments regarding uninspired men are a personal affront to you, then feel free to disregard. The response was to your question as to How Christ worked out his own salvation....I chose to answer with an Apostolic quote about the very question. Elder McConkie was addressing a BYU audience at the time and not Bensalem directly and that portion of the comment was not intended to be an insult from Bytor to Bensalem.

So, if you thought it was personal...it was not intended to be.

[Bensalem]

If you are referring to the uninspired men portion of the quote, feel free to exclude yourself and read the quote in the context of answering your question. Though, observing many of your posts, it may indeed be applicable.

Yes, it was your "inspired men" comment that disturbed me. And I will now exclude it from applying to me. Thank you.

The McConkie quote does not address the sinless nature of Christ as my reason for asserting that Christ needed no salvation. So he did not have to "work out his salvation".

As I said, he had to work out his mission and choose to accept it.

[bytor2112]

Yes, it was your "inspired men" comment that disturbed me. And I will now exclude it from applying to me. Thank you.

The McConkie quote does not address the sinless nature of Christ as my reason for asserting that Christ needed no salvation. So he did not have to "work out his salvation".

As I said, he had to work out his mission and choose to accept it.

So, now Elder McConkie's revealed truth ( your words) doesn't jive with the gospel according to Bensalem?

[Bensalem]

No...no you couldn't. Again, if his comments regarding uninspired men are a personal affront to you, then feel free to disregard. The response was to your question as to How Christ worked out his own salvation....I chose to answer with an Apostolic quote about the very question. Elder McConkie was addressing a BYU audience at the time and not Bensalem directly and that portion of the comment was not intended to be an insult from Bytor to Bensalem.

So, if you thought it was personal...it was not intended to be.

Explanation of non-affront excepted.

Perhaps you could share more of the talk, because as it stands I don't see how his comment addresses Christ's sinless nature, which is the crux of my argument.

[annewandering]

Just a minute. Marriage is sinless. I dont get where you think Christ would be lowering himself to marry. Oh and yes His wife would not be a sinless person but God didnt think that was a requirement for Christ's mom did He?

We do not believe marriage requires a 'lowering' of oneself to participate in. On the contraire. Marriage elevates a person if done correctly and I am going to guess Christ would do it right.

I do not know if Christ was married. I dont know if He had children. I dont care. That was up to Him in His private life and has no bearing on us.

I do not think the Church as a bride is going to keep Him warm at nights for eternity.

[bytor2112]

Explanation of non-affront excepted.

Perhaps you could share more of the talk, because as it stands I don't see how his comment addresses Christ's sinless nature, which is the crux of my argument.

Christ was sinless, but still subject to the Father's plan. It so happens that Christ worked out his salvation by obedience to the Father....and did so perfectly. His perfect performance doesn't detract from Him being sinless.

[bytor2112]

You asked earlier why perfection would take on imperfection? My example of Elohim and Mary was simply that Elohim chose Mary, surely imperfect to be the Mother of HIS only begotten. Why then wouldn't Christ take an imperfect woman to wed? Christ did put up on a corruptable, imperfect body of flesh and blood.

[Bensalem]

"Christ worked out his own salvation. This is something of which uninspired men have no comprehension. Truly, he was the Lord Omnipotent before the world was; truly, he was like unto the Father in the premortal life; truly, he was the Son of God here on earth—and yet, with it all, as with all the spirit children of the same Father, he too was subject to all of the terms and conditions of the Father's plan.

He also was born on earth to undergo a mortal probation, to die, to rise again in immortal glory, to be judged according to his works, and to receive his place of infinite glory in the eternal kingdom of his Everlasting Father. How well Paul said:

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

And being made perfect, he became the author [that is, the cause] of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." [Hebrews 5: 8–9] Elder Bruce R McConkie

Back to the quote in question, which I miss read to only include the last part that I highlighted.

Now I see that little quote mark at the beginning of your post. So sorry for reading to quickly and attributing the "uninspired" part to you.

Let me reassess what it says and I will get back to you.

[Bensalem]

Just a minute. Marriage is sinless. I dont get where you think Christ would be lowering himself to marry. Oh and yes His wife would not be a sinless person but God didnt think that was a requirement for Christ's mom did He?

We do not believe marriage requires a 'lowering' of oneself to participate in. On the contraire. Marriage elevates a person if done correctly and I am going to guess Christ would do it right.

I do not know if Christ was married. I dont know if He had children. I dont care. That was up to Him in His private life and has no bearing on us.

I do not think the Church as a bride is going to keep Him warm at nights for eternity.

I have no problem with marriage or the promise of exalted marriage. I just do not except the unsubstantiated idea that Jesus married while on earth.

I think it presents a very narrow and limiting perspective in the larger light of the symbolism of the Church as His Bride.

You say, "I dont know if He had children. I dont care." This ignores the fact that we become His children through baptism in His Church.

I am trying very hard to move us beyond the concept of marriage as we understand it to be between a man and a woman. The lesson of the bible is not so terrestrial, it is Celestial and glorious and is embodied in the concepts of God and Church, not just man and woman.