"Christians" obtaining the Celestial Kingdom

[Guest]

@NeedleinA,

You forgot the rainbows and unicorns.

[The Folk Prophet]

@Carborendum I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks any longer. If you want to discuss the issues, great. If you want to criticize me, please keep it to yourself.

[NeedleinA]

I feel like we all need a group hug... hug it out, hug it out. 
(however that happens on the internet?)

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

I feel like we all need a group hug... hug it out, hug it out. 
(however that happens on the internet?)

Well, I tried.  But whatever.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Guest

[Vort]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWM2joNb9NE

[Guest]

Thanks, Vort.  I needed that.

[The Folk Prophet]

53 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

I feel like we all need a group hug... hug it out, hug it out. 
(however that happens on the internet?)

The fact that I don't care for hugs from anyone but my wife (and presumably my children someday) aside...

All it will take for Carb and I to get along moving forward is for him to not criticize me personally. I will drop it beyond that. If and when he determines it is his place again to point out everything wrong with my posting style, personality, etc., then I will do my level best to, holding no grudge, walk away from it and not engage.

[Guest]

I will do that.  err.. won't do that...  I mean... I will cease criticizing you personally about your posting etc.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Guest

[prisonchaplain]

I read about Christians (I'm assuming us traditional type) getting into the Celestial Kingdom. Then I saw free hugs being given out.  What an awesome day to be back on lds.net!!!  :-)

[Bad Karma]

On 2/24/2016 at 2:17 PM, Vort said:

Bingo.

For those of us who have attained higher kingdoms, i.e. the Celestial Kingdom, I think we can go anywhere we want, at will. I think we WILL go anywhere, often. We'll visit those we love whom have not attained higher glory, why may one ask? LOVE. What God has instilled in us, and have our agency to do so at will. For the same reason I do not live in the goofy town my mother does, but I do go see her, because I love her, she doesn't have to live with me or next door to me to love her or to want to see her, I want to see her wherever she is. *Tipping hat*

 

ETA: Misses posting the other stuff I wanted to post: 

As for "Christians" i.e. GENTILES attaining CELESTIAL glory, why not? While they might not have attained it here by virtue of being gentiles (No conversion in this life) we LDS do work pretty hard to GRAB EVERYBODY and take 'em to the temple in death, so that those who have not attained celestial glory CAN for themselves CHOOSE to attain (accept it) it or not. Otherwise, why do we keep going back to the temple after our own endowment? We do it for everyone, anyone, we get a name, we run with it, like we stole it, drive it till the wheels fall off, but we're yankin' you through the veil, never fear, **IF** we can't seal you, you'll get another opportunity in the spirit world to meet your future celestial spouse too. (This is the way the temple Prez explained it to me.)

I've dragged Grandma and Grandpa there, all the way through. I told Mom that since she seems to not want to go to the temple, I'll just flap my wings like a vulture and wait until she gives up the ghost, drag her to the temple too, right along with Dad, get them all the way through and seal them up, if they accept it, it should be fun to watch them iron out old beefs in the Celestial Kingdom, or, he'll be the first guy in the Celestial Kindgom to have his celestial wife crack him one with a "Heavenly frying pan", which should be fun to watch too. 

 

Edited March 14, 2016 by Bad Karma

[Traveler]

On Thursday, March 03, 2016 at 0:13 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

When you say that  D&C 93:30-31 defines agency and then don't bother to explain how, I'm not sure how I can address it further than simply disagreeing. I don't see a "definition" of agency there. I see an explanation of it. I suppose that could be considered a definition, but the two are not one and the same. At any rate I cannot respond beyond my opinion that it doesn't. If you are determined that it does, then please explain yourself. Otherwise, I'm afraid, "No it doesn't" will have to suffice.

You also say it says something about agency being an expression of something that defines us from the beginning. I don't see it. You're going to have to explain yourself, once again, or the best I can offer is a disagreement. My read is that the word "beginning" is referring to the things manifested to us.

As to what the scripture is telling us about the agency of man, I believe it means what it says:

Intelligence and truth is independent to act for itself. The agency of man is the independence to act for itself as an intelligent being based on things plainly manifested.

Laymen's terms - Man's agency depends on the right to act upon knowledge given him.

I have no idea what Traveler's point is. What he's trying to get at is cryptic and baffling, and instead of speaking plainly, he continues to respond to me in cryptic terms. Maybe If he'd clarify, speak plainly, and get to the freaking point then I could actually address his point. I know sometimes my answers are cryptic. This is intentional with the point being that I expect the response to be "What do you mean?" whereupon I usually intend to expound. More often than not that is due to time limitations. Traveler's cryptic approach in this particular thread, alternatively, seems to be a way to set himself up as more knowledgeable like he's *wink wink*ing at me waiting for me to arrive at the grand illumination he's achieved in his superior understanding. I'm not playing that game. Say what you mean Traveler or my engagement will remain shallow.

 

I will try again with (D&C 93) and hopefully I can understand where it is you disagree.  I admit that I often do not express thought clearly.  But let’s start with your statement:

” You also say it says something about agency being an expression of something that defines us from the beginning. I don't see it. You're going to have to explain yourself, once again, or the best I can offer is a disagreement. My read is that the word "beginning" is referring to the things manifested to us.” 

 

 

 

Your definition of beginning – “referring to the things manifested to us.”  I find very vague.  Isaiah tells us that things are manifested to us line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  Thus I seen no beginning or end to divine manifestations or our relationship with G-d.  Going back to verse 23: “Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;”  I understand this to mean that we exist eternally with the Father and have always existed – or to say we have had a relationship with the Father who has manifested things to us for as long as he has been G-d).  This is to say “things” have always been manifested unto us – so to say there was such a possibility as a beginning – so your interpretation of beginning looks to me to be incomplete – that there is more to this than what you seem willing to consider.

 

 

 

Now lets us look at verse 24:  “And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;”  Here the scripture talks more about the spirit of truth from verse 23 that defines us as spirits of truth – indicating that we had – “Knowledge of things as they are as they were and most importantly – as they are to come.”

 

 

 

From this scripture I gather and understand two things.  One is that we already knew the truth before we came to mortality – that is, how things will turn out or as they are to come. And the second part is explained beginning with verse 29 and coming to a climax in verse 31.  That is that our agency is given to us by G-d and is expressed by the truth we already have concerning what is to “come”.  Thus we behold our agency in the expression of things as they are to come when we play those things out as they are.

 

 

 

D&C 93 tells us many things – but I believe one truth you seem to have missed is that we are eternal beings just as G-d is an eternal being and that, like G-d, we have known “from the beginning” how things are going to turn out.  That our agency was known from the beginning – and is included in the light of truth that knows how thing will turn out and be.

 

 

 

What I really do not understand is why you would question me being LDS for believing such a thing and calling me condescending for wanting to drill down and understand your position of disagreement?  And then I do not understand why you cannot or will not expand beyond saying – no it does not say that.  Please take the time to explain at least point that I missed that contradicts everything I am putting forward.

 

Edited March 14, 2016 by Traveler

[Traveler]

For the record – I believe that anyone that wants to live with G-d in the Celestial Kingdom will be rewarded according to the desire of their heart.  As I understand scripture there are some – perhaps many that love other things more than G-d that or the Celestial Kingdom.  Also – according to scripture I see no reason to believe that people will seek out things in this life contrary to what they desire in their heart.   Thus – I believe that those that do not seek out the kingdom of G-d in this probation will not ever desire to do so. 

 

There are some that are blinded by the “doctrines of men” that are preached in this world by Satan and his followers in an effort to keep souls from the kingdom of G-d.  How and who are involved is another discussion but I believe there are some that prefer the “doctrines of men” over the truths revealed from G-d.  I am not willing to argue this in detail because I do not understand why otherwise good people turn away from revelation – only that for whatever regrettable reason it does occur.  I assume it is because they love such thing more that they love seeking truth from G-d.  Also it seem to me that many LDS are not living according to covenant and would rather do “other” things (like skip church ‘or the things of G-d’ while on vacation or during conference) for whatever reason.    

 

Some people do not like the kingdom of G-d (church) and are just not comfortable with it or the service of men – especially those they do not like all that much.  I do not think they will be forced and I do not believe anyone will be forced to receive their just reward that they spent their entire lifetime in their heart and desire to receive.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

Your definition of beginning – “referring to the things manifested to us.”  I find very vague. 

Let me try to be clearer then. What was from the beginning was plainly manifested to us. In other words, we are given revelation about the plan of salvation. The knowledge gives us the ability to choose to act on it for good or for evil. This is agency. It requires three things: knowledge, choice, and accountability. The from the beginning are manifested to us. That's not interpretation. It's what it says. "that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto [us]". It has very little to do with interpreting what "the beginning" is, and much more to do with the fact that it is because of the things that are manifested unto us that we are accountable -- because of knowledge.

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

Now lets us look at verse 24:  “And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;”  Here the scripture talks more about the spirit of truth from verse 23 that defines us as spirits of truth – indicating that we had – “Knowledge of things as they are as they were and most importantly – as they are to come.”

We did, and do, have knowledge of things that were, are, and are to come. What does that have to do with defining agency beyond the need of knowledge for accountability?

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

From this scripture I gather and understand two things.  One is that we already knew the truth before we came to mortality – that is, how things will turn out or as they are to come. 

I agree that we knew* the end in general terms...that Christ would put all things under his feet, Satan would lose, etc. If you mean to say that each of us knew whether we'd be in the Celestial Kingdom or not...well do you? Is that what you mean? Is that what you're tying to say?

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

And the second part is explained beginning with verse 29 and coming to a climax in verse 31.  That is that our agency is given to us by G-d and is expressed by the truth we already have concerning what is to “come”.  Thus we behold our agency in the expression of things as they are to come when we play those things out as they are.

This is a twisted, strange, non-LDS interpretation and in no way the plain meaning of what it says. What it says is that we have been given knowledge, therefore we have agency, and we are condemned when we do not receive the light (or knowledge. This is the plain meaning, the meaning taught by the leaders of the church, and the LDS view of agency.

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

D&C 93 tells us many things – but I believe one truth you seem to have missed is that we are eternal beings just as G-d is an eternal being and that, like G-d, we have known “from the beginning” how things are going to turn out.  That our agency was known from the beginning – and is included in the light of truth that knows how thing will turn out and be.

Once again I ask: Are you saying that you believe that we knew before we chose to come to earth which kingdom we'd end up in? If so, can you back this thinking up with anything other than your interpretation? Can you give any leader's comments from anywhere that support such an idea?

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

What I really do not understand is why you would question me being LDS for believing such a thing

Because there has never been any prophet who has ever taught such things or interpreted things this way. It is not the LDS idea of agency. (I'm not literally questioning your being LDS, in case that wasn't clear. I know you're LDS. I was making the point that your interpretations are not in line with LDS teachings and that you, being LDS, should know better about these things.)

12 hours ago, Traveler said:

 And then I do not understand why you cannot or will not expand beyond saying – no it does not say that.

Because it does not say that, and anyone who's ever had even a basic lesson on agency in Mormondom should know that.

[The Folk Prophet]

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

I see no reason to believe that people will seek out things in this life contrary to what they desire in their heart.  

We've discussed this before...and it's a bit of semantics...but I think it quite plain that everyone of us who achieves the Celestial Kingdom must choose to seek out things contrary to our natural selves.

Edited March 15, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

Here's a quick refresher lesson on What the Church Teaches on Agency

And, the Gospel Principles lesson on it.

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Let me try to be clearer then. What was from the beginning was plainly manifested to us. In other words, we are given revelation about the plan of salvation. The knowledge gives us the ability to choose to act on it for good or for evil. This is agency. It requires three things: knowledge, choice, and accountability. The from the beginning are manifested to us. That's not interpretation. It's what it says. "that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto [us]". It has very little to do with interpreting what "the beginning" is, and much more to do with the fact that it is because of the things that are manifested unto us that we are accountable -- because of knowledge.

We did, and do, have knowledge of things that were, are, and are to come. What does that have to do with defining agency beyond the need of knowledge for accountability?

I agree that we knew* the end in general terms...that Christ would put all things under his feet, Satan would lose, etc. If you mean to say that each of us knew whether we'd be in the Celestial Kingdom or not...well do you? Is that what you mean? Is that what you're tying to say?

This is a twisted, strange, non-LDS interpretation and in no way the plain meaning of what it says. What it says is that we have been given knowledge, therefore we have agency, and we are condemned when we do not receive the light (or knowledge. This is the plain meaning, the meaning taught by the leaders of the church, and the LDS view of agency.

Once again I ask: Are you saying that you believe that we knew before we chose to come to earth which kingdom we'd end up in? If so, can you back this thinking up with anything other than your interpretation? Can you give any leader's comments from anywhere that support such an idea?

Because there has never been any prophet who has ever taught such things or interpreted things this way. It is not the LDS idea of agency. (I'm not literally questioning your being LDS, in case that wasn't clear. I know you're LDS. I was making the point that your interpretations are not in line with LDS teachings and that you, being LDS, should know better about these things.)

Because it does not say that, and anyone who's ever had even a basic lesson on agency in Mormondom should know that.

 

It is this idea of a “sort of or partial truth” that comes from a lesser kind of “knowing in general terms” that I find ridiculous, vague and completely contrary to a real or actual “knowledge of truth” as expressed in D&C93, especially knowledge required to qualify for any kind of credible “agency” for which an individual’s eternal salvation hangs completely in the balance.    I see no creditable difference between “knowing in general terms” from partial truth, an intended deception or an outright lie.  Note that anything less than a complete knowledge of things as they were, are and will be – like “knowing in general terms” looks very much like something to mitigate a lessor knowledge – Is addressed in verse 25 – “And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.”

 

So to answer your question “If you mean to say that each of us knew whether we'd be in the Celestial Kingdom or not...well do you? Is that what you mean? Is that what you're tying to say?”

  I am trying to say that I believe we had access to and knew the truth.  Not a partial or sort of truth as denounced in verse 25 but the actual truth.  We knew the truth about getting to the Celestial Kingdom and not some vague reference to some sort of truth or “knowing in general terms”. 

I cannot imagine that a third part of heaven would resort to open rebellion and be damned to outer darkness for making a decision based in sort of “knowing in general terms”.  I do not believe G-d fosters or would allow such ignorant stupidly to take place among his beloved and cherished children.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Let me try to be clearer then. What was from the beginning was plainly manifested to us. In other words, we are given revelation about the plan of salvation. The knowledge gives us the ability to choose to act on it for good or for evil. This is agency. It requires three things: knowledge, choice, and accountability. The from the beginning are manifested to us. That's not interpretation. It's what it says. "that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto [us]". It has very little to do with interpreting what "the beginning" is, and much more to do with the fact that it is because of the things that are manifested unto us that we are accountable -- because of knowledge.

We did, and do, have knowledge of things that were, are, and are to come. What does that have to do with defining agency beyond the need of knowledge for accountability?

I agree that we knew* the end in general terms...that Christ would put all things under his feet, Satan would lose, etc. If you mean to say that each of us knew whether we'd be in the Celestial Kingdom or not...well do you? Is that what you mean? Is that what you're tying to say?

This is a twisted, strange, non-LDS interpretation and in no way the plain meaning of what it says. What it says is that we have been given knowledge, therefore we have agency, and we are condemned when we do not receive the light (or knowledge. This is the plain meaning, the meaning taught by the leaders of the church, and the LDS view of agency.

Once again I ask: Are you saying that you believe that we knew before we chose to come to earth which kingdom we'd end up in? If so, can you back this thinking up with anything other than your interpretation? Can you give any leader's comments from anywhere that support such an idea?

Because there has never been any prophet who has ever taught such things or interpreted things this way. It is not the LDS idea of agency. (I'm not literally questioning your being LDS, in case that wasn't clear. I know you're LDS. I was making the point that your interpretations are not in line with LDS teachings and that you, being LDS, should know better about these things.)

Because it does not say that, and anyone who's ever had even a basic lesson on agency in Mormondom should know that.

 

It is this idea of a “sort of or partial truth” that comes from a lesser kind of “knowing in general terms” that I find ridiculous, vague and completely contrary to a real or actual “knowledge of truth” as expressed in D&C93, especially knowledge required to qualify for any kind of credible “agency” for which an individual’s eternal salvation hangs completely in the balance.    I see no creditable difference between “knowing in general terms” from partial truth, an intended deception or an outright lie.  Note that anything less than a complete knowledge of things as they were, are and will be – like “knowing in general terms” looks very much like something to mitigate a lessor knowledge – Is addressed in verse 25 – “And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.”

 

So to answer your question “If you mean to say that each of us knew whether we'd be in the Celestial Kingdom or not...well do you? Is that what you mean? Is that what you're tying to say?”

  I am trying to say that I believe we had access to and knew the truth.  Not a partial or sort of truth as denounced in verse 25 but the actual truth.  We knew the truth about getting to the Celestial Kingdom and not some vague reference to some sort of truth or “knowing in general terms”. 

I cannot imagine that a third part of heaven would resort to open rebellion and be damned to outer darkness for making a decision based in sort of “knowing in general terms”.  I do not believe G-d fosters or would allow such ignorant stupidly to take place among his beloved and cherished children.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

It is this idea of a “sort of or partial truth” that comes from a lesser kind of “knowing in general terms” that I find ridiculous, vague and completely contrary to a real or actual “knowledge of truth” as expressed in D&C93, especially knowledge required to qualify for any kind of credible “agency” for which an individual’s eternal salvation hangs completely in the balance.    I see no creditable difference between “knowing in general terms” from partial truth, an intended deception or an outright lie.  Note that anything less than a complete knowledge of things as they were, are and will be – like “knowing in general terms” looks very much like something to mitigate a lessor knowledge – Is addressed in verse 25 – “And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.”

 

 

 

So to answer your question “If you mean to say that each of us knew whether we'd be in the Celestial Kingdom or not...well do you? Is that what you mean? Is that what you're tying to say?”

 

  I am trying to say that I believe we had access to and knew the truth.  Not a partial or sort of truth as denounced in verse 25 but the actual truth.  We knew the truth about getting to the Celestial Kingdom and not some vague reference to some sort of truth or “knowing in general terms”. 

 

I cannot imagine that a third part of heaven would resort to open rebellion and be damned to outer darkness for making a decision based in sort of “knowing in general terms”.  I do not believe G-d fosters or would allow such ignorant stupidly to take place among his beloved and cherished children.

 

 

The Traveler

Your reasoning aside...and I suppose it is passable reasoning as far as the reasoning of man goes...this idea is still not what is taught by the prophets about agency. Nor is the idea taught that that we had all knowledge from the beginning.

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Your reasoning aside...and I suppose it is passable reasoning as far as the reasoning of man goes...this idea is still not what is taught by the prophets about agency. Nor is the idea taught that that we had all knowledge from the beginning.

 

Since you claim my reasoning to be contrary to what is taught by our prophets - please show me one statement where any one of our prophets have ever taught that we were denied the truth in the pre-existence? or that truth does not contain a complete and accurate presentation of things as they were, are and will be but rather truth can be things in general terms.

 

I have provided a scripture that says any knowledge that does not include the knowledge of things as they were, are and will be is not truth or the spirit of truth but is of the spirit of the wicked one – which I interpret to be Satan.  I am surprised to see that you think that Satan is the wicked one to be my reasoning and not taught by prophets.  I agree that in this life we are subject to the spirit of the wicked one and that we are fallen and kept from the truth – but I am not aware of any teaching by the prophets that we were similarly subject to the spirit of the wicked one in the pre-existence.

 

Please do not just say I am wrong and leave me confused – please help me with the words of the prophets that contradict my understanding that we were actually told the truth concerning the plan of salvation but rather the prophets have taught that in the pre-existence we were only given hints or glimpses of things in general terms rather than the truth. 

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

38 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Since you claim my reasoning to be contrary to what is taught by our prophets - please show me one statement where any one of our prophets have ever taught that we were denied the truth in the pre-existence? or that truth does not contain a complete and accurate presentation of things as they were, are and will be but rather truth can be things in general terms.

I believe that TFP made no such claims. You appear to have misunderstood him.

38 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I have provided a scripture that says any knowledge that does not include the knowledge of things as they were, are and will be is not truth or the spirit of truth but is of the spirit of the wicked one – which I interpret to be Satan.

The scripture you cited defines truth as a knowledge of things past, present, and future -- but it does not say that anything that is not comprehensive is therefore false. Were this the case, none of us would at any time be able to know any truth whatsoever.

38 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am surprised to see that you think that Satan is the wicked one to be my reasoning and not taught by prophets.

Traveler, this is classic "Have you quit beating your wife?" reasoning.

38 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I agree that in this life we are subject to the spirit of the wicked one and that we are fallen and kept from the truth – but I am not aware of any teaching by the prophets that we were similarly subject to the spirit of the wicked one in the pre-existence.

If we were not subject to the spirit of the wicked one premortally, why do you suppose the third part of the hosts of heaven would have followed him in open rebellion against the Father? Do you think there was no interchange of information going on there?

38 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Please do not just say I am wrong and leave me confused – please help me with the words of the prophets that contradict my understanding that we were actually told the truth concerning the plan of salvation but rather the prophets have taught that in the pre-existence we were only given hints or glimpses of things in general terms rather than the truth. 

This is a false dichotomy. Certainly we were "told the truth" premortally. But your reference to the D&C definition of truth does not establish that therefore we must have known every particular of all that would happen before it ever occurred. That is not the nature of how truth is learned.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want. Hey, who knows? You might even be right. But to assume that everyone else should believe your private doctrine too, and then to fault them for not believing it, strikes me as beyond the pale.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

59 minutes ago, Traveler said:

please show me one statement where any one of our prophets have ever taught that we were denied the truth in the pre-existence? or that truth does not contain a complete and accurate presentation of things as they were, are and will be but rather truth can be things in general terms.

Please show me one statement where any one of our prophets has ever taught that our skin color wasn't green in the pre-existence. If you cannot it proves that we had green skin...right?

Ridiculous.

You are claiming that we were omniscient in the pre-existence. If that is the case, what did we need God for? God's power and glory are knowledge and intelligence. If we already had that then we already had power and glory.

I'm sorry...you're going to have to do better than demanding the existence of a statement that something was denied as proof that it is a correct principle.

[bytebear]

I can't reconcile the notion that we had full knowledge or even any knowledge of our own final judgement.  This goes against the fact that we have free will, both now and in our pre-existence.   After all, if you knew you were going to get Celestial glory, why would you not want to follow Christ and not Satan?  And if you knew you were going to go into Outer Darkness, why would you not just hang with Satan?  Heck, even if you knew you were going to get Terrestrial glory, why would you not want to go for the plan that saves everyone?

[Traveler]

On 3/16/2016 at 9:21 AM, Vort said:

I believe that TFP made no such claims. You appear to have misunderstood him.

He has said that my understanding of scripture is not correct but he has not told me what the correct interpretation is - only what it is not.  So you are correct that it is likely I have misunderstood him for he has not given his interpretation of scripture.

Quote

The scripture you cited defines truth as a knowledge of things past, present, and future -- but it does not say that anything that is not comprehensive is therefore false. Were this the case, none of us would at any time be able to know any truth whatsoever.

Really?  What does verse 25 say then?  We do not have knowledge of the truth in our fallen existence and must live by faith - that I agree  - but I believe we did have the truth in the pre-existence.  I assume from your comment that you do not think we had the light of truth?

Quote

This is a false dichotomy. Certainly we were "told the truth" premortally. But your reference to the D&C definition of truth does not establish that therefore we must have known every particular of all that would happen before it ever occurred. That is not the nature of how truth is learned.

If G-d knew every particular detail how could he be a G-d of light and truth and withhold any particular element of light and truth from us?  You say that revelation is not how light and truth is learned.  I submit that through the power of the Holy Ghost is the means by which truth is revealed - not in part but in full.  What exactly do you have in mind?

Quote

If we were not subject to the spirit of the wicked one premortally, why do you suppose the third part of the hosts of heaven would have followed him in open rebellion against the Father? Do you think there was no interchange of information going on there?

I believe that those that followed Satan did so by choice in the full light of truth.  They were not forced at any point nor were they lied to and I do not believe that they made their choice based in any way or upon any possibility of "missing" information.  Especially any information (regardless how minor it seems to you and TFP) that could in any way have any impact or in any way contribute to the full light of truth.  I assume from your question you think G-d with held information and help deceive or trick them into following or being subject to Satan.

Quote

You are welcome to believe whatever you want. Hey, who knows? You might even be right. But to assume that everyone else should believe your private doctrine too, and then to fault them for not believing it, strikes me as beyond the pale.

I am making every effort to make know in as much detail as I can - what I believe.  If someone says they do not agree - as it appears that you do - I assume that you believe the opposite and oppose ever detail and every point.  So I ask specific questions to make sure (and answer questions as best as I can) - if I do not get specific answers my assumption is that either the answer is not known or they did not understand my position in the first place.

[Traveler]

On 3/16/2016 at 10:01 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

Please show me one statement where any one of our prophets has ever taught that our skin color wasn't green in the pre-existence. If you cannot it proves that we had green skin...right?

Ridiculous.

You are claiming that we were omniscient in the pre-existence. If that is the case, what did we need God for? God's power and glory are knowledge and intelligence. If we already had that then we already had power and glory.

I'm sorry...you're going to have to do better than demanding the existence of a statement that something was denied as proof that it is a correct principle.

I thought we were talking about the full light of truth.  Sorry I do not understand why you are concerned with green skin??? My claim is that we had access to the full light of truth in the pre-existence.  It appears to me that you believe that we did not but were subject to Satan.  I am trying to determine why you believe that G-d with held any information from us?  I understand scripture to say that it is Satan that desires to keep from us the full light of truth.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

11 hours ago, bytebear said:

I can't reconcile the notion that we had full knowledge or even any knowledge of our own final judgement.  This goes against the fact that we have free will, both now and in our pre-existence.   After all, if you knew you were going to get Celestial glory, why would you not want to follow Christ and not Satan?  And if you knew you were going to go into Outer Darkness, why would you not just hang with Satan?  Heck, even if you knew you were going to get Terrestrial glory, why would you not want to go for the plan that saves everyone?

How can we get somewhere if we do not choose to go there?  My point is that we had the full light of truth to make our choice.  Those that wanted to follow Satan did so in the full light of truth knowing full well that it would take them to outer darkness.  Those that desired the Terrestrial Glory followed the plan that would get them there.  I submit that the final judgment is and the result of our choice in the full light of truth.  I think you are making exactly my point - that we cannot have free will without knowledge of the possibilities.  How can there be free will (agency) without the full light of truth?  And exactly what do you think the full light of truth is?

 

The Traveler