Johnson's miscellaneous thoughts on LDS culture, tradition and ideas thread

[JohnsonJones]

I would agree with this, but there are some that would argue that the Prophet CAN change doctrine with revelation.

(Just to be clear, I actually agree with your statement.  I think that there can be some confusion on the topic to a degree which is what I am bringing up below).

A prime example would be that Wilford Woodruff and others would say that temple ordinances could ONLY be done by one who held the higher Priesthood (the Melchizedek) only.  This was the doctrine (or what they would call doctrine, though I do not think we can actually find it anywhere in the scriptures).  The reasons was that while the Lower Priesthood dealt with earthly ordinances and our immediate ordinances for this earth, the Melchizedek Priesthood also covered ordinances that were for things beyond this earth and this life, which ALSO included that of the dead. 

Do we follow this anymore?  No.

We found out a little while ago that those who are Priests can do Baptisms for the dead.  So, in this the question would be...has the doctrine changed?  Originally you COULD not, doctrinally supported, perform ordinances for the dead if you did not have the Melchizedek Priesthood. 

Today, we obviously are allowing those with the Aaronic Priesthood to do at least one ordinance for the dead (as per this Church adds new opportunies for youth and children in temple participation

There was very little wiggle room previously in this regards.  Unlike Blacks and the Priesthood (where one can actually say that this was in fulfillment of prophecy and the words of Brigham Young technically were fulfilled at that point in 1978, even if not all saw it that way at the time), this wasn't something that really was up to interpretation.

I could say that we had a "restoration" or change in our understanding that since Priests could do Baptisms for the Living, this was extended by common sense to those of the Dead.  Yet, it is still an ordinance performed by those who are in another world, rather than in the immediate life here right now.

The question then, is this a change in doctrine, or how do we interpret it?

If ordinances are unchanging, and so regulated to the point that we must get them exactly word for word...then this is actually a pretty MAJOR deviation or change in an ordinance.  Though it does not change words per se in what was announced, it actually did FAR more, in that it changed the AUTHORITY of the one who was involved with the Ordinance itself.  It also changes the understanding of what the Priesthoods would be in relation to the World of Spirit and the Worlds beyond this one.

What qualifies as a change in doctrine and what does not?

I would postulate most things are based on things with Scripture, but when one gets to the Temple...originally I'd say what was revealed to Joseph Smith and originally written down later is the official ordinance (or we have not performed most of the ordinances we said we have because it was not correct)?

With things beyond scripture, it can be tough to determine what is and what is not...doctrine.  How then, would one define such things?

---------------------------------------------------------------

My interpretation is typically the core of the ordinances and how they are performed cannot change (thus, discussinos and items put into place in church enacted by the prophet in response to something could change in a service, but the core items could not).  This would also pertain the priesthood authority required to DO such things (such as conduct the ward) which leaves a massive gaping hole in regards to allowing Aaronic priesthood holders to perform temple ordinances...but my out is the same as Nephi's statement...I do not know all things...thus I do not know the reasons nor have the answers for all things people may ask on this matter.

[JohnsonJones]

Personal take...

They are reserved for those already resurrected typically, though the Lord has them and had them for his own resurrection (In my take on it).  IF we follow traditional Mormon theology and doctrine (as opposed to what apparently is coming out now days...that COULD be in direct opposition to everything ever said on it...but it may not be, confusing times we live in)...the Husband after resurrection would be given the opportunity to also resurrect their wives.  This would be a specific purpose for the keys given to them for that specific purpose, in which they would call their wife by name and call them forth from the grave.  This, of course is reliant on the husband knowing their wife's name (hopefully he would) and having the wife also covenanted to follow her husband's priesthood calling and the responsibilities given to him by the Lord (in this instance, they keys of resurrection).

This is not something I've heard in the church talked about in some time, maybe decades, and some current changes seem to indicate people, even those in authority, have discarded this or do not know about this teaching?

[JohnsonJones]

One problem I have always had with those that believe that the Trinity is a litmus test is that it goes directly against what I read in the Bible.  The Lord never said...unless you believe in the Trinity and come unto me, you shall be saved...ever.

The basic message is to believe in Christ, to believe he is God, and to believe he can and has saved you from sin.  Then, you need to follow him and his commandments.

It never says you have to have an intricate knowledge and understanding of who he is, his background, and relationship to everything else. 

You acknowledge him and that you are his follower and follow him.  That can be interpreted in many different ways, but in the end, you simply take on his name and follow his commandments and as per the Bible, you'd be a Christian.

Thus, this twisting of his words seems to be counter to the entire Christian scatology that many Christian denominations claim to follow.  Instead, it seems more like they are eschewing the Biblical statement to avoid judging (lest they be judged with the same judgment...especially at judgment day) and making their OWN call on who is or is not Christian.  A very scary position to take I would think.

I would say we may be the Church, and the only and true one (as we claim)...HOWEVER...I would say that any who accept Christ and consider themselves Christian and follow his commandments and teachings are Christian.  It does not matter the denomination and it does not matter how much more than that they know or do not know.  If they do their best to follow what they know of his teachings because they believe in him...they are Christian.

It seems sad that there are those out there that do NOT follow the Bible on this, even as they claim to believe in the Bible or to follow it as their authority.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

When I was younger we were taught the difference between concubines and the full on wife in the days of Genesis dealt directly with the Sealing power.  Those who were married for time and all eternity were wives in the fullest sense.  They were sealed up to be wives under the power of the priesthood.  Those who were not, were considered concubines.  They were wives in this life, but had not been sealed by the priesthood for eternity to their husband. [...] This is something I was taught in my youth, but I have not seen taught in some time in the Church.  I'm not sure why.

I would guess that the reason this is not taught at Church is because it's not true. I, too, was taught many things by well-meaning Church leaders and teachers while in my youth that I don't believe today. Since my childhood and youth, I have learned to discriminate better between gospel doctrines and people's fancy ideas. The separation of wives vs. concubines as sealed wives vs. unsealed wives sounds like one of those fancy ideas: It explains an unfamiliar practice (concubinage) in terms of an already-made distinction we're familiar with (sealed vs. unsealed marriages). It's neat, compact, and (I think) wrong.

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I would guess that the reason this is not taught at Church is because it's not true. I, too, was taught many things by well-meaning Church leaders and teachers while in my youth that I don't believe today. Since my childhood and youth, I have learned to discriminate better between gospel doctrines and people's fancy ideas. The separation of wives vs. concubines as sealed wives vs. unsealed wives sounds like one of those fancy ideas: It explains an unfamiliar practice (concubinage) in terms of an already-made distinction we're familiar with (sealed vs. unsealed marriages). It's neat, compact, and (I think) wrong.

I haven't seen anyone state it is not true, merely that they haven't taught it as much.

It actually makes a LOT of sense.

In this way, it would by why Rachel's handmaiden's children were born under her covenant and Leah's under hers.  They would literally thus be eternally the children of Leah and Rachel, even though it would be under the handmaiden's temporal marriage of children.

The reason is that Jacob and Joseph (and Abraham) would not commit adultery, as they would have if they had intimate relations outside the boundaries the Lord had set.

[JohnsonJones]

Joseph Smith as a MORTAL sinned, obviously, but he existed before he was Known as Joseph Smith. The Holy Ghost has not gotten their body yet, they are still a spirit, the same as others who are spirits in the pre-existence and have not yet received their bodies (or in theory, those who have died but not yet been resurrected).

The same with Adam, who was Michael the Archangel prior to his coming to earth and after his coming to earth. 

As Children of Humans are Humans, Children of gods are gods.  They may not be exalted, but that heritage of theirs helped them to build this earth (at least that is a belief some believe in that are Latter-day Saints).  (refer to the Book of Abraham).

The idea is that the Godhead is composed of three beings.  This can be seen as a Heavenly First Presidency.  My feeling on this then would be that Adam as Michael, before he came to this Earth was part of that Presidency of Three individual beings.  If he was part of that presidency, and the Holy Ghost is as well (as default being a member of the this Heavenly Presidency), than that would mean that Michael, by default, would have been the Holy Ghost in that organization at the beginning.

Obviously, when he came to earth, and was a Mortal Adam, he could not have been the Holy Ghost, thus the idea that another was called to be the Holy Ghost in his stead.

Now, that is obviously opinion, as nothing in the Bible or Book of Mormon confers that Adam was part of the Godhead or part of the First presidency.  There is nothing to even say that he was part of this three fold governing body that we can find in the scriptures, thus anything dealing with the idea that he would have been part of a First Presidency of Heaven is, obviously, something that is of my own opinion and not particularly with scriptural basis.  The same could be stated of Joseph Smith also being the Holy Ghost at any point in his pre-mortal existence.

However, there is nothing that says they could not have been either.  I will say that I do not feel that the scriptures as you read them back up this idea of mine where I feel that the Father, the Son, and Michael were the ones who organized and created the Earth, and thus you are free to disagree with that idea and my opinion of it.  (though as per prophets, we do know that Michael/Adam did help to make this world, though at least one also infers we also helped to make this world).

However, as far as I can see and understand, nothing you have posted actually goes contrary to this idea either, nor my ideas of who the Holy Ghost could have been.  There is some of it that I cannot discuss my reasons for my opinions on HOW I formed these opinions, at least in this forum or public locations or outside specific and certain areas that I have aforementioned, but that said, even if it is speculation, it is something that we can agree we simply don't see eye to eye upon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the Brigham Young tradition would say, you cannot be an EXALTED BEING and not have a body, but you most certainly can be a god (lower case) and not have a body.  I suppose it depends on your definition.  In my opinion, as from the Book of Abraham, because of who we were, and the intelligences as we were, we helped to make this earth.  We were directed by our Father and the Lord, but we also helped to create it.  As we are his children, it is only natural that we also have this ability to do as he does, and to eventually, become as he is.

We are NOT Exalted, but to say that we are not his children, and as children, the same in component ability and make as he is, just like our children have the same potential as we do in the most part, in my opinion does not make sense.  It is, as if your little children can still build things out of legos, or perhaps even if you give them a hammer, help to build a house.  However, on their own, they probably could not figure out how to build a strong or good house as little children.  That is something that parents typically have a better knowledge of then children (and even then, many adults could not build a strong or decent house either, but their having the knowledge to do so is better than a little childs).  In the same way, as our children are human as we are, so is the Father's children as he is in what race and creature they are.  They are not fully developed (Exalted), but have the potential to develop (attain exaltation), just like our children have that potential.

[JohnsonJones]

 On whether the Church could ever go stop being the true church and why I think it will not, even if we have a massive change of direction (even if women are told to have the priesthood or some other change which mystifies us).

When the Lord was in his mortal ministry, the true church was that of the Jews.  It had gone astray, but it was STILL THE TRUE CHURCH.  As long as it still had the keys and those who held the Priesthood (though I believe in that John the Baptist was the one who actually HELD the keys at the time, though there were others who probably still held the priesthood) the Church was still the True Church on Earth.  It was this church to which the Lord was a member of himself, and those who were members of it were his primary targets for teachings and blessings, as well as those who were inheritors of it's charge (the Jews as a race as well).

Likewise, unless they actually lose the Keys and the Priesthood, the Church today will remain the True Church regardless if they have various miscellaneous policies which might stray from the original intent (not that they have, but if they did).  The prophet, as long as he holds the Keys will BE the PROPHET.  Now, if he suddenly goes off the wall and the apostles forget section 107:79-84 and they also go off the wall...and create all sorts of weird and inane policies such as they did and adhered to during the Lord's mortal ministry...as long as they still retain the Priesthood and the Keys...they will STILL be the Prophet and Apostles and this STILL will be the CHURCH.

The difference is that when the great apostasy occurred, those with the keys to the Priesthood were killed off, and thus no one was left to give the keys to others.  Thus, when strange ideas and laws came about, there was no correction of revelation, and there was no one of authority to keep the Priesthood going as those who did have it, with no others with the keys to preside over it...the Priesthood itself died off.

Thus, as long as that does not happen today, even if strange ideas come in, as LONG as they retain the keys and the Priesthood...the church remains the True Church.

[JohnsonJones]

-An offshoot idea I had regarding a Heavenly Mother idea...though not entirely backed up this is more of a thought rather than an opinion or even strongly held idea.

In regards to fertility and forest worship...yes...the same as it is in regards to idolatry with regards to Baal and others.

However, in regards to groves or more specifically the cedar forests and groves of Lebanon and other areas as that, at times it holds them in reverence or regard.  Many times this is with building materials, though the aspect of holiness is in regards to their historical religious aspects and the reverence in which they would have been held by the local people.

As such, there is reference or a side track of many individuals that feel that in HISTORIC Judaic religion (as opposed to the more recent Judaic practices and beleifs) that there probably WAS a spouse or wife of the Most High.  (and in fact, there are many historic Judaic/Hebraic ideas that are thought to have been historically held in the past that are considered heretical today...one which is somewhat persistent in some Jewish sects is also the eternal aspect of the soul, or that spirit existed PRIOR to this life, and will exist after, but of that is of no concern as it is THIS life of which to be concerned).  

It can be felt among some that this reverence of trees drew many of the Jews to the idolatry which is mentioned in the Bible of their worship of groves and Asteroth/Asherah. 

If we apply this to LDS belief, we could say reasonably that if they had the revelations and High Priesthood that we do, that they probably did have a belief in a divine mother, but that as per the Order of the Priesthood, we see that the First Presidency of Heaven would still be the ones to lead and be adhered to in that regards.  Thus it would be the MOST HIGH whom should be worshipped, and his son, Jehovah, who would be the one discussed for the most part in the Bible with the organizing of the religion and church in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

This, obviously is not how the Jews today see it, but it could be a way that Latter-day Saints could recognize similarities of thought and belief between what is seen by some historically, and what some believe in today.

 

PS: It is this holy association that some would say is the reason why the Sacred Grove was the spot that the First Vision occurred, in relation to the special location of groves and woods in relation to the ancient beliefs of Husband and Wives and what was or is holy or sacred.  The same type of association can be given to Mountains...though we do not worship mountains, in many instances their significance from ancient beliefs indicate that the tops of Mountains may have some special holy symbolism that is lost to many in our modern beliefs. 

[JohnsonJones]

Moses WAS fallible.  One item that the church has taught in the past was pertaining to Moses.  The reason Moses did not get to go into the Promised land was due to his own fallibilities which made him claim things of the Lord as things he did.  Thus (though it was also taught that he was Translated), he joined the rest of the children of Israel who also did not see the promised land while in this mortality.

We are NOT Catholics.  We do NOT believe in the infallibility of any of our leaders.  We do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope.  We do not believe in the infallibility of a prophet or apostles.  Indeed, the church itself points out these fallibilities on it's own sites.

It is upon this problem of infallibility that these discussions of changing doctrine even arise.  Critics of the church would like to claim that we believe that our prophets and apostles are infallible, and as such, any changes in what is taught as doctrine is proof that the church cannot be true.  They use this concept of infallibility and teach it that this is what we believe.  It is not.  We do not teach such things.  In comparison to fallibility however, I think it would be more like Jonah or Balaam in the Old Testament or Peter or Paul in the New Testament. 

Even today many point out what they perceive as the errors of Peter in the New Testament.  They point out to how he had the denial of the Lord, his faltering on walking on water, his difficulty accepting Gentiles as Christians even to the point of him and Paul's discussions.  However, Peter was the head of the church after the Lord ascended to heaven.  He was perhaps one of the mightiest prophets in the Bible.  He actually WALKED on water for a little bit.  That shows that he had FAR more faith than anyone I've ever known.  He had prisons fall and healed the sick.  I do not think Peter was infallible, but he was the chosen of the Lord.  He was probably closer to the Lord than just about anyone else who has lived on this earth. Any who were Christian would need to follow Peter and his statements despite what they may have felt of his fallibilities.  He not only knew the Lord personally, but was trying to do as best he could to lead the church....

.....What we do teach is that we should FOLLOW the prophet.  Even if the prophet makes mistakes, in our present day, he is still the leader of the church and the mouth piece of the Lord.  Just as Peter was the Leader and led the church, so do our leaders today.  We need to listen to what they state as they are our guides...

...Just as a guide can make mistakes, so can our leaders.  However, a guide normally still knows the way FAR better than we do and does not try to lead one astray.  In fact, even if they make slight mistakes a good guide will be able to lead us to where one needs to go.  If one leaves the guide the chances of them getting lost or otherwise increases tremendously.  Sticking with the guide is normally the best choice as that will normally lead one to safety and the way they need to go...

...Once again, we do not teach that leaders are infallible.  We DO teach that we need to follow those leaders and we are much safer by following their dictates and statements than if we follow those of other men in this world of sin and chaos.

[JohnsonJones]

Some (definitely not all, and probably not a majority) of those in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have what you may consider a mythology in relation to Heaven, the Earth and a conflict between the forces of good and evil.  IN this, a war broke out in heaven between Good (those who supported the Lord) and Evil (those who supported the adversary).  This war did not end.  The adversary and a third of heaven were cast down, but they still are able to be on this earth, and on this earth, this war continues.

Think about a war.  It is nasty.  It is terrible.  It has different sides.

We still choose sides in this war.  It is a war with battles and ideas.  Some believe that it is still a physical war with physical consequences in this world.  Sometimes people still choose sides, and there are strategies and tactics that continue.  The spiritual battle becomes a real and physical war.

In this, it gets complicated.  You have all this as creations of the Lord, but at the same time, some of those creations are furthering the side of his enemy, while there are those of his that he uses to combat those who are helping the side of his enemy.  As any commander, his first goal is to protect the ground he already has, or to keep the volity or sanctity of his troops pure.  Thus, this is what you see in a majority of the battles and wars of the Old Testament.  It is a spiritual war becoming a physical reality in our world between the forces of the Lords and those that oppose the Lord's people. 

It get's crazier.  We view death as the end of life and existence.  From the Lord's perspective, this is not so.  Death is merely another point of existence.  To put it similarly, life could be us in School, death is when we leave School and the afterlife is seeing what we can do with what we did (whether we never graduated high School, got a college degree, got a graduate degree, went to tech school, etc).  Having us leave school is not actually that big of a deal, it's not the end of existence as we might view it in this life.  Thus, when he sees death and killing it is not as we see it, or the end of existence.  In some cases, it may even release those from pain and suffering in this life.  Sometimes, if one is going to far on the side of the enemy, it may even be a time out, or way to get them to come to their senses rather than desert to a foe that could care less about them.

However, it is STILL a WAR.  In that light, I also view that all sickness, and many ailments and evils that afflict us (and children and innocents especially) are caused by the enemy, or the spiritual adversaries to heaven (those opposing the Lord).  We see in the Book of Job that the illness isn't something that the Lord creates and causes to occur on Job, but something the adversary does to him.

This leads to the question of WHY the Lord allows this to happen?  IF he loves us, why does he allow such things to occur.

This is another items of Mythological thought you may have in regards to the Church.  We believe we are Children of a Heavenly Father.  He LOVES ALL his children.

If you have ever had children fight, what do you do?  Do you instantly kill the child you think is guilty?  That would be horrible and terrible. 

A loving God will not do that to his children either.  He does not instantly condemn his children to non-existence or to a place without his light.  So, we have this war between his children.  He gives a LOT of lee way.  I feel this is why the adversary and 1/3 of the hosts of heaven that followed him are still here.  Their Father will not totally abandon them until they have gone the full measure of rebellion to the point where there is no hope they can ever be redeemed or saved.  Just like we would with our children, until they become full on criminals we probably do our best to protect them and help them, even when they are fighting with their brothers and sisters.

When viewed from a temporary view where life begins and ends in this earth, it seems incomprehensible.  When viewed that this world and this life is a mere instant compared to the eternities, and that it's akin to a year in school or less (maybe even just a day in school), and that he is basing his judgments and doings on the scale of eternity rather than just this life, it becomes a little easier to accept (though probably still very hard to understand for many).

Now, this is NOT a thing believed by many of our Members, and it may even be a very small minority.  For that minority or group that does, though it may be a mythology to you, it is actually a religious belief and theology for me and others.  It explains why bad things are happening in this world to a small degree, as this world is but a small moment compared to the eternities of this conflict that is going on around us.  The pain, the sickness, the ailments that seem random are not so, but weapons used against us by a force that hates us with all they possess.  It is not the Lord who is doing it, but our enemy.  It is allowed, ironically, because they are also the children of God, and as such, are also loved just as he loves all his children.  Ironic, but it can be viewed as a larger and greater extension of what we see in our own homes when our own children fight and squabble amongst each other, but on a greater and larger scale.

[JohnsonJones]

 

---

On ‎3‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 10:21 AM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Why don't Apostles share stories about divine visitations the way Joseph and others did in the early days?

In this manner, one would say I have had a divine visitation.  I was blessed to see the Lord. 

I do not talk about it much.  He has spoken some very personal things.  In addition, he has said things that would not be easily understood by most people, including members.  Because they would not understand why or the reasons behind it, they might despise such a thing.  They were hard things for me to understand and some of the items still are difficult. 

Most of the time, one of the first things someone wants to ask if they know that you have seen the Lord and he talked to you is to ask what he told you.  This leads to a difficult position.  This is a very sacred thing and if people knew all about it, there would be many that would probably despise it, mock it or worse.  They would take a sacred experience and try to create an unholy shame upon it and perhaps upon me. 

Thus, I am typically more careful about sharing it.  I may mention (as I did here) about being visited, but I am VERY careful about saying more than that.  The last thing I would want is to have others take a sacred experience like that lightly and try to make a mockery of it.  It may not affect me as I know what I have experienced, but it may desensitize them to the feelings of the spirit or worse.  In the most extreme, with their struggles or mockery it may even make them to fall away if they were not careful.

We see a similar type of thing happen with Joseph Smith.  Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ.  At first, it does not sound as if he shared the entirety of it.  He would tell people that he saw a divine visitation.  Even then he was mocked by many around him.  As he grew more comfortable with friends and others we see that his account details more of what happened and we find out that he was visited by two personages.  He saw God the Father and Jesus Christ. 

I have a testimony that this is true and that he truly saw and experienced this.  However, there are MANY who have rejected this message.  There are many that mock this story or try to tear it down and destroy it.  Inevitably, this leads them down paths that are not congruent with the way to the Lord.

Joseph Smith was not the only one to have seen the resurrected Savior.  We have testimonies of others who have seen him in our modern dispensation who have been leaders of the Church.  With all these testimonies, people already have the opportunity to know about this and have several witnesses to this effect.  As such, it is not necessary for any who experience such things to broadly proclaim it so all can know, at least at this point.  It is more for each individual and more on an individual basis.

Apostles are called to be Special Witnesses.  Though he has passed on, Elder Haight of the modern apostles had a vision of the Lord.  I have also heard that Bednar also has had an experience.  I do not know of others as they may or may not have, but keep these things sacred unless occasion arises where the spirit inspires them to discuss it.

The reason I imagine they do not share it so much is the same reason I do not share my experience that much.  Many things are personal, and many things can be hard to understand to those who do not have the right spirit. 

In the church today we have many at various levels of spirituality.  It is better to be able to determine the spirituality of a person and on a more individual basis (or smaller basis than the entire world or church) in many instances when sharing sacred items. 

Thus, I would say is an idea that there are experiences, but they may be too sacred to share.  It is not that it is necessarily to sacred to share specifically, but it is something that is too sacred to share in general to the world in many instances.  I cannot speak for any of the others, but I think that this may be a large factor in the equation if they have had this type of experience but do not share it with the general audience of the world (for example, over the pulpit at General Conference).  Perhaps in the future one will share it in such a way, but if they do not, it does not mean anything either way.

As Special Witnesses they are to teach the world about Jesus Christ.  They are to spread his gospel and proclaim that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and our Savior.  They can do this in the matter the spirit inspires or tells them to do so.  We see this often when we hear General Conference or when they visit the various units around the Earth.  It is not pertinent that they share a divine visitation in such a work, though if they have had such a visitation and are prompted to share it by the Lord, I imagine they would do so.  That they have not done so last Conference (that I'm aware of) or do so often does not make them any less a Special Witness any more than us not receiving the other books (yet) from the other twelve tribes reduces the idea that there were other people beyond just those of Jerusalem and the Nephites that the Lord visited after his resurrection.

Edited November 6, 2019 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

In the Pre-existence we made choices that directly affected the conditions we were born into here.  It showed our wished in that arena already in where we would wish to go...at least in my opinion.  Thus, whether we have a shorter life or longer life, what choices we make here also affect where we go in the next life.  If we choose wickedness and die young, or wickedness and die old, it is still the same.  If we choose the good while young and die, or choose evil and die old it is still the same. 

If either accepts in the Spirit World (and theoretically, even those who completely rejected the Lord in this life will eventually have their spirit lightened and will at least acknowledge him and his atonement, as every knee will bow) then they will be judged as per their hearts, minds, actions and other necessary items in accordance with the judgment of the Lord.  It is all part of the plan, and if only a shorter time period was needed to know what their fate would be, then that is how the plan works out. 

[JohnsonJones]

I agree that it is ONLY the LORD who determines who gets to the Celestial Kingdom and who does not.  If he decides that it is not necessary for one to follow the path that we are taught in this life, that is HIS DOMAIN to DECIDE.  He is the JUDGE and JURY in this. 

However, I think that in regards to our own decisions and our own lives...that does not exactly relinquish our own responsibility or choices in the eternities or this life.

What I am to say is NOT doctrine, but they are my thoughts on the question you ask.

In the pre-existence we had many various levels of zeal and desire to achieve certain things.  We lived there perhaps for longer than we can even imagine (and I can imagine a good long time).  We showed what we were like in many ways.  We each had different levels of what we wanted to strive for.

While there some had a deep desire simply to attain a mortal body and to live in a paradise.  Others thought about maybe becoming more like their Father and pursuing that course of action, but felt that they might not want that responsibility.  They wanted to live under the guidance of their elder brother (the lord) but did not want the responsibility that their Father had.  Others wanted to be just like their Heavenly Parents.  This, their potential, and what they wanted in eternity was taken in measure to help them decide where they would be born in this life and under what circumstances. 

Thus, I believe that we chose what condition and in what situation we were born into in this life.  What the conditions are that we experience coming into this life is directly reflective of the choices that we made in the eternities.  This life, then, is to confirm who and WHAT we are.  Will we truly choose the good, or will we choose the evil.  However, to assume that an eternity of the afterlife is ONLY affected by what we have done in this life would not only shunt how fair it is, but also in some ways be an aberration of justice.  How could one who never had any knowledge of the gospel in this life be given either an eternal reward or cursing?  It is because this life is a mere blink of confirmation of our choices from before.  Comparatively to the eternities where we lived previously, this life is almost an instant.

Our Father and his Son already know us better than we know ourselves.  They know all things and know what we would choose in each situation we were given or were found in.  From all the eternities of knowing us previously, they know how we will be.  However, how we truly are when we are left ignorant and are truly left to our own inner souls is something that each of us still has to discover.  In this life it is when WE can truly see who we REALLY are.  In many ways, not only is this life a time for us to receive a body, but also a time for us to find out who we are at the core of our being and to show that this is who we are to ourselves.  At times we may need help and others have come to help us.  At times there are those who do not need to find this out and already really know themselves, as such, they do not really need to spend time here.  Others may already be good but have come to help their friends through the experience.

If we just view this life as the beginning and end it would seem incredibly unfair and unjust.  When you account that this life is a reflection of the choices we have made throughout an eternity in the pre-existence and because of this knowledge the Lord already can know us, it shows that it is far more fair and just than a temporal view of this life may indicate.

Another example, let's say we had 20 individuals that all had the same ability and capacity to succeed.  They were entering a sailing race in which they had to construct a boat and then sail it.  In order to get the prize they did not have to beat the others, but had to beat a specific time.  It is possible for ALL of them to get that prize if they all beat the time. 

The most zealous of them spend a LOT of time working on that boat.  They research, they craft, they paint, and they sew.  They learn all they can about sailing.  They practice, they learn the rules. 

The next are not quite so ambitious.  They make their boat, but they did not look up all the standards of what the boat would require.  They learn a little about sailing but are not all that interested in the dynamics of it.  They learn most of the rules but feel that this is not the most important thing to study as long as they finish.

The third group don't even look up boat building, but they DO build a boat.  This boat probably looks more like a raft.  Hopefully there won't be stormy seas.  They figure as long as they can get to point A to point B they will be happy just to reach the end.  They are not so much worried about the reward as much as they are about participating and the experience of it. 

The fourth group flat out just gets a piece of wood and call it good.  They hope that they can also make it to the end, but feel there is too much work to actually worry about the race. 

Finally a fifth group flat out just do NOT build a boat at all.  They fail before they even begin. 

This is an example of the pre-existence in a way. Which group do you feel is most prepared.  On the day of the race is it fair?  Some will have really nice boats and a great deal of knowledge to utilize.  Others will have a piece of board.  On the face of that single day it may not seem fair, but when taken into account that each had months to prepare and were given full warning of what to expect it suddenly seems a LOT more fair.

The results is that most of the first group win the reward.  They came with what they prepared with.

The second group may not gain the great reward, but they are given something to show their ample preparation.

The third group may not meet the mark and a few of them that fall into the water or get off course.  Luckily there are a LOT of guides out there and rescue boats that help get them back on their boats and show them the correct route to go on and help them even figure out what they are doing.  They get their participation ribbons and their reward in that way.

The fourth group have a few that flounder right from the start and at least one decides it's not worth it and decides to not race.  The others have various problems and lag behind the others.  Sometimes they have to be rowed to the other shore as their piece of wood will just not make it with them on it.  They eventually make it  to the other shore.  They also get participation ribbons though maybe not quite as significant of a ribbon as those in the third group...except for the one that decided to stop and not race afterall. 

The fifth group never races at all.  They get no reward whatsoever.  Only the one that gave up in the four groups above joins them. 

The race is my parallel to the mortal life here.  Thus, each may have different conditions relative to what we had. 

Now, adding another dimension, perhaps there ARE some exceptions, maybe specifically with someone who was extremely skilled and wanted to race, who everyone knew could win and perhaps come in front of everyone else if they did...but the judges...knowing this have some other mission that they feel this individual could help with. 

Now, let's say that they needed someone to race in group four to help them out.  This person is a guide and given the materials that will let them stay at the pace of the others.  They are told as long as they do what they are needed to do, they will receive the same reward as those who are victorious overall.  They are given a different mission perhaps than what the others are aware of during the race.  They choose to help or to participate as it is necessary for someone to do.  HOWEVER, this is KNOWN before hand and by the judges of the race.  As long as they finish and accomplish what they agreed to do, they will receive a reward with the rest of the winners. 

Thus, just like the race, in my opinion, is this life.  We have an eternity prior to this life on which we had to prepare.  This life is a direct reflection of that.  Is it possible that those who prepared the most could suddenly slack off on the day of the race (this life) and completely not finish.  Absolutely.  However, the preparations they have made prior have made it so that the possibility to succeed is higher than one who may not have.

Hopefully that can explain my position on the matter.

[JohnsonJones]

-Something more on a relation to a Heavenly Mother but not any endorsement of worshipping her.  I am STRONGLY still for ONLY the worship of God (as per the 10 commandments) and the recognition that we are to have only one God and One God only to whom we worship with no idols or idolatry

I should point out that the article has some good points, and though the Name of ONE OF THE WIVES of the ancient Judaic Deities would be closely related to the Goddess Asherah, that may not actually have been her name.  In addition, there are multiple names that can be referenced to in that degree.

However, the idea that the Jews were aware of this familial status is clear throughout the scriptures. (and from an LDS point of view may mean that they were aware of the idea of eternal families among the ancient Hebrews...and that this was a process that was eternal with Heavenly Parents and what we may become...HOWEVER, if so it obviously also has been lost in our modern times).

It should ALSO be noted...

That she is never promoted as an object of worship in the our Scriptures.  In deed, there are multiple references of people who fall away trying to worship her and being examples of false worship.

Thus, I would HIGHLY DOUBT that our prophet would ever promote such a thing.  It would be very odd, to say the least.

However, the connection between wood and an inference to the Divine feminine is with merit.  Groves and other areas were considered to be able to be sacred areas throughout history (and in fact, we even have our own).  The problem comes when it becomes the focus or the object of worship as opposed to simple recognition of areas of sacred or of a holy nature (or even, to a degree, maybe simply historic nature).

In this, I can find the idea of the Mary and a mother along with a representation of wood or trees as something that may be seen as ONE interpretation.  Rarely does symbology in scripture have only one interpretation, and at many times has multiple interpretations that can apply to gospel theology. 

However, I would paint it as speculation or a thought one has rather than anything far more impressive in theology.  It can be a delicate subject and as one forments it more strongly, we can edge on the border of apostasy when it comes closer to being one's solid belief rather than just an assortment of rather interesting thoughts or ideas.

This is undoubtably (and I've even commented on this very subject previously) something that was known and inspired the Ancient Hebrews.  However, lest we forget, some of them also took it way too FAR and devolved into breaking the commandments and idol worship instead of focusing on GOD as they were commanded to do.  Even as we are aware of such things and attempt to increase our understanding of the idea of a Heavenly Mother who is holy and sacred, we should also keep in context our doctrine and not stray to the point of worshipping other than we have been commanded.

[mordorbund]

28 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It actually makes a LOT of sense.

In this way, it would by why Rachel's handmaiden's children were born under her covenant and Leah's under hers.

Right, but who's saying Zilpah's and Bilhah's children are under someone else's covenant? Is there a source for that besides the same people advocating for the sealed/non-sealed distinction?

28 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The reason is that Jacob and Joseph (and Abraham) would not commit adultery, as they would have if they had intimate relations outside the boundaries the Lord had set.

How are legal wives (even if part of a caste system) outside the boundaries the Lord has set?

[JohnsonJones]

The following is a response to what you wrote above that, but it is merely a passing thought I have on it, NOT an opinion, not a belief, nor anything more...

Brigham Young posited something similar in what you wrote. 

In it, Adam would mean the word man or mankind.  It was not just a name, it also expressed who and what he was.

Hence, Adam (man) came down in an immortal body.  To do so he departed from his Father (Adam, which meant that his father was ALSO of the race of man, but was FATHER Man [Adam] rather than Adam [man] and indicates that as Adam was an Immortal Man, so his father ALSO was of an immortal nature).  This Adam (man) came with a wife (Eve, which also has a meaning) and dwelt in the Garden of Eden.  He then had to partake of mortality by taking fruits that were native to this world or earth so that his body would create mortal bodies.  Thus he ate what we called the Forbidden Fruit as did his wife and they had mortal children.

He also taught that we all accepted this plan and as such were born as children of Adam and Eve (or, at least via ancestry back to them).

The interesting thing is that Brigham Young would thus argue that Adam WAS ALSO the son of our Father in Heaven in a very real sense.  There were differences between him and the Savior.  The Savior would be born of an Immortal and Eternal Father and a Mortal Woman while we only know that Adam was the literal son of an Immortal Father.  That only the Savior would be begotten in this world both immortal and mortal, having the ability to die but also the ability to rise again, and that only he would be the Begotton one physically BORN on THIS Earth.

This idea of his is commonly misunderstood by MANY.  It is also not doctrine but it was an interesting idea that he posited or put forth on the pulpit at various occasions.  I mention it today it because of it's similarities with what you posted.

However, I'm not so sure I agree with the idea that we all fell to a lesser kingdom upon the Fall of Adam.  I would think that this is not so, and that in fact we remained in the pre-existence that we originally were in until it came for our turn to come to Earth and obtain mortal bodies.

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, mordorbund said:

Right, but who's saying Zilpah's and Bilhah's children are under someone else's covenant? Is there a source for that besides the same people advocating for the sealed/non-sealed distinction?

How are legal wives (even if part of a caste system) outside the boundaries the Lord has set?

The argument was that they were concubines (as many teach now, which are unmarried individuals people have intimate relations with, which is why they are called concubines and not wives) as the standard definition is taught today, or at least that is what I understood.  This would mean extramarital relations, which as I understand it is against the Laws of the Lord.

The idea that concubines were wives with a lesser status is not contrary to the old teaching that concubines were wives for temporal rather then celestial status...it is just a more general application of the idea rather than as specific as it used to be taught.

[JohnsonJones]

-Speculation in thought I had, which has nothing other than my own observation and thinking on it to be based on...still something I ponder and think upon at times but am unable to list the specific origin of the thought.

Some aspects of it were also given at a time and place in the Temple (not an official part of an ordinance done there so not officially incorporated from what I understand), but as things done in the Temple are normally Holy, we won't really go there or get into that.

Ironically, there are church resources out there, even CURRENT AND MODERN ones that indicate that those who have inherited a Celestial reward and a body of flesh and bones can return to this world and earth and in some cases even participate in the actions of mortality. 

I have noticed this (and if you pay close attention, you may catch onto this as there are things that physically spirits cannot do, but that physical bodies can...but I am not really free to discuss specifically where you can see or find these indications) and at times it led to great perplexity on my part as it seemed contrary to what I knew.

I realized that in the eternities, things are eternal.  They CANNOT change.  If one wants change, they must go to a place where change can occur.  In such a place (such as our mortality) change is constant.  Everything changes (even the cells of our bodies) constantly.  Thus, even things that can be eternal can be changed in it's status in this world of mortality for the eternal world beyond (and as such why we do physical ordinances for the dead while here on this earth rather than let the dead do it).

That said, it still is little more than thoughts on the matter rather than any set opinion on the validity of it's usage.

The bigger question is whether it is meant literally or figuratively.  Many would say these things are merely figurative, while I am normally more of a literalist. 

Which means, I don't have all the answers.  I suppose we'll find out in the here after.  It is not important to our salvation, though if it is important for us to know, eventually we will find out (more likely later after death rather than earlier prior to death).

[JohnsonJones]

Evil is the opposite of Good.  I added the scripture and statements from Lehi to hopefully explain it above.

I FEEL that there can be a place where evil cannot exist.  This place is the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity.  I believe that good can triumph and extinguish evil in the end, totally and completely.

However, we MUST learn and prove ourselves while we are here.  As Lehi tells us, in order to understand many things there must also be an opposition.  Without it, the law becomes meaningless and purpose therefore becomes moot. 

The idea that we could not fall and everyone of us would be saved was the Adversary's plan.  It is the plan that we could not choose for ourselves between good and evil, but rather that we could only be good and he, as enactor of this plan would thus attain the glory beyond that of the Father's, because his plan usurped the Great Plan of Salvation that the Father taught and that his Son (who would become the only begotten) championed.

This indicates that while the Father cannot allow wickedness or evil within his kingdom, that it is still necessary for us to experience it and see it for ourselves to understand WHY Good is better and WHY Evil is so terrible.  If we are too obtain exaltation, then understanding these fundamental ideas about Good and Evil are necessary so that we know to emulate the Father rather than his fallen children that fell away from him.

Ironically, they fell in rebellion because they felt that there was no need for evil to be a choice, or that free agency to choose between good and evil should be necessary, but in doing so, choose to follow the path of wickedness from the start.

One purpose for us to be here is to attain eternal life and have joy.  It Is a great purpose, but how can one have joy if they cannot understand what joy is?  Part of this is knowing the differences between good and evil.  That does not mean we have to experience evil or choose evil, but that we see the effects it has, and at times personally experience the hardship and difficulties that it can cause.  In this way we can know just how wonderful the good is compared the depravities of wickedness that we understand.  In the same light we can experience joy because we can comprehend the opposite and what it does.

Adding: Would evil exist without the Adversary...most likely.  We know that the natural man is an enemy to God, and as such has temptations of the natural man to withstand.  That said, we would still have this challenge to choose the Good or to choose the evil, and to see how evil can be manifested so that we know the qualities of wickedness and what it brings to also understand why Goodness and Light are the best choices to choose and what path wisdom would have us follow.

[JohnsonJones]

4)  We would have left the Pre-existence because we had reached the limit of our existence.  We could stay there as we were for the rest of eternity, always as children but never growing to our maturity, or we could strive to be like our Father.  As such, we would need to gain bodies and be tested to see whether we could/wanted to obtain the same glory as we saw with our eternal parent(s).  It is the natural way for children to grow and be like their parents.  This is why we left the Pre-existence, to grow up and become more like our Father and mature into our own right and degree of glory.

5) Why  not?  If the ideas about exaltation are correct and we are to have an eternal posterity...it would make sense that it would follow in the same pattern that was established for us.

[JohnsonJones]

Part of the reason we are here, in my opinion, is to test our true character.  This is to see who we really are.  Deep inside will we choose good...or will we choose evil.  If there is no chance for us to choose evil, then that nature will never present itself and thus that portion of the test to see what our true character really is would be null and void.  It would thus be possible for those who truly wish to seek after and do evil within their hearts, though they were able to hide their true desires previously, could bring darkness to the Kingdom of Heaven without it.

I think a fundamental part of our test here is to see whether we will Choose GOOD or EVIL.  Whether, after seeing the good, we will choose to reject it and choose evil instead of good.

When the choices are only between good choices, rather than the choices to determine who we will follow, the Lord or the Adversary, I feel that would defeat a great purpose of our having free agency in the first place here in mortality.

[JohnsonJones]

And it looks like I caught up to my original post back in January.

Some initial thoughts going back and pasting what I thought were interesting comments I made throughout the year, much of what I posted are things I am thinking about and pondering and thus are things I am studying still in regards to my study of the gospel, ideas of the gospel, and principles thereof. 

AS for this week, something else of interest I stumbled upon while doing the Study of Come Follow Me this week was the idea that Paul did not write the Epistle to the Hebrews.  The idea is that Luke or Clement wrote the Epistle.  Others feel that Paul wrote it initially in Hebrew but it was then translated by Luke.

I'm not sure what I feel on this, but it is an interesting thing to think about.  Another interesting item is that the oldest versions to not contain "To the Hebrews"

It seems modern scholarship has teamed up to consider the evidence points to an unknown author and that it could not have been Paul.

However, as the lesson points out the principles are consistent with Paul's other teachings.  In that light, I hold that the Epistle to the Hebrews is just as valuable and canonical as the rest of the New Testament whether it was originally by Paul or not. 

As the Lesson also points out, "because of the consistency of the principles with Pauls other teachings, it is generally accepted that Paul was at least involved with this epistle." (directly quoted from Nov. 4-10 lesson Hebrews 1-6 in Come Follow Me  Manual for Individuals and Families.

Edited November 6, 2019 by JohnsonJones
Spelling

[Traveler]

It is my understanding that our primary purpose in coming to earth was to experience for ourselves the difference between good and evil in order to have knowledge of the same.  And to also gain a physical body.

I believe that our character was tested in our pre-existence and will continue in this mortal existence and then into the spirit world after we die.  That our eternal quest to exercise our agency concerning the Plan of Salvation will not be completed until we stand before G-d at the final judgment and are so resurrected.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

Once more, gathering a few things and posts from the past few weeks to repost here that are of interest to me.  The First is not a repost, but something interesting I found online that was given by Brigham Young and I believe the 12.  It is a historical artifact of sorts which reflect a time after the development of the cooperative ZCMI.  When they first arrived in Utah, Brigham Young instituted the Law of Consecration in many communities with the United Order.  They lived with all things in common among them.  Also, common at this time was the usage of bartering as cash was not a common commodity.  As they grew and became more prosperous money began to filter in and people began to trade with it and with those from outside the community of the Saints.  Some started to try to get rich and instead of having this disparity between rich and poor, Brigham Young started with some new ideas.  The Law of Consecration apparently was not something some of the Saints wished to be included in, and some of these wanted to go into business. 

Now, personally speaking, it was probably to try to sate this desire to run businesses and interact with those beyond the realm of the Saints that Brigham came upon the idea of a business which was utilized and run by the Saints themselves.  This way, they could have the business, interact with those beyond the Saints borders, as well as still remain united in the common goals of worldly upkeep.  However, of course, that is my personal ideas of one of the reasons this may have come about.  Regardless, the cooperatives were highly successful and this is seems to be a sort of commentary upon the success of at least one of those coops. 

Quote

The people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice

...

One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously... are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations.  By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government.  It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both State and National, of the entire country.  If this evil should not be checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin.  The evidence of the restiveness of the people under this condition of affairs in our times is witnessed in the formation of societies of grangers, of patrons of husbandry, trades unions, ete., etc., combinations of the productive and working classes against capital.  years ago it was percieved that we Latter-day Saints were open to the saem dangers as those which beset teh rest of the world.  A condition of affairs existed among us which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of the many.  A wealthy class was being rapidly formed in  our midst whose interests, in the course of time, were likely to be diverse from those of the rest of the community.  The growth of such a class was dangerous to our union; and, of all people, we stand most in need of union and to have our interests identical.  Then it was that the Saints were counseled to enter in co-operation.  In the absence of the necessary faith to enter upon a more perfect order revealed by the Lord unto the church, this was felt to be the best means of drawin us together and making us one.  Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was organized, and thoughout the Territory, the mercantile business of the various wards and settlements was organized after that pattern.  Not only was the mercantile business thus organized, but at various places branches of mechanical, manufacturing, and other productive industries were established upon this basis.  To-day, therefore, co-operation among us is no untried experiment; it has been tested, and whenever fairly tested, and under proper management, its results have been most gratifying and fully equal to all that was expected of it.  through many attempts have been made to diparage and decry it, to destroy the confidence of the people in it and have it prove a failure.  From the day that Zion's Co-operative Mercantile institution was organized until this day it has had formidable and combined opposition to contend with, and the most base and unscrupulous methods have been adopted by those who have no interest for the welfare of the people to destroy its credit.  Without alluding to the private assaults upon its credit which have been made by those who felt that it was in their way and who wished to ruin it, the perusal alone of the telegraphic dispatches and correspondence to newspapers, which became public, would exhibit how unparalleled in the history of mercantile enterprises has been the hostility it had to encounter.  That it has lived, notwithstanding these bitter and milignant attacks upon it and its credit, is one of the most valuable proofs of the practical worth of co operation to us as a people.  Up to this day Z.C.M.I., has had no note go to proest; no firm, by dealing with it, has ever lost a dollar; its business transactions have been satisfactory to its creditors, and yet its purchases have amounted to fifteen millions of dollars!  What a firm in all this braod land can point to a brighter or more hnorable record than this.
...

it was not for the purpose alone, however, of making money that Z.C.M.I. was established.  A higher object than this prompted its organization.  A union of interests was sought to be attained.  At the time co-operation was entered upon, the Latter-day Saints were acting in utter disregard of the principles of self-preservation.  They were encouraging the growth of evils in their own midst which they condemned as the worst features from which they had been gathered.  Large profits were being concentrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among the people.  As a consequence, the community was being rapidly divided into classes, and the hateful and unhappy distinctions which the possession and lack of wealth give rise to, were becoming painfully apparent.  When the proposition to organize Z.C.M.I, was broached, it was hoped that the community at large would become its stockholders; for if a few individuals only were to own its stock, the advantages to the community would be limited.  The people, therefore, were urged to take shares, and large numbers responded to the appeal.  As we have shown, the business proved as successful as its mosts sanguine friends anticipated.  But the distribution of profits among the community was not only the benefit conferred by the organization of co-operation among us.  The public at large who did not buy at its stores derived profits, in that the old practice of dealing which prompted traders to increase the price of an article because of its scarcity, was abandoned.  Z.C.M.I. declined to be a party to making a corner upon any article of merchandize because of the limited supply in the market.  From its organization until the present it has never advanced the price of any article because of its scarcity.  Goods therefore in this Territory have been sold at something like fixed rates and reasonable profits since the Institution has had an existence, and practices which are deemed legitimate in some parts of the trading world, and by which, in this Territory, the necessities of consumers were taken advantage of---as, for instance, the selling of sugar at a dollar a pound, and domes-tics, coffee, tobacco and other articles at an enormous advance over original cost because of their scarcity here-have not been indulged in.  In this result the purchasers of goods who have been opposed to co-operation have shared equally with its patrons.

We appeal to the experience of every old settler in this Territory for the truth of what is here stated.  They must vividly remember that goods were sold here at prices which the necessities of the people compelled upon them to pay, and not at cost and transportation, with the addition of a reasonable profit.  The railroad, it is true, has made great changes in our method of doing business.  but let a blockade occur, and the supply of some necessary article be very limited in our market, can we suppose that traders have so changed in the lapse of a few years that, if there were no check upon them, they would no put up the price of that article in proportion as the necessities of the people made it desirable?  They would be untrue to all the training and traditions of their craft if they did not.   And it is because this craft is in danger that such an outcry is made against co-operation.   Can any one wonder that it should be so, when he remembers that, from the days of Demetrius who made silver shrines for the goddess Diana at Ephesus down to our own times, members of crafts have made constant war upon innovations that were likely to injure their business?

Your Brethren,

Brigham Young,                                       Charles C. Rich,
George A. Smith,                                      Lorenzo Snow,
         Daniel H. Wells,                                       Franklin D. Richards,
   John Taylor,                                             George Q. Cannon,
        Wilford Woodruff,                                     Brigham Young, Jun.
    Orson Hyde,                                               Albert Carrington.

From - Social problems of To-day; or The Mormon Question in its Economic Aspects.  A study of co-operation and arbitration in Mormondom, from the standpoint of a Wage Earner.  by a Gentile, Author of Utah and is People."  D. David Lum??
DD. Lum & Co., Port Jervis, N.Y. 1886.  pp 17-19.

Just something interesting I stumbled across in my browsing.  I had to copy it and type it up from hand so, any mistakes of typing are my own on this accord.  It is an interesting proclamation of sorts, and not what we are normally familiar with these days in regards to is normally proclaimed or typed up.

[JohnsonJones]

Another thought I had when typing responses up in the forum was a comment I made regarding time and eternity.

When Adam fell, I think that perhaps this was a change not just to him, but to the entirety of the world around him and how we perceive it as well.  In this, entropy and chaos were entered into the equation, meaning that death was introduced.  Because of this, all things die...even the universe around us.  Things go on a downward spiral until eventually things devolve to a dead state.

However, if eternity is to go on, then something must be able to create or do the exact opposite.  The opposite of dying is gaining more life...OR it could be also seen as being at the high point of the energy and never decreasing.  Thus, perhaps in eternity, the exact opposite of a dying universe is done and instead the universe does not operate as per our laws of physics, but a higher manifestation thereof.

Some say that eternal life is one eternal round.  In this, perhaps time does not even exist as we understand it in the eternities, with us able to go to any point at any spot as we desire, while we may measure the passing of our experiences in some way (perhaps as an increase in glory), we have no limitations upon the when or where as we do now. 

In truth, the power of eternity would be where we are married in this life by temporary power, that marriage will end as it has had a beginning, it must have an end.  However, when we are sealed for eternity in the temple, that marriage effectively becomes as if it has always been.  It has no beginning and no end, thus being eternal in that there is no beginning nor an end, having always been.  The same could apply to us if we become eternal, we have no beginning or end of it, because at our Father's decree and with his power, it becomes eternal, or having no beginning or end.  We have ALWAYS been in that and even though we may have an ascension of glory which we can measure, in the eternal reckoning his power makes it so that we have always been and always will be as such.

Of course, this is just mild speculation, but then, many things are speculation today.  My speculation though probably is more based on faith than science, and as such science will probably be the more relatable in our mortal existence today.

To expand somewhat, as many who know me understand I can be quite wordy...

I think that in the eternities things are as they are.  In other words, they are set more solid than stone.  They CANNOT change.  Things in eternity are eternal.  There is no way for them to change.  What is, has always been and always will be.  Things are unchanging.  Thus, to have change, there must be an environment or place where change an occur.

In otherwords, mortality.

A way to talk about this could be that eternity is where things are constant and do not change, whereas mortality is where things constantly change.  There is nothing that remains unchanged as the very nature of mortality is change.  Thus, mortality and eternity could be seen as two opposites of the spectrum.  Thus, to actually change in some ways such as our state and our situation we needed to come to mortality.

Once that situation and state were changed, we could return to eternity with that new situation and state having been forever formented as having always been and always will be.

in the eternities, what is has always been and always will be.  There is no beginning and no end.  Thus, if a change if accomplished in mortality, in relation to eternity, it becomes as if it had no beginning or end.  It is eternal.

I believe one can still grow and develop in some ways in eternity, but change is not one of them.  Thus, to obtain a body and to obtain certain blessings we HAD to have mortality.  There was no other way to obtain these things.

A way to view this could be with Adam (man) and Eve (from man).  In their initial state they were in an unchanging state.  They could not change and change could not come upon or affect them.  Thus, they could not obtain certain blessings or status.  Only by change could they obtain this.  When they partook of the fruit they also had the results of that decision.  One of those results was to be cast out of the garden of Eden.  They were thus, now, in a mortal state and change could affect them more fully. 

In this same way we can see it affect our universe in the course towards entropy, chaos, and death.  On the alternate side is eternity, energy, law, and life. 

Hard to explain, and I probably did a very poor example of trying to explain it here.  But in essence, I am trying to say that in the eternities, as there is no change, we could not obtain the blessings there that we can by coming into this life of mortality.  We could not obtain an eternal body nor the degrees of glory that we seek with that body.  Due to the nature of men, we would all fall into sin.  This meant, even if we came to mortality to obtain these things we would fail as we would succumb to sin and death.  We also needed a Savior to be able to atone for our sins and break the bands of death so we all could be saved from these obstacles of sin and death.  He also made it possible for ALL ordinances and blessings that would enable us to advance in glory while in mortality and have these things sealed upon our heads for eternity to become possible. 

This is why we must also do work for the dead, as these things must be done while in this life, or in mortality, or in this world of change vs that of the eternal nature where things are unchanging from eternity to eternity, forever.

Just some thoughts I had regarding the eternity of things vs. the mortality we are in now and temple work.