Repentance after death

[Guest]

1 minute ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you @Carborendum @Traveler and @The Folk Prophet

You make excellent points.

Have no need to argue any points.  i've thought it over and feel at peace with it - and feel like God and Jesus say it's good.  My beliefs are just between me and Them - as are any person's.  But i've most definitely been wrong before.  If i am, i'll make you all a  cup of herbal tea (with cream) as an apology, and we can have a good laugh over my stupidity.  Though if i'm right, i'm going to need to ask you all to muck out my pony's stall - after which we can all go on a gallop.  

Or perhaps one of us will burn in hell for eternity for our error - but i really hope that's not the case.....

 Well, you know we don't believe you're going to burn in hell for that position.  Three degrees and all.

If you really do have a pony, how big?  Can I ride it some time?

[lostinwater]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

 Well, you know we don't believe you're going to burn in hell for that position.  Three degrees and all.

If you really do have a pony, how big?  Can I ride it some time?

Sigh.  i wish i had one of my own.  They are so much work/time though - and massively expensive if you board it out.  All horses are ponies to me....  

i just ride someone else's for leisure - probably not a bad way to do it.  The one i ride is just north of 15 hands - so i guess not technically a pony (which are <14.2 hands at the withers).  A big strong guy like you would probably be better suited to a draft.  You should do a groupon for some lessons - it's FUN!  But be careful about letting your kids on them - or you'll be attending horse shows for the next 15 years  

[Traveler]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I believe and agree with this statement as you've stated it.  But I think it is incomplete.

It is basically like my engineering degree.  I go to school to get the paper.  But the most important thing is that I've learned all that I needed in order to do the job.  I have to actually understand an have a working relationship with codes, engineering principles, tons of reasearch, etc.  But there are two sides of the coin that are often brought into question.

1) Can someone learn all they need to without having gone to school for the "piece of paper"?
2) Can someone get the piece of paper and yet not really understand much of what they've gone to school for?
3) IDEALLY, one should go get the learning and really EARN that piece of paper.

Answer #1:

In all my life I've met only two people who have been able to figure things out on their own and do things because of natural talent.  They could go to the board and apply for a license and probably pass the exam and receive the license.  But this was after 30 years of on-the-job training that they accidentally fell into.  Without having been in just the right place at just the right time, they never would have been able to learn much of it at all.  For most people there really is no practical way to learn all the knowledge you need without going to school for it.

Answer #2:

All the time, unfortunately.

STATEMENT #3:

Looking at it from a Mormon's perspective, the Lord has set up His Kingdom on earth to be that school.  Could some people get it without going to school?  Very few.  But if you have the opportunity to go to school -- i.e. it's offered to you with the only qualification that you work hard at it. -- then your rejection of it would tend to say that you probably aren't going to get it on your own.  However, if you simply didn't have the opportunity and were forced to simply figure it out on your own, then that's different.

There are plenty of members of the Church (both active and inactive) who have ordinances done, but they simply don't understand the importance of covenants or the need for them.  They don't really reach the level they need to to be a Celestial Mormon (c.f. Bruce R. McConkie Terrestrial Mormons).  So, in such cases, the ordinances and covenants don't mean anything because they never learned what they needed to through the covenants.

ONLY A MEANS TO AN END

I absolutely agree.  Where we disagree is that I believe that these are the ONLY means of truly coming to Christ on a celestial level.  Too many people think they can do it on their own.  And they go away sorrowful.  And the heavens weep at their loss because they come to Christ on a telestial or terrestrial level only.

 

I believe the first lesson of a real education is to learn how to learn.  All else to me is a waste of time.  I also believe that nothing works until it has been tested and then it will only work for that which it has been tested to do.  In my years as an engineer – I am convinced that the worse and least effective engineers are engineers that do not know how to test what they think they have learned and are trying to apply.  Good engineers are those that figure how to test whatever concept they think might or will in some way apply to what needs to be done or accomplished.

I am also a great believer in peer reviews – I do not believe in engineers that can work or solve things on their own – I think they are useless.  I believe good engineers work well as a team – and not just with engineers but also with the techs (or whoever else it is) that will try to make a living (or life) using the engineer’s products.

I know you think of me as a rabbit hole engineer – but I am stilling attempting to work out ideas and designs with another very smart engineer.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Looking at it from a Mormon's perspective, the Lord has set up His Kingdom on earth to be that school.

Yes...but...the schooling isn't to learn to be like God. That's post-graduate work. The schooling is to see if we will humble ourselves, accept Christ's atonement, be obedient, repent. The other lessons we learn are useful. They are not the test though.

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Could some people get it without going to school?

Yes. The children who die before the age of 8.

[Traveler]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yes...but...the schooling isn't to learn to be like God. That's post-graduate work. The schooling is to see if we will humble ourselves, accept Christ's atonement, be obedient, repent. The other lessons we learn are useful. They are not the test though.

How is being - "humble ourselves, accept Christ's atonement, be obedient, repent" - not learning to be like G-d?  Just because a foundation may not look like a house - learning about and creating foundations is not just learning about houses.  It is necessary if the house is to be like G-d's.  But then I agree with what you have said - our education is not over just because we have learned about foundations.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yes...but...the schooling isn't to learn to be like God.

I didn't say it was. Unless you're talking about learning those characteristics of Godliness.

Quote

That's post-graduate work.

I'd agree. If you're talking about "Being perfect"

Quote

The schooling is to see if we will humble ourselves, accept Christ's atonement, be obedient, repent. The other lessons we learn are useful. They are not the test though.

Not wrong.  But I think incomplete.  I think there is something else in simply "going through the motions" that isn't really just "going through the motions."  That is, there may be some parts of the physical aspects -- ordinances, rituals, covenants, sacraments, etc. that seem to be simply going through the motions (EVEN IF we have some understanding of making covenants an all that).  But there is something just beyond our conscious understanding about going through those motions that helps us in ways we don't fully understand.

I believe there was a recent GC talk about how, as children, we may not understand why eating our vegetables are good for us.  But they do help strengthen and nourish us in ways we can't understand.

Quote

Yes. The children who die before the age of 8.

True.  I was referring to people who are in parts of the world where the gospel has not been freely taught.

Edited April 26, 2018 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you @Carborendum @Traveler and @The Folk Prophet

You make excellent points.

Have no need to argue any points.  i've thought it over and feel at peace with it - and feel like God and Jesus say it's good.  My beliefs are just between me and Them - as are any person's.  But i've most definitely been wrong before.  If i am, i'll make you all a  cup of herbal tea (with cream) as an apology, and we can have a good laugh over my stupidity.  Though if i'm right, i'm going to need to ask you all to muck out my pony's stall - after which we can all go on a gallop.  

Or perhaps one of us will burn in hell for eternity for our error - but i really hope that's not the case.....

I understand and appreciate the jesting. But on a serious note -- the idea that one might preach to others that they need not worry about seriously, immediate, repentance is where one potentially crosses the line of "burn in hell" danger. The idea that others don't need to join Christ's church and receive of His saving ordinances because as long as they're pure in heart all will be fine is false. The problem with the falseness of it is that it might lead one who believed it to not do their utmost to bring souls unto Christ through His saving ordinances.

We are constantly taught of the urgency and importance of missionary work. If the idea that all churches are fine as long as people are made pure in heart is true then what, honestly, is the whole restoration of the gospel about? Were there no good, righteous, honest people about prior to Joseph's prayer in the sacred grove? Was it not the establishment of authority in  baptism, the priesthood, temple ordinances, and the like that WAS the restoration of Christ's true church?

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

How is being - "humble ourselves, accept Christ's atonement, be obedient, repent" - not learning to be like G-d? 

It is. Just not completely.

Perhaps it might be better to say that learning to be like God in one particular way (faith) would be better. What I struggle with is the idea that "learning" traits of maturity and intelligence in this life are key. They are ONLY key if one is capable of such. But that neatly fits under the obedience spectrum.

There are some people who are truly horrible, immature, stupid, and flawed throughout their whole lives who will be Celestial material because they obeyed, repented, tried, tried, and tried. Success is not key. Trying is.

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I understand and appreciate the jesting. But on a serious note -- the idea that one might preach to others that they need not worry about seriously, immediate, repentance is where one potentially crosses the line of "burn in hell" danger. The idea that others don't need to join Christ's church and receive of His saving ordinances because as long as they're pure in heart all will be fine is false. The problem with the falseness of it is that it might lead one who believed it to not do their utmost to bring souls unto Christ through His saving ordinances.

We are constantly taught of the urgency and importance of missionary work. If the idea that all churches are fine as long as people are made pure in heart is true then what, honestly, is the whole restoration of the gospel about? Were there no good, righteous, honest people about prior to Joseph's prayer in the sacred grove? Was it not the establishment of authority in  baptism, the priesthood, temple ordinances, and the like that WAS the restoration of Christ's true church?

I agree - putting off repentance - regardlss of the excuse is a sin.  I have never read any scripture that suggest now is not the time to repent.  I am of the notion that putting off repentance is a greater sin that whatever it was that was done in the first place.  I am not sure we will ever have another chance (other than now) to repent of any we are aware of.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It is. Just not completely.

Perhaps it might be better to say that learning to be like God in one particular way (faith) would be better. What I struggle with is the idea that "learning" traits of maturity and intelligence in this life are key. They are ONLY key if one is capable of such. But that neatly fits under the obedience spectrum.

There are some people who are truly horrible, immature, stupid, and flawed throughout their whole lives who will be Celestial material because they obeyed, repented, tried, tried, and tried. Success is not key. Trying is.

 

I saw a comic sketch once - of a college course titled Failure 101.  The teacher asked the students if they knew how to fail.  One student responded with – we fail when we make a mistake.  The teacher responded making a mistake was not true failure.  It was not enough to guarantee failure – to truly fail one must take a mistake and compound it many times over.  It is not as easy to fail as some think it is – it actually takes repeated effort.  Not only do I find this funny – I think there is some truth to it.

BTW - thanks for your inputs

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Not wrong.  But I think incomplete.  I think there is something else in simply "going through the motions" that isn't really just "going through the motions."  That is, there may be some parts of the physical aspects -- ordinances, rituals, covenants, sacraments, etc. that seem to be simply going through the motions (EVEN IF we have some understanding of making covenants an all that).  But there is something just beyond our conscious understanding about going through those motions that helps us in ways we don't fully understand.

I'm not saying these things don't strengthen us and make us more like God. I'm saying it isn't what the test actually is.

Take two examples:

1. A man born in the covenant, goes through all the standard age-appropriate processes and ordinances, serves, works, learns, obeys, repents, struggles, endures, etc., his whole life.

2. A man is born into a situation where he learns evil as a way of life. Impregnates several women over the years. Does drugs, alcohol, etc. Thieves sometimes. Etc. Then he hears the gospel. It pricks his soul...so he works to overcome the actions of the sins he's had, but still finds it a struggle, but by moving away from the actions for a long enough time (perhaps several months only), qualifies for baptism. He is baptized, receives the Holy Ghost, etc. and begins his path of righteousness (constantly struggling, but constantly repenting). He receives the priesthood, gets sealed to his wife, etc., but due to his harsh life before, becomes sick and soon thereafter dies.

Are these men any different in the potential for Celestial glory? One learned a whole heap of good characteristics throughout His life. One learned a whole heap of bad characteristics throughout his life.

But both chose to humble themselves and do what was within their power to obey and take upon themselves the ordinances of the gospel.

Both qualify.

This is what I mean by saying it's not about what "the school of life" taught us or not.

I realize I may be talking about things on different terms than you are. So don't presume I'm straight up debating or disagreeing.

Edited April 26, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am of the notion that putting off repentance is a greater sin that whatever it was that was done in the first place.

I find it very, very strange how much I am in agreement with you here. It's a weird feeling.

[zil]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

A very easy read of the scriptures and modern light and knowledge could have one take that Salvation equals any Kingdom of Glory and Damnation is any non Glory state.  The various Degree of Glory are not various degrees of Damnation or Salvation but instead are various rewards for Works.

Interesting.  One could say that "salvation" is "salvation from perdition" and that "glory" is the "works-based reward" and that "exaltation" is the highest such reward.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is what I mean by saying it's not about what "the school of life" taught us or not.

I realize I may be talking about things on different terms than you are. So don't presume I'm straight up debating or disagreeing.

Ok.  So, here's the deal.  Your first reply above seemed to indicate some sort of disagreement?  But I'm not seeing where we disagree.  What did I say that you feel was in error?

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Ok.  So, here's the deal.  Your first reply above seemed to indicate some sort of disagreement?  But I'm not seeing where we disagree.  What did I say that you feel was in error?

I'm not sure we did disagree. I had an impression that your comparison of life to a college degree vs. practical learning implied that there was more to our life "degree" than I believe there is. I think it fails a bit as an analogy.

I want to be a computer programmer. I learn computer programming...done and done. Having a degree in computer programming helps me get a job, but is not requisite to getting a job (nowadays for sure), and being a computer programmer doesn't mean I need to do it as "a job", but as it would help get a job in that field, yes, having the degree might* be ideal.

I want to be a God. I learn to be a God? Done and done? No. It doesn't work that way. So the analogy fails right there. Having a "degree" of having passed the test in life (meaning one did the technical stuff, aka, ordinances, etc), isn't "helpful". It's requisite. And I tend to believe that having not learned a thing about being a god in this life doesn't mean we lose our right to the Celestial glory (unless that failure to learn was due to disobedience, failure to repent, or some other prideful choice one is accountable for, etc).

But maybe I entirely misunderstood your analogy. It's been known to happen.

 

* I say might because I'm not sure in today's world in many fields (computer programming being one of them) that the slight disadvantage one might have in finding work at some places is a greater cost than the literal cost of getting a degree.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I believe the first lesson of a real education is to learn how to learn.  All else to me is a waste of time.

This has been the fashionable thing to say if you want to sound really cool.  While I don't think it's wrong, I believe it to be misleading.  And the "waste of time" aspect I actually believe to be wrong.

How do you "learn how to learn" what ionization energy is?  What about electron affinity?  You either learn it or you don't.  You get it or you don't.  I don't see how anyone without a tremendous economic resource will ever simply "figure out" how to calculate the value of Oxygen's electron affinity.

Yes, we're supposed to learn how to research, find experiments of others, etc.  And if that's all you're talking about, then fine.  But I don't see that as all that different than learning from a teacher.  But the "learn how to learn" becomes muddied the further away from liberal arts and closer you get to physical and mathematical sciences.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 I also believe that nothing works until it has been tested and then it will only work for that which it has been tested to do. 

Well, of course.  But an appropriate program will teach fundamental principles that may then further be used to generate informed opinions even if you haven't been taught how to apply it to a specific situation.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

In my years as an engineer – I am convinced that the worse and least effective engineers are engineers that do not know how to test what they think they have learned and are trying to apply. 

Well, most engineers don't have the apparatus to test much of anything.  We have to go by what tests others have performed and use that data.  if you had to do that for every project and every design, we'd never be able to design anything.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Good engineers are those that figure how to test whatever concept they think might or will in some way apply to what needs to be done or accomplished.

Sure, I can figure out how to test it.  But the cost of testing everything is not practical.  You have to go off of industry organizations as well as government and universities to do the testing to be used by all.  That's how the industry runs.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I am also a great believer in peer reviews

Who doesn't?

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

– I do not believe in engineers that can work or solve things on their own – I think they are useless. 

Well, gee.  Thanks.  While I welcome peer reviews, and would seek them out whenever practical, often times, we simply can't due to client constraints.  The reason I'm able to do this is that I tend to be very accurate and informed in my work and I am very capable of looking for my own mistakes.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I believe good engineers work well as a team – and not just with engineers but also with the techs (or whoever else it is) that will try to make a living (or life) using the engineer’s products.

Again, who doesn't?

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I know you think of me as a rabbit hole engineer – but I am stilling attempting to work out ideas and designs with another very smart engineer.

I'm not sure what you mean by "rabbit hole engineer".  I have never seen your engineering work, nor how you work on your designs.  But I do wonder how you put together your logic train on philisophical or religious ideas sometimes.

Funny Anecdote on a rabbit hole:

A client's project manager was in a meeting with the design team.  Someone raised a concern about how we would work with a particular design issue that none of us had ever seen before.  Immediately, the PM stood up and began to expound on an experience he had once had.  He spoke for about 3 or 4 minutes straight. 

At the end I spoke up and asked,"What does that have to do with..."

He interrupted,"Not a (dang) thing, come to think of it."

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure we did disagree. I had an impression that your comparison of life to a college degree vs. practical learning implied that there was more to our life "degree" than I believe there is. I think it fails a bit as an analogy.

I want to be a computer programmer. I learn computer programming...done and done. Having a degree in computer programming helps me get a job, but is not requisite to getting a job (nowadays for sure), and being a computer programmer doesn't mean I need to do it as "a job", but as it would help get a job in that field, yes, having the degree might* be ideal.

I want to be a God. I learn to be a God? Done and done? No. It doesn't work that way. So the analogy fails right there. Having a "degree" of having passed the test in life (meaning one did the technical stuff, aka, ordinances, etc), isn't "helpful". It's requisite. And I tend to believe that having not learned a thing about being a god in this life doesn't mean we lose our right to the Celestial glory (unless that failure to learn was due to disobedience, failure to repent, or some other prideful choice one is accountable for, etc).

But maybe I entirely misunderstood your analogy. It's been known to happen.

 

* I say might because I'm not sure in today's world in many fields (computer programming being one of them) that the slight disadvantage one might have in finding work at some places is a greater cost than the literal cost of getting a degree.

Ok.  Here's some more background.  I've looked at many different degrees that people hold.  Some degrees are "education for the purpose of education" (most liberal arts degrees).  Others are more practical (more STEM degrees). 

You know my feelings on liberal colleges nowadays.  So, my opinion on "education for the purpose of education" will also be tainted.  I'm not equating ALL degrees as the same in my analogy. 

The problem is that with religion, people of the "organized religion isn't necessary" crowd tend to think of our "life degree" as the type of liberal arts education what you could just as easily learn on your own without the liberal taint of universities today.  I tend to think of our "life degree" as a more practical degree that it is REALLY difficult to self-train.  So, that is why I specifically used an engineering degree.  Not just because I'm an engineer.  But you really don't find many people out there who self-trained as an engineer.  99.999% of them went to school for their degree. 

(That is a number based on my personal experience with knowing or having met at least 10.000 engineers and only one was self-trained.  Another wasn't an engineer, but knew enough to put other engineers to shame.  So, depending on how you count it and blah blah...)

The obvious rebuttal from proponents of non-organized religion is that theology is more like a liberal arts degree.  I'd agree... for other faiths.  For ours, and a few others, it is actually more like an engineering degree (as I've described it).  That's the big catch that Satan uses to lure them in.  It's like a liberal arts degree.  Why do you need a stupid piece of paper?  For other faiths, you don't.

But in our faith, there are things like "line of priesthood authority", covenants by authority, prophets who speak on behalf of God to guide us with specific focus and interpretations for todays trials.  These are very specific things that require exact words, exact principles, exact designs by the master engineer himself.  After all, who else would put a waste treatment plant inline with a recreation center?

[estradling75]

53 minutes ago, zil said:

Interesting.  One could say that "salvation" is "salvation from perdition" and that "glory" is the "works-based reward" and that "exaltation" is the highest such reward.

Indeed.

"Salvation from perdition"

"Salvation from Damnation"

"Salvation from Hell"

"Salvation into the Kingdom of God/Heaven etc"  (as long as we understand the Telestial Kingdom to be part of the Kingdom of God/Heaven.  Its just the lowest part)

All are basically synonymous under this idea. 

And the Glory/"works-based reward idea" is usually easier to accept for those that struggle with the Little Bit Saved Little bit Damned idea.  (aka those with a more binary view set)

Edited April 26, 2018 by estradling75

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, estradling75 said:

I think there are ways of reading that can lead to such Ideas.

Most of the scriptures present a very binary view of Salvation and Damnation.   However said view tends to vary on the ratio.  The scriptures focused on God's Love and Grace tend to point to a nearly universal Salvation and Limited Damnation, were as those focused on Works tend to flip the other way.   We see this in any Grace vs Works debate.

With the greater light and knowledge we can see how both views are correct and truly stated.  In the church we know that Exaltation is not equal to Salvation and our goal is Exaltation not just Salvation.  This can cause us to equate the two because the scripture don't talk about Exaltation much but they do talk about Salvation a lot and there are plenty of scriptures about not procrastinating our Salvation and we use them when we mean Exaltation.  It works but it can be a bit confusing.

A very easy read of the scriptures and modern light and knowledge could have one take that Salvation equals any Kingdom of Glory and Damnation is any non Glory state.  The various Degree of Glory are not various degrees of Damnation or Salvation but instead are various rewards for Works.

I tend to favor that personally, but I am well aware of the degrees of Salvation/Damnation model many in the church talk about.  I consider the differences between the two to be mostly in terminology rather then a fundamental disagreement.  If someone has a mini damnation or simply did not earn the reward the result is the same... They stop progressing.  (Unless you want to debate the progression between Kingdom idea which is another subject)

 

Said another way, which also ties into what @The Folk Prophet objected to above, is that the many mansion/kingdoms built on high (which are a product of works) do not change in nature merely by purifying them (a function of grace). To use @Carborendum's analogy, a pure cat is still a cat.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 26, 2018 by wenglund

[Jersey Boy]

17 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure the red part is 100% accurate. I'm not denying it per se, because there are semantic issues involved. But...it does seem that a "full" remission of sin implies what Rob is suggesting: that all would thereby qualify for Celestial Glory. Spiritual "aptitude" is directly related to repentance, humility, etc. If everyone humbles themselves fully, repents of their sins, etc., then by what claim are they not spiritually "apt" enough to receive Celestial glory?

Edit: incidentally, I have my own thought on this, but wanted to see what your take was first

Just because various individuals may all obtain forgiveness through the mercy of Christ doesn’t necessarily mean each forgiven individual possesses exactly the same degree of faith, knowledge, wisdom, virtue, diligence, commitment, leadership ability and charity. All those who obtain any degree of salvation in the resurrection must sooner or later obtain a remission of their sins for no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God, and the telestial, terrestrial and celestial mansions of glory are realms within the kingdom of God.

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

This has been the fashionable thing to say if you want to sound really cool.  While I don't think it's wrong, I believe it to be misleading.  And the "waste of time" aspect I actually believe to be wrong.

How do you "learn how to learn" what ionization energy is?  What about electron affinity?  You either learn it or you don't.  You get it or you don't.  I don't see how anyone without a tremendous economic resource will ever simply "figure out" how to calculate the value of Oxygen's electron affinity.

Yes, we're supposed to learn how to research, find experiments of others, etc.  And if that's all you're talking about, then fine.  But I don't see that as all that different than learning from a teacher.  But the "learn how to learn" becomes muddied the further away from liberal arts and closer you get to physical and mathematical sciences.

Well, of course.  But an appropriate program will teach fundamental principles that may then further be used to generate informed opinions even if you haven't been taught how to apply it to a specific situation.

Well, most engineers don't have the apparatus to test much of anything.  We have to go by what tests others have performed and use that data.  if you had to do that for every project and every design, we'd never be able to design anything.

Sure, I can figure out how to test it.  But the cost of testing everything is not practical.  You have to go off of industry organizations as well as government and universities to do the testing to be used by all.  That's how the industry runs.

Who doesn't?

Well, gee.  Thanks.  While I welcome peer reviews, and would seek them out whenever practical, often times, we simply can't due to client constraints.  The reason I'm able to do this is that I tend to be very accurate and informed in my work and I am very capable of looking for my own mistakes.

Again, who doesn't?

I'm not sure what you mean by "rabbit hole engineer".  I have never seen your engineering work, nor how you work on your designs.  But I do wonder how you put together your logic train on philisophical or religious ideas sometimes.

Funny Anecdote on a rabbit hole:

A client's project manager was in a meeting with the design team.  Someone raised a concern about how we would work with a particular design issue that none of us had ever seen before.  Immediately, the PM stood up and began to expound on an experience he had once had.  He spoke for about 3 or 4 minutes straight. 

At the end I spoke up and asked,"What does that have to do with..."

He interrupted,"Not a (dang) thing, come to think of it."

 

Learning how to be intelligently curious and willing to explorer is learning how to learn.  Studying a subject because you were told to - in order to get a "good" grade will not result in new technology.

Perhaps you have heard about slim mold – and its ability to intelligently solve difficult engineering transportation (supply chain) problems even though the organism does not have a brain?  You talked about ionization energy and oxygen’s electron affinity.  Wonderful concepts – but did you know that 4,000 years ago the ancient Egyptians came up with a harmonic process of catalogizing matter into various “harmonic” elements.  For a long time, their efforts were considered nonsense until some smart engineers realized that these ancient scientists understood basic elements better than most college students today being taught about ionization energy and these ancients without being taught about ionization energy.  These ancients also calculated wave lengths of light (color) using the same harmonic principles that were not duplicated in or modern era until we invented lasers – I have a theory of how they came up with this most interesting mathematical and scientific system of ratios.  Obviously, they learned something different than what is being taught in our educational system - and they made it work.

When I worked for Boeing – an engineer came up with the concept of the “supercritical wing” for subsonic aircraft.  He discovered this concept studying why paper airplanes fly trying to win a paper airplane flight contest – even though the concept of a supercritical wing had already been developed for supersonic and transonic craft.  I very much doubt this was something he learned while studying engineering in school.  Most likely he was discouraged from playing with paper airplanes at school.   

I mentioned another principle engineer I use to work with – we were trying to solve a problem of how to get empty automated transportation vehicles to the area of the plant they were needed.  The problem was the empty vehicles pick up loads and take the loads to the next step in the manufacturing process.   So empty vehicles are mostly ending up where they are not needed.  Where the empty vehicles are needed changed dynamically minute to minute during the day and from day to day.  Together we developed a priority scheme based on loads needing vehicles based on individual loads and their accumulations at various tools, locations and zones in the factory – then we also created a priority scheme for vehicles to find loads based on where the individual now empty vehicles were located by tool, location and zones in the factory – then we came up with a scheme to create scheduling based on merging the two priorities.   Our initial application performed so well our application has become an example in artificial intelligence (published in trade and educational journals - 20 years ago that has not been improved yet) but it will when someone realizes that thinking about it and improving it is possible and that the answer is not just to learn how we did it.  

I believe the same principles of intelligent engineering apply to intelligent religion.  For example, keeping the Sabbath holy is not just understanding how it has been done for so many thousands of years.  But more about the principles of what we are trying to accomplish by keeping a Sabbath day holy and that thinking, praying and trying out some ideas of how we can improve keeping a Sabbath day holy.  Just 100 years ago there was no Super Bowl or worship block system for the saints – so we can learn if these “New” things have a desired impact or if there is a way to deal with Super Bowls and block schedules that we must discover on our own.  We should not be told, taught or commanded in everything – we should learn some things by our own intelligent intuitive – things beyond what are told and taught.  Please note that I used the term “beyond” not “instead of”.

One last thing I will tell you about myself – I am dyslexic.  This means that I see and organize the world differently than most others.  For most this is a learning disability – for me it has been a blessing except at times when I attempt to explain repeating patterns that I see like fractals showing up in different complex systems.  I have great difficulty not realizing others do not see “things” that appear obvious and needing no explanation.   I have learned (sometimes) to be patient but on many occasions that is not enough – so I realize that things obvious to me are rabbit holes to others.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Jersey Boy said:

Just because various individuals may all obtain forgiveness through the mercy of Christ doesn’t necessarily mean each forgiven individual possess exactly the same degree of faith, knowledge, wisdom, virtue, diligence, commitment, leadership ability and charity. All those who obtain any degree of salvation in the resurrection must sooner or later obtain a remission of their sins for no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God, and the telestial, terrestrial and celestial mansions of glory are realms within the kingdom of God.

Maybe.

It really is a semantics game. To remit is to refrain from exacting a punishment or debt payment. And yet...not receiving a "fulness" is, from a certain point of view, a punishment and a price (debt) to be paid.

Think of it analogous to physical resurrection -- lets say, for example, that the Celestial being has all their limbs, Terrestrial are missing their left arms, and Telestial are missing both their arms -- I know...silly...but go with it for a sec...

So that's what they "earned" by their works. Say it's related to their "work". The hard worker who used both their hands in labor gets both, the semi-lazy gets one arm, and the super lazy none...because they showed themselves worthy/unworthy of those tools.

Would anyone, reasonably, accept the idea that having no arms as your "reward" for your works (oh...sure...the "reward" is they have a resurrected body at all...so they have legs, feet, mouth, etc...that's the "glory" part...but they don't have a "fulness" because they were not worthy of it)...would anyone accept the idea that this wasn't a punishment to them?

Punishment and reward, once again, semantically speaking, are similar to salvation/damnation. Only a fullness of reward counts as no punishment whatsoever and only a fullness of punishment counts as no reward whatsoever. The states between perdition and Celestial glory are not a fullness of reward, and so they are partial punishment/as in partial damnation. They "cannot" this or "cannot" that.

Remission, by definition, tends to mean removal of punishment. A "full" remission of sin implies "full" reward.

Edited April 27, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[wenglund]

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe.

It really is a semantics game. To remit is to refrain from exacting a punishment or debt payment. And yet...not receiving a "fulness" is, from a certain point of view, a punishment and a price (debt) to be paid.

Think of it analogous to physical resurrection -- lets say, for example, that the Celestial being has all their limbs, Terrestrial are missing their left arms, and Telestial are missing both their arms -- I know...silly...but go with it for a sec...

So that's what they "earned" by their works. Say it's related to their "work". The hard worker who used both their hands in labor gets both, the semi-lazy gets one arm, and the super lazy none...because they showed themselves worthy/unworthy of those tools.

Would anyone, reasonably, accept the idea that having no arms as your "reward" for your works (oh...sure...the "reward" is they have a resurrected body at all...so they have legs, feet, mouth, etc...that's the "glory" part...but they don't have a "fulness" because they were not worthy of it)...would anyone accept the idea that this wasn't a punishment to them?

Punishment and reward, once again, semantically speaking, are similar to salvation/damnation. Only a fullness of reward counts as no punishment whatsoever and only a fullness of punishment counts as no reward whatsoever. The states between perdition and Celestial glory are not a fullness of reward, and so they are partial punishment/as in partial damnation. They "cannot" this or "cannot" that.

Remission, by definition, tends to mean removal of punishment. A "full" remission of sin implies "full" reward.

I can see what you are saying, except that, as inexplicable as it may seem, one mans reward is another man's punishment, and vice-versa. To me, putting a telestial being into the celestial kingdom would be one of the worst forms of punishment, if not THE worst form of punishment--the fires of hell may be eternal in a manner of speaking, but they are not all consuming  or annihilating as is intense glory of God, . Putting a telestial being into the telestial kingdom is their greatest reward. If so, then justice and mercy demand the later.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 27, 2018 by wenglund

[wenglund]

10 hours ago, wenglund said:

Said another way, which also ties into what @The Folk Prophet objected to above, is that the many mansion/kingdoms built on high (which are a product of works) do not change in nature merely by purifying them (a function of grace). To use @Carborendum's analogy, a pure cat is still a cat.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To further illustrate my point, let's use the analogy of two knives--one plastic and the other steal. Both knives can be sterilized--made pure, but only one of them can survive, and perhaps even thrive under the intense heat of the refiners fire.

The point being, while all will be cleansed of sin and bow their knees to Christ, not all will possess the godly temperament to bear the Fathers infinite glory and live comfortably in his presence. Only those willing and obedient to the celestial law can abide.

In other words, salvation and exaltation isn't just about becoming free from sin, and cleansing the vessel that is our soul. It is also about filling that vessel with godliness and changing the nature of the vessel to godliness.

The final judgement will find us all cleansed of sin, but receiving different degrees of resurrected glory  dependent upon the extent to which we did or didn't fill  our souls with godliness. We will be judged according to our works--ordinances as well as good deeds and thoughts.

At least that is how I currently understand it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jersey Boy]

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe.

It really is a semantics game. To remit is to refrain from exacting a punishment or debt payment. And yet...not receiving a "fulness" is, from a certain point of view, a punishment and a price (debt) to be paid.

Think of it analogous to physical resurrection -- lets say, for example, that the Celestial being has all their limbs, Terrestrial are missing their left arms, and Telestial are missing both their arms -- I know...silly...but go with it for a sec...

So that's what they "earned" by their works. Say it's related to their "work". The hard worker who used both their hands in labor gets both, the semi-lazy gets one arm, and the super lazy none...because they showed themselves worthy/unworthy of those tools.

Would anyone, reasonably, accept the idea that having no arms as your "reward" for your works (oh...sure...the "reward" is they have a resurrected body at all...so they have legs, feet, mouth, etc...that's the "glory" part...but they don't have a "fulness" because they were not worthy of it)...would anyone accept the idea that this wasn't a punishment to them?

Punishment and reward, once again, semantically speaking, are similar to salvation/damnation. Only a fullness of reward counts as no punishment whatsoever and only a fullness of punishment counts as no reward whatsoever. The states between perdition and Celestial glory are not a fullness of reward, and so they are partial punishment/as in partial damnation. They "cannot" this or "cannot" that.

Remission, by definition, tends to mean removal of punishment. A "full" remission of sin implies "full" reward.

Things do not remain static in the eternities. The atonement’s limitless power to bless continues as an ever-present and abiding reality in the lives of each of the Father’s saved children regardless of the kingdom of heavenly glory they have inherited. One thing we can all rest assured of is that by virtue of his perfect divine nature and infinite and eternal love our Father and God is far more interested in blessing his children and helping them to grow than he is desirous to hold them back and prevent them from progressing and improving as much as possible without violating their agency. D&C 76 tells us the inheritors of the telestial kingdom will be visited and instructed by ministers from the terrestrial kingdom, as well as by ministering angles sent from the celestial kingdom, who, without doubt, are sent to instruct and encourage them to continue on their journey of eternal progression. The Father’s great program of eternal salvation for each of his children is not a zero sum game. The atonement of Christ is infinite and eternal, a light of blessing that can never be limited nor dimmed.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Jersey Boy