TK Smoothies

[scottyg]

47 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Correcting false or untrue doctrines is part of the restoration.

Agree 100%, but that is best left to those who are called as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Rather than trying to read between the lines for something that may or may not be there, we should just focus on the plain and simple truths of the gospel.

[Fifthziff]

On 2/2/2019 at 1:24 PM, Starwatcher said:

Must it be perfectly literal?  I have a full head of hair, even at age 67.  It's gone quite gray, but it's pretty much all there.  My 28-year old stepson has classic male pattern baldness.  It's perfectly natural for him to be this way.  What will he get in the resurrection?  Will there be balding resurrected beings?  Also, what about baby teeth?  Will they be restored?  Or the permanent teeth?  Do Downs-syndrome people get to keep their condition?  We get "restored", do we not?  If a Downs person is restored, surely they must therefore be resurrected Downs, right?  (I actually had someone I know claim that they did.  As if it were a good thing, since they are so sweet.)

I tend to think of the resurrection as a restoration to what we should and would have been, if things had been perfect.  So someone born blind or deaf won't be resurrected blind, and deaf just because he was that way from the beginning.

If you take it back to what it would have been if it had been perfect, there was only one place where that was found, in the garden of Eden.  So, then what you are saying is everyone will go back to the one copy of Adam and the one copy of Eve.  Because after the Fall is when corruption entered the body and each generation went further away from the original creation with the exception of what happened during the flood.  There was a reboot, so to speak, of the genetic drift.  Like trying to photocopy something over and over on an old copier, the original is the only perfect copy.   And then you have to wonder about the fact that Adam and Eve could not reproduce until they had corrupted bodies.

[Rob Osborn]

27 minutes ago, scottyg said:

Agree 100%, but that is best left to those who are called as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Rather than trying to read between the lines for something that may or may not be there, we should just focus on the plain and simple truths of the gospel.

And thus why I brought up the revised BD entries- seems like doctrine is a changin ☺️

[Traveler]

22 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Could you explain what you mean?  You don't strike me as holding the same meaning as my apostate-buddy-who-married-a-transgender-woman-named-George holds...

We are told that gender is eternal and that one gender is male and one gender is female - that there are no other genders.  However, there are children born with the sex organs of both male and female - likewise there are children born without sex.  In all cases this does not mean that they did not have a gender in the pre-existence.  We do not know why there are children where their genetics is not complete.  But I do not believe that someone of one gender can be stuck in a flawless body of a different sex.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

22 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Let me rephrase- those who are saved, in the end, will all be righteous.

Are you saying they will not have Agency or a choice?

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

On 2/3/2019 at 7:49 PM, Rob Osborn said:

You know what? Discussions with you are fruitless. You are a condescending immature individual.

In a recent General Conference talk,, Elder Renland mentioned a a scene from Mary Poppins, (see HERE) which I believe has some bearing, in principle, to what it is like for many of us who have attempted a reasonable exchange with you--not that you could possibly see it this way:

The fictional character Mary Poppins is a typical English nanny—who happens to be magical.¹ She blows in on the east wind to help the troubled Banks family of Number 17, Cherry Tree Lane, in Edwardian London. She is given charge of the children, Jane and Michael. In a firm but kind manner, she begins to teach them valuable lessons with an enchanting touch.

Jane and Michael make considerable progress, but Mary decides that it is time for her to move on. In the stage production, Mary’s chimney sweep friend, Bert, tries to dissuade her from leaving. He argues, “But they’re good kids, Mary.”

Mary replies, “Would I be bothering with them if they weren’t? But I can’t help them if they won’t let me, and there’s no one so hard to teach as the child who knows everything.” (bold mine)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

On 2/5/2019 at 11:33 AM, Traveler said:

Are you saying they will not have Agency or a choice?

 

The Traveler

The scriptures teach the doctrine that in the end, all of the saved will be righteous because of their own choice.

[Fifthziff]

On 2/5/2019 at 11:30 AM, Traveler said:

We are told that gender is eternal and that one gender is male and one gender is female - that there are no other genders.  However, there are children born with the sex organs of both male and female - likewise there are children born without sex.  In all cases this does not mean that they did not have a gender in the pre-existence.  We do not know why there are children where their genetics is not complete.  But I do not believe that someone of one gender can be stuck in a flawless body of a different sex.

 

The Traveler

What gender is to those who end up in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms may easily be a subset of what gender means to an individual in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  Even when one takes out the sexual reproduction part of gender means there could be plenty of distinguishing factors between the two genders. The pre-mortal gender designation may not have included any sexual or reproductive or attraction aspect at all, we don't know. 

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, Fifthziff said:

What gender is to those who end up in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms may easily be a subset of what gender means to an individual in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.  Even when one takes out the sexual reproduction part of gender means there could be plenty of distinguishing factors between the two genders. The pre-mortal gender designation may not have included any sexual or reproductive or attraction aspect at all, we don't know. 

Except isn't our spirit made in the likeness of our bodies?

I'm curious as to why people think sex organs aren't a part of everyone's resurrected bodies? Where does this idea come from?

[MrShorty]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I'm curious as to why people think sex organs aren't a part of everyone's resurrected bodies? Where does this idea come from?

To bring this full circle, the quote by Joseph Fielding Smith that started this whole thread might be the source of this idea. Read his quote again, and he talks about "changes in the [telestial and terrestrial] bodies" and "the power of procreation will be removed". He does not give details as to whether he thinks genitals and gonads are completely removed or merely inactivated. The quote in the OP does not give any of Pres. Smith's references, and I don't have immediate access to a copy of Doctrines of Salvation to see what references Pres. Smith may have used to support these statements. The photographed page in about the 9th post in suggest that he gave no references, so maybe Joseph Fielding Smith is the source for these ideas? Which brings us back to the question of how much of this is revealed truth and how much is Pres. Smith's personal opinion.

Which reminds me of something said by our current prophet and quoted by Elder Anderson in Apr. 2018 conference -- Pres. Nelson is quoted as saying (in 1982), that he has never asked himself, "When does the prophet speak as a prophet." and that he prefers to put exclamation points instead of question marks behind what the prophet says. I am not sure how this is really supposed to work with things like this (and like Joseph Fielding Smith young earth creationist ideas that I disagree with) where scriptural and prophetic opinion contradicts my own beliefs and opinions. I find myself unwilling to follow Pres. Nelson's counsel to "put exclamation marks behind what the prophets say," because my own sense of truth does not always agree with prophetic statements.

In short -- I think I see where the idea comes from. I'm not sure that I see why I should believe this idea is eternal truth.

Edited February 13, 2019 by MrShorty

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

To bring this full circle, the quote by Joseph Fielding Smith that started this whole thread might be the source of this idea. Read his quote again, and he talks about "changes in the [telestial and terrestrial] bodies" and "the power of procreation will be removed". He does not give details as to whether he thinks genitals and gonads are completely removed or merely inactivated. The quote in the OP does not give any of Pres. Smith's references, and I don't have immediate access to a copy of Doctrines of Salvation to see what references Pres. Smith may have used to support these statements. The photographed page in about the 9th post in suggest that he gave no references, so maybe Joseph Fielding Smith is the source for these ideas? Which brings us back to the question of how much of this is revealed truth and how much is Pres. Smith's personal opinion.

Which reminds me of something said by our current prophet and quoted by Elder Anderson in Apr. 2018 conference -- Pres. Nelson is quoted as saying (in 1982), that he has never asked himself, "When does the prophet speak as a prophet." and that he prefers to put exclamation points instead of question marks behind what the prophet says. I am not sure how this is really supposed to work with things like this (and like Joseph Fielding Smith young earth creationist ideas that I disagree with) where scriptural and prophetic opinion contradicts my own beliefs and opinions. I find myself unwilling to follow Pres. Nelson's counsel to "put exclamation marks behind what the prophets say," because my own sense of truth does not always agree with prophetic statements.

In short -- I think I see where the idea comes from. I'm not sure that I see why I should believe this idea is eternal truth.

I personally believe Joseph Fielding Smith's statement is all opinion with no revealed truth on the matter.  We can pray for confirmation on anything anyone says and I receive no confirmation his statement is true. It runs counter to our creation and purpose

I think it brings up a very relevant point- when a prophet speaks his opinion on various things people regard it in the area of "doctrine" whereas when you or anyone of us give well thought opinion no one seems to care, has no weight. I think modern prophets living now in our day are way more cautious as to what they say because they know people tend to take everything they say as "doctrine" and so they don't offer up opinions very often in the public's eye. 

[Jersey Boy]

On 1/19/2019 at 10:27 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Well, we are procreating away, lots and lots, here in the telestial kingdom right now.

I have a connection with the General Authorities. If I could get Elder Holland to personally respond to your claim that you believe he taught the members of the Church our present earthly pre-resurrection telestial kingdom is one and the same with the telestial kingdom spoken of in D&C sections 76 and D&C 88, and for this reason there will be no telestial kingdom of glory after the resurrection, would you be allow me to submit a question to him? And if he does answer, will you be willing to abide by his answer and stop propagating false doctrine if what he says contradicts your assertions? 

This is how I will present the question: Dear Elder Holland: There’s a member of the Church who is an avid and bold participant on Latter-Day Saint discussion boards who is quoting you as an authoritative source for his doctrinal claims. He’s teaching that because you once said our present earth is the telestial kingdom that this means you don’t believe there is going to be post-resurrection kingdom of telestial glory. In other words, he believes you agree with him that the telestial kingdom spoken of in Doctrine and Covenants sections 76 and 88 is our present-day earth, the one and only telestial kingdom that will ever be for this creation, and that because this present telestial earth will be transformed into higher orders of kingdom there will not be a telestial kingdom of glory after the resurrection. As a corollary, he similarly believes that because this earth will temporarily become a terrestrial kingdom during the millennium it follows that there will also be no terrestrial kingdom of post-resurrection glory in eternity. Simply put, the gentleman believes there will not be three degrees of heavenly glory after the resurrection and there will only be the celestial glory and the habitation of the resurrected sons of perdition. Do you believe this brother is correct when he makes these assertions?

Do I have your permission to make this submission to Elder Holland? But know that if you tell me you’re not going to stop teaching these things even if Elder Holland says you’re your wrong, I’m not going to bother. 

Edited February 13, 2019 by Jersey Boy

[Rob Osborn]

22 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

I have a connection with the General Authorities. If I could get Elder Holland to personally respond to your claim that you believe he taught the members of the Church our present earthly pre-resurrection telestial kingdom is one and the same with the telestial kingdom spoken of in D&C sections 76 and D&C 88, and for this reason there will be no telestial kingdom of glory after the resurrection, would you be allow me to submit a question to him? And if he does answer, will you be willing to abide by his answer and stop propagating false doctrine if what he says contradicts your assertions? 

This is how I will present the question: Dear Elder Holland: There’s a member of the Church who is an avid and bold participant on Latter-Day Saint discussion boards who is quoting you as an authoritative source for his doctrinal claims. He’s teaching that because you once said our present earth is the telestial kingdom that this means you don’t believe there is going to be post-resurrection kingdom of telestial glory. In other words, he believes you agree with him that the telestial kingdom spoken of in Doctrine and Covenants sections 76 and 88 is our present-day earth, the one and only telestial kingdom that will ever be for this creation, and that because this present telestial earth will be transformed into higher orders of kingdom there will not be a telestial kingdom of glory after the resurrection. As a corollary, he similarly believes that because this earth will temporarily become a terrestrial kingdom during the millennium it follows that there will also be no terrestrial kingdom of post-resurrection glory in eternity. Simply put, the gentleman believes there will not be three degrees of heavenly glory after the resurrection and there will only be the celestial glory and the habitation of the resurrected sons of perdition. Do you believe this brother is correct when he makes these assertions?

Do I have your permission to make this submission to Elder Holland? But know that if you tell me you’re not going to stop teaching these things even if Elder Holland says you’re your wrong, I’m not going to bother. 

You are free to ask him any question you like. You don't have my personal permission to ask for me though. I will ask for confirmation myself when I feel the time is right and with the right spirit. 

You assume I propagate "false doctrine". That's why I don't give permission to you.

[Jersey Boy]

54 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You are free to ask him any question you like. You don't have my personal permission to ask for me though. I will ask for confirmation myself when I feel the time is right and with the right spirit. 

You assume I propagate "false doctrine". That's why I don't give permission to you.

If you will take notice,  you will see I was careful to not mention the expression “false doctrine” in the prefacing comments and question I’m prepared to summit to Elder Holland. But if you did notice, are you saying you don’t want a fairly stated question submitted to Elder Holland because you feel I personally insulted you?

Again, if I submit the above comments and question to Elder Holland, the expression “false doctrine,” nor anything like unto it, will be mentioned because I don’t want to take the chance of swaying the mind of Elder Holland with a prejudicial statement. You see, I want to fairly present your ideas so that we will get a clear and thoughtful answer. And you are free to either edit my comments and question in a way you can fully approve, or you can present your own prefacing comments and questions so that you will feel fully comfortable, and then I will submit what you write without any negative or prejudicial statements of my own.

But we can cut this whole exercise short if you will simply state that not even Elder Holland will be able tp sway you if he says you are wrong.

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

If you will take notice,  you will see I was careful to not mention the expression “false doctrine” in the prefacing comments and question I’m prepared to summit to Elder Holland. But if you did notice, are you saying you don’t want a fairly stated question submitted to Elder Holland because you feel I personally insulted you?

Again, if I submit the above comments and question to Elder Holland, the expression “false doctrine,” nor anything like unto it, will be mentioned because I don’t want to take the chance of swaying the mind of Elder Holland with a prejudicial statement. You see, I want to fairly present your ideas so that we will get a clear and thoughtful answer. And you are free to either edit my comments and question in a way you can fully approve, or you can present your own prefacing comments and questions so that you will feel fully comfortable, and then I will submit what you write without any negative or prejudicial statements of my own.

But we can cut this whole exercise short if you will simply state that not even Elder Holland will be able tp sway you if he says you are wrong.

The problem with you asking is that it doesn't solve anything for me. It's not the proper means to receive confirmation. Besides that, the question you propose is fairly generic and lacks substance. In order to establish the correct dialogue and meaning would take many many papers of going through the details of the subject. Otherwise you just never see eye to eye because semantics and connotation in regards to doctrine and truth have a Paramount importance in the overall discussion. For instance, take the word "damnation", without a proper understanding of even this one word with the correct semantics, context, and connotation, other questions such as what you propose really mean nothing. Why? Because most of my beliefs regarding heaven and hell and our doctrine revolve around the incorrect use of simple words and terms. When I use them I mean something different than when our doctrine uses it. Without establishing a common ground and correct understanding of key principles, questions regarding kingdoms don't mean a lot- doesn't lead to change.

I've been working on this for several years, it's not something that is simply asked. This is the type of question that takes 30 pages at minimum to ask.

[JohnsonJones]

5 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

This is how I will present the question: Dear Elder Holland: There’s a member of the Church who is an avid and bold participant on Latter-Day Saint discussion boards who is quoting you as an authoritative source for his doctrinal claims. He’s teaching that because you once said our present earth is the telestial kingdom that this means you don’t believe there is going to be post-resurrection kingdom of telestial glory. In other words, he believes you agree with him that the telestial kingdom spoken of in Doctrine and Covenants sections 76 and 88 is our present-day earth, the one and only telestial kingdom that will ever be for this creation, and that because this present telestial earth will be transformed into higher orders of kingdom there will not be a telestial kingdom of glory after the resurrection. As a corollary, he similarly believes that because this earth will temporarily become a terrestrial kingdom during the millennium it follows that there will also be no terrestrial kingdom of post-resurrection glory in eternity. Simply put, the gentleman believes there will not be three degrees of heavenly glory after the resurrection and there will only be the celestial glory and the habitation of the resurrected sons of perdition. Do you believe this brother is correct when he makes these assertions?

No offense intended, but this would seem like a particularly petty use of an apostles time.  If the apostle choose to spend some of their free time reading these (or other message boards) they could make the decision for themselves, but these days where there are millions of members of the church it normally seems encouraged for local leaders to address concerns like this if there needs to be something to that effect.

In addition, even if he were to come to address it on this board, how would one confirm it is him?  If he were to talk about it in General Conference, what about the million other Saints who have different questions that may be more pressing?

There have been multiple talks on the three degrees of glory previously (and perhaps there may be in the future as well), if that is not enough today to resolve a disagreement, should anything more be stated than already has been?

[Rob Osborn]

17 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

There have been multiple talks on the three degrees of glory previously (and perhaps there may be in the future as well), if that is not enough today to resolve a disagreement, should anything more be stated than already has been?

I see change happening but in order for it to happen it will be through small and simple steps. Correcting some doctrinal definition of words and terms would come first. I think it would literally take years and perhaps decades to change/modify an entire doctrine concerning heaven and hell and the plan of salvation. I am highly optimistic though.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Rob Osborn

[Jersey Boy]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

No offense intended, but this would seem like a particularly petty use of an apostles time.  If the apostle choose to spend some of their free time reading these (or other message boards) they could make the decision for themselves, but these days where there are millions of members of the church it normally seems encouraged for local leaders to address concerns like this if there needs to be something to that effect.

In addition, even if he were to come to address it on this board, how would one confirm it is him?  If he were to talk about it in General Conference, what about the million other Saints who have different questions that may be more pressing?

There have been multiple talks on the three degrees of glory previously (and perhaps there may be in the future as well), if that is not enough today to resolve a disagreement, should anything more be stated than already has been?

The family member I’m referring to works in the Church office building and rubs shoulders with the leaders of the Church all the time. So it would be no big deal for him to casually inform Elder Holland that there’s an avid participant on LDS discussion boards who’s trying to convince whoever will listen that there are not three degrees of glory in the resurrection, and that he’s using is one of Elder Holland’s own General Conference addresses to substantiate his unusual doctrinal claims. It would then be Elder Holland’s choice to respond — or not respond — in any way he sees fit. If Elder Holland did choose to respond, I would bring the report back to this board. But if some here would choose to believe my report is untrue, that would be their right. At any rate, as I’ve already made clear, I wouldn’t ask my relative to speak to Elder Holland on this issue unless Rob is okay with it... and he’s not. 

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by Jersey Boy

[Jersey Boy]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I see change happening but in order for it to happen it will be through small and simple steps. Correcting some doctrinal definition of words and terms would come first. I think it would literally take years and perhaps decades to change/modify an entire doctrine concerning heaven and hell and the plan of salvation. I am highly optimistic though.

Here’s and excellent article written by Vince Methot of the Seven of Everything blog who understands the issues perfectly. Like Yours Truly, he’s able to harmonize the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants presentations on the plan of salvation without twisting many passages of the scriptures out of joint. And just as importantly, he’s able to harmonize these same books of scripture with the testimonies of our living prophets without claiming that the current First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve don’t know what they’re talking about.

Kingdoms of Salvation

President Uchtdorf said something in General Conference on Saturday Morning in his talk 'It Works Wonderfully!'(Oct 2015) that stuck out to me because I have been writing about it for some time. It is not a topic generally understood by most members, and when they ask, they normally get the wrong answer. Here is what he said:

 

The Savior’s sacrifice opened the door of salvation for all to return to God. His “grace is sufficient for all [who] humble themselves before [God].” His grace is the enabling power that allows access into God’s kingdoms of salvation. Because of His grace, we will all be resurrected and saved in a kingdom of glory. Even the lowest kingdom of glory, the telestial kingdom, “surpasses all understanding,” and numberless people will inherit this salvation. But the Savior’s grace can do much more for us. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we aspire to something unimaginably greater. It is exaltation in the celestial kingdom. It is life eternal in the presence of our Father in Heaven. It is the greatest gift of God. In the celestial kingdom, we receive “of His fulness, and of His glory.” Indeed, all that the Father hath shall be given unto us." (Emphasis added)

Door of Salvation
"The Savior's sacrifice opened the door of salvation for all to return to God."
This is consistent with the 3rd article of faith: "We believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved..." John 10:1-18 talks extensively about how Christ is the door. 2 Nephi 31:17 explains that this door, or gate, is repentance and baptism. Romans 6 explains the connection between Christ and baptism. It is also explained in my previous post, "Biblical Take on Remission."

Kingdoms of Salvation
"His grace is the enabling power that allows access into God’s kingdoms of salvation."
In the scriptures it repeatedly talks about the kingdom of God (singular) and what is needed to go there. Salvation is entrance into God's kingdom (singular). However, in February of 1832 God revealed the meaning of His phrase, "In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you." (John 14:2, see also D&C 76:111) Anybody, even with a belief in the trinity, should understand the concept of three in one. If His grace is the enabling power that allows access into the kingdom of God, then obviously this is also true of all kingdoms within His kingdom. The requirements to get into the kingdom of God are also necessary to get into any kingdom within.

So I repeat, salvation is entrance into God's kingdom. Likewise, salvation is entrance into any of God's kingdoms within His kingdom. It is stated in scripture and by President Uchtdorf that, "because of His grace, we will all be resurrected and saved in a kingdom of glory." And, "numberless people will inherit ... salvation, [in] even the lowest kingdom of glory, the telestial kingdom." (see above for exact quote, see also D&C 76:88 and D&C 76:109) 

Baptism is Required for Salvation
To summarize, baptism is required for salvation. Baptism is required to enter the kingdom of God. Therefore, baptism is required to enter the telestial kingdom of salvation because it is part of the kingdom of God. Confusion on this topic has come because of overlooking or misunderstanding of more recent revelation, even by a prophet and an apostle. I will explain the origins of the misunderstanding, how it was cleared up by revelation, and how it was brought back and is present in church manuals today in my next posts (Understanding Baptism Line upon Line, Misunderstanding Baptism for Salvation).

However, it is fortunate that despite this misunderstanding, the concept in the third paragraph by President Uchtdorf quoted above did also persist. "As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we aspire to something unimaginably greater. It is exaltation in the celestial kingdom."

 

Posted by Vince Methot at 5:00 AM  

 

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

Here’s and excellent article written by Vince Methot of the Seven of Everything blog who understands the issues perfectly. Like Yours Truly, he’s able to harmonize the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants presentations on the plan of salvation without twisting many passages of the scriptures out of joint. And just as importantly, he’s able to harmonize these same books of scripture with the testimonies of our living prophets without claiming that the current First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve don’t know what they’re talking about.

Kingdoms of Salvation

President Uchtdorf said something in General Conference on Saturday Morning in his talk 'It Works Wonderfully!'(Oct 2015) that stuck out to me because I have been writing about it for some time. It is not a topic generally understood by most members, and when they ask, they normally get the wrong answer. Here is what he said:

 

The Savior’s sacrifice opened the door of salvation for all to return to God. His “grace is sufficient for all [who] humble themselves before [God].” His grace is the enabling power that allows access into God’s kingdoms of salvation. Because of His grace, we will all be resurrected and saved in a kingdom of glory. Even the lowest kingdom of glory, the telestial kingdom, “surpasses all understanding,” and numberless people will inherit this salvation. But the Savior’s grace can do much more for us. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we aspire to something unimaginably greater. It is exaltation in the celestial kingdom. It is life eternal in the presence of our Father in Heaven. It is the greatest gift of God. In the celestial kingdom, we receive “of His fulness, and of His glory.” Indeed, all that the Father hath shall be given unto us." (Emphasis added)

Door of Salvation
"The Savior's sacrifice opened the door of salvation for all to return to God."
This is consistent with the 3rd article of faith: "We believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved..." John 10:1-18 talks extensively about how Christ is the door. 2 Nephi 31:17 explains that this door, or gate, is repentance and baptism. Romans 6 explains the connection between Christ and baptism. It is also explained in my previous post, "Biblical Take on Remission."

Kingdoms of Salvation
"His grace is the enabling power that allows access into God’s kingdoms of salvation."
In the scriptures it repeatedly talks about the kingdom of God (singular) and what is needed to go there. Salvation is entrance into God's kingdom (singular). However, in February of 1832 God revealed the meaning of His phrase, "In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you." (John 14:2, see also D&C 76:111) Anybody, even with a belief in the trinity, should understand the concept of three in one. If His grace is the enabling power that allows access into the kingdom of God, then obviously this is also true of all kingdoms within His kingdom. The requirements to get into the kingdom of God are also necessary to get into any kingdom within.

So I repeat, salvation is entrance into God's kingdom. Likewise, salvation is entrance into any of God's kingdoms within His kingdom. It is stated in scripture and by President Uchtdorf that, "because of His grace, we will all be resurrected and saved in a kingdom of glory." And, "numberless people will inherit ... salvation, [in] even the lowest kingdom of glory, the telestial kingdom." (see above for exact quote, see also D&C 76:88 and D&C 76:109) 

Baptism is Required for Salvation
To summarize, baptism is required for salvation. Baptism is required to enter the kingdom of God. Therefore, baptism is required to enter the telestial kingdom of salvation because it is part of the kingdom of God. Confusion on this topic has come because of overlooking or misunderstanding of more recent revelation, even by a prophet and an apostle. I will explain the origins of the misunderstanding, how it was cleared up by revelation, and how it was brought back and is present in church manuals today in my next posts (Understanding Baptism Line upon Line, Misunderstanding Baptism for Salvation).

However, it is fortunate that despite this misunderstanding, the concept in the third paragraph by President Uchtdorf quoted above did also persist. "As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we aspire to something unimaginably greater. It is exaltation in the celestial kingdom."

 

Posted by Vince Methot at 5:00 AM  

 

He is where I was some 15 years ago. So many issues to talk about that he brings up. Just one area I agree with is that baptism is essential to salvation. But therein lies the issue, we, as a church body, do not comprehend that baptism is merely a gate, it gets us no salvation, just access to the path, that upon completion, gets us salvation. That path takes us through kingdoms, through the steps required, to become perfect. It is at that point we gain salvation.

[wenglund]

On 2/13/2019 at 3:35 PM, Rob Osborn said:

...we, as a church body, do not comprehend that baptism is merely a gate, it gets us no salvation, just access to the path, that upon completion, gets us salvation. That path takes us through kingdoms, through the steps required, to become perfect. It is at that point we gain salvation.

I don't know that either of us are in a position to speak on behalf of "we as a church,"  no matter what our prodigious egos may tell us.

However, speaking for myself, and what I have observed on this board and elsewhere, there are members, me somewhat included, who not only fail to fully understand that baptism is a gate to a path, but also how the cleansing that is a part of the baptismal gate, itself, is a form of salvation, let alone what all baptism symbolizes. 

The same seems to be the case with the notion of "rebirth",  "born again,"  or "born from above," which, interestingly enough, is the subject of this weeks Come Follow Me lesson.

Yet, the most serious deficit in understand that I have observed, approaching Nicodemus magnitude, is how certain members fail to grasp how this all relates to the resurrection and  multiple kingdoms therein. They don't get how this all points not only to Christ, but his creation of new eternal creatures They are not only 15 years in the past, but seem stick in the binary Protestant view of the afterlife that has been around since ancient times, though they suppose themselves to be something of an expert with knowledge and truth exceeding church leaders and general membership.

Even so, as the saying goes, there are some people you just cant reach.

Thanks, -Wade Enguojnd-

 

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I don't know that either of us are in a position to speak on behalf of "we as a church,"  no matter what our prodigious egos may tell us.

However, speaking for myself, and what I have observed on this board and elsewhere, there are members, me somewhat included, who not only fail to fully understand that baptism is a gate to a path, but also how the cleansing that is a part of the baptismal gate, itself, is a form of salvation, let alone what all baptism symbolizes. 

The same seems to be the case with the notion of "rebirth",  "born again,"  or "born from above," which, interestingly enough, is the subject of this weeks Come Follow Me lesson.

Yet, the most serious deficit in understand that I have observed, approaching Nicodemus magnitude, is how certain members fail to grasp how this all relates to the resurrection and  multiple kingdoms therein. They don't get how this all points not only to Christ, but his creation of new eternal creatures They are not only 15 years in the past, but seem stick in the binary Protestant view of the afterlife that has been around since ancient times, though they suppose themselves to be something of an expert with knowledge and truth exceeding church leaders and general membership.

Even so, as the saying goes, there are some people you just cant reach.

Thanks, -Wade Enguojnd-

 

If you ever get off your high horse and want to discuss I'm game. Until then, goodbye!

[wenglund]

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

If you ever get off your high horse and want to discuss I'm game. Until then, goodbye!

My unwitting irony detector is spinning like a fan, which isn't good during cold weather.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, wenglund said:

My unwitting irony detector is spinning like a fan, which isn't good during cold weather.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are aware of the rules. Here they are as it pertains-

"4. No bickering and nit-picking toward others. Realize that sometimes it is very difficult to be able to express how one feels through written words. Please be courteous and ask for a further explanation, rather then trying to attack and find holes in someone else's post."

I was banned a week the last time you bickered with me. I'm not going there again. Good day.

[JohnsonJones]

11 hours ago, wenglund said:

I don't know that either of us are in a position to speak on behalf of "we as a church,"  no matter what our prodigious egos may tell us.

However, speaking for myself, and what I have observed on this board and elsewhere, there are members, me somewhat included, who not only fail to fully understand that baptism is a gate to a path, but also how the cleansing that is a part of the baptismal gate, itself, is a form of salvation, let alone what all baptism symbolizes. 

The same seems to be the case with the notion of "rebirth",  "born again,"  or "born from above," which, interestingly enough, is the subject of this weeks Come Follow Me lesson.

Yet, the most serious deficit in understand that I have observed, approaching Nicodemus magnitude, is how certain members fail to grasp how this all relates to the resurrection and  multiple kingdoms therein. They don't get how this all points not only to Christ, but his creation of new eternal creatures They are not only 15 years in the past, but seem stick in the binary Protestant view of the afterlife that has been around since ancient times, though they suppose themselves to be something of an expert with knowledge and truth exceeding church leaders and general membership.

Even so, as the saying goes, there are some people you just cant reach.

Thanks, -Wade Enguojnd-

 

I am reluctant to say that the Protestant view (or Catholic) is necessarily caught in the past.  I'd say it is more appropriate to perhaps say it is just not the complete plan of Salvation in relation to what the Church teaches.  We know after we leave this life that there are two locations we may end up...Spirit Paradise or Spirit Prison.  Many other Christian religions also believe this same dichotomy...except they call these two places heaven and hell.  Hence, they are not necessarily incorrect, but it is that they see the result right after this life as the eternal result thereof, rather than the next step.

It's merely a different terminology and way of understanding than those in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints possess. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by JohnsonJones