Spiritual impressions


scottyg
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rhoades said:

Or maybe it was "you're done" without the "for now" because they were to feel complete and content and treat their 3 that way.  If the Lord also told them "for now" things wouldn't feel the same, which might influence their relationships and appreciation for their current state.

With that feeling, they didn't need to wonder or worry if they'd have another baby.  They could be content.  The spacing was good and perhaps necessary for their children.

If they wanted or expected another child for a couple of years there likely would have been stress and heartache until the baby finally arrived. Many parents and many who long to be parents have felt that hardship.  It's nice they didn't have to go through that.

After a season of being a family of 5, it became time to advance to another stage of life and you were blessed with another. Congrats!

Yeah, but it amount to the same thing.

I'm a firm believer in the Lord doesn't lie. But he also doesn't explain everything to us in detail, knowing we cannot understand. My point was simply that the strong feeling that we don't need to have another child may well be a "for now" thing, whether it's implicit in the feeling or not.

In some ways it's like going to a service project, feeling that the service was good, acceptable to the Lord, and it was time to go home now, and translating that feeling to "you never have to serve again"?

The Spirit may communicate decisions to us. The simple decision is to not have more children. But we take that feeling and translate it to "for the rest of our life!" Which may or may not have anything to do with what we were inspired for.

Another example might be something like... we come to a fork in the road. We pray to the Lord and ask which path is safer. We receive a clear impression to go left. Then we get into all sorts of danger and trauma. Others who took the right path tell us how safe and easy it was. So what's up with that? Well... first... the direction may not have been related to the mortal concerns we have. He may not have said, "the left is safer." He may have just said, "go left". We injected the safer idea. But...even more important... What does "safer" mean? We may have been in more physical peril. But maybe the safety with which the Lord was concerned was our soul's? Perhaps the physical trials protected us spiritually. We see examples of that sort of thing all over the place in scripture and church history. (Zion's camp, for example.)

So that's what I'm really getting at.

I don't believe the Lord tricks us through deception. But he doesn't reveal everything to us either. He says to trust Him and move forward.

Another more difficult example to explain (this one is based on real life): A pregnant sister in my ward testified that she had received revelation that she was going to have a little girl. Then....she had a boy. Literally the opposite of what she received revelation would be the case happened. My takeaway....she didn't actually receive revelation. She just had a thought and presumed it was revelation when it wasn't. But...I don't really know. I don't want to poo-poo other's spiritual experiences as invalid.*

*Well...in some cases I do. For example, another individual I knew said that they received revelation in the Celestial room in the temple that the church wasn't true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

For example, another individual I knew said that they received revelation in the Celestial room in the temple that the church wasn't true.

Don't you know?  If she received it in the Celestial room of the temple, it HAS to be valid revelation... waitaminute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before posting – I apologize for any discomfort I may cause.  It is not my intent.   I am not so concerned with doctrine but I try to understand teaching from the scriptures and prophets based on my best considerations, pondering and understandings which are all related to logic.  I do not pretend to know so much of spiritual things – only what I can related to logically.  I post to encourage pondering, asking questions, sharing ideas and expanding understanding.  Not to take away to but add to what we learn and discuss. 

 

Quote
On 2/27/2023 at 3:57 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

Does that mean you believe everyone willfully chose whether they will be in the the Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial kingdoms prior to mortality? And does that further mean that you believe that this life is not a test?

 

I do believe that this life is a test.  I have pondered why it is that we are all tested in different ways and for different things.  I have discovered that some are burdened with things they seem to not ever over come in this life but which are no temptations to me.  For example, alcohol and tobacco have never tempted me and I have always been repulsed not only by those substances but by others when indulging.  I would not ever smoke or drink even it there was no commandment or suggestion to abstain.

As an engineer I would create from requirements something I thought would fulfill those specific requirements.  I would put my design accomplishments to rigorous testing and then turn over my products to experts to test every detail.  Then I would release my products to customers that purchased my offerings.  If they found errors after I thought my efforts complete – I would review their errors against the requirements and if deficient I would correct the errors but had no obligation to fix anything that was not included in our requirements contract.  If such errors not covered by the contract requirements were desired to be fixed – then a new contract would be added with new requirements.

From scripture – I have pondered that in the pre-existence some of G-d’s children were more noble and more willing to covenant with G-d and take upon greater responsibilities than others in mortality.  The greatest example of this being Jehovah that took upon himself to be the Messiah and savior of all mankind.  I believe that it is quite possible that some agreed to take upon themselves the trials for Telestial Glory , other the trials of Terrestrial Glory and others the trials of Celestial Glory.  I do not know if this is true, but I believe it is possible.  I believe it is quite possible that we signed up for a particular Glory and covenanted with G-d to be tested according to the design of our desires.  Because of agency – I do not believe we can be tested for that to which we did not desire and covenant with G-d to do.

 

Quote

Can we procreate with Christ?

I think all things are possible with G-d – but I do not believe that Christ (and heaven) is order so.  I have pondered that Satan may be possible of such creations --- but I do no know what is possible.

 

Quote

What do you believe the important part of being "sealed" is?

I believe that the important thing about sealing is to overcome self and in so doing sacrifice ourselves for the benefit for specific others.  That we learn to function as a family and specific covenant member of a family.   I have pondered that all too often Christians think too much upon their rewards in heaven and not so much upon the compassion and love (sacrifice) that others may benefit – that we become servants and not so much recipients of Glory.

Quote

t doesn't logically resonate with you that one perfect, exalted, all-knowing, all-loving being might be no different than another perfect, exalted, all-knowing, all-loving being?

I do not know if any one individual becomes one perfect, exalted, all-knowing, all-loving being.  The scriptures reference G-d as plural and a oneness of purpose and intent.  We are told in scripture that we cannot be saved without our ancestors.  That the hearts of the children be turned to their fathers and the fathers turned to their children otherwise all will be wasted before Christ.

Quote

Have you forgotten that we've gone the rounds on this many, many times, with many frustrated feelings following?

I'll pose my responses as questions. You can justify your position in response as you like. But I'll forgo countering those positions.

Anyhow, I'd be surprised if you cannot recall my view on these matters. I've expressed it to you in great detail.

I am sorry that my suggestions have been a frustration for you.  I have never regrated or been disappointed with any conversation I have had with you (and others of this forum).  I particularly find your posts a delight and thank you for your inputs.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

I think all things are possible with G-d – but I do not believe that Christ (and heaven) is order so. 

I'll grant this point as a generic, though I personally believe there's more to it. I know the "all things are possible with God" idea is scriptural...but one must always consider the sort of idea, "Can God make something so heavy that even He cannot lift it?"

More important would be the idea, "Can God sin?" And also, "Can God save someone in their sins?" Expressions abound in the scriptures where God "cannot" do this or that. Where we are explicitly taught that we can trust that these sorts of things cannot be. ("for God cannot be tempted with evil" James 1:13, "he cannot walk in crooked paths; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; neither hath he a shadow of turning from the right to the left, or from that which is right to that which is wrong; " Alma 7:20, "I, the Lord, promise the faithful and cannot lie" D&C 62:6, etc.)

So it's all fine and dandy to consider the science of it or to semantically twist the ideas into whim (as in suggesting God "can" sin, but He chooses not to.) Suggesting that all things are possible means that God could cast away His power and authority by choosing sin tomorrow seems flawed.

I don't believe the "order" of things is God's whim either. The order of procreation, I believe, is eternal. Male and female. So I would suggest, no, we cannot procreate with Christ. It takes male and a female. We are sealed to one another, male and female, to that end. That's what I'm getting at. Clearly that is not the end-all of sealing. But it is an important component of it I think.

As a reminder of the discussion point, you said, " if it was not important who we are individually sealed to – why not just be sealed to Christ alone?" My suggestion is that it is important that we are sealed to a member of the opposite sex for the sake of eternal procreation, and that is one of only two keys that matter in that regard. The second being that said person is exalted as well. Beyond that, I tend to think that it won't matter who we are sealed to, for one perfect individual is as perfect as another.

Since I reject your view of pre-committed agency as to who we are sealed to, I reason it thusly: We choose in this life who we are sealed in marriage to. The individual who we choose may, or may not, exercise their agency to gain exaltation. If we exercise our agency to that end and they do not then we must still be sealed to someone in order to gain our exaltation. Additionally there are many who choose righteousness but never have the opportunity to be sealed in marriage in this life. And when it comes to that time where we must be sealed, are worthy of it, but are not for reasons beyond our control....?

Well I'm not sure how it will all work out but it doesn't matter to me. My point is that God could simply arrange all such marriages and it would lead to the same perfect joy in exaltation as were we to mingle, date, and select based on...well...based on what? If all women involved are, at that time, perfectly perfect, then what characteristics, exactly, are we using to choose one above the other?

I suggest this thinking based entirely upon my reason, not my feelings. I feel, strongly, (as I believe we all do) that my wife, individually, matters and that being sealed to her, specifically, matters to me a great deal. But I also must trust that if she ultimately fails to achieve exaltation that I will not be left out to dry for that reason alone. And that despite her choices, I will have eternal joy if I choose to follow Christ in obedience. My eternal joy is not dependent upon her choices (even though it often feels in this life as if our eternal joy is dependent on others choices.)

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

I do believe that this life is a test. 

It seems like you're suggesting two ideas that feel contradictory. 1. We choose everything about this life in the pre-existence. 2. This life is a test.

How does that work out? Correct my misunderstanding. Because it feels as if you are saying that the pre-existence was the test where we exercised our agency to select everything about this life, and now we're just riding the wave of those choices. Am I misunderstanding?

Another question:

How do you reconcile your idea that knowledge is requisite for agency with the concept of faith?

You claim we cannot use our agency to choose without knowledge. But it strikes me that the entire test of mortality is just that. We are intentionally put behind a veil, intentionally deprived of knowledge, and then tested upon whether we will use our agency to exercise faith without knowledge to choose obedience.

And, just so we're clear, obviously some knowledge is required for agency. I don't reject that. We must have some level of knowledge in order to be accountable (accountability being a key component of agency). The point where we seem to differ is whether we need explicit knowledge of every little thing in order to exercise agency in every little thing. For example. God commands us to climb a mountain. We don't know what's up the mountain. But based on our trust in God, we exercise our agency to go up the mountain. Or based on our lack of trust in God we refuse. The lack of knowledge about the mountain doesn't seem important.

So another question:

Is the use of agency important in every choice we make -- large or small?

I would suggest not. But what think ye?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

it feels as if you are saying that the pre-existence was the test where we exercised our agency to select everything about this life, and now we're just riding the wave of those choices. Am I misunderstanding?

His most recent post in this thread reads differently, but I agree that earlier and elsewhere, this is exactly what it seems like he's saying.  And I agree with your conclusion - "riding the wave".

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You claim we cannot use our agency to choose without knowledge. But it strikes me that the entire test of mortality is just that. We are intentionally put behind a veil, intentionally deprived of knowledge, and then tested upon whether we will use our agency to exercise faith without knowledge to choose obedience.

Agreed.  Though I would argue that really it's whether we will choose better or worse (some have no idea what faith or obedience to God means, but all have the Light of Christ to inform them of better and worse).

I like the following explanation of our mortal test.  It's from Nibley and comes after he talks about how (a) research says the mortal mind can only think about one thing at a time, and (b) God doesn't have this limitation:

Quote

But why this crippling limitation on our thoughts if we are God's children? It is precisely this limitation that is the essence of our mortal existence. If every choice I make expresses a preference, if the world I build up is the world I really love and want, then with every choice I am judging myself, proclaiming all the day long to God, angels, and my fellowmen where my real values lie, where my treasure is, the things to which I give supreme importance. Hence, in this life every moment provides a perfect and foolproof test of your real character, making this life a time of testing and probation.

-- Hugh Nibley, Approaching Zion, Chapter 3 "Zeal Without Knowledge"

If I planned it all out in my pre-mortal life, with full knowledge, and in the (surely overwhelming) company of God, then I am not here making choices or following a plan (you cannot intentionally follow what you cannot remember), rather, God is manipulating me (and everyone and everything, including this keyboard I'm typing on) to ensure I "experience" the plan.  Nope, my own personal desires only come out through not remembering, not being overwhelmed by the presence of God, being given choices, allowed to experience both good and evil, and deciding for myself which one I prefer and to what degree.

Now, Traveler's latest twist is an interesting idea, and doesn't at first seem to require the fully-detailed plan or wave-riding:

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have pondered that in the pre-existence some of G-d’s children were more noble and more willing to covenant with G-d and take upon greater responsibilities than others in mortality.  The greatest example of this being Jehovah that took upon himself to be the Messiah and savior of all mankind.  I believe that it is quite possible that some agreed to take upon themselves the trials for Telestial Glory , other the trials of Terrestrial Glory and others the trials of Celestial Glory.  I do not know if this is true, but I believe it is possible.  I believe it is quite possible that we signed up for a particular Glory and covenanted with G-d to be tested according to the design of our desires.  Because of agency – I do not believe we can be tested for that to which we did not desire and covenant with G-d to do.

But I'm having a hard time figuring out how it would work without the fully-detailed plan and wave-riding.  What's more, I don't think it was necessary.  See Nibley's quote.  I think we are sent here as we are (as the spirit has become through their efforts in the pre-mortal life).  I think the plan is simply that we experience good and evil with sufficient freedom to choose one or the other, repeatedly.  And though it's likely unpopular with many people, you don't need much freedom to make this choice.  After long enough, the pattern will be set, the choice made, and it will continue after this life.  At that point, we'll be able to stand (or cower) in the presence of God and say, "Thy ways are just," and agree with whatever judgement He hands down - "yep, turns out that really is what I wanted all along."

(I'm avoiding exceptions to the rule because I don't want to get bogged down in them, and yes, I think there are probably exceptions.  In the end, I mostly think we're all so ignorant on these things that this is mostly pointless, but I'm going to hit "Submit Reply" anyway.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, zil2 said:

His most recent post in this thread reads differently

Yeah. There seem to be some consistency issues in his expressions.

14 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Though I would argue that really it's whether we will choose better or worse (some have no idea what faith or obedience to God means, but all have the Light of Christ to inform them of better and worse).

I don't tend to think this way. It's part of the equation, to an extent, but I think there are way too many examples of people being born into terrible things who then perpetuate those terrible things to suggest that we all intuitively understand better or worse. In point of fact, I think we all intuitively are inclined towards the worse. The Light of Christ fights against that natural tendency...but can be easily drowned out by it, and often by things not of our choosing. Moreover, the condition whereby we gain salvation is very clearly set, and it is not whether we choose better or the worse in the aggregate. That idea aligns too closely with us earning our own salvation to my thinking. The condition of salvation is not self improvement. Self improvement is a result. But it's not the condition set. The condition is to accept Christ. Granted, part of accepting Christ is the effort to self-improve. But, once again, not the condition. I believe there are those who will have spent a life-time self-improving who will, by virtue of pride, have rejected Christ and will therefore not gain their exaltation. Alternatively, I think there will be those who failed in a myriad of ways to self improve for various reasons, but who will humbly accept Christ, who will gain exaltation.

In point of fact, I would say it's much more accurate to state what you did here by inserting the words "try to" into it: "really it's whether we will [try to] choose better or worse". But even then, that does no good if we reject Christ. With all the good choices in the world, if we fail in that one....

FWIW I do not agree with Nibley's statement either, according to what I'm suggesting here. I can go into this further if you're interested. But for now I'll just leave it with what I've explained here and see what you think.

33 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Now, Traveler's latest twist is an interesting idea, and doesn't at first seem to require the fully-detailed plan or wave-riding:

Yeah, but there's a fatal flaw in @Traveler's theory in my opinion. None of us experienced what it was to be exalted. So how could we, according to his view, choose whether we wanted that glory or not? If what he's suggesting is correct then to truly exercise agency we'd all have to be exalted and be sons of perdition, etc., before choosing which test we'd be given so we'd know what we were choosing. And it just doesn't work that way. None of us know what being exalted will be like until we're exalted. Hence, we have to choose that based on faith.

36 minutes ago, zil2 said:

you don't need much freedom to make this choice.

Fully agreed.

So many people seem to equate "freedom" and "agency" as if they're one and the same. And then they go even further (as Traveler has done, I believe) and apply agency to everything as if it's the most important thing in every choice we make. All of this is flawed thinking to me.

I've explained this before so apologies if I'm repeating, but:

Agency is much more related to accountability than it is to freedom. It requires the ability to choose (freedom), of course, but it's not merely "FREEDOM!!!!"

There is only one application of agency that actually matters in gospel terms. One's ability to be an agent unto themselves in their choice of breakfast cereal is not what we're talking about (except to whatever extent choosing breakfast cereal affects one's understanding of good and evil). This is drawn out pretty clearly in scripture.

"And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil;" 2 Nephi 2:27

THAT ^ is the agency we're speaking of. We choose Christ or we choose the devil. We choose humility or we choose pride. We choose obedience or we choose disobedience. We choose repentance or we continue in our sins.

It is not the application of those choices that really makes the difference. We will do evil as mortal men. The condition set is whether we choose evil. Of course that's semantics again. But hopefully my point comes across. In life, we are fallen. We will be fallen. We cannot not be fallen. What we can do...choose Christ. I cannot express how often I've "tried" to do right only to cause harm (evil). I must trust that those instances are not to my damnation, and that only my evil choices count.

Where any choice is available to be made in these matters then our agency counts. And, as you state, you only need the freedom to that end. You don't need much freedom...just enough to choose Christ. The more freedom, of course, the more accountability (but only relative to our understanding of Christ and His commandments). But no one has complete freedom. And certainly, it can be reasoned, that we don't need much freedom to choose Christ or not.

Traveler seems to think that if we're born into whatever situation it must be because we exercised agency to choose it. But agency in all things isn't a doctrine that's ever been taught. He states agency is "the number one doctrine of our intelligent pre-existence". But then seems to translate that to mean everything we ever have put upon us must be by our own choice. I see it differently. The agency that is "the number one doctrine", as he puts it, was the same in the pre-existence as it is here. It's whether we accepted Christ or not. Also...there's another flaw in Traveler's view: since so much of what is put upon is from the agency others exercise, how can we possibly have chosen that without stepping on other's agency?

No other choice but that of choosing Christ ultimately matters.* And I think it's a serious problem to conflate all choice with that most imperative one.

*obviously other choices matter. They just don't "ultimately" matter. I mean if you stick your hand in a wood chipper, you lose your hand. That matters. But it doesn't ultimately matter if you have chosen Christ.

37 minutes ago, zil2 said:

"yep, turns out that really is what I wanted all along."

Fwiw, I have never accepted this kind of narrative. It gets too much into semantics to really be much of a useful debate in most cases. And it's probably partly because I'm old-school in my religious thinking. But I simply don't believe that if I fail to reach the Celestial Kingdom that I'll be hunky dory with it. Nor do I believe that my desperate feelings that I want to go to the Celestial Kingdom will be sufficient to qualify me for it. Once again, I'd change what you're stating to the following: "yep, turns out that really is what [was correct for me] all along." Using the word "wanted" gets into too much semantic mud.

43 minutes ago, zil2 said:

(I'm avoiding exceptions to the rule because I don't want to get bogged down in them, and yes, I think there are probably exceptions.  In the end, I mostly think we're all so ignorant on these things that this is mostly pointless, but I'm going to hit "Submit Reply" anyway.)

Haha. I do that all the time.

In point of fact, I very often just give up and hit "Submit Reply" before really detailing out my thoughts....as I'm about to do.......right............now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zil2, btw, I apologize for falling into any habitual phrasings that may come across poorly. For example, I'll write,  "I simply don't believe..." instead of "In my opinion..." or "I think/believe..."

I know sometimes the way I write can come across badly, patronizing or rude. I've been working on improving that, but when I get to writing a lot instead of a short answer I am more likely to fall back into said habits. So I thought in this case instead of going back in and editing even more than I have already, I'd simply ask for your understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't tend to think this way. It's part of the equation, to an extent, but I think there are way too many examples of people being born into terrible things who then perpetuate those terrible things to suggest that we all intuitively understand better or worse. In point of fact, I think we all intuitively are inclined towards the worse. The Light of Christ fights against that natural tendency...but can be easily drowned out by it, and often by things not of our choosing. Moreover, the condition whereby we gain salvation is very clearly set, and it is not whether we choose better or the worse in the aggregate. That idea aligns too closely with us earning our own salvation to my thinking. The condition of salvation is not self improvement. Self improvement is a result. But it's not the condition set. The condition is to accept Christ. Granted, part of accepting Christ is the effort to self-improve. But, once again, not the condition. I believe there are those who will have spent a life-time self-improving who will, by virtue of pride, have rejected Christ and will therefore not gain their exaltation. Alternatively, I think there will be those who failed in a myriad of ways to self improve for various reasons, but who will humbly accept Christ, who will gain exaltation.

FWIW, this understanding of what I wrote is not what I intended to communicate.  I'll ponder how to better communicate what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
2 hours ago, zil2 said:
2 hours ago, zil2 said:

But why this crippling limitation on our thoughts if we are God's children? It is precisely this limitation that is the essence of our mortal existence. If every choice I make expresses a preference, if the world I build up is the world I really love and want, then with every choice I am judging myself, proclaiming all the day long to God, angels, and my fellowmen where my real values lie, where my treasure is, the things to which I give supreme importance. Hence, in this life every moment provides a perfect and foolproof test of your real character, making this life a time of testing and probation.

 

 

This is a thought that occurred to me while reading the quote from Nibley in Zil’s post. Its not a view I’m committed to, its just a thought that occurred and I haven’t thought it through in any detail yet.

It may be that the validity of this method of testing might be influenced by the fact that the test is taking place in a very artificial environment where there are a number of conditions present that will not be present in the longer term environment in which we will all one day dwell. How many of our decisions in this life are driven by the need to satisfy physical desires which will not be present in the same way in the next life? Ideally, a good test mirrors as closely as possible the future operating environment, and to the extent that it does not, the validity of the testing process comes into question.

Edited by askandanswer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

None of us experienced what it was to be exalted. So how could we, according to his view, choose whether we wanted that glory or not? If what he's suggesting is correct then to truly exercise agency we'd all have to be exalted and be sons of perdition, etc., before choosing which test we'd be given so we'd know what we were choosing. And it just doesn't work that way. None of us know what being exalted will be like until we're exalted. Hence, we have to choose that based on faith.

I agree with this.  Consider that in the temple, we're given a chance to leave if we're unwilling to make covenants, but that opportunity is offered before we're given any details about the covenants.  This need for faith and trust is obviously critical to how God works with us.

I expect we agree on a lot, and perceive a few things differently, and language is in the way, and God may be laughing at our silliness...

Whatever else is true, I agree with you that the single most important choice, by far, is to choose Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@zil2, btw, I apologize for falling into any habitual phrasings that may come across poorly. For example, I'll write,  "I simply don't believe..." instead of "In my opinion..." or "I think/believe..."

I know sometimes the way I write can come across badly, patronizing or rude. I've been working on improving that, but when I get to writing a lot instead of a short answer I am more likely to fall back into said habits. So I thought in this case instead of going back in and editing even more than I have already, I'd simply ask for your understanding.

:)  No worries.  I don't remember ever being offended by your approach.  I may disagree with how you see things, but I don't remember finding you offensive (and haven't in this thread), so we're good - from my perspective.  Appreciate that you're making an effort to improve your habits, though - I'm trying to do the same.  (My bad habit being spouting my nonsense as if it were eternal truth.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2023 at 4:24 AM, scottyg said:

ve thought about if for a couple of years now and it still befuddles me; God is omniscient, so why would I receive an impression from Him that was contradictory to, or inconsistent with what would ultimately happen?

This experience reminds me of some of the many times when it seems to appear as if God has changed His mind

See 2nd Kings 20: 1 - 6 

1 In those days was aHezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt bdie, and not live.

2 Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed unto the Lord, saying,

3 I beseech thee, O Lord, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore.

4 And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying,

5 Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will aheal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the Lord.

6 And I will add unto thy adays fifteen years;

Doctrine and Covenants 56:4

4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and arevoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the brebellious, saith the Lord.

And all the many instances that turn up when you do a search of the Old Testament using the words Lord repent such as (one of many examples)

Exodus 32:14

14 aAnd the Lord brepented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

I'm not saying that any of these particular conditions apply to what happened to @scottyg, althought they might. I'm just putting them forth as examples of when it seems as if the Lord appears to have changed His mind. It seems as if some of these appearance of change have come about as a result of something that somebody did, ie, the Lord seems to be reacting to the faith and pleas of His children. 

Edited by askandanswer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

Ideally, a good test mirrors as closely as possible the future operating environment, and to the extent that it does not, the validity of the testing process comes into question.

What that tells me is that what we think is being tested is probably not what's being tested.

At it's core, the test is given in Abraham 3:

"And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;"

But if we're testing our capacity to obey in mortality, you're right... the conditions of the Celestial Kingdom don't match. We're being tested to see if we can obey when blind. That doesn't match up with the idea of being perfect, all knowing, and all powerful. Some people want to try and connect the dots. Like if we can do the lesser thing, then it qualifies us for the greater. I'm not sure that's the connection. I don't know what the connection is. But the implication of the lesser test implies a greater test. And we know that isn't the case. This is THE test. Pass it and we pass.

The other line people try to draw is learning to be like God to become like God. That is a pretty spurious connection in regards to "the test" though. I don't deny the fact that every way we can learn to be more like God helps us along our paths to become more like God. That's a given. (Though, even then, it's a hard line to connect...since as you pointed out, we're in the artificial environment where we hunger, etc.). But it isn't the test. The test isn't whether we can be like God. We can't. The test is whether we can obey God in faith while blinded by the veil. But God isn't blinded by a veil and isn't subject to anything. Yeah...I know. He's subject to "eternal law" in theory. Maybe. We don't really understand that.

Interesting thought on your part.

I'm just not sure on the connection. But people do (including myself) try and reason out the mysteries of God with mortal reasoning. Seems bound to fail in many cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

FWIW, this understanding of what I wrote is not what I intended to communicate.  I'll ponder how to better communicate what I mean.

I many have injected some interpretations based on what seems to be a common trope I hear. That is to say, the idea that becoming more like God is what this life is all about. We are meant to strive to be like God. That is obvious. It's commanded. But it seems like a lot of people, then, conflate this idea with the conditions of salvation. I guess I read that into what you'd written incorrectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

Ideally, a good test mirrors as closely as possible the future operating environment, and to the extent that it does not, the validity of the testing process comes into question.

I will try to find the reference, but I remember one of the Latter-day prophets saying that the next life will mirror in many ways what we are doing on earth now...but without sin holding us back we can participate in greater forms and/or levels of learning, creation, joy, etc...

Agency (defined spiritually) is choosing Christ over the things of this world, and many circumstances will arise throughout our lives that will try our faith in various ways. Staying true to the Lord will ultimately bring the best possible blessings for us and our families. 

Edited by scottyg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

I'm not saying that any of these particular conditions apply to what happened to @scottyg, althought they might. I'm just putting them forth as examples of when it seems as if the Lord appears to have changed His mind. It seems as if some of these appearance of change have come about as a result of something that somebody did, ie, the Lord seems to be reacting to the faith and pleas of His children. 

This is true. Sometimes we only receive blessings if we ask for them. And such things can over time have great impacts, and change the course of our lives. God knows what would happen either way, but we get to choose. Perhaps something occurred in the space of a few years that changed the course of our family, and altered the impression that I originally had. What that would be I do not know, but I do know that God cannot lie. So if my impression was real, He would have a valid explanation as to why things turned out different...and I look forward to hearing His answer one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, scottyg said:

This is true. Sometimes we only receive blessings if we ask for them. And such things can over time have great impacts, and change the course of our lives. God knows what would happen either way, but we get to choose. Perhaps something occurred in the space of a few years that changed the course of our family, and altered the impression that I originally had. What that would be I do not know, but I do know that God cannot lie. So if my impression was real, He would have a valid explanation as to why things turned out different...and I look forward to hearing His answer one day.

Do you know if your wife ever prayed for a 4th child?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I many have injected some interpretations based on what seems to be a common trope I hear. That is to say, the idea that becoming more like God is what this life is all about. We are meant to strive to be like God. That is obvious. It's commanded. But it seems like a lot of people, then, conflate this idea with the conditions of salvation. I guess I read that into what you'd written incorrectly.

I believe salvation is a gift made possible by Christ and is conditioned only on our repentance (which implies faith in Him and offering a broken heart and contrite spirit).  Does that address this concern, or am I mis-reading you?

"Works" are a completely different matter.  I don't know if we want to delve into their purpose, but they must have one - scripture seems clear to me, that God asks us to do stuff, the Church teaches us to do stuff, and both teach that doing stuff is important.  But doing stuff isn't what gets us resurrected, exalted, saved, or anything else (except maybe becoming a son of perdition, maybe that's accomplished by doing something).

Anywho, let me know if I'm misunderstanding that issue, since we need to clarify that before I could hope to clarify what I was trying to say (and what I think that Nibley quote is saying).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, zil2 said:

"Works" are a completely different matter.

Repentance is a works. So I'm not sure it's a completely different matter.

12 minutes ago, zil2 said:

But doing stuff isn't what gets us resurrected, exalted, saved, or anything else (except maybe becoming a son of perdition, maybe that's accomplished by doing something).

I don't agree with this. Doing stuff is, indeed, what "gets us" all that stuff (semantically dependent). It's simply not a one to one relationship. Christ is the go-between. We do stuff because He commands it. We must do that stuff. It's the condition He set. No one can legitimately make the argument that we can do nothing and be saved. It's semantics when we throw in phrases like "earn", like "do we earn salvation?" Anyhow, it's the wrong question. The question is simply, what must we do? And the understanding should be that despite what we do, we cannot be saved without Christ. But neither can we be saved without doing stuff. What we do very much matters. So I may be quibbling over what you're saying with "gets us", but I think it's important. The covenant path is key. I have no problem seeing it as key.

18 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Anywho, let me know if I'm misunderstanding that issue, since we need to clarify that before I could hope to clarify what I was trying to say

I'm not saying works aren't requisite. I'm saying that becoming is the result, not the key. The key is accepting Christ and doing all that we can to do His will. The result is becoming more like Him.

I'm trying to saying that when we stand to be judged, how much we are like Christ isn't the key. There will be some who are very far along that path and some who are not very far. But that won't matter. What will matter is that we accepted and then strove faithfully to follow Him.

Is that any more clear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Repentance is a works. So I'm not sure it's a completely different matter.

Works other than repentance, broken heart, contrite spirit?

I'm beginning to think that one of us is describing the forest from underneath amid the trees, and the other is describing the forest from above looking down on the canopy, but we both see the forest and know it's made of trees...

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm saying that becoming is the result, not the key. The key is accepting Christ and doing all that we can to do His will. The result is becoming more like Him.

Well, I'm confused then about what I said that disagrees with this...

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

There will be some who are very far along that path and some who are not very far. But that won't matter. What will matter is that we accepted and then strove faithfully to follow Him.

Is that any more clear?

What's not clear is where my previous post disagreed with this, since this is pretty much what I was trying to say...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

Do you know if your wife ever prayed for a 4th child?

She says she didn't, and was actually happy at the thought of never being pregnant again. Never had nausea or odd food cravings, but also had very little energy while pregnant alongside terrible back pain and uterine cramps. When she got pregnant again she was actually quite depressed for several weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Well, I'm confused then about what I said that disagrees with this...

 

4 minutes ago, zil2 said:

What's not clear is where my previous post disagreed with this, since this is pretty much what I was trying to say...

Sometimes it's hard to follow the thread of where things came from and went, what was said in response to what, etc., etc. So I'm not sure. But...I'm not sure agreement was the issue at hand here.....in this...case.......??  I believe you were asking if I thought you understood my point clearly, and I wasn't sure you fully did, so I was making efforts to ensure it was clear. I don't think, in this particular case, I was disagreeing with anything, per se. If you understood my latest comment on that matter and agree with it then I believe we've come to where we wanted to be.

I did disagree with the comment on "doing stuff", but even then I admit it was a semantic thing.

That being said, I'm not trying to debate. I'm just sharing my view. I'd love you to express more on what you're trying to say and your thoughts on the Nibley quote. I did say I disagreed with Nibley, per my understanding of what he said. But that doesn't mean I interpreted it correctly, or that you're interpreting it in the same way I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That being said, I'm not trying to debate. I'm just sharing my view. I'd love you to express more on what you're trying to say and your thoughts on the Nibley quote. I did say I disagreed with Nibley, per my understanding of what he said. But that doesn't mean I interpreted it correctly, or that you're interpreting it in the same way I did.

I'll ponder.  I was trying to see if we could reach understanding on that one point before going back to our exchange that initially included the Nibley quote.  I'm wondering now if the only disagreement and / or misunderstanding is simply in how we express the same idea...  Anywho, I'll review the earlier exchange later and ponder some more to see if I can explain anything further / differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share