ZealouslyStriving

Finite vs. Infinite? The question brings to mind a quote in a Doctrine and Covenants manual I found a couple of months back that threw me for a loop and meant to post as a discussion here: Orson Pratt (Journal of Discourses 17:331-332) The Lord wanted to represent these kingdoms so that we could understand what he desired to impart, and he gave it as a parable, in order to assist our weak comprehensions to understand something about Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and others of the various worlds that he has formed. Says the interrogator—"I do not comprehend this idea of the Lord's withdrawing from one and going to another." In order to comprehend this let us come back to our own globe. Do we not expect that the Lord will, by and by, come and visit us and stay a little while, about a thousand years. Yes, and then we shall be made glad with the joy of the countenance of our Lord. He will be among us, and will be our King, and he will reign as a King of kings and Lord of lords. He will have a throne in Zion, and another in the Temple at Jerusalem, and he will have with him the twelve disciples who were with him during his ministry at Jerusalem; and they will eat and drink with him at his table; and all the people of this globe who are counted worthy to be called Zion, the pure in heart, will be made glad by the countenance of their Lord for a thousand years, during which the earth will rest. Then what? He withdraws. What for? To fulfill other purposes; for he has other worlds or creations and other sons and daughters, perhaps just as good as those dwelling on this planet, and they, as well as we, will be visited, and they will be made glad with the countenance of their Lord. Thus he will go, in the time and in the season thereof, from kingdom to kingdom or from world to world, causing the pure in heart, the Zion that is taken from these creations, to rejoice in his presence. But there is another thing I want you to understand. This will not be kept up to all eternity, it is merely a preparation for something still greater. And what is that? By and by, when each of these creations has fulfilled the measure and bounds set and the times given for its continuance in a temporal state, it and its inhabitants who are worthy will be made celestial and glorified together. Then, from that time henceforth and forever, there will be no intervening veil between God and his people who are sanctified and glorified, and he will not be under the necessity of withdrawing from one to go and visit another, because they will all be in his presence." ** To me this seems to indicate that Pratt believed that all this mortality testing was not an infinite thing, but the the "worlds without end" is more of a "we cannot comprehend how vaste" thing that does eventually run it's course and everything eventually ends up in the eternal realms and no other earths will be needed. But maybe I'm reading too much into certain words or phrases. Thoughts? **

McGuire seems to imply, by my reading, and his objection to a previous post of mine, that we are not co-eternal beings with God- that our spirits were created and intelligence stuff (whatever that is) was stuffed inside wherein we became sentient beings with individual personalities. I want to know where that is clearly taught.

I'm a little slow... You are going to have to point out to me which part you believe supports McGuire's ideas.

One of the problems here is that you keep insisting that the Church has an authoritative position on the nature and origin of intelligences- but have yet to provide said statements. Your speculations, until proven otherwise, are no more valid than the speculations of others that you have browbeat over seeming to try and present church doctrine in this area.

My observations have been completely the opposite.

Through the sealing power of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood.

We don't believe that contemplating the mysteries of God and eternity and not getting our ideas 100% accurate is punishable by damnation ("leading people astray").

I find it extremely difficult to believe that the whole Ballard affair escaped, or was hidden from, the attention of Pres. Oaks, Pres. Christofferson, Elder Cook (Lawyers) or Elder Bednar.

I never challenged your discipleship and haven't mocked you (that I recall). You, though, leave the impression that anything contrary to your opinion is so utterly false that it is ridiculous to even consider, though you haven't yet offered up (from what I can see) an alternative idea on the subject- just your assertion that the idea (which is based on Ostler's understanding, not Fundamentalist teachings) is just obviously wrong. So, please, clarify your ideas on the eternal origin and progression of God, and in turn, mankind. Thanks.

If it was just a personal issue with Anderson, I get your point. But he is using a decades old memo that has provability issues to say there is a secret cabal within Church HQ actively seeking to cover up rampant SRA within the Church and implies that high up church leaders may be involved in that same SRA. That's where I have the issue.

🤷🏻‍♂️ OK

Yep, I seen enough Ballard apologists that I believe we can officially begin using the term "Ballardites".

... Nevermind...

Unfortunately a post by Ballard came across my FB news feed and, as suspected, he is using the Pace Memo as his source to claim the "Deep Church" is protecting and covering up SRA.

Many of the leading men of the Church who led the Saints to Utah were sealed to Joseph, their descendants became missionaries, Church leaders, etc... that took the Lord's Restored Gospel to the nations, and it has spread out from there to fill the world. It's really as simple as that.

For the third agenda. I just verified that that was the quote I was teasingly referring to.

Yeah. I meant it more as a tease. Should have put an "😉".

That one.

First, we need to establish with you the Latter-day Saint idea that they/we have always been gods- we are just here to determine if we will qualify for exaltation and further progress within that native godhood. If it is the Ostler line of thinking, it's probably along the lines that She/They, like Father God was/were so far advanced that She/They just was/were at the stage where, alongside Her/Their Husband, they had the knowledge and power to establish a plan whereby the other less advanced intelligences/spirits could begin advancing towards everything they have. If traditional thinking, She/They lived on an earth, married He who became our Father, kept Her/Their Covenants, and entered into exaltation. Neither scenario is established doctrine, so I would humbly request that you don't falsely represent either as Latter-day Saint theology.

I don't think you are understanding the argument.

Adam brought the wife of his choice with him. Journal of Discourses 1:52

Oui! 👍🏻

No... And I don't view myself as Joseph Smith's seed either. You are completely missing what I am saying because you refuse to actually get to know Latter-day Saint history and teachings. You just find things that you believe will achieve the most gotcha points.

Again, you are assuming one position as settled doctrine, when it has been pointed out several times that there are different schools of thought.

Is there any Christian community that teaches the possibility of His fertility?