Stargazer

True! But one of the things that convinces me that there must be more than one degree in the Celestial Kingdom is that exaltation must require celestial marriage -- if not, then there will be exalted beings (i.e. single Gods and single Goddesses) who create spirits from intelligences without a partner. And those who happen to be single and female, the Goddesses in those cases, would set the Lord's prayer to start out "Our Mother who art in Heaven..." Or maybe She reveals Herself (falsely) as male, and insists Her spirit children call her Father. It makes no logical sense for an exalted being to be without a partner. If an exalted being can be either single or married, or, in other words, you don't need a partner, why bother with partners at all? It breaks the algorithm, in my humble opinion. So, DC 131:1-4 makes perfect sense to me.

I agree. But picking and choosing which ones we prefer, as opposed to which ones are true, as if there was a cafeteria somewhere, could be mighty shortsighted. As for Adam-God, I don't know if you've ever watched the Ward Radio YouTube channel, but they were discussing this the other month. If you're not familiar with Ward Radio, I have to warn you that it tries be entertaining as well as thoughtful, so be prepared for some cringy presentation (at least in my opinion). Oh, and by the way, one of the presenters in this episode, Austin Falter, in his youth, was an old home-teaching companion of mine. Great kid.

Needs a little more salt.

I guess I'm a little skeptical that to be true something needs to be stated more than once.

I disagree. Mothering is more than the physical act of bearing a child. My own mother died when I was seven, and my father remarried. My stepmother did not bear me, but she loved me as if I had been borne in her own body, and brought me up well. I am a product of both mothers, and love them both. But in the all important arena of upbringing, I argue that my stepmother had a greater influence than my birthmother. And there's good reason to suspect that there is a heavenly mother, just from the fact that God Himself told us to call Him Father. If there were no Mother, and only an omnipotent being who created us out of a desire to be worshipped, then He should have eschewed any such mere mortal title as Father.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but the revelatory statement does seem quite clearly different to your understanding. You need more than one revelatory statement in order to be convinced? D&C 131:1-4 -> 1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; 2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; 3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. 4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase. In the October 2023 General Conference, President Oaks's spoke and said: His understanding differs from yours, but perhaps he's wrong. Why are you unconvinced? I have to jump in and edit this because you explained yourself rather satisfactorily in a later post. Bravo! But I accept the doctrine as explicated in D&C 131:1-4. If it's wrongly canonical, then so be it. Fortunately, accepting it or not in this life is not a bar to exaltation. I don't think.

@JLHPROF menitoned in another thread that our understanding of the nature of the Godhead (and indeed, our theology in general) has progressed over time. Joseph Smith will certainly not have revealed in public everything he had learned through revelation, just as Paul, in 2 Cor 12:2-4 stated that he had been caught up to the third heaven, where he "heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." I feel that much of what Paul was forbidden to utter has been uttered in this dispensation -- here I'm pointing to D&C, PofGP, and such things as the King Follett Discourse. I'm actually puzzled that anyone could even consider the idea of a biologic process as a mechanism for creating spirit children. But there have been many things believed by the Saints that turned out to be incorrect, or at least misunderstood. Blood Atonement, for example. In King Follett Joseph made it extremely clear that there was no biologic mechanism in creating spirit children. It happens that King Follett is not canonized scripture, but there is canonized scripture that backs it up. D&C 93:29 states 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. Of course, this doesn't say "no biologic process," but it does say we are all co-eternal with God. Which Joseph in King Follett affirmed: In other words, we have leaders who have believed that Celestial glory may become available to all of God's children who inherit a kingdom of glory as they progress. You can see how these issues all work together. If progression remains open, then there is reason to believe that gender could not/should not be removed. Only if you believe that progression ends for some does it make sense that these characteristics might be lost. The family whose son brought me into the church believed that progression was possible, and I believed that as well at the time. The matter didn't really come up in my mind until recent years after a closer study of D&C 76. I've argued here before that there can be no progression between the kingdoms, for reasons which seemed to me decisive -- and I recall being told that if J. Reuben Clark said that there was progression between the kingdoms, being just a flea in spiritual comparison, who was I to contradict him? LOL! To which I pointed out that President Clark's statement is an opinion, not canon doctrine (if there can be said to be such in the Church). But I've since then modified my understanding, because you, @Benjamin McGuire, made me think it over further. Now I feel that while the Telestial Kingdom is a dead end in progression, one might be able to progress from the Terrestrial to the Celestial. But not to the highest level of the Celestial. I have what I feel are good reasons for believing this, but this might not be the thread to go over it. It's possible, however, that I could be persuaded to believe as Pres. Clark believed. I find that belief to be comfortable, even if I feel it is incorrect.

I don't find this problematic at all. If one tries to imagine who God really is, and no matter how sophisticated one might think one's thinking on it might be, one is going find in the end that one's understanding was comparable to an ant's understanding about the solar system. When Paul wrote about seeing through a glass, darkly, he was not kidding. Even with the spirit of prophecy we only see the rudiments. If our theology concerning the Godhead appears to be evolving, nothing could be truer, because line upon line, precept upon precept, we are still learning as a people who God is. I get really annoyed when my fellow Saints try to tell me that something Elder Widtsoe, President Joseph Fielding Smith, or any other general authority wrote or said a hundred years ago is the uttermost or final word about who God is. What did President Nelson say? The Restoration is ongoing; it has not reached its endpoint. We will continue to learn, as the Lord continues to teach us. There is more to know, corrections and expansions to be made -- but these will not occur until we are ready for them. Alma told Zeezrom that receiving further light and knowledge depends upon the heed and diligence we give to what has already been given (Alma 12): 9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And thus we progress and know more. The opposite is the case for those who reject what they have received, until they know nothing. Which is the fate of some of those whom we encounter who deny, dispute, and accuse. Alma goes on in verse 11: 11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. [emphasis added] I look forward to it -- though if this goes on for another century, I'll either be dead or translated. I feel that the only person in this dispensation who knew who God really is was Joseph Smith. But he was not only not allowed to tell us who He is, I don't think he even had the words to be able to do so. In my opinion, his King Follett discourse was the closest he could come to in trying to explain it. And since the text we have from it was not tape-recorded, but cobbled together from various hearers, we may not have it all in its particulars. The Apostle Paul probably saw what Joseph saw: I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. [2 Cor 12:2-4] But Paul was not allowed to tell what he saw; that was apparently something given to Joseph Smith to tell. Because the people then were not ready for it, and wouldn't be ready for it, since the Apostasy was even then oncoming.

Obviously, I'm not nonLDS, but I have to chime in here in a general sense. Don't trust any AI. Or, rather, trust but verify. As you know I have been cataloging pro-LDS YouTube channels. I've found a few anti-channels, too, and a few odd channels that mention Mormons or Mormonism occasionally or frequently. One of them is called The Solvanae. It says this about itself: "Your trusted source for documentary-style religious education and comparative theology. We explore Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, and world religions with honesty, respect, and depth. No bias, no propaganda—just facts, history, and understanding." Nice, I guess. The channel started in mid-August 2025 and posts every day. As of this moment it has 67 videos out there. But 26 videos out of that 67 concern LDS matters -- 39% of the output. The most recent one as of my post has the title "The Warlord Who Ate Hearts vs. The 8 Missionaries Who Refused to Leave". <-- It's a completely AI-generated video that uses some of the fictional story (and characters) from the Book of Mormon satirical musical, combined with some actual historical tragedies that occurred in Liberia. I didn't watch the whole thing, so there may be other items crammed into it from some other thing available on the web. If you want to be amazed, check out the channel. At first I thought the channel was fairly serious, and started to put together a response to one of their videos, but have since realized I'd be wasting my time. I can't wait to see what else the AI making the content comes up with, and considering the reliability of the information I've seen so far, I expect to be surprised. Don't trust ChapGPT. At least not further than you can throw it.

Many years ago a young man from my ward went on his mission to Germany, made it about half-way or less, and just decided he was done. So, he left his apartment (don't know if he told his companion or not), went to the nearest US Army base where there were recruiters, enlisted in the Army, and off he went. I never found out what happened ultimately because his father was a career soldier stationed at a local post, and was transferred elsewhere not terribly long thereafter. But the family was really upset, understandably. The young man was fairly unconventional in a number of ways, and quite an interesting character, so what happened with him didn't seem all that big a break from the usual! I prefer to think that everything worked out for them all, in the end. There's the opposite, of course. While ringing doorbells on my mission in Germany we ran into a member of the church who had been the Relief Society president in the local ward, and she went totally inactive years before because she resented being released from the calling. She was still resentful about it, but on the other hand, really missed church, wanting to come back, but felt too embarrassed about it all.

Have you ever read Moses 1 in the Pearl of Great Price? I'd guess not, given your talk of "a planet". Just in case you haven't bothered, here's some context: in vision, Moses was shown the earth, its lands, and all its people (v. 27-29). Then from v.33 to 38, Moses is shown much more: 33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. You see that it is way more than just "a planet." When the mockers mock, they like to strawman what an exalted being is given as a dominion. God goes on to explain this further: 34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. 35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. 36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content. 37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. 38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. As it says here, the Father has been creating worlds and populating them with his children for billions of years, and He'll keep doing it for billions more, without end, apparently. Why? Because that's His work: 39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Now, what do YOU think God's work is? Clearly He's not into kicking back and relaxing at his leisure. And when He finds those among his children who are worthy of taking up His work, they then inherit His work. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (Romans 8:17) What does it mean to you to inherit what God has, to be a joint-heir with Christ? To get your own planet? How limited! We're talking universes here, not paltry planets. It appears that they create their own universes and populate them with their own spirit children. But don't worry about it. I'm sure He'll be able to find other work for you to do.

As a convert I wondered about the RLDS, and was told by other members that it was started by opponents of Brigham Young, and that Emma joined it later when her son agreed to serve as prophet. I don't recall ever hearing others say that she was instrumental in starting it.

Some of us can be unlikeable at times, for sure. But for the most part, I tend to like most of us.

As someone living 7 hours ahead of Salt Lake time, we could never watch the Saturday evening session in real time without staying up well past midnight. So we shan't miss it much, I don't think.

Ah ha! Apparently this was done later than I had remembered. Though it seems to me that this policy change had already occurred by 2016 - because I had contemplated it, but it was not possible? On the other hand, we were married at very short notice, so perhaps timing issues made it infeasible? Wife will remember better, I hope. I'll check with her in the morning to see what she remembers. She's asleep at the moment, as it is past midnight here. I'm a night owl. Poking out this message in bed while under cover to not disturb her.

Of course you would say that. No surprised there.

No. And my use of the term "closeted" reflects yours, in that she did not hide her loss of faith, but was open about it. Were you hoping to tie me to something?

In my recent project collecting pro-LDS YouTube channels I've found some real gems. Here is a video that really impressed me...

Kate Kelly, for one, has gone areligious, though is not closeted about it at all. She's really gotten into feminist activism, including trying to get the ERA revived and added to the Constitution.

I'm happy to assume that is what they believed. The fact they were wrong and attempting to force a change against the Lord's will does not erase their good intentions. That they (or more to the point Kate Kelly) didn't accept the failure of the attempt and stay in the church suggests that there was a certain lack or loss of testimony going on there. Especially evidenced in her subsequent history, which post-excommunication has led her to come out as queer and begin a same-sex relationship with a Catholic woman, a writer who is pushing for ordination of women within the Catholic Church.

As I may have indicated already, just because a child doesn't understand how that baby got into mommy's tummy doesn't make that baby any less a "literal child of Mommy and Daddy".

That turns out to be not the case. There was an expectation among certain members of the church that the second coming would be very soon. Paul knew otherwise, that there would be an apostasy. He wrote about this, specifically to disabuse those members about their incorrect expectation. 1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (2 Thess 2:1-3) The author of Acts wrote about Peter healing a lame man on the steps of the temple, and in Peter's subsequent sermon to those who witnessed the miracle he said this, among others: 19 ¶ Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. (Acts 3:19-21) Both Peter and Paul knew that there would be a falling away that would require a restoration. In that 2nd letter to the Thessalonians Paul also wrote that the apostasy was already beginning. In John's revelation it was revealed to him that there were apostates and heretics already at work in the churches in Asia Minor. Do you seriously think that the members of the Twelve, who were under "live" instruction from the Lord for 40 days before Pentecost (see Acts chapter 1) were not told about all this already? Paul wrote all about the falling away that would come: 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Tim 4:1-3 emphasis added) Paul's admonition to the unmarried and widows in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 was not a general advisement to not marry. How could it be when he wrote in 1st Timothy that forbidding to marry was a sign of apostasy? It was advice for them to be like himself, who was either unmarried (either a widower or never married) or separated from his wife due to his mission, but keeping the law of chastity -- and of course if they couldn't hold themselves back in their desires, it was better to marry than burn. We don't actually know if Paul was ever married. In 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul indicated that he had the right to have a wife with him on his mission, as did Peter, and the other brethren. You might find it of interest that non-LDS authorities differ as to Paul's marital condition: Did Paul ever have a wife or children? (this guy says probably not -- couldn't find an attribution) Was the Apostle Paul Married? Yes, He Was. Here’s How We Know. (Author is Denny Burk, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College in Louisville, Kentucky) There is nothing in Paul's writings to suggest that people should not have children or change their jobs. Unless your research has turned up something I'm not aware of? And this would fall afoul of the original first commandment, which was to multiply and replenish the earth. Has God ever indicated that this commandment was to go into abeyance? What? Soy no entiendo. If it's good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for Stargazer. And what favor does it do God or ourselves if I don't use that metaphor? The favor of avoiding triggering oversensitive people?

Narrative? What narrative?

I don't know who is acquainted with the famous pianist Marvin Goldstein, a Jewish Latter-day Saint. I thought of putting this in the Music Thread, but it's an interview not a performance, so...

It used to be the case that one could be married for time only in the temple, and in the then handbook of instructions it even recommended that temple-worthy partners who could not be sealed together due to previous sealings be married for time only in the temple. I don't remember exactly when time-only temple marriages were discontinued, but in 2016 when I began to be thinking that I might propose to my now wife, I checked into this and was disappointed to discover that this had been ended.