Jump to content

Nofear

Members
  • Posts

    2,170
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nofear

  1. No revelation has been given to the Church with regards to the possibility (or impossibility) of advancement between kingdoms ("kingdom hopping"). Different Brethren have had different opinions. For example, Melvin J. Ballard wrote a small booklet "Three Degrees of Glory" (https://archive.org/details/threedegreesofgl00ballrich/page/4/mode/1up?view=theater) where he argues against it. Others have been more open to it. I personally tend to side with advancement between kingdoms.
  2. Jonathan Haidt has resigned from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) when he was asked to violate my quasi-fiduciary duty to the truth. "I was surprised to learn about a new rule: In order to present research at the conference, all social psychologists are now required to submit a statement explaining “whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP.” Our research proposal would be evaluated on older criteria of scientific merit, along with this new criterion." (https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/the-two-fiduciary-duties-of-professors/) It can well be argued that BYU is doing a similar thing. In his opinion an institution can really only have one telos, say, "truth" or "social justice", but not both. On the other hand, if we accept Joseph Smith's assertion, the two positions do not conflict. “Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft. … Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.” -- Joseph Smith I personally think it better to simply let the professors pursue truth and to the extent that they do so, it will align with the Gospel (and potentially further refine our sometimes-not-so-quite-great understanding of the Gospel). The point being is let us not use an external criteria (correct or not) for truth but to simply let it be organically validated by external criteria that are true (e.g. the Gospel). Those that argue social justice might well say the same thing. Let reality prove it and not dogma (irrespective of the correctness of the dogma).
  3. This is what I got from Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling. This article says much the same: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2017/10/the-triumph-and-glory-of-the-lamb-doctrine-and-covenants-76-in-its-historical-context?lang=eng
  4. LDS asserts that the earth will receive a Celestial Glory and be inhabited by those of the Celestial Kingdom (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/37-millennium-and-glorification-of-the-earth?lang=eng). We do not know locations for the other kingdoms. We also do not know the location of the premortal realm aside from the idea that we dwelt in the presence of our Heavenly Parents. Much of the basics of our mostly universalist theology is contained in D&C 76. Joseph was absolutely enthralled by this revelation. Curiously, it was not entirely well received by the Church membership in its day.
  5. Judgey much? If the Roman Catholics want to pay him, that's their business. (And angelologist may just be a side gig or hobby to his regular eoclesiastical duties.}
  6. Don't disagree. Ex nihilo isn't LDS doctrine. Just tried to think how those that subscribe to it might view things. I personally think it one of the most pernicious theological concepts ever to afflict humaity.
  7. If God creates individuals ex nihilo, He can say, "I'll need such and such person in such and such year and plan it accordingly."
  8. In support of your comment: https://www.denverpost.com/2013/12/20/angels-have-no-wings-says-catholic-angelologist/
  9. I suppose some language is used differently. Different individuals in the scriptures and contemporary prophets have used different terms in slightly (and sometimes not so slightly) different ways. I try not to get hung up on linguistic hedges. Culturally we tend to use the terms justification and sanctification over "born again" but I'm ok with that term too. Even with different "definitions" of justification and sanctification, like you, Elder Christofferson view them as parts of the same process. "While justification and sanctification may be viewed as distinct topics, in reality I believe they are elements of a single divine process that qualifies us to live in the presence of God the Father and Jesus Christ," (Justification and Sanctification).
  10. For what it's worth we Latter-day Saints don't know how the Atonement works. We have analogies this and analogies that, but ultimately they all fall short. What we do know (including myself from personal experience) is that the Atonement is real and it does work. For us, it is an ongoing process and not an all-at-once-everything-everywhere thing. Being "born again" is a process.
  11. 1) they have been changed and renewed by the Atonement and 2) they voluntarily choose to abide the laws and principles of that Kingdom -- not by persuasion, compulsion, or any other external or biological mechanism but because the individuals choose to do so by their nature No, we don't know everything about what those two statements mean specifically. The closest we get is "perfected in Christ". We won't be saved in our sins, but from our sins. If the sinful nature persists and we are rewarded despite that, that would be saving in our sins. If, however, our sinful nature is changed/removed/crucified that is being saved from our sins.
  12. In some respects I can agree with that, in other respects not-so-much. Children are known to behave better when in the active presence of a parental figure. Consequently, in coming to mortality we were given an opportunity to have memory of and that undeniable parental presence removed. Doing so, we are able to see from a different perspective what kind of person we are. A test of sorts. Not a test in a pass/fail kind of sense but a test to more carefully discern properties. Subject to that test, we have all be found wanting in some manner and in need of assistance (the atonement) to realize our full potential.
  13. In theory sinlessness is possible. But, only one person actually actualized that possibility -- the rest of need/needed/will need help, often a lot of help. Note, however, that being sinless is not exactly the same as perfection. Compare Matthew 5:48 and 3 Nephi 12:48 for some insight into that.
  14. My understanding of the doctrine is entirely different than what you suggest. The resurrection doesn't change us in that way. We will still have our agency and our new resurrected body in no way will remove that agency (indeed, I quite suspect that much of what we don't have control over we'll have control over (e.g. whether or not to sneeze)). Those that qualify for the Celestial Kingdom will be there because they have been changed and renewed by the Atonement and voluntarily choose to abide the laws and principles of that Kingdom -- not by persuasion, compulsion, or any other external or biological mechanism but because the individuals choose to do so by the nature -- a nature wrought anew ("born again") by the Atonement.
  15. My personal interpretation is that Satan would simply have our biology adjusted so that we were pliant, obedient, and "good" by nature. Not so much that there wouldn't be consequence for sin, just that we would never sin. In our current situation, there are some things we don't really have agency about (e.g. whether or not to have our heart beat, breathe, close your eyes when you sneeze, etc.). I am continually amazed about the balance between biology and psychology that God gave us so that real, useful agency exists*. Satan wouldn't have to redefine right or wrong so much as simply make our bodies more like not-quite-as-sentient animals (e.g. cattle). We would be nice and kind, submissive, pliant, and quite willing to "obey" God because our biology essentially compelled such. While certainly possible, doing so would not have enabled the real change in character/being that only comes because of the interplay between agency and Atonement. * For the vast majority of humans, there are some where that is messed up and they are "not accountable".
  16. I agree that the Church is essential to completely following the Savior. I don't think we disagree but I'll put it slightly differently for others. One can be very active in the Church but not the Gospel. One can be very active in the Gospel but not the Church (though, participation in the Church (e.g. the sacrament) and one's covenants made via the Church is still needed). Elder Packer put it this way: "Once in a stake meeting, I noticed a larger than usual number of older members, most of them widows. I mentioned to the stake president how impressive they were. The president replied, 'Yes, but they are not active in the Church,' meaning they did not serve as leaders or teachers. He spoke as though they were a burden. I repeated his words, 'Not active in the Church?' and asked, 'Are they active in the gospel?' He did not quite understand the difference at first. Like many of us, he concentrated so much on what people do that he overlooked what they are, a priceless resource of experience, wisdom, and inspiration." -- Elder Packer, The Golden Years
  17. While I plan on being cremated the practice of burial and gravestones has done absolute wonders for enabling family ancestry research at a societal level.
  18. Interesting. Not how we usually (re)frame things (hehe, pun). https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/anchorage-alaska-temple-to-be-rebuilt https://ksltv.com/518830/anchorage-alaska-temple-to-be-rebuilt-moved-to-a-new-location/
  19. Attached is an image I scripted for fun a few years ago (so some of the parameters are not quite the current ones, but close). The 13.8 billion years is our past light cone (that which can affect us). The 92 billion years is the particle horizon (how far particles can go having started at the same spot as we are). See also. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/02/23/if-the-universe-is-13-8-billion-years-old-how-can-we-see-46-billion-light-years-away/?sh=520b35c21303 Though if you really want a mind bending explanation, it is how we can see things that are receding away from us faster than the speed of light (objects outside the Hubble Sphere but inside our light cone).
  20. Hey now, none of that sciencey rationalization mumbo jumbo. 6000(ish) years + 6 days for the creation. God only made the earth seem older so we would have to place our sole trust in the infallible word of God as compiled by committees of fallen, sinful mortals -- interpreted in the most literal way, of course.
  21. Making the earth from other planets seems ... inefficient. God just made all the fossils and oil and other things that way 6000 years ago in a manner that would be consistent in observations with a planet that is billions of years old. I suppose that very same thing could have been 10 minutes ago, but the Bible tells me otherwise so it's 6000 years not 10 minutes.
  22. They may even already be resurrected. With you, I think they have also met and interacted. I suspect they are all currently of pretty similar minds with their concern, applaud, designs, and hopes for the Church *and* that they are *still* actively engaged in assisting the Church within the constraints and rules of post-mortality.
  23. If one adopts one of the more popular LDS positions that Heavenly Father was once mortal on a different planet then I find it entirely plausible, nay probable, that the humans on that planet would have any entirely variant phenotype not found on this planet. That is, His mortal form wouldn't correspond to anything that we would recognize. At the same time, I think resurrected beings do have full mastery over their resurrected form and if one wanted to make cosmetic adjustments to be more comfortable to the viewer, I have no problem with God doing that. Long story short, I don't think we have any real reference for the "natural form" of our Heavenly Parents other then They are basically humanoid.
  24. Yes, one can identify as transracial. She faced severe backlash for this though. But, that was 7 years ago and perhaps the world is much more enlightened now. https://www.insider.com/rachel-dolezal-onlyfans-transracial-white-woman-black-2021-8
  25. Posted in the Lesson 12 - Our Need for Spiritual Rebirth thread. "Our Latter-day Saint theology asserts that we will inhabit a Kingdom according to what were are willing/comfortable/able to bear (see D&C 88:22-24 and 33). If I am willing and able to abide the societal structure/rules/nature of the Celestial Kingdom then I would happily join that society of beings. If that is a bit too much for me, then perhaps I'd be willing and able to abide the societal structure/rules/nature of the Terrestrial Kingdom and so I would be most happy there (and not the Celestial Kingdom). If I'm not able or willing to meet the Terrestrial requirements then I'll be most happy in the Telestial Kingdom. If not even tolerate that... well, that is by far and away a very rare exception and so scarcely worth mentioning. While justice and law still have their place in our judgment, after all is said and done, our end state is based on who we have become. If we desire the Celestial Kingdom, then Christ and the Atonement is absolutely necessary for us to become one would is able and willing to abide a Celestial society. Put another way, God affords us opportunity to go where we'll be most happy based on who we are." We don't inhabit a kingdom according to negative behavioral motivators (e.g. fear) but positive behavioral motivators (who we are).
×
×
  • Create New...