mfbukowski Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 Hope that addresses some of what you actually were seeking.I think we have covered these points- it's tough to figure out. On one hand he asks a question, and then when we answer it, he says he is already familiar with the material.It's a little puzzling.
LeSellers Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 I think we have covered these points- it's tough to figure out. On one hand he asks a question, and then when we answer it, he says he is already familiar with the material.It's a little puzzling.It is possible that he's just looking for justification for one of the multitudinous attacks on us, that of "Mormons don't know their doctrine." Lehi
mfbukowski Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 It is possible that he's just looking for justification for one of the multitudinous attacks on us, that of "Mormons don't know their doctrine." LehiOh, no- He wouldn't do that would he?
staccato Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) I was taught that single ministering angels are positioned on a level in the celestial kingdom. Is this now being taught differently?We may be angels, if we are righteous enough. Even unmarried, we may reach the celestial kingdom, but we will be ministering angels only. Spencer W. Kimball, “The Importance of Celestial Marriage,” Ensign, Oct 1979, 3 Edited June 15, 2011 by staccato
cdowis Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 There are three degrees of glory in the celestial kingdom.
Deborah Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) It is possible that he's just looking for justification for one of the multitudinous attacks on us, that of "Mormons don't know their doctrine." I'm always fascinated by the fact that critics think they know our doctrine better than we do, which is why we ignoramuses continue to believe. As I said in another place I believer their problem is that they don't have enough knowledge, you know the old saying "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." They have just enough to find fault but not enough to embrace. Edited June 15, 2011 by Deborah 2
David T Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 I'm always fascinated by the fact that critics think they know our doctrine better than we do, which is why we ignoramuses continue to believe. As I said in another place I believer their problem is that they don't have enough knowledge, you know the old saying "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." They have just enough to find fault but not enough to embrace.I'm sure those of other faiths feel the exact same way about many of the Mormon critics of their faith who post here, too.
LDSToronto Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 I'm always fascinated by the fact that critics think they know our doctrine better than we do, which is why we ignoramuses continue to believe. As I said in another place I believer their problem is that they don't have enough knowledge, you know the old saying "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." They have just enough to find fault but not enough to embrace.Membership in the LDS church is no guarantee of doctrinal knowledge. Posting messages on a message board, even less.H.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Membership in the LDS church is no guarantee of doctrinal knowledge. Posting messages on a message board, even less.H.Speaking from experience I see?
Deborah Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 I'm sure those of other faiths feel the exact same way about many of the Mormon critics of their faith who post here, too.I don't disagree. We should let others describe their own beliefs. However, you must understand many of us came from those other faiths.
Deborah Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Membership in the LDS church is no guarantee of doctrinal knowledge. Posting messages on a message board, even less.Obviously, given some of the comments of the alleged LDS and particularly former LDS who post here. However, when several people are telling someone they got our beliefs wrong the other party ought to listen.
thesometimesaint Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 LDSToronto:No it is not a guarantee, but it sure does help. It is doubtful that anyone ever died from too much knowledge.
mfbukowski Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Obviously, given some of the comments of the alleged LDS and particularly former LDS who post here. However, when several people are telling someone they got our beliefs wrong the other party ought to listen.Listen?What's the point of that? Then one would actually have to think about the response and may actually learn something about how other humans see the world! And that could be threatening!Listening is a dangerous thing!
LeSellers Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 It is doubtful that anyone ever died from too much knowledge.No, but I've had some major headaches.Lehi
thesometimesaint Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Lehi:At least for me. It's more heartaches, headaches not so much.
Rob Bowman Posted June 15, 2011 Author Posted June 15, 2011 zerinus,You had written:I will ask you a question first, and after you have answered my question I will answer yours.Okay. I answered your question. Now it's your turn to answer mine.
Rob Bowman Posted June 15, 2011 Author Posted June 15, 2011 nackhadlow,I had written:"And what precedent was there for this qualification prior to the 2009 Gospel Principles?"You replied:By 'loophole' you mean the opportunity for Eternal Marriage without Marriage for Time as well in mortality? ... Do you mean for the qualification of "For Eternity Only" instead of just "For Time Only"?No. I mean the qualification or loophole that a person can attain exaltation by being married in the temple for eternity in this life or in the next.So far, no one has even tried to explain why earlier editions of GP did not make such a qualification if that has been LDS doctrine for a century.
Rob Bowman Posted June 15, 2011 Author Posted June 15, 2011 staccato wrote:I was taught that single ministering angels are positioned on a level in the celestial kingdom. Is this now being taught differently?We may be angels, if we are righteous enough. Even unmarried, we may reach the celestial kingdom, but we will be ministering angels only. Spencer W. Kimball, “The Importance of Celestial Marriage,” Ensign, Oct 1979, 3Um, staccato raises a good point. This is another statement that seems to reflect the view that persons must get married in this life in order to attain exaltation. No one has yet commented on this quotation.
thesometimesaint Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Rob:The whole idea behind Temple work is for the living as well as the dead to have the same opportunity. LDS belief is that those who had no opportunity in this life through no fault of their own to be Sealed in the Temple will be given that opportunity in the next.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 staccato wrote:Um, staccato raises a good point. This is another statement that seems to reflect the view that persons must get married in this life in order to attain exaltation. No one has yet commented on this quotation.Wait, so it is your view that there is contradictory pov with in the prophets with regards to people being married in this life or the next? Is that what you are trying to do?BTW I think you misunderstood Staccato's question. I did not respond because I didn't see any one claiming that single people would not be angles in teh CK or that single people could not be in the CK. I am still not sure what his question is/was.
David T Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) nackhadlow,I had written:"And what precedent was there for this qualification prior to the 2009 Gospel Principles?"You replied:No. I mean the qualification or loophole that a person can attain exaltation by being married in the temple for eternity in this life or in the next.So far, no one has even tried to explain why earlier editions of GP did not make such a qualification if that has been LDS doctrine for a century.Probably because "Time and Eternity" has been sort of viewed as a single phrase meaning Eternal Marriage, and now they're trying to be a little more specific, or accurate. That's the nature of a lot of the changes in the recent edition (I, too, did a word by word, phrase by phrase study of the new changes). I really don't think this is as significant as you're making it out to be. Eternal marriage for ancestors who died without having done so were being performed at least as early as Brigham Young-era Utah, and have been ever since in all temples from Utah on. It certainly didn't begin with the publication of the new manual.The principle of "Celestial-kingdom saved single angels", while admittedly not really a source of much discussion or discourse, it generally understood to be for those who were righteous and obedient in all things, but solely chose not to accept the principle of Eternal Marriage, either in this life or the next. It would be an informed decision to serve in an angelic role.But it is true that, I don't think, you'll find too much discourse on this subject. Edited June 15, 2011 by nackhadlow
Nofear Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 It is doubtful that anyone ever died from too much knowledge.Jack O'Neill almost did:
LDSToronto Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Wait, so it is your view that there is contradictory pov with in the prophets with regards to people being married in this life or the next? Is that what you are trying to do?BTW I think you misunderstood Staccato's question. I did not respond because I didn't see any one claiming that single people would not be angles in teh CK or that single people could not be in the CK. I am still not sure what his question is/was.I think what Rob is getting at is that there are two views:1. People who die unmarried will become angels in the celestial kingdom2. People who die unmarried will get married in the celestial kingdomWhich is the correct view? Or are they both correct? If both are correct, how is one's fate decided?H.
David T Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) I think what Rob is getting at is that there are two views:1. People who die unmarried will become angels in the celestial kingdom2. People who die unmarried will get married in the celestial kingdomWhich is the correct view? Or are they both correct? If both are correct, how is one's fate decided?H.I think the current view is up to the individual choosing to accept the principle of Eternal Marriage or not, or choosing to live as a devoted single, celibate servant.I think there's some fascinating room for exploration on this concept of voluntary Celibacy as Sacrifice/Salvation Path/Vocation distinct from and as a separate branch from the Exaltation Path/Vocation (even re-applying the Jesus saying that some have "made themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of God's sake"), but as far as I know, this hasn't been done. Edited June 15, 2011 by nackhadlow
LDSToronto Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 No. I mean the qualification or loophole that a person can attain exaltation by being married in the temple for eternity in this life or in the next.So far, no one has even tried to explain why earlier editions of GP did not make such a qualification if that has been LDS doctrine for a century.I don't offer this as fact, only opinion. Is it possible that the addition of the words, "in this life or in the next" is to make the doctrine more appealing to investigators, possibly to highlight that the everlasting covenant can be applied to those who have already died? The original language wasn't as clear.So, a selling feature. I don't see it as loophole, since the doctrine is pretty well-known - baptism for the dead, sealings, etc.H.
Recommended Posts