Multiple Mortal Probations? No Permanent Terrestrial Kingdom?

[Log]

Multiple Mortal Probations? (Incidentally, might something like this explain Adam-God?)

No Permanent Terrestrial Kingdom?

Discuss amongst yourselves. I'm getting verklempt.

**** THIS IS PURE SPECULATION **** **** THIS IS IN NO WAY DOCTRINAL ****

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[inquiringmind]

I know this isn't official Mormon doctrine, but is it speculation or heresy?

And wouldn't what king Benjamin said in Mosiah 2:32-39 (about never ending torment being the final doom of those who don't die in a state of grace) go against the whole idea of multiple mortal probations?

[Log]

I know this isn't official Mormon doctrine, but is it speculation or heresy?

It is speculation, sure. As for it being heretical, I'm not even sure you can be a heretical Mormon.

"It don't prove a man is not a good man just because he believes false doctrine." - Joseph Smith.

And wouldn't what king Benjamin said in Mosiah 2:32-39 (about never ending torment being the final doom of those who don't die in a state of grace) go against the whole idea of multiple mortal probations?

That's endless (never-ending = endless) torment, right? Then the answer to your question is "no."

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[inquiringmind]

That's endless (never-ending = endless) torment, right? Then the answer to your question is "no."

"Endless" as in one of God's names (as per D&C 19, right?)

I can see that.

But what about "final doom"?

How would you interpret that?

[Maidservant]

I did write this several months ago:

The Story of Two Sons

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

Before the face of the Father come two sons.

The first son says to his Father, I will go down among men, and I will teach them to call me by your name, and I will cause them all to do right. In this way they will all be clean before you, and in this way you will lose none of your children and they will return to you.

The second son says to his Father, I will go down among men, and I will teach them your name and who you are and that you sent me. And your children will remain free to choose the course they desire; yet I offer myself as a sacrifice for them. Let the sin that arises from their struggle to return to you be placed upon my body, and I will suffer in their stead, and in this way they may become clean and may continue to live and not die from their sin. In this way, all of your sons and daughters may return to you if they will; and they will have joy.

The history of the earth and its ages, IS the story of the two sons. As we come before the Father and present ourselves, which son are we? What is our approach to our brothers and sisters on the earth; or, what is the approach that we are emulating?

As the scenes of the 7th seal are unfolding, from havoc to union, at the culmination of this great eon of mortality, what, do you think, will be the ending of the story? Which offering will the Father accept? Which son will bear the gift of the return of the children of the family back into their home and re-inheritance? Are there any on the earth that are not the sons and daughters of God? No; all are.

For most of the history of the earth, the first son has made his presentation (overall in sway over the earth, not speaking of individuals or smaller groups). Now, the second son will make his presentation in the gathering of the Father's children to the order of the Son of God, and in the inception and reign of the millenial era of peace, justice, light, union, liberty, and redemption. How will we return to, or know, or hear the answer of acceptance, of our Father? Will we know by speaking or acting as the first son did, to be cast out? Or will we know, and enter in, by speaking or acting as the second son did?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ===========

Good question, but I am not willing to post what I know and/or believe for myself in the matter. But I post the above because it reminded me of the question posed in one of the links, "are we in the middle of a council in heaven". You know, I am always surprised to find the understandings that I have come to in my personal reveIation and think I am alone in (and slightly freaking out), and then I see them elsewhere in one shade or another, so I think that there must be "something" in the scriptures/temple/life/spirit that suggests these things. Because I don't get my ideas from other places, most of the time (other than scriptures and temple). I don't have time to read commentaries, for example. I see these kinds of ideas in my own study.

[Log]

"Endless" as in one of God's names (as per D&C 19, right?)

I can see that.

But what about "final doom"?

How would you interpret that?

I am the First, and I am the Last (Final)...

The possibilities are ... endless!

Or he could just be contextually referring to the Judgement.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[Log]

The first son says to his Father, I will go down among men, and I will teach them to call me by your name, and I will cause them all to do right. In this way they will all be clean before you, and in this way you will lose none of your children and they will return to you.

Let me offer a different perspective.

"The first son says to his Father, I will go down among men, and I will save them all, that not one shall be lost. They shall know good and evil by their own experience, and I shall redeem them all; yea, my blood shall answer for them, and I shall plead for them, and by the power of the resurrection and the redemption they shall be clean before thee, wherefore, put thou thy name upon me."

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[Maidservant]

Let me offer a different perspective.

"The first son says to his Father, I will go down among men, and I will save them all, that not one shall be lost. They shall know good and evil by their own experience, and I shall redeem them all; yea, my blood shall answer for them, and I shall plead for them, and by the power of the resurrection and the redemption they shall be clean before thee, wherefore, put thou thy name upon me."

I don't understand. Are you saying Lucifer said this? or Jehovah? What is the different perspective?

[Log]

I don't understand. Are you saying Lucifer said this? or Jehovah? What is the different perspective?

Lucifer said it.

[Maidservant]

Lucifer said it.

Ah. Interesting. Are you willing to share how you arrived at this? I am not contradicting, but as you say, it is a different perspective. I don't see the problem with this plan, as you've stated it (meaning, I'm blind).

Because Jesus does carry the Father's name also. So I don't know, hm.

[Maidservant]

I should mention that my story is not about the past. It is a mantle for the present, and our choice to be one of the two sons. And on how to be the second son, if so desired.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Maidservant

[Log]

Ahh, I know... but, if you consider the first son's offer as I have outlined it, is it not extremely similar to at least one side of the cultural / political / religious / social battles going on around us?

[Log]

Ah. Interesting. Are you willing to share how you arrived at this?

The idea is not original with me, but it is what Moses 4 actually says.

[inquiringmind]

Lucifer said it.

So you're saying that Lucifer wanted to suffer, and bleed, and die to really save all of humanity?

I don't recall reading that in Moses 4, and I don't think it honors our real Savior.

[Log]

So you're saying that Lucifer wanted to suffer, and bleed, and die to really save all of humanity?

I don't recall reading that in Moses 4, and I don't think it honors our real Savior.

How else can all be redeemed?

[TAO]

So you're saying that Lucifer wanted to suffer, and bleed, and die to really save all of humanity?

I don't recall reading that in Moses 4, and I don't think it honors our real Savior.

That's precisely it. Lucifer wanted God's honor and wanted to not give man agency =/.

[inquiringmind]

How else can all be redeemed?

Cain offered a bloodless sacrifice, didn't he?

[Log]

Cain offered a bloodless sacrifice, didn't he?

Cain redeemed no one, didn't he?

[inquiringmind]

That's precisely it. Lucifer wanted God's honor and wanted to not give man agency =/.

In the premortal existence, Satan was called “Lucifer,” which means “the Shining One” or “Lightbringer.” He was a “son of the morning” (see Isaiah 14:12; D&C 76:25–27) and had potential to do much good. But Lucifer sought to obtain the throne, honor, power, and glory of Heavenly Father (see D&C 29:36; 76:28; Moses 4:1). To do so, he proposed to “redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost” (Moses 4:1). However, his proposal was based on compulsion and would therefore eliminate the agency of Heavenly Father’s children and the need for a Savior to suffer and redeem them.

http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/pgp/pgp-2.htm

[Log]

The manual is not a binding interpretation of scripture. There is not a word in Moses 4 about Satan proposing to compel anything, which, undoubtedly, is why the manual lacks a scriptural reference for that claim.

In any event, children have choice without accountability: Wherefore, [little children] cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me.

Therefore, they have not got agency.

That is one possibility for destroying agency - no devil to tempt men - but it doesn't match Moses 4.

Satan said he would redeem all of humanity. Redeem us from what, if we were unfailingly good, and had no choice in whether to do right or wrong?

Redemption is always from death and hell. If, therefore, death and hell were what we were to be redeemed from, that would necessarily imply sin would be in the world.

Therefore, what Satan was proposing is simply this: to save us in our sins. Come down, grab your body, do whatever, get exalted.

That's another way to deny agency. If all of your choices have the same result, it literally doesn't matter what you choose.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

How else can all be redeemed?

Don't need to be redeemed if one eliminates the possibility of sin....which can be done by eliminating law.

[Log]

Don't need to be redeemed if one eliminates the possibility of sin....which can be done by eliminating law.

Which would conflict with the offer as outlined - "I will be thy son, and I will redeem them all, and surely I will do it!"

[Calm]

However, his proposal was based on compulsion and would therefore eliminate the agency of Heavenly Father’s children and the need for a Savior to suffer and redeem them

I agree with Log this last is speculation as it is not found in scripture and what is found can be interpreted in several ways, including eliminating moral agency by eliminating the law and thus consequences of choice; no law, no sin, no needed redemption in Lucifer's eyes....perhaps. Remember Lucifer's plan didn't have to actually work, he either thought it would or was just presenting a plan so as to have a reason to gather rebels around him when the Lord rejected it.

Or perhaps he did see a redemption as needed for while they would be judged without the law and thus not judged at all, what they did could be viewed as transgression and they certainly wouldn't be pure enough to reenter God's presence...which would mean a redeemer and Lucifer might have just been arrogant to put himself up as one just to show how powerful and wonderful he was, as opposed to the unselfish motivation of Christ who desired to fulfill his Father's Will and save his brothers and sisters while allowing them to grow into a more exalted state closer to the Father as he was able to do.

So I see it as two possibilities, Lucifer thought (wrongly) he could pull off the spring break version of mortality (see http://www.studentci...m/destinations/ bet his propaganda was even more appealing) without needing a redemption by rewriting the Law book through the simple and expedient act of dumping it on the trash heap. Think of this as being able to get drunk all night without a hangover because the biochemical process got stopped before it produced the toxins. No harm, no foul, no payment needed once a little tweaking is done.

Or Lucifer was willing to pay all those costs built up of eons of mortal men and women acting like the purpose of life is to see who could party the hardest and the longest and have the most degrading story to talk about at the end of the vacation and he was arrogant enough to think that all that was needed was his acceptance of the role, not doing it for the right reason in the right way for worthwhile causes....progress, families, learning, love, commitment to each other, etc. So all those people getting drunk all night partying, still no hangover for them, they all got set to Lucifer who took great pride in the fact that he was able to endure the worst hangover in history.

Most people seem to visualize Lucifer's plan as somehow managing to implant chips into people's brains to reduce them to total automans without choice or probably thought of their own. In this version, he would ensure no one would commit a sin so no redeemer would be necessary. However, I cannot imagine how anyone would not find this idea totally repugnant, especially the type that refused to go along with God's plan and instead rebelled and attempted to try and destroy him. The first are the ultimate nonrisk takers, they'd rather lose all that they are as long as they wouldn't get hurt or have to suffer. OTOH, the rebels were unable to accept God's plan because they were unable to shape their own will to the Lord's Will, since they knew rebellion would bring them suffering as would all separation from God, they seem like risktakers willing to suffer for their own cause and arrogant enough to think they had a right to complain. Lucifer, since he got to make the rule, might have had some fun, but probably would have been bored soon...I see nothing of value in it for anyone else save getting a body and that would be more efficiently accomplished by Lucifer keeping just enough mentally inferior people who would not be accountable to keep up a steady influx of babies and then he would kill them soon after birth to keep the work level down and the babymaking up...thus all who were born were unaccountable to the law one way or the other and he would excuse the killing as the judgment of God to keep the world pure so he would need no repentance himself.

Whatever his plan it was twisted and totally failed to accomplish what the purpose of mortality was...whether he understood that and just didn't care, but wanted to play power games with God or he really didn't get it and thought there could be shortcuts, I don't know but I lean to the first...that all he was really doing was showing off to get people to think how magnificent he was and trying to punish God for 'making' him feel inferior, etc. etc. by blinding his children to the reality of the total disaster their lives soon would be when they turned against their Father in anger and hatred.

Edited April 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Log]

While there is a background assumption that I don't share with Cal which undoubtedly contributes to our lack of agreement, I have to say, I think it's great we can even HAVE these conversations within Mormonism.

Apr 8, 1843 - Joseph Smith preaches concerning the Nauvoo high council trial of Pelatiah Brown, Sr.: "I do not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

Uh oh, I pulled that citation off an anti-Mormon site... woe is me!

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[inquiringmind]

While there is a background assumption that I don't share with Cal which undoubtedly contributes to our lack of agreement, I have to say, I think it's great we can even HAVE these conversations within Mormonism

So are you saying that devil really wanted to save everyone, but God didn't?