Celestial Men Becoming Future Saviors

[selek1]

Fire away. I'm here to figure out what I believe. Surely those of you who seek to emulate Christ and claim to have his truth will love me enough (as he does) to help me through the miasma of what I see in scripture and the words of the prophets.

How can we when you just got done stating that you don't care what we think?

How can we help you sort things out when you dismiss everything that doesn't fit your pre-determined conclusions with an airy wave and a chorus of "La la la! I can't hear you!"?

While it might be entertaining to try and drive ideas into your head with a railroad spike and sledge hammer, it's doubtless not worth the effort.

I am here to be corrected, Selek. You seem up to the task, so let's have it.

Given the liberal application of "I don't care what you think" you have just dispensed, I suspect that nothing short of a gentle calibration with a ball peen hammer will suffice.

And I don't care enough to invest that much time in you.

[selek1]

This is a falsehood. I know that there is a Mother in Heaven, and I know that there was a war in Heaven. One was offered by prophets that I believe were true prophets, and the other is available in scripture that I believe is true.

My faith in prophets and scripture are not a "complete lack of knowing", as you say. It is faith.

Faith in the prophets is a far different matter from extrapolating beyond the available data.

The latter is willful, asinine, and fact-free speculation extrapolated from two known points into an entire tissue of what-if's convenient to your pre-determined conclusion.

Hugh Nibley referred to this phenomenon as "The House That Jack Built."

Edited June 1, 2012 by selek1

[Acris Venator]

How can we when you just got done stating that you don't care what we think?

Your accusation is imaginary. Firstly, I do care what mfbukowski thinks. In fact, I respect much of what I have read from him on this forum. i believe he is a defender of the faith.

How exactly do you conflate my rejection of one of his points with a rejection of what you and he thinks in total? Are you his wife?

How can we help you sort things out when you dismiss everything that doesn't fit your pre-determined conclusions with an airy wave and a chorus of "La la la! I can't hear you!"?

This is a disingenuous assessment of my posts.

And I don't care enough to invest that much time in you.

This is what I suspected. Hopefully my hopelessness, and your lack of interest in my worth, will alleviate you of any further participation in the thread. Good day, sir.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Acris Venator

[Acris Venator]

Faith in the prophets is a far different matter from extrapolating beyond the available data.

Yet this isn't what you said. You said that I am in the state of "the complete lack of knowing". Well I wouldn't even bring these items up if they weren't a part of Mormonism! I didn't invent the ideas of Heavenly Mother or the war in Heaven.

[selek1]

How exactly do you conflate my rejection of one of his points with a rejection of what you and he thinks in total? Are you his wife?

Because his point referred not simply to the existence of Heavenly Mother or the War In Heaven, but also to your entire speculative methodology.

Every faithful poster in this thread has cautioned you against drawing conclusions beyond the available data- which has slowed your headlong flight by not a single newton.

This is a disingenuous assessment of my posts.

It may be incorrect, but I can assure you that it is not in the least but disingenuous.

[selek1]

Yet this isn't what you said. You said that I am in the state of "the complete lack of knowing". Well I wouldn't even bring these items up if they weren't a part of Mormonism! I didn't invent the ideas of Heavenly Mother or the war in Heaven.

Unfortunately, that is NOT what I said.

To quote myself, "In other words, Venator will not let the complete lack of knowing what he is talking about prevent him from spinning fanciful tales of whimsy to satisfy his itching ears."

I did not say that were in "a state of ignorance (complete lack of knowing)". I stated that you would not allow yourself to be impeded by the utterly unknowable nature of your speculations.

The "complete lack of knowing what [you are] talking about" refers to the baseless conclusions and fanciful tales you are intent on spinning.

Such speculation is- as others have pointed out- well beyond the available data and is, by definition, unprovable and unknowable.

When you move beyond the available data to pure "what-if" and "maybe" you have completely divorced yourself from anything approaching LDS theology and doctrine- and are treading in dangerous waters.

Edited June 1, 2012 by selek1

[Acris Venator]

Every faithful poster in this thread has cautioned you against drawing conclusions beyond the available data-

I don't see that in your initial posts. I see "shoot down" and "I don't care."

Don't try to sell me your faithful self after going ape on me. Are you afraid of "dangerous waters", Selek? Then there are other parts of the pool in which you can swim. Mfbukowski is fully capable of addressing my response to his post without your help.

[DBMormon]

I think no mortal person knows or has ever known what is really in store for us in regards to exhaltation. I think prophet or average layman.... the OP is simply an opinion of man and for me way too specific for me to be on board. Elder Holland stated once when talking about race (it applies to this as well) Past leaders tried to give shape to certain Doctrines and beliefs and in doing so overstepped the bounds at which they should have stopped.

[Acris Venator]

Reelmormon, perhaps their mistake was talking definitively about things that they don't know. But it still strikes me as vital to explore some of these possibilities. It is still meaningfull for an individual such as Brigham Young to extrapolate, whether he is wrong or right, about such things as the birth of spirit children constituting an "ordinance" that requires "keys":

"We are in possession of all the ordinances that can be administered in the flesh; but there are other ordinances and administrations that must be administered beyond this world. I know you would ask what they are. I will mention one. We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of the resurrection. They will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again, as many have already done and many more will. They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism, then the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we cannot receive here, and there are many more. We hold the authority to dispose of, alter and change the elements; but we have not received authority to organize native element to even make a spear of grass grow. We have no such ordinance here. We organize according to men in the flesh. By combining the elements and planting the seed, we cause vegetables, trees, grains, &c., to come forth. We are organizing a kingdom here according to the pattern that the Lord has given for people in the flesh, but not for those who have received the resurrection, although it is a similitude. Another item: We have not the power in the flesh to create and bring forth or produce a spirit; but we have the power to produce a temporal body. The germ of this, God has placed within us. And when our spirits receive our bodies, and through our faithfulness we are worthy to be crowned, we will then receive authority to produce both spirit and body. But these keys we cannot receive in the flesh."

-Brigham Young, Aug. 24, 1872 (JD 15:137)

It has been inferred (erroneously) that I have drawn "conclusions" about these notions, when in fact I am far from having any but a small number of conclusions regarding the Gospel and the Church. We don't know what Heavenly Mother's role is explicitly, but we're allowed some limited knowledge. Why give us any knowledge at all if the Lord doesn't want Prophets/Seers/Revelators such as Woodruff & Young to speculate at all? I think the discussion is worthwhile. Even built upon the limited data that we have.

[selek1]

Don't try to sell me your faithful self after going ape on me.

I have nothing to sell, Venator. As I said, you're free to speculate all you like. Just don't expect us to bow and scrape at the clay feet of your idol.

Are you afraid of "dangerous waters", Selek?

Speaking strictly as a sailor and as someone who has spent time wandering in darkness, you're darned tootin' I am. Considering the stakes involved, only a fool wouldn't be,

Mfbukowski is fully capable of addressing my response to his post without your help.

I have nothing but confidence in MFBuk's ability to handle the situation.

The primary question in my mind is whether others have the wisdom to listen to him....

[Acris Venator]

Just don't expect us to bow and scrape at the clay feet of your idol.

I'm pretty disappointed that you aren't going to worship me and my priestcraft. I was looking forward to someone making me a sandwich or something.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Acris Venator

[DBMormon]

you like tuna on toast?

[Acris Venator]

you like tuna on toast?

That would be an affirmative

[Darren10]

Matt;

I used to have a lot of quotes on the whole Savior/Saviors thing, but I lost them years ago in a hard drive crash. Suffice it to say, the most common belief currently in the church is that the Savior Jesus Christ is the Savior of all worlds of God's children. However, there is a vast array of beliefs within that, all of which an apostle or prophet has espoused at some point and all of which are acceptable as working with existing doctrine.

* The binding theme: All Mankind is saved by Jesus Christ. Christ's redemption extends beyond this earth to many other worlds.

Various Possibilities:

1) Jesus is the only atoning Savior in all of Eternity. Earth is special because of this. His atonement covers any previous beings and all future ones, wherever and whenever they may be.

1.1) God the Father is singular in his existence as such. While he experienced being a man, yet he is unique. He is the first true God, and we are his 1st generation children. Christ also, and thus the atonement will cover everyone.

1.2) God the Father, in scripture, may refer to our immediate father, and/or it may refer to the great first God of all (consider how we refer to Father Abraham or Father Adam, but because they are those who gave birth to mankind and the covenant relationships). Christ is 1st generation from that God and thus his atonement covers all.

2) Jesus' atonement covers all the children of God the Father, on whatever planet they are on. It probably does not cover children of other God's who are preceding our Father in Heaven nor any of his (the Father's) siblings.

2.1) Only one sacrifice is involved, that being Christ's.

2.2) Other Saviors may be involved on other planets. They however are enabled by the atonement of Christ, and possible vice versa. This goes with:

2.2.1) Exalted beings will be proven able to become Savior's of other worlds, and possibly their own worlds, by their actions in this life. Shades of Adam-God theory here exist, but not needed. These exalted being are exalted only because of Christ, so without Christ's redemption of mankind, there would be no future atonements on other planets. It is like a great priesthood chain. Likewise, God the Father became what he is now because he was a Savior in another world or redeemed by one. This is different than reincarnation! In reincarnation, you keep returning until you get it right. In this model, one who becomes a Savior is never just another mortal. Christ was different than us. He alone among man had the power to take his life and raise it up again. He died because he allowed himself to, not because others could make him. Thus, while part man, he was not man. In this model, Darren10 could become a Savior of another world as part of the natural progression in the eternities to being like God and comprehending as God comprehends. As a Savior, he would be fundamentally different than others on the planet. From what I can gather, this model of progression is basically Unorganized Intelligence -> Spirit -> Mortal Man -> Exalted Man -> Adam -> Savior -> God the Father (creator of Spirits, worlds without end, etc), although I have seen the Adam and Savior aspects flipped. Either way, it's not my personal belief, though if it was true I wouldn't be bothered. I find it tenable.

So, I see you've been to Gospel Essentials, eh? Good! just out of curiosity, based of of doctrine, official doctrine available, let's say, strictly from the Standard Works, which would be most likely true orthe "truest"?

Darren10 could become a Savior of another world as part of the natural progression in the eternities to being like God and comprehending as God comprehends.

Yeah, he better be. Especially if your offsring ends u on darren's world to redeem.

As a Savior, he would be fundamentally different than others on the planet.

I'm fundamentally different now withut being a savior.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

So, I see you've been to Gospel Essentials, eh? Good! just out of curiosity, based off of doctrine, official doctrine available, let's say, strictly from the Standard Works, which would be most likely true or the "truest"?

I think there is not nearly enough revealed information available to go one way or another. The phrase I used of "it's not my personal belief" at the end of 2.2.1 is true for all of them. I'm jsut not dogmatic in that way. All are valid. Which do I personally think would be the coolest? 2.2.1. I like the idea of continually progressing in that method, of having those experiences, etc. I hink certain things both Joseph and Brigham said indicate they at least pondered this as a possibility, but nothing was ever revealed, or it was revealed to them to stop theorizing about it ebcuase it either shouldn't be known or because it is patently false.:-) 2.2 is probably the one that could best be documented, if only by a little.

[Storm Rider]

This quote by Wilford Woodruff:

"President Young said there never was any world created & peopled nor ever would be but what would be redeemed by the shedding of the blood of the Savior of the world. If we are ever exalted and crowned in the presence of God we shall become saviors of a world which we shall create & people. I know why the blood of Jesus was shed. I know why the blood of Joseph, & Hiram & others was shed and the blood of theirs will be shed. It is all to answer a purpose and has its effect. Adam made this world and suffered himself to take a body and subject himself to sin that redemption & exaltation might come to a man. Without descending below all things we cannot ascend above all things. There never will be any change in the gospel of salvation, It is an eternal gospel and the same in all worlds and always will be to the endless age of eternity. There never was a period but what worlds existed & never will be, they all have the same Gospel & law of salvation." -Wilford Woodruff, Waiting For the World's End, The Dairies of Wilford Woodruff, Edited by Susan Staker, Pg.290

...makes me wonder if there are any similar statements about men becoming saviors for future worlds by other prophets such as BY or JS. Is a messiah-level sacrifice the sort of thing that creates the symmetry between Priesthood and motherhood? Was Christ's atonement a response to motherhood, and his decision in Gethsemane a reflection of Eve's decision in Eden? Any help would be appreciated.

I reject these types of propositions as completely false. It is an opinion that does not hold water. There is another body of thought that thinks that the Savior's blood shed on this world atoned for all the sins of all God's creations wherever they may be.

To me they spring from the question of how does God save his creations on other worlds? Does each world have its own Savior that must die on a cross?

Through Adam and Eve mortality was introduced into the world. Through Christ all are given immortality. Are these a response to motherhood? Only in a very indirect, twisted way. It is true that when Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden they were then able to propagate, but this does not mean that parenthood is "cured" by the Atonement. This could evolve into a very interesting discussion, but I don't have enough time to add more. Suffice it to say that the creative process does not end at death or the end of mortality.

[mfbukowski]

Did God the Father marry Heavenly Mother before time? Was the war in heaven, that followed that wedding, before time? As far as I am concerned, in this mortality, yes he did, and yes it was. You can choose to be perplexed if you wish. My reckoning of time is not the Lord's, but it still happened before my spirit was born. Satan is not still dwelling with God, and neither am I. Whether I have the "ability" to talk about these ideas to your satisfaction doesn't matter to me. I am going to talk about Her. She is my mother.

For the purposes of this thread, I am simply going to assume for arguments sake that Willford Woodruff was accurate.

If Heavenly Mother was my mother, if she birthed me into a spirit whereas "before" I was merely an "intelligence", then for some period I was one with her. Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise? Then after being born as a spirit, I was eventually one with my mortal mother for about 9 months. So before I ever set foot on the earth, I was essentially a single being with two consecutive mothers.

This gives extra meaning to the Intercessory Prayer, wherein Jesus prays that we will be "one" with him and with the Father. I think we travel from our mothers to our fathers. I think that this is why the explanation of the Spirit of Elijah only references our hearts being turned to our fathers. We are already on board with our mothers. We already were/are one with them because of specific experiences. It's our fathers (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus, HF) that we must be bound to next.

But if the Priesthood does reflect motherhood ( and I believe that it does, in every respect) then this is why baptism is referred to as a "rebirth". This is why certain symbols correspond to the umbilical cord and breast feeding. And this is why performing symbolic ordinances is good, but not nearly enough to be commensurate with what mothers do.

Christ is the one exception among men. He sacrificed all in a way that is commensurate with what mothers do. He went to that altar and met the experience of all mothers. This is why I believe that exalted men must eventually perform what their "very Eternal Father" did... what they watched him do. They must atone for future children on future worlds.

Woodruff's words, speculative as they may have been, support the symmetry.

Don't misunderstand me- that is a great conception, but just realize that if someone disagrees with it, neither of you have any basis for arguing that you are "right" and the other is "wrong".

If you have some subjective understanding which was a revelation to you- great. But just know that others may have a different subjective understanding which is not necessarily "wrong".

Have you ever discussed semantics with someone you thought you disagreed with- and found out after a half hour talking it out that you actually agreed?

That's what I'm talking about. Our language, in the context of a few sentences posted on an internet board, is totally inadequate to even seriously discuss this stuff, which is why I seldom post on these kind of threads. It's not that I disagree, it's just that the topics are so huge no one has a clue about what is right or wrong anyway, and then we end up arguing about words.

It's not worth the effort. I probably should not have posted to start with, but I wanted to make that point. It was probably a waste of time though in retrospect- I was just hoping someone might also see it as I do.

[mfbukowski]

In other words, Venator will not let the complete lack of knowing what he is talking about prevent him from spinning fanciful tales of whimsy to satisfy his itching ears.

Venator- you are free to speculate to your hearts content within the echo chamber of your own conceit.

We, on the other hand, are perfectly free to shoot down your flights of fancy by pointing out that they are respective of your attempt to remake God in your image rather than anything supported by LDS thought, belief, or practice.

Uh, I guess that is another way of saying it....

[mfbukowski]

Your accusation is imaginary. Firstly, I do care what mfbukowski thinks. In fact, I respect much of what I have read from him on this forum. i believe he is a defender of the faith.

How exactly do you conflate my rejection of one of his points with a rejection of what you and he thinks in total? Are you his wife?

I guess I should read the whole post before posting.

Thanks for the compliments- but yes, indeed, it is a little known fact that I am indeed married to selek1.

Edited June 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

you like tuna on toast?

Oh, man, with a little hotsauce and mayo? A good dab of pico de gallo? If you haven't tried that- it's the best!!

(Of course I live in LA.......)

[mfbukowski]

I have nothing but confidence in MFBuk's ability to handle the situation.

The primary question in my mind is whether others have the wisdom to listen to him....

Hey man, you know I love you!

Honestly folks- we really are NOT married, in case you actually believed that one.

Just engaged.

[mfbukowski]

I reject these types of propositions as completely false. It is an opinion that does not hold water. There is another body of thought that thinks that the Savior's blood shed on this world atoned for all the sins of all God's creations wherever they may be.

To me they spring from the question of how does God save his creations on other worlds? Does each world have its own Savior that must die on a cross?

Through Adam and Eve mortality was introduced into the world. Through Christ all are given immortality. Are these a response to motherhood? Only in a very indirect, twisted way. It is true that when Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden they were then able to propagate, but this does not mean that parenthood is "cured" by the Atonement. This could evolve into a very interesting discussion, but I don't have enough time to add more. Suffice it to say that the creative process does not end at death or the end of mortality.

See what I mean everybody?

[selek1]

Hey man, you know I love you!

Honestly folks- we really are NOT married, in case you actually believed that one.

Just engaged.

The only problem with this line of reasoning is-"I have better taste than that!"

[mrmandias]

This quote by Wilford Woodruff:

"President Young said there never was any world created & peopled nor ever would be but what would be redeemed by the shedding of the blood of the Savior of the world. If we are ever exalted and crowned in the presence of God we shall become saviors of a world which we shall create & people. I know why the blood of Jesus was shed. I know why the blood of Joseph, & Hiram & others was shed and the blood of theirs will be shed. It is all to answer a purpose and has its effect. Adam made this world and suffered himself to take a body and subject himself to sin that redemption & exaltation might come to a man. Without descending below all things we cannot ascend above all things. There never will be any change in the gospel of salvation, It is an eternal gospel and the same in all worlds and always will be to the endless age of eternity. There never was a period but what worlds existed & never will be, they all have the same gosple & law of salvation." -Wilford Woodruff, Waiting For the World's End, The Dairies of Wilford Woodruff, Edited by Susan Staker, Pg.290

...makes me wonder if there are any similar statements about men becoming saviors for future worlds by other prophets such as BY or JS. Is a messiah-level sacrifice the sort of thing that creates the symmetry between Priesthood and motherhood? Was Christ's atonement a response to motherhood, and his decision in Gethsemane a reflection of Eve's decision in Eden? Any help would be appreciated.

There are two problems to be resolved here (the same is true of traditional Christians also, unless they take the position that God only created this universe for some reason and only us in it for some reason). On the one hand, if you take the view that there are other saviors, you need some kind of intelligible reason why Christ's universal atonement doesn't extent to all peoples, throughought all times and all universes. If you take the view that there aren't, then you have to wonder why in an infinity of years and universes and creations, the truly infinite atonement happened here a mere eyeblink ago. The odds make the the lottery look like a dead cert.

There can be answers to that, but none of them I know of require that every being who enters the concert of God do so as a savior. So the only argument is that you need to undergo something like Christ did to be truly Godlike. But I reject that argument, because Christ offers us full participation in Himself to us.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

So the only argument is that you need to undergo something like Christ did to be truly Godlike. But I reject that argument, because Christ offers us full participation in Himself to us.

I disagree and agree. Hah! In the 2.2.1 scenario, you cannot progress on the divine pathway without the atonement of Jesus Christ. Youa re enabled because he enabled us. It his his Grace, and we become joint heirs, inheriting all that the Father has. The question is what that process is. Can one being sent as a savior to a world fall? I posit that no, they cannot. It is to gain a certain kind of experience in this specific scenario. It is for those who have achieved that full level of experience that their behavior is pure and true, so they will be without sin forever, thus qualifying to become a savior.

Again, I don't hold that it is doctrinal, only a valid thought pattern I find interesting to ponder.