Is This Scriptural?

[inquiringmind]

But this little thing, it's tiny.

By "this little thing," you mean the nature of God?

Whether He's the God I was always taught to believe in--the ontological cause of everything, by whose will we live, and move, and have our being (as in our existence, not just our fleshly tabernacles, or our spirit-bodies.)

You deem that just some tiny little side issue?

Something to just push out of my mind while I read and ponder the Book of Mormon (which portrays God the same way, btw)?

And since the whole Christian world preaches baptism, repentance, faith, and charity, aren't you really saying that the only really important thing is recognizing and accepting the unique authority of the LDS Church?

In other words repenting of being non-Mormon, being baptized Mormon, and having faith in the Mormon Church?

And aren't you counseling me to put aside any questions I have about the nature of God as if they were unimportant (even though I think Joseph supposedly said that knowing the nature of God is the first principle of the Gospel)?

Can you not understand why something doesn't compute when I read posts like this?

Then the best thing would be to use those D&C quotes listed earlier.

So that's as clear as it gets then?

It's not spelled out anywhere in the standard works whether someone whose had your six Gospel lessons is in danger of being an sop if he's unable to swallow everything he's been told?

If he can't accept your theology intellectually, he doesn't know if he's received a spiritual witness, and he's not sure he's been asking for one with a pure heart (because he believes Jer. 17:9, which basically says that we're not competent to judge the condition of our own hearts), there's nothing in your standard works that would clarify his destination (if he should die without becoming a Mormon)?

Edited June 2, 2012 by inquiringmind

[webbles]

It's not spelled out anywhere in the standard works whether someone whose had your six Gospel lessons is in danger of being an sop if he's unable to swallow everything he's been told?

I don't think any one knows what exactly constitutes a sop. From what I understand, you have to know Christ so completely that you have absolutely no doubt in your mind. Then you have to pretty much tell Him, I don't accept you. Since you mention that you aren't sure, I see no way you could be a sop. I doubt most members are even in that position to become a sop.

If he can't accept your theology intellectually, he doesn't know if he's received a spiritual witness, and he's not sure he's been asking for one with a pure heart (because he believes Jer. 17:9, which basically says that we're not competent to judge the condition of our own hearts), there's nothing in your standard works that would clarify his destination (if he should die without becoming a Mormon)?

That's because the destination is not determined until after this life and the spirit world. If he doesn't accept the gospel now, he will still be able to accept it in the next life, even if he was taught it here. Of course, if he was taught it here and gained a knowledge that it is true and doesn't act on it, God is going to be a little curious why he didn't. But unless the experience was an absolute certainty, I still believe he'd be able to accept it in the spirit world.

By the way, the one issue I have with your original statement is that I believe all those who make it to a kingdom will accept Christ's atonement. Just that those in the Telestial world will take a long time to accept Him and so will be suffering during that time. It is the sop that will never accept His atonement and that is purely through pride. They believe they don't need it and so will reject even at the last minute.

[Freedom]

I'm not personally persuaded the three kingdom divisions are "symbolic". D&C 88:22-32.

I think this reference actually proves my point:

For he who is not able to abide the ^alaw of a celestial kingdom cannot ^babide a ^ccelestial glory.

If there is just one uniform kingdom, why is it referred to as a celestial kingdom rather than the celestial kingdom? As is recorded elsewhere, 'In my fathers house there are many kingdoms'. I don't' think we can classify people into three simple categories. There are as many levels of righteousness as there are people.

[TAO]

By "this little thing," you mean the nature of God?

Okay, I exaggerated a little. It's not tiny... but it's tiny compared to the other important things we must do and know. There are many more important things, and this, is not quite as important as them, I think.

Whether He's the God I was always taught to believe in--the ontological cause of everything, by whose will we live, and move, and have our being (as in our existence, not just our fleshly tabernacles, or our spirit-bodies.)

You deem that just some tiny little side issue?

No, not a side issue. But... something that isn't as important as some other things. As I said earlier, faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the holy ghost, and much much more; it is more important to worry about those things than this thing, sorta. This thing is nice to know, but those things are essential to know.

You can still look, but, you must realize; it is not a nailed doctrine. There are many opinions on it, and so you will have to accept that you are going to have to find the answer by going to God. The scriptures are great for this; but they aren't enough for this sort of question.

Something to just push out of my mind while I read and ponder the Book of Mormon (which portrays God the same way, btw)?

Actually, I'd say yes and no. No, don't push it out of your mind, just... don't panic over it. When you read the Book of Mormon, focus on the themes taught in it... charity, forgiveness, love, virtue... all of those things.

Then again, I don't know what you need. I have always needed those things. The thing that I appreciate most about the Book of Mormon is that it is so plain and simple. The basics. The important things. The essential things. The things I cannot forget. I guess that's why I look at it that way, sorta =p.

And since the whole Christian world preaches baptism, repentance, faith, and charity, aren't you really saying that the only really important thing is recognizing and accepting the unique authority of the LDS Church?

No. Baptism, faith, repentance, charity are all just as important as that. What I am trying to tell you is focus on those things over the ontological state of God. Keep looking for the ontological state, but don't forget the other stuff while doing it =).

In other words repenting of being non-Mormon, being baptized Mormon, and having faith in the Mormon Church?

Lol no. For baptism, yes, that's important, because you need the priesthood to perform the act. That doesn't mean God doesn't value the Baptism of other faiths... but he would like those who are joining our faith to get baptized in our faith. But repenting... no... repentance is for everyone of every denomination.

You aren't repenting for being a non-Mormon. Your repenting of mistakes you made, like we all do. That's between you and God.

"And aren't you counseling me to put aside any questions I have about the nature of God as if they were unimportant (even though I think Joseph supposedly said that knowing the nature of God is the first principle of the Gospel)?"

Nah. I'm asking you to keep searching, but also keep your eye on the other things you've learned at the same time.

Can you not understand why something doesn't compute when I read posts like this?

I can. I should have been clearer about what I meant. I didn't realize you'd interpret my post like this.

So that's as clear as it gets then?

Yes and no. That's as clear as you can get without a lot of scripture study. And, it's as close as you can get without confirming with the Spirit. That's why the Spirit is so useful... because it answers the questions that we can't persay just grab out of scripture... because of conflicts, or unclarity. The Spirit solves that problem.

It's not spelled out anywhere in the standard works whether someone whose had your six Gospel lessons is in danger of being an sop if he's unable to swallow everything he's been told?

This would be a case where it'd be good to reference a quote by Joseph Smith:

All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Elder Packer also said something along the lines that you had to be very knowledgeable about the gospel - as knowledgeable as he was, and then deny it all, to become a son of perdition. In other words, it's a very very rare thing.

On the other hand, you will be responsible for what you hear. But all people are responsible in that manner. If they aren't responsible now, they will responsible in the next life. Everybody will get their chance. That is why knowing what God wants you to do is so important.

If he can't accept your theology intellectually, he doesn't know if he's received a spiritual witness, and he's not sure he's been asking for one with a pure heart (because he believes Jer. 17:9, which basically says that we're not competent to judge the condition of our own hearts), there's nothing in your standard works that would clarify his destination (if he should die without becoming a Mormon)?

Which parts of theology worry you? Perhaps I can... help some?

A pure heart... ah, I see. That is... an important thing. Well, let me tell you, about my experiences, with God and the Spirit. Sometimes, after I sin, even though it's really bad, I feel the Spirit calling me to repentance. After I sin, I have a dirty heart, a heart that's not pure. And yet God still calls me. He still sends his Holy Spirit to help me. He leaves a way for me to return to him. I realize that, and, I hope that most of the time I take that offer, and repent from the bottom of my heart.

There's a great verse in Isaiah:

18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Our sins are as scarlet - our hearts are impure. We cannot be perfect. I am very susceptible to this, as one of my weaknesses is that I am a man of two minds. As James warns, that is a very unstable position. But, as Isaiah says, there is a way back, to repent. Your heart may not be perfectly pure, but you are still capable of feeling the Spirit. Perhaps, not as strongly, but, you will still be capable of doing it, and it will be enough for you to make the right choices, if you choose to make them. The path is laid out before you, all you have to do, is take that first step into the dark, and know that Christ is there to light a candle for you.

I tell you inquringmind, I don't know if any of this stuff perfectly relates to you, though I have a feeling it does. You have the capability to do so much. I don't know what's the highest you could achieve, nor the lowest, but I do know that you are capable. Use that capability, it is good. And don't underestimate the goodness of God; he is so utterly merciful, that... well... you have to stand all amazed. There is few other words which accurately describe it.

Meh, now I feel like I'm going off rambling a bit. Eh. Sorry =/.

In any case, best of wishes,

-TAO

[Robert F. Smith]

By "this little thing," you mean the nature of God?

Whether He's the God I was always taught to believe in--the ontological cause of everything, by whose will we live, and move, and have our being (as in our existence, not just our fleshly tabernacles, or our spirit-bodies.)

You deem that just some tiny little side issue?

Something to just push out of my mind while I read and ponder the Book of Mormon (which portrays God the same way, btw)?

The Bible and Book of Mormon both teach that the nature of God is anthropomorphic (or that the nature of humans is theomorphic), that we are made in his image, and he has repeatedly disclosed himself as a glorified man in Bible & Book of Mormon. Denominational Christianity has developed a Greek philosophical theology and confessional set of conciliar declarations which deny this, thus taking the plain and precious teachings from Scripture by legerdmain.

It isn't that the nature of God and man are unimportant, but that you must have milk before meat. You must master the Gospel fundamentals before you will be ready for more advanced concepts: here a little, there a little, line upon line, . . .

Even the average LDS missionary knows only the basics, and never even uses words like "ontology," and seldom concerns himself with discussion of "intelligence" as the fundamental, eternal spark (or whatever) we all have, and which makes us coeternal with God, having no beginning and no end. The stark difference of this from normative Judeo-Christian theology is tremendous, and is the veritable basis of free agency and solves the problem of evil (theodicy). They don't teach this at the Missionary Training Center.

LDS Missionaries bear their testimony as official messengers of God, and those testimonies are witnessed to by the Holy Spirit. You have only to receive it. I personally have experienced that ineffable and unexpected witness of the Holy Spirit when a sister missionary bore her simple testimony to me one day. God didn't wait for me to ask a question at that time. He took me by the scruff of the neck and let me know what he expected. I have never looked back.

And since the whole Christian world preaches baptism, repentance, faith, and charity, aren't you really saying that the only really important thing is recognizing and accepting the unique authority of the LDS Church?

In other words repenting of being non-Mormon, being baptized Mormon, and having faith in the Mormon Church?

Repentance has nothing to do with being non-Mormon, but rather with everyday human sin. Accepting the light of the Gospel and the Plan of Salvation makes you part of the Kingdom of God on Earth and enables you to bring blessings to others (including your ancestors) through the authority of the Priesthood of the Son of God. Your job is to find out whether LDS claims are true or false and to act accordingly. Seek the counsel of the Holy Spirit and let your conscience be your guide.

And aren't you counseling me to put aside any questions I have about the nature of God as if they were unimportant (even though I think Joseph supposedly said that knowing the nature of God is the first principle of the Gospel)?

Can you not understand why something doesn't compute when I read posts like this?

So that's as clear as it gets then?

The first principles of the Gospel are well defined in the LDS Articles of Faith, but you can certainly go beyond that if you wish. You shouldn't worry about the variety of opinions on this discussion board, or feel bullied by anyone including the missionaries. The decision finally rests with you, and you should feel good about it before you take the leap of faith.

It's not spelled out anywhere in the standard works whether someone whose had your six Gospel lessons is in danger of being an sop if he's unable to swallow everything he's been told?

If he can't accept your theology intellectually, he doesn't know if he's received a spiritual witness, and he's not sure he's been asking for one with a pure heart (because he believes Jer. 17:9, which basically says that we're not competent to judge the condition of our own hearts), there's nothing in your standard works that would clarify his destination (if he should die without becoming a Mormon)?

Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Paul spoke of the need for a new, circumcized heart (Jeremiah 4:4, 9:26, Ezekiel 44:7-9, Acts 7:51, Romans 2:29). Remember, Jeremiah was known to God before he was conceived, and he was chosen as a prophet while still in his mother's womb (1:5). The Plan of Salvation was decided upon in the grand Council in Heaven, and all of us were there and cheerfully agreed. Now we have to fish or cut bait.

You're not going to be a son of perdition merely because you did not accept at face value what the missionaries told you, or even the wide array of opinions you have heard on this board. Very few are capable of being sons of perdition. It takes too much personal knowledge of God and holy things. Satan is Perdition because he knew God very well and rejected his plan and sought to take everyone else with him (misery loves company). God found a way to prevent the success of Satan, and we are living out that clever plan. Join with us in that great cause!

[Nofear]

If there is just one uniform kingdom, why is it referred to as a celestial kingdom rather than the celestial kingdom? As is recorded elsewhere, 'In my fathers house there are many kingdoms'. I don't' think we can classify people into three simple categories. There are as many levels of righteousness as there are people.

In one sense there are numerous celestial kingdoms. Our earth will eventually be one of many that are and many that will be. In another sense there is just one celestial kingdom as they probably all operate under the same lawful structure and have the same "glory". Citizens of terrestrial or telestial glories won't have the privilege/right to inhabitant this post-millennial earth. That kind of literal, physical, and spatial separation makes it difficult for me to adopt a "symbolic" viewpoint. Nor do I see the impetus to motivate such a view.

[mfbukowski]

In one sense there are numerous celestial kingdoms. Our earth will eventually be one of many that are and many that will be. In another sense there is just one celestial kingdom as they probably all operate under the same lawful structure and have the same "glory". Citizens of terrestrial or telestial glories won't have the privilege/right to inhabitant this post-millennial earth. That kind of literal, physical, and spatial separation makes it difficult for me to adopt a "symbolic" viewpoint. Nor do I see the impetus to motivate such a view.

Well said.

For he who is not able to abide the ^alaw of a celestial kingdom cannot ^babide a ^ccelestial glory.

I see this sentence to be structured very closely to:

For he who is not able to abide the law of a civilized society cannot receive a reward for being civilized.

There are many civilized societies, and to me, the statement is more about living the laws of the kingdom, not about how the kingdom(s) is/are structured.

On the other hand let me also say that any linguistic statement is "symbolic" especially written ones since indeed such attempted "representations" of reality are little squiggly letters on a page, each of which are symbols standing for something else, or in this case, pixels on a screen.

It's not exactly like we can walk out the door, look into the sky and count the kingdoms and come back and say "Yep- only one" or "Yep- there's three- just go out and count them!"

I know you know Kuhn (who stole his theories from the Pragmatists- but that is another story) and if he saw science as a series of models to be revised as needed, you can bet that the models of the afterlife we talk about here are -shall we say, "less precise" - than those of science in its sphere.

On the other hand, we can have greater certainty about religious models- I think- because God himself can tell us they are "true" for our religious purposes, (as far as our understanding is necessary) even if we sometimes don't know what all that means.

Edited June 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Inquiring-

if you have not interacted much with Robert F.Smith, as I gathered from his post, I suggest you give it a try.

He is definitely one of the most knowledgeable posters here and seems to have quite a lot of depth across many many gospel topics, besides being a nice guy unlike, well, yours truly!

[ERayR]

By "this little thing," you mean the nature of God?

No not the nature of God but yours and my understanding of that nature.

Whether He's the God I was always taught to believe in--the ontological cause of everything, by whose will we live, and move, and have our being (as in our existence, not just our fleshly tabernacles, or our spirit-bodies.)

You deem that just some tiny little side issue?

Something to just push out of my mind while I read and ponder the Book of Mormon (which portrays God the same way, btw)?

The question is are you willing to give up what you were always taught? Not a side issue but truly an issue to seek personal revelation on through fervent prayer.

And since the whole Christian world preaches baptism, repentance, faith, and charity, aren't you really saying that the only really important thing is recognizing and accepting the unique authority of the LDS Church?

Yes that is probably an accurate assessment as far as it goes. However, you are not being asked to do so unless and until you receive a personal witness.

In other words repenting of being non-Mormon, being baptized Mormon, and having faith in the Mormon Church?

No, I would say repenting of the sins of the world that we partake of every day. Or, to the extent we do it, of not living a Christ like life.

And aren't you counseling me to put aside any questions I have about the nature of God as if they were unimportant (even though I think Joseph supposedly said that knowing the nature of God is the first principle of the Gospel)?

No the council is to go to your knees and receive instruction from the Holy Ghost.

Can you not understand why something doesn't compute when I read posts like this?

I can see how your misunderstandings might lead you to a point of not computing. Perhaps it is poor communication.

So that's as clear as it gets then?

Not if you work hard enough for it and are patient in waiting to receive it. Nothing worthwhile comes easy.

It's not spelled out anywhere in the standard works whether someone whose had your six Gospel lessons is in danger of being an sop if he's unable to swallow everything he's been told?

Don't know what you mean here.

If he can't accept your theology intellectually, he doesn't know if he's received a spiritual witness, and he's not sure he's been asking for one with a pure heart (because he believes Jer. 17:9, which basically says that we're not competent to judge the condition of our own hearts), there's nothing in your standard works that would clarify his destination (if he should die without becoming a Mormon)?

I don't find LDS theology intellectually limiting. If you actually want to know don't worry about the pure heart thing it will be there. Just approach God in prayer with as much passion as you seem to be putting into this post.

[mfbukowski]

And aren't you counseling me to put aside any questions I have about the nature of God as if they were unimportant (even though I think Joseph supposedly said that knowing the nature of God is the first principle of the Gospel)?

Yes, but remember how he got that knowledge of the nature of God. It was by seeing him face to face. He was an unlearned virtually illiterate farm boy before that happened.

You are trying to put the cart before the horse by asking questions and having no reason for believing the answers you receive are true. One needs a reference for truth before one can discern what is true.

You are trying to navigate not only without a compass but with no North.

[Freedom]

In one sense there are numerous celestial kingdoms. Our earth will eventually be one of many that are and many that will be. In another sense there is just one celestial kingdom as they probably all operate under the same lawful structure and have the same "glory". Citizens of terrestrial or telestial glories won't have the privilege/right to inhabitant this post-millennial earth. That kind of literal, physical, and spatial separation makes it difficult for me to adopt a "symbolic" viewpoint. Nor do I see the impetus to motivate such a view.

And where will the may telestial kingdoms be located? Will Liars be lumped in with mass murderers? There will be a separation, but we do not know what that separation is so my position is not to draw to narrow a conclusion. The scriptures are too vague.