Hymn 284: If You Could Hie To Kolob

[Ahab]

Well, that makes two of us....

No, because I understand what I mean and you clearly don't otherwise you would agree with me.

[Stone holm]

You seem to be under the impression the Church is embarrassed by uniquely Mormon teachings. I don't see that at all.

I think it is too early to tell what may develop under Pres. Monson. Under Pres Hinckley , yes I think there was a tendency to avoid or downplay distinctly Mormon beliefs. I think "embarrassed" is too harsh of a word. "Do not emphasize", I think would be more of Pres. Hinckley's phrasing.

[volgadon]

Has anyone elaborated on the word "hie" in this song? Was that word in vogue back then as a general term for travel or is it the word God uses to refer to his form of travel? To hie in the blink of an eye all the way to Kolob would be quite a rush, I imagine.

To hie is to go somewhere in great haste.

[Calm]

My kids simply refuse to be my subjects.

Yeah, I have absolutely no say in the life of my adult son (my daughter still lives with us so is in different circumstances), though he is consideration personified. He and his wife live their own family life and make their own family experience. I have a sibling that has divorced herself from my parents (for bizarre reasons as my parents are great people) and has no contact with them. Even if we wanted to, we cannot do that in our relationship with God the Father.

And I somehow doubt that when we are resurrected and are all adults throughout eternity, that my kids will somehow be subject to me. I see no reason why that would be seeing as how that relationship simply began in this life and is not an inherent one that existed from the eternity that was as is the case with our relationship with God the Father.

Edited June 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

That's the purpose of having those binding ties. Children are always subject to their parents in the sense that those parents are always pre-eminent in the family relationship.

CFR please.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it is too early to tell what may develop under Pres. Monson. Under Pres Hinckley , yes I think there was a tendency to avoid or downplay distinctly Mormon beliefs. I think "embarrassed" is too harsh of a word. "Do not emphasize", I think would be more of Pres. Hinckley's phrasing.

I think it will be a cold day in h---- before the Lord's anointed begins to "downplay" scripture.

But what do I know? I believe the Great Salt Lake Council behaved just as the Church leaders wanted it to with regard to last winter's headlong rush by the BSA National Council to admit gays.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, I have absolutely no say in the life of my adult son (my daughter still lives with us so is in different circumstances), though he is consideration personified. He and his wife live their own family life and make their own family experience. I have a sibling that has divorced herself from my parents (for bizarre reasons as my parents are great people) and has no contact with them. Even if we wanted to, we cannot do that in our relationship with God the Father.

And I somehow doubt that when we are resurrected and are all adults throughout eternity, that my kids will somehow be subject to me. I see no reason why that would be seeing as how that relationship simply began in this life and is not an inherent one that existed from the eternity that was as is the case with our relationship with God the Father.

If we are all in perfect unity and one with Christ as Christ is one with the Father (see John 17), I see no need for subjection as we might think of it with our limited mortal understanding.

[Stone holm]

I think it will be a cold day in h---- before the Lord's anointed begins to "downplay" scripture.

But what do I know? I believe the Great Salt Lake Council behaved just as the Church leaders wanted it to with regard to last winter's headlong rush by the BSA National Council to admit gays.

Who said anything about Scripture, am thinking more of Pres. Hinckley's coy response regarding the Snow couplet to Larry King, and the downplay of Christ's marital status and the clear preference for pablum in Sunday School lessons, and the reining in of certain apologetics groups to safer ground.

[Ahab]

CFR please.

I was talking about how children will always be subject to their parents in the sense that those children will never advance ahead of the parents in the family line or tree, even if they reject the sealing ordinances which bind those family ties. Children always follow the parents in that way and there is no way for them to get ahead, even if they become as perfect in their attributes and character as the parents. Being "subject" to someone doesn't mean you have to do everything they tell you to do, and we have proven that by not doing everything our Father has told us to do, but we are still subject to him because he is our parent and he will always have the preeminent position in our family relationship. Our mission, if we choose to accept it, is to become as perfect as our Father in heaven.

[Questing Beast]

No, because I understand what I mean and you clearly don't otherwise you would agree with me.

Ditto that....

[Questing Beast]

I was talking about how children will always be subject to their parents in the sense that those children will never advance ahead of the parents in the family line or tree, even if they reject the sealing ordinances which bind those family ties. Children always follow the parents in that way and there is no way for them to get ahead, even if they become as perfect in their attributes and character as the parents. Being "subject" to someone doesn't mean you have to do everything they tell you to do, and we have proven that by not doing everything our Father has told us to do, but we are still subject to him because he is our parent and he will always have the preeminent position in our family relationship. Our mission, if we choose to accept it, is to become as perfect as our Father in heaven.

When the c. twelve year-old Jesus left the temple with his parents and was "subject unto them", that meant that his mortal, underage self obeyed the laws of the land. That's it. The laws of the land virtually everywhere give parents of underage children powers of control over them. But those man-made laws in no measure have any control or dominion over another human being's mind or immortal destiny. This world is mortal, we are immortal. The "family" ties here are analogous, not literal, since we are, according to the doctrine, ALL children of GtF, i.e. siblings. There is no way that my mortal children are my children in any immortal sense; we are "role-playing" here, to learn what Is and is not true vis-a-vis finding Joy. You can read BY on this topic of our wives and children not being our own; I believe the quote is in Hugh Nibley's "Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints". Going off memory, BY said he "has no wives or children", that these in this life are given to him to see what he will do with them, then if he is worthy he will someday have his own wives and children. You place too much emphasis on the literal, earthly family tree stuff. It doesn't operate in the eternities according to what happens here. But as always, church dogma trumps personal opinion in your own mind and you can always fall back on that....

Edited June 19, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

No, because I understand what I mean and you clearly don't otherwise you would agree with me.

Ahab, you have such a humble way with words...lol

[Ahab]

When the c. twelve year-old Jesus left the temple with his parents and was "subject unto them", that meant that his mortal, underage self obeyed the laws of the land. That's it. The laws of the land virtually everywhere give parents of underage children powers of control over them. But those man-made laws in no measure have any control or dominion over another human being's mind or immortal destiny. This world is mortal, we are immortal. The "family" ties here are analogous, not literal, since we are, according to the doctrine, ALL children of GtF, i.e. siblings. There is no way that my mortal children are my children in any immortal sense; we are "role-playing" here, to learn what Is and is not true vis-a-vis finding Joy. You can read BY on this topic of our wives and children not being our own; I believe the quote is in Hugh Nibley's "Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints". Going off memory, BY said he "has no wives or children", that these in this life are given to him to see what he will do with them, then if he is worthy he will someday have his own wives and children. You place too much emphasis on the literal, earthly family tree stuff. It doesn't operate in the eternities according to what happens here. But as always, church dogma trumps personal opinion in your own mind and you can always fall back on that....

You don't seem to understand the sealing ties that bind families together in a certain relationship to each other. It is true that all of us are children of our Father in heaven, but we're also born through mortal parents and those relationships can endure just as they are in the family tree through the sealing ordinances which are avaiable in a temple. Thus, when parents and children are sealed together they are sealed in the same relationships they have in the family tree... with the parents remaining in the preeminent position.

Children don't ever become the leaders of their parents. Children always remain subject to their parents, and God has never said that lasts only until the 18th birthday of those children when they become adults. Adults or not they're still the children of the parents, and through the sealing ties their mortal parents can remain their parents in the family tree. The children can refuse to be sealed to the parents, however, but if they refuse that tie they also cut themselves off from having any of their mortal children sealed to them and they will also never have children of their own in heaven, because it is through the sealing ties that parents are sealed to each other and their children are sealed to them.

[Ahab]

Ahab, you have such a humble way with words...lol

I do, don't I. Thanks for noticing.

[Stone holm]

You don't seem to understand the sealing ties that bind families together in a certain relationship to each other. It is true that all of us are children of our Father in heaven, but we're also born through mortal parents and those relationships can endure just as they are in the family tree through the sealing ordinances which are avaiable in a temple. Thus, when parents and children are sealed together they are sealed in the same relationships they have in the family tree... with the parents remaining in the preeminent position.

Children don't ever become the leaders of their parents. Children always remain subject to their parents, and God has never said that lasts only until the 18th birthday of those children when they become adults. Adults or not they're still the children of the parents, and through the sealing ties their mortal parents can remain their parents in the family tree. The children can refuse to be sealed to the parents, however, but if they refuse that tie they also cut themselves off from having any of their mortal children sealed to them and they will also never have children of their own in heaven, because it is through the sealing ties that parents are sealed to each other and their children are sealed to them.

Although the veracity of the opinion has been questioned before on this thread, the sealing ordinance was, the first time I experienced it, explained to me as being one of the few ordinances which we currently have which relate to the Patriarchal Priesthood (not the office of Patriarch in the MP) and from other things said, I took that to mean that the Patriarchal Priesthood governs the relationships amongst the gods, and the MP governs the relationship between God and mortals. Thus it would appear that Celestial Kingdoms are governed in a tribal fashion. This is consistent with Jesus being literally the Son of Heavenly Father and Mary being a wife of Heavenly Father, since that would take Him and her out of the Patriarchal Chain leading back to Adam.

[Ahab]

Although the veracity of the opinion has been questioned before on this thread, the sealing ordinance was, the first time I experienced it, explained to me as being one of the few ordinances which we currently have which relate to the Patriarchal Priesthood (not the office of Patriarch in the MP) and from other things said, I took that to mean that the Patriarchal Priesthood governs the relationships amongst the gods, and the MP governs the relationship between God and mortals. Thus it would appear that Celestial Kingdoms are governed in a tribal fashion. This is consistent with Jesus being literally the Son of Heavenly Father and Mary being a wife of Heavenly Father, since that would take Him and her out of the Patriarchal Chain leading back to Adam.

Mary need not be a wife of our Heavenly Father to be the mother of Jesus, and the father next up in the family tree is simply the father that bears the responsibility of directly teaching the child in the way he should go. All fathers in the chain have a role, though, in that all are linked together to each other and thus what comes from one higher up is passed down the chain to the others and it all goes back up through the same chain. The wife of each has the role of helping her own husband, and Mary is the wife of Joseph with the role of helping him with his children who are also her children. Jesus is directly under our Father in heaven.

[Questing Beast]

You don't seem to understand the sealing ties that bind families together in a certain relationship to each other. It is true that all of us are children of our Father in heaven, but we're also born through mortal parents and those relationships can endure just as they are in the family tree through the sealing ordinances which are avaiable in a temple. Thus, when parents and children are sealed together they are sealed in the same relationships they have in the family tree... with the parents remaining in the preeminent position.

Children don't ever become the leaders of their parents. Children always remain subject to their parents, and God has never said that lasts only until the 18th birthday of those children when they become adults. Adults or not they're still the children of the parents, and through the sealing ties their mortal parents can remain their parents in the family tree. The children can refuse to be sealed to the parents, however, but if they refuse that tie they also cut themselves off from having any of their mortal children sealed to them and they will also never have children of their own in heaven, because it is through the sealing ties that parents are sealed to each other and their children are sealed to them.

I "understand" the sealing ties and the "tentacles of divine providence" promises. Trouble with your view is that "children are born with an inalienable right to be a disappointment to their parents." Your paradigm of the eternities is full of huge holes in each and every family tree, due to children being a disappointment to their parents. That is why the "tentacles of divine providence" promise was coined in the first place: too many Mormon youths were growing up and tossing the religion of their fathers. That made no sense to the faithful, TBM parents: what was God going to do about those who failed in this life to accept their place in the "family tree?" It was unthinkable. So, God allows that anyone who has assumed the temple covenants, and has children BIC, or sealed later in any manner whatsoever (temple proxy sealings mean that "there is no escape" for anyone, all will be sealed, and the "tentacles of divine providence" promise includes every child of every worthy parent), will through process of time return to the truth faith, thus mending every "hole" in every family tree in the eternities. But, this presupposes that each and every child BIC or sealed will WANT to be a "Mormon" in the eternities. That is where Mormonism makes no sense and offends the non Mormon sentiment about choice: "You are not to make me into a Mormon after I die!" And that sentiment is very big among those non members who finally get a clue what goes on in the temples and how far reaching and eternally binding it is in Mormon beliefs.

What makes more sense, "Ahab", is that each individual is answerable to only One and no others. Parents in this world are as temporarily here as their posterity will be. We all go out of this world. Faith says that we continue as who we are, or even more than who we were here, because immortals can hardly bother to measure so short a span of space-time as this puny ball of mud and existence on it no longer than three score and ten years. I know my "heretical" disbelief is not compatible with your TBM paradigm. That's okay though, since I have to answer to "God" for it, or rather, "God" has the answers to all my questions about it! I'll wait. I don't have a choice in the matter....

[Ahab]

I know my "heretical" disbelief is not compatible with your TBM paradigm. That's okay though, since I have to answer to "God" for it, or rather, "God" has the answers to all my questions about it! I'll wait. I don't have a choice in the matter....

It's more compatible with my paradigm than you realize. I mentioned how you can refuse the ties to your family tree, but that will go both ways and you'll also be cut off from your own mortal children as they become the responsibility of the next father in your line who accepts the sealing ties. Your mortal children are his children, too, and through the sealing ties just as much as they are children of our Father in heaven. It's your choice to refuse the binding ties, but it will come at a cost to you. I hope you'll change your mind before it's too late.

[Scott Lloyd]

Who said anything about Scripture, am thinking more of Pres. Hinckley's coy response regarding the Snow couplet to Larry King, ...

President Hinckley was coping with a difficult situation as best he could. All things considered, I think he was prudent not to get drawn into a trap of trying to explain a profound doctrine in the 10 seconds or whatever that was allowed for a live response. Whatever we might think of how he handled it, one is not justified in jumping to the conclusion that the Church downplays the doctrine of theosis, either then or now. Throughout, it has remained in our lesson manuals and discourses. No "downplay" or de-emphasis has occurred, nor is it apt to.

... and the downplay of Christ's marital status ...

"Christ's marital status" is speculative, non-authoritative folk doctrine and has no place in Church classes and talks in the first place

... and the clear preference for pablum in Sunday School lessons, ...

Often, one person's "pablum" is another person's inspiration and stimulation. A Sunday School teacher's task, within a 40-minute time frame, is to lead a discussion that will motivate people to righteousness and build testimony. That is and should always be the paramount consideration.

That said, when I taught gospel doctrine, I never felt obliged or compelled to avoid discussing Kolob or Adam-ondi-Ahman or the Restoration or the Latter-day dispensation or any of a host of other uniquely Mormon topics, nor would I feel so if I had the calling today. But you can bet I would steer clear of folk doctrines, and justifiably so.

As a newly called choir director, I have every intention of having our choir sing about Kolob, Adam-ondi-Ahman, the greatness and unique role of Joseph Smith as Prophet of the Restoration, salvation for the dead, the Book of Mormon, and any other uniquely Mormon topic that strikes my fancy for which I can find an appealing musical setting and arrangement. No one has yet told me I can't.

... and the reining in of certain apologetics groups to safer ground.

If you are referring to last year's regrettable banishment of Daniel Peterson and colleagues from the Maxwell Institute, I don't see them as having been reined in by anybody. With the rapid establishment of the Interpreter Foundation and the prolific output of Interpreter, a Journal of Mormon Scripture, I see them as being every bit as energetic and vibrant as before. More so, in fact.

I can't speak for FAIR, but we have plenty of its members who are contributors to this board. Calmoriah, Juliann, awyatt, Mike Ash, Scott Gordon, wikiwonka, how about it? Are you guys feeling reined in "to safer ground" these days?

Edited June 19, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

President Hinckley was coping with a difficult situation as best he could. All things considered, I think he was prudent not to get drawn into a trap of trying to explain a profound doctrine in the 10 seconds or whatever that was allowed for a live response. Whatever we might think of how he handled it, one is not justified in jumping to the conclusion that the Church downplays the doctrine of theosis, either then or now. Throughout, it has remained in our lesson manuals and discourses. No "downplay" or de-emphasis has occurred, nor is it apt to.

"Christ's marital status" is speculative, non-authoritative folk doctrine and has no place in Church classes and talks in the first place

Often, one person's "pablum" is another person's inspiration and stimulation. A Sunday School teacher's task, within a 40-minute time frame, is to lead a discussion that will motivate people to righteousness and build testimony. That is and should always be the paramount consideration.

That said, when I taught gospel doctrine, I never felt obliged or compelled to avoid discussing Kolob or Adam-ondi-Ahman or the Restoration or the Latter-day dispensation or any of a host of other uniquely Mormon topics, nor would I feel so if I had the calling today. But you can bet I would steer clear of folk doctrines, and justifiably so.

As a newly called choir director, I have every intention of having our choir sing about Kolob, Adam-ondi-Ahman, the greatness and unique role of Joseph Smith as Prophet of the Restoration, salvation for the dead, the Book of Mormon, and any other uniquely Mormon topic that strikes my fancy for which I can find an appealing musical setting and arrangement. No one has yet told me I can't.

If you are referring to last year's regrettable banishment of Daniel Peterson and colleagues from the Maxwell Institute, I don't see them as having been reined in by anybody. With the rapid establishment of the Interpreter Foundation and the prolific output of Interpreter, a Journal of Mormon Scripture, I see them as being every bit as energetic and vibrant as before. More so, in fact.

I can't speak for FAIR, but w have plenty of its members who are contributors to this board. Calmoriah, Juliann, awyatt, Mike Ash, Scott Gordon, wikiwonka, how about it? Are you guys feeling reined in "to safer ground" these days?

Ah well, when I was a Gospel Doctrine instructor I never felt compelled to follow the manuals either -- although I just watched a young instructor whose style was like mine from decades ago get released....

[Scott Lloyd]

Ah well, when I was a Gospel Doctrine instructor I never felt compelled to follow the manuals either -- although I just watched a young instructor whose style was like mine from decades ago get released....

I got released too. Happens to everybody eventually.

[Stone holm]

I got released too. Happens to everybody eventually.

Yep, some sooner than others.

Cheers!

[Questing Beast]

It's more compatible with my paradigm than you realize. I mentioned how you can refuse the ties to your family tree, but that will go both ways and you'll also be cut off from your own mortal children as they become the responsibility of the next father in your line who accepts the sealing ties. Your mortal children are his children, too, and through the sealing ties just as much as they are children of our Father in heaven. It's your choice to refuse the binding ties, but it will come at a cost to you. I hope you'll change your mind before it's too late.

I think you don't get the "tentacles of divine providence" promise. According to it, I CAN'T not be included, because my parents have the promise that "one day" I will return to my belief in the Mormon "plan of salvation", ergo I cannot be lost or lose my "inheritance", or be dropped from the family tree, because the promise to faithful parents is that they will have all of their children with them in the eternities: all that is required of faithful parents is that they not fail to keep their temple covenants. Do you see the implication here? Say a man lives his covenants as perfectly as mortals possibly can, he knows he is worthy of the "divine noodley appendages" promise, even if his wife is a non believer now; this man sees several of his children "go astray" as their mother has done. What is the promise to him? His posterity cannot be lost. That means that his estranged wife, BIC (or otherwise sealed to her parents) also cannot be lost because her parents' worthiness covers her as well. Eventually, the faithful man's promised blessings will work to recover every child that wanders. When the man becomes a grandfather then even more family members are covered by his faithfulness. Taken to its full extension, this "divine noodley appendages" promise ultimately covers every member of a faithful temple covenants keeper's family. This doctrine (which Boyd K. Packer pushes with tenacity) as much as admits that nobody is going to be "lost" in the eternities. Anyone looking at his/her entire earthly posterity is not going to be satisfied if there are "holes" in it, so the promise is going to extend to the lot....

Edited June 19, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Ahab]

I think you don't get the "tentacles of divine providence" promise. According to it, I CAN'T not be included, because my parents have the promise that "one day" I will return to my belief in the Mormon "plan of salvation", ergo I cannot be lost or lose my "inheritance", or be dropped from the family tree, because the promise to faithful parents is that they will have all of their children with them in the eternities: all that is required of faithful parents is that they not fail to keep their temple covenants. Do you see the implication here? Say a man lives his covenants as perfectly as mortals possibly can, he knows he is worthy of the "divine noodley appendages" promise, even if his wife is a non believer now; this man sees several of his children "go astray" as their mother has done. What is the promise to him? His posterity cannot be lost. That means that his estranged wife, BIC (or otherwise sealed to her parents) also cannot be lost because her parents' worthiness covers her as well. Eventually, the faithful man's promised blessings will work to recover every child that wanders. When the man becomes a grandfather then even more family members are covered by his faithfulness. Taken to its full extension, this "divine noodley appendages" promise ultimately covers every member of a faithful temple covenants keeper's family. This doctrine (which Boyd K. Packer pushes with tenacity) as much as admits that nobody is going to be "lost" in the eternities. Anyone looking at his/her entire earthly posterity is not going to be satisfied if there are "holes" in it, so the promise is going to extend to the lot....

Do you see the difference between what I said and what you're saying? If your understanding were true then nobody would ever be lost as a son (or daughter) of Perdition, but the truth is that there are some and there always will be and because of their own choices to reject the full blessings of the gospel including those sealings. The parents may have accepted their part of the sealing ordinances and they would probably know where those who were once their children went, but the faithfulness of the parents doesn't mean the children will be or become faithful. At most they would only be able to help those people choose to accept their part of the ordinance and the blessings of it.

[Scott Lloyd]

If you guys are going to be listening to music as you hie to Kolob, and beyond, you're going to be missing out on the natural sounds of all that you'll be passing. Might want to turn it down at least a little bit. I'd rather just travel in silence for at least my first few trips.

Not time to hear much of anything, music or outside noises, if it's "in the twinkling of an eye."