CCRW Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Well, one blog site provides the following quotes that I agree with (even if I don't agree with all the blog writers comments): So according to the interpretation of the blog authors the 7th heaven refers to the "higher order of kingdoms". Another option is it could also be a further division in the top degree of the Celestial looking something like this: 1. Celestial 3c2. Celestial 3b3. Celestial 3a4. Celestial 25. Celestial 16. Terrestrial7. Telestial But we have no proof for either theory that isn't speculation. Either way both Joseph Smith and apocryphal literature reference a 7th heaven.And the blog writers correctly reference:D&C 88:37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.stop right there .... don't pursue this with Brother McGregor
JLHPROF Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 stop right there .... don't pursue this with Brother McGregor I assume you have a reason I shouldn't provide quotes from the prophets to Brother McGregor?
CCRW Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Lets just say I believe the "other option" and he proved, what shall I say ... firm? about it being false --- there dead give away Brother McGregor
JLHPROF Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) Lets just say I believe the "other option" and he proved, what shall I say ... firm? about it being false --- there dead give away Brother McGregor Yeah, I'm not overly worried about being disagreed with. I'm the guy that defends polygamy, believes in Adam-God and eternal progession, and argues against changes the Church leadership has made to the temple ordinances. I'm kind of used to dealing with "firm" disagreements. Edited April 12, 2015 by JLHPROF
CCRW Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Yeah, I'm not overly worried about being disagreed with. I'm the guy that defends polygamy, believes in Adam-God and eternal progession, and argues against changes the Church leadership has made to the temple ordinances. I'm kind of used to dealing with "firm" disagreements.You are my twin --- 15 years ago. Might I ask, are you a snufferite?
JLHPROF Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 You are my twin --- 15 years ago. Might I ask, are you a snufferite? Absolutely not. From what little I know of him and his teachings Snuffer has no correct understanding of priesthood and liberal leanings that go completely against my conservative ideals. And his understanding of the 2nd comforter also appears flawed.
CCRW Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Absolutely not. From what little I know of him and his teachings Snuffer has no correct understanding of priesthood and liberal leanings that go completely against my conservative ideals. And his understanding of the 2nd comforter also appears flawed.I'm sorry, I just wondered because during my era, I would have been tempted to go to Manti with Harmston. This was a period of time when many along the Wasatch Front were diligently seeking their Calling and Election. So not identical twins I suppose.
mbh26 Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Try "choose to be disobedient". Grace is primarily connected to those who accept it. Those who choose to reject Christ and his teachings and commandments reject his grace as a matter of course. How is "choose to be disobedient," different than failing to be perfectly obedient. If it's a moral question, capacity to make the right choice is assumed. We make millions of moral choices in life. Perhaps you do some good things because you love God and feel grateful about his sacrifice. Does anyone make the right choice every time? According to this, if they don't, that means they don't love God and therefore have rejected his grace. It seems like the same problem before the atonement.
Russell C McGregor Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Lets just say I believe the "other option" and he proved, what shall I say ... firm? about it being false --- there dead give away Brother McGregor I don't often see much value in relitigating old arguments. I dimly recall a discussion with someone who rather triumphantly flourished a rather complex multi-tiered, multi-kingdom structure at me, based upon no source more authoritative than his memory of discussions with some old high priests I've never met, and treated it as if it were some kind of trump card that settled the matter at dispute in his favour. Is that the discussion you were talking about? If so, IIRC the point I was trying to make had less to do with the number (possible, actual or revealed) of post-resurrection kingdoms, and more to do with what part of your schema any Latter-day Saint was obligated to accept and/or defend. I hope that helps.
JLHPROF Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 How is "choose to be disobedient," different than failing to be perfectly obedient. If it's a moral question, capacity to make the right choice is assumed. We make millions of moral choices in life. Perhaps you do some good things because you love God and feel grateful about his sacrifice. Does anyone make the right choice every time? According to this, if they don't, that means they don't love God and therefore have rejected his grace. It seems like the same problem before the atonement. Choosing to reject Christ is our choice. We ALL fail to be perfectly obedient by our fallen natures. Grace is designed to cover the latter. How much it can be applied the former is doubtful.
JLHPROF Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 I'm sorry, I just wondered because during my era, I would have been tempted to go to Manti with Harmston. This was a period of time when many along the Wasatch Front were diligently seeking their Calling and Election. So not identical twins I suppose. Oh Harmston...there's another guy who didn't understand priesthood, eternal progression, the 2nd comforter, and taught doctrine that went completely against the restored gospel. Glad you thought better of that.
mbh26 Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) Choosing to reject Christ is our choice. We ALL fail to be perfectly obedient by our fallen natures. Grace is designed to cover the latter. How much it can be applied the former is doubtful. But isn't rejecting Christ the same thing as failing to be perfectly obedient? So where is one left with the grace doctrine. I'm a sinner, so therefore I must not love God enough. Is love of God just something you either have or you don't? Why would I want to change myself to love God more (in other words be more obedient), if it were not for my own self interests in worrying about what God will do to me if I don't? And yet, self interest isn't an acceptable motive for God. Edited April 12, 2015 by mbh26
Calm Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) So if you fail to be perfectly obedient that means you don't really love God and are completely ungrateful for his sacrifice and must have never been eligible for grace in the first place? I do not equate "pure" with "perfect" but with the truest form of godly obedience,,,out of love. Along the sense of "pure religion" being expressed through the verse: 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in theiraffliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.We are human, it will be impossible to always obey God perfectly, but we can do it purely by obeying because we love him. Edited April 12, 2015 by calmoriah
CCRW Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 I don't often see much value in relitigating old arguments.and that sure was not the intent ... me either ... I've seen what I was interested in. If so, IIRC the point I was trying to make had less to do with the number (possible, actual or revealed) of post-resurrection kingdoms, and more to do with what part of your schema any Latter-day Saint was obligated to accept and/or defend. I hope that helps.Yes it does ... it highlights my problem which was always seeking after being a mystic Mormon and trying to share with others my experiences. I never did learn.
CCRW Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Oh Harmston...there's another guy who didn't understand priesthood, eternal progression, the 2nd comforter, and taught doctrine that went completely against the restored gospel. Glad you thought better of that.Might I ask how old you are JLHPROF?
Teancum Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Can you be disobedient and still love God?Does a disobedient child still love their parent?
mbh26 Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) Does a disobedient child still love their parent? According to the children or according to the parents? lol No, what they're essentially saying is that men don't love God enough. If they did, they'd be as obedient as God wants them to be. What reason would change a man's mind to cause him to love God more? Edited April 12, 2015 by mbh26
JLHPROF Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Might I ask how old you are JLHPROF? Old enough to remember when Harmston came on the scene. A couple of friends of our family attended a few of his meetings.I was a pretty young man when it happened though.
CCRW Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Old enough to remember when Harmston came on the scene. A couple of friends of our family attended a few of his meetings.I was a pretty young man when it happened though.I wonder who taught a gen-x/millennial old school? Self taught? Parents?
JLHPROF Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 I wonder who taught a gen-x/millennial old school? Self taught? Parents? Both. I was raised by parents who completely revered Joseph Smith and his teachings and revelations. I am also very capable of reading the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and those other prophets and apostles who taught the restored gospel before it was altered in the 20th century. I also have my own studies and insights as to whether the gospel of the 19th century prophets or the 20th/21st century prophets is more in line with the gospel as taught by the ancient prophets and the Savior. So yeah, I'm a little old school.
Russell C McGregor Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 So yeah, I'm a little old school. At least you're not a little old lady (from Pasadena.) [/derail]
Scott Lloyd Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 At least you're not a little old lady (from Pasadena.) [/derail]From "The Muppet Christmas Carol": Scrooge (to the giant Ghost of Christmas Present): You're a little absent-minded, Spirit. Ghost: No, I'm a large, absent-minded spirit."
Recommended Posts