The Underlying Principles For Mark E Petersen's Address

[Bobbieaware]

Genetics is not a reliable race identifier. Because "race" is a socially derived indicator of certain phenotypic features that we deem important. The definition of what places someone in a specific race varies from culture to culture and region to region. Genetics can give us some indication of ancestral origins....but it's not a dynamic and complete picture of that either.

I’d break down verse three into semi-colons. It’s clear that these terms echo other verses to give a better sense of their meaning and context.

3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; - We are called and prepared in our premortal life. I take this in account things like 1 nephi 10:18 which states that the way was prepared for all men to have God manifested. I also assume it means all are called because of our exceeding faith/good works in saying that children are whole from the foundation of the earth (moses 6:54)….ie. we all chose to partake in Christ’s redemptive plan and not follow satan. Those who were not exceedingly faithful aren’t born here physically.

in the first place being left to choose good or evil; - This I tie to the wording in 2 nephi 2 where this life is where we have been left to truly choose good or evil

therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. – on earth, those who have been ordained are done so because they have have excercised faith here. Their faith here “calls them” to the holy calling prepared for them. Preparatory redemption is also tied closely in D&C to the work we do for the dead. So all those who showed “exceedingly great faith” without the full knowledge of the gospel and in their own respects can receive what was prepared for them from the foundation of the world (ie. this holy order of God)

4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. – reiterating what was stated above. Basically we are called to ordination because we are faithful in choosing good over evil when left to it on this 2nd estate.

5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; - See moses 6:54 again….all are born “whole”….so basically we came here to this earth on the same standing.

thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared— (Alma 13) – we are called based on choosing not to harden our heart on this 2nd estate (ie. earth). This call was made possible and prepared by the atonement of christ

Helpful also is the verses following:

10 Now, as I said concerning the holy order, or this high priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God; and it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish; - speaking of those who had entered this in the past on earth.

11 Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb. – again, their righteousness here called them to the holy order prepared for ALL of those who sought after righteousness on this earth.

12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God. – talking about the eternal blessings that are received by entering into the order of God…initiatory blessings elucidate this. These are the eternal promises that come from following the Gospel of JC and entering in His divine order of redemption and sanctification through the power of His atonement. An atonement that give all people, alive or dead, the opportunity to receive all that He has.

13 And now, my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth a fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest. – call for all of us to do this to also be called to this holy order and receive our rest.

With luv,

BD

In the verses I quoted from Alma 13, Alma's whole point is that those who exercised exceedingly great faith in following the Lord in the preexistence are foreordained to hold the holy priesthood of the Son of God in mortality, while those who were not similarly faithful and valiant are not foreordained to hold the holy priesthood and leadership positions in the earthly kingdom of God. Your interpretation that all were equally faithful and for that reason foreordained to hold the priesthood in mortality couldn't possibly be correct because Alma's whole point was to CONTRAST the exceeding faithful spirits, who were foreordained to hold the priesthood in mortality, with those less faithful spirits who were deprived of the opportunity to hold the priesthood because they didn't take full advantage of the equal opportunities for spiritual growth graciously provided to them by the Lord. In an October 1973 General Comference address, then Church President Harold B. Lee explained the Gospel principle of foreordination in this way:

"All these rewards were seemingly promised, or foreordained, before the world was. Surely these matters must have been determined by the kind of lives we had lived in that premortal spirit world. Some may question these assumptions, but at the same time they will accept without any question the belief that each one of us will be judged when we leave this earth according to his or her deeds during our lives here in mortality. Isn’t it just as reasonable to believe that what we have received here in this earth [life] was given to each of us according to the merits of our conduct before we came here?” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1973, 7–8; or Ensign, Jan. 1974, 5).

Edited September 12, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

"Let's be honest. Is it not true some here are being deliberately obtuse on this point? "

Are you suggesting people are lying about how they understand the point? If so, why?

"A knowledgeable member of the Church would have to be deliberately obtuse to miss section 76's clearly intended meaning: that the majority of the human race will inherit a place within the telestial kingdom of glory. "

And a knowledgeable member would be aware that apostles and prophets varied in their belief that there was or was not progress in between the knigdoms. If so, even if the CK had only three members and the TLK had billions, given enough time, repentance and eternal progress a time may come where the CK had billions and the TLK had 3 or so.

Infant mortality rate affects this as well since all who die before accountabilty are destined for the CK...with the very high mortality rates in the past, that is a huge part of humanity in the CK right there, even if for some reaon they weren't able to progress to exaltation, another less debated...most leaders seem to believe progression can occur within all kingdoms.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

See D&C 76:67 and 109. "Innumerable" is "innumerable," regardless of the kingdom. So verse 109 does not imply that there are more in that kingdom than any other. Where do you think the “innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality; And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemer’s name” from D&C 138:12-13 will go?

D&C 76 uses the word "imnumerable" as a synonym to "a very large number of people." But the intentionally placed additional qualifier "as the sand upon the seashore" indicates it's the largest group of people. It's the difference between saying a very large number of people and an extremely large number of people. Rather than sinking my ship, you make my point.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

"Let's be honest. Is it not true some here are being deliberately obtuse on this point? "

Are you suggesting people are lying about how they understand the point? If so, why?

"A knowledgeable member of the Church would have to be deliberately obtuse to miss section 76's clearly intended meaning: that the majority of the human race will inherit a place within the telestial kingdom of glory. "

And a knowledgeable member would be aware that apostles and prophets varied in their belief that there was or was not progress in between the knigdoms. If so, even if the CK had only three members and the TLK had billions, given enough time, repentance and eternal progress a time may come where the CK had billions and the TLK had 3 or so.

Infant mortality rate affects this as well since all who die before accountabilty are destined for the CK...with the very high mortality rates in the past, that is a huge part of humanity in the CK right there, even if for some reaon they weren't able to progress to exaltation, another less debated...most leaders seem to believe progression can occur within all kingdoms.

Joseph Fielding Smith was careful to say the telestial kingdom has the largest number of decision making adults. I have quoted ttwo leaders of the Church who back me up on this point. Can you find any Church leaders who contradict McConkie and Smith on this point?

[Calm]

It is 6 am for me and I need to get back to sleep.

Rather than getting stalled on this point, I am fine with saying for the rest of the conversation, let's accept it as a given if it is necessary for your argument.

I am much more interested in you answering my two questions from a bit back as they seemed crucial to your discourse but were imo left unexplained.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Calm

[Calm]

To make it easy, reposting:

1) removed this one because while I don't see it as answered completely (though I appreciate the time and effort you put into addressing most of it) if the second one is answered it will likely cover what needs to still be addressed for understanding.

2) And is the "mark of the curse" what you term "race identifier"? Or something else?

When the curse is removed, is the mark removed as well?

If not, why not given its purpose (to make those separated from God--- the curse---loathesome to those in covenant with God) is gone (having repented, they again covenant with God)?

To be even clearer, I hope, what happens to their inward race identifier (DNA) that conveys the mark from one cursed generation of the bloodline to the next generation of the bloodline, some of which are no longer cursed? If the curse is removed, is the mark as well? Is their DNA changed and if so, can you show this happening in the scriptures over the various times Lamanites repent and become accepted, no longer loathesome to the Nephites, even become part of the Nehite community?

If the mark is not removed, their DNA not changed, what good was the mark in making them loathesome in the first place?

And now that I think of it, my other comment implies a question:

3) The problem with focusing on lineage inheritances good or bad based on 'blood' or DNA is go back 20 generations or so and any area is so mixed that everyone is of the same bloodlines. Go back more and blood is being shared across oceans. There is a good chance iow that almost everyone on earth is of Abraham's bloodline as well as Cain's.

Implied question, since for your argument chosen bloodlines are crucial, what happens to that argument when most of us share in those bloodlines?

And you missed this one as well. I think you ought to answer it since it seemed an important part of your comments and can indicate how you are viewing others' participation and commitment to the conversation:

4). "Let's be honest. Is it not true some here are being deliberately obtuse on this point? .... A knowledgeable member of the Church would have to be deliberately obtuse to miss section 76's clearly intended meaning: that the majority of the human race will inherit a place within the telestial kingdom of glory."

Are you suggesting people are lying about how they understand the point? If so, why?

My apologies for having more than one question at a time, but I believe they are all important to understanding your construction of the conversation and should not be missed among the others comments and I added clarifying questions to the main one so that the direction of where I hope your answers will go will not be missed. Thank you for your attention and time. I would not be asking these if I did not believe they were essential to understand in the ongoing context of your discussion.

For real ease of keeping track of unanswered questions, here is Juliann's as well, edited just for the question part:

"Do you believe Job was African? His skin turned black....You also need to explain why the BOM inexplicably starts talking about Africans rather than Nephites and Lamanites."

There may be other questions others asked that they feel are unanswered, but since you and they (CV and BD) are continuing to have major interchanges, I figure they are best to judge if answering them is important for clarification or not.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

"Let's be honest. Is it not true some here are being deliberately obtuse on this point? "

Are you suggesting people are lying about how they understand the point? If so, why?

"A knowledgeable member of the Church would have to be deliberately obtuse to miss section 76's clearly intended meaning: that the majority of the human race will inherit a place within the telestial kingdom of glory. "

And a knowledgeable member would be aware that apostles and prophets varied in their belief that there was or was not progress in between the knigdoms. If so, even if the CK had only three members and the TLK had billions, given enough time, repentance and eternal progress a time may come where the CK had billions and the TLK had 3 or so.

Infant mortality rate affects this as well since all who die before accountabilty are destined for the CK...with the very high mortality rates in the past, that is a huge part of humanity in the CK right there, even if for some reaon they weren't able to progress to exaltation, another less debated...most leaders seem to believe progression can occur within all kingdoms.

 

If eternal progression applies to all would it not also apply to those in the Celestial Kingdom?

[Calm]

If eternal progression applies to all would it not also apply to those in the Celestial Kingdom?

It seems to me when eternal progress is spoken of it is in particular reference to the CK. what do you see it as referring to? If God is progressing do you see him as 'moving out' of the CK? There is, as far as we know, no higher kingdom so the implication to me is he just keeps pushing the upper boundary higher so to speak.

If that isn't clear, try the analogy of what grade do you give a student who has met all the requirements for a A+ and surpassed them? An A+ (along a bigger pat on the back and a more enthusiastic teacher recommendation for the scholarship). Still the same grade category.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

It seems to me when eternal progress is spoken of it is in particular reference to the CK. what do you see it as referring to? If God is progressing do you see him as 'moving out' of the CK? There is, as far as we know, no higher kingdom so the implication to me is he just keeps pushing the upper boundary higher so to speak.

If that isn't clear, try the analogy of what grade do you give a student who has met all the requirements for a A+ and surpassed them? An A+ (along a bigger pat on the back and a more enthusiastic teacher recommendation for the scholarship). Still the same grade category.

 

Then by definition it isn't eternal progression. God is also always progressing. Though not in knowledge, but in glory through his children.

 

A+s' are fine. But there will always be room for more knowledge, skill, and application. IE: 100% correct is better than an A+ which usually starts at about the 95% correct rate.

[Calm]

"Then by definition it isn't eternal progression"

Not sure how you get there since growth is growth and becoming more aligned with God even as he progresses seems to me to be the essence of eternal progression but this seems off topic so why don't you start a new thread if it is important to you.

[Calm]

Joseph Fielding Smith was careful to say the telestial kingdom has the largest number of decision making adults. I have quoted ttwo leaders of the Church who back me up on this point. Can you find any Church leaders who contradict McConkie and Smith on this point?

It occurs to me my point was missed.

There are apostles who believed in progression between the kingdoms. Therefore the Telestial Kingdom can have the largest number of decisionmaking adults assigned to it.

If progression between kingdoms is allowed, it doesn't mean they are residents for the eternities however.

But again this does not seem to be a central post to the discussion....that the TK must remain forever the kingdom with the most inhabitants, so I see no problem with accepting at a particular time it is such to get the conversation unstalled on this point...though I still would like to know why you are insisting people are being deliberately obtuse just because they don't follow your specific line of reasoning for what the implication of the scripture means.

[Calm]

D&C 76 uses the word "imnumerable" as a synonym to "a very large number of people." But the intentionally placed additional qualifier "as the sand upon the seashore" indicates it's the largest group of people. It's the difference between saying a very large number of people and an extremely large number of people. Rather than sinking my ship, you make my point.

I was going to drop it but it seems to me this verse is very relevant given we are taught that family only exists in the CK.

From Sec 132:

Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

If Abraham's eternal family is as the sand upon the seashore, this indicates the Celestial Kingdom is filled as well with the same level of countless individuals according to your reasoning.

This does not speak to the number of those exalted, which could very well be few in number compared to the rest.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

To make it easy, reposting:

1) removed this one because while I don't see it as answered completely (though I appreciate the time and effort you put into addressing most of it) if the second one is answered it will likely cover what needs to still be addressed for understanding.

2) And is the "mark of the curse" what you term "race identifier"? Or something else?

When the curse is removed, is the mark removed as well?

If not, why not given its purpose (to make those separated from God--- the curse---loathesome to those in covenant with God) is gone (having repented, they again covenant with God)?

To be even clearer, I hope, what happens to their inward race identifier (DNA) that conveys the mark from one cursed generation of the bloodline to the next generation of the bloodline, some of which are no longer cursed? If the curse is removed, is the mark as well? Is their DNA changed and if so, can you show this happening in the scriptures over the various times Lamanites repent and become accepted, no longer loathesome to the Nephites, even become part of the Nehite community?

If the mark is not removed, their DNA not changed, what good was the mark in making them loathesome in the first place?

And now that I think of it, my other comment implies a question:

3) The problem with focusing on lineage inheritances good or bad based on 'blood' or DNA is go back 20 generations or so and any area is so mixed that everyone is of the same bloodlines. Go back more and blood is being shared across oceans. There is a good chance iow that almost everyone on earth is of Abraham's bloodline as well as Cain's.

Implied question, since for your argument chosen bloodlines are crucial, what happens to that argument when most of us share in those bloodlines?

And you missed this one as well. I think you ought to answer it since it seemed an important part of your comments and can indicate how you are viewing others' participation and commitment to the conversation:

4). "Let's be honest. Is it not true some here are being deliberately obtuse on this point? .... A knowledgeable member of the Church would have to be deliberately obtuse to miss section 76's clearly intended meaning: that the majority of the human race will inherit a place within the telestial kingdom of glory."

Are you suggesting people are lying about how they understand the point? If so, why?

My apologies for having more than one question at a time, but I believe they are all important to understanding your construction of the conversation and should not be missed among the others comments and I added clarifying questions to the main one so that the direction of where I hope your answers will go will not be missed. Thank you for your attention and time. I would not be asking these if I did not believe they were essential to understand in the ongoing context of your discussion.

For real ease of keeping track of unanswered questions, here is Juliann's as well, edited just for the question part:

"Do you believe Job was African? His skin turned black....You also need to explain why the BOM inexplicably starts talking about Africans rather than Nephites and Lamanites."

There may be other questions others asked that they feel are unanswered, but since you and they (CV and BD) are continuing to have major interchanges, I figure they are best to judge if answering them is important for clarification or not.

Do a Google search under the search terms "The Lamanite Mark, BYU Studies Center, Rodney Turner" and read brother Turner's comprehensive article on this very subject. I found and read on Thursday and I believe it will answer all your questions. After reading myself, I'm now convinced more than ever that the mark the Lord placed on the Lamanites actually was a dark skin, just as the Book of Mormon says. I can understand why making such an assertion in today's politically correct environment could cause a firestorm. especially in light of the Church's past history with the priesthood ban, but I see no compelling reason -- other than the fear of verbal assaults from the political correct -- to not take the Nephite prophets at their own literal word. But with that being said, I do understand and empathize with those who find such things bitter pills to swallow. But a study of the scriptures quickly reveals God does some very tough things -- like swallowing up deep in the earth entire Nephite cities filled with men, women and children -- and for this reason I ascribe the the outward sign of the Lamanite curse to be another one of those difficult things one to come to grips with in a very long list of "hard things" the Lord has done.

But in spite of all the above, it's crucially important to understand the Book of Mormon also tells us God doesn't do anything save it be for the benefit of the world, a world filled with his literal spirit children whom he loves with perfect charity. And because I truly believe God does nothing except it be for the benefit of all his children, my faith convinces me that though the curse and the mark of the curse placed by the Lord upon the Lamanites seems awfully harsh and insensitive, in the end we will all come to realize, just like the curse of the fall, a far greater ultimate good willbe everyone been accomplished by the Lord's curse upon the Lamanites than if he never cursed them at all. Just looking at the mighty, steadfast and immovable Lamanites. who were converted to the Lord in the days of Mosiah, and who's righteousness and indomitable faith exceeded that of the Nephites, enabled one to negim to realize Lord's curses are actually blessings in disguise. This is why I firmly believe one day there are going to be a whole lot of red, embarrassed faces when those who questioned the Lord's wisdom in decreeing curses, and implementing them in seemingly distasteful ways, are going to have to admit to their utter humiliation that the Lord's curses are designed to maximize spiritual growth, not hinder it. So please read Rodney Turner's article, as he hits on all theses points.

Finally, let's just declare a truce on the whole "innumerable as the sand upon the seashore thing" and just agree that there are going to be multiple billions of individuals who are going to inherit a telestial glory. The main point I was trying to make in connection with that quote is that what we do here will have a dramatic affect on what we obtain in the hereafter, just as what we did in the preexistence has a dramatic affect on what we experience here. By simply comparing the devil and his fallen angels to the "noble and great ones" who were foreordained to lead the kingdom of God on earth, one should get a very clear understanding that our works follow us from one phase of existence to another. But again, I believe that in the end the Lord dos the very best for each of us, and we will one day fully come to understand that rather than tryimg to hold any of us back in any way, the Lord always does what is in the eternal best interests of each of his children. It will all become perfectly clear on that day when each of us will bow the knee before God's throne and wholeheartedly confess that his love and wisdom are supreme and that his judgements are perfectly fair and just.

[Calm]

For those interested, here is a link:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-second-nephi-doctrinal-structure/7-lamanite-mark

However, board rules is that pointing someone to an article or book and saying these answer your questions is not enough if you've been asked for your own understanding of something. So please, I prefer to hear it in your own words because I may interpret Brother Turner's ideas differently than you.

Thank you.

[Bobbieaware]

For those interested, here is a link:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-second-nephi-doctrinal-structure/7-lamanite-mark

However, board rules is that pointing someone to an article or book and saying these answer your questions is not enough if you've been asked for your own understanding of something. So please, I prefer to hear it in your own words because I may interpret Brother Turner's ideas differently than you.

Thank you.

I already did. Read my post which summarizes many of Turner"s ideas.

[Calm]

It doesn't answer any of my questions though.

1) In your opinion, was the mark, the black skin, removed when the curse was removed through repentance. If not, why not since there was no longer any reason to keep that person separated from the covenant people? (this part is answered in the article, but for you still need to respond here about it).

And why was the skin of the Nephites not turned black when they were more wicked than the Lamanities if all who joined the Lamanities in wickedness acquired it as Turner seems to be suggesting? It may have seved a reverse discrimination for the more righteous Lamanites once the Nephities had descended into wickedness, but such is inconsistent with how Turner assumes the mark is placed on and removed in the rst of the article.

And why isn't the mark removed today as Turner and you claim happened in the past each time the Lamanities joined with the righteous Nephites?

2) Given that in 20 generations or sooner, due to intermarriage everyone in the area share ancestors what happens when everyone is of the cursed and uncursed bloodlines?

3) "Let's be honest. Is it not true some here are being deliberately obtuse on this point? .... A knowledgeable member of the Church would have to be deliberately obtuse to miss section 76's clearly intended meaning: that the majority of the human race will inherit a place within the telestial kingdom of glory."

Are you suggesting people are lying about how they understand the point? If so, why?

4) "Do you believe Job was African? His skin turned black....You also need to explain why the BOM inexplicably starts talking about Africans rather than Nephites and Lamanites."

And a last one strictly from the article...

After Christ's coming, the Zion community is established and they become one, Turner claiming everyone is white at this stage, then with 200-400 years of intermarriage between all the families, wickedness then gains ascendency so that some separate themselves, label themselves Lamanites and therefore the mark of the curse, the skin of blackness again falls upon the,.

Turner makes a comment here:

"Then, sadly, around AD 194 the idyllic, millennial-like union described by Mormon was marred when a number of the people apostatized from the Church and assumed the name Lamanites: “Therefore there began to be Lamanites again in the land” (4 Nephi 1:20). While some of these defectors may well have been descendants of Nephi, in all likelihood the majority descended from Laman"

Do you agree that the majority would have been descended from Laman? If so, how given the intermixing that had occurred over a number of generations where there was no physical difference likely to draw people to marry those who look like themselves (as often happens as demonstrated by research even in regards to perceived levels of attractiveness)? And why is the assumption that most of the wicked are descendants of Laman? Do you believe there was a spiritual weakness inherited along with the physical DNA?

Edited September 12, 2015 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

It doesn't answer my questions though.

Quite frankly, I'm beginning to get board with this. I say this because I am peace with this subject and know the Lord is good and does his very best for each of his children, even though without an eternal perspective it may seem otherwise,. And if the Lord can allow the horrific genocides of the 20th century to go forward without interference, I'm not particularly shocked that he, for an wise and holy purpose, may temporarily curse certain bloodlines from time to time.

The reason why I used the term "race identifier" is because the curse the Lord placed upon the Lamanites was imposed on certain bloodlines (Laman and his followers). So given the fact that the Lamanites were genetically Lehites and Ishmaelites, I may have been better off using the term "bloodline identifier" instead. But since I had previously observed some LDS writers using the expression "Lamanite race," I thought it wasn't inappropriate to do the same. And while it's true that long after the initial imposition of the curse numbers of Nephite dissenters identified themselves as Lamanites -- and therefore brought themselves and their descendants under the same curse -- the curse was initially perpetuated throughout successive generations (500 years) strictly along genetic lines. So it's inaccurate to say the term Lamanite was merely a social and political construct. 500 years is a long time for a curse to be to perpetuated only by means of lineal descent. Things did get more complicated after those 500 years had elapsed, but when the Nephite dissenters identified themselves with the Lamanites. and fought against the Nephites, they brought their own bloodline and descendants under the very same curse. So the bloodlines initially affected by the curse were added to as Nephite dissenters fought the Lord and identified themselves as Lamanites. So, as you can see, the term Lamanite was never just a social and political construct, because even at that much later date there was always genetic component to the curse for ALL those who brought themselves under the curse.

There is at least one statement in the abook of Mormon that says the formerly cursed Lamanites who became Nephites experienced a lightening of the skin. You'll find it quoted in Turner's article.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[CV75]

Let's be honest. Is it not true some here are being deliberately obtuse on this point? In section 132 of the D&C, the Lord makes it clear only a comparative few members of the human race are going to obtain full celestial glory...

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, AND FEW THERE BE THAT FIND IT, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me. (D&C 132)

Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum of resurrected heavenly glory, we are told the inhabitants of the telestial kingdom are so innumerable as to be comparable to "the sand upon the seashore." (did you know some naturally-occurring grains of seashore sand are so minute that just one square inch can hold one million grains?) A knowledgeable member of the Church would have to be deliberately obtuse to miss section 76's clearly intended meaning: that the majority of the human race will inherit a place within the telestial kingdom of glory.

D&C 76 uses the word "imnumerable" as a synonym to "a very large number of people." But the intentionally placed additional qualifier "as the sand upon the seashore" indicates it's the largest group of people. It's the difference between saying a very large number of people and an extremely large number of people. Rather than sinking my ship, you make my point.

So you have to resort to “Let’s be honest”? Seems more like, “Let’s be narrow, shallow, and rigid” instead! LOL

 

“Sands of the seashore” is just a simile, to convey the same thing as "innumerable." It is used to give an idea of the vast number of souls in the world, out of the world, in the exaltation and telestial worlds, created physical worlds, etc.

 

Yes, few there be that find it [present tense] in the world [this life]. Look at all the generations living in apostasy, but they will have an opportunity in the next life. But more pertinently, look at the attitudes of Joseph’s contemporaries and companions at the time of this revelation, and for whom this warning was directed (they are the “ye” in these verses). Jesus said the same thing in the New Testament and Book of Mormon to those audiences. The Book of Mormon says the dominions of the saints will be small, which they are. But that has nothing to do with what occurs out of this world and after the Judgement. There will be a lot of souls everywhere. D&C 138 shows how the Lord expanded the options of those who were in this world, and I’m sure spirit prison is a form or telestial existence from which the prisoners are freed.

[Calm]

"Quite frankly, I'm beginning to get board with this"

It would have taken less time if you had just answered the questions immediately.

And none of this really dealt with the main issues of Elder Petersen's talk which promoted at times extreme segregation and labeled racial intermarriage a sin based not on lack of righteousness, but race and the degradation of the white race if racial intermarriage were to occur.

----

Something new so you need not be bored, but still on topic...

One of the underlying principles of Elder Petersen's talk was that Sec 76 implies that the Lord would never allow the gospel in this life to be taught to the people who he called without the law and instead he just assigns them to the terrestrial kingdom. They are never given the chance to accept the gospel and enter the Celestial Kingdom. It is one of the examples of divine segregation he uses to support mortal segregation.

Is that a principle you believe in?

Edited September 12, 2015 by Calm

[CV75]

Let's be honest.

Then see my request (post #99) which you completely side-stepped: "Would you provide the links or otherwise show the dates of their respective quotes? Or that they are in the latest editions of the original publication?"

[CV75]

...and then there's Revelation 7:9-17...

 

    9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

  10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

  11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

  12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

  13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?

  14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

  15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

  16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.

  17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

[Bobbieaware]

"Quite frankly, I'm beginning to get board with this"

It would have taken less time if you had just answered the question immediately.

And none of this really dealt with the main issues of Elder Petersen's talk which promoted at times extreme segregation and labeled racial intermarriage a sin based not on lack of righteousness, but race and the degradation of the white race if racial intermarriage were to occur.

Like it or not, believe it or not, prior to 1978, if a member married and had children with someone who was under the ban, their offspring would not have been entitled to hold the priesthood. I know it all seems so unfair by today's standards, but that's the way it was, and for the leaders of the Church it was very serious business. Depriving one's self, and his or her own children, the right and opportunity to inherit celestial glory is certainly, by LDS standards, the ultimate way to sabotage one's hopes for full exaltation. And don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. I remember how it was back then, and like I said, it was serious business. I didn't like it and it made me feel uncomfortable, but because I knew the Church was true I endured until that joyous day when the ban was lifted and the unwanted burden was lifted off our shoulders.

... I thought I had answered you questions when I suggested you read brother turner's article. Until your post, I didn't realize participation on this board was like being back in 8th grade.

[Bobbieaware]

So you have to resort to “Let’s be honest”? Seems more like, “Let’s be narrow, shallow, and rigid” instead! LOL

“Sands of the seashore” is just a simile, to convey the same thing as "innumerable." It is used to give an idea of the vast number of souls in the world, out of the world, in the exaltation and telestial worlds, created physical worlds, etc.

Yes, few there be that find it [present tense] in the world [this life]. Look at all the generations living in apostasy, but they will have an opportunity in the next life. But more pertinently, look at the attitudes of Joseph’s contemporaries and companions at the time of this revelation, and for whom this warning was directed (they are the “ye” in these verses). Jesus said the same thing in the New Testament and Book of Mormon to those audiences. The Book of Mormon says the dominions of the saints will be small, which they are. But that has nothing to do with what occurs out of this world and after the Judgement. There will be a lot of souls everywhere. D&C 138 shows how the Lord expanded the options of those who were in this world, and I’m sure spirit prison is a form or telestial existence from which the prisoners are freed.

I hope you're right and that Elder McConkie, President Smith and lowly I are wrong. I certainly have no desire to hold any individual back from full exaltation. It will be wonderful if one fine day we learn the the Lord was being a wee bit cagey when he said, "strait be the gate and narrow the way, and few there be that find it."

Edited September 12, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

Like it or not, believe it or not, prior to 1978, if a member married and had children with someone who was under the ban, their offspring would not have been entitled to hold the priesthood. I know it all seems so unfair by today's standards, but that's the way it was, and for the leaders of the Church it was very serious business. Depriving one's self, and his or her own children, the right and opportunity to inherit celestial glory is certainly, by LDS standards, the ultimate way to sabotage one's hopes for full exaltation. And don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. I remember how it was back then, and like I said, it was serious business. I didn't like it and it made me feel uncomfortable, but because I knew the Church was true I endured until that joyous day when the ban was lifted and the unwanted burden was lifted off our shoulders.

... I thought I had answered you questions when I suggested you read brother turner's article. Until your post, I didn't realize participation on this board was like being back in 8th grade.

I've read Elder Petersen's talk.

It was not about ensuring that one was able to have the Priesthood for one's children.

It was about maintaining purity of race, ensuring that blacks could not achieve their goal of being absorbed into the white race.

He doesn't even speak one word of caution that a white man or woman risks their children losing the Priesthood through intermarriage.

It is all about justification of segregation. He doesn't even state he worked to get a branch to allow a very faithful black family to meet with them after having a group of white families threaten to leave the Church if the family was accepted into the meetings, so the bp banned them from attending though he took their tithing. Instead the missionaries gave them the Sacrament in their home. Instead his help amounts to having his wife send them replacements for their worn out songbooks and making sure to have his family's proxy work done in the temple....emphasizing it was only baptism and confirmation, no more.

What does any of that have to do with making sure one's children have the opportunity of the Priesthood?

Whatever you are doing, you are not being the messenger of Elder Petersen's talk. You are cherry picking what you want out it it, pretty much the same thing you are accusing others of doing when we reject more of it then you do.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

...and then there's Revelation 7:9-17...

 

    9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

  10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

  11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

  12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

  13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?

  14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

  15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

  16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.

  17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Bad news. This from Brigham Young:

"I don not doubt but that the question was asked of the Savior by his disciples: “Who, then, can be saved?” There are very few of the children of Father Adam and Mother Eve, who will be prepared to go into the Celestial Kingdom. Those who prepare themselves here, below, through obedience to the Gospel, receiving through their faithfulness the keys of the Priesthood, and sanctifying themselves through the truth, they are preparing themselves to become the sons of God. If we become the sons of God, we shall be joint heirs with Jesus Christ to all the inheritances that the Father hath prepared for the faithful. But there are few of all the human family that will ever attain to this highest state of glory." (Brigham Young)

But maybe this isn't bad news after all? Think of this: Since Bruce R McConkie's original edition of Mormon Doctrine was criticized for one or two of its entries (amid hundreds of other solid entries); and since Joseph Fielding Smith was President of the Quorum Twelve during a time when the priesthood ban was in force; and since Brigham Young was the reputed author of the priesthood ban, we can all just go ahead and disregard anything they had to say.

This new version of Mormonism could turn out to be cool: Just reject anything anybody had to say prior to June of 1978 and make any verse of scripture mean what you want it mean because, by very nature, all scripture is "flexible, ambiguous and malleable."