So exalted Mormons don't get their own planets in the afterlife?

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

1) D&C 138 makes it clear only eternally married husbands and wives are able to bring forth spirit offspring. Why do you believe an exalted man must first have an exalted wife, to whom he is eternally sealed, before he is able bring forth spirit children in a pre-mortal state?

I'm sorry, I read that whole section to try to see what you are talking about, and didn't see it. Perhaps you could be more precise in your reference to D&C 138? I still believe you don't understand me. I don't see any bringing forth of "spirit children in a pre-mortal state." I really don't know what that means. I don't believe a man and wife have to have any children to be exalted. I don't believe an exalted man and wife have any "spirit children" - out of the world anyway. I believe physical birth is only a temporal model of spiritual birth in the gospel which is celestial birth imho.

Quote

2) What role, if any, does the exalted wife play in bringing forth premortal spirit children?

Neither a man nor a woman play any role "in bringing forth premortal spirit children."  They are probably organized according to covenant and sealing during a second or third estate but I don't have direct revelation on that.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I have to say... I've been puzzled why the church has seemingly backed away from the doctrine that exalted sons and daughters of Heavenly Father would be able to create worlds, which they would then populate by sending their own spirit children to partake of a mortal experience, just as our Father in Heaven did for us.

The phrase that faithful Mormons "will get their own planet" is obviously an oversimplification, but it isn't out-right wrong.

Clearing up "mischaracterizations" doesn't require outright misrepresenting the fact that it's been a foundational principle of Mormonism that exalted Mormons become like God and create worlds without number.

Rather than denying the truths within that oversimplification with misleading claims tatamount to "we don't know much about that," I think that Mormons should clarify by saying what their manuals have said, all along... something along the lines of "that exalted sons and daughters of Heavenly Father would be able to create worlds, which they would then populate by sending their own spirit children to partake of a mortal experience, just as our Father in Heaven did for us."

That isn't hard or challenging for non-members to understand.

In an age where all LDS manuals and previous prophetic teachings are readily available on the internet. it seems ridiculous to me to say that you need to avoid casting pearls before swine, or that individuals need to understand the milk of the gospel before they hear the meat.

The internet has changed the narrative when it comes to disseminating truth.

The ongoing denials and claims of "we just don't know much about all that," when clearly many past leaders and manuals openly teach it in as basic of circumstances as the "Gospel Principles" manuals for new members just make such claims seem to be deliberately misleading because of doctrines that Mormons appear to be embarrassed or uncomfortable with.

I well understand these claims, but have yet to see the substance behind them, Daniel.  I'm still waiting to see a systematic case made for this claim of deliberately misleading statements (as I requested from consigliere), or that Mormons are actually embarrassed or uncomfortable with certain doctrines.  Moreover, I'm unsure that non-Mormons find such matters easy to understand -- actually the opposite appears to be the case, even in this thread.  Indeed, this claim of exalted people getting their own planet is a point of primary attack by anti-Mormons (who love to use rough vernacular in describing it).  Why would that be, if it doesn't seem too esoteric or exotic to certain non-Mormon communities?  Communities which scorn that supposed Mormon doctrine, and who love to vilify Mormons for supposedly believing it.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[salgare]

Earths are throw away.  I've heard it said that this Earth is the redemptive one for thousands of others and that it is composed of bits and pieces of each of those.

Its like arguing over if a Butterfly owns its cocoon.

 

[Bobbieaware]

19 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I'm sorry, I read that whole section to try to see what you are talking about, and didn't see it. Perhaps you could be more precise in your reference to D&C 138? I still believe you don't understand me. I don't see any bringing forth of "spirit children in a pre-mortal state." I really don't know what that means. I don't believe a man and wife have to have any children to be exalted. I don't believe an exalted man and wife have any "spirit children" - out of the world anyway. I believe physical birth is only a temporal model of spiritual birth in the gospel which is celestial birth imho.

Neither a man nor a woman play any role "in bringing forth premortal spirit children."  They are probably organized according to covenant and sealing during a second or third estate but I don't have direct revelation on that.

That was a typo; I meant to section 132. So if you don't mind, please go back and answer my first question with a particular focus on section 132. You see, in light of your beliefs it's reasonable to want to know why a man must first be eternally sealed to a woman before he is able to organize spirits "according to covenant," as you say. It would seem to me under your scenario there would be no need for the role of a mother in heaven, and therefore no need for eternal marriage.

As to the second question: Did you not say that by virtue of an atoning sacrifice a man becomes the father to spirits by adoption? If I have stated your position correctly, what role does the female half of an eternally married couple play in organizing spirits "according to adoption?" 

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

That was a typo; I meant to section 132. So if you don't mind, please go back and answer my first question with a particular focus on section 132. You see, in light of your beliefs it's reasonable to want to know why a man must first be eternally sealed to a woman before he is able to organize spirits "according to covenant," as you say. It would seem to me under your scenario there would be no need for the role of a mother in heaven, and therefore no need for eternal marriage.

In the temporal sense the role of the woman is to nurture or feed the next generation. In the celestial sense the woman or church feeds the flock, and the bridegroom awaits the woman in "heaven."  Just because a woman may not birth "spirit babies" in heaven doesn't mean she has no role in "eternal marriage."  Will they not be there with family? Will the man and woman not enjoy their companionship? I thought that was the whole point of getting sealed....

Quote

As to the second question: Did you not say that by virtue of an atoning sacrifice a man becomes the father to spirits by adoption?

No, I didn't say that in so many words, but yes, this is how Jesus' atonement allows us to be one with Him and the Father as "family" or sons and daughters. There is no one else on this world who will make an atonement for the congregation under the law.

Quote

If I have stated your position correctly, what role does the female half of an eternally married couple play in organizing spirits "according to adoption?" 

I can't really answer this question. Maybe you can ask Jesus' "wife..."

Since it is the Father who shall grant who shall sit on the right and left side of Jesus, it seems He is calling the shots of "organizing." 

[Bobbieaware]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

In the temporal sense the role of the woman is to nurture or feed the next generation. In the celestial sense the woman or church feeds the flock, and the bridegroom awaits the woman in "heaven."  Just because a woman may not birth "spirit babies" in heaven doesn't mean she has no role in "eternal marriage."  Will they not be there with family? Will the man and woman not enjoy their companionship? I thought that was the whole point of getting sealed....

No, I didn't say that in so many words, but yes, this is how Jesus' atonement allows us to be one with Him and the Father as "family" or sons and daughters. There is no one else on this world who will make an atonement for the congregation under the law.

I can't really answer this question. Maybe you can ask Jesus' "wife..."

Since it is the Father who shall grant who shall sit on the right and left side of Jesus, it seems He is calling the shots of "organizing."

 

19 ...and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. (D&C 132)

I find it difficult to imagine that when expounding upon the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage the Lord would use the word 'seeds' to refer Abraham's earthly posterity, who were created by the process of human procreation, but then without warning or explanation have the same word refere to something altogether different, namely adoption without procreation.

I hope you'll excuse me if I believe that just as we'll be resurrected with the rest of our bodies perfectly intact, without even a hair of the head being lost, I also believe the exalted will be resurrected anatomically correct with everything in "proper working order."

I'm wondering if you believe the sexual organs will not be resurrected in proper working order but will just sort of hang or sit there as useless vestigial reminders of a bygone day? Regardless, I believe it can reasonably be argued the sexual organs are the most sacred parts of the human body, and so it doesn't seem at all likely to me the Lord won't be able to find a way to put these most sacred parts of the human body to a proper and exalted use. Excuse me if I choose to believe the beauty, intimacy, glorious passion and supreme joy of human procreation and family life continues in a more exalted form beyond the grave. 

And just as our birth on earth does not diminish in any way from the fact that in the beginning we were "intelligence, or the light of truth," so too another birth prior to our birth on earth wouldn't diminish from the essence of our ultimate identity as eternal intelligences. 

Edited January 22, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, salgare said:

One per wife there Nehor, best be collecting some

If only I was not so amazing that I scare all women off and intimidate them with my intelligence and good looks. /sarcasm

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

19 ...and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. (D&C 132)

I find it difficult to imagine that when expounding upon the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage the Lord would use the word 'seeds' to refer Abraham's earthly posterity, who were created by the process of human procreation, but then without warning or explanation have the same word refere to something altogether different, namely adoption without procreation.

I hope you'll excuse me if I believe that just as we'll be resurrected with the rest of our bodies perfectly intact, without even a hair of the head being lost, if I also believe the exalted we'll be resurrected anatomically correct with everything in "proper working order."

You are excused to believe what you wish on the matter as it presently will not affect your salvation. Yes, I presently believe I will probably be resurrected with my organs, but I don't know what I will need in the resurrection. Will I have a heart and need blood? I don't know. I don't believe I will mind if I am able to enjoy relations with my wife in the resurrection, but that doesn't mean that we will have children in heaven. If the Lord had shown me, I would say. But such is not the case, and I doubt I will receive any such revelation. By continuation of the seeds, I read D&C 132 to mean seeds of the Lord in future worlds which shall be to the glory of the Lord, and to the glory of Christ as our Father, that His work may continue.

Moses 1:39

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Quote

I'm wondering if you believe the sexual organs will not be resurrected in proper working order but will just sort of hang or sit there as useless vitigial reminders of a bygone day? Regardless, I believe it can reasonably be argued the sexual organs are the most sacred parts of the human body, and so it doesn't seem at all likely to me the Lord won't be able to find a way to put these most sacred parts of the human body to a proper and exalted use. Excuse me if I choose to believe the beauty, intimacy, glorious passion and supreme joy of human procreation family life continues in a more exalted form beyond the grave. 

Asked and answered. I really don't know what all my glorified body will have. I certainly wouldn't mind getting rid of the faults of my present body, and it being better than my present body - that it won't need sleep, won't get sick, etc. And again you are excused to believe intimacy and passion and human procreation continues beyond the grave. I don't believe in any type of physical procreation in the celestial kingdom...as I see no evidence for it in the scriptures. But the possibility remains. 

Quote

And just as our birth on earth does not diminish in any way from the fact that in the beginning we were "intelligence, or the light of truth," so too another birth prior to our birth on earth wouldn't diminish from the essence of our ultimate identity as eternal intelligences. 

That I have not disclaimed. I believe I have lived on a prior world...not this earth or this creation. But before the beginning of the Word on this earth. When I was a boy I did have such a strong "feeling" on one occasion - that I had lived a certain event before. But it was not deja vu because I have not yet lived the event. Anyway, I agree that another birth prior to our birth here on this earth doesn't diminish from the essence of our ultimate identity as eternal intelligences. The fact that we would agree to it again that others may be exalted, I find to be a very godly attribute.

Cheers

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

And again you are excused to believe intimacy and passion and human procreation continues beyond the grave. I don't believe in any type of physical procreation in the celestial kingdom...as I see no evidence for it in the scriptures. But the possibility remains. 

The prophets disagree with you.  I think I'll take their interpretation.  And I think D&C 132's description of a continuation of seeds is pretty clear too.
There is no reason to twist the use of the word seeds to mean anything other than biological descendants.  Unless we're talking plants instead of humans.

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The prophets disagree with you.  I think I'll take their interpretation.  And I think D&C 132's description of a continuation of seeds is pretty clear too.
There is no reason to twist the use of the word seeds to mean anything other than biological descendants.  Unless we're talking plants instead of humans.

I agree that it refers to biological descendants - just not in the celestial kingdom. 

Feel free to show which prophets claim a revelation showing otherwise. "Prophets" have all kinds of interpretations friend, including that God married Miriam. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. I have a brain, and I can interpret the word too, and I am free to seek revelation on proper interpretation, especially when their interpretation conflicts with known scripture which has not been repealed. Please explain how you resolve a claim that the Father married Miriam with the law.... You are free to believe what interpretation you wish of course.

[VideoGameJunkie]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I agree that it refers to biological descendants - just not in the celestial kingdom. 

Feel free to show which prophets claim a revelation showing otherwise. "Prophets" have all kinds of interpretations friend, including that God married Miriam. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. I have a brain, and I can interpret the word too, and I am free to seek revelation on proper interpretation, especially when their interpretation conflicts with known scripture which has not been repealed. Please explain how you resolve a claim that the Father married Miriam with the law.... You are free to believe what interpretation you wish of course.

Rev do you feel sealed couples with resurrected bodies won't be able to be intimate with each other in heaven? Since what would be the point if not to produce children or show love to your spouse?

[Jeanne]

Okay..okay..we can put this on another thread if you want..but big question here that kind of ties in with what we are talking about on this thread.

My question is..those who have already died ..say they are in the spirit world/spirit prison (depending on who you ask here)..can they feel and touch eachother?  Do they feel tangible to eachother?  Even BY when he talked about life after death..he said there were schools..homes..and life went on.  Can they fall in love? 

[VideoGameJunkie]

38 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Okay..okay..we can put this on another thread if you want..but big question here that kind of ties in with what we are talking about on this thread.

My question is..those who have already died ..say they are in the spirit world/spirit prison (depending on who you ask here)..can they feel and touch eachother?  Do they feel tangible to eachother?  Even BY when he talked about life after death..he said there were schools..homes..and life went on.  Can they fall in love? 

I sure hope so and I'm glad you asked. I used to wonder about that too since we are spirits but I'm sure you can touch and you have to be able to fall in love at that point because there's so many worthy children or adults who die single.

[Jeanne]

Just now, VideoGameJunkie said:

I sure hope so and I'm glad you asked. I used to wonder about that too since we are spirits but I'm sure you can touch and you have to be able to fall in love at that point because there's so many worthy children or adults who die single.

I  understand how you feel..but on the other side of the coin..is my husband falling in love with someone else?

[Bobbieaware]

38 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Okay..okay..we can put this on another thread if you want..but big question here that kind of ties in with what we are talking about on this thread.

My question is..those who have already died ..say they are in the spirit world/spirit prison (depending on who you ask here)..can they feel and touch eachother?  Do they feel tangible to eachother?  Even BY when he talked about life after death..he said there were schools..homes..and life went on.  Can they fall in love? 

Yes to all your questions. Remember, in LDS theology spirit is not immaterial but is a real substance composed of a pure form of matter that in its own realm (dimension?) is as tangible as matter is in our own realm.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

Yes to all your questions. Remember, in LDS theology spirit is not immaterial but is a real substance composed of a pure form of matter that in its own realm (dimension?) is as tangible as matter is in our own realm.

Thank you.  This is as I thought also..but wasn't sure. 

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Rev do you feel sealed couples with resurrected bodies won't be able to be intimate with each other in heaven? Since what would be the point if not to produce children or show love to your spouse?

See above: "I don't believe I will mind if I am able to enjoy relations with my wife in the resurrection, but that doesn't mean that we will have children in heaven." 

I feel in all probability my wife and I will be able to enjoy relations in the resurrection. I don't see that changing. However, I have never been able to interview a resurrected person to confirm that. How about those Jesus said made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Word? Were they resurrected? So many questions... However, I will say assuming that I complete my work here and am exalted, it will surely be so without temporal polygamy.

[Bobbieaware]

58 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

See above: "I don't believe I will mind if I am able to enjoy relations with my wife in the resurrection, but that doesn't mean that we will have children in heaven." 

I feel in all probability my wife and I will be able to enjoy relations in the resurrection. I don't see that changing. However, I have never been able to interview a resurrected person to confirm that. How about those Jesus said made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Word? Were they resurrected? So many questions... However, I will say assuming that I complete my work here and am exalted, it will surely be so without temporal polygamy.

Does not the fact that Jesus is the literal Son of God the Father settle the argument as to whether or not some resurrected humans continue to be fertile, and therefore capable of having offspring through male-female procreation?

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Does not the fact that Jesus is the literal Son of God the Father settle the argument as to whether or not some resurrected humans continue to be fertile, and therefore capable of having offspring through male-female procreation?

R U kidding me? I'm sorry, but it seems you have not been following what I have said. And judging by the amount of PR your comment has received, there are many people in the church that see things like this - even like BY. I'm sorry. I just don't. It's not worth getting others upset about right now. But no Yahoshuah is not the "literal" Son of the Father in all likelihood. He is the Begotten Son by the oath of the priesthood. - in other words by covenant. The Father did not marry Miriam, or come down to earth to impregnate her without her knowledge, and she conceived Yahoshuah as a virgin per scripture. Nor was Jesus "conceived" in heaven or something like that....That's it for me. I am not going to repeat everything I have already said in this thread. 

Cheers

[VideoGameJunkie]

20 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

R U kidding me? I'm sorry, but it seems you have not been following what I have said. And judging by the amount of PR your comment has received, there are many people in the church that see things like this - even like BY. I'm sorry. I just don't. It's not worth getting others upset about right now. But no Yahoshuah is not the "literal" Son of the Father in all likelihood. He is the Begotten Son by the oath of the priesthood. - in other words by covenant. The Father did not marry Miriam, or come down to earth to impregnate her without her knowledge, and she conceived Yahoshuah as a virgin per scripture. Nor was Jesus "conceived" in heaven or something like that....That's it for me. I am not going to repeat everything I have already said in this thread. 

Cheers

But Rev what's the point of intimacy in this mortal life then, if we don't get to enjoy it then, and what kind of reward is that if those who remain celibate if they're single never get a chance in eternity with a spouse to enjoy the love and joys of intimacy with a spouse and procreation.

[RevTestament]

13 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

But Rev what's the point of intimacy in this mortal life then, if we don't get to enjoy it then,

Please reread my comments VGJ, I don't dispute this. I don't know anything otherwise, so yeah I accept that couples can enjoy intimacy.

Quote

and what kind of reward is that if those who remain celibate if they're single never get a chance in eternity with a spouse to enjoy the love and joys of intimacy with a spouse and procreation.

Intimacy and procreation are 2 different things. I don't believe in any type of physical or spiritual procreation in the Celestial Kingdom. You cannot have an increase. If you want an increase just say yes to the next world.... cheers.

[Bobbieaware]

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

R U kidding me? I'm sorry, but it seems you have not been following what I have said. And judging by the amount of PR your comment has received, there are many people in the church that see things like this - even like BY. I'm sorry. I just don't. It's not worth getting others upset about right now. But no Yahoshuah is not the "literal" Son of the Father in all likelihood. He is the Begotten Son by the oath of the priesthood. - in other words by covenant. The Father did not marry Miriam, or come down to earth to impregnate her without her knowledge, and she conceived Yahoshuah as a virgin per scripture. Nor was Jesus "conceived" in heaven or something like that....That's it for me. I am not going to repeat everything I have already said in this thread. 

Cheers

Christ is not the literal Son of the Father in the flesh? You're the one who believes in ideas that are at variance with current LDS Church doctrine, yet you think what I say is ridiculous? 

“As far as this life is concerned, [Jesus] was born of Mary and of Elohim; he came here as an offspring of that Holy Man who is literally our Father in heaven. He was born in mortality in the literal and full sense as the Son of God. He is the Son of his Father in the same sense that all mortals are the sons and daughters of their fathers” (Bruce McConkie, Mortal Messiah 1:330).

“The Father had a Son, a natural Son, his own LITERAL SEED, the Offspring OF HIS BODY” (Bruce McConkie, The Promised Messiah, pg.355).

Edited January 23, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Christ is not the literal Son of the Father in the flesh? You're the one who believes in ideas that are at variance with current LDS Church doctrine, yet you think what I say is ridiculous? 

“As far as this life is concerned, [Jesus] was born of Mary and of Elohim; he came here as an offspring of that Holy Man who is literally our Father in heaven. He was born in mortality in the literal and full sense as the Son of God. He is the Son of his Father in the same sense that all mortals are the sons and daughters of their fathers” (Bruce McConkie, Mortal Messiah 1:330).

“The Father had a Son, a natural Son, his own LITERAL SEED, the Offspring OF HIS BODY” (Bruce McConkie, The Promised Messiah, pg.355).

Sorry, I don't accept Bruce McKonkie's version of reality. If you want to believe it is LDS Church Doctrine because Bruce McConkie said it, then that is up to you. I do not insofar as it requires the Father to be married to Miriam, because that is a rewrite of the Bible in too many ways. It violates the law then for Yosef to marry Miriam, of if already married for the Father to marry her. I do not accept his books that he wrote for profit to be scripture. I don't believe you will get a single present GA to agree that the Father married Miriam or that that is church doctrine, but if so, I don't accept it. And I will let the Lord determine who is right. I will stand by the Torah, the NT, and the Book of Mormon - that Jesus was born of a virgin who had not known any man. Any GA that starts throwing out chunks of Luke without explanation or even a claim that they heard it from the Lord, is not going to receive my respect. Period.

Cheers

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Sorry, I don't accept Bruce McKonkie's version of reality. If you want to believe it is LDS Church Doctrine because Bruce McConkie said it, then that is up to you. I do not insofar as it requires the Father to be married to Miriam, because that is a rewrite of the Bible in too many ways. It violates the law then for Yosef to marry Miriam, of if already married for the Father to marry her. I do not accept his books that he wrote for profit to be scripture. I don't believe you will get a single present GA to agree that the Father married Miriam or that that is church doctrine, but if so, I don't accept it. And I will let the Lord determine who is right. I will stand by the Torah, the NT, and the Book of Mormon - that Jesus was born of a virgin who had not known any man. Any GA that starts throwing out chunks of Luke without explanation or even a claim that they heard it from the Lord, is not going to receive my respect. Period.

Cheers

According to your best understanding, who was the  biological Father (physical sire) of Jesus Christ's mortal body of flesh and blood?

Edited January 23, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Sorry, I don't accept Bruce McKonkie's version of reality. If you want to believe it is LDS Church Doctrine because Bruce McConkie said it, then that is up to you. I do not insofar as it requires the Father to be married to Miriam, because that is a rewrite of the Bible in too many ways. It violates the law then for Yosef to marry Miriam, of if already married for the Father to marry her. I do not accept his books that he wrote for profit to be scripture. I don't believe you will get a single present GA to agree that the Father married Miriam or that that is church doctrine, but if so, I don't accept it. And I will let the Lord determine who is right. I will stand by the Torah, the NT, and the Book of Mormon - that Jesus was born of a virgin who had not known any man. Any GA that starts throwing out chunks of Luke without explanation or even a claim that they heard it from the Lord, is not going to receive my respect. Period.

 

See my reply to Longview in the other thread.
Scripture only says that she was a virgin prior to conception.  No scripture states she was a virgin AFTER conception.

For example - 2 Nephi 17:14 Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

So Mary was a virgin.  She conceived.  No longer a virgin.  Many virgins conceive.  Happens all the time.

"1 Nephi 11:20 20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms." might back your position, although Nephi could still just be identifying the woman as the previously identified virgin.  I'm going to assume he had no way of knowing she was still a virgin after giving birth.

Edited January 23, 2016 by JLHPROF