Joseph Smith and Multiple Mortal Probations

[Eek!]

Oops hit Reply instead of Edit

Edited March 8, 2018 by Eek!

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Eek! said:

But doesn't it require that people be judged based on "what they would have done"?  This violates the principle taught by the Second Article of Faith:  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins..."

Likewise, would it be fair to give people an unearned exaltation?  That would violate this principle:  "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated - and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated."

We will not be vegetables in the next stage of our existence, why can't we be judged on what we do then when we are more informed?  It seems to me the most important things we will be judged on is our relationship with God and our relationships with others...both will exist in plenty of opportunities to act in the future after death even if we lack our physical form.

[Eek!]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

We will not be vegetables in the next stage of our existence, why can't we be judged on what we do then when we are more informed?  It seems to me the most important things we will be judged on is our relationship with God and our relationships with others...both will exist in plenty of opportunities to act in the future after death even if we lack our physical form.

If there is eternal progression, I'm sure it happened before this life and will continue afterwards.  I don't think that either confirms nor precludes the possibility of multiple mortal probations. 

Somebody went to a lot of trouble to build this Earth school, and I haven't even begun to scratch the surface as far as what it has to teach in my fifty-something years here.  Maybe that doesn't matter. 

But maybe there is benefit in our efforts to develop certain character muscles in the present kind of situation, where we are NOT "more informed." 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Eek!

[Eek!]

Oops sorry another double-post.  I guess that's one way to run up my post count, but it's unlikely to garner any "likes".

Edited March 9, 2018 by Eek!

[Alaris]

On 1/29/2018 at 11:14 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

Does anybody know if this idea of multiple mortal probations is found in any other Christian context? Wondering because I've found an interesting reference from the 18th century. Will dig it out of my notes if anyone is interested.

1 Enoch 62:14 And the Lord of Spirits will abide over them, And with that Son of Man shall they eat 
And lie down and rise up forever and ever.

This may rub an person or two wrong, but there is a widely-held belief that "Firstborn" means firstborn spirit within the scope of this creation. This is a huge contradiction to the basic law of agency. If one being is created perfect - without ever having a mortality to hone such perfection - then why not two? Why not three? Why not me? Firstborn is attained, which is why there is a church of the Firstborn - the vehicle by which this congregation of souls attains to the glory of the same. 

D&C 93:6 And John saw and bore record of the fulness of my glory, and the fulness of John’s record is hereafter to be revealed.

7 And he bore record, saying: I saw his glory, that he was in the beginning, before the world was;

8 Therefore, in the beginning the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation—

9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.

10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;

14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.

16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;

17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.

18 And it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall receive the fulness of the record of John.

19 I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness.

20 For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.

21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;

22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.

I would underline "same" twice in that last verse if I could as well as in the next quote. There is one path to Godhood, not two or three or many. One path.

Here, then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you,–namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one,–from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. ~Joseph Smith, King Follett.

And because there is one path, then there has to be at the very least two mortal probations. And if there are two, then there is a precedent for the possibility of more than two. The dispensation patriarchs did not differentiate themselves in the spirit but in the flesh in my very humble estimation. Adam, the chief prince, earned his place as principal priesthood authority over this world--in fact, I daresay he earned this world and this world is his and he has consecrated his exaltation and his world through the fall whereupon God's children may progress.

I submit that many of those who resist these truths do so because they personally don't like the idea of having to live another life in the flesh, or perhaps they are married to the idea that one mortality will suffice before they are handed the keys to their own galaxy. If you cannot run a donut shop, you cannot run a galaxy. You have to learn to be Gods  yourselves by going from a smaller capacity to a greater one by traversing from one exaltation to another until you attain to the resurrection of the dead and are ABLE (agency, capability) to dwell in everlasting burnings and are ABLE to sit in glory.

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Alaris

[Benjamin Seeker]

15 hours ago, EdGoble said:

Similar to Robinson's account of "two probations," the quotations from Heber C. Kimball indicate a use of the word probation as we would normally use "estate."  And when he suggests that people would be thrown back into the grinder so to speak to be ground up and be reshaped into vessels of honor, he is clearly referring to hell after death before resurrection in spirit prison, and suggests that this hell can be considered another "estate" or "probation" so to speak, where people can be reshaped and reformed by repentance.  The Bible suggests this as well, stating that people must pay their debt to justice until the utmost farthing (Matthew 5:26).  Spirit prison can be a place of refinement to make vessels of honor out of the wicked.  This is the context of Heber C. Kimball's statements.  He is not suggesting that someone is entering into a new mortality.

Ed, this is a pretty old thread. New evidence has already came to light in a record kept by Woodruff that has JS explicitly saying that the Father had been a Christ and that heirs of the Celestial kingdom would have to do the same.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/10/03/memories-mysteries-solved-mysteries-made-wilford-woodruffs-book-of-revelations/

Basically, my suspicions are most likely right. JS believed in some version of MMP. 

[Rajah Manchou]

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Ed, this is a pretty old thread. New evidence has already came to light in a record kept by Woodruff that has JS explicitly saying that the Father had been a Christ and that heirs of the Celestial kingdom would have to do the same.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/10/03/memories-mysteries-solved-mysteries-made-wilford-woodruffs-book-of-revelations/

Basically, my suspicions are most likely right. JS believed in some version of MMP. 

"Joseph the Seer taught the following principl that the God & father of our Lord Jesus Christ was once the same as the Son or Holy Ghost but having redeemed a world he had a son Jesus Christ who redeemed this earth the same as his father had a world which made them equal & the HHoly Ghost would to the same when in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory so their would be Gods many & Lords many their were many mansions even 12 from the abode of Devils to the Celestial glory"

I suspect Joseph Smith was partly inspired by John Zephaniah Holwell's translation of Indian scriptures.

In his translation of "the worlds oldest book" Holwell details the preexistent state of mortals wherein there is a creation and intelligences are sent to multiple mortal probations consisting of 15 levels from lowest to highest. The intelligences endowed with free-agency and now subject to natural and moral evils equalling in proportion to their rebellion against God in the preexistence, then persevere though the different levels to regain their "forfeited estate". The Eternal One gives the creation to Jesus and two other divine beings to supervise and mediate and to descend with divine permission through the various levels to aid, support and comfort the mortals in their ignorant states.

[EdGoble]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Ed, this is a pretty old thread. New evidence has already came to light in a record kept by Woodruff that has JS explicitly saying that the Father had been a Christ and that heirs of the Celestial kingdom would have to do the same.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/10/03/memories-mysteries-solved-mysteries-made-wilford-woodruffs-book-of-revelations/

Basically, my suspicions are most likely right. JS believed in some version of MMP. 

I don't think your conclusion is beyond dispute about the interpretation of what Joseph Smith said, and also the fact that it is a second-hand account is telling.  I wouldn't call it evidence, but put it right up there with the second hand accounts of Joseph Smith's beliefs on Ten Tribes on another planet or in a hollow of the earth.  It is not impossible that he did believe such things.  But I equally reject those things even if they did come from the prophet.  There is also an account that Joseph Smith believed that the Lehites landed in Chile, which is disputed.  So, all I have to say is, not only can the source be disputed, but the conclusion can be disputed.  And Joseph Smith instituted the practice of being sealed to people randomly other than parents, which was overturned by further revelation by Wilford Woodruff.  Adam-God itself was overturned.  Brigham Young overturned Joseph Smith's practice of ordaining blacks to the priesthood, and then Brigham Young's overturning was overturned by Spencer W. Kimball through further revelation.  I think you can see my point.

I dispute the accuracy of the account.  I dispute the accuracy of the conclusion.  And if I'm wrong about the source of the conclusion, I dispute the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's theory which was overturned.  I am willing to be proven wrong, but I dispute its truthfulness one way or the other.  Just because Joseph Smith taught it doesn't make it right, even if he did.  That may be a bold thing to say, but Joseph Smith is not beyond speculation.  Not anything and everything he taught must be accepted just because of who he is.  I dispute his teachings on Ten Tribes on another planet, and I dispute this on whatever level necessary to dispute it.  There is a lot wrong with it, regardless of whether it was his theory, or whether its because it got twisted in transmission from him.  I also dispute his teachings on babies being exalted as babies after resurrection and unable to grow.  That is false.  It doesn't matter if he thought it or believed it.  It doesn't matter if it got twisted by the people that reported it.

[Benjamin Seeker]

8 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

I don't think your conclusion is beyond dispute about the interpretation of what Joseph Smith said, and also the fact that it is a second-hand account is telling.  I wouldn't call it evidence, but put it right up there with the second hand accounts of Joseph Smith's beliefs on Ten Tribes on another planet or in a hollow of the earth.  It is not impossible that he did believe such things.  But I equally reject those things even if they did come from the prophet.  There is also an account that Joseph Smith believed that the Lehites landed in Chile, which is disputed.  So, all I have to say is, not only can the source be disputed, but the conclusion can be disputed.  And Joseph Smith instituted the practice of being sealed to people randomly other than parents, which was overturned by further revelation by Wilford Woodruff.  Adam-God itself was overturned.  Brigham Young overturned Joseph Smith's practice of ordaining blacks to the priesthood, and then Brigham Young's overturning was overturned by Spencer W. Kimball through further revelation.  I think you can see my point.

I dispute the accuracy of the account.  I dispute the accuracy of the conclusion.  And if I'm wrong about the source of the conclusion, I dispute the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's theory which was overturned.  I am willing to be proven wrong, but I dispute its truthfulness one way or the other.  Just because Joseph Smith taught it doesn't make it right, even if he did.  That may be a bold thing to say, but Joseph Smith is not beyond speculation.  Not anything and everything he taught must be accepted just because of who he is.  I dispute his teachings on Ten Tribes on another planet, and I dispute this on whatever level necessary to dispute it.  There is a lot wrong with it, regardless of whether it was his theory, or whether its because it got twisted in transmission from him.  I also dispute his teachings on babies being exalted as babies after resurrection and unable to grow.  That is false.  It doesn't matter if he thought it or believed it.  It doesn't matter if it got twisted by the people that reported it.

Ed, I’m not suggesting you believe this or that it’s true. From all of the data out there it is very possible JS did.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Benjamin Seeker

[EdGoble]

12 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Ed, I’m not suggesting you believe this or that it’s true. From all of the data out there it is very possible JS did.

With all due respect, I certainly don't doubt the document says what it says.  I say its a flimsy possibility that he believed it, because one can dispute this the same way Mesoamericanists dispute tales about Cumorah in New York from Oliver Cowdery or whomever else.

[Benjamin Seeker]

26 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

With all due respect, I certainly don't doubt the document says what it says.  I say its a flimsy possibility that he believed it, because one can dispute this the same way Mesoamericanists dispute tales about Cumorah in New York from Oliver Cowdery or whomever else.

That is one of many data points, some of which you’ve already been disputing, but there are plenty of them all pointing to the same end. I’ve written a few posts on the subject:

http://seersandstones.blogspot.com/2017/02/god-father-was-christ-god-son-is-christ.html?m=1

http://seersandstones.blogspot.com/2017/10/joseph-smith-and-multiple-mortal.html?m=1

http://seersandstones.blogspot.com/2017/11/spirit-adoption-vs-spirit-birth-joseph.html?m=1

[EdGoble]

14 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

That is one of many data points, some of which you’ve already been disputing, but there are plenty of them all pointing to the same end. I’ve written a few posts on the subject:

http://seersandstones.blogspot.com/2017/02/god-father-was-christ-god-son-is-christ.html?m=1

http://seersandstones.blogspot.com/2017/10/joseph-smith-and-multiple-mortal.html?m=1

http://seersandstones.blogspot.com/2017/11/spirit-adoption-vs-spirit-birth-joseph.html?m=1

I think that it is all interesting history about what people's speculations were, but I think that it is important that these things have been abandoned by the Church.  I'm not sure what the reason for people's intense interest are in these things.  For me, it is only historical curiosity, not what I should believe.  I know that there are certain people out there pushing a belief in MMP, and it seems that they recruit people to believe in this idea on boards especially like LDS Freedom forum, and it pops up over and over again over time.

[Benjamin Seeker]

5 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

I think that it is all interesting history about what people's speculations were, but I think that it is important that these things have been abandoned by the Church.  I'm not sure what the reason for people's intense interest are in these things.  For me, it is only historical curiosity, not what I should believe.  I know that there are certain people out there pushing a belief in MMP, and it seems that they recruit people to believe in this idea on boards especially like LDS Freedom forum, and it pops up over and over again over time.

My interest is completely historical at this point also. As far as your observations on MMP interest, there has always been a diversity of belief, and I think there always will in a faith based world. I find the diversity beautiful and fascinating personally.

[RevTestament]

23 hours ago, EdGoble said:

I think that it is all interesting history about what people's speculations were, but I think that it is important that these things have been abandoned by the Church. 

I don't think so much that it is "important," but it is certainly significant. I agree that under BY, the Church went a completely different direction, but let me ask you - you don't think it significant or important that BY began to teach that exaltation was reached through polygamy? If that is not true, I think that is definitely important. And I have come to believe that teaching has caused much fraction in the Church, and led many to sin and destruction on a level on par with the sin outlined in the Book of Mormon.  If the Church had not done that, it may not be in the position it is now of needing to be corrected.

Quote

I'm not sure what the reason for people's intense interest are in these things.  For me, it is only historical curiosity, not what I should believe.  I know that there are certain people out there pushing a belief in MMP, and it seems that they recruit people to believe in this idea on boards especially like LDS Freedom forum, and it pops up over and over again over time.

I don't believe MMP is discussed much at all, and the powers that be over at LDS Freedom Forum have seemed to shut down the debate. I believe that it is uncomfortable for Church members, because if it is true, then many of their beliefs and things they have been taught are wrong, and even "sacred" interpretations of the Book of Mormon are wrong. The Church has not fully come to understand its past much less digest the full ramifications of MMP, and scriptural interpretation. Why is that important? What if ultimate exaltation is not obtained through polygamy, but by some other means? I believe that to be a very significant question - and one which I believe ultimately the Church has not gotten right. It is one of those "sacred cows" so to speak, which members still cling to, and which caused the Church to be parodied in movies like "The Godmakers." If the Church is going to get parodied, I would hope that at least it would be based on true beliefs rather than fictions....

[Alaris]

23 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I don't think so much that it is "important," but it is certainly significant. I agree that under BY, the Church went a completely different direction, but let me ask you - you don't think it significant or important that BY began to teach that exaltation was reached through polygamy? If that is not true, I think that is definitely important. And I have come to believe that teaching has caused much fraction in the Church, and led many to sin and destruction on a level on par with the sin outlined in the Book of Mormon.  If the Church had not done that, it may not be in the position it is now of needing to be corrected.

I don't believe MMP is discussed much at all, and the powers that be over at LDS Freedom Forum have seemed to shut down the debate. I believe that it is uncomfortable for Church members, because if it is true, then many of their beliefs and things they have been taught are wrong, and even "sacred" interpretations of the Book of Mormon are wrong. The Church has not fully come to understand its past much less digest the full ramifications of MMP, and scriptural interpretation. Why is that important? What if ultimate exaltation is not obtained through polygamy, but by some other means? I believe that to be a very significant question - and one which I believe ultimately the Church has not gotten right. It is one of those "sacred cows" so to speak, which members still cling to, and which caused the Church to be parodied in movies like "The Godmakers." If the Church is going to get parodied, I would hope that at least it would be based on true beliefs rather than fictions....

There was a thread on LDSFF that I started that was locked due to the elevated contention and personal attacks. I was completely shocked by the frantic responses and personal attacks. Of all the meaty doctrines I have always felt MMP is the most milky. Especially given the King Follet Sermon, D&C 93,132, and the simple logic behind the command to be perfect as the Lord or His Father in heaven is perfect. 

That said the topic itself is not forbidden on LDSFF. Other threads have popped up since. You'd think there would be some level of self awareness among those who vehemently reject such by the Spirit of Contention. 

Person A: "I believe mmp and here's why." 

Person B: "You are a heretic and a liar." 

huh? 

Ive said it elsewhere. If I ever believe something that isn't opposed Id be more worried I had stumbled onto error.  

Edited March 11, 2018 by Alaris

[Glenn101]

On 3/10/2018 at 1:16 PM, RevTestament said:

I don't believe MMP is discussed much at all, and the powers that be over at LDS Freedom Forum have seemed to shut down the debate. I believe that it is uncomfortable for Church members, because if it is true, then many of their beliefs and things they have been taught are wrong, and even "sacred" interpretations of the Book of Mormon are wrong. The Church has not fully come to understand its past much less digest the full ramifications of MMP, and scriptural interpretation. Why is that important? What if ultimate exaltation is not obtained through polygamy, but by some other means? I believe that to be a very significant question - and one which I believe ultimately the Church has not gotten right. It is one of those "sacred cows" so to speak, which members still cling to, and which caused the Church to be parodied in movies like "The Godmakers." If the Church is going to get parodied, I would hope that at least it would be based on true beliefs rather than fictions....

I believe that if multiple mortal probations were doctrine it would have been promulgated as a revelation and canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants. I am not worried at all about what people say that Joseph Smith may have said. It would contradict so much that has already been revealed via the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I believe that if multiple mortal probations were doctrine it would have been promulgated as a revelation and canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants. I am not worried at all about what people say that Joseph Smith may have said. It would contradict so much that has already been revealed via the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.

Glenn

There are several questions at play.  Whether MMP is "doctrine" isn't really one of them.

It is more a question of history.

Who believed it?  Joseph, Brigham, Heber?  Who taught it, how publicly, and using what justification?  And how widespread was the teaching among members?

Whether it's a true idea depends on the individual, the source of the doctrine and its meshing with revealed truths.  Not on whether the Church ever had it as a doctrine.

I am not sure what I think of the doctrine.  Like other more complex theological thoughts in Mormonism (KFD, Adam-God, exaltation) the revealed truths are limited and the speculations numerous.  There is probably some truth in it somewhere.  I'm not sure where yet.

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There are several questions at play.  Whether MMP is "doctrine" isn't really one of them.

It is more a question of history.

Who believed it?  Joseph, Brigham, Heber?  Who taught it, how publicly, and using what justification?  And how widespread was the teaching among members?

Whether it's a true idea depends on the individual, the source of the doctrine and its meshing with revealed truths.  Not on whether the Church ever had it as a doctrine.

I am not sure what I think of the doctrine.  Like other more complex theological thoughts in Mormonism (KFD, Adam-God, exaltation) the revealed truths are limited and the speculations numerous.  There is probably some truth in it somewhere.  I'm not sure where yet.

Does not seem to have been very public. But it was one of the items in the lone Expositor production. However the reports are too sketchy and none first hand. There are some tendrils of smoke there but have no idea the real source or how garbled the transmission. Just not something I will worry about.

[Alaris]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I believe that if multiple mortal probations were doctrine it would have been promulgated as a revelation and canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants. I am not worried at all about what people say that Joseph Smith may have said. It would contradict so much that has already been revealed via the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.

Glenn

So none of the temple endowment is doctrine? There are indicators of mmp throughout the endowment. The New name itself that is hidden is a huge, unsubtle clue. Why else would we need a new name. There is the password element sure, but why would we be sitting in our permanent kingdoms saying, "nope. My name is Bob now. Stop calling me frank." 

The Lord has a new name. Why? 

When Michael first receives a body he is commanded to arise and is still Michael. He sleeps immediately and awakes as Adam. "Sleeps" in quotes. 

There are mentions all over the scriptures of truths yet to be revealed and our prophets and apostles today often make reference of scripture to come. This is the time of the gentiles. As it comes to an end, the time of the milk will end as well imho

Edited March 12, 2018 by Alaris

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Alaris said:

So none of the temple endowment is doctrine? There are indicators of mmp throughout the endowment. The New name itself that is hidden is a huge, unsubtle clue. Why else would we need a new name. There is the password element sure, but why would we be sitting in our permanent kingdoms saying, "nope. My name is Bob now. Stop calling me frank." 

The Lord has a new name. Why? 

When Michael first receives a body he is commanded to arise and is still Michael. He sleeps immediately and awakes as Adam. "Sleeps" in quotes. 

There are mentions all over the scriptures of truths yet to be revealed and our prophets and apostles today often make reference of scripture to come. This is the time of the gentiles. As it comes to an end, the time of the milk will end as well imho

I am open to new revelation on he subject. But, as I noted, multiple mortal probations would contradict the scriptures that we already have received.

[Alaris]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I am open to new revelation on he subject. But, as I noted, multiple mortal probations would contradict the scriptures that we already have received.

Please demonstrate and let's discuss! MMP may seemingly contradict understandings of scriptures but I strongly recommend keeping an open mind along the ask, seek knock mindset. Prayer, pondering.

Many lds don't even want to give space to plant the seed because they personally are uncomfortable with the idea whether it be not wanting to have to "do this all over again" or whether they have set in their minds how things will proceed beyond this life. 

The plan of salvation drawing with the three circles and the veil is a bit oversimplified. We know this because we are given four tokens to traverse... One veil or four veils? Are there more than four tokens? I believe so!

[EdGoble]

On 3/10/2018 at 11:16 AM, RevTestament said:

I don't think so much that it is "important," but it is certainly significant. I agree that under BY, the Church went a completely different direction, but let me ask you - you don't think it significant or important that BY began to teach that exaltation was reached through polygamy? If that is not true, I think that is definitely important. And I have come to believe that teaching has caused much fraction in the Church, and led many to sin and destruction on a level on par with the sin outlined in the Book of Mormon.  If the Church had not done that, it may not be in the position it is now of needing to be corrected.

I don't believe MMP is discussed much at all, and the powers that be over at LDS Freedom Forum have seemed to shut down the debate. I believe that it is uncomfortable for Church members, because if it is true, then many of their beliefs and things they have been taught are wrong, and even "sacred" interpretations of the Book of Mormon are wrong. The Church has not fully come to understand its past much less digest the full ramifications of MMP, and scriptural interpretation. Why is that important? What if ultimate exaltation is not obtained through polygamy, but by some other means? I believe that to be a very significant question - and one which I believe ultimately the Church has not gotten right. It is one of those "sacred cows" so to speak, which members still cling to, and which caused the Church to be parodied in movies like "The Godmakers." If the Church is going to get parodied, I would hope that at least it would be based on true beliefs rather than fictions....

I don't think exaltation is reached through polygamy.  Gratefully that too has been abandoned and has nothing to do with a modern Church.

Exaltation is reached through obedience to covenants and commandments that we are given at this time.

I don't see why a teaching that has been abandoned like MMP, that was never fully developed, and was only believed by a few ought to be taken seriously as a candidate for truth.  It has a relatively few people that keep pushing for it on the Internet trying to popularize it.  There is no significant difference between MMP and reincarnation, and the LDS as a whole will never adopt any kind of reincarnation, regardless of who believed it or who taught it, or in which way it is packaged.

[EdGoble]

On 3/11/2018 at 12:01 PM, Alaris said:

There was a thread on LDSFF that I started that was locked due to the elevated contention and personal attacks. I was completely shocked by the frantic responses and personal attacks. Of all the meaty doctrines I have always felt MMP is the most milky. Especially given the King Follet Sermon, D&C 93,132, and the simple logic behind the command to be perfect as the Lord or His Father in heaven is perfect. 

That said the topic itself is not forbidden on LDSFF. Other threads have popped up since. You'd think there would be some level of self awareness among those who vehemently reject such by the Spirit of Contention. 

Person A: "I believe mmp and here's why." 

Person B: "You are a heretic and a liar." 

huh? 

Ive said it elsewhere. If I ever believe something that isn't opposed Id be more worried I had stumbled onto error.  

I don't feel MMP is the most milky.  It is among the most objectionable of all false doctrines, because it is not only very unscriptural, but makes a mockery of the Atonement.

[EdGoble]

17 hours ago, Alaris said:

So none of the temple endowment is doctrine? There are indicators of mmp throughout the endowment. The New name itself that is hidden is a huge, unsubtle clue. Why else would we need a new name. There is the password element sure, but why would we be sitting in our permanent kingdoms saying, "nope. My name is Bob now. Stop calling me frank." 

The Lord has a new name. Why? 

When Michael first receives a body he is commanded to arise and is still Michael. He sleeps immediately and awakes as Adam. "Sleeps" in quotes. 

There are mentions all over the scriptures of truths yet to be revealed and our prophets and apostles today often make reference of scripture to come. This is the time of the gentiles. As it comes to an end, the time of the milk will end as well imho

There is no good reason to read MMP into any of the endowment.  People receive different name/titles as they progress through different stages of their existence, which is unsurprising.  Another mortality born into a different body is not one of those stages.

[Calm]

Ed, you need five more posts so I can give you some reps.