Families in the next life-how does that all work?

[CV75]

Just now, JulieM said:

But once again, you don’t know.  You can think it or hope it will be like this.  It’s still speculation for much of this though.  

I know at least 2 things:

"...that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy." (D&C 130:2)

“It is this desire for united, enduring relationships with loved ones and with God that draws people to the temple and its eternal, binding promises.” https://www.mormon.org/beliefs/temples

Where do you think my speculation is found, in that the temple ordinances help fulfil this desire for people choosing to live in an exalted state?

 

 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What do you find to be the most nonsensical mess in the basic teachings about sealing? https://www.lds.org/topics/sealing?lang=eng

I read the marriage one and it's basically saying a couple will be exalted. I guess that's where they become gods/goddesses. I don't undersand how the church sometimes wants to downplay this, such as in Pres. Hinckley's interview. I wonder why that is, since it appears to be confusing like Cinepro mentions. Appears he wasn't all the way sure about it. To me, when a couple will be exalted, they will go one to start their own world somewhere. And everyone will be pretty busy. The woman will have spirit babies, and then they go off to the world and she is pretty much kept hidden until hopefully that child returns and gets to know her again?  

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But once again, you don’t know.  You can think it or hope it will be like this.  It’s still speculation for much of this though.  

I think the claim of "speculation" is sometimes used to ignore scripture.

It's true we don't know everything, or even most things.  But we can't ignore what has been revealed either.
Some times it seems like we want to bury our heads in the sand because the scripture makes us uncomfortable.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I read the marriage one and it's basically saying a couple will be exalted. I guess that's where they become gods/goddesses. I don't undersand how the church sometimes wants to downplay this, such as in Pres. Hinckley's interview. I wonder why that is, since it appears to be confusing like Cinepro mentions. Appears he wasn't all the way sure about it. To me, when a couple will be exalted, they will go one to start their own world somewhere. And everyone will be pretty busy. The woman will have spirit babies, and then they go off to the world and she is pretty much kept hidden until hopefully that child returns and gets to know her again?  

I think that's an oversimplification.
Exaltation is becoming like God (male and female).
We don't have all the details of God's existence.  But I think implying that God's existence is anything less than perfect is a bad starting point.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I read the marriage one and it's basically saying a couple will be exalted. I guess that's where they become gods/goddesses. I don't undersand how the church sometimes wants to downplay this, such as in Pres. Hinckley's interview. I wonder why that is, since it appears to be confusing like Cinepro mentions. Appears he wasn't all the way sure about it. To me, when a couple will be exalted, they will go one to start their own world somewhere. And everyone will be pretty busy. The woman will have spirit babies, and then they go off to the world and she is pretty much kept hidden until hopefully that child returns and gets to know her again?  

You'd have to provide the exact quote and context for me comment (thank you in advance).

You seemed to explain your view pretty succinctly; do you consider yourself to be confused? Where did you get your information, and how did you draw such a conclusion (my question was referring to our most basic teachings, and offered a link as a reference).

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You'd have to provide the exact quote and context for me comment (thank you in advance). 

You seemed to explain your view pretty succinctly; do you consider yourself to be confused? Where did you get your information, and how did you draw such a conclusion (my question was referring to our most basic teachings, and offered a link as a reference).

Me: I'm not confused, I'm confused by Pres. Hinckley's hesitancy to teach it, therefore others might be confused to what it all means

Is this what you wanted? Or was it a reference about Pres. Hinckley's interview?

"The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation. The Lord revealed through Joseph Smith: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase” (D&C 131:1–4).

 

Edited June 21, 2018 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Givens has some great stuff to say about this that I will quote later. Don't know if you have read "Feeding the Flock" yet but it's a great book.

Haven't seen it yet.  What is the gist of what he has to say there?

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Me: I'm not confused, I'm confused by Pres. Hinckley's hesitancy to teach it, therefore others might be confused to what it all means.... Or was it a reference about Pres. Hinckley's interview? 

 

Pretty sure that was referring to the first part of the couplet, that God was once like man.

Which is quite blasphemous in most Christians' views and therefore shouldn't be just thrown out there as a one liner without context.  (I also believe if you think about how he said it, it makes sense that the "we don't emphasize it" is a correction for "we don't teach it" meaning he meant "we don't teach about that very much, it is not a core teaching".  Which is very true, imo.  Outside the couplet itself which is used to talk about man's progression, not God's, I haven't heard it taught in church for decades and only remember hearing it rarely before that.  Now speculation among my friends and family, that happened quite a bit.  I was very impressed by that idea myself...that the Father was asking nothing of us that he hadn't had to go through.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Calm

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Me: I'm not confused, I'm confused by Pres. Hinckley's hesitancy to teach it, therefore others might be confused to what it all means

Is this what you wanted? Or was it a reference about Pres. Hinckley's interview?

"The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation. The Lord revealed through Joseph Smith: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase” (D&C 131:1–4).

It was for President Hinckley's interview. I'm not quiet sure how it relates to the basic teachings about families being sealed. In the marriage link you mentioned, it basically says: 1) that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” When a man and woman are married in the temple, their family can be together forever; 2) This is a common goal of Latter-day Saints; 3) in our Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness, a man and a woman can be sealed to one another for time and all eternity. This means that have the assurance that their relationship will continue forever if they are true to their covenants. 4) The covenant of eternal marriage in particular is necessary for the faithful to receive the blessings of eternal marriage and exaltation.

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It was for President Hinckley's interview. I'm not quiet sure how it relates to the basic teachings about families being sealed. In the marriage link you mentioned, it basically says: 1) that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” When a man and woman are married in the temple, their family can be together forever; 2) This is a common goal of Latter-day Saints; 3) in our Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness, a man and a woman can be sealed to one another for time and all eternity. This means that have the assurance that their relationship will continue forever if they are true to their covenants. 4) The covenant of eternal marriage in particular is necessary for the faithful to receive the blessings of eternal marriage and exaltation.

ETA: https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/does_president_hinckley_understand_lds_doctrine

I'm sure you've read the transcript of the interview haven't you? I was getting at that we shouldn't hide or be afraid to say what we believe should we? If we aren't really sure, then why teach it? JL would most likely appreciate if the church wouldn't be wishy washy on this subject. 

If exaltation means we will have increase, I doubt that means a couple of children does it? I believe the leaders of old mean't it to be exactly how God had increase. 

Edited June 21, 2018 by Tacenda

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

You're welcome.

It is funny how perspective colors what we view as limiting others imaginations. I believe it is my imagination that allows me to see more than just one side to the possibilities. For example, I agree with you that if we end up as eternal beings in some sort of endless creation cycle, then that existence will in no way resemble our current one, and I take it a step further, in my imagination. We ourselves in no way will resemble our current state. My imagination tells me that my current capabilities are not sufficient to embrace an existence of that length, hence my comment about getting bored after a few thousand years. So I agree that our lives will be completely different and I think we will be also.

Being bored is against my religion.

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Why are we so sure that our current selves actually want to change into those beings and that life? Why are we so sure that even if we get to those stages, we will not eventually want something different? Is it my imagination that is failing to see just a joyful eternal existence or your imagination that only allows for that possibility?

When we get out of this veil of forgetfulness thing, we will then remember that we wanted to come here, go through all this, and try out for what Father wants us to become.

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Also I am curious, based on your vignette, do you reject the Smith couplet, or do you believe we will eventually become Gods in our own right?

In the vignette, the promotion to the first degree of the CK is the transition to that.

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Quote

 do you reject the Smith couplet, or do you believe we will eventually become Gods in our own right?

In the vignette, the promotion to the first degree of the CK is the transition to that.

I don't think this is correct.
The first degree of the Celestial Kingdom is not Godhood.

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

ETA: https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/does_president_hinckley_understand_lds_doctrine

I'm sure you've read the transcript of the interview haven't you? I was getting at that we shouldn't hide or be afraid to say what we believe should we? If we aren't really sure, then why teach it? JL would most likely appreciate if the church wouldn't be wishy washy on this subject. 

If exaltation means we will have increase, I doubt that means a couple of children does it? I believe the leaders of old mean't it to be exactly how God had increase. 

Yes, I read it a long time ago and kind of surmised what you were referring to, so thank you for the refresher. I like to be clear on what was actually said when asked to comment on it. But you’re only using it as an example of dodging a question, presumably because it is confusing.

But yes, I agree we shouldn't dodge questions, hide our beliefs or be afraid to say what we believe. I don’t believe the Church does this. (Who is JL?) With regards to eternal increase having to do with spirit children, and the potential for God’s children to have spirit children in exaltation, I found a couple of places where it is taught in student manuals, which seems appropriate to me: https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/marriage-for-eternity?lang=eng, https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/28-celestial-marriage?lang=eng Of course one has to build into his understanding and appreciation in a manner that does not result in unresolved confusion.

I don’t see the teaching that God had spirit children, or that we have “a mother there” to be concepts that are confusing and typically avoided.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Me: I'm not confused, I'm confused by Pres. Hinckley's hesitancy to teach it, therefore others might be confused to what it all means

His hesitancy to teach it comes from the utter certainty that the audience was not ready to hear it.  When Jesus was in mortality, he told his disciples not to teach certain things until later.  You will find the same admonition given in the Doctrine and Covenants in a couple of places.

When your five year old asks you where babies come from, do you launch into a detailed explanation of sexual intercourse?  Does a beginning literature teacher start out with James Joyce's Ulysses?  In the first or second lesson is a trainee pilot asked to make a crosswind landing?  No, no and no.

President Hinckley was asked a question whose proper answer could not be understood without sufficient preparation, and had a large likelihood of causing actual damage to those who heard it.  When Jesus told those who listened to him that they should drink his blood and eat his flesh, many were shocked and stopped following him.  It may very well be that he said this in order to drive them away -- that he would be left only with those who had a testimony.  But in general, he taught with parables because he wanted the principles to be understood by those who were ready, and the rest of them would just have some funny stories -- until they suddenly got the point, if ever.  President Hinckley could not give a parabolic answer to that question because it was too direct.  So he waffled, and he did so because it was the only rational thing he could do.

I had a similar problem on my mission.  In my first city, my second companion and I were faced with some Jehovah's Witness "investigators" who brought one of their experts to participate in a discussion.  We tried to answer questions, and one of them was the bringing into the conversation Lorenzo Snow's "As God now is, man may become" couplet.  They read the quotation, in German, and suggested that it might not have been translated correctly from the original English.  I told them that no, the translation was accurate.  They then asked what it meant.  I said, exactly what it says.  They then looked at each other in some consternation, and then the expert thanked us for coming, but they didn't think there was any point to further discussion, and we were wished good evening.  In short, in arithmetic class I was forced to teach integral calculus.  There was no way out, except to deny the teaching (which would have been a lie).  Much later in my "career" I could have actually taught theosis using the Bible, but at the time I could do nothing but admit the truth and lose them.  Not that there was much chance of bringing them into the Church, but oh, well.  President Hinckley couldn't risk trying to teach it on national TV in front of millions of people who were not ready for it, and he wouldn't have had the time to do so if he had tried.

 

Edited June 21, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think this is correct.
The first degree of the Celestial Kingdom is not Godhood.

You misunderstood, or I didn't define my terms precisely enough. By "first" I mean the "highest."  Like in "first class" or "first prize".

	1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
	2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into 
this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting 
covenant of marriage];
	3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
	4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; 
he cannot have an increase.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Haven't seen it yet.  What is the gist of what he has to say there?

See here

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70696-families-in-the-next-life-how-does-that-all-work/?do=findComment&comment=1209829007

 

[JAHS]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

To me, when a couple will be exalted, they will go one to start their own world somewhere.

Think bigger. I understand it to mean we will create our own universe, the same as our God did. 

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Think bigger. I understand it to mean we will create our own universe, the same as our God did. 

Even bigger- we will create our own "eternity", then like God we will be said to have existed fron eternity to eternity, in the eternities, and as far as our offspring will know to have existed "from all eternity".

[CA Steve]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Even bigger- we will create our own "eternity", then like God we will be said to have existed fron eternity to eternity, in the eternities, and as far as our offspring will know to have existed "from all eternity".

So if we create our "own eternity" are our families going to be with us in our eternity or are they going to create their own? If they are going to create their own I suppose we would have to modify the catchphrase to "Families are Forever, but in separate eternities"

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Also I am curious, based on your vignette, do you reject the Smith couplet, or do you believe we will eventually become Gods in our own right?

These folks don't seem to have a problem with the couplet:

Quote

1. Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.

The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Salt Lake City, Utah, 30 June 1916

 

2. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

Joseph F. Smith  John R. Winder  Anthon H. Lund, First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints November 1909

 

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Like in Norway!  Of course, they might be out of place in Africa. Not equatorial enough.

Yes, but they might set a trend. Slartibartfast thought so.

Edited June 22, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So if we create our "own eternity" are our families going to be with us in our eternity or are they going to create their own? If they are going to create their own I suppose we would have to modify the catchphrase to "Families are Forever, but in separate eternities"

Good question.  Does God's family from his mortal existence dwell with him now?  Does it matter?

We know God's wife/wives are with him because we believe in a Heavenly Mother.  As for kids, don't kids grow up and move out eventually?  I live on a different continent from my mother.

The idea that we all have to live together in the same location all the time to be an eternal family is a red herring argument against eternal families and sealings. 

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Good question.  Does God's family from his mortal existence dwell with him now?  Does it matter?

We know God's wife/wives are with him because we believe in a Heavenly Mother.  As for kids, don't kids grow up and move out eventually?  I live on a different continent from my mother.

The idea that we all have to live together in the same location all the time to be an eternal family is a red herring argument against eternal families and sealings. 

And there are many ways to communicate at close range and from very long distances. Husband and wife become one flesh in far more ways than the obvious one.

[strappinglad]

If one can travel instantly any where , is there such a thing as " separation " ?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

So if we create our "own eternity" are our families going to be with us in our eternity or are they going to create their own? If they are going to create their own I suppose we would have to modify the catchphrase to "Families are Forever, but in separate eternities"

Everyone is one.  Time and space appear to be irrelevant.