Families and the Plan of Salvation/Exaltation

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your point by point summary of my questions. I have highlighted and italicized the part of your reply wherein you tell me what I believe about my marriage vows. I have commented about that in the quote from the Times and Seasons blog. Methinks we have a hermeneutic difference on the meaning of the non-LDS Christian vow. I have always thought I would be together with my wife in heaven - I am simply uncertain of the exact nature of the relationship, but with all the couples I have married I have never said that the "til death us do part" vow implies eternal separation. That interpretation is held by some for sure - but certainly not all. Those who source the Book of Common Prayer in their liturgy are more apt to give it an eternal significance (Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, and some Lutherans). 

Again, line by line- or at least by paragraph!

I never asserted that I know ANYTHING about what you believe about YOUR marriage vows, and honestly that is none of my business.

I simply asked a question about how people can VOW to be married until "death do you part" and then not mean what those words say.

Your post contained no links to any article by anyone - some blogger- so I cannot tell you anything about that.   I can't even find the quote you copied.

My quote which you said you could not understand who the author was- was CLEARLY  linked  and written in a book called "The teachings of the Prophets of the Church- chapter 20- Joseph F Smith".  Published by the church, not some blogger.  How could you NOT see that?

That was a book used in every priesthood lesson for years and years in church as a series- going each year through one prophet's teachings.   Anyone receiving a priesthood lesson in the last ten or so years would instantly know that.

And yes I agree with you about the word "damned"!

We have the exact same problem in that NEVER EVER does the word "damned" mean- in an LDS context- "burning in Hell forever"   I must admit it drives me crazy among other LDS usages but indeed THAT is what it means!!  Look up the word in any dictionary and the dictionary will say something along the lines of "burning in hell forever"- which is what it NEVER means in an LDS context

How do I know that? 

Because we do not believe that ANYONE will "burn in hell forever"!  In an LDS context it means "DAMMED"- like a river- the cessation of progression.

We have a "place" for the truly evil who are called "sons of perdition" and that is "outer darkness" - total separation from God where they we either spend eternity- not burning in hell- but with out any light of God, though some here have argued that this state will be non-existence- that these individuals will simply blink out of existence.   VERY FEW will "qualify" for outer darkness- they have to have been like Abraham or Issac - to achieve  a level which would allow them to become gods- and yet even with that level of knowledge- deny it all.   It is said it would be like staring directly at the SUN and saying that it did not exist.

It has been said that only a few will ever even be able to attain the state of knowledge a son of perdition has and then deny it all?   This is the sin of denying the Holy Ghost- for which there is no forgiveness.

Quote

I perhaps should have better clarified the context of my questions. It is my fault I did not do that. I am busy researching the specific doctrinal implications of the Mormon fundamentalist movements, especially as manifested here in Mexico, together with the very complicated nature of the intersections of the same with LDS folks. So, I am tending to focus on dysfunction.

I would agree that this is precisely the problem.

Quote

This is where I got frustrated looking at the LDS resources online. In the first article you cited, Elder Nash makes the following statement: "For example, if I do not receive the ordinance and keep the covenant of baptism, I will be damned, meaning that I cannot progress—I cannot inherit the fulness of His glory. Likewise if I do not receive the ordinances of the temple and keep the associated covenants or, indeed, if I refuse to receive any of the ordinances of the gospel or if I refuse to abide by any of the associated covenants, I cannot be exalted. Instead, I will be damned, meaning that my progress will be stopped. In short, I must receive every ordinance of the gospel and abide by every associated covenant if eternal life is my desire." Pretty strong language, huh? I guess I am damned. I would understand this if he said dammed as in the big concrete thing behind my house that stops the flow of the river. But, damned is a whole different thing, unless LDS theologians have a very different concept of being spiritually damned by God! In this case, I guess the elder is saying that dysfunction leads to damnation. Maybe that is my answer!   

You nailed it and even saw it as "harsh" IF and ONLY IF what he meant by "damned" was "burning in hell forever" when it does NOT mean that at all!!

Why would LDS use a perfectly good English word to mean something else?   THAT is another question.   I believe the answer is in the Book of Mormon but again this is not the time or place for that.

Just know that you nailed the difference- that Elder Nash's statement perfectly shows that what he means is the big concrete thing in your back yard.   So yes, the doctrine is that you will have "DAMMED"- as in stopping the "water flow" of your progression-  by vowing "til death do you part".

 

Quote

I don't know who wrote the second article you cited, but it is even less satisfactory for answering my questions.  Whoever it is again tells us what we mean by our vow: "The Latter-day Saints marry for time and eternity, not merely until death parts husband and wife. Marriages performed under the civic law and by ministers of other denominations are regarded as honorable and effectual so far as relates to this life, but in order to be effectual in the life to come such covenants must be made for eternity, such unions must be formed according to God’s law and under his authority, or they will have no force or effect hereafter."  He or she also lost me by criticizing small families - "Bachelorhood and small families carry to the superficial mind the idea that they are desirable because they bring with them the minimum of responsibility. The spirit that shirks responsibility shirks labor. Idleness and pleasure take the place of industry and strenuous effort. The love of pleasure and of an easy life in turn make demands upon young men who refuse to look upon marriage and its consequent family enlargement as a sacred duty." My wife had a tumor burst on her female parts within a year or so of our marriage. She was unable after that to have children. So sometime later we adopted a severely handicapped child who 42 years later is still with us and has taken all our energy and much of our resources. I do say a hearty shame on the author for his mean-spirited words. And people wonder why we don't want to join a church that puts such terrible and mean-spirited verbiage on their website? 

Again, I do not know how you could NOT see that the positions quoted were those of Joseph F Smith- one of the most conservative of the prophets, and that conservative nature should be taken into consideration.

But how in heaven's name is this "mean spirited"?   Because you as a couple could not have children??   Where does he say that one must have children naturally - or at all for that matter- to be exalted???   How are you seeing that here??  

He is clearly clearly talking about a family which decides ahead of time that riches are more important than children.  Are you a "bachelor" who "shirked responsibility" so that you could be "idle" to avoid your "sacred duty"?   Of course not!!!

You voluntarily took on the responsibility of raising a handicapped child and are STILL living up to your God-given responsibility, and you interpret this as a condemnation??

Quote

Sorry, I am getting off track again. I wanted you to know I followed through on the two pages you recommended. I found them helpful in some ways and very unhelpful in others. Sorry, I know that will frustrate you. I took too much of what I read personally. Sorry. I am too old and have worked too hard and have loved my son too well to be told by some anonymous author that I have a "love of pleasure and of an easy life and shirk my "sacred duty" and by another that I am damned.

This is precisely why I question what you know about our faith- not even understanding who wrote those words and the context in which they were written.  You would see your life being praised for your acceptance of responsibility and devotion to God and your family but that is now what you see- you see only meanness and condemnation.   Were I you I would feel my life being praised by a prophet of the Lord, but what you see is some unknown mean person saying you will burn in hell forever.   I don't know how the contrast could be more wide between the author intentions and what your understanding of those intentions are.

I wish you could find someone to teach you what the gospel really is, as growing in peace and love with your savior, but you see only exclusion and reasons to distance yourself.   I truly wish I could help, but I am growing doubtful that it is possible.

Frankly I disagree with many of the writings of Joseph F. Smith- but not these.

I suppose you will keep your interpretation and now put me in the category of one who condemns you while you will have missed it all by 180 degrees.  

I really wish there was a way you could understand what the church truly teaches.   I will take that as more our problem than yours, but do not know what could be done to fix it.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am not 100% sure I understand what you have written. What you have said is not a hypothetical. I have gotten into a covenant relationship with someone (my wife), with God agreeing to honor that covenant with that other person. I did so when I married my wife. That is how I got myself into that covenant relationship.  I understand that you most likely don't believe God agreed to honor our covenant, but we will respectfully have to agree to disagree. If I became a member of the LDS church, I would not agree to make either of those covenants over again because that would imply that I have come to the conclusion that my first covenanting fifty years ago with her was faulty, along with the covenants I made sixty-three years ago with God was faulty. I believe my baptism and my marriage were both performed by one with administrative (by the church) and spiritual authority (by God) to do so and was done in the presence of God with covenants. Therefore I don't know how to join the LDS Church without openly disagreeing with what I just said. All those years living in a covenant relationship with God and my wife in vain because no LDS priesthood holder was involved? I know I don't agree with that, so I guess I will never join, because invalidating my entire Christian experience is required for membership. That doesn't mean I can't fellowship, worship, and yes, minister as a faithful non-member. 

I am sorry because again, this has been turned around to be about me. My original questions were not asked to solve a problem I have. They were asked in relationship to questions I have about fundamentalist mormon groups and practices and how to better understanding the doctrine of family and marital dysfunction so that I could more accurately write and speak about the history. I am positive that a non-member of the church cannot write accurately about the history of the church without understanding the doctrine of the same. But one can understand and write accurately without agreeing with the same. In fact that is one of the great opportunities in writing religious history. Somehow I shouldn't personalize all this. It is hard not to. 

Another issue I was trying to address a little is that who we are sealed to, or not sealed to, is directly related to who we make covenants with and each of those covenants we make, if we make any, pertain to only those people in each of those covenants.  For example you mentioned one of your ancestors and it sounded to me like you aren't too terribly thrilled with that idea of being sealed or bound to that person forever as part of your family.  So if you don't want to be sealed to him then you don't have to be.  It is your choice, and his choice, and God's choice whether or not you will be sealed to each other.  Even if God wants both of you to be sealed to each other, each of you can say No and not covenant with each other to do that.  And if you do want to be sealed to each other you will need to enter into a covenant to be bound together, if you haven't done that already.

Personally, I'm opened to the idea of being sealed to everybody in my family line, even if while they were mortal they were some really terrible people.  Even if they don't get any better, to be better people, if we are bound together all it means is that we will still be part of the same family and in the same family position in relation to each other.  And while I may not want to hang out with the worst of my family very often, it would still be nice to visit and then just leave when I don't want to visit with them any more at that particular time.

[Navidad]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Again, line by line- or at least by paragraph!

I never asserted that I know ANYTHING about what you believe about YOUR marriage vows, and honestly that is none of my business.

I simply asked a question about how people can VOW to be married until "death do you part" and then not mean what those words say.

Your post contained no links to any article by anyone - some blogger- so I cannot tell you anything about that.   I can't even find the quote you copied.

My quote which you said you could not understand who the author was- was CLEARLY  linked  and written in a book called "The teachings of the Prophets of the Church- chapter 20- Joseph F Smith".  Published by the church, not some blogger.  How could you NOT see that?

That was a book used in every priesthood lesson for years and years in church as a series- going each year through one prophet's teachings.   Anyone receiving a priesthood lesson in the last ten or so years would instantly know that.

And yes I agree with you about the word "damned"!

We have the exact same problem in that NEVER EVER does the word "damned" mean- in an LDS context- "burning in Hell forever"   I must admit it drives me crazy among other LDS usages but indeed THAT is what it means!!  Look up the word in any dictionary and the dictionary will say something along the lines of "burning in hell forever"- which is what it NEVER means in an LDS context

How do I know that? 

Because we do not believe that ANYONE will "burn in hell forever"!  In an LDS context it means "DAMMED"- like a river- the cessation of progression.

We have a "place" for the truly evil who are called "sons of perdition" and that is "outer darkness" - total separation from God where they we either spend eternity- not burning in hell- but with out any light of God, though some here have argued that this state will be non-existence- that these individuals will simply blink out of existence.   VERY FEW will "qualify" for outer darkness- they have to have been like Abraham or Issac - to achieve  a level which would allow them to become gods- and yet even with that level of knowledge- deny it all.   It is said it would be like staring directly at the SUN and saying that it did not exist.

It has been said that only a few will ever even be able to attain the state of knowledge a son of perdition has and then deny it all?   This is the sin of denying the Holy Ghost- for which there is no forgiveness.

I would agree that this is precisely the problem.

You nailed it and even saw it as "harsh" IF and ONLY IF what he meant by "damned" was "burning in hell forever" when it does NOT mean that at all!!

Why would LDS use a perfectly good English word to mean something else?   THAT is another question.   I believe the answer is in the Book of Mormon but again this is not the time or place for that.

Just know that you nailed the difference- that Elder Nash's statement perfectly shows that what he means is the big concrete thing in your back yard.   So yes, the doctrine is that you will have "DAMMED"- as in stopping the "water flow" of your progression-  by vowing "til death do you part".

 

Again, I do not know how you could NOT see that the positions quoted were those of Joseph F Smith- one of the most conservative of the prophets, and that conservative nature should be taken into consideration.

But how in heaven's name is this "mean spirited"?   Because you as a couple could not have children??   Where does he say that one must have children naturally - or at all for that matter- to be exalted???   How are you seeing that here??  

He is clearly clearly talking about a family which decides ahead of time that riches are more important than children.  Are you a "bachelor" who "shirked responsibility" so that you could be "idle" to avoid your "sacred duty"?   Of course not!!!

You voluntarily took on the responsibility of raising a handicapped child and are STILL living up to your God-given responsibility, and you interpret this as a condemnation??

This is precisely why I question what you know about our faith- not even understanding who wrote those words and the context in which they were written.  You would see your life being praised for your acceptance of responsibility and devotion to God and your family but that is now what you see- you see only meanness and condemnation.   Were I you I would feel my life being praised by a prophet of the Lord, but what you see is some unknown mean person saying you will burn in hell forever.   I don't know how the contrast could be more wide between the author intentions and what your understanding of those intentions are.

I wish you could find someone to teach you what the gospel really is, as growing in peace and love with your savior, but you see only exclusion and reasons to distance yourself.   I truly wish I could help, but I am growing doubtful that it is possible.

Frankly I disagree with many of the writings of Joseph F. Smith- but not these.

I suppose you will keep your interpretation and now put me in the category of one who condemns you while you will have missed it all by 180 degrees.  

I really wish there was a way you could understand what the church truly teaches.   I will take that as more our problem than yours, but do not know what could be done to fix it.

Hi my friend: I have no need to keep or cling to an incorrect interpretation. I was responding from my initial reactions to what I read. Please don't grow doubtful about me. I can certainly understand how you can feel that way. You have been trying to help me for over two years now. It must get tiring. LDS doctrine is very complex; very hard to understand. It is also sometimes hard for me to match the doctrine with the verbiage. My wife has an even harder time than I do because she is quite often the recipient of, "Oh you only have one child?" I want to assure the person that he or she has no idea how my wife has poured her soul into that one child. I believe the hardest thing for us is the sense of being "less than" that we feel on occasion. I have often wondered if folks come into a Mennonite church from another denomination and feel the same way? I don't think so, but then I would guess that the folks in the ward might not accept my characterization that they make us feel "less than" either.

I would be dishonest If I didn't say that creates a protective psychological and spiritual barrier on our part. That is what you might be seeing in the words in my posts. We have learned to be defensive, protecting against the blows. Having accepted responsibility for that, I also think there is a Carl Rogers theoretical dysfunction in deeply religious people who so strongly identify with their church. They have an "ideal self" - how they see themselves that doesn't always match their "phenomenological self" - how they are seen by others. Rogers taught that the larger the gap between the phenomenological and the ideal self, the greater the likelihood for social conflict. The more integrated the two, the better likelihood for accurate self-awareness and social harmony. Cognitive psychologists simply call it the blind spot. It is not unique to members of the LDS church, but I guess I have come to see it as somewhat normative. Does that bias me? Sure. Sometimes the social club, as you call it can be fairly antisocial to non-members. Perhaps it is simply our fault, we are trying to belong without joining. Given the LDS culture that may simply not be possible. You all would certainly know best. I have never belonged to a church where church membership was such a big deal. Having and being able to use your spiritual gifts was a very big deal. It seems the opposite in the LDS world. But as you have said on a number of occasions, we choose to attend. We were invited once by folks who I think never dreamed we would still be there more than two years later without joining. I will say again, as I have said before. The experience of attending the church has helped us grow spiritually in a variety of ways. For that we are grateful. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Another issue I was trying to address a little is that who we are sealed to, or not sealed to, is directly related to who we make covenants with and each of those covenants we make, if we make any, pertain to only those people in each of those covenants.  For example you mentioned one of your ancestors and it sounded to me like you aren't too terribly thrilled with that idea of being sealed or bound to that person forever as part of your family.  So if you don't want to be sealed to him then you don't have to be.  It is your choice, and his choice, and God's choice whether or not you will be sealed to each other.  Even if God wants both of you to be sealed to each other, each of you can say No and not covenant with each other to do that.  And if you do want to be sealed to each other you will need to enter into a covenant to be bound together, if you haven't done that already.

Personally, I'm opened to the idea of being sealed to everybody in my family line, even if while they were mortal they were some really terrible people.  Even if they don't get any better, to be better people, if we are bound together all it means is that we will still be part of the same family and in the same family position in relation to each other.  And while I may not want to hang out with the worst of my family very often, it would still be nice to visit and then just leave when I don't want to visit with them any more at that particular time.

Thanks Ahab: I did not know what you are telling me. The very few times any of this has been brought up in our ward it has been in the context of being together with your ancestors all the way back to Adam on a planet unique to your family. Millions of people somehow living together in perhaps clusters of more recent ancestors. The idea of visiting others from other levels of heaven, etc. is something I have never heard until yesterday. Thanks for addressing this. It helps me to understand more. 

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend: I have no need to keep or cling to an incorrect interpretation. I was responding from my initial reactions to what I read. Please don't grow doubtful about me. I can certainly understand how you can feel that way. You have been trying to help me for over two years now. It must get tiring. LDS doctrine is very complex; very hard to understand. It is also sometimes hard for me to match the doctrine with the verbiage. My wife has an even harder time than I do because she is quite often the recipient of, "Oh you only have one child?" I want to assure the person that he or she has no idea how my wife has poured her soul into that one child. I believe the hardest thing for us is the sense of being "less than" that we feel on occasion. I have often wondered if folks come into a Mennonite church from another denomination and feel the same way? I don't think so, but then I would guess that the folks in the ward might not accept my characterization that they make us feel "less than" either.

I would be dishonest If I didn't say that creates a protective psychological and spiritual barrier on our part. That is what you might be seeing in the words in my posts. We have learned to be defensive, protecting against the blows. Having accepted responsibility for that, I also think there is a Carl Rogers theoretical dysfunction in deeply religious people who so strongly identify with their church. They have an "ideal self" - how they see themselves that doesn't always match their "phenomenological self" - how they are seen by others. Rogers taught that the larger the gap between the phenomenological and the ideal self, the greater the likelihood for social conflict. The more integrated the two, the better likelihood for accurate self-awareness and social harmony. Cognitive psychologists simply call it the blind spot. It is not unique to members of the LDS church, but I guess I have come to see it as somewhat normative. Does that bias me? Sure. Sometimes the social club, as you call it can be fairly antisocial to non-members. Perhaps it is simply our fault, we are trying to belong without joining. Given the LDS culture that may simply not be possible. You all would certainly know best. I have never belonged to a church where church membership was such a big deal. Having and being able to use your spiritual gifts was a very big deal. It seems the opposite in the LDS world. But as you have said on a number of occasions, we choose to attend. We were invited once by folks who I think never dreamed we would still be there more than two years later without joining. I will say again, as I have said before. The experience of attending the church has helped us grow spiritually in a variety of ways. For that we are grateful. 

Does all this confusion and conflict bring you joy?

Have you read D&C cover to cover?

I think all your doctrinal questions are answered there. Why not let the spirit guide you rather than we weirdos on this board?

  And could you please give me a link to mysterious Gordon's essay?

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Again, line by line- or at least by paragraph!

I never asserted that I know ANYTHING about what you believe about YOUR marriage vows, and honestly that is none of my business.

I simply asked a question about how people can VOW to be married until "death do you part" and then not mean what those words say.

Your post contained no links to any article by anyone - some blogger- so I cannot tell you anything about that.   I can't even find the quote you copied.

My quote which you said you could not understand who the author was- was CLEARLY  linked  and written in a book called "The teachings of the Prophets of the Church- chapter 20- Joseph F Smith".  Published by the church, not some blogger.  How could you NOT see that?

That was a book used in every priesthood lesson for years and years in church as a series- going each year through one prophet's teachings.   Anyone receiving a priesthood lesson in the last ten or so years would instantly know that.

And yes I agree with you about the word "damned"!

We have the exact same problem in that NEVER EVER does the word "damned" mean- in an LDS context- "burning in Hell forever"   I must admit it drives me crazy among other LDS usages but indeed THAT is what it means!!  Look up the word in any dictionary and the dictionary will say something along the lines of "burning in hell forever"- which is what it NEVER means in an LDS context

How do I know that? 

Because we do not believe that ANYONE will "burn in hell forever"!  In an LDS context it means "DAMMED"- like a river- the cessation of progression.

We have a "place" for the truly evil who are called "sons of perdition" and that is "outer darkness" - total separation from God where they we either spend eternity- not burning in hell- but with out any light of God, though some here have argued that this state will be non-existence- that these individuals will simply blink out of existence.   VERY FEW will "qualify" for outer darkness- they have to have been like Abraham or Issac - to achieve  a level which would allow them to become gods- and yet even with that level of knowledge- deny it all.   It is said it would be like staring directly at the SUN and saying that it did not exist.

It has been said that only a few will ever even be able to attain the state of knowledge a son of perdition has and then deny it all?   This is the sin of denying the Holy Ghost- for which there is no forgiveness.

I would agree that this is precisely the problem.

You nailed it and even saw it as "harsh" IF and ONLY IF what he meant by "damned" was "burning in hell forever" when it does NOT mean that at all!!

Why would LDS use a perfectly good English word to mean something else?   THAT is another question.   I believe the answer is in the Book of Mormon but again this is not the time or place for that.

Just know that you nailed the difference- that Elder Nash's statement perfectly shows that what he means is the big concrete thing in your back yard.   So yes, the doctrine is that you will have "DAMMED"- as in stopping the "water flow" of your progression-  by vowing "til death do you part".

 

Again, I do not know how you could NOT see that the positions quoted were those of Joseph F Smith- one of the most conservative of the prophets, and that conservative nature should be taken into consideration.

But how in heaven's name is this "mean spirited"?   Because you as a couple could not have children??   Where does he say that one must have children naturally - or at all for that matter- to be exalted???   How are you seeing that here??  

He is clearly clearly talking about a family which decides ahead of time that riches are more important than children.  Are you a "bachelor" who "shirked responsibility" so that you could be "idle" to avoid your "sacred duty"?   Of course not!!!

You voluntarily took on the responsibility of raising a handicapped child and are STILL living up to your God-given responsibility, and you interpret this as a condemnation??

This is precisely why I question what you know about our faith- not even understanding who wrote those words and the context in which they were written.  You would see your life being praised for your acceptance of responsibility and devotion to God and your family but that is now what you see- you see only meanness and condemnation.   Were I you I would feel my life being praised by a prophet of the Lord, but what you see is some unknown mean person saying you will burn in hell forever.   I don't know how the contrast could be more wide between the author intentions and what your understanding of those intentions are.

I wish you could find someone to teach you what the gospel really is, as growing in peace and love with your savior, but you see only exclusion and reasons to distance yourself.   I truly wish I could help, but I am growing doubtful that it is possible.

Frankly I disagree with many of the writings of Joseph F. Smith- but not these.

I suppose you will keep your interpretation and now put me in the category of one who condemns you while you will have missed it all by 180 degrees.  

I really wish there was a way you could understand what the church truly teaches.   I will take that as more our problem than yours, but do not know what could be done to fix it.

One more less personal reply . . . If damning and damming mean the same thing to a member of the LDS church, then I don't feel so badly about being confused! Words matter. Ha! I found your explanation fascinating. Thanks for that. Second, everything I have read and know about Joseph F Smith is in the context of the Mexican colonies, polygamy, and mixed messages over the course of his presidency and those in which he served as first or second counselor. Of all presidents and members of the presidency of the church, he probably came here more often than any other (with the likely exception of Anthony Ivins). He was here for official business and for pleasure on a number of occasions during his tenure in several first presidencies and as president. He often combined the two. He was very close to John W Taylor and A.O. Woodruff, both of whom had homes here. He also sent very mixed messages as a member of the presidency and later via his counselors to the folks here with regard to post manifesto plural marriages. That is my context for knowledge of him. I didn't realize he wrote such an important book for instruction as well. Thanks for all the good information. 

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

very few times any of this has been brought up in our ward it has been in the context of being together with your ancestors all the way back to Adam on a planet unique to your family

That might be a local version or they just aren't clear what they are talking about because they assume you know what fills the gaps.

If we are all members of the same family (God's or Adam's), the only way a planet can be unique to our family is to include all humanity (at least all those at a celestial level).  Otherwise it would be what current family has rights to a specific ancestor....like which family gets to have Abraham and Sarah reside with them?  Or which of my ancestors has dibs on me and my husband?

Most people I talked to about planets see it as a more intimate assignment where a couple and perhaps their immediate children oversee the populating of a planet with their Spirit children as we believe God has created and watched this earth...but it is all undefined once you start pointing out there are the inlaws and their relationships with the spouses and what about your children having their own planet with their children?  Do they have that or just share yours and if so, how many generations?

IOW, we really don't know save a few details where we will be doing the work of God, whatever he calls us to do and we will be able to have familial relationships, whatever that means for glorified, eternal beings who can track all their ancestors and descendants.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Calm

[Navidad]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Does all this confusion and conflict bring you joy?

Have you read D&C cover to cover?

I think all your doctrinal questions are answered there. Why not let the spirit guide you rather than we weirdos on this board?

  And could you please give me a link to mysterious Gordon's essay?

 

Here is the link: https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/08/til-death-do-us-part/     The fellowship and worship brings me joy. The confusion and conflict brings me learning and grief!  I have never sat down and deliberately read D&C cover to cover as I have the other two uniquely LDS scriptures. I find the D&C very hard to interpret and understand. I haven't figured out the hermeneutic of that work. It adds so much new stuff to the BOM. I have often thought and sometimes said that the request to read and pray about should be changed from the BOM to the D&C. So much of current LDS doctrine has its doctrinal base in D&C rather than in BOM. It seems that the BOM is the legacy document while the D&C is the working document for current LDS doctrine. 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I didn't realize he wrote such an important book for instruction as well. Thanks for all the good information. 

The teachings of the Presidents series*** took one prophet for each year (two for Brigham due to the length and breadth of his teachings) and compiled by topic those that were viewed as relevant to us today into one manual for each.  So a paragraph taken from this talk or another paragraph taken from a book or letter.  

They were meant for instruction and then to keep as a reference set.

*** https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/teachings-of-presidents?lang=eng

The series included a short bio and a timeline of important events, iirc.  After some too casual editing to remove polygamous interpretations (wives became wife iirc) in the first manual and mentioning only the first marriage (or in the case of Brigham, the first two as the first wife had died before the second marriage) in the first few manuals, the choice was made to drop all marriages from the timeline until they went back to monogamous ones iirc.  (Going off memory here, hopefully will get corrected if I messed up, will check later, but finally awake enough to drive, so time for errands)

Iow, the point of the series was not to teach the POV or full experience of that President, but more how current Saints could adapt his teachings in their own lives, much as we read scriptures usually (likening them to ourselves).  So for a historian, there may seem to be some strange gaps in the books.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Calm

[Navidad]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

The teachings of the Presidents series*** took one prophet for each year (two for Brigham due to the length and breadth of his teachings) and complied by topic those that were viewed as relevant to us today into one manual for each.  So a paragraph taken from this talk or another paragraph taken from a book or letter.  

They were meant for instruction and then to keep as a reference set.

*** https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/teachings-of-presidents?lang=eng

The series included a short bio and a timeline of important events, iirc.  After some editing to remove polygamous interpretations (wives became wife iirc) and mentioning only the first marriage (or in the case of Brigham, the first two as the first wife had died before the second marriage, the choice was made to drop all marriages from the timeline until they went back to monogamous ones iirc.  

Iow, the point of the series was not to teach the POV or full experience of that President, but more how current Saints could adapt his teachings in their own lives, much as we read scriptures usually (likening them to ourselves).  So for a historian, there may seem to be some strange gaps in the books.

Hi Calm: Thanks I am familiar with this series. I refer to it fairly often. My primary interest right now is the study of post manifesto plural marriage and the development of the fundamentalist groups and their interactions with the Mexican colonies. For example there are very few references to the fact that Benjamin Franklin Johnson lived here. Rulon Allred was born here. Alma Dayer LeBaron lived here for some years as a teenager and then again for twenty years (Colonia Juarez) as an adult with his whole family. They then bought the land and moved down to Rancho LeBaron, now Colonia LeBaron. Langfords, Stubbs, Jensens, Millers, etc. all had interactions with the LDS colonies. I have studied Woodruff, Taylor, Snow, and Joseph F. Smith more than any other block of presidents along with their counselors. George Q Cannon was very active here as a counselor and plural marriage advocate. A. O. Woodruff and his first wife both died while on a trip here. John W Taylor built two homes here for his wives. I could go on, but would only bore you all. Take care.

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Quoting mfb:  The teachings of the Prophets of the Church

I keep referring to it as Prophets myself, but it is actually Presidents...I assume because apostles are considered prophets as well. 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Calm

[Ahab]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

That might be a local version or they just aren't clear what they are talking about because they assume you know what fills the gaps.

If we are all members of the same family (God's or Adam's), the only way a planet can be unique to our family is to include all humanity (at least all those at a celestial level).  Otherwise it would be what current family has rights to a specific ancestor....like which family gets to have Abraham and Sarah reside with them?  Or which of my ancestors has dibs on me and my husband?

Most people I talked to about planets see it as a more intimate assignment where a couple and perhaps their immediate children oversee the populating of a planet with their Spirit children as we believe God has created and watched this earth...but it is all undefined once you start pointing out there are the inlaws and their relationships with the spouses and what about your children having their own planet with their children?  Do they have that or just share yours and if so, how many generations?

IOW, we really don't know save a few details where we will be doing the work of God, whatever he calls us to do and we will be able to have familial relationships, whatever that means for glorified, eternal beings who can track all their ancestors and descendants.

I agree that there is a lot we don't know about this because our Father hasn't given us all of the details but with logic and reason and what our Father has told us there are a few basics we do or at least can understand.  Malachi and Joseph and the Holy Spirit and others have said that being sealed is all about providing a welding link of some kind, something which joins us together in family units.  And this is in addition to all of us already being brothers and sisters of a common Father in heaven, which we already were before we came down here, which means that those of us who are being sealed to some or all of our brothers and sisters are going for something more than we started with when we came down here. Something we experience in our mortal lives here which I reasonably conclude we did not experience while we were living in heaven before we came down here.  Here, as mortals, when we are born into our mortal bodies, a man and woman who were our brother and sister in heaven then become our father and mother here on this planet, while some others of our brothers and sisters become our brothers and sisters in that family unit wherein we have a new father and mother, and others of our brothers and sisters become our cousins.  And we usually have the opportunity of being able to spend more time with members of our mortal family (Mom, Dad, brothers and sisters and cousins) than we do with most of our other brothers and sisters from heaven.  Add to that that we have both ancestors and descendants who are also part of our mortal family, which we usually have the opportunity of being able to spend more time with than our other brothers and sisters from heaven, and then later our own spouse(s) and the children we create with them, and we usually begin to see and feel a desire to somehow remain connected to them.  We desire a connection or welding link of some kind to remain close to who we feel close to.  I think it's interesting that we don't get that opportunity with who we call our "friends" who are not part of what we call our "family" that we form here on this planet.  Or with other people who our Father determines we should not be sealed to as a husband or a wife.  We're still all brothers and sisters from our Father in heaven, but only some of us get to be in the same family that we form here or at least can possibly form here on this planet.  And some of us want that connection to remain forever while some others of us don't.

Just something we get to choose, if we want it.  I don't know who said we don't get to choose our family but obviously that person was wrong, at least in my perspective.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Ahab

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Here is the link: https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/08/til-death-do-us-part/     The fellowship and worship brings me joy. The confusion and conflict brings me learning and grief!  I have never sat down and deliberately read D&C cover to cover as I have the other two uniquely LDS scriptures. I find the D&C very hard to interpret and understand. I haven't figured out the hermeneutic of that work. It adds so much new stuff to the BOM. I have often thought and sometimes said that the request to read and pray about should be changed from the BOM to the D&C. So much of current LDS doctrine has its doctrinal base in D&C rather than in BOM. It seems that the BOM is the legacy document while the D&C is the working document for current LDS doctrine. 

Reading and praying about the Book of Mormon first establishes a method, a perspective and a doctrinal understanding that work together as a key in understanding everything in the D&C, which can easily be demonstrated to tie back to Book of Mormon content. It is the fulnes of the Gospel because it contains (in addition to the witnesses of numerous prophets) the Lord's personal witness of Old Testament prophecy, His own New Testament teachings, new prophecies made by Him after His resurrection, His promises of latter-day prophesies after the Restoration, and specific promises to the Gentiles as well as to the House of Israel and other descendants of Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc. It's all in there and easily connected back and forth with the D&C.

Edited January 14, 2020 by CV75

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I keep referring to it as Prophets myself, but it is actually Presidents...I assume because apostles are considered prophets as well. 

Usually considered to be so and we each get to choose whether we believe any of them are also prophets as well as presidents, aka presiding high priests.

[Jane_Doe]

On 1/13/2020 at 1:29 PM, Navidad said:

 

So, I find myself in the familiar State of Chihuahua, engaged in my familiar state of confusion! I am confused about this LDS biological family for eternity emphasis. I would like to ask some questions; perhaps someone here would help me with them:

First off: let's get away from the idea that (generic) your exalted family is going to be copy-paste from your family here on Earth.  It's not.  Let's go over some important differences:

- You.  You currently are a sinner with a mountain of sinful inclinations.  Exalted you is never prideful, impatient, self-centered, etc, let alone any actual sinful actions.  You will be as perfect, good, and selfless as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.  Totally different from our current selfs which are so influenced by these flaws.

- Your relationships.  Just as our current selves are so influenced by sinners flaws, so too are our relationships.  Even the best relationships on Earth fight, misunderstand things, get snippy with each other, hurt each other, etc.  None of that exists with your perfected self in perfected relationships.

- Then there's the whole living forever in perfect bodies thing.  Can you imagine playing basketball with you great-grandma that you've always known to be wheel-chair bound?  Can you imagine actually getting to know your third cousins twice removed?  Can you imagine living forever?  Yeah, we just don't remotely 'get' this.  

You and your exalted family is very different than the current sinful you and sinful family.

On 1/13/2020 at 1:29 PM, Navidad said:

1. Is it not true that only a small percentage of LDS church members will end up in the highest celestial kingdom where families will be together forever? Everyone in every meeting I attend in the ward, when the subject comes up seems to believe (perhaps hope)  they will end up with their families together. Is it not true that most members will not experience that reality for a variety of reasons? Isn’t the celestial kingdom a destination for those truly deemed worthy with a family that is somehow collectively especially worthy? Temple ordinances don't declare folks worthy all by themselves do they?

 We don't know the percentage.  Your family = the human race, ultimately.  It's core is exalted persons honoring exalted relationships: those that truly commit themselves to Christ, whether in this life or the next.  So no, it's to limited to just those that are good looking temple attending LDS folks during this life.  Just going through a temple ordinance without real conversion doesn't cut it.  You need the true conversion.  Yes, that includes as a huge part repentance.

On 1/13/2020 at 1:29 PM, Navidad said:

2. Speaking pragmatically, as the child of a father/abuser – I have little interest in living with my dad for eternity. If someone did proxy sealings for him (us) would those rites, in and of themselves change his whole demeanor, personality, etc. for all of eternity? Certainly, a certain percentage of church members grow up in dysfunctional families, right? How does all that sort out? If someone does temple proxy work for Ervil LeBaron, is he absolved or changed of all the terrible things he did? Doesn't repentance play a key role in addition to the act of proxy sealings?

There are no abusers in the Celestial Kingdom.  There are no sinners of any kind.  Only individuals whom have been made perfect as Christ Himself.  All past sins have been completely washed clean.  Yes, that ENTIRE sinful junk is washed away.  It is a miracle more that we mortals can realize.  

There are no abuse victims in the Celestial Kingdom.  All of those wounded hearts are completely mended, and the person made whole.  The hurt and pain are just gone.  Just like Christ Himself, whom was so battered and broken, made whole and perfect.  Again, it is a miracle more that we mortals can realize.   

On 1/13/2020 at 1:29 PM, Navidad said:

3. We have a number of divorced folks in our ward, as I am sure does every ward. What impact does one divorced set of parents have on the eternal destiny of the generations before and those to follow? Is just dad absent from the family unity in the celestial kingdom if the family breakup was his fault, or the same for mom? Family systems theory teaches us that blame is not easily discerned in family dysfunction. If a father has been excommunicated, are the children’s hope for exaltation and family togetherness lessened?

Again, things aren't copy paste.  We don't understand how things work in the eternities.  

On 1/13/2020 at 1:29 PM, Navidad said:

4. In LDS soteriology doesn’t a deceased person go straight to a neutral spirit world on the other side of the vale to wait for the final judgment? Are they reunited in the spirit world with all their relatives who previously were deceased? Where is deceased divorced dad in all of that?  I sang in a funeral on Saturday where all the speakers talked about grandma(who had just died) and grandpa (who died 10 years ago) were finally back together and enjoying each other. Is that a correct interpretation of LDS doctrine? Is that togetherness just temporary until the judgement seat of Christ after the resurrection? If they are together now in the spirit world is that an indicator they will be together forever?

In Spirit Paradise, divorced sinner dad gets to see his sinner kids and sinner ex-wife.  After the Final Judgement and exaulation, then God will know how that pans out and what people want to do.

On 1/13/2020 at 1:29 PM, Navidad said:

 Someone in elders quorum yesterday mentioned that four of his six children have left the church. Is his hope for exaltation shattered?

No.

If "Mike" truly has embraced Christ fully, then he will be with his family that have likewise chosen to embrace Christ fully, honoring the relationships with those people.  Again, ultimately his family is the entire human family.

As to hypothetical son "Tylor" whom has rejected Christ in this life, reject Him in the next life, and makes it to Judgement Day still rejecting Christ even while at His feet: his exalted dad Mike can still visit him and hang out with him.  Nothing stops him from loving son Tylor that way.  But it's not remotely reciprocated evenly, as Tylor doesn't love Mike to the depth Mike loves Tylor.  A person still holding on to sinful tendencies (aka not exalted) cannot experience the depth of love Christ does or a Christ-like person does.  

On 1/13/2020 at 1:29 PM, Navidad said:

Are you all in agreement on how it works, or are there a variety of beliefs about this all-important topic in LDS theology? 

Your questions are in regard to mechanics.  There isn't a lot of specific revelation on the mechanics here, so there's a lot of we-don't-knows and people with different speculations.  

Come to think of it, that's a lot like the mechanics Creation, the mechanics of Atonement, the mechanics of Resurrection, etc.  We humans don't understand the depth and how's of how God works.   

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

That might be a local version or they just aren't clear what they are talking about because they assume you know what fills the gaps.

If we are all members of the same family (God's or Adam's), the only way a planet can be unique to our family is to include all humanity (at least all those at a celestial level).  Otherwise it would be what current family has rights to a specific ancestor....like which family gets to have Abraham and Sarah reside with them?  Or which of my ancestors has dibs on me and my husband?

Most people I talked to about planets see it as a more intimate assignment where a couple and perhaps their immediate children oversee the populating of a planet with their Spirit children as we believe God has created and watched this earth...but it is all undefined once you start pointing out there are the inlaws and their relationships with the spouses and what about your children having their own planet with their children?  Do they have that or just share yours and if so, how many generations?

IOW, we really don't know save a few details where we will be doing the work of God, whatever he calls us to do and we will be able to have familial relationships, whatever that means for glorified, eternal beings who can track all their ancestors and descendants.

Do we believe our God is restricted to our planet?

Who made Mars? 🙄?

He is not being taught contemporary LDS Doctrine