Book of Mormon

[doppelganger]

It's a nasty thing to believe that the family unit doesn't have to end at death - that it can continue forever? OK, Dopp.

You know full well that that is not what I'm referring to. It's a nasty belief that it's okay to threaten people's relationships with their families to get them to obey Mormon teachings.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

It's a nasty thing to believe that the family unit doesn't have to end at death - that it can continue forever? OK, Dopp.

What they fail to say at the end of that sentence as I have found out is BUT....You can only be a family forever if you are a worthy baptised LDS and go to the celestial kingdom.

There is no "until death do us part" between a mother and a daughter etc.

 

[doppelganger]

What they fail to say at the end of that sentence as I have found out is BUT....You can only be a family forever if you are a worthy baptised LDS and go to the celestial kingdom.

Right. THAT is what I was referring to before.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

You know full well that that is not what I'm referring to. It's a nasty belief that it's okay to threaten people's relationships with their families to get them to obey Mormon teachings.

BINGO!!! Hit the nail on the head!!

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Here is a problem I have and have seen.....LDS members put God before everything, and I am not sure if this is good or bad...but when it comes to their families, God is first, and families don't matter.

One member told his wife, she would never be first in his life...that really upset her and she was crying her eyes out
I have a member who calls his parents "his other mother and other father"
And now I hear that unless you follow all the rules, you are only best buddies with your parents and you are OK with this.....this is not right to me...My Mum will ALWAYS be my MUM!!!

 

[Watchmen]

See there we have our problem. I wasnt talking about the degrees of the celestial kingdom. I know there are different degrees of the celestial kingdom. I was talking about the two lower levels of heaven.

OK - I think we're getting close to a mutual understanding. Lets take a look at the next paragraphs.

Ok here is what I was taught....There are three levels of heaven, Celestial (with three levels itself), Terrestial and Telestial (I cant spell them!). In order to get into the Celestial Kingdom you have to be baptised LDS and I think endowed as well...but I could be wrong on that aspect.

Correct. There are three levels of Heaven (with the Celestial having three of its own). In order to enter the Celestial, a person must be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, be endowed, and endure to the end.

You only get to be with your family IF you go to the Celestial Kingdom. If your family (ie non-members) are in either Terrestial or Telestial, you wont get to see them.

You only get eternal progression IF your family is sealed and attains the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. If you are in the Celestial and your family is in either the Terrestial or Telestial then you WILL get to see AND visit them, but you won't have the titles associated with the family. In other words, you will know who was your earthly mother or your earthly father or your earthly husband, but those titles won't have much meaning eternally. Your relationships may be similar to the ones we had as equal children of God before we came to this earth.

Am I making any sense? I'm not sure.

The what you said, but the ones in lower degrees cant actually see the ones in the higher degrees visiting them.

This is not accurate. If you are in the Celestial Kingdom and visit someone in one of other degrees of glory then you can see and visit and interact with them and they can see and visit and interact with you. It's not like looking through a one way mirror - it's about location.

For example, lets say everyone in the Celestial Kingdom gets their own jet for their own personal use (can't give rides to others). And lets say people in the Terrestial Kingdom just have cars. Now lets say England is the Celestial Kingdom. And America is the Terrestial Kingdom. You could take your jet and visit those in America, but their cars won't get them to England.

 

[Watchmen]

You know full well that that is not what I'm referring to. It's a nasty belief that it's okay to threaten people's relationships with their families to get them to obey Mormon teachings.

Why do you assume it's in the form of a threat? I already said it depends on how it was expressed. I agree that threatening people is nasty. But can't you distinguish between threats and explaining consequences for actions? If I make a contract and then years later want to breach that contract is you telling me the consequences of the breach a threat?

 

[Watchmen]

What they fail to say at the end of that sentence as I have found out is BUT....You can only be a family forever if you are a worthy baptised LDS and go to the celestial kingdom.

There is no "until death do us part" between a mother and a daughter etc.

Did they not talk about being sealed in the temple to be together forever when you were meeting the missionaries?

Why is this so hard to grasp?

If baptism is required to enter God's Kingdom why is it hard to imagine that sealing is required for eternal progression?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Why do you assume it's in the form of a threat? I already said it depends on how it was expressed. I agree that threatening people is nasty. But can't you distinguish between threats and explaining consequences for actions? If I make a contract and then years later want to breach that contract is you telling me the consequences of the breach a threat?

This talking in legal terms I think is where all the confusion is coming from! Makes my head spin!

The missionaries told me that in D and C it said that those in lower kingdoms could NOT see those in higher kingdoms.

 

[drs]

People can get married in this life and in the Spirit World (the place we go after we die but before final judgment). After final judgment there is no more marriage.

Matthew 22


23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”



29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God[b] in heaven



24 Jesus answered and said to them, “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.



LORD JESUS says here they niether marry nor are given in marriage

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Did they not talk about being sealed in the temple to be together forever when you were meeting the missionaries?

Why is this so hard to grasp?

If baptism is required to enter God's Kingdom why is it hard to imagine that sealing is required for eternal progression?

No they didn't. I know that now!

Its not hard to grasp, I get it, I just dont agree with it

I also think its overly complicated

 

[Watchmen]

Here is a problem I have and have seen.....LDS members put God before everything, and I am not sure if this is good or bad...but when it comes to their families, God is first, and families don't matter.

You really think that "families don't matter" to LDS? The family is the most important part of God's plan.

One member told his wife, she would never be first in his life...that really upset her and she was crying her eyes out
I have a member who calls his parents "his other mother and other father"

Sounds like you've encountered some psycho members. I don't thing either of those members were right for what they did. In fact, I'd say they were wrong for doing/saying those things.

And now I hear that unless you follow all the rules, you are only best buddies with your parents and you are OK with this.....this is not right to me...My Mum will ALWAYS be my MUM!!!

Yes - your mum will always be your earthly mum - that will never change.
Eternal progression as a family comes with sealing.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Watchmen]

This talking in legal terms I think is where all the confusion is coming from! Makes my head spin!

Sorry. Dopp is a lawyer and I'm a law student and sealing is being legally married forever.

The missionaries told me that in D and C it said that those in lower kingdoms could NOT see those in higher kingdoms.

I think what they meant was that those in the lower kingdoms can't travel and visit those in the higher kingdoms. Did you see my jet/car - England/america example?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

You really think that "families don't matter" to LDS? The family is the most important part of God's plan.



Sounds like you've encountered some psycho members. I don't thing either of those members were right for what they did. In fact, I'd say they were wrong for doing/saying those things.



Yes - your mum will always be your earthly mum - that will never change.
Eternal progression as a family comes with sealing.

Do you see the difference?

I see what you are trying to say, I dont agree with it

 

[Watchmen]

No they didn't. I know that now!

That's odd. Being sealed in the temple to be together for ever is pretty important stuff.

Its not hard to grasp, I get it, I just dont agree with it

Fair enough.

I also think its overly complicated

I must apologize. I'm sure I made it that way. Hopefully, Katzpur or DeepShadow can come clear up my mess. :sorry1:

 

[Watchmen]

I see what you are trying to say, I dont agree with it

Fair enough.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Sorry. Dopp is a lawyer and I'm a law student and sealing is being legally married forever.



I think what they meant was that those in the lower kingdoms can't travel and visit those in the higher kingdoms. Did you see my jet/car - England/america example?

Yes I did,

No they specifically used the word "see", I even clarified, because it contradicts the idea of those in celestial visiting them and therefore being able to see them and he said "no they wouldnt be able to see you"

 

[Watchmen]

Yes I did,

No they specifically used the word "see", I even clarified, because it contradicts the idea of those in celestial visiting them and therefore being able to see them and he said "no they wouldnt be able to see you"

Well, he/she was flat out wrong. If you don't believe me, ask Katzpur.

 

[drs]

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God(s) created man in his/her own image, in the image of God(s) created he/she him/them; male and female created he/she them.
(Old Testament | Genesis1:26 - 27)

see orig Hebrew... the image of God is "male and female"[/quote]


Hebrew (tselem) resemblance, representitive figure.


John 4

24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”



So here we have GOD is SPIRIT

When he said make man in our image and likeness it does not mean male and female acording to gender.

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.



it has to do with your spirit/ living soul, emotion. moral sense, sinless before the fall he made them.

 

[doppelganger]

Why do you assume it's in the form of a threat?

Because it is a threat. You tell people that unless they follow your approved religious practices, they will have their family relationships annulled for all eternity. That is a threat no matter what spin you put on it. And a nasty one.

But can't you distinguish between threats and explaining consequences for actions?

When the consequences are just made up subjective beliefs without any rational justification, no, there's no distinction. The only purpose for such a belief is to use vile psychological techniques to try to control people. It's ugly stuff.

If I make a contract and then years later want to breach that contract is you telling me the consequences of the breach a threat?

Not if the consequences follow logically. And, BTW, as you should know from your first year contracts class, breaching contracts may actually be economically efficient behavior sometimes. Part of the reason the law doesn't generally allow for punitive damages for ordinary breach of contract.