The Doctrine of Eternal Lives...

[gruden2.0]

Actually, I Do this....I ponder these things discussed, see how they fit, and ask God all the time...and I know from the peace in my heart afterward as to what fits and does not.

Good! Don't ever stop. Be aware that the answers to some questions may require a price to be paid on your part. Sometimes we have to prove we really want to know something and are ready for it.

God won't give personal revelation that contradicts already revealed word.

Actually... not so. I direct you to Acts 10 and Peter's vision of the unclean beasts. Peter saw it as a direct contradiction of what had been revealed by Moses and he had spent his entire life observing. God will throw you a curve ball now and again to challenge you and help you grow. Are you ready?

I've mostly completed a small essay on the spiritual paradox that addresses this head-on. I suppose I need to finish it and post if anyone is interested in such things.

[HeirofNumenor]

Actually, I Do this....I ponder these things discussed, see how they fit, and ask God all the time...and I know from the peace in my heart afterward as to what fits and does not.

Good! Don't ever stop. Be aware that the answers to some questions may require a price to be paid on your part. Sometimes we have to prove we really want to know something and are ready for it.

God won't give personal revelation that contradicts already revealed word.

Actually... not so. I direct you to Acts 10 and Peter's vision of the unclean beasts. Peter saw it as a direct contradiction of what had been revealed by Moses and he had spent his entire life observing. God will throw you a curve ball now and again to challenge you and help you grow. Are you ready?

I've mostly completed a small essay on the spiritual paradox that addresses this head-on. I suppose I need to finish it and post if anyone is interested in such things.

Okay fair enough...., yet what is the definition of "personal revelation"? I meant that is one just to you and your personal situation, when you have no authority or stewardship for the Church and mankind. Peter was the presiding apostle...while the revelation was personal (he was only when it happened, and no others received it as well at the same time, the revelation was meant for the Church at large....therefore not personal revelation in the sense I was writing.

[gruden2.0]

Okay fair enough...., yet what is the definition of "personal revelation"? I meant that is one just to you and your personal situation, when you have no authority or stewardship for the Church and mankind. Peter was the presiding apostle...while the revelation was personal (he was only when it happened, and no others received it as well at the same time, the revelation was meant for the Church at large....therefore not personal revelation in the sense I was writing.

There is no difference between the two - the process is the same. What is different is what God expects us to do with what He gives us. For some, like Peter, the testimony is a public catalyst for a major change in cultural practice. For others, it is for only private consumption, as was Nephi's vision which he was commanded not to write.

What I think people might be forgetting is people like Nephi were not church leaders or leaders of great congregations. They were brothers and sons and husbands. They wrote what they were inspired by and the revelation they received. Nephi's writings were family history. We treasure that family history today. Could there be another Nephi among us receiving great visions by night and privately writing them, some day to be revealed centuries from now and revered as great prophecy?

And yes, what is individually received can contradict accepted truths, and there are many reasons for this. One, is that is the nature of the paradox - the contradiction of two truths - and they exist for a reason. Those who are spiritually progressing are invariably confronted with paradoxes along the way. Their growth ceases until they resolve the paradox, which is growth of itself.

That being said, it is not justification for accepting everything posted here or anywhere that is purported to be true revelation. Learning and spiritual growth is an active process. Those who state they will believe nothing but was is written down by those accepted by conventional wisdom to be spiritual thought leaders are hobbling themselves, because they are not availing themselves to greater knowledge. Converts have the advantage here, because they did not grow up being taught that Joseph Smith and his successors were sources of unquestioned truth. They, at least once in their lives, had to learn to test for truth that was foreign to them. Those born in the church usually need to learn this eventually or slowly die on the vine.

[iamse7en]

Well "the Great Jehovah" appears in the Wentworth letter and "The Great" is simply a poetic expression/superlative to Jehovah - Christ. It was never meant to be Heavenly Father, or any other distinct individual.

Sounds like you really need to read Understanding Adam-God Teachings. In fact, most of the time, Jehovah was used as a title for Heavenly Father by the early brethren, including Joseph Smith, before 1916. Sometimes all of them were used interchangeably. So your statement that Jehovah was never meant to be Heavenly Father is quite false, unless you wish to ignore all the prophets before 1916.

There are scores of statements in which Jehovah refers to the Father, but here are a few:

We believe in God the Father, who is the great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father; yet he is our Savior, Redeemer, King, and Great Prototype; - was offered as a sacrifice to make an atonement for sin - rose from the dead with the same flesh and bones, not blood, and ascended to heaven, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. (Joseph Smith, T&S 3:578, 11/15/1841)

Here is Joseph Smith praying:

O Thou, who seest and knowest the hearts of all men - Thou eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Jehovah - God - Thou Eloheim, that sittest, as saith the Psalmist, "enthroned in heaven," look down upon Thy servant Joseph at this time; and let faith on the name of Thy son Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than Thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him. (HC 5:127, Aug 1842)

Orson Hyde:

How was it, then, with Abraham? He is said to be the father of the faithful, and the great head of the Church in the days of the Patriarchs, and the head of those who have been adopted into the covenant of Jehovah through the blood of His only begotten... (JD 2:79, 10/6/1854)

Plenty more where that came from.

I pick on the Adam-God theory because 1) we have a very clear statement from a modern prophet that it is false doctrine

Yet you have very clear statements from other "modern" prophets that it is a true doctrine. Do you choose to go with Kimball's statement because it's more recent? Does it bother you that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Presidents of the Church believed and taught it? I understand that those who choose to believe the Adam-God doctrine are in contradiction to SWK, BRM, etc, yet those who choose to not believe it are in contradiction to BY, JT, WW, LS, and according to them and many others, JS as well. So pick your poison.

if indeed it was even written down correctly

Yea. You really need to read Understanding Adam-God Teachings. The goal is not for you to believe it, but for you to understand what the early brethren taught. Statements such as "if it were even written down correctly" show a lot of ignorance about what was believed, said, and taught. So read the book so you can frame a better argument against the teaching rather than discrediting yourself with such statements.

[gruden2.0]

if indeed it was even written down correctly

Yea. You really need to read Understanding Adam-God Teachings. The goal is not for you to believe it, but for you to understand what the early brethren taught.

I have to say, years ago I was at a regional priesthood leadership meeting lead by Pres. Hinckley, and one man stood up during the Q&A part and flat-out asked him if the Adam-God doctrine were true. Pres. Hinckley basically suggested - with a glint in his eye - that it could've been transcribed incorrectly (referring to the phrase in JoD anti-Mormons love to dredge up). I was disappointed, I must admit, because it wasn't a simple transcription error.

There is an in-depth article written by David John Buerger titled "The Adam-God Doctrine" in the Dialog magazine from the 80s (I still have an old copy to reference) that examines the doctrine and its history. The fact he points out was that it wasn't simply a passing reference by Brigham Young in a conference talk, but something he actively taught for 13 years before he gave up.

Whether or not you accept it as true, Brigham Young most certainly taught it on many occasions, and there is no mistaking what he was getting at. He also said Joseph Smith knew it and had taught it to some.

Pres. Hinckley, BTW, did not deny it or say it wasn't true, he simply suggested that a transcription error was possible...

[iamse7en]

one man stood up and ask him if the Adam-God doctrine were true. Pres. Hinckley basically suggested - with a glint in his eye - that it could've been transcribed incorrectly (referring to the phrase in JoD anti-Mormons love to dredge up). I was disappointed, I must admit, because it wasn't a simple transcription error.

Yes if you read Mormon Doctrine, the letter to Eugene England, then Elden Watson's paper, you get 3 different "theories" from BRM about Adam-God teachings. I was surprised to hear he changed his mind so quickly about how to explain the controversy. Goes to show you he obviously didn't have all the statements, resources, and full context we have today in the internet age. But regarding GBH, what do you say? Tough situation. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Even just saying "we don't know" would spur great controversy, because he's expected to say it's a false doctrine.

[HeirofNumenor]

There is no difference between the two - the process is the same. What is different is what God expects us to do with what He gives us. For some, like Peter, the testimony is a public catalyst for a major change in cultural practice. For others, it is for only private consumption, as was Nephi's vision which he was commanded not to write.

What I think people might be forgetting is people like Nephi were not church leaders or leaders of great congregations. They were brothers and sons and husbands. They wrote what they were inspired by and the revelation they received. Nephi's writings were family history. We treasure that family history today. Could there be another Nephi among us receiving great visions by night and privately writing them, some day to be revealed centuries from now and revered as great prophecy?

And yes, what is individually received can contradict accepted truths, and there are many reasons for this. One, is that is the nature of the paradox - the contradiction of two truths - and they exist for a reason. Those who are spiritually progressing are invariably confronted with paradoxes along the way. Their growth ceases until they resolve the paradox, which is growth of itself.

That being said, it is not justification for accepting everything posted here or anywhere that is purported to be true revelation. Learning and spiritual growth is an active process. Those who state they will believe nothing but was is written down by those accepted by conventional wisdom to be spiritual thought leaders are hobbling themselves, because they are not availing themselves to greater knowledge. Converts have the advantage here, because they did not grow up being taught that Joseph Smith and his successors were sources of unquestioned truth. They, at least once in their lives, had to learn to test for truth that was foreign to them. Those born in the church usually need to learn this eventually or slowly die on the vine.

Wrong again. Yes it is true that Lehi & Nephi kept records, as any of us are strongly urged to keep journals for various benefits to ourselves and our posterity. But you forget that in Lehi's & Nephi's cases, Lehi was already given the gift of visions and prophesy, and already had prophesied to the rulers of the Jews, who then sought to kill him. He also prophesied/blessed that Nephi was going to be his successor, the ruler over his family because of righteousness, and his oldest brothers' rebellions. Once this family removed itself from Jerusalem, and later from Laban & Lemuel... Lehi, then Nephi became the undisputed spiritual authorities for their colonies. They knew their families (including Ishmael were to become a people in a promised land - for that purpose they wrote their visions and experiences.

You missed my point about individual truths...you say that can contradict accepted truths...I say they cannot contradict REVEALED truths, which are often a different thing...and they will not contradict doctrinal truths in such a manner that is to be taken as widely-held repudiation of the revealed truth & doctrine. Any individual revelation that contradicts revealed doctrine better be for the individual in that circumstance, and not to given or held to replace the revealed truth. The only one in that position to do so, is the Lord's prophet, not KOZ or anyone else posting here.

You are right about non-members, since they don't come into the Church believing in the infallibility of the prophets...they just have to break from their own previous viewpoints/upbringing, and be able to accept that God has spoken to man again - and don't fall into the trap of believing the prophet should keep his nose out of politics

[HeirofNumenor]

You are right about this:

But regarding GBH, what do you say? Tough situation. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Even just saying "we don't know" would spur great controversy

-- PERIOD.

[Henmasher]

Hero, does the temple not teach us about becoming Gods? Exaltation is taught in the temple. Now consider yourself Adam. I.e. one that is becoming a God. So now consider your Heavenly Father a God and what he did to become a God. Where does Adam God contradict scripture especially the POGP and what the prophets have spoken. JFS never denounced BY and he merely denounced the public spread of mans philosiphies based on a prophets words. Now if you can show me a quote where he says BY was wrong....well than we have a bigger can of worms than we thought. This is not false doctrine about Adam God. However this incredible spread of personal philosophy is exactly what JFS denounced. Adam God true, speculations as to what that means on the LDSFF, well purely that. There is nothing wrong with knowing things that the church does not openly discuss and it is not odd to know them, it is exactly what we are supposed to do, use the higher priesthood to learn the mysteries of God.....which are not openly discussed in the church. The knowledge obtained in this life will give a man a greater advantage in the next.....I take this as within his own progression. I have however felt great contention coming from what KOZ has said. It is definietly not a topic that would be so openly discussed in my opinion. For many are shattering like glass.

[[email protected]]

Henmasher - thanks for your comments, makes alot of sense to me. Studying something out in your mind before making up your mind as to what something means and of course praying about it would bring anyone to this same conclusion (does the temple not teach us about becoming Gods? Exaltation is taught in the temple. Now consider yourself Adam. I.e. one that is becoming a God. So now consider your Heavenly Father a God and what he did to become a God. Where does Adam God contradict scripture especially the POGP and what the prophets have spoken. JFS never denounced BY and he merely denounced the public spread of mans philosiphies based on a prophets words) and avoid the spread of personal philosophy.

I'm my opinion we need to step up personal revelation, in general we (people here on this forum) are not going to get answers that satisfy them by just reading what other people have studied out and prayed about. We need our own personal revelation, and I mean that in the most urgent way.

[firend]

Joseph F smith and the presidency on Adam-God. Joseph Smith clearly taught that Michael (Adam) is not Heavenly Father (also an Adam) and Joseph F. Smith knew this.



The 1916 First Presidency Statement, formally and officially endorsing the Jehovah-Christ doctrine, served as a definitive rejection of the Adam-God doctrine.

At the morning session of the first day of the October 1916 General Conference president Joseph F. Smith made it a point to reject the Adam-God doctrine, and alluded to "a question that is being foolishly asked today":

"We also accept without any question the doctrines we have been taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith and by the Son of God himself, that we pray to God, the Eternal Father, in the name of his only begotten Son, to whom also our father Adam and his posterity have prayed from the beginning. If Latter-day Saints will take these simple statements of fact, given to us in the doctrine of Christ and restored and renewed to us in the testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, it would settle many a question that is being foolishly asked today. There are many things yet to be revealed. There are things to be revealed which God will make known in his own due time which we do not now understand. For my own part, there is as much already revealed as it seems possible for me to understand. If I could only grasp all that God has revealed, and comprehend it as I should and apply it in righteousness in my life, I think I should then be prepared for some thing more, if I was still worthy of it. Why, bless your souls, there are people among us that are worrying and fretting over things that have never been revealed to the children of men, and these very people do not even keep the word of wisdom, do not even pay their tithing, and as a rule, the man that does not pay his tithing and that does not keep the word of wisdom is the man that is everlastingly quizzing and asking questions about things he does not understand. If men would pay their tithing, if they would keep the word of wisdom, if they would say their prayers, if they would devote their lives to works of righteousness in the earth and study the gospel for themselves and obey it, they would have less necessity for asking questions, and don't forget the fact that they would know things better than they do."[14]

[[email protected]]

I don't know but I got out of Henmashers statement not the Adam-God theory but that we have misunderstood - mans philosophies.

[reese]

Here is part of a paper Avraham Gileadi wrote. As Hero pointed out earlier Gileadi was excommunicated with the Sept. 6, but he did repent and get rebaptized so I guess that means he is still an acceptable source. :-\

Isaiah’s theology of creation, in fact, nuances the entire concept of God’s creation as an ongoing process that has been operating for eons of time and that will continue far into eternity. Within that continuum, Adam’s and Eve’s “creation” doesn’t appear as a unique or miraculous event. Rather, it accords with the cyclical rebirth or re-creation of God’s children who ascend as a whole. The earthly Paradise Adam and Eve inherited, for example, is likewise inherited during the earth’s millennium of peace by God’s elect, individuals who attain the son/servant level of the spiritual ladder, who know God personally. These, therefore, become the equivalent of new Adams and Eves who may at some point themselves populate worlds. From that spiritual level on up, moreover, all categories are male and female—“like a bridegroom dressed in priestly attire, or a bride adorned with her jewels” (Isaiah 61:10)—consistent with being reborn or re-created in the image and likeness of God.

Paul’s admonition that the saints become “new creatures” in Messiah (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15), that they “put off the old man” and “put on the new [man] . . . after the image of him who created him” (Colossians 3:9–10; Ephesians 4:24)—going “from glory to glory,” being “changed into the same image” of the “glory of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 3:18)—would mean little if this re-creation or series of re-creations to conform to the image of God was realized immediately by every believer, or, by the same token, if it failed to take into account that God is both male and female, that “neither is the man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:11). Indeed, if “the kingdom of heaven is like a king who makes a marriage for his son” (Matthew 22:2), then that King and his Queen would surely do the same for all worthy sons and daughters.

In the light of so many scriptural evidences, then, we perceive that Adam and Eve could not have inherited an earthly Paradise without their own prior spiritual ascent. Otherwise God would not be one—the same to all his children—but instead be a changeable God. Rather than separate God’s creation of Adam and Eve as something outside the realm of possibility for the rest of humanity, therefore, let us examine some of its details and see if they appear familiar. The Genesis account states that God “formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” so that the “man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Still, God didn’t create the man in the Garden of Eden but he placed him there afterwards: “Jehovah God planted a garden eastward in Eden and there he put the man whom he had formed” (Genesis 2:8). Moreover, God caused a “deep sleep” to come upon Adam, after which he brought him his wife Eve (Genesis 2:21–22).

Putting all such data together, we must conclude that the allegory of Adam’s creation “from the dust” (Genesis 2:7) is not something entirely unfamiliar to us. In the resurrection from the dead, are people not also re-created from the dust when their bodies arise? Aren’t the dead, whose spirits have left this world, portrayed as “sleeping in the dust” (Job 7:21; Daniel 12:2)? Ezekiel depicts the resurrection from the dead as God’s causing “breath” to enter the dry bones of those who had passed away (Ezekiel 37:1–14). Isaiah describes comparable phenomena when he predicts that the dead bodies of God’s people will “awake” and “arise” from the dust at the end of the world (Isaiah 26:19) while Zion/Jerusalem will “awake” and “arise” from the dust to divine empowerment (Isaiah 52:1–2). Isaiah’s pattern of the physical rebirth and re-creation of God’s people at their resurrection thus typifies their spiritual rebirth and re-creation as they learn to keep God’s law.

Like those who become God’s elect sons and daughters and inherit an earthly Paradise in the millennial age, Adam and Eve must have had prior life experience and similarly ascended to the spiritual level of God’s elect. If not, as indicated, God would be a capricious God who will not do for one person what he does for another who fulfills the same covenantal requirements. Furthermore, as God’s elect are individuals who personally know God, and as Adam and Eve were created or re-created from the dust on the level of God’s elect, anything less than that level must be considered less than being created in the image and likeness of God. This is suggested by the Genesis account itself, as nowhere does the scripture say that we are created in God’s image and likeness, only Adam and Eve. That Adam and Eve personally knew God is evident from the fact that God walked and talked with them in the Garden of Eden before they were cast out (Genesis 3:8–10).

If all persons in mortality were already made in God’s image, therefore, why does Paul bid the saints “to be conformed to the image of his Son” in order that he might be “the firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29)? Why does he exhort them to “put on the new [man] . . . after the image of him who created him” (Colossians 3:10)? And if the Son, after atoning for humanity’s transgressions, is now “in the express image” of the Father and sits “on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Hebrews 1:1–5; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:14–15), then we, if we would be “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Messiah” (Roman 8:17), have considerable progress yet to make in our ascent toward divinity. Failing to do so, in fact, would damn us, in the sense that the idea of damnation—as in a “resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29)—comes from being dammed up or unable to proceed further.

[Kingdom of ZION]

Someone stated earlier about baptism for the dead and other Temple work for the dead - if anyone was born more than once this work wouldn't make sense, eventually they would all be able to be baptized themselves if they just kept coming back until they reached that point. And remember we have 1000 years to complete that work - that wouldn't make sense either.

Yes, this is the part that I'm having a hard time with. Also, that this earth is in it's telestial state but has had a baptism by water and will recieve a baptism by fire and eventually recieve it's celestial glory. If I remember right I believe I read somewhere that it will eventually roll back into Gods presence. Anyone that believes in the multiple probations, can you help shed some light or understanding on these things as far as the temple work and baptisms for the dead etc.? Why is it necessary for us to complete it if they can just come back until they reach a point in progression to accept it?

ALL Ordinances are FUTURE Covenants. When one is baptized they are asking to be Born Again by water. Tawbal (Baptism) for the Dead is to place into their reach the covenant to request to be born again. KoZ

[Kingdom of ZION]

I don;t think that you get multiple "bites at the apple" - in my opinion, IF we have multiple lives at all, I believe it is to progress to further "estates" - I do not think you get multiple mortal probations until you "get it right".[/quote]

Amon! And their are those who were so valiant in the Pre-existence that they got a 'pass jail card'. They only have to come and get a body and pass on. In the 3rd Estate they will be tested and if found worthy, they will yet have their fill of hell (a Second Estate world, in creations after here.

[reese]

I don;t think that you get multiple "bites at the apple" - in my opinion, IF we have multiple lives at all, I believe it is to progress to further "estates" - I do not think you get multiple mortal probations until you "get it right".

Amon! And their are those who were so valiant in the Pre-existence that they got a 'pass jail card'. They only have to come and get a body and pass on. In the 3rd Estate they will be tested and if found worthy, they will yet have their fill of hell (a Second Estate world, in creations after here.

So how many times can a person live in a second estate then? Was our Saviors time on earth His second estate? or a higher estate? It seems that He would have already proven Himself in the second estate in order to be a God before coming to earth. Is this earth a "second estate" for most but not all?

[Kingdom of ZION]

It was a form of judgment that is separated into a infinite degree of classes. There was another judgement in the war on heaven: Lucifer and his followers were cast out and will never receive a physical body. Perhaps the elements which formed their spirit bodies can be used again, but I don't think there is provision for their intelligence to get back on the higher planes of progression. There will be another form of judgment at resurrection; some given exalted, celestial, terrestrial, telestial. They remain in the same sphere in which they were created:

It is an untruth that the followers of Lucifer will not have bodies here in this world. That is a faults believe taught by Joseph F. Smith, and repeated for almost a hundred years. I have meet Sons of Perdition in the flesh, and know first hand that they have bodies like you or I. Where do you think the serpent in garden came from?

Those whose lives have entitled them to terrestrial glory can never gain celestial glory. One who gains possession of the lowest degree of the telestial glory may ultimately arise to the highest degree of that glory, but no provision has been made for promotion from one glory to another.” (Three Degrees of Glory, p.30)

There is no Kingdom Progression after failing an Estate Judgement is true.

If you believe multiple probations allow even someone as vile and evil as Cain to keep working at it until he gets it right, then you also must grant the same provision to an animal or plant... If there is permanent judgment which prevents an intelligence from progressing on the higher plane (a plant cannot progress to be a spirit), then I believe there is such permanent judgment among the sons of God. The teaching that we can keep going at life until we all become gods is a doctrine of the devil, which instills a sense of complacency.

Yes... that is MMP as it has been taught by some, and is a untrue doctrine.

I believe the teaching that a telestial being can eventually progress to become a Heavenly Father is also a teaching of the devil which instills a sense of complacency. I believe they remain in the same sphere in which they are created (or organized).

Are you saying that we are all Telestial Beings here and we cannot become God, or are you referring only to our bodies unable to become celestial.

If there are eternal rewards, there must be eternal judgments. E.g. unpardonable sins in which a being CANNOT be saved. Will not be given another shot. If a telestial being can become an exalted being, then by the same token, an exalted being can become a telestial being. I don't believe that. (Though God can fall as described in Alma, he never will). I'm okay with multiple probations (such as is the case with Heavenly Father becoming mortal again and again to create mortal bodies), so long as it doesn't conflict with what has been revealed, such as the principle I have been trying to describe.

Yes beings do ascend and descend at times, such as celestial being (Forth Estate Beings) coming down here to help prefect this creation.

[Kingdom of ZION]

PLEASE site your sources - so far this is just a bunch of opinion with nothing backing it.
JulesGP, If JS was here and made the same statements, that I have made here what proof would you require of him? If he never gave you sources, references would you say is it is just a bunch of opinions with nothing backing it? Interesting... because if not then it looks like you would have to admit, that it is the arm of flesh that you are following, not God? That your following him as he has a track record or because of what others have said about him. Why is it men always want proof from the living and believe the writings of the dead? The thing lacking here is the willingness to pray and get revelation, and wanting to judge my insights, gift, blessings, revelations with nothing but a bunch of opinions with nothing backing it? Where are the fruits of discernment, the spiritual insights to see if something is of God? Where are the Sons of God?

Joseph Smith was a PROPHET OF GOD, you are an unknown person on a forum. YOU need to site your sources.

I think his point was that if you lived in Joseph Smith's time, and he started making these claims - would you demand sources of him, and how likely would you to have been converted if you followed that path?

KOZ isn;t claiming to be a prophet, he is saying you should have the tools to discern truth from error on your own. Anyone can propose whatever they want, the inability to provide a source does not disprove what was stated.

Amon "Original_Intent"

[[email protected]]

"It is an untruth that the followers of Lucifer will not have bodies here in this world. That is a faults believe taught by Joseph F. Smith, and repeated for almost a hundred years. I have meet Sons of Perdition in the flesh, and know first hand that they have bodies like you or I. Where do you think the serpent in garden came from"

I don't think God gave them a body which was their consequence for rebellion. Why do you think Lucifer got so angry - he didn't realize that would be his consequence. I believe he may have used bodies, genetically engineered?? But no they don't have a body like yours and mine and they were not given a body by God the Father. As far as the garden, I believe we communicated with animals just like we will after this life - I think that takes care of the serpent. Just my thoughts only - would love to hear what you have to say!

[Kingdom of ZION]

K of Z you said:

These quotes come from LDS periodicals, which were obviously around when Joseph Smith was living.
Amon! Fourth Estate Beings are Gods Elect. Speaking of the men: There are millions of Baby For the Estate Beings, 144,000 Junior Forth Estate Beings, and 5 Senior Fourth Estate Beings.

When you say that 4th estate beings are God's elect, is the definition of "elect" that group of people who Isaiah is talking about? The ones who will respond the "the servant's" message, repent and return to Christ, and be gathered to saftey right before the end of the world? If so then these are those who will make up Zion. So if this is true then "Zion individuals" are 4th estate people, having already been "born again"? Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes you are understanding perfectly... in the Third Estate [booth], the Millennium, you receive the Holy Anointing to become a King and a Priest, it is 'The CALLING'. In the Forth Estate [booth] you receive for the first time real Priesthood, Melchizedek Priesthood. In the 1st, 2nd, and 3th Estates you only had a Temporal Priesthood... You were a Deacon, Teacher and then a Priest. As a Fourth Estate Being you have arrived to the Celestial realm and are called 'Mine Elect' [are born in heaven and named for the first time]. You will receive three calling in the priesthood, an Elder in the first world, a Seventy or gatherer in the second world [and their numbers are counted], and then a High Priest and Patriarch in the third world. Now having received your Calling and Election, if you go on...

When one becomes a Fifth Estate Being [booth] a Messiah, He must descend below all things, naked before the world as it were. He becomes a Priest unto the Most High; the great High Priest [Melchizedek]. As one becomes a Sixth Estate Being [booth], an Adam, He is told He is Lord of the Earth and becomes a King unto the Most High. Now as a Great Jehovah, a Seventh Estate Being [booth], He rest from all His labors [sits on a throne], and is Anointed a King and a Priest unto the Most High having become such.

It is written, those who have their Calling and Election and come down into this world, save the committing of the unpardonable sin [the shedding of innocent blood while denying the HG], shall not fall [though they commit all manner of sins]... for not one of Mine elect shall be lost [those that were given Him (the Messiah)]!

[Kingdom of ZION]

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Reincarnation

yes I reject reincarnation as it is discussed there as well. absolutely.

However, it seems to me that if we believe that in Eternal progression that we must, if we continue to progress, eventually fill the role of a Savior, and then again as an Adam (who forgot his premortal existence)...that seems to be that IF TRUE there must be some limited type of reincarnation (multiple mortal experiences, although only one mortal probation.)

You named yourself very well, you have the 'original intent' correct. One Mortal Probation in the Second {Telestial) Estate.

[TheProfessor]

LOL @ "untruth" taught by Joseph F. Smith. Sorry, but some folks make it so hard to even consider some of the stuff they toss out there )

[Kingdom of ZION]

PLEASE site your sources - so far this is just a bunch of opinion with nothing backing it.
JulesGP, If JS was here and made the same statements, that I have made here what proof would you require of him? If he never gave you sources, references would you say is it is just a bunch of opinions with nothing backing it? Interesting... because if not then it looks like you would have to admit, that it is the arm of flesh that you are following, not God? That your following him as he has a track record or because of what others have said about him. Why is it men always want proof from the living and believe the writings of the dead? The thing lacking here is the willingness to pray and get revelation, and wanting to judge my insights, gift, blessings, revelations with nothing but a bunch of opinions with nothing backing it? Where are the fruits of discernment, the spiritual insights to see if something is of God? Where are the Sons of God?

Joseph Smith was a PROPHET OF GOD, you are an unknown person on a forum. YOU need to site your sources.

Jules, he did cite his sources, foremost being the Holy Ghost. I see posters talking about Googling advanced spiritual topics, yet none stating they will take it to God. Moroni gave us all the key, and many times the D&C scriptures practically beg us to ask, yet we never do.

Joseph Smith said if one could gaze into heaven but a few minutes he would know more than was ever written on the subject. We should draw the obvious conclusion that but a tiny portion has been written. If that's the case, why are we so adamant to rely purely on books and the written word for incomplete knowledge? It is the starting point to our learning, not the sum total of it. The Holy Ghost brings pure intelligence. Nothing else will do that.

Amon, Amon, and Amon gruden2.0

[Kingdom of ZION]

The knowledge obtained in this life will give a man a greater advantage in the next.....I take this as within his own progression. I have however felt great contention coming from what KOZ has said. It is definietly not a topic that would be so openly discussed in my opinion. For many are shattering like glass.

Question Henmasher, You have however felt great contention coming from what KOZ has said. Me specifically or what others have said about what I have said? I did not bring great contention in my heart here... but if my words divide people asunder it is not me, but my master [Adonia] who will it. A great sifting is about to come forth.

[reese]

When you say that 4th estate beings are God's elect, is the definition of "elect" that group of people who Isaiah is talking about? The ones who will respond the "the servant's" message, repent and return to Christ, and be gathered to saftey right before the end of the world? If so then these are those who will make up Zion. So if this is true then "Zion individuals" are 4th estate people, having already been "born again"? Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes you are understanding perfectly... in the Third Estate [booth], the Millennium, you receive the Holy Anointing to become a King and a Priest, it is 'The CALLING'. In the Forth Estate [booth] you receive for the first time real Priesthood, Melchizedek Priesthood. In the 1st, 2nd, and 3th Estates you only had a Temporal Priesthood... You were a Deacon, Teacher and then a Priest. As a Fourth Estate Being you have arrived to the Celestial realm and are called 'Mine Elect' [are born in heaven and named for the first time]. You will receive three calling in the priesthood, an Elder in the first world, a Seventy or gatherer in the second world [and their numbers are counted], and then a High Priest and Patriarch in the third world. Now having received your Calling and Election, if you go on...

When one becomes a Fifth Estate Being [booth] a Messiah, He must descend below all things, naked before the world as it were. He becomes a Priest unto the Most High; the great High Priest [Melchizedek]. As one becomes a Sixth Estate Being [booth], an Adam, He is told He is Lord of the Earth and becomes a King unto the Most High. Now as a Great Jehovah, a Seventh Estate Being [booth], He rest from all His labors [sits on a throne], and is Anointed a King and a Priest unto the Most High having become such.

It is written, those who have their Calling and Election and come down into this world, save the committing of the unpardonable sin [the shedding of innocent blood while denying the HG], shall not fall [though they commit all manner of sins]... for not one of Mine elect shall be lost [those that were given Him (the Messiah)]!

It makes sense about the Lord's elect. The scriptures say something to the effect of "if it were possible, even mine elect would be deceived..." In this context I can understand why the "elect" cannot be deceived. So you are saying that if a person is considered "elect" they have already lived in their second estate, and passed their mortal probation. Do these people know their status, or will they eventually understand these things(in this life)? Also what does [booth] mean?