RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
At 07:09 PM 11/7/2003 +, Rabbi Rabinowitz wrote: The bottom line is that while the question of exaltation may turn on our willingness to enter into the eternal covenant of marriage--a specific commandment--it turns most of all upon our willingness to keep ALL of his commandments and in so doing, to then allow the atonement (through the process of repentance) to take full effect in our lives. I think the operative words here are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise This is something that this feeble old brain doesn't completely understand, but it sounds pretty intimidating all the same. Could it be coincidental with the second comforter? Scary thought, says I, if you read the rest of the chapter with that in mind. I'm with the BLT, sometimes I fear God. It certainly gives me great incentive to try harder each day. Till // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
At 06:49 AM 11/10/2003, you wrote: At 07:09 PM 11/7/2003 +, Rabbi Rabinowitz wrote: The bottom line is that while the question of exaltation may turn on our willingness to enter into the eternal covenant of marriage--a specific commandment--it turns most of all upon our willingness to keep ALL of his commandments and in so doing, to then allow the atonement (through the process of repentance) to take full effect in our lives. I think the operative words here are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise This is something that this feeble old brain doesn't completely understand, but it sounds pretty intimidating all the same. Could it be coincidental with the second comforter? Scary thought, says I, if you read the rest of the chapter with that in mind. I'm with the BLT, sometimes I fear God. It certainly gives me great incentive to try harder each day. Till From my limited understanding, being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise is when the Holy Ghost puts his stamp of approval on the ordinance. This stamp can and will be removed if the person fails to keep the commandments. The big question is how do we know if the ordinance has been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise as we all sin? -- Lew -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
FW: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
-Original Message- From: Tom Matkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 7, 2003 4:12 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2 I suspect we shall soon be kicked off for daring to discuss this, but what the hey. Where in 131 does it say this? I read Celestial Glory, not the Celestial Kingdom. George, This possibility was settled very nicely in favour of the consistent teachings of the men in the first councils of the Church since the time of Joseph Smith. In fact, as you know, Rene Krywult researched the very question that you raise above and discovered that the use of the phrase Celestial Glories as an absolute synonym for Celestial Kingdom has been equally consistent. If it means something else in Section 131, as you suggest, then Section 131 is the only place in Joseph Smith's frequent usage of the term Celestial Glories that it doesn't mean Celestial Kingdom. I asked and received permission from Rene to post his research here and so it follows. As Rene reminded you George, we are not accusing you of teaching or promoting false doctrine, we are concerned that your flogging of this matter means that you are accusing the brethren of the church of teaching false doctrine. Section 131 is a seminary scripture mastery for heavens sake. It is taught in the standard way in seminary and institute and all correlated lesson manuals. For someone to suggest that the teaching is wrong means that that someone is saying that the brethren of the church are teaching false doctrine. And, as I said all those many months ago, one shouldn't have to defend the teachings of the brethren from attack on the ZION list. Here's what Rene found out in his research: I tried to find out, if the claim that Joseph Smith may have used celestial glory interchangeably with heaven (i.e. all three kingdoms of glory) could be substantiated from other writings of Joseph Smith. Doing this, I had a good look at JoD, and there I found the King Follet Discourse shed light on the issue. Here it goes: ** I could go back and trace every subject of interest concerning the relationship of man to God, if I had time. I can enter into the mysteries; I can enter largely into the eternal worlds; for Jesus said, In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. (John 14th chap., 2nd v.) Paul says, There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. (1st Cor. 15th chap., 41st v.) What have we to console us in relation to the dead? We have reason to have the greatest hope and consolations for our dead of any people on the earth; for we have seen them walk worthily in our midst, and seen them sink asleep in the arms of Jesus; and those who have died in the faith are now in the celestial kingdom of God. And hence is the glory of the sun. You mourners have occasion to rejoice (speaking of the death of Elder King Follett); for your husband and father is gone to wait until the resurrection of the dead—until the perfection of the remainder; for at the resurrection your friend will rise in perfect felicity and go to celestial glory, while many must wait myriads of years before they can receive the like blessings; and your expectations and hopes are far above what man can conceive; for why has God revealed it to us? I AM AUTHORIZED to say, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that you have no occasion to fear; for he is gone to the home of the just. Don't mourn; don't weep. I know it by the testimony of the Holy Ghost that is within me; and you may wait for your friends to come forth to meet you in the morn of the celestial world. Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.9, Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844 ** Here we see Joseph use the expressions celestial world, celestial glory and celestial kingdom, and as far as I can judge, his words only make sense, if we assume that all three expressions refer to the same thing. So next, I started searching Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. There are 16 occurences of the phrase celestial glory, one of them being the KFD. The others are as follows: Section One 1830-34, p.32 The inhabitants of this county threaten our destruction, and we know not how soon they may be permitted to follow the example of the Missourians; but our trust is in God, and we are determined, His grace assisting us, to maintain the cause and hold out faithful unto the end, that we may be crowned with crowns of celestial glory, and enter into the rest that is prepared for the children of God. Section Two 1834-37, p.47 Impressed with the truth of these facts what can be the feelings of those who have been partakers of the heavenly gift and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
I suspect we shall soon be kicked off for daring to discuss this, but what the hey. Where in 131 does it say this? I read Celestial Glory, not the Celestial Kingdom. George, This possibility was settled very nicely in favour of the consistent teachings of the men in the first councils of the Church since the time of Joseph Smith. In fact, as you know, Rene Krywult researched the very question that you raise above and discovered that the use of the phrase Celestial Glories as an absolute synonym for Celestial Kingdom has been equally consistent. If it means something else in Section 131, as you suggest, then Section 131 is the only place in Joseph Smith's frequent usage of the term Celestial Glories that it doesn't mean Celestial Kingdom. I asked and received permission from Rene to post his research here and so it follows. As Rene reminded you George, we are not accusing you of teaching or promoting false doctrine, we are concerned that your flogging of this matter means that you are accusing the brethren of the church of teaching false doctrine. Section 131 is a seminary scripture mastery for heavens sake. It is taught in the standard way in seminary and institute and all correlated lesson manuals. For someone to suggest that the teaching is wrong means that that someone is saying that the brethren of the church are teaching false doctrine. And, as I said all those many months ago, one shouldn't have to defend the teachings of the brethren from attack on the ZION list. Here's what Rene found out in his research: I tried to find out, if the claim that Joseph Smith may have used celestial glory interchangeably with heaven (i.e. all three kingdoms of glory) could be substantiated from other writings of Joseph Smith. Doing this, I had a good look at JoD, and there I found the King Follet Discourse shed light on the issue. Here it goes: ** I could go back and trace every subject of interest concerning the relationship of man to God, if I had time. I can enter into the mysteries; I can enter largely into the eternal worlds; for Jesus said, In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. (John 14th chap., 2nd v.) Paul says, There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. (1st Cor. 15th chap., 41st v.) What have we to console us in relation to the dead? We have reason to have the greatest hope and consolations for our dead of any people on the earth; for we have seen them walk worthily in our midst, and seen them sink asleep in the arms of Jesus; and those who have died in the faith are now in the celestial kingdom of God. And hence is the glory of the sun. You mourners have occasion to rejoice (speaking of the death of Elder King Follett); for your husband and father is gone to wait until the resurrection of the dead—until the perfection of the remainder; for at the resurrection your friend will rise in perfect felicity and go to celestial glory, while many must wait myriads of years before they can receive the like blessings; and your expectations and hopes are far above what man can conceive; for why has God revealed it to us? I AM AUTHORIZED to say, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that you have no occasion to fear; for he is gone to the home of the just. Don't mourn; don't weep. I know it by the testimony of the Holy Ghost that is within me; and you may wait for your friends to come forth to meet you in the morn of the celestial world. Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.9, Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844 ** Here we see Joseph use the expressions celestial world, celestial glory and celestial kingdom, and as far as I can judge, his words only make sense, if we assume that all three expressions refer to the same thing. So next, I started searching Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. There are 16 occurences of the phrase celestial glory, one of them being the KFD. The others are as follows: Section One 1830-34, p.32 The inhabitants of this county threaten our destruction, and we know not how soon they may be permitted to follow the example of the Missourians; but our trust is in God, and we are determined, His grace assisting us, to maintain the cause and hold out faithful unto the end, that we may be crowned with crowns of celestial glory, and enter into the rest that is prepared for the children of God. Section Two 1834-37, p.47 Impressed with the truth of these facts what can be the feelings of those who have been partakers of the heavenly gift and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come? Who but those that can see the awful precipice upon which the world of mankind stands in this generation, can labor in the vineyard of the Lord without feeling
Re: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
Tom says For someone to suggest that the teaching is wrong means that that someone is saying that the brethren of the church are teaching false doctrine. I am going to reply to this one time and then be done. As has been the case from the first, Tom, you do not yet understand the questions I have regarding this issue. One of the problems we have between us is that I have seen other examples of where the brethren have been wrong on an issue, whereas apparently you feel that if you can just find the right quote that will answer the question for everyone. That does not mean that I do not support them in any way, for I am able to separate the callings and the keys, etc, from the problematic teachings that do sometimes occur. That does not mean that you need to defend the brethren against that at all, for I raise my hand in sustaining them every chance I get. I even confessed that if I were in your stake I would be able to sustain you, even as you railed against me. In the Catholic faith they beleive in an infallible Pope but never act that way, in the LDS Church we beleive in a fallible prophet, but treat his/their every word as absolute truth. I have said that I beleive that there are certain tenets of our faith that are in conflict with the idea of sub-kingdoms in the Celestial Kingdom. You have never allowed me to get to the point of asking those questions and expressing those concerns. You have never allowed the discussion to get anywhere before you begin calling me to repentance. If I have concerns then it would not hurt anyone to be aware of them and to take a crack at helping me resolve them. I have come to the conclusion that the several points of doctrine that conflict with this idea are far more important that the belief in Celestial sub-kingdoms. Given that I can comfortably read sec 131, and all of Rene' quotes a bit different that you do, I have come to the conclusion that all who enter the Celestial Kingdom will be exalted. In my mind this preserves the integrity of the scriptures and gives full credence to the atonement of the Saviour. I have agreed to provide another on this list with a short paper outlining the conflicts I have. I will not be posting this to the list and will only share it on the stipulation that there is the understanding that it is not a argument for agreement, but rather a request for input. If you, or anyone else, would like a copy please let me know with an email direct to [EMAIL PROTECTED] It will be a few days. It would appear that my desire to find a list that can discuss doctrine of the church with a bit of latitude in the questions allowed has not been satisfied with this list. That's OK, it just has taken a bit of time to realize that this is the case. I am sorry for the upsetting nature of my posts. It would appear that I have greater faith in the posters on this and other lists than others do. Best wishes to all, and to all a good night. George - Original Message - From: Tom Matkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 10:48 PM Subject: FW: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2 -Original Message- From: Tom Matkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 7, 2003 4:12 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2 I suspect we shall soon be kicked off for daring to discuss this, but what the hey. Where in 131 does it say this? I read Celestial Glory, not the Celestial Kingdom. George, This possibility was settled very nicely in favour of the consistent teachings of the men in the first councils of the Church since the time of Joseph Smith. In fact, as you know, Rene Krywult researched the very question that you raise above and discovered that the use of the phrase Celestial Glories as an absolute synonym for Celestial Kingdom has been equally consistent. If it means something else in Section 131, as you suggest, then Section 131 is the only place in Joseph Smith's frequent usage of the term Celestial Glories that it doesn't mean Celestial Kingdom. I asked and received permission from Rene to post his research here and so it follows. As Rene reminded you George, we are not accusing you of teaching or promoting false doctrine, we are concerned that your flogging of this matter means that you are accusing the brethren of the church of teaching false doctrine. Section 131 is a seminary scripture mastery for heavens sake. It is taught in the standard way in seminary and institute and all correlated lesson manuals. For someone to suggest that the teaching is wrong means that that someone is saying that the brethren of the church are teaching false doctrine. And, as I said all those many months ago, one shouldn't have to defend the teachings of the brethren from attack on the ZION list. Here's what Rene found out in his research: I tried to find out, if the claim that Joseph Smith may have used celestial glory interchangeably with heaven (i.e. all three kingdoms
Re: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
As you know my views are based on scriptures, not quotes from authorities. There are significant disagreements between the two, as you are aware. When you raise the question expect responses. It would seem that you are asking the questions, I am not raising the issues. You seem to be seeking disagreement with the book Gospel Doctrine and with doctrinal issues generally. You seem to almost be goading me by asking the questions you do and at the same time asking for more interaction on the list, however I am apparently wrong on that. I shall be silent - unless you continue to ask. George - Original Message - From: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:44 PM Subject: Re: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2 George Cobabe wrote: As you know, John, when you ask the question I can testify that this is true. However there is more to the answer than what has been presented. I would be delighted to discuss this topic with courtesy and good will, if that would be possible. If you have any information that current Church leaders support your view that all who obtain the Celestial Kingdom inherit eternal life, I would be interested. Otherwise, I'd rather move on to something else. I don't want Tom Matkin leaving the list again. His views and mine are very much mainstream as stated in GOSPEL PRINCIPLES. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === The study of the doctrines of the Gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior. --Boyd K. Packer === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
Re: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
At 11:28 AM 11/6/2003 -0900, BLT wrote: Eternal Marriage Is Essential for Exaltation Many people in the world consider marriage to be only a social custom, a legal agreement between a man and a woman to live together. But to Latter-day Saints, marriage is much more. Our exaltation depends on marriage. We believe that marriage is the most sacred relationship that can exist between a man and a woman. This sacred relationship affects our happiness now and in the eternities. Heavenly Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so we can become like him. We must live this law to be able to have spirit children. The Lord has said: In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it (DC 131:1-3). --- Anyone disagree that this is official Church doctrine? Our missionaries teach it to investigators and it is taught to all new members as part of the Gospel Essentials Sunday School class. Is this controversial, or what? Are any of the Brethren divided on this? This, IMHO, is what we have to offer the world. This is what sets us apart from the other religions This is the essence of the gospel. The other things all point to this. There are other requirements along the way, but that's just the point, they're along the way. Till // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
Re: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
At 03:44 PM 11/6/2003 -0900, BLT wrote: George Cobabe wrote: As you know, John, when you ask the question I can testify that this is true. However there is more to the answer than what has been presented. I would be delighted to discuss this topic with courtesy and good will, if that would be possible. If you have any information that current Church leaders support your view that all who obtain the Celestial Kingdom inherit eternal life, I would be interested. Otherwise, I'd rather move on to something else. I don't want Tom Matkin leaving the list again. His views and mine are very much mainstream as stated in GOSPEL PRINCIPLES. I find DC 132 to be quite clear on this subject. I'll sit quietly in the John and Tom camp, thank you. Till // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
At 02:36 AM 11/7/2003 +, Gib Mij wrote: Many of us take it seriously too. As a single man I am working on addressing this concern as quickly as sanity and comfort can afford. I have discovered that it is not an easy thing for an older man. My friend, just care about all those around you, love them without any ulterior motives, do nice things for them without expectation of reward and one day one will love back. Till // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
Re: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
That's fine, Till. However I do not think you know the question in mind. You see, I find Sec 132 more that supportative and I believe it to be true as well. It is the scriptures, including 132, that I find supportive. George - Original Message - From: Elmer L. Fairbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 7:10 AM Subject: Re: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2 At 03:44 PM 11/6/2003 -0900, BLT wrote: George Cobabe wrote: As you know, John, when you ask the question I can testify that this is true. However there is more to the answer than what has been presented. I would be delighted to discuss this topic with courtesy and good will, if that would be possible. If you have any information that current Church leaders support your view that all who obtain the Celestial Kingdom inherit eternal life, I would be interested. Otherwise, I'd rather move on to something else. I don't want Tom Matkin leaving the list again. His views and mine are very much mainstream as stated in GOSPEL PRINCIPLES. I find DC 132 to be quite clear on this subject. I'll sit quietly in the John and Tom camp, thank you. Till // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
George Cobabe wrote: There are those on this list that in the past have argued that Eternal Marriage is NOT essential for exaltation. Exaltation is living in the presence of God the Father and receiving His blessings. Yet it is suggested that to live in the Celestial Kingdom it is not necessary to have an Eternal Marriage. Still, it's possible to be in the Celestial Kingdom and NOT be exalted. I think that's where the misunderstanding among members comes in. DC 131 indicates that temple marriage is needed for the *highest degree* of the Celestial Kingdom. On the basis of that scripture, it does appear that a single person might be able to enter at the lowest degree. But the lower degrees of the Celestial Kingdom represent a type of eternal damnation. Yes, persons designated for that place can be in the presence of both the Father and the Son, but exaltation goes beyond being in their presence, and means becoming as God in all things, up to and including godhood. If you can receive a degree of Celestial Glory, yet be unable to attain the status of godhood (being designated, for instance, as a ministering angel), then by definition, one's progression stops and damnation occurs. Still, in practical terms, I don't know how likely it would be for a single person to reach the lower degrees of the Celestial Kingdom. For if someone desires to enter into the covenant, makes the needed sacrifices, yet cannot locate a suitable companion, teachings indicate that provision will be made later in the post-mortal existance. At the other extreme, someone who goes out of their way to avoid temple marriage could be judged as being rebellious or disobedient...perhaps the judgment might even be in the direction of the Terrestrial Kingdom? In the middle, I suppose, are those individuals who seek to be obedient in the Gospel in most things, yet don't care one way or the other about temple marriage. Then they die without being sealed to a companion, realizing too late that they should have given the matter greater attention. They might have been exalted, but for their diligence in seeking an eternal companion. I suspect it would be these individuals who would become the ministering angels in the lower Celestial rhelms. (But would there be that many?) Even so, all this would be my personal speculation. All the best, /Sandy/ -- The Rabinowitz Family, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Spring Hill, Tennessee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
Re: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
I suspect we shall soon be kicked off for daring to discuss this, but what the hey. Where in 131 does it say this? I read Celestial Glory, not the Celestial Kingdom. However in 132:23-24 it talks about receiving and living with God and that this living with God is what exaltation is defined as. Living with God should not be construed as damnation, as you have ably pointed out that it may represent. Why would the atonement not make up for any deficiencies that are present in a person worthy to attain to the Celestial Kingdom? What could a worthy person do to not qualify for the atonement in their lives so that they would have full exaltation? Well John, when I came back I said I would repond to questions asked. Happy to leave if this bothers or scares you. George - Original Message - From: Sandy and Melinda Rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 8:48 AM Subject: RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2 George Cobabe wrote: There are those on this list that in the past have argued that Eternal Marriage is NOT essential for exaltation. Exaltation is living in the presence of God the Father and receiving His blessings. Yet it is suggested that to live in the Celestial Kingdom it is not necessary to have an Eternal Marriage. Still, it's possible to be in the Celestial Kingdom and NOT be exalted. I think that's where the misunderstanding among members comes in. DC 131 indicates that temple marriage is needed for the *highest degree* of the Celestial Kingdom. On the basis of that scripture, it does appear that a single person might be able to enter at the lowest degree. But the lower degrees of the Celestial Kingdom represent a type of eternal damnation. Yes, persons designated for that place can be in the presence of both the Father and the Son, but exaltation goes beyond being in their presence, and means becoming as God in all things, up to and including godhood. If you can receive a degree of Celestial Glory, yet be unable to attain the status of godhood (being designated, for instance, as a ministering angel), then by definition, one's progression stops and damnation occurs. Still, in practical terms, I don't know how likely it would be for a single person to reach the lower degrees of the Celestial Kingdom. For if someone desires to enter into the covenant, makes the needed sacrifices, yet cannot locate a suitable companion, teachings indicate that provision will be made later in the post-mortal existance. At the other extreme, someone who goes out of their way to avoid temple marriage could be judged as being rebellious or disobedient...perhaps the judgment might even be in the direction of the Terrestrial Kingdom? In the middle, I suppose, are those individuals who seek to be obedient in the Gospel in most things, yet don't care one way or the other about temple marriage. Then they die without being sealed to a companion, realizing too late that they should have given the matter greater attention. They might have been exalted, but for their diligence in seeking an eternal companion. I suspect it would be these individuals who would become the ministering angels in the lower Celestial rhelms. (But would there be that many?) Even so, all this would be my personal speculation. All the best, /Sandy/ -- The Rabinowitz Family, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Spring Hill, Tennessee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
At 07:36 PM 11/6/2003, you wrote: John W. Redelfs wrote: --- Would that all the single men in the Church were as devoted to keeping the commandment to marry as seriously as you did and do. --- Many of us take it seriously too. As a single man I am working on addressing this concern as quickly as sanity and comfort can afford. I have discovered that it is not an easy thing for an older man. As one who didn't find his wife till somewhat later in life I empathize with you. I sincerely hope and pray that you find a good woman. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is no accident, then, that so many who gathered at Philadelphia to declare independence and a decade later to draft a constitution were men who had apprenticed themselves to Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero, and who could debate at length on the various constitutional forms of the classical world before they chose one for the new American nation. We owe our very existence as a people in great part to classical learning.T. L. Simmons // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
Re: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
At 08:20 AM 11/7/2003 -0700, St George wrote: That's fine, Till. However I do not think you know the question in mind. You see, I find Sec 132 more that supportative and I believe it to be true as well. It is the scriptures, including 132, that I find supportive. With all due respect, my friend, I was referring specifically to the part where it says, with regards to those who have celestial marriage AND have been sealed by the holy spirit of promise, then shall they be gods, as opposed to those who have not. Of them. IIRC, it is said, and that shall be the end of their glory or some such. Are we just talking past each other on semantics? I take exaltation et al to mean the former of these two scenarios. Elsewhere in the scriptures I recall reading that damnation is defined as having one's progression ended. Certainly, I would concede, that to be a servant in the house of the most high would be far better than being a prince in a lesser kingdom, but still, it IS a cessation of progression. Till, who has said his piece // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
George Cobabe wrote: I suspect we shall soon be kicked off for daring to discuss this, but what the hey. Where in 131 does it say this? I read Celestial Glory, not the Celestial Kingdom. In the prior post, I used kingdom and glory interchangibly. Perhaps there is a difference...that might be a topic in and of itself. Even so, there is a reference to kingdoms, as will be noted in a moment. However in 132:23-24 it talks about receiving and living with God and that this living with God is what exaltation is defined as. Living with God should not be construed as damnation, as you have ably pointed out that it may represent. But in DC 131, it says over in verse 4, referencing those who do not enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, He may enter into the other [meaning one of the lower heavens or degrees], but that is the end of his kingdom: *he cannot have an increase*. That strongly suggests to me an inability to progress, or at a very minimum, the inability to have infinite might or dominion. This is despite the fact that we're still speaking of the celestial heavens--not of the terrestial or telestial worlds. Moreover, DC 132:15-16 refer to those who marry outside of the new and everlasting covenant as being appointed angels...ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. By contrast, verses 19-20, speaking to those who marry in the covenant, shall pass by the angels...to their exaltation and glory in all things...which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then they shall be gods...because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. It would seem like the difference between the two states would be considerable. Again, this is despite the fact that in all of this we've never left the celestial rhelm. Why would the atonement not make up for any deficiencies that are present in a person worthy to attain to the Celestial Kingdom? I wish I could say I had an answer here. It would seem like your question is directed squarely at DC 131:4 and 132:15-16--otherwise, the persons referenced there should have had an increase. But clearly they do not. The only other thing I can think to suggest--and the chapter and verse escapes me--is that the atonement applies to all of mankind in greater or lesser degrees, except to those who are sons of perdition. Were it not for the atonement, it would be impossible for even those judged to be telestial to receive immortality and this lowest degree of glory. The atonement apparently works to a greater degree to people judged to be terrestrial, and greater still to those who are in the lower celestial rhelms. But apparently it works to the greatest extent possible to those assigned to the highest degree of the celestial heavens. One final thought: I could be wrong, but it was by understanding that DC 132:24 had to be taken in the larger context of keeping all of his commandments, including the one pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. For in DC 132:21, we read, Verily...I say unto you, except ye abide my law, ye cannot attain to this glory. Finally, the commandment in DC 132:24 is, Receive ye, therefore my law. I agree with you that the atonement is tied deeply into this because it is impossible to keep all of his commandments at all times. The ultimate question, which goes well beyond the scope of eternal marriage, is to what extent are we willing to keep His commandments. We may, for example, enter into the eternal covenant of marriage, but seriously transgress later. Or we may choose to avoid entering into the covenant in the first place. For that matter, we may choose not to receive the priesthood or even be baptised. Or we may do all of these things for the sole purpose of outward appearance, but not really be willing to keep the commandments in our hearts. In all of these instances, our eternal standing is likely to be called into question. The bottom line is that while the question of exaltation may turn on our willingness to enter into the eternal covenant of marriage--a specific commandment--it turns most of all upon our willingness to keep ALL of his commandments and in so doing, to then allow the atonement (through the process of repentance) to take full effect in our lives. All the best, /Sandy/ -- The Rabinowitz Family, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Spring Hill, Tennessee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here:
Re: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
I have no problem with what you have said, I think that I can agree with it all. As I said the question was quite different. George - Original Message - From: Elmer L. Fairbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2 At 08:20 AM 11/7/2003 -0700, St George wrote: That's fine, Till. However I do not think you know the question in mind. You see, I find Sec 132 more that supportative and I believe it to be true as well. It is the scriptures, including 132, that I find supportive. With all due respect, my friend, I was referring specifically to the part where it says, with regards to those who have celestial marriage AND have been sealed by the holy spirit of promise, then shall they be gods, as opposed to those who have not. Of them. IIRC, it is said, and that shall be the end of their glory or some such. Are we just talking past each other on semantics? I take exaltation et al to mean the former of these two scenarios. Elsewhere in the scriptures I recall reading that damnation is defined as having one's progression ended. Certainly, I would concede, that to be a servant in the house of the most high would be far better than being a prince in a lesser kingdom, but still, it IS a cessation of progression. Till, who has said his piece // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
Seems to me that a few years ago this list had a single sister on it who said she preferred being single in the Celestial Kingdom, and just being a ministering angel in God's presence. That being the case, there may be more to this than we think... Gary Sandy and Melinda Rabinowitz wrote: George Cobabe wrote: There are those on this list that in the past have argued that Eternal Marriage is NOT essential for exaltation. Exaltation is living in the presence of God the Father and receiving His blessings. Yet it is suggested that to live in the Celestial Kingdom it is not necessary to have an Eternal Marriage. Still, it's possible to be in the Celestial Kingdom and NOT be exalted. I think that's where the misunderstanding among members comes in. DC 131 indicates that temple marriage is needed for the *highest degree* of the Celestial Kingdom. On the basis of that scripture, it does appear that a single person might be able to enter at the lowest degree. But the lower degrees of the Celestial Kingdom represent a type of eternal damnation. Yes, persons designated for that place can be in the presence of both the Father and the Son, but exaltation goes beyond being in their presence, and means becoming as God in all things, up to and including godhood. If you can receive a degree of Celestial Glory, yet be unable to attain the status of godhood (being designated, for instance, as a ministering angel), then by definition, one's progression stops and damnation occurs. Still, in practical terms, I don't know how likely it would be for a single person to reach the lower degrees of the Celestial Kingdom. For if someone desires to enter into the covenant, makes the needed sacrifices, yet cannot locate a suitable companion, teachings indicate that provision will be made later in the post-mortal existance. At the other extreme, someone who goes out of their way to avoid temple marriage could be judged as being rebellious or disobedient...perhaps the judgment might even be in the direction of the Terrestrial Kingdom? In the middle, I suppose, are those individuals who seek to be obedient in the Gospel in most things, yet don't care one way or the other about temple marriage. Then they die without being sealed to a companion, realizing too late that they should have given the matter greater attention. They might have been exalted, but for their diligence in seeking an eternal companion. I suspect it would be these individuals who would become the ministering angels in the lower Celestial rhelms. (But would there be that many?) Even so, all this would be my personal speculation. All the best, /Sandy/ -- The Rabinowitz Family, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Spring Hill, Tennessee Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
[ZION] Official Doctrine #2
Eternal Marriage Is Essential for Exaltation Many people in the world consider marriage to be only a social custom, a legal agreement between a man and a woman to live together. But to Latter-day Saints, marriage is much more. Our exaltation depends on marriage. We believe that marriage is the most sacred relationship that can exist between a man and a woman. This sacred relationship affects our happiness now and in the eternities. Heavenly Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so we can become like him. We must live this law to be able to have spirit children. The Lord has said: In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it (DC 131:1-3). --- Anyone disagree that this is official Church doctrine? Our missionaries teach it to investigators and it is taught to all new members as part of the Gospel Essentials Sunday School class. Is this controversial, or what? Are any of the Brethren divided on this? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === While we cannot agree with others on certain matters, we must never be disagreeable. We must be friendly, soft-spoken, neighborly, and understanding. (President Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2003) === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
What is this, some kind of litmus test? Please define new and everlasting covenant? -Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 3:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2 Eternal Marriage Is Essential for Exaltation Many people in the world consider marriage to be only a social custom, a legal agreement between a man and a woman to live together. But to Latter-day Saints, marriage is much more. Our exaltation depends on marriage. We believe that marriage is the most sacred relationship that can exist between a man and a woman. This sacred relationship affects our happiness now and in the eternities. Heavenly Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so we can become like him. We must live this law to be able to have spirit children. The Lord has said: In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it (DC 131:1-3). --- Anyone disagree that this is official Church doctrine? Our missionaries teach it to investigators and it is taught to all new members as part of the Gospel Essentials Sunday School class. Is this controversial, or what? Are any of the Brethren divided on this? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === While we cannot agree with others on certain matters, we must never be disagreeable. We must be friendly, soft-spoken, neighborly, and understanding. (President Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2003) === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// // /// // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
John W. Redelfs wrote: Eternal Marriage Is Essential for Exaltation (* * *) Anyone disagree that this is official Church doctrine? Our missionaries teach it to investigators and it is taught to all new members as part of the Gospel Essentials Sunday School class. Is this controversial, or what? Are any of the Brethren divided on this? I certainly don't believe these is any division, but wonder if perhaps the focus has shifted more towards the preservation of _existing_ marriages. For instance, just in the last few weeks, in our ward alone, we've had two couples get separated, and in the prior year and a half, three divorces were finalized. Four of these were temple marriages...the fifth might be also, but I'm not sure. And that's just the stuff I'm personally aware of...I imagine the Bishop might have knowledge of others. But mainly I just get the sense what our ward is experiencing may not be an anomoly. Celestial marriage is important...if I didn't think so, I wouldn't have written so many woe is me posts over the years. ;-) But the covenants made in the sealing room won't exactly hold a lot of water if the persons who made them don't follow through, or in other words, endure to the end. Even worse, children get caught in the crossfire, and their spiritual state has to be considered as well. I tend to think the Lord may hold such parents responsible to the extent that their children have fallen away as a direct result. /Sandy/ -- The Rabinowitz Family, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Spring Hill, Tennessee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
Ron Scott wrote: What is this, some kind of litmus test? Please define new and everlasting covenant? It is not a litmus test, it is a Sunday School lesson from the Gospel Essentials Sunday School manual entitled GOSPEL PRINCIPLES. On another thread George Cobabe said that official Church doctrine was very hard to determine. And I said that this is only true if we get into speculative areas. As long as we stick to the most basic fundamentals, official Church doctrine is easily determined. Well, the Gospel Essentials class is for investigators and new members and it basically just supplements and reinforces the missionary discussions that all our missionaries teach to new investigators. The manual, which has been through correlation, restricts itself to the most basic fundamentals and is NOT controversial in the tiniest degree. What is the new and everlasting covenant? The phrase is used two ways that I know of: 1) It is a reference to the Book of Mormon, and 2) it is a reference to temple marriage for time and all eternity. This latter usage is evidently the one being used in the lesson I posted. I have thought I would post parts of the GOSPEL PRINCIPLES manual from time to time to see if I get any disagreement, and if so, from whom. I keep hearing about false doctrine creeping into our correlated manuals, but I don't know of any particular instances. I thought this might be one way of finding out. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === While we cannot agree with others on certain matters, we must never be disagreeable. We must be friendly, soft-spoken, neighborly, and understanding. (President Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2003) === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
If that's how you define, eternal marriage between one man and one woman, then no problem. -Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2 Ron Scott wrote: What is this, some kind of litmus test? Please define new and everlasting covenant? It is not a litmus test, it is a Sunday School lesson from the Gospel Essentials Sunday School manual entitled GOSPEL PRINCIPLES. On another thread George Cobabe said that official Church doctrine was very hard to determine. And I said that this is only true if we get into speculative areas. As long as we stick to the most basic fundamentals, official Church doctrine is easily determined. Well, the Gospel Essentials class is for investigators and new members and it basically just supplements and reinforces the missionary discussions that all our missionaries teach to new investigators. The manual, which has been through correlation, restricts itself to the most basic fundamentals and is NOT controversial in the tiniest degree. What is the new and everlasting covenant? The phrase is used two ways that I know of: 1) It is a reference to the Book of Mormon, and 2) it is a reference to temple marriage for time and all eternity. This latter usage is evidently the one being used in the lesson I posted. I have thought I would post parts of the GOSPEL PRINCIPLES manual from time to time to see if I get any disagreement, and if so, from whom. I keep hearing about false doctrine creeping into our correlated manuals, but I don't know of any particular instances. I thought this might be one way of finding out. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === While we cannot agree with others on certain matters, we must never be disagreeable. We must be friendly, soft-spoken, neighborly, and understanding. (President Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2003) === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// // /// // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
Ron Scott wrote: If that's how you define, eternal marriage between one man and one woman, then no problem. Between man and woman. According to DC 132, plural marriage is OK as long as it is authorized by the priesthood. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
Sandy and Melinda Rabinowitz wrote: Celestial marriage is important...if I didn't think so, I wouldn't have written so many woe is me posts over the years. ;-) But the covenants made in the sealing room won't exactly hold a lot of water if the persons who made them don't follow through, or in other words, endure to the end. Even worse, children get caught in the crossfire, and their spiritual state has to be considered as well. I tend to think the Lord may hold such parents responsible to the extent that their children have fallen away as a direct result. I remember those woe is me posts, Sandy. And when I see how the Lord has blessed you since, it builds my faith. Would that all the single men in the Church were as devoted to keeping the commandment to marry as seriously as you did and do. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
For practical purposes, I'll stick with my previous statement -- one man, one woman -- if you don't mind. -Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 6:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2 Ron Scott wrote: If that's how you define, eternal marriage between one man and one woman, then no problem. Between man and woman. According to DC 132, plural marriage is OK as long as it is authorized by the priesthood. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// // /// // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
Re: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
As you know, John, when you ask the question I can testify that this is true. However there is more to the answer than what has been presented. I would be delighted to discuss this topic with courtesy and good will, if that would be possible. George - Original Message - From: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 1:28 PM Subject: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2 Eternal Marriage Is Essential for Exaltation Many people in the world consider marriage to be only a social custom, a legal agreement between a man and a woman to live together. But to Latter-day Saints, marriage is much more. Our exaltation depends on marriage. We believe that marriage is the most sacred relationship that can exist between a man and a woman. This sacred relationship affects our happiness now and in the eternities. Heavenly Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so we can become like him. We must live this law to be able to have spirit children. The Lord has said: In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it (DC 131:1-3). --- Anyone disagree that this is official Church doctrine? Our missionaries teach it to investigators and it is taught to all new members as part of the Gospel Essentials Sunday School class. Is this controversial, or what? Are any of the Brethren divided on this? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === While we cannot agree with others on certain matters, we must never be disagreeable. We must be friendly, soft-spoken, neighborly, and understanding. (President Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2003) === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
John W. Redelfs wrote: Ron Scott wrote: If that's how you define, eternal marriage between one man and one woman, then no problem. Between man and woman. According to DC 132, plural marriage is OK as long as it is authorized by the priesthood. --JWR And, technically, it *is* presently authorized in one very specific instance: Brother A is sealed to Sister B. B dies. (By definition, this sealing continues beyond death.) Brother A can at a later point be sealed to Sister C. In fact, I think that was what happened with Howard W. Hunter. It's only when A seeks to be married to living sisters B, C, D, (etc.) *simultaneously* that Official Declaration #1 comes into focus. /Sandy/ -- The Rabinowitz Family, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Spring Hill, Tennessee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
Re: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
George Cobabe wrote: As you know, John, when you ask the question I can testify that this is true. However there is more to the answer than what has been presented. I would be delighted to discuss this topic with courtesy and good will, if that would be possible. If you have any information that current Church leaders support your view that all who obtain the Celestial Kingdom inherit eternal life, I would be interested. Otherwise, I'd rather move on to something else. I don't want Tom Matkin leaving the list again. His views and mine are very much mainstream as stated in GOSPEL PRINCIPLES. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === The study of the doctrines of the Gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior. --Boyd K. Packer === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
Tom Matkin wrote: But I am curious how we are going to square the circle of proselyting those corners of the world where it is in good standing. But God has figured that out and he'll let us know when we have a need to know. For now, those who insist on practicing it separate themselves from the good fellowship and ordinances of the Church, and justly so. But I'm fiercely positive about the divine institution of plural marriage at and for the time and place that it was established. These are my feelings exactly. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
Sandy and Melinda Rabinowitz wrote: And, technically, it *is* presently authorized in one very specific instance: Brother A is sealed to Sister B. B dies. (By definition, this sealing continues beyond death.) Brother A can at a later point be sealed to Sister C. In fact, I think that was what happened with Howard W. Hunter. Actually, my understanding is the President Hunter's second wife was for time only. She was already sealed to another man. Elder Dallin Oaks is a good example though. He is still sealed to his first wife, but he has taken another worthy sister to the temple for time and all eternity. I just hope the two sisters get along. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === While we cannot agree with others on certain matters, we must never be disagreeable. We must be friendly, soft-spoken, neighborly, and understanding. (President Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2003) === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
John W. Redelfs wrote: --- Would that all the single men in the Church were as devoted to keeping the commandment to marry as seriously as you did and do. --- Many of us take it seriously too. As a single man I am working on addressing this concern as quickly as sanity and comfort can afford. I have discovered that it is not an easy thing for an older man. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
Jim Cobabe wrote: Many of us take it seriously too. As a single man I am working on addressing this concern as quickly as sanity and comfort can afford. I have discovered that it is not an easy thing for an older man. Jim, the Lord is going to bless you more than you can imagine. I know it. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
Re: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
There are those on this list that in the past have argued that Eternal Marriage is NOT essential for exaltation. Exaltation is living in the presence of God the Father and receiving His blessings. Yet it is suggested that to live in the Celestial Kingdom it is not necessary to have an Eternal Marriage. I beleive that is wrong and agree with the opening statement, but the Church as a whole does not believe this as it is a common beleif that you can gain the CK and still be single. George - Original Message - From: Sandy and Melinda Rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 3:20 PM Subject: RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2 John W. Redelfs wrote: Eternal Marriage Is Essential for Exaltation (* * *) Anyone disagree that this is official Church doctrine? Our missionaries teach it to investigators and it is taught to all new members as part of the Gospel Essentials Sunday School class. Is this controversial, or what? Are any of the Brethren divided on this? I certainly don't believe these is any division, but wonder if perhaps the focus has shifted more towards the preservation of _existing_ marriages. For instance, just in the last few weeks, in our ward alone, we've had two couples get separated, and in the prior year and a half, three divorces were finalized. Four of these were temple marriages...the fifth might be also, but I'm not sure. And that's just the stuff I'm personally aware of...I imagine the Bishop might have knowledge of others. But mainly I just get the sense what our ward is experiencing may not be an anomoly. Celestial marriage is important...if I didn't think so, I wouldn't have written so many woe is me posts over the years. ;-) But the covenants made in the sealing room won't exactly hold a lot of water if the persons who made them don't follow through, or in other words, endure to the end. Even worse, children get caught in the crossfire, and their spiritual state has to be considered as well. I tend to think the Lord may hold such parents responsible to the extent that their children have fallen away as a direct result. /Sandy/ -- The Rabinowitz Family, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Spring Hill, Tennessee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
Re: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
And I said that this is only true if we get into speculative areas. As long as we stick to the most basic fundamentals, official Church doctrine is easily determined. And George would agree with this statement wholeheartedly. It is the scope of the most basic fundamentals that is so very hard to define. George - Original Message - From: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 3:42 PM Subject: RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2 Ron Scott wrote: What is this, some kind of litmus test? Please define new and everlasting covenant? It is not a litmus test, it is a Sunday School lesson from the Gospel Essentials Sunday School manual entitled GOSPEL PRINCIPLES. On another thread George Cobabe said that official Church doctrine was very hard to determine. And I said that this is only true if we get into speculative areas. As long as we stick to the most basic fundamentals, official Church doctrine is easily determined. Well, the Gospel Essentials class is for investigators and new members and it basically just supplements and reinforces the missionary discussions that all our missionaries teach to new investigators. The manual, which has been through correlation, restricts itself to the most basic fundamentals and is NOT controversial in the tiniest degree. What is the new and everlasting covenant? The phrase is used two ways that I know of: 1) It is a reference to the Book of Mormon, and 2) it is a reference to temple marriage for time and all eternity. This latter usage is evidently the one being used in the lesson I posted. I have thought I would post parts of the GOSPEL PRINCIPLES manual from time to time to see if I get any disagreement, and if so, from whom. I keep hearing about false doctrine creeping into our correlated manuals, but I don't know of any particular instances. I thought this might be one way of finding out. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === While we cannot agree with others on certain matters, we must never be disagreeable. We must be friendly, soft-spoken, neighborly, and understanding. (President Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2003) === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Official Doctrine #2
Tom wrote--- The development of the church was leapfrogged a hundred years by polygamy. In my completely unverifiable opinion. does anyone on the list have some figures for the actual number of menb that were practicing polygamy, versus the total number of marriage age men in the church during that time? Unless that's what the Lord decrees, in which case it's just the way it is. However I have no sense of it coming back, certainly no desire to see it. But I am curious how we are going to square the circle of proselyting those corners of the world where it is in good standing. just my opinion-- just because the practice may be legal in a country does not mean that the church will authorize its members in that country to follow the practice. not exactly comparable, but I recall President Hinckley, in a Priesthood meeting, telling the brethren that when you join the church, you leave behind (are supposed to) any customs or practices that are not in keeping with church doctrine. Bob Taylor ** There are no coincidences, only small miracles. Author Unknown ** // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
