LDS Freedom Forum

jmack wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 7:00 am

Luke wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 8:52 am

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 7:16 am

Luke wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 7:03 am Not in the way some think. The roles we play when we next come to an earth will be Adam and Eve and Saviour type roles. We won't have another life where we come not knowing anything about the Gospel.

Same problem here^. Adam and Eve died on this Earth. If they had been resurrected beings who had lived their full mortality in another world and then were resurrected, they could not have died again. The scriptures speak plainly to this fact. Once resurrection happens, death has no power over us any longer.

Adam was Michael and brought his wife down with him, according to Brigham Young. They fell by sinning, thus became mortal again. BY said we would have to be Adams and Eves.

Plus Joseph Smith explained that we would also have to be Holy Ghosts and Saviours, 'going from grace to grace, exaltation to exaltation until you attain to the resurrection of the dead and can sit in everlasting burnings'. (see King Follett Discourse)

This is not lds doctrine, it is speculation and likely misunderstood when someone wrote it down. The king Follett talk is not part of lds canon. People who believe in mmp should not be presenting it here as sound doctrine and teaching.

jmack wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 7:00 am

Luke wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 8:52 am

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 7:16 am

Luke wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 7:03 am Not in the way some think. The roles we play when we next come to an earth will be Adam and Eve and Saviour type roles. We won't have another life where we come not knowing anything about the Gospel.

Same problem here^. Adam and Eve died on this Earth. If they had been resurrected beings who had lived their full mortality in another world and then were resurrected, they could not have died again. The scriptures speak plainly to this fact. Once resurrection happens, death has no power over us any longer.

Adam was Michael and brought his wife down with him, according to Brigham Young. They fell by sinning, thus became mortal again. BY said we would have to be Adams and Eves.

Plus Joseph Smith explained that we would also have to be Holy Ghosts and Saviours, 'going from grace to grace, exaltation to exaltation until you attain to the resurrection of the dead and can sit in everlasting burnings'. (see King Follett Discourse)

This is not lds doctrine, it is speculation and likely misunderstood when someone wrote it down. The king Follett talk is not part of lds canon. People who believe in mmp should not be presenting it here as sound doctrine and teaching.

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 8:50 am

jmack wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 7:00 am

Luke wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 8:52 am

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 7:16 am

Same problem here^. Adam and Eve died on this Earth. If they had been resurrected beings who had lived their full mortality in another world and then were resurrected, they could not have died again. The scriptures speak plainly to this fact. Once resurrection happens, death has no power over us any longer.

Adam was Michael and brought his wife down with him, according to Brigham Young. They fell by sinning, thus became mortal again. BY said we would have to be Adams and Eves.

Plus Joseph Smith explained that we would also have to be Holy Ghosts and Saviours, 'going from grace to grace, exaltation to exaltation until you attain to the resurrection of the dead and can sit in everlasting burnings'. (see King Follett Discourse)

This is not lds doctrine, it is speculation and likely misunderstood when someone wrote it down. The king Follett talk is not part of lds canon. People who believe in mmp should not be presenting it here as sound doctrine and teaching.

The KFD is very, very well documented, as there were thousands of people present, and several taking copious notes. Historians have been able to compare some of those notes and they match very well, so it's unlikely that someone wrote it down wrong.

There are many things that aren't part of LDS canon, but it doesn't mean they aren't true.

It's hard for me to see how someone can brush off *Joseph Smith's* own teachings....either he is THE prophet of the dispensation, or he's not. If we can't accept this, how can we accept anything else he said? I understand that certain statements were written down second or third hand and therefore may not be exactly what he said, but this is not the case with the things he taught at Brother Follet's funeral.

I can see why he didn't teach it openly very often if the reaction he got was anything like what we see on this forum. My guess is that isn't necessary for everyone to know/understand the principle in order to live the gospel in this life, anymore than it was necessary for the Children of Israel to know about/understand the temple endowment.

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 9:48 am

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 8:50 am

jmack wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 7:00 am

Luke wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 8:52 am

Adam was Michael and brought his wife down with him, according to Brigham Young. They fell by sinning, thus became mortal again. BY said we would have to be Adams and Eves.

Plus Joseph Smith explained that we would also have to be Holy Ghosts and Saviours, 'going from grace to grace, exaltation to exaltation until you attain to the resurrection of the dead and can sit in everlasting burnings'. (see King Follett Discourse)

This is not lds doctrine, it is speculation and likely misunderstood when someone wrote it down. The king Follett talk is not part of lds canon. People who believe in mmp should not be presenting it here as sound doctrine and teaching.

The KFD is very, very well documented, as there were thousands of people present, and several taking copious notes. Historians have been able to compare some of those notes and they match very well, so it's unlikely that someone wrote it down wrong.

There are many things that aren't part of LDS canon, but it doesn't mean they aren't true.

It's hard for me to see how someone can brush off *Joseph Smith's* own teachings....either he is THE prophet of the dispensation, or he's not. If we can't accept this, how can we accept anything else he said? I understand that certain statements were written down second or third hand and therefore may not be exactly what he said, but this is not the case with the things he taught at Brother Follet's funeral.

I can see why he didn't teach it openly very often if the reaction he got was anything like what we see on this forum. My guess is that isn't necessary for everyone to know/understand the principle in order to live the gospel in this life, anymore than it was necessary for the Children of Israel to know about/understand the temple endowment.

I agree that the KFD is pretty solid doctrine. However, your reading of it is flawed. "Grace to grace" and "everlasting burnings" do not equate to reincarnation. It doesnt line up with Holy writ, none of it. We have a few lines from a talk by Brigham and Joseph that have been taken out of context and now we have a whole new doctrine of reincarnation.

Will I come back as a women in my next life? What happens if I die in infancy in my next life? Do I get another do over? Can i come back as a horse next time? I'm serious. Why be constrained to being a human if we can shed bodies like a pair of cloths?

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 10:37 am

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 9:48 am

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 8:50 am

jmack wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 7:00 am

This is not lds doctrine, it is speculation and likely misunderstood when someone wrote it down. The king Follett talk is not part of lds canon. People who believe in mmp should not be presenting it here as sound doctrine and teaching.

The KFD is very, very well documented, as there were thousands of people present, and several taking copious notes. Historians have been able to compare some of those notes and they match very well, so it's unlikely that someone wrote it down wrong.

There are many things that aren't part of LDS canon, but it doesn't mean they aren't true.

It's hard for me to see how someone can brush off *Joseph Smith's* own teachings....either he is THE prophet of the dispensation, or he's not. If we can't accept this, how can we accept anything else he said? I understand that certain statements were written down second or third hand and therefore may not be exactly what he said, but this is not the case with the things he taught at Brother Follet's funeral.

I can see why he didn't teach it openly very often if the reaction he got was anything like what we see on this forum. My guess is that isn't necessary for everyone to know/understand the principle in order to live the gospel in this life, anymore than it was necessary for the Children of Israel to know about/understand the temple endowment.

I agree that the KFD is pretty solid doctrine. However, your reading of it is flawed. "Grace to grace" and "everlasting burnings" do not equate to reincarnation. It doesnt line up with Holy writ, none of it. We have a few lines from a talk by Brigham and Joseph that have been taken out of context and now we have a whole new doctrine of reincarnation.

Will I come back as a women in my next life? What happens if I die in infancy in my next life? Do I get another do over? Can i come back as a horse next time? I'm serious. Why be constrained to being a human if we can shed bodies like a pair of cloths?

But the KFD DOES specifically say that Jesus' father did what Jesus did.

"The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again."

So if Jesus had to do what his Father did to become like his father and dwell where his father dwells ("everlasting burnings"), what makes you the exception? I'm assuming you believe as most members do that you have the potential to become like your Heavenly Father...but you think you are going to get there a different way than Jesus did and Father did? That's a bigger stretch to me than the idea than that this life isn't a one off.

In answer to your (serious?) questions...if you're asking those, you're missing the point. Multiple probations are not random...they are progressive. Line upon line. To "come back" (which, by the way, assumes that all our lives are one the same world, which I don't necessarily believe) as a horse doesn't seem to serve a purpose of learning more or proving yourself further. But "coming back" in, say, the role of an Adam, and surely as a Savior certainly does. So I would say no, you will probably "come back" in a role that will help you learn to use your priesthood to serve others and get you closer to being a Savior, which would be as a man in a greater capacity than the one you’re currently in. Just my thoughts, of course.

One thing you have to try to dodge, though, is that if you believe this life is the only one, then you must admit that you are superior, or at least much more lucky, than your brothers and sisters born in other eras and circumstances, indicated by the fact that unlike 99.99999 percent of the world's population throughout history, you have knowledge and access to the latter-day gospel of Jesus Christ. "More valiant" is the euphemism we often use in the church. But really would should just come out and say it..."we think we are better than them, just as Michael, Joseph Smith or Jesus are better than us."

"More progressed" is much more in line with the teachings of the of the worth and potential of each child of God, imo.

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 8:50 am

jmack wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 7:00 am

Luke wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 8:52 am

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 7:16 am

Same problem here^. Adam and Eve died on this Earth. If they had been resurrected beings who had lived their full mortality in another world and then were resurrected, they could not have died again. The scriptures speak plainly to this fact. Once resurrection happens, death has no power over us any longer.

Adam was Michael and brought his wife down with him, according to Brigham Young. They fell by sinning, thus became mortal again. BY said we would have to be Adams and Eves.

Plus Joseph Smith explained that we would also have to be Holy Ghosts and Saviours, 'going from grace to grace, exaltation to exaltation until you attain to the resurrection of the dead and can sit in everlasting burnings'. (see King Follett Discourse)

This is not lds doctrine, it is speculation and likely misunderstood when someone wrote it down. The king Follett talk is not part of lds canon. People who believe in mmp should not be presenting it here as sound doctrine and teaching.

The KFD is very, very well documented, as there were thousands of people present, and several taking copious notes. Historians have been able to compare some of those notes and they match very well, so it's unlikely that someone wrote it down wrong.

There are many things that aren't part of LDS canon, but it doesn't mean they aren't true.

It's hard for me to see how someone can brush off *Joseph Smith's* own teachings....either he is THE prophet of the dispensation, or he's not. If we can't accept this, how can we accept anything else he said? I understand that certain statements were written down second or third hand and therefore may not be exactly what he said, but this is not the case with the things he taught at Brother Follet's funeral.

I can see why he didn't teach it openly very often if the reaction he got was anything like what we see on this forum. My guess is that isn't necessary for everyone to know/understand the principle in order to live the gospel in this life, anymore than it was necessary for the Children of Israel to know about/understand the temple endowment.

The King Follett Sermon, one of the classics of Church literature, was given by the Prophet Joseph Smith at the April 7, 1844, conference of the Church in Nauvoo, Illinois. Some twenty thousand Saints were assembled.
The account of the talk noted that it was the funeral sermon for Elder King Follett, a close friend of the Prophet’s who had been killed in an accident on March 9. Longhand notes of the discourse were made by Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, Thomas Bullock, and William Clayton. This reprint was taken from the Documentary History of the Church, vol. 6, pages 302–17. That volume notes: “This was not a stenographic report, but a carefully and skillfully prepared one made by these men who were trained in reporting and taking notes. Evidently, there are some imperfections in the report and some thoughts expressed by the Prophet which were not fully rounded out and made complete. …”
It should also be noted that this discourse was given two months before the death of Joseph Smith. During these months the enemies of the Church were extremely active, and the Prophet undoubtedly anticipated the coming events.
The first part of the sermon is printed this month, with the conclusion planned for the May issue of the Ensign. In future issues of the Ensign, other significant discourses and articles from the past will be presented.

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 11:20 am

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 10:37 am

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 9:48 am

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 8:50 am

The KFD is very, very well documented, as there were thousands of people present, and several taking copious notes. Historians have been able to compare some of those notes and they match very well, so it's unlikely that someone wrote it down wrong.

There are many things that aren't part of LDS canon, but it doesn't mean they aren't true.

It's hard for me to see how someone can brush off *Joseph Smith's* own teachings....either he is THE prophet of the dispensation, or he's not. If we can't accept this, how can we accept anything else he said? I understand that certain statements were written down second or third hand and therefore may not be exactly what he said, but this is not the case with the things he taught at Brother Follet's funeral.

I can see why he didn't teach it openly very often if the reaction he got was anything like what we see on this forum. My guess is that isn't necessary for everyone to know/understand the principle in order to live the gospel in this life, anymore than it was necessary for the Children of Israel to know about/understand the temple endowment.

I agree that the KFD is pretty solid doctrine. However, your reading of it is flawed. "Grace to grace" and "everlasting burnings" do not equate to reincarnation. It doesnt line up with Holy writ, none of it. We have a few lines from a talk by Brigham and Joseph that have been taken out of context and now we have a whole new doctrine of reincarnation.

Will I come back as a women in my next life? What happens if I die in infancy in my next life? Do I get another do over? Can i come back as a horse next time? I'm serious. Why be constrained to being a human if we can shed bodies like a pair of cloths?

But the KFD DOES specifically say that Jesus' father did what Jesus did.

"The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again."

So if Jesus had to do what his Father did to become like his father and dwell where his father dwells ("everlasting burnings"), what makes you the exception? I'm assuming you believe as most members do that you have the potential to become like your Heavenly Father...but you think you are going to get there a different way than Jesus did and Father did? That's a bigger stretch to me than the idea than that this life isn't a one off.

In answer to your (serious?) questions...if you're asking those, you're missing the point. Multiple probations are not random...they are progressive. Line upon line. To "come back" (which, by the way, assumes that all our lives are one the same world, which I don't necessarily believe) as a horse doesn't seem to serve a purpose of learning more or proving yourself further. But "coming back" in, say, the role of an Adam, and surely as a Savior certainly does. So I would say no, you will probably "come back" in a role that will help you learn to use your priesthood to serve others and get you closer to being a Savior, which would be as a man in a greater capacity than the one you’re currently in. Just my thoughts, of course.

One thing you have to try to dodge, though, is that if you believe this life is the only one, then you must admit that you are superior, or at least much more lucky, than your brothers and sisters born in other eras and circumstances, indicated by the fact that unlike 99.99999 percent of the world's population throughout history, you have knowledge and access to the latter-day gospel of Jesus Christ. "More valiant" is the euphemism we often use in the church. But really would should just come out and say it..."we think we are better than them, just as Michael, Joseph Smith or Jesus are better than us."

"More progressed" is much more in line with the teachings of the of the worth and potential of each child of God, imo.

Just because Christ is doing what the Father is doing does not mean we have to be sacrificial lambs too. He was special in that he was the first born of the Father. No matter how you slice it, that reality will never change. Neither you nor I are the first born of the Father. That role went to Christ and His role was that of Savior. He has promised that thru Him, we can still attain all that He has inherited thru obedience to the gospel. He never said, "maybe in a couple more live's, you might become like me and live on an alien world to be crucified as well."

I do believe the KFD to be inspired and true, but members are making some mighty big assumptions that mirror Buhddist philosophy. We have THIS life to determine our 2nd estate. People who did not have a chance to recieve the gospel in this life are recieving it in the spirit world and their work is being done or will be done in the temple by proxy. If reincarnation were the truth, then temple work would be a redundancy. Why get baptized for the dead when they are going to come back anyways and probably get baptized during that lifetime? Another problem with this reincarnation fantasy, is the contradictions inherent to it. For one, say we get sealed to somebody in this life. Then we reincarnate and we get sealed to another person. Are we sealed to both? As a Male, that may not be farfetched, but what about sisters? Will they have two husbands they are sealed to? Or will they pick their favorite one? Will we keep our gender, or is that fluid too?

Again, I ask you to demonstrate a shred of scripture that indicates that we will be reincarnated. I can demonstrate scores of scripture that state emphatically, that this life is our time to do it. If we dont do it now, we will need the work to be done for us by proxy in the temple. We will not be waiting to be born in another galaxy to try it again.

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 8:50 am

jmack wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 7:00 am

Luke wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 8:52 am

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 7:16 am

Same problem here^. Adam and Eve died on this Earth. If they had been resurrected beings who had lived their full mortality in another world and then were resurrected, they could not have died again. The scriptures speak plainly to this fact. Once resurrection happens, death has no power over us any longer.

Adam was Michael and brought his wife down with him, according to Brigham Young. They fell by sinning, thus became mortal again. BY said we would have to be Adams and Eves.

Plus Joseph Smith explained that we would also have to be Holy Ghosts and Saviours, 'going from grace to grace, exaltation to exaltation until you attain to the resurrection of the dead and can sit in everlasting burnings'. (see King Follett Discourse)

This is not lds doctrine, it is speculation and likely misunderstood when someone wrote it down. The king Follett talk is not part of lds canon. People who believe in mmp should not be presenting it here as sound doctrine and teaching.

The KFD is very, very well documented, as there were thousands of people present, and several taking copious notes. Historians have been able to compare some of those notes and they match very well, so it's unlikely that someone wrote it down wrong.

There are many things that aren't part of LDS canon, but it doesn't mean they aren't true.

It's hard for me to see how someone can brush off *Joseph Smith's* own teachings....either he is THE prophet of the dispensation, or he's not. If we can't accept this, how can we accept anything else he said? I understand that certain statements were written down second or third hand and therefore may not be exactly what he said, but this is not the case with the things he taught at Brother Follet's funeral.

I can see why he didn't teach it openly very often if the reaction he got was anything like what we see on this forum. My guess is that isn't necessary for everyone to know/understand the principle in order to live the gospel in this life, anymore than it was necessary for the Children of Israel to know about/understand the temple endowment.

nightlight wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 2:45 pm

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 8:50 am

jmack wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 7:00 am

Luke wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 8:52 am

Adam was Michael and brought his wife down with him, according to Brigham Young. They fell by sinning, thus became mortal again. BY said we would have to be Adams and Eves.

Plus Joseph Smith explained that we would also have to be Holy Ghosts and Saviours, 'going from grace to grace, exaltation to exaltation until you attain to the resurrection of the dead and can sit in everlasting burnings'. (see King Follett Discourse)

This is not lds doctrine, it is speculation and likely misunderstood when someone wrote it down. The king Follett talk is not part of lds canon. People who believe in mmp should not be presenting it here as sound doctrine and teaching.

The KFD is very, very well documented, as there were thousands of people present, and several taking copious notes. Historians have been able to compare some of those notes and they match very well, so it's unlikely that someone wrote it down wrong.

There are many things that aren't part of LDS canon, but it doesn't mean they aren't true.

It's hard for me to see how someone can brush off *Joseph Smith's* own teachings....either he is THE prophet of the dispensation, or he's not. If we can't accept this, how can we accept anything else he said? I understand that certain statements were written down second or third hand and therefore may not be exactly what he said, but this is not the case with the things he taught at Brother Follet's funeral.

I can see why he didn't teach it openly very often if the reaction he got was anything like what we see on this forum. My guess is that isn't necessary for everyone to know/understand the principle in order to live the gospel in this life, anymore than it was necessary for the Children of Israel to know about/understand the temple endowment.

It's hard for me to understand how people can brush of JS too. He explains when you are resurrected.......you rise to sit in everlasting burnings
KDF
"These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ."
----------
"Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;"(3Ne.27:20-21)

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 1:17 pm

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 11:20 am

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 10:37 am

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 9:48 am
I agree that the KFD is pretty solid doctrine. However, your reading of it is flawed. "Grace to grace" and "everlasting burnings" do not equate to reincarnation. It doesnt line up with Holy writ, none of it. We have a few lines from a talk by Brigham and Joseph that have been taken out of context and now we have a whole new doctrine of reincarnation.

Will I come back as a women in my next life? What happens if I die in infancy in my next life? Do I get another do over? Can i come back as a horse next time? I'm serious. Why be constrained to being a human if we can shed bodies like a pair of cloths?

But the KFD DOES specifically say that Jesus' father did what Jesus did.

"The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again."

So if Jesus had to do what his Father did to become like his father and dwell where his father dwells ("everlasting burnings"), what makes you the exception? I'm assuming you believe as most members do that you have the potential to become like your Heavenly Father...but you think you are going to get there a different way than Jesus did and Father did? That's a bigger stretch to me than the idea than that this life isn't a one off.

In answer to your (serious?) questions...if you're asking those, you're missing the point. Multiple probations are not random...they are progressive. Line upon line. To "come back" (which, by the way, assumes that all our lives are one the same world, which I don't necessarily believe) as a horse doesn't seem to serve a purpose of learning more or proving yourself further. But "coming back" in, say, the role of an Adam, and surely as a Savior certainly does. So I would say no, you will probably "come back" in a role that will help you learn to use your priesthood to serve others and get you closer to being a Savior, which would be as a man in a greater capacity than the one you’re currently in. Just my thoughts, of course.

One thing you have to try to dodge, though, is that if you believe this life is the only one, then you must admit that you are superior, or at least much more lucky, than your brothers and sisters born in other eras and circumstances, indicated by the fact that unlike 99.99999 percent of the world's population throughout history, you have knowledge and access to the latter-day gospel of Jesus Christ. "More valiant" is the euphemism we often use in the church. But really would should just come out and say it..."we think we are better than them, just as Michael, Joseph Smith or Jesus are better than us."

"More progressed" is much more in line with the teachings of the of the worth and potential of each child of God, imo.

Just because Christ is doing what the Father is doing does not mean we have to be sacrificial lambs too. He was special in that he was the first born of the Father. No matter how you slice it, that reality will never change. Neither you nor I are the first born of the Father. That role went to Christ and His role was that of Savior. He has promised that thru Him, we can still attain all that He has inherited thru obedience to the gospel. He never said, "maybe in a couple more live's, you might become like me and live on an alien world to be crucified as well."

I do believe the KFD to be inspired and true, but members are making some mighty big assumptions that mirror Buhddist philosophy. We have THIS life to determine our 2nd estate. People who did not have a chance to recieve the gospel in this life are recieving it in the spirit world and their work is being done or will be done in the temple by proxy. If reincarnation were the truth, then temple work would be a redundancy. Why get baptized for the dead when they are going to come back anyways and probably get baptized during that lifetime? Another problem with this reincarnation fantasy, is the contradictions inherent to it. For one, say we get sealed to somebody in this life. Then we reincarnate and we get sealed to another person. Are we sealed to both? As a Male, that may not be farfetched, but what about sisters? Will they have two husbands they are sealed to? Or will they pick their favorite one? Will we keep our gender, or is that fluid too?

Again, I ask you to demonstrate a shred of scripture that indicates that we will be reincarnated. I can demonstrate scores of scripture that state emphatically, that this life is our time to do it. If we dont do it now, we will need the work to be done for us by proxy in the temple. We will not be waiting to be born in another galaxy to try it again.

Believe as you will, Rick Grimes. You obviously have the eternities figured out.

Quite a coincidence that the Father AND the Savior were both “firstborns” considering the odds of being born first is like one is billions and billions. Perhaps there is more to becoming a first born than just magically being the first spirit child your heavenly parents “created...”

Which makes me wonder, if procreation is eternal, that would mean HF and HM will continue to have spirit babies, right? So that must mean Jesus, as their firstborn spirit child (you can only have one) will save their children forever and ever, right?

*deadpan*

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 10:37 am

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 9:48 am

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 8:50 am

jmack wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 7:00 am

This is not lds doctrine, it is speculation and likely misunderstood when someone wrote it down. The king Follett talk is not part of lds canon. People who believe in mmp should not be presenting it here as sound doctrine and teaching.

The KFD is very, very well documented, as there were thousands of people present, and several taking copious notes. Historians have been able to compare some of those notes and they match very well, so it's unlikely that someone wrote it down wrong.

There are many things that aren't part of LDS canon, but it doesn't mean they aren't true.

It's hard for me to see how someone can brush off *Joseph Smith's* own teachings....either he is THE prophet of the dispensation, or he's not. If we can't accept this, how can we accept anything else he said? I understand that certain statements were written down second or third hand and therefore may not be exactly what he said, but this is not the case with the things he taught at Brother Follet's funeral.

I can see why he didn't teach it openly very often if the reaction he got was anything like what we see on this forum. My guess is that isn't necessary for everyone to know/understand the principle in order to live the gospel in this life, anymore than it was necessary for the Children of Israel to know about/understand the temple endowment.

I agree that the KFD is pretty solid doctrine. However, your reading of it is flawed. "Grace to grace" and "everlasting burnings" do not equate to reincarnation. It doesnt line up with Holy writ, none of it. We have a few lines from a talk by Brigham and Joseph that have been taken out of context and now we have a whole new doctrine of reincarnation.

Will I come back as a women in my next life? What happens if I die in infancy in my next life? Do I get another do over? Can i come back as a horse next time? I'm serious. Why be constrained to being a human if we can shed bodies like a pair of cloths?

But the KFD DOES specifically say that Jesus' father did what Jesus did.

"The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again."

So if Jesus had to do what his Father did to become like his father and dwell where his father dwells ("everlasting burnings"), what makes you the exception? I'm assuming you believe as most members do that you have the potential to become like your Heavenly Father...but you think you are going to get there a different way than Jesus did and Father did? That's a bigger stretch to me than the idea than that this life isn't a one off.

In answer to your (serious?) questions...if you're asking those, you're missing the point. Multiple probations are not random...they are progressive. Line upon line. To "come back" (which, by the way, assumes that all our lives are one the same world, which I don't necessarily believe) as a horse doesn't seem to serve a purpose of learning more or proving yourself further. But "coming back" in, say, the role of an Adam, and surely as a Savior certainly does. So I would say no, you will probably "come back" in a role that will help you learn to use your priesthood to serve others and get you closer to being a Savior, which would be as a man in a greater capacity than the one you’re currently in. Just my thoughts, of course.

One thing you have to try to dodge, though, is that if you believe this life is the only one, then you must admit that you are superior, or at least much more lucky, than your brothers and sisters born in other eras and circumstances, indicated by the fact that unlike 99.99999 percent of the world's population throughout history, you have knowledge and access to the latter-day gospel of Jesus Christ. "More valiant" is the euphemism we often use in the church. But really would should just come out and say it..."we think we are better than them, just as Michael, Joseph Smith or Jesus are better than us."

"More progressed" is much more in line with the teachings of the of the worth and potential of each child of God, imo.

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 3:01 pm

nightlight wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 2:45 pm

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 8:50 am

jmack wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 7:00 am

This is not lds doctrine, it is speculation and likely misunderstood when someone wrote it down. The king Follett talk is not part of lds canon. People who believe in mmp should not be presenting it here as sound doctrine and teaching.

The KFD is very, very well documented, as there were thousands of people present, and several taking copious notes. Historians have been able to compare some of those notes and they match very well, so it's unlikely that someone wrote it down wrong.

There are many things that aren't part of LDS canon, but it doesn't mean they aren't true.

It's hard for me to see how someone can brush off *Joseph Smith's* own teachings....either he is THE prophet of the dispensation, or he's not. If we can't accept this, how can we accept anything else he said? I understand that certain statements were written down second or third hand and therefore may not be exactly what he said, but this is not the case with the things he taught at Brother Follet's funeral.

I can see why he didn't teach it openly very often if the reaction he got was anything like what we see on this forum. My guess is that isn't necessary for everyone to know/understand the principle in order to live the gospel in this life, anymore than it was necessary for the Children of Israel to know about/understand the temple endowment.

It's hard for me to understand how people can brush of JS too. He explains when you are resurrected.......you rise to sit in everlasting burnings
KDF
"These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ."
----------
"Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;"(3Ne.27:20-21)

He doesn't clarify when....he just says "they shall."

nightlight wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 5:36 pm

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 3:01 pm

nightlight wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 2:45 pm

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 8:50 am

The KFD is very, very well documented, as there were thousands of people present, and several taking copious notes. Historians have been able to compare some of those notes and they match very well, so it's unlikely that someone wrote it down wrong.

There are many things that aren't part of LDS canon, but it doesn't mean they aren't true.

It's hard for me to see how someone can brush off *Joseph Smith's* own teachings....either he is THE prophet of the dispensation, or he's not. If we can't accept this, how can we accept anything else he said? I understand that certain statements were written down second or third hand and therefore may not be exactly what he said, but this is not the case with the things he taught at Brother Follet's funeral.

I can see why he didn't teach it openly very often if the reaction he got was anything like what we see on this forum. My guess is that isn't necessary for everyone to know/understand the principle in order to live the gospel in this life, anymore than it was necessary for the Children of Israel to know about/understand the temple endowment.

It's hard for me to understand how people can brush of JS too. He explains when you are resurrected.......you rise to sit in everlasting burnings
KDF
"These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ."
----------
"Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;"(3Ne.27:20-21)

He doesn't clarify when....he just says "they shall."

My point is... im not brushing of the words of our Great Seer.

I believe he makes it clear when they shall do this...

"to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ."

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 5:45 pm You realize your interpretation and mine are compatible, right? I believe what JS says here. But sometimes we say things and, depending on who we are talking to, etc., leave out explanatory details, such as “how” something is accomplished.

If I tell you “I am going to the store,” You may assume I am going to drive and take the shortest route, but would be the statement be less true if you found out later that I actually intended to ride my bike on the backroads?

TylerDurden wrote: ↑January 8th, 2020, 11:16 pm

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑January 8th, 2020, 10:42 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 8th, 2020, 10:26 pm Zero point in coming back to live another life as there will still be a veil. This is the time to live our lives and to prepare to meet God.

This perspective may seem logical at first glance but it falls apart on further inspection.

It's pretty clear from the scriptures that not everyone has equal spiritual knowledge or opportunities to choose between good and evil.

It's one thing to say that a fully accountable murderer, sorcerer, or adulterer, or someone who neglects the poor, would gain nothing from being sent back to do the same thing again - it's in his nature.

If reincarnation exists, the only people who would benefit from it would be those who had little knowledge of good and evil, or were surrounded by bad examples while growing up, or who died as children, or who suffered mental dysfunction, or who lived honest and charitable lives but within a defective religious framework that couldn't bring them back to God.

I know the official church teaching is that these people (the bulk of the human population) will be handled by spirit missionaries and proxy ordinances. I just find that hard to reconcile with many passages in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, where the purpose of life on Earth is to experience moral conflict and prove our love for God and our neighbors. So why bother to create and populate an Earth if most of the heavy lifting is going to be done in the Spirit World?

Just a thought, perhaps the population of the world is a lot smaller than we think. If there are multiple mortalilties, one could come back on this same world again and would be given another chance to follow Christ.

DesertWonderer2 wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 8:15 am

TylerDurden wrote: ↑January 8th, 2020, 11:17 pm

DesertWonderer2 wrote: ↑January 8th, 2020, 9:47 pm MMP? Utterly false doctrine. RUN from whomever is teaching you this.

What are your thoughts on those who claim to remember their previous life then?

Julie Rowe,as an example of this, is deeply mentally disturbed.

Luke wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 11:33 am

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 11:27 am

Luke wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 11:09 am

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 10:59 am

Adam and Eve were immortal, but they had never died before. We don't know that, both Joseph and Brigham seemed to disagree with that thesis.


When resurrected, death has no power over you. You cant "fall again" and have to work out your mortality again. Adam and Eve would have guaranteed their place back in Exaltation because of their role, just like Christ, who condescended

This life was Adam and Eve's go, not before. They hadn't lived their life and died before this world. Brigham et al. disagreed.


What's keeping HF and JC from "falling again" and having to work it out again? They are past that stage.

Its ludicrous to even think this. Brigham et al. didn't think so.

Joseph and Brighams quotes dont mean what you are trying to say they do, btw. "You have to be Adam and Eve's yourselves." - Brigham Young. That seems to agree.

My comments in Green.

Again, you keep writing that "Brigham disagrees" but that's your own private interpretation from a 3rd party like J of D.

Not just Brigham either. Heber C. Kimball and many others also taught this.

I believe there is a lot of truth from this resource, just like there is a lot of truth from the old and new testament apocrypha, however, just like the apocrypha, J of D has some misquotes or straight up fallacies that werent corrected by the source.

I happen to agree.

Your own reasoning doesnt line up. In one line you state Adam and Eve "fell" even though they were resurrected beings, but then you state that Christ and the Father can't fall again because they "are past this"?? So only certain individuals can fall and reincarnated again?? This is what I call strange and deluded doctrine.

No. Adam and Eve fell because that was their role, to begin mankind. The Father could fall if he wanted to but then he would cease to be God - which is what happened to Adam and Eve. They ceased to be Gods so they could begin mankind.

jmack wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 6:56 pm

Luke wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 11:33 am

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 11:27 am

Luke wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 11:09 am

My comments in Green.

Again, you keep writing that "Brigham disagrees" but that's your own private interpretation from a 3rd party like J of D.

Not just Brigham either. Heber C. Kimball and many others also taught this.

I believe there is a lot of truth from this resource, just like there is a lot of truth from the old and new testament apocrypha, however, just like the apocrypha, J of D has some misquotes or straight up fallacies that werent corrected by the source.

I happen to agree.

Your own reasoning doesnt line up. In one line you state Adam and Eve "fell" even though they were resurrected beings, but then you state that Christ and the Father can't fall again because they "are past this"?? So only certain individuals can fall and reincarnated again?? This is what I call strange and deluded doctrine.

No. Adam and Eve fell because that was their role, to begin mankind. The Father could fall if he wanted to but then he would cease to be God - which is what happened to Adam and Eve. They ceased to be Gods so they could begin mankind.

Some converts will bring past beliefs with them when they join the church. Early saints may have been influenced by spiritualism, which was popular in the 19th century. I think some were trying to understand and flesh out certain things, like the eternities and making the common mistake of mixing in philosophies of men with doctrines they learned in the church.

nightlight wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 1:29 pm

TylerDurden wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 12:54 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 11:29 am

Davka wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 10:57 am

That’s assuming that the gift that was rejected by the 1/3 was a body, which it doesn’t say in the scriptures. We make the assumption that what they rejected was a body, when what the scriptures say is that they rejected the Chosen One.

In addition, because a redemption was already prepared and a Savior provided, they weren’t really “casting off” their bodies. They would be resurrected again. That’s the beauty of the plan! What a blessing that God’s children can continue to progress in a mortal sphere (the best condition in which to develop and learn) without the inevitable “death and hell” that Nephi spoke of, and still be saved.

From one grace to another.

There’s also the question of what it means to “go no more out,” which is all over scripture. There’s evidence that it refers to a point that certain (likely a very, very select few) individuals can take upon themselves mortality, but without the risk of falling from their station. If so, Adam and Eve were probably part of that group. But that’s a discussion for a later time

But if the third part rejected to participate in the plan of God (though they are still playing a role according to our teachings) then they are not part of the redemption and resurrection that His plan provides for those who choose Him.

Yes, we assume it’s a body they were rejected. Because that’s what we gain by being born. It’s also what we are reunited with after death and separation. If they were sent to earth (which the scriptures state) then they were sent here by a different means and in a different state than we have been sent here. This is obvious and I believe agreed upon.

Will they ever get a body? It’s believed they will not.

I simply do not believe in MMP as I understand it to be.
Multiple mortal probations means many of this same life or mortality and being in a state of probation. If we come back after being perfected as a Adam or Eve or Savior then it’s most certainly not the same life as this one. The belief of MMP is simply reincarnation and this is false. It has to be or the gospel we teach and preach is not correct. And if I knew I would come back here again to live another life then I wouldn’t be sitting here wasting my time debating the cosmos, I would be out enjoying it with no pressure to be any particular way or have any particular belief system. It would actually be very depressing to know that I would have to do this all over again, lol. To me, it’s not worth it at all. I want one life, not many. I want to be me and no one else. I want to just become my best self as myself. I don’t want to be an Eve or a Mary.

Can’t sons of perdition receive bodies?

No...they rejected the Plan. Will Satan receive a body??? No. The same goes for all who followed his plan. Those who commit the One Sin end up with them.

All people are born with the Light of Christ...Satan has no part in this. Their role is temptation/opposition. Hence their insanity&hate

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 7:00 pm

jmack wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 6:56 pm

Luke wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 11:33 am

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 11:27 am
Again, you keep writing that "Brigham disagrees" but that's your own private interpretation from a 3rd party like J of D.

Not just Brigham either. Heber C. Kimball and many others also taught this.

I believe there is a lot of truth from this resource, just like there is a lot of truth from the old and new testament apocrypha, however, just like the apocrypha, J of D has some misquotes or straight up fallacies that werent corrected by the source.

I happen to agree.

Your own reasoning doesnt line up. In one line you state Adam and Eve "fell" even though they were resurrected beings, but then you state that Christ and the Father can't fall again because they "are past this"?? So only certain individuals can fall and reincarnated again?? This is what I call strange and deluded doctrine.

No. Adam and Eve fell because that was their role, to begin mankind. The Father could fall if he wanted to but then he would cease to be God - which is what happened to Adam and Eve. They ceased to be Gods so they could begin mankind.

Some converts will bring past beliefs with them when they join the church. Early saints may have been influenced by spiritualism, which was popular in the 19th century. I think some were trying to understand and flesh out certain things, like the eternities and making the common mistake of mixing in philosophies of men with doctrines they learned in the church.

But we are totally beyond that. Totally.

jmack wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 6:41 pm

TylerDurden wrote: ↑January 8th, 2020, 11:16 pm

Believing Joseph wrote: ↑January 8th, 2020, 10:42 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 8th, 2020, 10:26 pm Zero point in coming back to live another life as there will still be a veil. This is the time to live our lives and to prepare to meet God.

This perspective may seem logical at first glance but it falls apart on further inspection.

It's pretty clear from the scriptures that not everyone has equal spiritual knowledge or opportunities to choose between good and evil.

It's one thing to say that a fully accountable murderer, sorcerer, or adulterer, or someone who neglects the poor, would gain nothing from being sent back to do the same thing again - it's in his nature.

If reincarnation exists, the only people who would benefit from it would be those who had little knowledge of good and evil, or were surrounded by bad examples while growing up, or who died as children, or who suffered mental dysfunction, or who lived honest and charitable lives but within a defective religious framework that couldn't bring them back to God.

I know the official church teaching is that these people (the bulk of the human population) will be handled by spirit missionaries and proxy ordinances. I just find that hard to reconcile with many passages in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, where the purpose of life on Earth is to experience moral conflict and prove our love for God and our neighbors. So why bother to create and populate an Earth if most of the heavy lifting is going to be done in the Spirit World?

Just a thought, perhaps the population of the world is a lot smaller than we think. If there are multiple mortalilties, one could come back on this same world again and would be given another chance to follow Christ.

If this is true, there's no point in temple work. So, I think you gotta choose. Either you believe in this multiple lives belief or lds doctrine, because they aren't compatible.

Davka wrote: ↑January 10th, 2020, 11:36 am

nightlight wrote: ↑January 10th, 2020, 11:08 am

Davka wrote: ↑January 10th, 2020, 10:49 am

nightlight wrote: ↑January 10th, 2020, 10:26 am

Don't try to change scriptures to fit your views. It clearly say we won't be separated from our bodies again

Totally not trying to be contentious here, just want to ask an honest question and make a point.

Do you agree with the standard LDS understanding that we have the potential to become like our heavenly parents? To become gods and oversee our own worlds?

Yes.

I believe I'll achieve this the same way you will...by becoming one with Jesus.

Once I do this I come to an understanding of ALL THINGS.

Do you believe you'll leave your Celestial Body to become the new Eve???? Somehow that will make you a God?

No sister...you become a God by killing your natural woman. This is how Eve became God. Not by having the first children.

You will not fall or die again...I guarantee this, sister.

Thanks for answering, friend.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. As I see it, a child doesn't get to bypass growing up stages just because his older brother or sister did. They can, however, learn from older siblings and accept their help in the process. We eventually become like our parents by going through the same experiences they did. Once we've done so and have actually earned our equal status as adults, then we can be one.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 4:48 pm

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 10:37 am

Rick Grimes wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 9:48 am

Davka wrote: ↑January 13th, 2020, 8:50 am

The KFD is very, very well documented, as there were thousands of people present, and several taking copious notes. Historians have been able to compare some of those notes and they match very well, so it's unlikely that someone wrote it down wrong.

There are many things that aren't part of LDS canon, but it doesn't mean they aren't true.

It's hard for me to see how someone can brush off *Joseph Smith's* own teachings....either he is THE prophet of the dispensation, or he's not. If we can't accept this, how can we accept anything else he said? I understand that certain statements were written down second or third hand and therefore may not be exactly what he said, but this is not the case with the things he taught at Brother Follet's funeral.

I can see why he didn't teach it openly very often if the reaction he got was anything like what we see on this forum. My guess is that isn't necessary for everyone to know/understand the principle in order to live the gospel in this life, anymore than it was necessary for the Children of Israel to know about/understand the temple endowment.

I agree that the KFD is pretty solid doctrine. However, your reading of it is flawed. "Grace to grace" and "everlasting burnings" do not equate to reincarnation. It doesnt line up with Holy writ, none of it. We have a few lines from a talk by Brigham and Joseph that have been taken out of context and now we have a whole new doctrine of reincarnation.

Will I come back as a women in my next life? What happens if I die in infancy in my next life? Do I get another do over? Can i come back as a horse next time? I'm serious. Why be constrained to being a human if we can shed bodies like a pair of cloths?

But the KFD DOES specifically say that Jesus' father did what Jesus did.

"The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again."

So if Jesus had to do what his Father did to become like his father and dwell where his father dwells ("everlasting burnings"), what makes you the exception? I'm assuming you believe as most members do that you have the potential to become like your Heavenly Father...but you think you are going to get there a different way than Jesus did and Father did? That's a bigger stretch to me than the idea than that this life isn't a one off.

In answer to your (serious?) questions...if you're asking those, you're missing the point. Multiple probations are not random...they are progressive. Line upon line. To "come back" (which, by the way, assumes that all our lives are one the same world, which I don't necessarily believe) as a horse doesn't seem to serve a purpose of learning more or proving yourself further. But "coming back" in, say, the role of an Adam, and surely as a Savior certainly does. So I would say no, you will probably "come back" in a role that will help you learn to use your priesthood to serve others and get you closer to being a Savior, which would be as a man in a greater capacity than the one you’re currently in. Just my thoughts, of course.

One thing you have to try to dodge, though, is that if you believe this life is the only one, then you must admit that you are superior, or at least much more lucky, than your brothers and sisters born in other eras and circumstances, indicated by the fact that unlike 99.99999 percent of the world's population throughout history, you have knowledge and access to the latter-day gospel of Jesus Christ. "More valiant" is the euphemism we often use in the church. But really would should just come out and say it..."we think we are better than them, just as Michael, Joseph Smith or Jesus are better than us."

"More progressed" is much more in line with the teachings of the of the worth and potential of each child of God, imo.

What is meant by everlasting burnings? Does that mean hell or something else?