What does “Families are forever” even mean?

[Shawn Henry]

So your view of line upon line is that Joseph would lie to people? He was "testing" them by preaching false doctrine?

How else would the test come through the line upon line process? It's the way it is even possible. That's the whole test, the saints have to have the option of believing it is the next precept. If they were taught it from an outside source, they would automatically know to reject it and it wouldn't be a test.

It has to come from the same source, or the test doesn't work.

Do you think God could test his saints by revealing something to Alexander Campbell?

The only way D&C 98:12 makes sense is that the next precept appears to come from the same source.

The doctrine is confirmed in Isaiah:

"But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

It is the line upon line process that snares God's people.

[Shawn Henry]

D&C 84
45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

Of course, the word of the Lord is truth, but the word of the Lord still will be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. Stop ignoring what you already know to be true.

[Shawn Henry]

why were Adam and Eve married before the fall?

On what scripture do you base that statement?

[nightlight]

why were Adam and Eve married before the fall?

On what scripture do you base that statement?

Genesis 2:25
King James Version
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

[nightlight]

Bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh....

Yet they will not be resurrected as one???????

I don't think so.



"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

[Pazooka]

If Jesus becomes our Father, in the covenant, I’ve always thought it was possible that the unbroken chain of righteous parents to children that will be finalized at the end of this world would be this:

Through joint-heirship with Christ, the earth parents are empowered to act, in council, with their children in the establishment of the children’s own families. I think a world such as ours requires the involvement of the “elohim” and that we don’t currently grasp what that means. I think there’s a place, in the eternities, for the help our parents can give us - and if they are not worthy, the next in line will have that right.

At the same time, I think I recall Joseph Smith did not have his children sealed to him - which could mean nothing. But the questions are still there.

I don't think that the familial choices made in a fallen probationary state will dictate the structure of God's family in the eternities.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here - is it a predestination thing?

[Shawn Henry]

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Thanks for the reference.

I don't see that meaning much beyond being naked though. If there is not yet any carnal flesh, then being naked is meaningless. I could stand there naked with them and none of us would think anything of it. I see no sign of a sexual relationship.

I don't think being one means getting jiggy with it. After all, Jesus tells us to be one just as he and the Father are one.

[Shawn Henry]

I can't believe so few understood my initial joke; dyaladic...dial-a-dic. Oh well, win some, lose some.

[Artaxerxes]

So your view of line upon line is that Joseph would lie to people? He was "testing" them by preaching false doctrine?

How else would the test come through the line upon line process? It's the way it is even possible. That's the whole test, the saints have to have the option of believing it is the next precept. If they were taught it from an outside source, they would automatically know to reject it and it wouldn't be a test.

It has to come from the same source, or the test doesn't work.

Do you think God could test his saints by revealing something to Alexander Campbell?

The only way D&C 98:12 makes sense is that the next precept appears to come from the same source.

The doctrine is confirmed in Isaiah:

"But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

It is the line upon line process that snares God's people.

The Lord tries us through commandments not lies. He gives us a few commandments/a few responsibilities, then more and more. "And when he shall prove himself faithful in all things that shall be entrusted unto his care, yea, even a few things, he shall be made ruler over many;"

I don't understand what Alexander Campbell has to do with it.

No, the line upon line needs to come from God. It can come through whoever. It's about us building our faith.

It snares us if we don't succeed, not if we do. If we do succeed, we get more. That's why it's line upon line.

[nightlight]

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Thanks for the reference.

I don't see that meaning much beyond being naked though. If there is not yet any carnal flesh, then being naked is meaningless. I could stand there naked with them and none of us would think anything of it. I see no sign of a sexual relationship.

I don't think being one means getting jiggy with it. After all, Jesus tells us to be one just as he and the Father are one.

Why aren't you quoting our whole conversation?

I said they were married before the fall.

You asked what scripture I based that off of.

And....sex is only one aspect of marriage

Is your wife not your best friend,confidant,lover etc?

Why would Adam need a woman before the fall if he was already complete

Male and female are meant to be together

[Artaxerxes]

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Thanks for the reference.

I don't see that meaning much beyond being naked though. If there is not yet any carnal flesh, then being naked is meaningless. I could stand there naked with them and none of us would think anything of it. I see no sign of a sexual relationship.

I don't think being one means getting jiggy with it. After all, Jesus tells us to be one just as he and the Father are one.

It says man and his wife.

[Shawn Henry]

It snares us if we don't succeed, not if we do. If we do succeed, we get more. That's why it's line upon line.

That's a wrested interpretation of what the scripture could mean, but that is not what it says. Try letting the text speak for itself without you forcing an apologetic spin on it.

The text says that it is the line upon line process that snares and breaks the saints. It's not talking about culling the disobedient, it's talking about all the saints.

We also have a precedent for this when the children of Israel asked for more than they could handle. They sought after things they shouldn't have, and the Lord gave it to them.

People choosing disobedience is not even a snare. A snare is a trap that is set, a true test of our truth, light, and knowledge.

[Shawn Henry]

I said they were married before the fall.

You asked what scripture I based that off of.

Yes, that is my bad! You said "before the fall" and my mind immediately jumped to the pre-earth life, and I started thinking of how there are no such scriptures about the spirit world. My bad.

It says man and his wife.

[Artaxerxes]

So your view of line upon line is that Joseph would lie to people? He was "testing" them by preaching false doctrine?

How else would the test come through the line upon line process? It's the way it is even possible. That's the whole test, the saints have to have the option of believing it is the next precept. If they were taught it from an outside source, they would automatically know to reject it and it wouldn't be a test.

It has to come from the same source, or the test doesn't work.

Do you think God could test his saints by revealing something to Alexander Campbell?

The only way D&C 98:12 makes sense is that the next precept appears to come from the same source.

The doctrine is confirmed in Isaiah:

"But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

It is the line upon line process that snares God's people.

If this were the only passage that taught the principle of line upon line, that would be one thing. The bulk of the line upon line passages taught in the D&C make clear it's about advancement by pieces.

But even taking the Isaiah passage by itself, it's perfectly clear:
9 ¶ Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

So in verses 9-10, he teaches the principle. He prepares people with smaller things, then gives them greater things, as you would give a small child milk first.

In verse 12, it pivots to talking about people who would not hear. Only THEN does he talk about it being a snare.

God does not seek to snare us. Everything he gives us is to help us.

When did the Israelites ask for MORE than what they had? Their pattern was always to ask for less.

A snare is not a test. It is teaching the very simple principle that "For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation." By rejecting the truth that they received, they are under greater condemnation.

[gruden2.0]

Another thread filled with straining at gnats, all the while ignoring something very important, the proverbial elephant in the room.

To seal someone to you - or to be sealed to someone else, ie. a Father - requires the fulness of the priesthood. Nothing short of that will do. Brigham Young confused the matter by bringing up 'keys'. Without the fulness of the priesthood, you have neither the power nor the keys to seal anything. With the fulness of the priesthood comes the sealing power; what is sealed on earth is sealed in heaven.

I remember when I went through this, if you listen very carefully to what the officiator says, there is no real sealing. It's just some vague promise of what can be, basically left up to God. It is what 'may' be. All the Mormons think they have these eternal families, just like they think the endowment gives them exaltation, but they have nothing. People do not pay attention, either to the scriptures or what is even being said in these ceremonies. The temple officiators cannot seal you to anything because they do not possess the power to do so. It's really that simple. These things are to show you a pattern, how things are supposed to be done, but if you want them you have to get them from God.

How do I know this? The scriptures says so:

For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

It says right there it was taken, and the way to get it back was build a temple (and Nauvoo house). Later in vvs 91-95 it talks about Hyrum and Joseph gaining this power, 'that once were put upon him that was my servant Oliver Cowdery.' So this was once had, taken away, then offered again but the two who would have it were killed and the temple never finished. So there you are.

Joseph wasn't just talking about sealing husbands and wives, but potentially anyone thought of as worthy. Joseph spoke of walking through the gates of heaven with those that would come with him - those that had been sealed. He was speaking of something bigger, that the power of Elijah could deliver the promise of Abraham and be shared with and among us. We could be patriarchs of families like Abraham.

But we can't do it, so why are we arguing about it? We should be asking God to bring us someone who has been granted this power instead of pretending we have something we don't. Even here we see some very pretty testimonies about eternal families but there's no substance to it. It is all delusion and vanity.

[Shawn Henry]

If this were the only passage that taught the principle of line upon line, that would be one thing. The bulk of the line upon line passages taught in the D&C make clear it's about advancement by pieces.

Of course, that goes without saying, but it is clearly about both. The Lord uses the process to do both.

"A snare is not a test." A snare is absolutely a test. How else is a test administered without the possibility of ensnarement or failure.

[Artaxerxes]

If this were the only passage that taught the principle of line upon line, that would be one thing. The bulk of the line upon line passages taught in the D&C make clear it's about advancement by pieces.

Of course, that goes without saying, but it is clearly about both. The Lord uses the process to do both.

"A snare is not a test." A snare is absolutely a test. How else is a test administered without the possibility of ensnarement or failure.

Traps are not the same thing as consequences. A snare or trap means something very specific.

[Shawn Henry]

Traps are not the same thing as consequences. A snare or trap means something very specific.

You're not even making sense anymore. I never said traps were the same thing.

You are free to interpret those two verses however you want.

[ransomme]

If Jesus becomes our Father, in the covenant, I’ve always thought it was possible that the unbroken chain of righteous parents to children that will be finalized at the end of this world would be this:

Through joint-heirship with Christ, the earth parents are empowered to act, in council, with their children in the establishment of the children’s own families. I think a world such as ours requires the involvement of the “elohim” and that we don’t currently grasp what that means. I think there’s a place, in the eternities, for the help our parents can give us - and if they are not worthy, the next in line will have that right.

At the same time, I think I recall Joseph Smith did not have his children sealed to him - which could mean nothing. But the questions are still there.

I don't think that the familial choices made in a fallen probationary state will dictate the structure of God's family in the eternities.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here - is it a predestination thing?

No, I don't believe in predestination, it's about how little wet know and how chaotic things are in this state. Agency has consequences and often it's other people's choices that effect others. From war to traffic accident. To base the order of God's house (because God's house is a house of order) for the rest of eternity on such chaos seems incompatible.

Add to that, that we are all actors with amnesia/a veil over or minds.

I'm sure God has a better way of organizing.

[Chip]

Considering how Jesus said that His gospel was:

1) faith in Him
2) repentance
3) baptism
4) receiving the Holy Spirit
5) NOTHING MORE and NOTHING LESS

...then how can things now be squared when the gatekeepers to all the Mormon gospel innovations are working with the secret combination outlined in Ether 8 to push COVID, praise the pope, and engage in Agenda 2030? They are making the church INHOSPITABLE to those who care about truth. Truth is nowadays unwelcome in the church.

The leaders' NWO affiliation brings into question EVERYTHING that is uniquely Mormon, excepting the Book of Mormon, I feel, since it squares with other scripture.

It is entirely sensible to go back and strip things down to the essentials when the add-ons have been "bricked", so to speak.

I believe God is involved in this process and we are supposed to choose truth now, not cultural norms that would normalize grotesque lies.

Crazy how someone here flipped out and started calling people who think like me "sons of perdition". This is like the Democrats squealing about "the end of Democracy", when what's really on the table is the end of the Democrats.

[Artaxerxes]

Traps are not the same thing as consequences. A snare or trap means something very specific.

You're not even making sense anymore. I never said traps were the same thing.

You are free to interpret those two verses however you want.

That is the clear implication of your statement that "How else is a test administered without the possibility of ensnarement or failure."

[Reluctant Watchman]

Considering how Jesus said that His gospel was:

1) faith in Him
2) repentance
3) baptism
4) receiving the Holy Spirit
5) NOTHING MORE and NOTHING LESS

I do have to challenge this claim. I hear it often. What Christ actually said is that a person is to "build" upon this gospel. He never said it was the only thing. Read 3 Nephi 11 again:

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

Christ and His gospel are the foundation that we build upon. Christ gave many wonderful sermons, even many wonderful doctrines to people all over the world. Some of those doctrines He asked them not to write down. Given that many of us believe additional records will/have come forth, there is a lot to contemplate as Christ's gospel.

[Chip]

Considering how Jesus said that His gospel was:

1) faith in Him
2) repentance
3) baptism
4) receiving the Holy Spirit
5) NOTHING MORE and NOTHING LESS

I do have to challenge this claim. I hear it often. What Christ actually said is that a person is to "build" upon this gospel. He never said it was the only thing. Read 3 Nephi 11 again:

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

Christ and His gospel are the foundation that we build upon. Christ gave many wonderful sermons, even many wonderful doctrines to people all over the world. Some of those doctrines He asked them not to write down. Given that many of us believe additional records will/have come forth, there is a lot to contemplate as Christ's gospel.

It seems to me that the church has declared much more than what Christ declared as His doctrine.

Another "tell" I sense amid all this is the mind-numbing close-mindedness of members who can't even contemplate things. They have been progressively and severely brainwashed. There's just no way that God wants things that way. I smell a huge rat. I think the humble Christian who believes Christ's basic doctrine stands more sure before God than the cocksure Mormon who can't even think, but insists that he has the truth.

[Reluctant Watchman]

It seems to me that the church has declared much more than what Christ declared as His doctrine.

Another "tell" I sense amid all this is the mind-numbing close-mindedness of members who can't even contemplate things. They have been progressively and severely brainwashed. There's just no way that God wants things that way. I smell a huge rat. I think the humble Christian who believes Christ's basic doctrine stands more sure before God than the cocksure Mormon who can't even think, but insists that he has the truth.

Oh, I certainly agree that the church has both added to AND removed from Christ's doctrine. I used to peruse several groups on social media that incessantly beat the drum that faith, repentance, and baptism were it. Done. No more. To which I could ask questions like: What are we repenting of? What is the entirety of Christ's gospel? What is the entirety of truth? What does it mean to take Christ's name upon you?

As far as the brainwashing of members, most certainly. It starts almost from birth. "Follow the prophet." The traditions in the church have infantilized the membership. They can only ask questions so far as the leadership leash (aka keys) allows them to. Ask anything outside of their purview and you are stepping on eggshells.

[Luke]

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Thanks for the reference.

I don't see that meaning much beyond being naked though. If there is not yet any carnal flesh, then being naked is meaningless. I could stand there naked with them and none of us would think anything of it. I see no sign of a sexual relationship.

I don't think being one means getting jiggy with it. After all, Jesus tells us to be one just as he and the Father are one.

It says “the man and his WIFE”. They were married.