Does God have a physical body? (poll)

[Reluctant Watchman]

Here’s the subsequent section on Eternal Life. Joseph clearly taught that we are to become gods ourselves. (If this account can be taken as valid anyway.)

Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ
I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) 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. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me.

[Reluctant Watchman]

The footnote for this goes to John 5:19. The implications of this verse would strongly imply that God and Christ are not the same person:

“The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he [the Father] doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” (John 5:19).

[spiritMan]

Well… this is interesting. Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:305

God An Exalted Man
I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

Go find the original source for this, rather than some edited version

[Reluctant Watchman]

Here are more insights from JS, History of the Church:

The Righteous to Dwell in Everlasting Burnings
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. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said.

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not contained in the Bible. If I do, I think there are so many over-wise men here that they would cry “treason” and put me to death. So I will go to the old Bible and turn commentator today.

Hey, there’s that word: “exaltation.”

[Reluctant Watchman]

Well… this is interesting. Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:305

God An Exalted Man
I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

Go find the original source for this, rather than some edited version

And what do you think I’ll find there? What differences will there be? By your comment I assume you have some insights into this.

[Reluctant Watchman]

The Council of the Gods and the importance of the Holy Ghost. The Nemenhah Records shed quite a bit of light on the “why” and “how” the HG plays such a role as described here by Joseph:

A Council of the Gods
In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted [prepared] a plan to create the world and people it. When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach Him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer.

When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to Him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to him, he is ready to come to us.

Now, I ask all who hear me, why the learned men who are preaching salvation, say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The reason is, that they are unlearned in the things of God, and have not the gift of the Holy Ghost; they account it blasphemy in any one to contradict their idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together. The Holy Ghost does, anyhow, and he is within me, and comprehends more than all the world; and I will associate myself with him.

The scholars of his day would surely set Joseph aside as pompous and prideful for these statements.

[A Disciple]

Physics informs us that matter is energy. I believe God has a body of energy. How does that energy manifest itself? However God chooses. Energy is physical. It is real. So I believe God has a physical body and I believe God can present himself as having a body of "flesh and blood". But clearly it is not a body of our type of flesh and blood. Flesh and Blood are corruptible. God is not corruptible. So we should not err by equating God's body of "flesh and blood" to ours.

When Jesus appeared to the Brother of Jared it was before Jesus was ever born in mortality. Yet Jesus presented a body of "flesh and blood". Jesus explains he will take upon himself flesh and blood.

Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

Jesus later teaches that he took up a body of "flesh and blood" only to lay it down, and then take it up again. I suppose it is blasphemy to say that God is a "transformer". But transform God has done.

I view the promise of a physical resurrection as the promise that (1) our selves - our being - will live after our death in this mortality (2) there is a process by which our being is elevated to a greater physical form that is "perfect" (3) our ability to use this "perfect" physical form will be limited by our spiritual capacity / intelligence.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Here are a few thoughts from Joseph on the idea of immortal intelligence. While intelligence itself is immortal, there appears to be high and lower forms of intelligence. I guess that should be an obvious statement, but is worth pondering upon as we consider our own emergences and path of exaltation.

The Immortal Intelligence
I have another subject to dwell upon, which is calculated to exalt man; but it is impossible for me to say much on this subject. I shall therefore just touch upon it, for time will not permit me to say all. It is associated with the subject of the resurrection of the dead,—namely, the soul—the mind of man—the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better. Hear it, all ye ends of the world; for God has told me so; and if you don’t believe me, it will not make the truth without effect. I will make a man appear a fool before I get through; if he does not believe it. I am going to tell of things more noble.

We say that God Himself is a self-existing being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says, “God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam’s spirit, and so became a living body.”

The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself. 5 I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth,

[Page 311]

I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; 6 for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.

I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man—on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man—the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. 7 All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.

[Page 312]

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits. 8

This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know that it is good; and when I tell you of these things which were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Physics informs us that matter is energy. I believe God has a body of energy. How does that energy manifest itself? However God chooses. Energy is physical. It is real. So I believe God has a physical body and I believe God can present himself as having a body of "flesh and blood". But clearly it is not a body of our type of flesh and blood. Flesh and Blood are corruptible. God is not corruptible. So we should not err by equating God's body of "flesh and blood" to ours.

When Jesus appeared to the Brother of Jared it was before Jesus was ever born in mortality. Yet Jesus presented a body of "flesh and blood". Jesus explains he will take upon himself flesh and blood.

Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

Jesus later teaches that he took up a body of "flesh and blood" only to lay it down, and then take it up again. I suppose it is blasphemy to say that God is a "transformer". But transform God has done.

I view the promise of a physical resurrection as the promise that (1) our selves - our being - will live after our death in this mortality (2) there is a process by which our being is elevated to a greater physical form that is "perfect" (3) our ability to use this "perfect" physical form will be limited by our spiritual capacity / intelligence.

The Ascension of Isaiah speaks of his “robes” (various bodies) residing in the 7th heaven. While I do believe great “transformations” do and have occurred (for eons and eons of time), there’s something in me that perceives a distinction in a resurrected or exalted Being vs. a “robe” or stage of progression.

[Telavian]

Well… this is interesting. Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:305

That is the King Follett discourse which also says there will be Gods who are the size of children for eternity and sit on little children thrones.
The whole speech was Joseph making stuff up in an attempt to show he was still inspired.

"Children dwell and exercise power, throne upon throne, dominion upon dominion, in the same form just as you laid them down. Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature."

[Reluctant Watchman]

Well… this is interesting. Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:305

That is the King Follett discourse which also says there will be Gods who are the size of children for eternity and sit on little children thrones.
The whole speech was Joseph making stuff up in an attempt to show he was still inspired.

"Children dwell and exercise power, throne upon throne, dominion upon dominion, in the same form just as you laid them down. Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature."

That’s quite possible. I’d have to see the source to get the full context though. “Children” could have various meanings.
BTW, I’m not finding the source of your quote… maybe I’m just a lazy learning by using Google.

In today’s world Joseph surely would come off as “full of himself” in these discourses.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Ok… I found a more expanded quote, but still no source within the King Follett discourse:

A question about parents receiving their children. Will mothers have their children in eternity? Yes! Yes! Mothers, you will have your children. For they will have it without price; for their debt of redemption is paid. There is no damnation awaiting them for they are in the spirit. But as the child dies, so will it rise from the dead and be living in the burning of God and possessing all the intelligence of a God. It will never grow, it will be the child in its precise form as it was before it died out of your arms. Children dwell and exercise power, throne upon throne, dominion upon dominion, in the same form just as you laid them down. Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature.

I have to believe, based upon the greater context of the sermon, that these children do not remain in that state for eternity should they choose to progress.

[Reluctant Watchman]

FYI, here’s a PDF of the King Follett discourse. I cannot find the quote above in this sermon:
https://emp.byui.edu/jexj/new/talks/tal ... course.pdf

[A Disciple]

The whole speech was Joseph making stuff up in an attempt to show he was still inspired.

I view all pronouncements concerning our post-mortal existence and society as extrapolations, to be considered figuratively and not literally. I do take Jesus's words literally that in his house there are many mansions and he has prepared a place for us. Beyond this promise of immortal residence, we can only extrapolate. I agree that extrapolators may do so in order to appear wise and important. I think Joseph had notions, based on his spiritual experiences, that gave him confidence to extrapolate the way he did. But nothing Joseph Smith said or any other prophet or pundit says about the post-mortal existence can override the Doctrine of Christ.

For that we have Jesus's words and they are plain. The reason for all that Jesus did was to allow each of us to stand before God and be righteously judged. And for this to happen we need to be resurrected - to shed our mortal body of flesh and blood and take on a "perfect" body. We also need to repent and have a chance at spiritual redemption. Jesus provides solutions to these two obstacles. And because he did this it is left up to each of us what we choose and how we will be judged when we stand before God.

13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.

18 And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

20 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.

[Telavian]

FYI, here’s a PDF of the King Follett discourse. I cannot find the quote above in this sermon:
https://emp.byui.edu/jexj/new/talks/tal ... course.pdf

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the- ... ated-text/

[Reluctant Watchman]

FYI, here’s a PDF of the King Follett discourse. I cannot find the quote above in this sermon:
https://emp.byui.edu/jexj/new/talks/tal ... course.pdf

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the- ... ated-text/

I did a search for “throne”. Not a single reference for that word.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I have to admit that knowing who the men were who “preserved” this record, I’d question everything in it. In reality, if it was written by the hand of man, we SHOULD question all things.

“The King Follett Discourse of April 7, 1844, perhaps the most significant sermon delivered by the Prophet Joseph Smith, was preserved in manuscript form by Thomas Bullock, William Clayton, Willard Richards, and Wilford Woodruff. Though a version of this sermon was published only four months later in the Times and Seasons…”

[Telavian]

FYI, here’s a PDF of the King Follett discourse. I cannot find the quote above in this sermon:
https://emp.byui.edu/jexj/new/talks/tal ... course.pdf

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the- ... ated-text/

I did a search for “throne”. Not a single reference for that word.

I have no idea what you are searching. I gave you a link. The same link I used.

[Telavian]

I have to admit that knowing who the men were who “preserved” this record, I’d question everything in it. In reality, if it was written by the hand of man, we SHOULD question all things.

“The King Follett Discourse of April 7, 1844, perhaps the most significant sermon delivered by the Prophet Joseph Smith, was preserved in manuscript form by Thomas Bullock, William Clayton, Willard Richards, and Wilford Woodruff. Though a version of this sermon was published only four months later in the Times and Seasons…”

Then please don't ever use it to bolster your claim again.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I have to admit that knowing who the men were who “preserved” this record, I’d question everything in it. In reality, if it was written by the hand of man, we SHOULD question all things.

“The King Follett Discourse of April 7, 1844, perhaps the most significant sermon delivered by the Prophet Joseph Smith, was preserved in manuscript form by Thomas Bullock, William Clayton, Willard Richards, and Wilford Woodruff. Though a version of this sermon was published only four months later in the Times and Seasons…”

Then please don't ever use it to bolster your claim again.

LOL, are you serious? I guess my overall premise was lost on you. We should question the words of ALL men. I’m sure you have a tendency to curate the sources you use in your videos. We all do this to support ideas that we align with. All people do this. I don’t hold Joseph on a pedestal, but he also wasn’t a dumb farmboy.

Not to mention the fact that I shared the Discourse quotes for context and gave very little commentary. Do these discourse quotes support my claims? Yes.

[Reluctant Watchman]

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the- ... ated-text/

I did a search for “throne”. Not a single reference for that word.

I have no idea what you are searching. I gave you a link. The same link I used.

Hey, there it is. I had to download the PDF and open it in another app. For some reason my browser search function wasn’t working on several different versions of this discourse.

BTW, I think the greater context for this quote changes what you were implying. Particularly given the greater context of the entire sermon.

[Reluctant Watchman]

D&C 132 is a great example of analyzing a source. When you look at what we are told is the original hand-written revelation we see more than one handwriting style. IMO latter church leaders did a hack job on one of Joseph’s revelations, piecing together a narrative that, in the end, completely changed the meaning of things.

I know people like to put all of their eggs in the basket when a verse of scripture purports to be the words of Christ. But, in the end, they are the writings and interpretations of men. Do I think many of those verses that were supposedly inspired by Christ are true? Yes, I think many of them are. I believe one of the more profound verses of scripture in the BoM is 2 Nephi 28:30-31:

30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The importance of the Holy Ghost cannot be overstated.

[Reluctant Watchman]

One more thought on sources. It is human nature to elevate a given writing based on the source. I believe that’s why so much effort is made in trying to prove the historicity of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or any other writing we constitute as “scripture.” In the end, I think we all want to strive for reliable sources of information. Some writings and works are called “scripture” because they often deal strictly with religious or spiritual themes. In reality, “scripture” could simply be defined as an inspired writing. Scripture can be a few words or entire books.

Personally, I question more the source of writings in the church that came after Joseph was murdered. I find more truth in the writings of Joesph (often published on record) than in those who took over the church after him. The gospel and teachings of Joseph while he was alive are very different than the way the church operates today and the “gospel” they live.

On another note, I think we can become a bit myopic (borrowing a favorite word from Nelson) to various doctrines when we focus so heavily on a single verse or a few passages. IMO the doctrine of the Godhead is spoken of through all sorts of writings. When the compilation of those writings is considered together, I strongly believe that three distinct Beings are shown.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Ok… I found a more expanded quote, but still no source within the King Follett discourse:

A question about parents receiving their children. Will mothers have their children in eternity? Yes! Yes! Mothers, you will have your children. For they will have it without price; for their debt of redemption is paid. There is no damnation awaiting them for they are in the spirit. But as the child dies, so will it rise from the dead and be living in the burning of God and possessing all the intelligence of a God. It will never grow, it will be the child in its precise form as it was before it died out of your arms. Children dwell and exercise power, throne upon throne, dominion upon dominion, in the same form just as you laid them down. Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature.

I have to believe, based upon the greater context of the sermon, that these children do not remain in that state for eternity should they choose to progress.

FWIW, the afterlife is gonna be really interesting to see what reality actually is.

[A Disciple]

Agree RW. I see most extrapolations of the afterworld as attempts to apply understanding of doctrine / theology and human fairness to the great question of what happens next? When this is done in consideration of doctrine we know / claim to be true (ie canonized scripture) the extrapolation is mainly just a way of us asserting that God is just and merciful.

Canonized scripture does not provide all answers. The main two questions being the meaning of the Plan of Salvation for those who die young and those born with severe disabilities. Joseph arrived at the determination - consistent with Moroni chapter 8 - that children who die are saved in God's glory. Joseph Smith then extrapolated that such children are saved consistent with God's determination that they would have secured Exaltation if they had been permitted to live out mortality.

This extrapolation by Joseph Smith presents a huge problem! If God already knows the spiritual condition for each of us in the now and in the future, what is the point of mortality? Why have any of us endure mortality if God already knows who are the exalted ones? Just have us born and then immediately die and we can get on with it. To my understanding, there is no fix for the problem Joseph Smith created with his extrapolation that God already knows who is worthy of exaltation.

To my understanding no Christian religion provides a fully satisfactory explanation for mortality. If mortal experience is necessary than what happens to the many who die without having a full mortal experience. And if the answer is such individuals don't need mortal experience then why? This answer brings us back to the question of why have mortality other than to be born? Why bother with all the stuff that happens after birth if we can get an equivalent experience somewhere else?

Observe that after the many decades of LDS leaders declaring the absolute necessity of marriage in the New & Everlasting Covenant, suddenly Elder Oaks teaches that we don't really know much about the afterworld and God is fair and just and we each will receive the blessings appropriate for us. Well how about that! What Elder Oaks has declared is the LDS are no better than any other Christian religion. That despite all the certainty LDS profess about knowing what will happen after we die the truth is we simply must trust God. And I agree! We must simply trust God and live consistent with what we understand to be Truth. If we want to imagine the next life to be a certain way that is our choice. But we must be careful not to claim certainty about our imagination when we don't have that.