The Plan of Salvation: My Brief Overview

[_amantha]

I do think otherwise. The eugenics only need apply to those who are in the process of seeking to obtain to the CK. If there is some kind of "progression" beyond that Mormon theology only speaks of increasing in glory and posterity. The perfection achieved there (including genetic perfection) is apparently complete except in the necessity of creating new live stock to herd through the celestial eugenics plan. But the "plan" of salvation weeds out the weak with every generation of gods. The eugenics is eternally perpetual and includes eternal dumping grounds for the undesirable outcasts who may never enter into their god's presence, worlds without end.

You don't need eugenics if you are genetically perfect. But we aren't genetically perfect are we? And only those who can achieve such perfection are selected for "eternal progression." The rest are effectively neutered. Their genes are not allowed to propagate.

My understanding of the fundamentals of eugenics is that human breeding is managed in order to refine and improve the offspring over a course of multiple generations. If in Mormon theology/cosmology the continual refinement of spiritual offspring over succeeding generations is not present, then this does not qualify as eugenics, as I understand the term.

If the purpose of creating gods through this process is not to create better offspring than the last generation, but simply to create them, how is this eugenics?

Let me first say that we are talking about the fantasy world of Mormonism. In the world in which we live, eugenics is a process of breeding with no end in sight. Mormonism, on the other hand, postulates a point in time where a state of perfection is achieved. So the god of Mormonism is only concerned with the selective breeding of humans (eugenics) as a tool to help them achieve his fantasy world perfection. The eugenics absolutely applies during the mortal probationary period. If those who are relegated to lesser kingdoms were permitted to rise above their neutering, then the progression toward perfection could continue, but they are not permitted to do so, worlds without end.

I am not seeking to prove the reality of Joseph Smith et al's fanstasy world only that the theology, as it stands, includes the notion that "lesser" beings, as defined by their inferior obedience, shall be prohibited from the procreative act. That is eugenics.

Also, here is some food for thought provided by BH Roberts:

It was in the name of a divinely ordered species of eugenics that Latter Day Saints accepted the revelation which included a plurality of wives. Polygamy would have afforded the opportunity of producing from that consecrated fatherhood and motherhood the improved type of man the world needs to reveal the highest possibilities of the race, that the day of the super man might come, and with him come also the redemption and betterment of the race.

Roberts, B. H., A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Century 1, 6 volumes, Salt Lake City, Deseret News Press, 1930, 5:297.

[_Trevor]

Let me first say that we are talking about the fantasy world of Mormonism. In the world in which we live, eugenics is a process of breeding with no end in sight. Mormonism, on the other hand, postulates a point in time where a state of perfection is achieved.

Does it? If the process continues ad infinitum, I don't think so. If there are no benefits for the offspring in terms of genetic improvements, then I do not see how this is eugenics stricto sensu.

I am not seeking to prove the reality of Joseph Smith et al's fanstasy world only that the theology, as it stands, includes the notion that "lesser" beings, as defined by their inferior obedience, shall be prohibited from the procreative act. That is eugenics.

That is part of eugenics, not the whole of it.

It was in the name of a divinely ordered species of eugenics that Latter Day Saints accepted the revelation which included a plurality of wives. Polygamy would have afforded the opportunity of producing from that consecrated fatherhood and motherhood the improved type of man the world needs to reveal the highest possibilities of the race, that the day of the super man might come, and with him come also the redemption and betterment of the race.

Roberts seems to me to be discussing "this-worldly" eugenics, not the cosmic eugenics that you posit, which do not exist in Mormonism as far as I can tell. Perhaps they could have given a continuation of Adam-God, but Adam-God died in the early 20th century, and it looks like the possibility for a true cosmic Mormon eugenics went with it. That is how I see it, at least.

[_amantha]

Let me first say that we are talking about the fantasy world of Mormonism. In the world in which we live, eugenics is a process of breeding with no end in sight. Mormonism, on the other hand, postulates a point in time where a state of perfection is achieved.

Does it? If the process continues ad infinitum, I don't think so. If there are no benefits for the offspring in terms of genetic improvements, then I do not see how this is eugenics stricto sensu.

Yes it does. Absolutely. In Mormon theology, god's "personal perfection" is achieved. He only "progresses" in terms of posterity and his glory and joy in that posterity. But that posterity must genetically and in every other way "improve" to the Mormon god's type of fantasy perfection before they can acquire that glorious pad in the CK where they are permitted to pop out spirit babies. The other unworthy posterity are neutered and cast on the dung heap of eternity.

I am not seeking to prove the reality of Joseph Smith et al's fanstasy world only that the theology, as it stands, includes the notion that "lesser" beings, as defined by their inferior obedience, shall be prohibited from the procreative act. That is eugenics.

That is part of eugenics, not the whole of it.

Finally, thank you.

It was in the name of a divinely ordered species of eugenics that Latter Day Saints accepted the revelation which included a plurality of wives. Polygamy would have afforded the opportunity of producing from that consecrated fatherhood and motherhood the improved type of man the world needs to reveal the highest possibilities of the race, that the day of the super man might come, and with him come also the redemption and betterment of the race.

Roberts seems to me to be discussing "this-worldly" eugenics, not the cosmic eugenics that you posit, which do not exist in Mormonism as far as I can tell. Perhaps they could have given a continuation of Adam-God, but Adam-God died in the early 20th century, and it looks like the possibility for a true cosmic Mormon eugenics went with it. That is how I see it, at least.

I never posited "cosmic eugenics." This is your strawman. I have repeatedly said that the eugenics applies to those who are in the mundane fantasy land of achieving perfection. Once that perfection is achieved how could evolution apply? You're completely evolved. Your eugenics "stricto sensu" argument is absurd.

What we have here, as BH Roberts indicated, is an earthly group of folks pretending to know something about the eternal nature of reality who have created a theory which includes the exclusion of certain people who do not live up to their fantasy standards. These people, IN THE FANTASY REALM, are precluded from procreating for eternity. This is the elitist aspect of eugenics in practice in Mormon theory.

[_Trevor]

Yes it does. Absolutely. In Mormon theology, god's "personal perfection" is achieved. He only "progresses" in terms of posterity and his glory and joy in that posterity. But that posterity must genetically and in every other way "improve" to the Mormon god's type of fantasy perfection before they can acquire that glorious pad in the CK where they are permitted to pop out spirit babies. The other unworthy posterity are neutered and cast on the dung heap of eternity.

Neutered and dumped onto the dung heap of eternity? That is a strange distortion of what most people understand to be the lesser joys of the lower kingdoms. You ought to cut the hyperbole.

If the children do not exceed the parents in genetic perfection, that is not modern eugenics. Here you have them all achieving the same level of perfection. Now, in Brigham's theology there was true eternal progression, i.e. all gods progressing for eternity and not just in the limited McConkie sense of number of children and dominions. This would seem to accommodate eugenics much better than current LDS theology (so-called).

Finally, thank you.

I really don't see how part of eugenics gets you to lock, stock, and barrel. There are still missing components. I can see you saying "eugenics-like," but I don't see eugenics, strictly speaking (i.e. stricto sensu).

I never posited "cosmic eugenics." This is your strawman. I have repeatedly said that the eugenics applies to those who are in the mundane fantasy land of achieving perfection. Once that perfection is achieved how could evolution apply? You're completely evolved. Your eugenics "stricto sensu" argument is absurd.

I don't see how adding the adjective cosmic constitutes a strawman. And if the "eugenics" applies only to those who are in a mundane fantasy land of acheiving perfection, I don't really see what your point is. You are upset that living Mormons fantasize about being chosen for their worthiness to procreate as celestial beings? Is that it? News flash! I don't believe in the reality of these ideas. I am simply arguing with you about the aptness of your analogy.

This is what you did say:

Its not about god loving his children, its about god looking for the select few who've got the goods, who can perform. In reality the god of Mormonism is not looking to love his children, he is looking to further build his elite super-race.

The question is how you interpret "build his elite super-race" (and by the way, that rhetoric reeks of implying the Third Reich, regardless of your denial). If you meant improving upon himself, then this might only work in a theology closer to Brigham's. If you meant that he was simply raising up his children to be like himself, and that those who succeeded would do what he does, i.e. procreate, this is not eugenics.

Merriam-Webster (I hate stooping to this, but oh well) defines eugenics as "a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed." This definition indicates to me that the goal of eugenics is to improve the hereditary qualities of the offspring over the parents.

In the case of Mormon theology, as currently taught, God the parent judges his offspring, exalting those who are worthy to deity, in which state they can procreate. Once they do, however, their offspring are not destined to be better than their parents. Why? Because there does not seem to be, as far as we know, a genetic component to spirits that the Deity strives to improve by a selective breeding program. The best case scenario for the grandchildren of God is that they turn out to be the equals of their parents and grandparents.

What we have here, as BH Roberts indicated, is an earthly group of folks pretending to know something about the eternal nature of reality who have created a theory which includes the exclusion of certain people who do not live up to their fantasy standards. These people, IN THE FANTASY REALM, are precluded from procreating for eternity. This is the elitist aspect of eugenics in practice in Mormon theory.

I don't see B.H. Roberts actively indicating any such thing. You interpret B.H. Roberts in a particular way, and you don't seem to understand that B.H. Roberts's theology differs from current LDS theology in that it embraces principles taught by (you guessed it!) Brigham Young, which are now no longer considered doctrine. These teachings were originally part of the Adam-God doctrine, and in this vision, the improvement of the human race resulted from God coming down as Adam to earth with one of his celestial wives in order to provide mortal tabernacles for his spirit children. In other words, this theology differs from the one you use so much that it ceases to be helpful to you. He is discussing breeding on earth, not in the celestial world!

Again, I am not saying the Mormon vision of the afterlife is real. I only take issue with your analogy.

[_Gadianton]

God cannot (though he knows all things), have an exact, precise knowledge of what our ultimate choices

I know all things too. Except for those things I can't have an exact, precise knowledge of.

[_Roger Morrison]

Coggins, sorry i'm late on the scene. Very informative OP. Well stated with a good flow. Thanks for your time, and intention. However, in spite of your efforts, and to where I am in my progression at the moment, I have to say: While this might be what Mormons believe and hold as their ontological philosophy, I cannot abide it in any way.

My reason being: Other than your learned--not experienced, personally or vicariouslsy--understanding of "The Plan of Salvation" as taught in Mormonism, there is, to my knowledge, no evidence of any such thing as a PoS. Except that is as found in the writings of theologians from around primitive camp-fires through Egyptian mythology and onwards through Catholic Semanaries to the present minds of Judeo-Christian Fundamentalists of every sect.

While there has always been those who did not follow suite in such beliefs, they had little effect on the continued promolgation of such unfounded doctines. Such unbelievers were in fact labeled as evil apostates, suffering uncomfortable lives, even death...

Loran, what you, and many others, are attempting in your efforts to convince of some post-mortal existance cannot convincingly be taught to the younger, educated, thinking generation today, nor to those that will follow--in my seriously considered opinion. Such is a good thing. Morals and ethics are better based on truth, knowledge, empathy and personal/collective responsibility than on theological mythologies that depend on feelings of fear, guilt and exaltation to muster obedience to the simple necessity of living charitably and justly. While I respect you, and your obvious intelligence, I do not accept the theory you present. Warm regards, Roger

[_amantha]

Yes it does. Absolutely. In Mormon theology, god's "personal perfection" is achieved. He only "progresses" in terms of posterity and his glory and joy in that posterity. But that posterity must genetically and in every other way "improve" to the Mormon god's type of fantasy perfection before they can acquire that glorious pad in the CK where they are permitted to pop out spirit babies. The other unworthy posterity are neutered and cast on the dung heap of eternity.

Neutered and dumped onto the dung heap of eternity? That is a strange distortion of what most people understand to be the lesser joys of the lower kingdoms. You ought to cut the hyperbole.

What "most people" understand is not for you to say and does not constitute Mormon theology. If its sound hyperbolic it is because the doctrine of the plan of salvation is in reality ridiculous for myriad reasons beyond my eugenics claim.

If the children do not exceed the parents in genetic perfection, that is not modern eugenics. Here you have them all achieving the same level of perfection. Now, in Brigham's theology there was true eternal progression, I.e. all gods progressing for eternity and not just in the limited McConkie sense of number of children and dominions. This would seem to accommodate eugenics much better than current LDS theology (so-called).

Thank you. So in Brigham's theology you concede that my point has credence. And in McConkie's the eugenics applies to the progressive phase of the eternities before the fantastical "perfection" is achieved. But who know's what version of Mormon doctrine is correct. Either way, a vastly large percentage of "god's children" are denied procreative powers, i.e. eugenics -- modern or not modern -- pick the definition that suits you or not.

Finally, thank you.

I really don't see how part of eugenics gets you to lock, stock, and barrel. There are still missing components. I can see you saying "eugenics-like," but I don't see eugenics, strictly speaking (I.e. stricto sensu).

You are the one creating a strawman by making strict definitions. Any word can be interpreted strictly or loosely. You have chosen a strict definition to argue from. That's fine. You can keep doing that if you like.

I never posited "cosmic eugenics." This is your strawman. I have repeatedly said that the eugenics applies to those who are in the mundane fantasy land of achieving perfection. Once that perfection is achieved how could evolution apply? You're completely evolved. Your eugenics "stricto sensu" argument is absurd.

I don't see how adding the adjective cosmic constitutes a strawman. And if the "eugenics" applies only to those who are in a mundane fantasy land of acheiving perfection, I don't really see what your point is. You are upset that living Mormons fantasize about being chosen for their worthiness to procreate as celestial beings? Is that it? News flash! I don't believe in the reality of these ideas. I am simply arguing with you about the aptness of your analogy.

Well adjectives can change the meaning of a word or phrase. There is a big difference between a house and a COSMIC HOUSE. I never said it was "cosmic eugenics." This is your phrasing. If you want to believe that Mormon theology teaches that ALL people can progress eternally with no limitations, than that is news to me. I simply don't like other people insinuating that they are a preferred people because they are obedient to their strange beliefs and I am not. If you want to champion their cause, go for it.

This is what you did say:

Its not about god loving his children, its about god looking for the select few who've got the goods, who can perform. In reality the god of Mormonism is not looking to love his children, he is looking to further build his elite super-race.

The question is how you interpret "build his elite super-race" (and by the way, that rhetoric reeks of implying the Third Reich, regardless of your denial). If you meant improving upon himself, then this might only work in a theology closer to Brigham's. If you meant that he was simply raising up his children to be like himself, and that those who succeeded would do what he does, I.e. procreate, this is not eugenics.

If you hear "Third Reich" so be it. I am not responsible for the associations present in your brain. Hitler didn't patent the rights to the super-race idea. Eugenics predates Hitler by a long shot. You are creating more strawmen to beat up. Quit it.

Selecting the best and discarding the rest where it relates to the procreative powers is the utter essence of eugenics. That is the Mormon "plan of salvation."

Merriam-Webster (I hate stooping to this, but oh well) defines eugenics as "a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed." This definition indicates to me that the goal of eugenics is to improve the hereditary qualities of the offspring over the parents.

I am glad that we agree. The concept of perfection must include ALL perfect qualities. You can control human mating through religious marriage rituals which include obedience as a central factor. You can control the procreative power through proscriptive and prescriptive theocratic lawmaking. In fact, it seems to me, to be one of the best ways to control people. Control their hearts and minds and you can control their seed. By the way, have you never heard those church talk where every succeeding generation is "the best" generation ever, that they have been held in reserve for this time to face the forces of darkness because, of course, the implied notion is that the previous generations were not as worthy.

In the case of Mormon theology, as currently taught, God the parent judges his offspring, exalting those who are worthy to deity, in which state they can procreate. And those who are "not worthy" can't. Once they do, however, their offspring are not destined to be better than their parents. Why? Because there does not seem to be, as far as we know, a genetic component to spirits that the Deity strives to improve by a selective breeding program. The best case scenario for the grandchildren of God is that they turn out to be the equals of their parents and grandparents. Not in Brigham's plan apparently and even if that were true (which who knows if it is, but keep beating those fantasy strawmen of yours) the Mormon plan of salvation requires advancement toward perfection which can include all kinds of things. Who are you to decide what that perfection includes and that heredity cannot be spiritual. Apparently Mormons believe that they are "spiritually" part of the house of Israel -- creating some kind of pseudo-genetic bond. This "spiritual lineage" concept sounds like more elitism. For you to be good with god, you have to belong to a certain family line, even if that is only "spiritually."

What we have here, as BH Roberts indicated, is an earthly group of folks pretending to know something about the eternal nature of reality who have created a theory which includes the exclusion of certain people who do not live up to their fantasy standards. These people, IN THE FANTASY REALM, are precluded from procreating for eternity. This is the elitist aspect of eugenics in practice in Mormon theory.

I don't see B.H. Roberts actively indicating any such thing. You interpret B.H. Roberts in a particular way, and you don't seem to understand that B.H. Roberts's theology differs from current LDS theology in that it embraces principles taught by (you guessed it!) Brigham Young, which are now no longer considered doctrine. These teachings were originally part of the Adam-God doctrine, and in this vision, the improvement of the human race resulted from God coming down as Adam to earth with one of his celestial wives in order to provide mortal tabernacles for his spirit children. In other words, this theology differs from the one you use so much that it ceases to be helpful to you. He is discussing breeding on earth, not in the celestial world!

Who know's what current LDS theology really is. Who knows what is considered doctrine. All I know is that all my life I was taught that a magnificently small margin of "god's children" will be forever precluded from procreating in the eternities. If you choose to reframe the Mormon message to suit you, I'm not going to deny you your faith. But any organization which purports to cutoff people's right to procreate with the intent of procuring the "best" for themselves is engaging in eugenics at is most cruel level.

Again, I am not saying the Mormon vision of the afterlife is real. I only take issue with your analogy.

It's definitely not real and you are free to agree or disagree with whatever you like. The Mormon plan of salvation is a form of eugenics. You can draw the lines wherever you wish.

[_Trevor]

What "most people" understand is not for you to say and does not constitute Mormon theology. If its sound hyperbolic it is because the doctrine of the plan of salvation is in reality ridiculous for myriad reasons beyond my eugenics claim.

So, you contend that the majority of Mormons conceive of the lower kingdoms as a miserable place like a "dump." In my life as a member of the LDS Church, I never conceived of them in that way. I do not remember knowing of anyone who believed this or taught this. Can you back up the claim that people in the lower kingdoms are, essentially, left on a dung heap or some such?

Thank you. So in Brigham's theology you concede that my point has credence. And in McConkie's the eugenics applies to the progressive phase of the eternities before the fantastical "perfection" is achieved. But who know's what version of Mormon doctrine is correct. Either way, a vastly large percentage of "god's children" are denied procreative powers, I.e. eugenics -- modern or not modern -- pick the definition that suits you or not.

Before you get too excited, I only said that if someone were to teach eugenics within Mormon theology, that Brigham's theology would be more amenable to that idea. I never said that Brigham's theology was explicitly eugenic. If you want to argue that it was, that is your job. The denial of procreative powers is one method used in eugenics, but eugenics has the goal of improving hereditary traits, whereas Mormon theosis and spiritual procreation do not.

Well adjectives can change the meaning of a word or phrase. There is a big difference between a house and a COSMIC HOUSE. I never said it was "cosmic eugenics." This is your phrasing. If you want to believe that Mormon theology teaches that ALL people can progress eternally with no limitations, than that is news to me. I simply don't like other people insinuating that they are a preferred people because they are obedient to their strange beliefs and I am not. If you want to champion their cause, go for it.

I don't see how including or extracting the word 'cosmic' affects your argument one way or the other. I find it strange that you focus on this, as though using the adjective somehow equated with creating a strawman. It really does not. All I said about the idea of progression between kingdoms is that it is out there. It is certainly not mainstream or commonly taught, but some LDS folk interpret post-mortal progression as including that.

If you hear "Third Reich" so be it. I am not responsible for the associations present in your brain. Hitler didn't patent the rights to the super-race idea. Eugenics predates Hitler by a long shot. You are creating more strawmen to beat up. Quit it.

No, I am not creating more strawmen. I am telling you how your rhetoric is misleading. I would wager that many people would read the term "super-race" in the context of a discussion of eugenics as a reference to Nazi Germany's racial policies. You want the benefit of using the terms eugenics and super-race together, while at the same time denying the necessity of hereditary improvement over time as a goal of eugenics. That is contradictory or at least prejudicial. You can make your idea of Mormon eugenics sound sinister without actually describing Mormon theology as eugenic in the manner your rhetoric would suggest.

I am glad that we agree. The concept of perfection must include ALL perfect qualities. You can control human mating through religious marriage rituals which include obedience as a central factor. You can control the procreative power through proscriptive and prescriptive theocratic lawmaking. In fact, it seems to me, to be one of the best ways to control people. Control their hearts and minds and you can control their seed. By the way, have you never heard those church talk where every succeeding generation is "the best" generation ever, that they have been held in reserve for this time to face the forces of darkness because, of course, the implied notion is that the previous generations were not as worthy.

You seem to be talking yourself further and further into this bogus nonsense you are constructing. We do not agree. Indeed, you have not even forwarded a consistent position to agree or disagree with. I do disagree that theosis and the conception of spirit children as found in current LDS doctrine is eugenics. It lacks the important aspect of the genetic improvement of spirit children over time thanks to selective breeding programs, period. It is not eugenics.

The reference to the most recent generation being "the best generation ever" has absolutely nothing to do with eugenics. It has to do with identifying these children as more valiant than preceding generations because of the choices they made in the pre-mortal world. That you would even try to see this as eugenics tells me that you are constructing your thesis on the fly and terribly misusing your evidence in the process. No one to my knowledge, at least in contemporary Mormonism, has taught that these choice spirits are choice because they are the product of a celestial eugenics program, i.e. that they were bred to be more valiant than the people of the past.

Not in Brigham's plan apparently and even if that were true (which who knows if it is, but keep beating those fantasy strawmen of yours) the Mormon plan of salvation requires advancement toward perfection which can include all kinds of things. Who are you to decide what that perfection includes and that heredity cannot be spiritual. Apparently Mormons believe that they are "spiritually" part of the house of Israel -- creating some kind of pseudo-genetic bond. This "spiritual lineage" concept sounds like more elitism. For you to be good with god, you have to belong to a certain family line, even if that is only "spiritually."

Your argument is flying off into so many byways that it is difficult to follow you from one sentence to the next. From what we can piece together of Brigham's concept of eternal progression, the Father is always further along in progression than his children because he keeps progressing while they are ever moving along the same path to reach where he used to be. It is certainly not the case that his grandchildren are more advanced than he is by virtue of a eugenics program.

As far as the House of Israel stuff goes, it used to be the case that the prestige message in the patriarchal blessing was that the person was a literal descendant of Israel, not a spiritual one. Yet it was also taught that one literally became part of Israel through the power of the Holy Ghost. Now, even if one were to read this as a transformation of DNA (which Joseph Smith had no concept of), it does not constitute eugenics. Eugenics is selective breeding for the purpose of promoting better genetic traits. It is not the transformation of the living person through the power of the Holy Ghost.

It is clear to me that you have not studied your LDS history and doctrine very well. You have a flawed understanding of it that leads you to string together evidence in creative but incorrect ways. Your theory simply does not work.

Who know's what current LDS theology really is.

But you get to foist this eugenics crap on them because they haven't defined it well enough for you? Get real.

[_Black Moclips]

I think the original post by Coggins was a good summary of the LDS position.

But over the years, I have come to have problems with a couple of aspects of the plan.

1) One shot at mortality - To me this is the biggest problem. We stress how important this mortal life is, yet the conditions and possible life experiences here are so inumerable and unequal, that I can't see how it can be called a valid test for everyone. We leave wiggle room by saying those that didn't have the chance to do (whatever) here in this life will have a chance in the next, but I can't see how this is possible. For starters, you know you died and are now living again! So the main question about life is already answered for you. Anything "learned" after that cannot be equal with earth-mortal living with the veil in place. So how that is supposed to be fair and balanced just doesn't make sense to me.

2) Similar to 1, but this relates to attributes and qualities you would need to learn to become a God. Again, this life is too short and too brief. After mine is over, there is no way I will have been tested in "all things". Not even remotely close. There are situations and problems I will never "get" to overcome and learn from. This is why I think we have multiple mortal probations, maybe hundreds, depending on the person. This is how we really learn and progress. Reaping what you have sown and learning from it. So when we look at the millions who live and have lived in very horrible circumstances, we can see that there is purpose and learning and that it isn't permanent. Not that we shouldn't try to help them out of those circumstances when we can, but knowing that it is just one round of the wheel puts it into perspective.

3) Jesus being God before becoming mortal - I'm not very articulate in trying to explain this but bare with me. If Jesus was God or almost like God before this life, he achieved it somehow. If he was able to use agency to learn and grow in the pre-mortal existence as a spirit through obedience, and therefore, when he was born, was super special, it makes me think why we didn't all just hang out in the premortal existence, regardless of how long it took, until we were that perfected. Why take the risk of not making it because you weren't advanced enough to handle it? Now if Jesus was special-Godlike because he got an extra scoop of intelligence when God was ladling everyone out, then it seems that's an unfair advantage. Why not give everyone an extra scoop and make everyone a literal son of God? My alternative thoughts to this was that Jesus became special, a master, by being perfected over a myriad of mortal life times, progressing to the point of being able to overcome death. This is what he really did for us - to show us what is possible to attain. And you don't get there by climbing a few steps up the million foot ladder and then being given a mulligan(grace) on what you can't do and then getting the stamp of deity. You get there by living life after life after live until you learn and pass all of the tests life can throw at you. Someone who does this would certainly be worthy of emmulation. I guess it boils down to I whether Jesus became the Christ, or whether it was just given to him. For some reason, it makes difference for me.

[_degaston]

Some people serve in the church and donate huge amounts of money to the church because they like the country club atmosphere. Sure it comes with some headaches but it brings with it a feeling of belonging. Many others do so for this atmosphere but also other reasons .... such as promises of an eternal reward if they're good and obedient to the Brethren in mortality. In my case I must confess that I was doing it for a combination of these other reasons and the belonging reason.

In 1996 President Hinckley said something on Sixty Minutes that I think helps clear the air. When asked about something I had considered to be a core doctrine of the church he responded as follows. "I don't know that we teach that. Its more a couplet than anything." A few years, thousands of hours in church service and tens of thousands of dollars of tithing later this quote of his that I heard live on Sixty Minutes helped me out. No longer did I worry about involvement in Mormonism being a combination of belonging & postmortal rewards but just for the sense of belonging and the focus on this mortal life.

All this speculation about a plan of salvation sounds more like a couplet than anything. Can anyone provide me an authoritative reference for this being solid Mormon doctrine?