Plan of Salvation-Progression through Kingdoms

[_Inconceivable]

BlackMoclips,

For what it's worth, it makes nearly perfect sense to have the opportunity to actually walk a mile (or a lifetime) in everyone elses moccasins. Aside from the ficticious Vulcan Mind Meld I just don't see how else one could develop true empathy for another.

I know in my heart that I haven't the capacity to be who I want (or have wanted) to be in this life.

If this life is pretty much the dream shot, I'll be firing the boss and getting my money back.

[_ajax18]

However, that does not seem equitable. Because first of all, if you are dead, and then you awake in the spirit world, you already have and unfair advantage and have bypassed a key principle of the whole plan to begin with - the veil of forgetfulness. Not knowing about your previous life and having to have faith in an pre or after life. The person in the spirit world already knows there in life after death, and is now no longer subject to the same conditions we are in the flesh. Yet they can choose to accept the ordinances and everything is just fine? No alcohol of coffee or drugs? Sure I will covenant to obey the word of wisdom, why not?

First off I find this discussion fascinating and wish I could find more people to take on such questions. Sometimes I feel like I meet chapel Mormons and atheist but nobody in between. So you get, the brethren have told us all we need to know or there is no God. I can't accept either of these. BlackMoclips I've wrestled with these questions for years but admittedly know nothing. I'm very interested to hear more of your ideas, from everyone. Cinepro and Liz that means you.

I asked these kind of questions to a chapel Mormon once and they tried to burn me at the stake. Not a very smart move on my part. I asked my father once. He submitted the idea that we don't see our premortal existence in the spirit world. So we don't necessarily have a perfect knowledge of God's existence in the spirit world either. But you're right, for it to really to be a test, people in the spirit world shouldn't be able to remember their earth life either, otherwise they would already know that life did in fact go on in some way even though it was once hidden from us.

[_cinepro]

First off I find this discussion fascinating and wish I could find more people to take on such questions. Sometimes I feel like I meet chapel Mormons and atheist but nobody in between. So you get, the brethren have told us all we need to know or there is no God.

Ultimately, any discussion that involves God, the pre-mortal existence, or the post-mortal existence is a mental exercise. It's like trying to solve an algebraic equation like this:

xy+z = S

X = The Premortal Existence
Y = The Postmortal Existence
Z = God
S = "The Plan of Salvation"

S is "true". Describe X, Y and Z in any way that you need to so that "S" is still "true".

With few limitations, we are free to invent what God does or doesn't know, what He can or can't do, what the Premortal existence was like, and what happens in the Postmortal existence to such a degree that any philosophical problems are nullified.

[_ajax18]

On the one hand, we preach that families are forever, but, if you "fail your earthly test", then you are destined to be separated from, not only God, but your family, for all eternity

My mission president came to the conclusion that God would replace his children with righteous ones and God would resurrect his brain in such a way that he would not know the difference. I know that probably sounds flat and cold, but you gotta give the man credit for at least accepting the dilemma and trying to come up with an answer.

Shouldn't everyone be given that opportunity?

We once asked an area authority if the devil could repent if he chose to do so. I can't see why not. How could you ever get yourself in a situation where there is no longer any hope, no chance of anything better in the future?

Should someone who is basically a good person....someone who has a good heart....someone who works his/her butt off for their family, is a good neighbor, and basically magnifies the ways of Christ really be separated from his/her family for eternity because he/she is a member of a church other than the LDS church?

Again another major problem. There is such a large element of soothe saying to comfort people in every different situation that it amazes me how they can keep any rational doctrine to fit together. That may be why religion is best when it's fresh and new. After years of changing the doctrine to meet the needs of different people it seems to become stale and distasteful. Partly because it becomes harder to get away from the fact that all they are doing is providing balm to try and soothe those who they care about.

[_ajax18]

With few limitations, we are free to invent what God does or doesn't know, what He can or can't do, what the Premortal existence was like, and what happens in the Postmortal existence to such a degree that any philosophical problems are nullified.

I wish I could nullify them. Even if I could dictate my own doctrine for everything, I'm not sure I could find a satisfactory solution to every inequality and every outright miserable condition that simply shouldn't exist if good controls the universe.

[_ludwigm]

...
We once asked an area authority if the devil could repent if he chose to do so. I can't see why not. How could you ever get yourself in a situation where there is no longer any hope, no chance of anything better in the future?
...

Michael Moorcock, in "The War Hound and the World's Pain" handles this topic.

That is a 1981 fantasy novel , the first of the "von Bek" series of novels.
The book is set in Europe ravaged by the Thirty Years' War. Its hero Ulrich von Bek is a mercenary and freethinker, who finds himself a damned soul in a castle owned by Lucifer. Much to his surprise, von Bek is charged by Lucifer with doing God's work, by finding the Holy Grail, the "cure for the world's pain," that will also cure Lucifer's pain by reconciling him with God. Only through doing this can von Bek save his soul.
After many adventures, von Bek eventually finds the Holy Grail, and discovers that it will set mankind on the path to self-redemption through rationality, without the help of God or the hindrance of Lucifer.

Michael Moorcock is worth to know. This fantasy novel is a good book. I suggest to read it.

But ...

If one want to deal principles as "the devil repents", "damned soul", "Lucifer" seriously, then I leave the theatre. Tales and myths have their place.

[_Seven]

It’s surprising that more temple going Mormons don’t believe in eternal progression between kingdoms. Think about the temple endowment. I know I can’t go into details on this forum, so I’ll be careful what I say. During the endowment ritual you progress from our fallen earth Telestial Kingdom, then to the Terrestrial, and finally the Celestial. The temple symbolism not only teaches that there will be progression between them, but that it’s required. In other words, nobody will go right to the Celestial Kingdom following this life.

If I recall correctly, LDS member Rob Osborne has done some threads at MAD of his belief that there will be progression between kingdoms. I’ll try to find some of his posts for you.

I loved Cinepro’s blog post on this doctrine and it reflects the way I felt as a TBM when thinking about the logic of it.

I believe in Universal Reconciliation. Mormons might think they believe in Universal Reconciliation/Salvation because in Mormon doctrine all humans will be resurrected and receive a form of glory, but if one does not make it back to Christ/God and their loved ones, is that really salvation?

Further, If people are placed in permanent kingdoms based on sins or belief from this life, then it negates the atonement. I really had a problem with Bruce R. Mckonkie’s “Mormon Docrine” book in which he basically places people in kingdoms based on adultery, murder, apostates, etc.
If someone dies in their sins, will they have a chance to accept Christ’s atonement, & repent beyond the veil? We all sin on a daily basis in some degree, so all of us die in our sins.

I believe the real test comes down to forgiving those who have harmed us. Those of us who won’t progress forward are those who can’t forgive. We will remain in this state of hell, until we accept Christ’s atoning sacrifice for our sins, repent, and forgive. Why would that be limited to this very short mortal life?
It makes no sense that Christ would atone for our sins, but then limit it to certain time periods or types of sin.

I think the history of Universal reconciliation is evidence that Christ taught this doctrine. It coincides with some kind of progression beyond the veil and not a final place of judgment.

Universal reconciliation, also called universal salvation or sometimes simply universalism, is the Christian doctrine or belief that all can receive salvation, regardless of belief, due to the love and mercy of God.
This is the main belief that distinguishes Christian Universalism from other forms of Christianity. Universal reconciliation states that all people will eventually experience salvation, and most forms of the doctrine assert that the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus Christ is the mechanism that provides reconciliation for all humankind and atonement for all sins. This concept is distinct from Unitarian Universalism.
Universal reconciliation is intimately related with the problem of Hell. There are various beliefs and views concerning the process or state of salvation, but all universalists conclude that it ultimately ends in the reconciliation and salvation of all mankind.
The belief in the eventual salvation of all humankind has been a topic of debate throughout the history of the Christian faith. In the early Church, universalism was a flourishing theological doctrine[1]. Over time, as Christian theology experienced growth and expansion, it lost much of its popular acceptance. Today, most Christian denominations reject the doctrine of universal reconciliation.

Early history


Origen, a 3rd century proponent of Universal Reconciliation
Various theologians, including Clement of Alexandria and Origen in the 3rd century, St. Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century, and St. Isaac the Syrian in the 7th century, expressed universalist positions in early Christianity.[citation needed] Though Gregory of Nyssa was a known universalist, he was never condemned. He was additionally declared "the father of fathers" by the seventh ecumenical council.[2][3]

Modern universalists claim that universalism was the primary doctrine of the church until it was forcibly stamped out by the Catholic Church in the sixth century. Four of the six theological schools of thought in ancient Christendom supported universalism, and only one supported eternal damnation. Additionally, theological thought appears more varied before the strong influence of Augustine, who forcefully denied universal salvation.[4] Some claim Augustine's rejection of the doctrine was an unwarranted side-effect of Platonist pagan philosophy, rather than a conclusion based on his study of the Scriptures.
Origen and a form of apocatastasis were condemned in 544 by the Patriarch Mennas of Constantinople and the condemnation was ratified in 553 by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Many heteroclite views became associated with Origen, and the 15 anathemas against him attributed to the council condemn a form of apocatastasis along with the pre-existence of the soul, animism, a heterodox Christology, and a denial of real and lasting resurrection of the body. Some authorities believe these anathemas belong to an earlier local synod.[5] It should also be noted, the Fifth Ecumenical Council has been contested as being an official and authorized Ecumenical Council, as it was established not by the Pope, but the Emperor because of the Pope's resistance to it. It should also be noted that the Fifth Ecumenical Council addressed what was called "The Three Chapters"[6] and was against a form of Origenism which truly had nothing to do with Origen and Origenist views. In fact, Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), and Gregory the Great (590-604) were only aware the Fifth Council specifically dealt with the Three Chapters and make no mention of Origenism or Universalism, nor spoke as if they knew of its condemnation even though Gregory the Great was opposed to the belief of universalism.[7]
Apocatastasis is considered in modern times to refer to Origen's doctrine of Universal Reconciliation. However, until the mid-sixth century, the word had a broader meaning. While it applied to a number of doctrines regarding universal salvation, it also referred to a return, both to a location and to an original condition. Thus, the Greek word's application to universalist theology was originally broad and metaphorical.[8]
Christian universalists in history
See also: List of early Christian universalists
"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality (annihilationism); one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked”.[1]
There has been a number of prominent and influential Church Fathers and Church leaders throughout Christian history who have held to the belief of Universal Reconciliation in and through Christ Jesus. Though disagreement will arise on the basis of subjectivity of interpretation of their beliefs, many have expressed in writing and witness accounts, the hope of Universal Reconciliation at some time in their religious walk.[9]

As parents, we love our children unconditionally. I believe that is how God loves us too.

[_ajax18]

It doesn't make sense to me that an individual could be dammed forever either. Nor have I ever found it difficult to forgive and accept a truly repentant person. I do have some concerns about being forced to continue to live with the unrepentant ones.

But religion does also take on the task of finding a meaning in this life and understanding the test to some extent. Is the biggest part of this test not the fact that we are unable to know if we live on after death or are just stardust? How do individuals continue to be tried tested and improved as spirits. It seems like they would inevitably know some information that has been off limits to us here for purpose of leaving room for faith. BlackMoClips pointed out reincarnation, but Mormonism doesn't believe in that. So I can't conceive of how that would work?

[_Black Moclips]

BlackMoClips pointed out reincarnation, but Mormonism doesn't believe in that. So I can't conceive of how that would work?

Sorry I haven't responded sooner, but I've been slammed at work. I really like this kind of discussion too. There is absolutely no place in church or within the framework of its organization to pose such questions, let alone have a meaningful discussion of it. Mormonism used to have the motto of gathering all truth to itself, but now its just content to sip on the milk its been given, and if God wants them to know anything more, He will tell them. No streching of the mind or soul into the questions of the universe. Just attend your meetings and pay your tithing and don't worry about anything else.

Well that doesn't work for me anymore. The only time I feel any sort of spiritual uplift is in discussions such as these and thinking about the Universe and what could be. Anyway, here is a link from an exmormon who now is a sort of new-age teacher. I like a lot of his writings and ideas. The article is called Eternal Lives, and talks about reincarnation from a Mormon standpoint. Its a quick read and maybe shed some insight on the topic.

http://www.freeread.com/archives/eternal_lives.php


He also has a fictional freeread book called The Immortal, that I highly recommend. It offers an interesting perspective on things I hadn't considered before.

For example, think about how our bodies are composed. At the smallest level, we are made up of cells, that are each alive. Millions of them form to make a larger unit of life, such as an organ or limb. Then the sum total of all these lives is us as a person. We are in control of the whole body; however, we are unable to communicate with the smallest parts of ourselves. There is just too large a gap in consciousness to be able to communicate with an individual cell. Yet we have some communication with our larger organs and can tell when there is a problem, and our limbs do what we command them to do. So the question that I thought about was if that is a pattern, then what are we a part of as humans? Are we the cells to something larger and grander that we can't really communicate with directly? Is this thing God? I don't know, but its really fun to think about. Anyway, JJ's writings have gotten me to think about things in new ways. It could be crazy or wrong, but its fun to consider that ramifications.

I've always wondered about the current ideas of resurection and how each life has a spirit. What does that mean in the resurection? Are 1000 trillion mosquitos really going to live eternally as mosquitos? Are they going to resurect into a perfected mosquito for all eternity? When you go that far into the detail, the standard teachings don't make sense. It seems absurd to imagine resurected or spiritual mosquitos and termites and ants. Yet they are life and part of the plan aren't they? It seems much more reasonable that the smaller forms of life keep living and reincarnating over and over again, progressing from single cell organisms, to group conscious lifes, to the larger animals etc. Maybe they eventually combine to form a human spirit and that is how we were organized. Then eventually, when one achieves Godhood (whatever that means) they can really say they are God because they HAVE BEEN EVERYTHING, and mastered it.

Sorry, I'm rambling, but these are the sort of things I like to talk about, and really have no outlet for it.

[_Inconceivable]

BlackMoclips,

Thanks for the link. Extremely fascinating. Chapter 3, particularly the interviewing of children, birthmarks and other cultures beliefs on reincarnation (this is as far as I've read to this point). I'm going to order a book or two by Ian Stevenson. I've read a few of Kenneth Ring's and find them quite thought provoking.

One thing that disturbs me is that JJ is still somehow trying to mingle the information to tie into obscure Mormon or even Christian doctrine - as if there just must be a solid link between the belief systems.

I have a question, where does one look to find a legitimate, experienced hynotheropist that deals in such areas as past life regression?