laronius

I second what @Maverick said. I think part of the atonement required Jesus to endure the suffering in part without any external support. That's why he could make the claim "I have tread the winepress alone." Some general authorities have expressed similar opinions. I have always liked this explanation by Jeffrey R Holland: "Now I speak very carefully, even reverently, of what may have been the most difficult moment in all of this solitary journey to Atonement. I speak of those final moments for which Jesus must have been prepared intellectually and physically but which He may not have fully anticipated emotionally and spiritually—that concluding descent into the paralyzing despair of divine withdrawal when He cries in ultimate loneliness, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” 16 Matthew 27:46 emphasis added.] The loss of mortal support He had anticipated, but apparently He had not comprehended this. Had He not said to His disciples, “Behold, the hour … is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me” and “The Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him”? 17 John 16:32 8:29 With all the conviction of my soul I testify that He did please His Father perfectly and that a perfect Father did not forsake His Son in that hour. Indeed, it is my personal belief that in all of Christ’s mortal ministry the Father may never have been closer to His Son than in these agonizing final moments of suffering. Nevertheless, that the supreme sacrifice of His Son might be as complete as it was voluntary and solitary, the Father briefly withdrew from Jesus the comfort of His Spirit, the support of His personal presence. It was required, indeed it was central to the significance of the Atonement, that this perfect Son who had never spoken ill nor done wrong nor touched an unclean thing had to know how the rest of humankind—us, all of us—would feel when we did commit such sins. For His Atonement to be infinite and eternal, He had to feel what it was like to die not only physically but spiritually, to sense what it was like to have the divine Spirit withdraw, leaving one feeling totally, abjectly, hopelessly alone."

Yes and no. I agree generally that the Lord withholds things until we the members more fully utilize what we have already been given. The prophets have said as much. But when you consider the early days of the Church many revelations came during periods of apostasy or turmoil among members. So you can't just say the members are to blame. I personally believe that the fledgling Church simply needed more support to help it keep going and growing. As the Church became more stabilized the importance of a steady flow of publicly recognized revelation diminished. Looking forward, when all heck starts to break loose again it wouldn't surprise me if that flow picked back up.

You make a great point @Traveler. I was previously in a ward that combined our youth programs with a Spanish speaking branch who met in the same building. The branch president was not very popular among some members of his branch. I don't know what exactly the issue was but it was clear there were some in other leadership positions who thought they could do a better job and even hinted at such. When the branch presidency was eventually reorganized the man called as president had very little if any leadership or administrative experience, he was very introverted and not someone the world would view as a leader at all. But he was humble. Whatever else we may have been deficient in he was definitely humble and that made him a better candidate than the others who appeared to have more leadership "ability". The Holy Ghost is the great equalizer. With the Holy Ghost leaders don't need to be perfect. And if we have the Spirit we don't need perfect leaders.

Recently I remembered hearing a phrase repeated in a couple of Pres Nelson's general conference talks and knowing if a prophet repeats himself it's generally a point of emphasis so I decided to find them and study up on it. That phrase was "spiritual work." So I did a search looking for the two or three talks he says it and was surprised to find out that he has mentioned it in six different talks since becoming president of the church. "...when you yoke yourself to Jesus Christ and do the spiritual work required to overcome the world, He, and He alone, does have the power to lift you above the pull of this world." "Please do the spiritual work to increase your capacity to receive personal revelation." "Do the spiritual work to seek miracles." "It takes persistent, rigorous spiritual work to repent and to put off the natural man through the Atonement of Jesus Christ." "Do the spiritual work to find out for yourselves, and please do it now. Time is running out." "Choose to do the spiritual work required to enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost and hear the voice of the Spirit more frequently and more clearly." Now it may not mean anything more than just a phrase he picked up over the years to convey the general idea of living the gospel except that my search did not yield any GC talks prior to his becoming president where he used that phrase. To me it sounds like he is trying to drive home a point. While I interpret the general meaning behind the phrase to be a general rejection of the idea of what some call cheap grace and that we cannot simply be spectators in the gospel it does make me wonder if there is a particular concern he is addressing that perhaps did not always exist in the past. Any thoughts?

This has always been a tough one for me, not that someone would lose their exaltation because of adultery and murder. That's expected. But that someone that seemed so good could fall so far. Did he really change that much or was the young faithful David not the "real" David?

Under the influence of the Father he had access to all knowledge, as needed. So I think it would be hard to judge what was him personally and what was external divine influence.

I think you have presented a very feasible explanation for that gulf. When we consider that our progression continues after this life , trajectory takes on increased significance because of the increasing gap that comes with time if we choose not to wholly submit to the Lord. I think your use of the term "willing" is equally significant and I think is an antithesis to the principle of damnation, which we could define as being unwilling. Our degree of willingness does not define our final state but it is a precursor to it. And any amount of unwillingness on our part can have an increasingly damning effect in the eternities. Kind of puts the things of this life in perspective. I appreciate your comments @CV75.

So assuming the glory we inherit is relative to our faithfulness, will there be no one whose faithfulness is greater than the moon and yet less than the sun? This is what I'm trying to get at. It seems like there would be people all along the spectrum of faithfulness and yet the imagery suggests there are some pretty significant gaps in that spectrum. Perhaps that thinking is wrong and I'm totally open to other interpretations. But if it's not wrong, what is the cause for those gaps in faithfulness?

So do you feel that those towards the top of the Terrestrial Kingdom are not very far away (obedience/glory wise) from those in the lowest level of the Celestial Kingdom?

While our beliefs entail a much broader spectrum of salvation (three kingdoms of glory with perhaps many levels of glory within them) as compared to the heaven and hell belief of most Christians, I still find it interesting that there is still such a significant chasm between the kingdoms of glory, at least as the imagery implies: sun vs moon vs stars. Their difference in glory is vast. This would seem to imply that no one is going to just barely miss one kingdom. If you are only worthy of a lesser kingdom then you are still quite a ways off from being worthy of the greater kingdom. If that conclusion is accurate (and I'm equally interested in what you think if you feel it's not) then there must be a rather significant distinction in worthiness for there not being necessary a middle ground of worthiness, something in between the sun and moon and stars. For example, we know those in the Terrestrial Kingdom are labeled as not valiant in the testimony of Jesus whereas those in the Celestial Kingdom are. Will there not be anyone who is only sorta valiant, more than those in the Terrestrial but not up to snuff compared to the Celestial? It's not something I had considered in the past but it does strike me that there must be a good answer out there somewhere, maybe in one of your noggins. Hopefully. I guess what my question boils down to is if you believe there really is such a significant gap, what makes it so? Or if you think the top of one kingdom is close to the bottom of the next kingdom, why the imagery implying otherwise?

Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. These verses have always struck a cord with me. When Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden into the lone and dreary world, they longed to return home again, back into God's presence. In the scriptures we read of this longing for a home (promised land) over and over again. But receiving a land of inheritance is only the beginning. It's not truly home until God resides there as well, in other words, Zion. We see the perfect example of this with Enoch. He helped create a true Home on earth and then were taken up into God's bosom. It makes me wonder what that process was like. Surely they experienced many of the same struggles that modern families and communities deal with. And yet they were able to endure and eventually overcome them.

I imagine Jacob did teach him all that but we know what Enos remembered: "the words which I had often heard my father speak concerning eternal life, and the joy of the saints, sunk deep into my heart." I think he came to a realization of the great chasm between his lost and fallen state and where he wanted to be. Despite his father's teaching it had to seem insurmountable. I came across something yesterday that I think is applicable. Ether 12:4 Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God... I always figured that this word surety was just an older way of saying sure, like confident or certain. And it can be. But it also has an enhanced meaning. Surety: a person who takes responsibility for another's performance of an undertaking, for example their appearing in court or the payment of a debt. The gospel application here is pretty obvious. Christ has become surety for us, to pay a debt that is impossible for us to pay on our own. I think it was this feeling of impossibleness that weighed heavily upon Enos' mind, despite what he had been taught. But he learned that with God all things are possible, especially the most important stuff.

In fast and testimony meeting today (had stake conference last week) a sister got up and related that her parents are missionaries back in Kirtland, OH. She said that during the meeting between the churches to discuss the sale of the temple a guy in attendance from the Community of Christ was seriously opposed to the sale and really wanted to raise an objection to it. But he said the Spirit restrained him so he could not object and a voice spoke to him saying "This isn't your temple or their temple. It's my temple." Assuming that's a true account of events, it would seem that the Lord is yet mindful of these descendants of early Church members and that He cares about how they feel about these things. There may yet be a reconciliation in the future. Perhaps in Independence.

That's how it is with iniquity in general in our day. Save for a few crimes that are still socially regarded as wrong, you are not allowed to say negative things about doing wrong because that implies casting judgement on the doers of them. To do so is divisive and meanspirited, which apparently matters more than the actual doing of right or wrong. This is even starting to include being too public in one's own right actions because doing right can only be motivated by wanting to make others look bad.

Sounds kind of like Nephi retrieving the brass plates. 😃 I would have no problem with him as my bishop. The Book of Mormon is full of warrior-prophets so a warrior-bishop is not a stretch.