ldsfireguy

The location or extent of the spirit world is NOT established doctrine of the church. Brigham said that the spirit world was "right here", and so it is. But he did not say that it was nowhere else. And he was not giving revelation in so doing. The spirit world is all around us, and many other places also. Spirits are free to move within limits, and can "explore" places or areas of space that in their earthly life they wondered about. They are not earthbound - which I think is implied by the idea that the "spirit world is here on earth." For that matter, is it "on the earth," or does it also include the area IN the earth (since spirit matter is not at all bound by physical matter.) We really do not know the limits, extent or qualities of the spirit world, which I think is the basic question in the OP. We can agree as LDS that the spirit world is here on earth, and there, and there, etc... I think it would safer to ask where the spirit world is NOT.

Did I forget to mention my three wives? :)

Hi, I'm not entirely sure that this post is in the right place, but here goes... My wife and I own a 200 acre organic farm on the Connecticut River in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. We are interested in developing a cohousing/cofarming farm on the property - organic, probably mostly LDS, etc... Are there any LDS on this group that may be interested in organic cooperative farming in Vermont? Farming experience or education would be great, but a strong desire to be on the land and to be self-sufficient, and a willingness to work hard are of prime importance. I would love to correspond with anyone, even if this is not exactly right for them, if they have any ideas or thoughts on the idea. Also, if you are not quite interested, but know of someone else who might be, please forward. Thanks! Scott

I do not think that there is anything in scripture that says that the Atonement is infinite in scope or time. The Atonement is said to be infinite, but what exactly does this mean?It is an assumption on our part to define exactly what is meant by infinite here; I believe that it means infinite in depth, and infinite in the sense that it completely applies to all the children of men on any and all worlds which our Lord Jesus Christ created. I say our Christ because there are other Christs, and they have worked out Atonements for their works, for the glory of their Fathers and brothers and sisters. The Atonement of Jesus Christ of Nazareth does not apply to the works of other Creators, nor does it apply to his Father, who was created under the direction of another Creator. And, in the end, they are all One God, even the God of Israel, even Eloheim.

The word personage is used to denote an individual, with individual characteristics, and with at least some of the characteristics of a person. The Holy Ghost is a "personage of spirit", meaning an individual who has not yet obtained a physical body; this is one of our premortal brothers who has been ordained to that office. I think that the word person, as used in our church as well as in modern usage generally, refers to an individual with a physical body. For example, if someone were to experience a vision or an experience with a spirit, they would not generally say that they saw "a person" ... maybe a ghost, maybe apparition, maybe entity, etc... but not a person. In the church we say personage instead of those other, less respectful terms.

I do not accept the idea that time does not exist for Heavenly Father, nor do I believe that past and present are as one, continually accessible for Him to interact with. I do believe that he has the power to see all through time, both past and present, so in this sense I guess I could say that I agree with you in part. I believe that the Father exists as a finite being, with infinite power within the scope of His laws. He has limitations that are defined by His physicality, and by his own laws, which are the laws which existed before even He assumed his exalted station. For example, He cannot be all places at once - he is not omnipresent. This was a doctrine that was put forth in sectarian Christendom, and it was taught in the Catholic Church where I was raised ... but I believe it to be false. If all time was the same for Him, then He actually could be Omnipresent. How do you resolve the classic paradox concerning reverse time travel - it would still apply to the Father if He were not subject to any time at all ... what would stop Him from stepping back in time all the way back to when He was a mortal upon an earth, and speaking with Himself? What would stop him from talking with Himself at 50 different points in His mortal life, and advising Himself? Which one of Him would be the "real" one? If we go down that road, then why could He not talk with His Father, and His Father's Father, during their mortal probations ... and if He were actually talking with them, interacting with them during their mortality, then are they still in Heaven as exalted beings? Are there more than one of them? In fact, if we allow this train of thought, then we have to allow an infinite number of them, one for every moment of their mortal lives. If God moves in actuality back in time to visit Himself during His own mortality, or earlier, then He goes to a time when He has not yet reached exaltation. So, which is it, is He God or not? I believe that God does have a forward time movement to his eternal life, and for me this is affirmed by the verse that says that a thousand years in earthly time is like a day on Kolob, which is the closest planet to God's habitation. I also believe that a time definition is important in understanding God's humanity, or in relating Him to us. His time may seem vast and almost unimaginable to us, but it is in my opinion nevertheless real, and defines His existence as much as our time defines ours. I do not believe that He can physically go back in time, nor do I think that He can interact with that which is past ... for example, He cannot talk with the "me" from 1985 - because that me no longer exists in any sphere, in any dimension, etc... If that were not so, then there would be an infinite number of "me(s)" for every moment of my past life, accessible to the heavens. I know that this is a popular physics theory, but I just do not think that it is true.

This is a question which my wife and I have been lately pondering. We have run accross some great posts and quotes from leaders on this subject. You asked: "What is sufficient for our needs? How do we know when we have it? How do we know when we have surplus that can then be turned over to the church?" Obviously this is a personal and subjective matter at this time. But we have, for the last couple of years, been asking ourselves, "Do we really need this?" Also, we buy stuff that is used, we get stuff free from Freecycle.com or on Craigslist.com , and we try to reuse our own stuff. Here are some thoughts from a recent post in another forum: I think we get too caught up with this idea of living in some kind of Amish looking communal Utopia when the current body of evidence speaks to the fact that most LDS won't even consecrate their time to home teach or their extra money to help others in need rather than buying a new gadget. Right now, our current law of consecration requires that we give 10% in tithes - many don't. It demands that we fulfill our callings - many do the least possible. As a church, we aren't even living the bare minimum when it comes to consecration and until we can clear that low bar and get our hearts right, consecration will be an utter failure. There is a list of ways that we fail to live this law in the lesson. It provides a great starting point for those who want to move toward Zion - when we can honestly say that we do not fall prey to any of the dangers Elder Maxwell identifies, we are approaching the level of preparedness needed. Quote: Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve said: “We tend to think of consecration only in terms of property and money. But there are so many ways of keeping back part” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1992, 90; or Ensign, Nov. 1992, 66). • What are some ways in which we might be “keeping back part” when we could achieve greater consecration in the service of God and His children? (See D&C 64:34 and the following examples from Elder Maxwell of how we sometimes fall short in the consecration we should give.) a. An unwillingness to be completely submissive to the Lord’s will. “The submission of one’s will is really the only uniquely personal thing we have to place on God’s altar,” Elder Maxwell said. “The many other things we ‘give’ … are actually the things He has already given or loaned to us. However, when you and I finally submit ourselves, by letting our individual wills be swallowed up in God’s will, then we are really giving something to Him! It is the only possession which is truly ours to give!” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1995, 30; or Ensign, Nov. 1995, 24). b. An unwillingness to give up selfish things, such as “our roles, our time, our preeminence, and our possessions” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1995, 28). c. Letting hobbies and preoccupations with less important things become too consuming. d. Giving commendable civic service but remaining “a comparative stranger to Jesus’ holy temples and His holy scriptures” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1995, 27). e. Being dutiful in family responsibilities but not emulating Jesus’ example of gentleness with some family members. f. Building up ourselves first rather than the kingdom of God. g. Sharing talents publicly while privately retaining a particular pride. h. Accepting a Church calling while having a heart more set on maintaining a certain role in the world. (See Conference Report, Oct. 1992, 88–92; or Ensign, Nov. 1992, 65–67; and Conference Report, Oct. 1995, 27–30; or Ensign, Nov. 1995, 22–24.) I also loved this quote from the lesson: Quote: Elder Marion G. Romney asked: “What prohibits us from giving as much in fast offerings as we would have given in surpluses under the United Order? Nothing but our own limitations” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1966, 100; or Improvement Era, June 1966, 537). How many people list their income and expenditures and then when there is money left over they think "Awesome! Now I can get that _______ I've been wanting. or do that project we've talked about" When you get to the end of the month, have sufficient for your needs and can say "Awesome! I have $_____ left over to add to fast offering." Then you are living the law of consecration."