so if adam-god theory is correct....

[fusnik11]

who gets to advance onwards?

is everyone guaranteed exaltation?

what about the pre-existence? did the council in heaven really not take place?

or based on actions we elect the most worthy candidate to assume the role of savior?

im laboring through the talk of brigham young....he seems hesitant to say what he wants to say.....

[il Padrino Ute]

he and his wife spoke to my mission when he was first called to serve in the Quorum of 12. The topic was brought up about how dinasaurs fit into any teachings of the Church and his reply can be applicable to your post:

"I tend to not worry about things that have nothing to do with my personal salvation."

However, if you want my thoughts on your post, the answers would be:

All who are worthy will advance.

Again, this is for all who are worthy.

The council in heaven did take place in the pre-existence.

My understanding is that the Savior was the first-born of God's spirit children, therefore, it was his birthright to be the Savior.

[Dan]

... there definitely would be a pre-existence. The PE would just be the 'beginning' point for the new eternal round. One eternal round consists of the PE, birth, mortality, death, spirit world, judgment, resurrection, and finally a degree of glory. When those who would like to progress further make the decision to do so, they "fall" from their heavenly glory and go through another eternal round in an attempt to progress further towards godhood. The degrees of glory at the 'end' of one eternal round would become the 'pre-existence' for the next eternal round (with its grand council, creation of physical earth to fall to, etc.). It just keeps going around and around, with some souls progressing and some souls degressing (which sort of would explain 'Jacob's ladder', the vision Jacob beheld at Beth-el). Let me point out, I do not necessarily belive this, I am just explaining how it works in the AG context. I actually do not have a firm belief on this. I am open to all of it.

In AG (or some of its variants), to be spiritually begotten is not necessarily to be born as we think of it is a physical sense with a newborn baby. Rather, to become a spirit child of God would be to take his name upon us. When we take the name of Christ upon us, he becomes our "father". Presumably, Adam had legions of us dedicate ourselves to him (as we now do with Christ - because Adam acted in the capacity of Christ previously). Adam became an exalted father (a God the Father, so to speak). In the next eternal round for Adam's posterity (any exalted father has their own spin off eternal rounds, etc.), his preeminent begotten spirit son is annointed the Christ for the next go around. In this mortal existence, Jesus gained all things and will advance in the next go round to the exalted position of a God the Father, to those who have become spiritually begotten to him (i.e., each of us). One of 'us' will be the preeminent spirit child of Jesus and will be annointed the Christ for the new world planned in the grand council of the pre-existence.

[non sequitur]

But how can a reasonable person adopt the attitude of dsimissing problematic issues by simply stating: "I tend to not worry about things that have nothing to do with my personal salvation."

If you are unable to reconcile Church doctrine with Scientific fact, then isn't that kind of a big deal? I would think a person would be anxious to validate a belief system upon which they have based their entire life. I know I would.

[creekster]

on "scientific facts?" Pray tell what belief system do you follow that meets this criteria?

[Dan]

... BY often commented on John 17:3, in that knowing the true God is eternal life. He often commented on it from the standpoint of stressing the truthfulness of AG. So that not comprehending AG was a sign of confusion and not even beginning down the path to really know him. According to BY, comprehending AG had EVERYTHING to do with knowing God, at least as one of the initial steps. [I can still send the 'greatest talk ever delivered to the saints' to those who have not requested it yet, it goes into all of this stuff]. So, like Non Sequitur, I find the comment odd. Yet, like Creekster, I can see the legitimacy of stating it that way. We do not have all the answers, so why get worked up about it. It is something we will truly only comprehend through personal revelation. Believe me, this issue created A LOT of anxiety within me when I first started peering down the rabbit hole, as this was the first issue, years ago, where I realized everything may not really be the way we have been taught that it was. So if you feel that way, don't worry too much, it is par for the course. If you keep digging, your very foundations will be rocked. Some never come out of it. Some do. Those who do usually have a much more sure foundation for their testimony and are less likely to be tossed to and fro, so to speak. I have seen many end up down the various paths.

[creekster]

Of course, if the AG theory is essential to knowing God, which is essential to progression, which is the purpose of this existence, then isn't Nelson's comment incorrect? Either way, not sure any belief system is based on scientific fact, whatever that means.

[non sequitur]

upon scientific fact, but it should also not ignore scientific fact. If you can't reconcile the two, then take a leap of faith, but don't pretend that is unimportant to scrutinize the veracity of that in which you profess to believe.

[il Padrino Ute]

was more along the lines that there are somethings that I may not quite fully understand but will so when I'm in, for lack of a better term, a more enlightened state. I have no trouble accepting the fact that dinosaurs existed because of the scientific proof of it.

I also believe that Elder Nelson was telling the particular Elder who asked the question that if wondering how they fit into God's plan is all he's worried about, then the guy must be doing something right. This certain Elder was pretty muych one of the smart alecks in my mission and ELder Nelson may have just been reminding him that he'd be glad to answer doctrinal questions at a zone conference rather than scientific questions.

Again, I have no qualms with the relationship of scientific facts and Church doctrine. It all fits together nice and neatly for the most part and that that can't be explained is certainly better taken with a dose of faith than dismissed. At this point in my life, I've found a nice balance of the two and to be honest, I'll trust that which my faith in God tells me is true, rather than that which mortal man claims is correct. Of course, I speak for myself only and understand that there are some who don't see it as I do.

[Archaea]

Can you imagine an endless round of eternal rounds?

This life is challenging enough. I don't need more where I can really screw things up.

If it's true, I'm going to going through a lot before I get it right.