vmethot

Duplicate

I don't know how well this answers the original questions but it does fit the theme of the answers. I have written a couple blog posts in the past that address part of this issue. The Unity of God - God wants us to become one with Him. The Only True God - There is only one. I like the comment above about 'God' being a family name. That is a good analogy; perhaps not perfect, but good. To address the third question, I have wondered this too. Christ was God before He came to earth, was He still God while He was on earth? The Holy Ghost is God, yet he is not resurrected. Are we God because we are children of God? Are Gods in embryo God? Are we/they God until we/they choose otherwise by disobedience? We are eternal beings, but being eternal does not make us God. I think any answer to these questions is complete speculation but I'll get my answers some day, perhaps during the millennium or after.

I agree, but the initial post wasn't referring to general use of the word doctrine. He said 'official doctrine of the church' in his question. He asked, 'Does it just have to appear in a talk at general conference?' In the general sense the answer is yes. In fact, if it was never stated in general conference or published by the church it can still be considered doctrine in the general sense, but as soon as you put the qualifier 'official doctrine of the church' it is narrowed down beyond 'how most use the word' doctrine.

I wrote a blog post seven years ago contrasting doctrine with gospel (What is the Gospel?). More specifically, I was using the definitions given by Christ in 3 Nephi 11 and 3 Nephi 27. This is my summary of 3 Ne 11: The doctrine is the witnessed facts - Christ is the Son of God as witnessed by all members of the Godhead, God. God the Father is the literal Father of Christ and the Father of all mankind as witnessed by God. As our Father He loves us and gives us commandments with promise: repent, believe in Christ and be baptized and we shall be saved, or in other words, inherit the kingdom of God. That is the doctrine of Jesus Christ upon which the gospel is founded. (Comments I make on my blog are my opinion not necessarily doctrine) To answer the initial question, there are several things that must be taken into account. Was it published by the church? Are there at least two witnesses? The more witnesses the more official the doctrine is. If it was written by a member of the church, even a prophet or apostle, this does not make it official doctrine. If it is believed by more than one member of the church, even prophets and apostles, this does not make it official church doctrine. If it was canonized, it is doctrine. If it was written and ratified by the first presidency and quorum of the twelve unanimously, it is doctrine. Joseph Smith said that there are no flaws in the revelations. There are flaws in the manuals, but they are published by the church, so they can be accepted as doctrine. If it is a big deal it will be found and corrected eventually. If I see something that I believe is wrong in a manual or church publication, or even over the pulpit at general conference, I don't think it is significant enough to prevent someone from being saved if they believe what is said. If it were, it would be corrected. I trust the leaders of the church to receive revelation to correct significant doctrinal flaws.

I'm surprised that the institute manual did not have what I think I learned in seminary. My understanding for years has been that the roots are the covenants of the fathers. This makes sense to me because the Lord always wants to preserve them. I understand the top to be the leaders of the people. The leaders of the people, including the kings and priests, had become corrupted and they were plucked out when Babylon destroyed Jerusalem. The fourth branch was plucked and placed somewhere else in the vineyard and had new roots. This was Lehi with the covenants that he made with the Lord that he and his seed would get a promised land and anything else that it entailed.

While doing a scripture search for the phrase 'kingdom of heaven,' I noticed that it appears 33 times in the Bible. This didn't surprise me, but what did surprise me is that it is only used in the book of Matthew and nowhere else. Any ideas why this is the case?

My answer is yes, and I feel it is supported strongly by both scripture and the temple. But more so the temple. It is also a requirement for all of God's laws. God's laws do not apply to those who go to outer darkness because they reject them.

I'm sorry for being a little harsh. I'm still working on that. I don't mind having my writing disected as long as it is thought through. It only bothered me that you blew me off with out much thought. If you manage the time let me know.

2. I see no scriptural evidence that Shem's name was changed to Melchizedek. I don't think it is outside of possibility, but I don't think it is scripturally based. Did Joseph Smith receive a revelation that stated this? In Alma 13:18 it says, "and [Melchizedek] did reign under his father." So if this is true, was Noah still alive when Abram was alive? From a quick google search, one source make it look like Abraham may have been 10 when Noah died and that was 68 years before he was called and gave tithes to Melchizedek. So one scriptural source implies that this is not correct. Another source says that Noah died 2 years before Abraham was born but Shem was alive well into Abraham's life. After the death of Shem, Abraham lived another 25 years. This source appears more accurate in its timeline. I actually like the idea that Shem is Melchizedek. Alma does not say that Melchizedek did reign under his father when Abraham paid tithes to him so there is no inconsistency there. 6. I agree with the idea that there will be more than a hand full (5) that will be sons of perdition. The closest reference to this idea (few not saved) that I have found in scripture is only a hope and prayer by Nephi in 2 Nephi 33:12, "And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day." Unlike Jospeh Fielding Smith, when I read the scriptures I don't get the impression that there will be a large number. But this isn't the first time I have disagreed with his written opinion. "He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it." This idea has begged the question for years in my mind, how is it that "every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess," even from those who will outright deny that the sun shines while they look at it? The closest I have come to a possible answer comes from D&C 76:110, "These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever;" This is referring to all those who will be saved in the kingdoms of glory. So maybe the sons of perdition will not bow the knee... I don't know.

I loved it. I thought it was a very well written and researched article. I agree with the conclusion that Zwingli neglected what Jesus said on the topic when he says, “Christ himself did not connect salvation with baptism.” There are two direct referenced that Christ Himself related the two in Mark 16:16 and John 3:5. As well as neglecting the many other instances in the New Testament, the obvious ones being 1 Peter 3:21 and Titus 3:5. He contradicts himself when he says, "It is election that saves, not baptism, and not even faith." And then turns around and says, "“We are saved by faith only.” If we say baptism takes away sins, that is just a figure of speech; for it is not baptism that takes them away, but faith." Your comment on priesthood, I did not find any reference to in the article. Where or what section of the article did you get that from? I think it is ironic that the author took the same chronological approach to this topic as my most recent blog post, Understanding Baptism Line upon Line, and my next one, Misunderstanding Baptism for Salvation (which will post on Sunday). Except I start with Joseph Smith's understanding as enlightened by the Book of Mormon.

Thank you for having an honest and thoughtful question. Sorry for the confusion. The correct answer to your question is that we do not know all of it. The main answer is no, they do not need baptism - water or fire. Although your definition of exaltation and mine differ (not significant), we do not know if they have to qualify for exaltation to the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. If they do, it does not include baptism. Anything beyond this is speculation as far as I understand. And yet you have time to waste on a forum like this... If you had read, you would have found quotes from prophets and scriptures showing that Joseph Smith 'contradicted' himself after learning more from God; and Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith reinforced the doctrinal correction through both statements and canonized revelation. If you had read, you wouldn't have made yourself look bad...

The prophet and the church does not say that baptism is only necessary for the celestial kingdom. If you had read the whole blog post you would see that they only say that baptism is necessary for the celestial kingdom; there is a big difference. Joseph Smith understood in 1842 that what he had said in 1832 was wrong. Your idea that baptism is only necessary for the celestial kingdom was not taught in the church again until Joseph Fielding Smith came along and misunderstood the progression of learning that Joseph Smith went through.

As promised, here is the detailed explanation of how it was revealed that baptism is necessary for all of the kingdoms of heaven: Understanding Baptism Line upon Line

You're right. I misunderstood you. Thank you for catching that. I thought you were saying that resurrection for all people was not a well established doctrine. After rereading your posts what I think you were trying to say is resurrection as an ordinance (as opposed to a blessing, a saving ordinance, or something else) is not a well established doctrine. Did I understand you correctly?

Rhodes, Thanks for sharing those quotes. I could break down each of those quotes from JFS and outline how they are based on incorrect understanding of scripture and modern revelation including his father's. But you will see that soon.