Rob Osborn

So, if I said the pieces somehow do not add up, it would be fine?

Read it over again, especially verse 6. You are arguing that those who dont enter into the covenent become damned for failure to do so. But, it says the opposite. Here- "6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God." It states that those who do enter into the covenent but then arent obedient to it are damned. It then explains later on in the section that these "damned" are destroyed in the flesh and delivered over to Satan in hell. "Damned" in section 132 means condemnation to hell just like all other instances of it in the D&C.

How about lame sayings Drugs, they will either kill you, or they wont. Im tired, said the first. Im wheeled, said the second. Im inner tubed, said the third...

Not sure I follow you. If somethings not true, its not true. It doesnt effect my testimony one bit, I know what the truth is and how to direct myself to find it. That same mechanism in me just so happened to see a weak link and I just want to see it fixed.

The only logical twisting I see are those parts of our doctrine that creates contradiction. Im trying to unravel it in my mind and make sense of what logically makes sense.

The verses you quote from section 132 do not mean what you think they mean. Read it again. It specifically states that all those who choose to enter into the covenant and then, after receiving the covenant, do not show obedience to it after having entered into it will be damned. This means they will be condemned to hell at least temporarily upon death. Continue to read all of the verses in context- "26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God." (D&C 132:26) Also cross reference to - "21 And the soul that sins against this covenant, and hardeneth his heart against it, shall be dealt with according to the laws of my church, and shall be delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption." (D&C 82:21) "9 Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. 10 And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."(D&C 104:9-10) The verses you quoted in 132 are meant in this light. Its a temporary damnation to hell for those who entered into the covenent but then were disobedient in it. They are or will be condemned to hell (damned) until the day of redemption.

They shut down highways here in Idaho. This was taken this afternoon as I was plowing our driveway.

It may be clear in your head to you but the truth is that a person who is saved is saved from hell. A saved person isnt or wont be in hell. Misunderstandings like that cause all sorts of head clanging to me. And trust me, other religions pound us to death on those misunderstandings. As sad as it is, they are right on a lot of the things they pound us over. So we have bits of truth but so do other religions. I think our own membership are too seminary answer trained to think for themselves. Thats also a problem.

Im not taking it upon myself to fix it. Its not my stewardship to fix. But I do believe its within our stewardship as members to seek the truth and ask for clarification from our leaders if we come to conclusions that trouble our conscious.

Im not taking it upon myself to fix it. Its not my stewardship to fix. But I do believe its within our stewardship as members to seek the truth and ask for clarification from our leaders if we come to conclusions that trouble our conscious.

Theres nothing wrong with correcting a broken paradigm.

Well, thats them and they lacked everything we have access to. Im not far off from the truth. You may not believe that but thats okay too. I am not rejecting the prophets, just rejecting some of the points of our doctrine that are contradictions.

This isnt something I just stunmbled upon. I have been studying it for decades. The more I study (such as how Joseph used the word "damnation") the more I am convinced that from a church doctrine point of view our general understanding of salvation and heaven is wrong on a few points. For me its about how to go forward in finding out the best way to seek answers/ clarification from church leaders.

Two things- As far as I can tell it was Bruce R. McConkie that wrote the original "Bible Dictionary" and was the one who redefined various words and terms, one of which is the word "damnation". But, it was Joseph Smith who pretty much wrote the Book of Mormon and revelations now found in the D&C. Joseph Smith exclusively used the word in scripture in the same manner of his Protestant upbringing and peers around him. I did a research project years ago and went back through all of the writings and teachings I could find of Joseph Smith where he used any form of the word (damn, damned, damnation). In "every" instance, including all scripture, Joseph Smith used the word to mean what it meant to him in his day. From the 1828 Websters dictionary we have this definition- " Damn DAMN, verb transitive 1. To sentence to eternal torments in a future state; to punish in hell." Joseph Smith usage of the word in his writings and teachings was always in the context of condemnation to hell. It wasnt until long after Joseph Smith that folks changed or redefined how Joseph Smith used the word because it no longer meant what the current belief of the time decided it should be according to their interpretation. This was due to trying to reinterpret the original meaning into a different belief system. The classic scripture type such as - 33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. 34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned. (3 Nephi 11:33-34) was redefined because the current belief established after Joseph Smith wrote the BoM was that baptism was only needed for entrance into the Celestial kingdom and because the telestial and terrestrial were considered "heaven" it had to be redefined so as to not make scriptures such as this one and many many more just like it false. Thus, the definitiin of the word was changed from its original meaning and all of mormon doctrine followed suit and persists with us to this day. But in close examination of all of Joseph Smith's teachings and writings the word as Joseph used it means the condemnation to hell. Hell is always associated with the word in scripture. In no place in scripture is it used in any context other than the condemnation to hell. The implication is obvious though, it means our current doctrine, on many points, is incorrect. The second issue is just how the temple uses the term "Telestial Kingdom". The temple exactky defines our current earth as both "the telestial kingdom" and " the telestial world". This is the same exact wording as found in scripture such as section 76. How then are we not to equate the two together? How are we supposed to believe the temple wording means something ekse when in fact these are the exact words that define our current earth?

Okay, I will leave out the temple. So, I am curious what you think about the parable of the wheat and the tares as found in Matthew and further explained in the D&C. In the parable it is explained that the field is the world. The good seed (the wheat) are the children of God and the tares are the seed or children of the devil. In our latter day the harvest has begun. This harvest will continue till the end of the millennium when all the wheat are gathered up and then the tares are bundled and burned. So, in the end there will either be wheat or tares. No mention is made that some other third or fourth type exist, just the two. In D&C section 101, a revelation was given to Joseph Smith. This revelation came after both section 76 and 88. Here is the verse on the parable from section 101- "65 Therefore, I must gather together my people, according to the parable of the wheat and the tares, that the wheat may be secured in the garners to possess eternal life, and be crowned with celestial glory, when I shall come in the kingdom of my Father to reward every man according as his work shall be; 66 While the tares shall be bound in bundles, and their bands made strong, that they may be burned with unquenchable fire." According to this, all of the wheat will gain eternal life and celestial glory. The tares on the other hand are the devil and his angels which will be the ones burned. No other group exists but to either be a wheat or a tare. Its obvious to me that the wheat being stored in the garners is figurative of "temples" and it is there where we store the names of those wheat which is figurative for all who are saved through the atonement who are begotten sons and daughters of Christ and are members of the church of the firstborn. It is during the millennium that all of the temple work will be accomplished for all the saved where Christ presents the kingdom (those names of the wheat in the garners) to the Father spotless. In order for these verses and parable of the wheat and tares to be true, all of the saved gain celestial glory. Failure to attain celestial glory here means you are a tare and must be burned (not saved).

It isnt being taught anywhere outside of the temple official dialogue. You will find no official teaching by the church outside the temple of our world being the telestial kingdom and we are in it and progress next to the terrestrial kingdom then the celestial. And certainly, in the temple, we do not teach that the telestial or terrestrial kingdoms are separate eternal worlds after resurrection and judgment.

The plan of salvation is true. How we define it, interpret it or perceive it may not be true. The temple, as part two in my opinion of section 76, defines more clearly the three kingdoms. Now all we have to do is listen, open our hears to hear for clarification. I remember once when I told someone who was taking the temple preparation class that the plan of salvation as taught in the temple is not the same thing you have been taught up to this point so just be aware. Another person said I was wrong. I said "really"? "So where in the temple do we teach about where the telestial kingdom is?" He couldnt tell me. I said- "according to the plan of salvation according to the temple, this very earth is the telestial kingdom". He again said I was wrong. I said "so then why do we teach that it is in the temple?" Needless to say we never could come to any agreement. The point here being that we should be honest, more honest, in what we do teach. Of course I could say "this earth is the telestial kingdom according to the temple doctrine", but no one would believe me, even say I was teaching a false doctrine. For me, my understanding on the matter, it means I should either shut my ears whenever our earth is called "the telestial kingdom" and "telestial world" in the temple cause they dont really mean it, or, I should take the words literally and make it part of my belief of truth. But, then it makes it hard to knowingly teach in church one plan while believing in another more advanced understanding.

Before section 76 became popular the Book of Mormon and New Testament was all the early saints had to teach the plan of salvation. Even after the vision of 76 was revealed to Joseph Smith it took many decades before it started to become a new doctrine. Then the endowment came along and it was many years later after that in which people began to understand it contained a new doctrine. Whats interesting about this is that if you separated out the BoM, the D&C and church manuals, and the temple endowment and gave only each doctrine separately to three unknowing individuals you would have three individuals teach three distinctively different plans of salvation. Of interest to me is the idea that these three doctrines do not correlate very well with each other- if I picked any one of them and only taught it, by itself it would disagree in general with the other choices. If we really believe in revelation, line upon line, shouldnt the most recent revelation be the one we should be using? Im somewhat thus baffled then why we do not teach the plan of salvation/plan of eternal progression as taught in the temple and use supporting scriptures from the BoM, NT, PoGP, and D&C to back it up and help substantiate the temple teaching as the most perfect and most correct.

The proclamation to the world on the family is doctrine revealed in these latter days. But did it just come to the one singular prophet who wrote it word for word? No, it was drafted, changed, redrafted, changed and a final draft was made agreeable amongst the first presidency and quorum of the twelve apostles before it was finally penned and agreed upon by all members of that council to become the official doctrinal position of the church. That was how that revelation came about. In like manner, a lot of the changes in policy that get penned in the official instruction manuals of the church are done in the same manner. God works with prophets through councils a lot of ti es in these latter days.

My personal opinion, and its pretty far out there, is that if we choose the path of eternal life in Gods kingdom that eventually we all will become Gods. Everyone will and must find a companion for salvation. I find it interesting that the entire endowment ceremony, which is the path or pattern for salvation, is weaved together by covenants that we make as married couples towards each other. Even at the veil, the wife is brought through by her husband. The scriptures sate that neither the wonan or the man is perfect without the other. So, if we are on a path that leads to perfection, then its inevitable that eventually all on that path will fill the measure of their creation and find and marry a partner. I honestly do not see single people in heaven for all eternity, it defies our very creation and purpose.

Im sort of torn over the subject because on the one hand I completely love and sustain all of my church leaders but on the other I see how doctrine has changed and been reshaped over the course of our history and it continues to change. I think in the past everything was left up to one person whereas now we have councils and dialogue to come up with doctrine that is then approved or ratified by church leadership. More input by members and councils, including women, is happening now more than ever before. The structure and way we teach and learn now is different. I thus think the church leadership is recognizing that we each have ability to find truths. We are still a ways off but our correlation and defining of doctrine is improving. I know that if one of us do find a doctrine that we honestly and humbly believe isnt correct that its not our right to teach "officially" what is right or wrong. But, I do believe we have a duty to raise awareness with our leaders possible doctrines for clarification. Bruce R. McConkie was very intelligent and brilliant as a gospel scholar. He was pretty much the single person who defined LDS doctrine that brought about a correlation amongst the scriptures, footnotes, headings, manuals, etc, that blossomed in his era. But, some of his ideas created some contradictions that werent in harmony with how a lot of Christianity viewed certain doctrines. For instance, McConkie introduced a different definition of "damnation" into mormonism that raised some red flags. He defined it as anything less than exaltation in the highest level of the celestial kingdom. This now meant that one could be saved and damned at the same time which, for obvious reasons, critics jumped all over to hammer the church. More recent attempts at defining topics by the church have taken place and we are slowly changing some of the wording to be less contradictory. But, I believe this is happening at a more collective level by multiple peoples/councils/boards. We no longer are just letting one apostle or prophet define all doctrine. We also live in a day and age where all of our doctrine is digitalized and thus more search friendly and its a lot easier to see contradictions and errors and this is leading to change. But we still have a long way to go. I thus posted that scripture in my second post because we, as members need dialogue so that we can get more perfect in theory of doctrine.

77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom. 78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

I wanted to continue this topic we had going on another thread about heaven and hell but with a slightly different angle. Its rather obvious that everyone has their own ideas, thoughts, and opinions on what is required for salvation, what heaven includes, what it doesnt include, if we can progress from glory to glory, become Gods ourselves, etc. I do not for a second believe that our doctrine on the matter, in the details, is anything we can all agree upon. I do believe we all generally agree on certain aspects but in the details everything changes, and those differences really add up to major contradictions. My question going forward is do we think it possible that our doctrine concerning the entire plan of salvation will evolve into a different and more perfect framework than what we have now or will we continue to just add to what we have now and continue in general confusion on the details? It seems obvious to me that we are enduring through the Bruce R. McConkie style of definitions and teachings of salvation still but are slowly replacing it with different views and definitions now that are more in line with mainstream Christianity. I see this in aspects such as the way the bible dictionary defines a subject vs. how the guide to the scriptures defines the same subject. Do or can these small subtle changes add up to major shifts in theory and principle concerning the doctrine of salvation and eternal progression? If so, how does that change come about? Is it through the collective understanding of the individual church members advancing more perfectly in theory and principle and then spreading to the point where leaders get involved and ask the Lord? Do we have the right, and perhaps even the "duty" to look for problems and help in seeking to perfect the principle as members or do we all just follow like obedient yet blind sheep thinking we are incapable of learning new truths on our own?

I am not sure if I am getting my point across. Anyway, happy new year!

Im not smarter. I just have differing opinions. If you research where prophets have opinions on things such as "eternal progression" you will find they are from one end of the spectrum to the other. If you research Joseph Smith's opinions on heaven you will see that his views on salvation changed drastically over the course of his adult life. Later on, after his death, his opinions were picked over to fibd doctrines that fit with peoples opiniobs themselves. Go and read the Kubg Follett discourse and you will notice just how different his views had changed since the early church. He had pretty much gobe back to an understanding of salvation more consistant with the NT and BoM than what was later recorded as scrioture now found in the D&C. Yes, even Josrph Smiths own expoubding if doctrine cobtradicted itself over time. Does this make Jiseph Smith not a prophet, or smarter than himself?