Rob Osborn
-
Posts
3852 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rob Osborn
-
-
9 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
Have, and it is clear what they mean and it doesn't coincide with your personal interpretation.
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...
-
5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:
The first point of your logic should be your testimony of Christ and his church. That Christ gospel makes sense and has no contradictions. Therefore any contradiction, any entanglement you need to unravel are because of your weakness in understanding and reasoning. Not because of God, not because of the church, but because of you.
The moment you type the words "doctrine that creates contradiction" you have failed in faith logic that flows from that.
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.
-
11 minutes ago, estradling75 said:
So nothing wrong with "Correcting" something... But you are not "Fixing" it.... that is as clear as mud..
Pretty much the thing you are "correcting" but not "fixing" because you have studied so much... Is the exact same thing that President Monson and the 12 in their collective years studying, prayer, and receiving revelation as part of their stewardships have decided not to do anything about. But instead of "Correcting and Fixing' yourself so that you are in harmony with them... You continue to pound your head again the wall and self justify your actions with such logical twisting that you are "correcting" but not "fixing"
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.
-
13 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
The obvious implication is that "Rob Osborn" believes the current interpretation of doctrine on many points is incorrect. We have a combined presidency of the Church and its 12 apostles that would disagree with you pertaining to the interpretation of Joseph Smith and the word "damned." What is obvious to me is that you are pigeonholing Joseph's use of the word damned to mean one thing. Damned also means, "stopped in progress." Anyone who does not receive the fullness of the Father, and enter into his glory is damned.
Doctrine and Covenants 132: 4, "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory." Who doesn't enter into God's glory? Anyone who had not received the fullness of the Father. These people are damned. This verse is evidence of multiple meanings of Joseph Smith's words; thus, this statement, "But in close examination of all of Joseph Smith's teachings and writings the word as Joseph used it means the condemnation to hell," is confirmed false, and Bruce R. McConkie and current leadership are correct. A close examination of the word "damned" as used by Joseph and modern day prophets has more meaning than just meaning "condemned to hell" as you have ascribed to Joseph.
Two verses later we are able to receive a second witness from words given to Joseph Smith, "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." Those who are not able to abide by celestial laws, pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, will be damned -- stopped in progress -- as they will not receive eternal lives, eternal increase.
More of Joseph Smith's words, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, they who believe not on your words, and are not baptized in water in my name, for the remission of their sins, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, shall be damned, and shall not come into my Father’s kingdom where my Father and I am." They are not received in the Father's kingdom where Christ and the Father dwell. The highest degree of glory. The obvious implication, those who inherit a telestial or terrestial glory, who are not with the Christ and the Father in his kingdom are damned. In light of this, I am puzzled as to what words from Joseph Smith you have been studying that you interpret his words only to mean one thing when those who have keys, and scriptures teach plainly multiple meanings to the word damned.
The Bible Dictionary was added to the scriptures the same way the footnotes were added, by agreement from church leadership, and thank goodness they were. They have expanded and increased our knowledge and intelligence of gospel truths and doctrine. They are for our profit and learning.
As there isn't anything really new presented I share what I previously posted, "The temple doesn't need to teach, explicitly, that the telestial and terrestial are separate eternal worlds. The doctrine is already implied as scriptures, particularly modern scripture and the combined teachings of apostles and prophets have defined them as separate kingdoms. The moment we enter the temple doesn't remove/negate what has been taught, and what continues to be taught. It is already implied, due to revealed doctrine, nothing new, nothing different, nothing changed."
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.
-
8 hours ago, anatess2 said:
Correct. That is the Plan of SALVATION. In that Salvation, you are correct. It is a dichotomy. Either you are SAVED or you are NOT SAVED. In this, we are saved by Christ's grace and not by our works. And such grace is predicated by our acceptance of Christ's atoning sacrifice. I posit that the FACT that we are on earth already indicates that we have accepted Christ's atoning sacrifice at least with our pre-mortal knowledge. Those that did not accept Christ went with Lucifer in pre-mortality and did not progress to gaining mortal bodies. Of course, one can work his way through mortality to end up rejecting Christ in the final judgment after gaining full knowledge. They would join Lucifer as well and join the NOT SAVED camp.
Where you veer off is where it goes from being Saved to being Exalted. This is also where the Catholics veer off. The Catholics believe in heaven and hell as end-states. Further, they believe that there are no degrees to heaven. It's just heaven. You go to heaven out of Christ's grace alone. Your works do nothing to merit salvation. Rather, you do righteous works because you love God. Baptism, therefore, is only a requirement to those to whom the gospel has been proclaimed and that people who have not been baptized may still attain salvation. The Catholic position of the 2 end-states of heaven and hell is the only position that they can possibly hold from the scholarly study of the scriptures because they are missing the doctrine of Exaltation and post-mortal Ordinances restored in these latter days.
The 3 degrees of glory is not a progression (that's a Catholic teaching - progress from earth to purgatory before making it to heaven). Rather, they are inheritances as taught by the latter day prophets for all those who are SAVED. You are saved by grace alone. You inherit a degree of glory that your mortal and spirit world works indicate is where your heart is. Therefore, the Saved = Heaven, Not Saved = Hell becomes insufficient in the depiction of the Plan of Salvation. It becomes further detailed with Heaven separated out into 3 Degrees - Telestial, Terrestrial, Celestial - with Hell qualified as Outer Darkness (spiritual death - that being completely separated from God). Of course, to those who have full knowledge of our Potential for Celstial glory and because of the state of their hearts did not attain that potential, we could surmise that it would be hell for them to inherit terrestrial or telestial glory. King David, for example, would be in such a hell I would imagine even as he is Saved.
Do you see how I have that picture all clear in my head without having to point out details in minutae on the ancient meaning of a word or a detailed unpacking of possible alternate interpretation of some prophet's teaching? I have studied the gospel in minute details as a Catholic and then as a Latter-day Saint but all this minutae contribute to that overall picture in my head. So that, when I go teach in Primary or listen to the teachings in Sunday School or RS or listen to conference talks or study different books in the scriptures or attend the temple... all of them don't clang around in my head conflicting with each other... rather they all fit in with the general picture.
There's these 3 guys who described an elephant. One guy was observing its leg and said an elephant is a giant tree. The other guy was observing its tail and said an elephant is a rope. They other guy was observing its ear and said the elephant is a cloth. They all offered conflicting descriptions and if they don't step back and look at the elephant as a whole, they'll argue all day long.
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.
-
1 hour ago, estradling75 said:
Except when you to take it upon yourself to assume its broken and that you need to fix it... when you know (or claim to believe) that God has a prophet and leaders that he has called for that express purpose. Because that means that you are saying don't listen to President Monson and the 12... Listen to me because I have studied it for a long time
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.
-
1 hour ago, estradling75 said:
Except when you to take it upon yourself to assume its broken and that you need to fix it... when you know (or claim to believe) that God has a prophet and leaders that he has called for that express purpose. Because that means that you are saying don't listen to President Monson and the 12... Listen to me because I have studied it for a long time
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.
-
4 hours ago, Vort said:
There are a great many things about which our general understanding is wrong. And I'm talking about the Latter-day Saints, not the world population in general. What of it? Ours is not to correct the Church as a whole, unless we have been called and ordained to that end. Ours is to sustain our leaders, love them, and help them move the work forward. We don't do that by publicly pointing out and complaining about what we think are mistakes in interpretation.
Theres nothing wrong with correcting a broken paradigm.
-
5 hours ago, anatess2 said:
See... this is the thing... we studied it too. For decades.
Matter of fact, many many many learned men who spent their entire life doing nothing but studying these things (St. Augustine, St. Ignatius, Irraneous, Origen, etc. etc.) have shown that you can study something to death yet get no closer to Truth... especially if you come from a position where you first reject Truth as taught by the prophets.
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.
-
3 hours ago, anatess2 said:
I humbly and sincerely suggest that your interpretation or perception of the Temple's depiction of the Plan of Salvation - especially about the earth - is not quite true.
Zil and Anddenex explained quite clearly where the misunderstanding is.
As far as a general observation. I think you limit yourself when you take one word and you apply one strict connotation to it. The perfect example is the word "damned". To think that Joseph Smith only has one strict and narrow definition of the word damned when he utters it is limiting your understanding. Words have shades of meaning and connotation called "context". It is this "context" that prophets, seers, revelators like Bruce McConkie expounds on to increase your understanding. But if you limit yourself to the strict and narrow meaning of words as a scholarly study instead of a spiritual study then the quilt will never come together.
I have a testimony of this. I sat on the beach while I was still a very devout Catholic and tried to resolve my testimony of ONE GOD as a Trinitarian to the ONE GOD of the LDS Church. Same words, very different context. My testimony of One God as a Catholic was immovable. Pulling myself off that square to see the quilt was a very spiritual experience for me and as I journeyed on the path to conversion, that spiritual study made me appreciate my Catholic background even more where I gained those testimonies. It is hard for me to explain it but it is like pieces of a puzzle with my existing testimonies as a Catholic jumbled as puzzle pieces with the new things I learned as an investigator and finally they all fell into place that brought my mind peace. My existing testimonies did not all of a sudden become false because of the new knowledge. Rather, they got added upon. So, when you are ready to put those seemingly conflicting puzzle pieces together and look for how they connect together to form the whole, give it a shot and see where it leads you.
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.
-
6 hours ago, Anddenex said:
I will seek to be as succinct as possible in my reply as their are multiple thoughts within this paragraph. There is one consistency in life -- change -- and as members of the Church we shouldn't be torn over any "change" in the Church, and our love for and sustaining of Church leaders need not dwindle. We are at odds pertaining to doctrinal changes which are being reshaped (terms that define doctrinal increase: expand, expound, and enlighten).
Our past history gives evidence to the rise of doctrines and practices (i.e. Word of Wisdom) that were first initiated by the question of someone close to the prophet; however, this revelation didn't occur from a group or individual that was constantly pressuring change. Church leadership has always recognized that each member of the Church is able to find truths. All our standard works are evidence of this truth, and this isn't any new change. Each generation is influenced by their past and present knowledge and revelation. The structure and way we teach and learn is a wonderful change (although not a doctrinal change). This is good.
The last sentence is puzzling to me as I am not sure what is being presented, as whose "judgement" decides what is improving? Mine. Yours. The prophets and apostles. The prophets and apostles continue the same pattern in defining what is doctrine. The Church appears to continue to follow this method of revealing doctrine to the body of the Church: Manual. Church leaders are however more cautious than in the past and with good reason, and this is a welcomed change, but calling this "defining of doctrine is improving" doesn't appear to fit the category.
The first paragraph puzzles me as there isn't any doctrine that is "incorrect." This is what makes doctrine, doctrine. Doctrine is truth. Doctrine is "what is" and we will always be incorrect if we assume "doctrine" isn't correct. Let's review this statement from the manual previously shared, "I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency … will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord. …
"I testify that if we shall look to the First Presidency and follow their counsel and direction, no power on earth can stay or change our course as a church, and as individuals we shall gain peace in this life and be inheritors of eternal glory in the world to come" (Joseph Fielding Smith, “Eternal Keys and the Right to Preside,” Ensign, July 1972, 88).
In reference to "raising awareness" with local leaders I couldn't agree more. That a person assumes they are more wise than a combined Presidency of the Church, and the Twelve Apostles is dumb founding to me. This is a question I ponder when members want to "raise awareness" to the collective body of God's anointed, "Why do people think the Lord hasn't raised awareness himself to his leaders whom he has called and given keys to lead"? If our Church leaders were to begin to move forward on something the Lord did not approve, why do people think the Lord wouldn't stop them, as the Lord did with Samuel when calling a new king for Israel? The prophet had decided on a different brother, but the Lord refused this brother and let the prophet know. On individual cases, the Lord will indeed allow a prophet to learn from sad experienced as he did with Joseph and Martin Harris.
Bruce R. McConkie wasn't a single person that defined LDS doctrine, otherwise there wouldn't have been any need for multiple revisions to "Mormon Doctrine." Also, he didn't introduce a new definition of damnation into Mormonism. I understood this concept of "damnation" while on my mission. Bruce R. McConkie is correct pertaining to his thoughts on damnation. Anything less than the highest level in the celestial kingdom is damnation, or better said, to be damned to a degree. The concept being taught is that any lack of progression is a form of damnation, or being damned, a state where one is not able to progress any further. Doctrine and Covenants 132: 17, "For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever." (emphasis added) If a person is to continue "forever and ever" without exaltation then this individual is in a state of being damned.
If you read the manual provided you will see it isn't "one" apostle that determines doctrine. Now, as pertaining to "one" prophet it appears this can be the case depending on the circumstance and need of the Church. I am fine with Jesus being the "one" to reveal or to expound on doctrine, while he lived. I am fine with Joseph Smith being "one" as certain times due to his calling and his time period; however, as times and periods change it appears the Church has been following this manual of revealing truth, doctrine, for a long time now, at least through the whole of my generation (4 decades).
Yes, I love the fact I have almost all (if not all) published Church materials on one digital device -- AWESOME! The scripture posted is wonderful and it is why we have different meeting in church, so we are able to be instructed more sufficiently in theory, in doctrine, and in practice. Where does this instruction come from? That is the key.
True, because the concept of our world/earth being the "telestial kingdom" isn't doctrine and it isn't taught in the temple. I will actually reference @zil's post, "world" is not equal to "kingdom", are not equal to "law", are not equal to "glory". To conflate all these terms into one meaning will cause one to err." Our earth is in a telestial state, not kingdom. Our earth during the millennium is in a terrestial state, not a kingdom. The earth becomes a "kingdom" (the celestial kingdom) when it is renewed and receives its paradisiacal glory.
The temple doesn't need to teach, explicitly, that the telestial and terrestial are separate eternal worlds. The doctrine is already implied as scriptures, particularly modern scripture and the combined teachings of apostles and prophets have defined them as separate kingdoms. The moment we enter the temple doesn't remove/negate what has been taught, and what continues to be taught. It is already implied, due to revealed doctrine, nothing new, nothing different, nothing changed.
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?
-
6 hours ago, Carborendum said:
You quoted my last post, so I'm going to assume that you intended it to have something to do with what I posted. . . . .
I can't figure out what it has to do with my post.
Hmm. I indicated the topic. Ok, we're on the same general topic. I quoted the Book of Mormon. You indicated that the D&C came after the BoM, so the D&C indicates progression between kingdoms (says you) and that seems to contradict the BoM quote I gave, so the BoM is no longer valid.
But, that would go against what you have said your position is. So, what are you saying again? Oh yeah, the stuff you already repeated for the, what fifth time now?
One more time. I'm not going to accept that the endowment is a doctrinal declaration of the three kingdoms except as a very general and over arching archetype. If the end of your argument is that the endowment says so, First, I disagree it teaches what you think it teaches, and Second, I'm not going to discuss it in detail on a public forum.
Stick with the standard works and we can have a discussion.
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).
-
6 hours ago, Anddenex said:
I will respond to your previous reply; however, I will quickly respond to this statement. The plan of salvation as taught in the scriptures and the temple are all the same, and that which is taught in the temple is currently being taught.
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.
-
25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
So... We have the Bible. Guess how many different interpretations we have of the Bible in all of Christendom. Quadzillion. It took another book - The Book of Mormon to RESOLVE the Bible. So, why need a BoM when we already have the Bible?
The principle of things do not change. People's interpretation of it can cause it to change. That's why we have PROPHETS to steer us back into the strait and narrow path. Line upon line, precept upon precept applies to the Church as well.
Eternal Marriage did not just get restored by God telling Joseph Smith in his prayers - Marriage is Eternal. Rather, he was commanded to take a second wife. My husband would respond in the same manner as Joseph Smith - What? Seriously??? All the way to... What am I gonna tell my wife? Please, Lord, do I really have to? This method of restoration had a purpose even as it tested the mettle of the prophets and the members.
In any case, there is one principle of the Plan of Salvation. Facets of it are taught in different areas as it pertains to that lesson's purpose. You're not going to teach the principles of the Temple in Primary, for example. Although it is the same Plan of Salvation. It is when you start to see the whole quilt instead of the individual square that your confusion will be resolved.
Here's another exercise... read all the different accounts of the First Vision made by Joseph Smith. See if you can identify how they are the same principle even as it focuses on different facets of that testimony so much so that anti-Mormons have pointed to it and said - see! He changed his story many times! I mean, it's pretty much the same thing reading all the 4 gospels from 4 different authors. The same story, different purposes... sometimes making it sound like they're different gospels - I mean, they can't even use the same names in the accounts of Jesus' family tree... same principle, different purposes, see?
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.
-
42 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
I just asked my 15 yo daughter what she thought of the doctrine of progression between kingdoms. I gave her no other background nor did I indicate what my take on it was or anything to persuade her opinion. But she is the one kid that we feel like we never need to worry about not fulfilling her spiritual responsibilities.
Her response:
She had not read any of the previous discussion here, nor have I mentioned it.
And, yes, she quoted the entire verse off the top of her head.
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.
-
4 hours ago, Vort said:
I think you have a flawed model of how doctrine is received.
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.
-
9 hours ago, Zarahemla said:
Everyone in the church's goal is exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, but let's say for a minute you went through Final Judgment and found out you were going to be a Ministering Angel for eternity in 1 of the 2 lower levels of the Celestial Kingdom, would you be disappointed or would you be ecstatic that you still made the Celestial Kingdom and will still get to be with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ for eternity and get to do so many wonderful things for others? I've come to realize I'd be okay with this if that was my fate because any level of the Celestial Kingdom is supposed to be unbelievable unimagined happiness and bliss. I know we're not supposed to settle for less than best, but I would hope that we should accept wherever we wind up as being the place where we would be happiest and why it's called the Plan of Happiness. How would you feel? Or would you spend eternity pouting that you didn't make the best spot?
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.
-
6 hours ago, Anddenex said:
True. In any field that doesn't completely have all the information (but enough information) there will be people with their own ideas, their own thoughts, pertaining to aspects that have not yet been fully revealed.
We disagree with your first sentence in the above quoted statement. The doctrine is plenty enough for us to agree upon; however, in order to agree each of us must truly be desiring truth, without itching ears, or doctrines that conform to our views. This leads to your second statement allowing for -- major contradictions.
On first note, the dichotomy created with this sentence isn't working. Either we receive more knowledge that is different and more perfect (emphasis on different), or we receive more that adds to what we have now and stay in confusion. We are able to add to what we have now and cease confusion, it doesn't need to be "different" although I would love a "more perfect" knowledge of the truth.
According to records, we have the following statement from Joseph Smith, "Paul ascended into the third heavens, and he could understand the three principal rounds of Jacob’s ladder—the telestial, the terrestrial, and the celestial glories or kingdoms, where Paul saw and heard things which were not lawful for him to utter. I could explain a hundred fold more than I ever have of the glories of the kingdoms manifested to me in the vision, were I permitted, and were the people prepared to receive them. The Lord deals with this people as a tender parent with a child, communicating light and intelligence and the knowledge of his ways as they can bear it." (emphasis added)
This speaks to the Church collectively. There are some individuals who may have been able to bear an increased understanding of the eternities; unfortunately, there are individuals who are unable to bear it. Individually though we can learn all the principles and doctrines of the eternities if we are more concerned with truth -- what is.
Example where you see doctrine becoming more inline with mainstream Christianity from the Bible Dictionary and the guide to scriptures please. This way I can understand better where you are coming from.
Yes, small changes are able to create major shifts in theory and principle as more is revealed. The change will occur the same way it has occurred since Adam. The Lord will reveal his secrets to his servants the prophets who then will reveal them to the Church collectively. This does not mean only prophets are able to learn unrevealed principles and doctrines of truth. I believe I have already learned truths that have not yet been revealed; however, you will never read or hear me share them. The Lord has given a proper method of revealing new truths, and once those truths are revealed through his prophets I will begin to share them also.
Collective membership in relation to Church leadership and revealed doctrine creates an interesting symbiotic relationship in the Church. There are important times where the collective body will provide opportunities for the Church leadership to make decisions. This, I believe, is in part why the Church currently holds general assemblies with local leaders. This provides an opportunity for Church leadership to hear and see for themselves collectively what is happening in given areas where the Church is located and then make educated decisions, accompanied by prayer (revelation) to act. Does Church leadership require a collective understanding from individual church members to reveal new doctrine? No. Moses did not require individual church members to bring about the Law of Moses. Joseph Smith did not require individual church members increase in understanding of Zion to reveal aspects of Zion. The Lord was only necessary. The real question, are our prophets and apostles guided by Jesus Christ. If so, then that is what is most important, and my obedience to revealed principles is the first law of the heavens.
The last inquiry appears to create a false dichotomy. We have a right to look for problems to make changes, or we are blind sheep incapable of learning. This, to me, is clearly false. The extreme of the first position leads to excommunication, as people then begin to think they can tell the Church what to do collectively ignoring stewardship. The Old Testament, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants offers evidence of people who looked for problems and it never turned out well for them (e.g. an easy example is Laman and Lemuel who constantly looked at the problems with Lehi and Nephi, and we know who the Lord supported). We have modern day examples of excommunicated members who have esteemed their "right" to be more than what it is (e.g. like the member who is trying to force "second baptisms" in the Church because he disagrees with how stakes handle baptisms).
We have a right to be instructed by God's spirit of truth. We have a right to increase scripture study and to follow the prophets for our prophet and learning. We have "rights" within our stewardship to act according to principle, doctrines, and truths. Problems begin to occur when people begin to step beyond their stewardship in the Church. Oliver Cowdery stepped beyond his stewardship and it didn't end well for him, until he repented, but by that time he had lost a wonderful opportunity that was given to another.
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!
-
35 minutes ago, Eowyn said:
My main question for @Rob Osborn is, what is it about you that makes you smarter/wiser/better informed than every prophet of our dispensation, who presumably agrees with the Plan of Happiness as it's always been taught?
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?
Principle of Salvation and Eternal Progression theory
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
So, if I said the pieces somehow do not add up, it would be fine?