brotherofJared

I would love to hear your views on where and how it's "the Lord's way" where husband and wife are equals. Such is obviously not the case both physically and mentally.

This almost makes sense but for one thing. Where does he say "to teach those in authority what is expected.of them" and who is to teach them?

Patriarchy does not mean keeping the woman at home barefoot and pregnant. I dont believe it ever has. If that were true then Deborah would never have been a judge and a prophetess.

Well, I've been trying to find out what "serious error" means. No one seems to want to answer that question. I assume it means condemned to hell. If it does mean that, then teaching trinity doctrine or plurality of gods doctrine are not serious errors. Teaching that drinking Koolaid laced with arsenic is the way to heaven, is a serious error, but the consequences are temporal. I'm not going to stand around and watch them drink the Koolaid, I'm going to teach that it's a serious error and I'm going to preach against those who try to teach it. So, the debate has been, or should be, why is teaching the trinity doctrine or teaching theosis or teaching that God is a spirit, why are any of those a serious error? Can you prove to me that I'm in error? If we are not able to prove it, why would God condemn a person (if that is what a serious error means) simply because they didn't know? There is no way for them to know. He is not here. We can't see him, can't touch him, can't hear his voice (not talking about the still small voice). Why would God condemn a person for not knowing? The problem I'm trying to address is that as soon as a person undertakes to claim that someone who believes differently than he does is condemned, they step in to the realm of false godhood, believing that they have some knowledge that others don't. What if your belief is that serious error? Well, how would anyone know that for sure? We have an eye witness that told us that God and his Son are separate beings. We believe that based on what he told us, none of us have actually seen it. it makes more sense to me that they would be separate beings, else how can one be the son of the other? It seems like a retarded question, but our critics seem to think that it's not. I think they are wrong and I argue to convince them that they are, but it has never occurred to me to tell them that they are in jeopardy of being condemned to hell if they don't believe what I do. But reverse that situation and we are condemned because we don't believe what they do. The question that started all of this for me, was; why is teaching these things a serious error?

I don't think any of what Paul said has anything to do with how men treat women but how women treat men.

I understand that God has a plan for the unfortunate. These are not the ones that I'm suggesting are set up for failure. I'm talking about the person (Russ??) discussed in the OP could very well be just such a person. Though he had the opportunity to grow and improve his life, he chose a path that was set for failure. Why? We don't know. But God didn't prevent him from his choices. He certainly didn't know what the outcome of those choices would be in advance. Take for example, I have a brother whose name isn't Jared, who was born with a speech impediment. It wouldn't seem to be an issue, but everyone treated him as a retard because they couldn't understand him and he found comfort in the attention he received by playing the part. In the end, he found himself in jail for many petty crimes he committed because his "friends" knew they could convince him to do really stupid things and he'd do them. To me, it was all centered around the speech issue. I believe that if he could articulate himself better, his life would be different today. Who gave him the impediment? It was God. God set him up for failure on a temporal scale (I'm not talking eternal or religious). There are a lot of people who are born into circumstances that cause them to be a burden on society. They don't have opportunities for education or meaningful employment and it's not their fault. Some of them can't articulate themselves very well, but some can and yet, from both classes, we find people who are stuck with their circumstances. So, yes. There are people who are set up for failure. You may disagree and that is your prerogative. I suppose you could shoot down every case present and find a way to explain how each case is actually the result of the person's choices, but; I simply cannot accept that. People are born into circumstances where they are not equal with their peers and are set up for failure.

Ok. I'm not advocating that we shouldn't share our various beliefs, but taking the stance that we are right and everyone else is wrong such that it's so wrong that it's a serious error, a damning belief, then we have placed ourselves as an authority such that even God could not correct us. There are still mysteries that no religion can explain, no one, not even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has all the truth or can answer every question. My point is that no one has the right to preach or teach that anyone else's beliefs are a serious error. As such, we don't teach anything about what others belief, not that it's in error at all. What we do is teach what we believe and invite those who seek truth to ask God if it is true. I have no problem with the discussions, it is the judgment that the other person's ideas are a serious error that I have a problem with. I don't care if you think I'm wrong. Disagreement of what is correct is the substance of debate. Don't condemn me for what I believe is true, but do your best to show me my error.

Again, rejecting an idea based on what one believes should not be considered a serious error. All of us learn in our own time. If it is true and a person really wants to know the truth, they can find it. First, though, they need to realize that what they currently believe may not be true. That is something we need to leave to God and never judge the person to be in serious error because we don't know what God's plan is for them. Learning the mysteries of God is not like math or other hard sciences. It is not provable though we can argue our beliefs until we are cold and buried in the grave these are simply things that we have to learn on our own and in our own way.

I've been trying to get from you what you mean by serious error and you have yet to define what it is that you mean by that statement. All along here, I have been under the assumption that is a salvation stopper. And since you're not LDS, I really don't think you're qualified to see it from our point of view. It is not a Salvation stopper. Nothing in the scriptures even remotely suggests that if our alignment with this Trinity doctrine will have any effect on our salvation. The idea that what we learn about God in this imperfect world would have some kind of eternal effect on our salvation is ludicrous. That, I believe, is the point person0 was trying to make. Salvation is about what we do with what we believe. It is about doing good and being good. We can learn all about the Godhead at any time in the future eternities. If I'm wrong, then I can be corrected by simply introducing me to the infinite and His Son. Presto bango, I would know. That's not something that occurs for most people in this life. What we believe here is based on faith and God never said that faith had to be perfect. The fact that modern Christians feel they can make themselves judges of truth is a serious error on their part.

If you honestly believe that if people find out that they can be forgiven for murder, then they will go ahead and murder, then I invite you to rejoin reality and come back from the dark side. There is nothing wrong with the concept of moving between kingdoms after death.

I do not consider him to be "traditional" in the same sense as I do antagonists of our faith. I'm just questioning his statement that what we believe is in serious error. It is different from traditional Chrisitans, but I don't know how God can hold our feet to the fire when we don't agree to someone else's view of the same scriptures. Calling another's believes heretical is wrong. Calling a belief heretical may or may not be wrong but it should be done with the spirit of trying to gain an understanding without claiming that it's a serious error

"It MAY be" doesn't cut it. So their situation MAY not be a serious error, back then. But what about today? The question still remains. And so do native American Indians. There are a lot of "if"'s in there. It depends on the invisible, intangible and unprovable. So, how are those serious errors. You follow what you believe to be true while denying that what everyone else believes is true. That's serious error because, the fact is and the truth is, you nor anyone else knows for absolutely certain, provable certain, that what they believe about God is true. So how is it that YOU get to decide what is serious error for someone else? You, nor anyone in your religion, claims to be an eye witness. At best, you are relying on the opinions of others who read an age-old witness that is clouded in centuries of confusion and differences of opinion about what they meant. In fact, most of your witness comes from a church you all claim didn't have the truth, setting yourselves up to be the keepers of a truth provided by apostles who were never Protestants. They are not your witnesses. That means their interpretation is not theirs, it's yours. So, the serious error is you pushing your interpretation on us claiming that our interpretation is not only wrong, it's a serious error - ominous, but invalid. We don't claim that your beliefs are a serious error. We don't claim that you believe in a different Jesus. We accept that if you want to go that route, then there is a problem with what we believe Jesus taught, but it's a serious error to claim that they are different people, a different Jesus. Nope. Leaving the church has nothing to do with one's salvation, just like you, not believing as we do has nothing to do with your salvation and therefore, not an error at all. We could always be better in what we believe or what we do, but definitely not wrong or error (unless we totally reject Christ and everything about him and rebel in riotous ways. That would be wrong and serious error, but not unrecoverable), much less serious error. Those who leave the church simply do not have the support system of like-minded people. They often leave because they are no longer like-minded. Salvation depends on what one does, not what church a person goes to or what they are willing to believe is true. To my knowledge, we don't teach that leaving the church is a serious error. We say that, but that doesn't give anyone the right to accuse others who honestly believe they are following the Spirit and have much revelation of being in serious error.

What reasons would those be?

Since this thread started with a quote from Joseph F McConkie's book, the entire discussion is about what he said. It is the point of the thread. I'm just saying that I happen to agree with him and disagree with his father, Bruce R McConkie. But, having spent some time pondering Jacob's ladder and the angels ascending and descending upon it, could be a representation of the temple endowment, since we are those angels that have descended and will, if we accept Christ, ascend on that ladder. That is what the endowment symbolizes. Having said that, I'll agree that the message from Jacob's experience doesn't necessarily mean that the option is always available. If it did, then it seems that downward progression is also possible even after the resurrection ... well, I think that would be a possibility and not entirely unthinkable. The reason I agree with Joseph F McConkie, which I did before I ever heard of his book or his opinion on the matter, is because of statements made by Joseph Fielding Smith and others that seems to have taken a sharp about-face about the time that McConkie came into office. It's been an uphill battle since then to get the idea out of the heads of members of the church that death is not the end of opportunity. Packer quoted Joseph Smith on sealing, The Prophet Joseph Smith declared--and he never taught more comforting doctrine--that the eternal sealing of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. It is the nature of a temple sealing that leads me to believe there must be the possibility of progression. I've read many quotes by the Smith's, Joseph, Jr, Joseph F and Joseph Fielding related to the matter of reaching out to our lost children relying on the promises made having them sealed to us both in this life and in the next, that this means we will not be separated from them forever. There is only one sin that is unforgivable. If they haven't sinned that one sin, then they can be forgiven and if forgiven then it seems unjust to forgive them but not let them live the life they are willing to live (meaning a celestial life).

I have to wonder what quote you're talking about from Joseph F. Smith. The one I'm familiar with is: Notice the portion I emphasized. I left off the last names because they were the same. I'm not referring to Joseph F Smith, I'm referring to Joseph F McConkie, the author of the book in the OP.

I already provided the facts. People procrastinate anyway. Regardless of this doctrine.

Every case is different. Simply because you know some that turned out well, doesn't mean that there aren't any who are set up for failure.

There is no progression without opposition.

The picture is not real. It's just a depiction based on a concept. If the concept is false, so is the picture. But, let's consider the picture for a moment. Where is God the Father in that picture? Which one of those beings is He? Which one is Christ? Who, or that matter, are any of them? How can you tell which of them has a body and which of them don't? Were there not embodied spirits in the pre-mortal life? Did we not live with God, in his presence, at that time? Here is food for thought. During our pre-mortal existence, how many others were present with us who had already lived through their mortality and had become resurrected beings? If they lived with God and we lived with God, it seems that we would be aware of them and they aware of us. But, IS He a man now? And, if He is a man, how do you think He became a man? This, of course, calls for speculation. But I am curious. I'll offer my speculation about what you are trying to describe... God was like Adam, a man who had the power to live forever and from that state, he developed into a God, somehow. The problem I see with that is that Adam was innocent and, in that state, Adam was unable to develop. He lacked opposition. How could one who knew no evil or good ever "progress into becoming a God"? How would he know that he knew all things? If it were progression, then; seemingly, there is the possibility that He doesn't know all things. Also, if there is only one God, anywhere, then you can never become a god, anywhere. How does that fit into our theology? If there is only one God, anywhere, then what is Christ? I just realized you might not be a member of our church. I might be missing something in this discussion. It appears that you're arguing a point using Joseph Smith's teachings but I'm not sure that your understanding of his teachings isn't a product of syncretism. I assume this question was actually for me. They both were always Gods from eternity to eternity. It was never a matter of "becoming" Gods. That means there was no beginning where they were not Gods. There was no pinnacle for them to obtain to reach Godhood. However, there was a change in their physical nature. They were both, at one-time, spirits. They both were born of mortal women. They both lived as mortal beings. They both died and they are both resurrected. Through all of this, the same spirit being existed. That is the eternal nature of God. They were once unembodied spirits, now they are embodied spirits. As far as the idea that there is only ONE God, this just seems silly in light of what we know ... namely, that God the Father is God and so also is Jesus Christ and they are separate physical beings. That is the first truth that Joseph Smith learned as an eye-witness (It was also radically different from all of what modern Christianity was teaching at the time). Is there only one Savior? I don't think so. After this earth has passed away and becomes our celestial home, there will be a new earth and a new heaven. Will that earth need a Savior too? Yes. Can it be Jesus? I don't think so. He can only die once. It would be impossible for him to die for another earth's sins. Will that Savior be God too? How many earths have come into existence and passed away before ours came into existence? How many will yet come into existence? If we are to continue the seeds, what will become of our children? Will we give birth to spirit babies? Is that where spirits come from? Or will we give birth to physical babies? Who are the heavenly parents of all those who come into mortality? Is it all from one God?

Beautiful opinion but false. Just follow the scriptures. Christ said, I can do nothing but what I saw my father do. I wasn't talking about Christ becoming God. That's not even in my vocabulary because Christ has always been God. I'm amazed that anyone can say that Christ became "ranked as a God". My point is the path, spirit to embodied to resurrected being is exactly the same for God the Father as it was for Christ. What is the pinnacle of intelligence? It is one thing to be told things, it is quite another to experience it. Christ learned while he lived as a mortal, so I'm not sure the "pinnacle" was reached before mortality. But then, I don't believe the intelligence is the attribute that makes one a god. Joseph Smith never taught that Heavenly Father was a man who became a God.

Everyone is addicted to something. I do not believe there is any avoiding addictions. Being reborn of the spirit still carries for all people addictions. However, I think when you speak of addictions, you're talking about specific addictions and not addictions in general. For example, I don't believe that being addicted to caffeine is one that would fit what you're describing, but it might. When I asked the question, I thought you have a feasible suggestion, something that we could actually do.

I was speaking about alienating the spirit. I thought that was understood, but I guess not. I think I was clear about knowing when I have the Holy Ghost and when I don't. For example, at the moment I am responding to your post, I don't. This particular moment is one where it is difficult to fly with eagles.

Then you miss understand my point. I didn't say it should be "dismissed" at all. Regardless, one degree is still hearsay ... BECAUSE it's not the original source. If I'm repeating what I heard and it wasn't the original source, then it is hearsay. But that doesn't mean the source didn't say it. If that was your point, that is what you should have said. No kidding. That's because one degree of separation is hearsay and to add credibility, it has to be backed by more than one witness and those witnesses also have to be credible. Otherwise, to my point, one degree of separation is all that is necessary to make it hearsay. What source would that be? I agree that someone said someone said about someone who knew someone is not very credible. I don't know that Bruce R ever stated that advancing in glories is true, but we're not ready for that revelation and I'm not adding any credibility to it. Joseph F, however, is another story altogether. It is not hearsay. Anyone can read his book and see what he said. I happen to agree with Joseph F and disagree with Bruce R (not that I'm aware that he said anything on the subject directly, but I disagree with his real-life examples which would tend to lean towards no advancement either up or down in glory). Note: I just wanted to clarify my position because it seems as if you and perhaps others weren't following my successive posts or, perhaps I was too vague. 🤣

The relevance is that this doctrine would have no effect on procrastination.

For me, the answer is simple. The Wisemen didn't arrive in Jerusalem until about 3 years after Christ's birth. It was because of their arrival and announcement that the Christ child was carried away into Egypt and apparently, based on something the Wisemen said, Herod decreed that all children under a certain age be killed, so the event that the Wisemen saw that started them on their journey could not have been the same that led them to the place where the family lived. This new star which was such as has never been seen before apparently is the same one that caused a day and a night and a day to appear as one day was certainly not seen in Jerusalem, China or Palestine. Only the Wisemen and the people who lived near them saw it and it was because of them that we have this story. It seems to me that if they started their journey after seeing the star, then they came from very very far away, like say America or somewhere near it, perhaps the same hemisphere.