Law of Consent: Doctrine

[selek]

This sounds to me that it's okay to do what isn't right as long as you have a good excuse.

And you would be mistaken.

Nowhere in either Moses permitting of divorce or in the Church's recognition that it does sometimes happen will you find the notion that such individuals are NOT under condemnation for their sins.

There is no pretense or suggestion that it is "okay".

Like any other sin or transgression, it must be repented of and atoned for through the mercy of and grace of Christ.

And the difference between this and the "Great Apostacy" is....? Wouldn't the removal of God's Grace be what is needed for man to stop searching? Is it not God who first searches for us?

I believe you're laboring under a misconception of what we as LDS believe.

When we speak of a Great Apostacy, we are referring specifically to Priesthood authority and the tacit "endorsement" (if you will) Of Christ in the day-to-day operation of the Church.

We do not suggest or believe that those who lived and died doing their best to live, love, and serve Christ did so in vain.

We do not suggest that their offering unto God was somehow unworthy, or that they were rejected by Christ.

If anything, such a notion is a heresy, for it would make Christ a "respector of persons".

We do insist, however, that the sealing authority- the ability to ordain or dispense, to call and to "bind up in Heaven" in Christ's name was withdrawn from the Earth.

We do not condemn all those who lived and died between the death of the last apostle and the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as "heretics", but believe that they were laboring in varying degrees of darkness.

But the same can be said of any "Christian". Even with the "fullness of the Gospel", even the Latter-day Saints labor under varying degrees of truth and enlightenment.

What separates the LDS Church from the Catholic or the Baptist is not their earnest desire to serve and worship Christ, but the breadth and scope of the light given unto them and the authority invested in them.

[selek]

What about Luke?

In the interests of full disclosure: 1) I am operating from memory here, and have not checked an authoritative source for the names of the apostles called after Christ's ascension, though I am certain that only two were called.

2) I am operating under a new dose of both blood pressure medication and painkillers (I have severe degenerative arthritis and am having a severe flare-up at the moment).

So, under those conditions, I ask your forgiveness if I have not named the correct replacements as recorded in Scripture.

What about Josephus?

If memory serves, Josephus was a a military and political figure and historian, rather than an apostle.

Condemnation does not necessarily spell apostacy.

No- but it does establish precedent for the very sort of error and apostacy to which we are referring.

[Letrell]

I don't know how anyone else feels about this thread, but everything inside of me is screaming of a "witch hunt". Somewhere up there is a post that I found so offensive that I felt I had to stand in defense of the Lord. Rather than spew ill-will....I am out of this conversation. It is going nowhere fast.

[selek]

I don't know how anyone else feels about this thread, but everything inside of me is screaming of a "witch hunt". Somewhere up there is a post that I found so offensive that I felt I had to stand in defense of the Lord. Rather than spew ill-will....I am out of this conversation. It is going nowhere fast.

Aw, heck Letrell, I haven't even worked up to a good dander yet.

The thread can't be over until I've been accused of being "mean-spirited" and "judgemental" at least twice.

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

And you would be mistaken.

Nowhere in either Moses permitting of divorce or in the Church's recognition that it does sometimes happen will you find the notion that such individuals are NOT under condemnation for their sins.

There is no pretense or suggestion that it is "okay".

Like any other sin or transgression, it must be repented of and atoned for through the mercy of and grace of Christ.

I believe you're laboring under a misconception of what we as LDS believe.

When we speak of a Great Apostacy, we are referring specifically to Priesthood authority and the tacit "endorsement" (if you will) Of Christ in the day-to-day operation of the Church.

We do not suggest or believe that those who lived and died doing their best to live, love, and serve Christ did so in vain.

We do not suggest that their offering unto God was somehow unworthy, or that they were rejected by Christ.

If anything, such a notion is a heresy, for it would make Christ a "respector of persons".

We do insist, however, that the sealing authority- the ability to ordain or dispense, to call and to "bind up in Heaven" in Christ's name was withdrawn from the Earth.

We do not condemn all those who lived and died between the death of the last apostle and the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as "heretics", but believe that they were laboring in varying degrees of darkness.

But the same can be said of any "Christian". Even with the "fullness of the Gospel", even the Latter-day Saints labor under varying degrees of truth and enlightenment.

What separates the LDS Church from the Catholic or the Baptist is not their earnest desire to serve and worship Christ, but the breadth and scope of the light given unto them and the authority invested in them.

However, Christ prayed that the Twelve would be successful, He promised that the Holy Spirit would never leave and there has been a visible entity that has taught the same truths for over 2000 years. There is even evidence that this entity had the authority to condemn certain beliefs (such as God being any other being at any time other than God). And again, why is this "dispensation" successful where the Twelve failed?

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

If memory serves, Josephus was a a military and political figure and historian, rather than an apostle.

No, he was a 1st century Jewish historian who wrote about Jesus being Crucified by Pontius Pilate and even wrote about his followers, the Christians. Tacitus is a Roman historian of around the same time who wrote about Jesus and His followers being persecuted by Nero. The Church survived that persecution as is evident in the fact that the Book of Revelations was written, and The Church survived Diocletian 200 years later and survives today without a break in stride.

[selek]

However, Christ prayed that the Twelve would be successful, He promised that the Holy Spirit would never leave and there has been a visible entity that has taught the same truths for over 2000 years. There is even evidence that this entity had the authority to condemn certain beliefs (such as God being any other being at any time other than God). And again, why is this "dispensation" successful where the Twelve failed?

Who says that the Twelve were NOT successful?

You are smuggling in a lot of ideological assumptions in the statement above, not the least of which is that the Apostles were called to establish a true and lasting Church.

That's what the Catholic church believes and teaches, but it isn't necessarily so.

We do not believe that the Twelve "failed", let alone that Christ's plans were somehow thwarted.

We do not believe that the reference of Peter as "the rock upon which the Church wwas founded" implies a permanent or everlasting organization upon the Earth.

We believe that everything has unfolded exactly as the Lord has deemed wise.

So- answer me this: What objective evidence do you have that the Apostles did, in fact, fail?

What objective evidence do you have that the Catholic Church is, in fact, the legitimate, authorized successor to the Apostolic oganization administered by the Apostles?

What objective evidence do you have that the Catholic teachings are (as you imply) unchanged over the last two thousand years?

Remember: you're looking for objective, independant corroboration, rather than statements of faith by those already invested in the idea.

Edited June 6, 2013 by selek

[selek]

No, he was a 1st century Jewish historian who wrote about Jesus being Crucified by Pontius Pilate and even wrote about his followers, the Christians. Tacitus is a Roman historian of around the same time who wrote about Jesus and His followers being persecuted by Nero. The Church survived that persecution as is evident in the fact that the Book of Revelations was written, and The Church survived Diocletian 200 years later and survives today without a break in stride.

I believe this is the individual to whom you are referring. As such, my description is accurate. It is also noteworthy tonote the controversy surrounding his name and his writings.

Your statement, unfortunately, is a non-sequitor.

That Christians survived persecution is no more proof that Catholicism is what it claims to be, than the fact that Branch Davidians survived Waco is proof of David Koresh's claim to be the reincarnated Christ...

..one fact simply does not prove the other.

[Letrell]

Aw, heck Letrell, I haven't even worked up to a good dander yet.

The thread can't be over until I've been accused of being "mean-spirited" and "judgemental" at least twice.

Uh oh. I am so in trouble now...I actually have enjoyed your posts. LOL. (It wasn't anything you posted.) Or maybe ... LOL.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Letrell

[selek]

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a passage usually called the Testimonium Flavianum, varies.[4][5][1]

The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation.[5][6][7][8][9][10]

Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear[11] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[9]

Or in plain English, "the manuscripts have been tampered with."

there are no surviving extant manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest of these are all Greek minuscules, copied by Christian monks.[60]

Or in plain English, the only extant copies of his work date to a thousand years after the fact and were compiled by Catholic sources.

Nope. No conflict of interest or potential for error, there.

Edited June 6, 2013 by selek

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

Who says that the Twelve were NOT successful?

Joseph Smith

You are smuggling in a lot of ideological assumptions in the statement above, not the least of which is that the Apostles were called to establish a true and lasting Church.

Depending on your definition of "Church"

We do not believe that the Twelve "failed", let alone that Christ's plans were somehow thwarted.

Christ said he would not leave us orphans, the LDS website states that His authority had to be removed due to wickedness and disobedience.

We do not believe that the reference of Peter as "the rock upon which the Church wwas founded" implies a permanent or everlasting organization upon the Earth.

As do most churches claiming they are the one, true church/

So- answer me this: What objective evidence do you have that the Apostles did, in fact, fail?

There is no evidence of that, I don't claim that they did fail.

What objective evidence do you have that the Catholic Church is, in fact, the legitimate, authorized successor to the Apostolic oganization administered by the Apostles?

2 Timothy 1:1-6; particularly verse 6

What objective evidence do you have that the Catholic teachings are (as you imply) unchanged over the last two thousand years?

The Roman Catacombs, the (until 1500's) undisputed belief that the Eucharist IS the Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity of Christ(you won't find any "Christian" group that denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist before 1500 AD)

Remember: you're looking for objective, independant corroboration, rather than statements of faith by those already invested in the idea.

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or in plain English, "the manuscripts have been tampered with."

Or in plain English, the only extant copies of his work date to a thousand years after the fact and were compiled by Catholic sources.

Nope. No conflict of interest or potential for error, there.

So....Because a secular source has manuscripts that were tampered with Jesus wasn't crucified by Pontius Pilate? Also, there was no other Christian Church in the 11th century but the Catholic Church. Don't forget it was a Catholic that translated all existing Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts into Latin in the 5th century(St. Jerome) which was for at least 1000 years the measure on which future translations were based on. And before that it was the Catholic Church that decided that the Septuagint be the canon for the Old Testamant and the 27 books in the New Testament, not to include the Apocalypse of Peter and other apocryphal books, which didn't take place until the Councils in Carthage and Hippo around 390-420AD.

[selek]

Joseph Smith

Call For References, please (or in plain English, provide a quote where Joseph Smith said any such thing).

Depending on your definition of "Church"

Absolutely correct.

You are operating under the assumption that unless the Catholic Church is exactly what it claims, then the Apostles "failed". We are not bound by that conceit.

Christ said he would not leave us orphans, the LDS website states that His authority had to be removed due to wickedness and disobedience.

Again, you are expecting (and demanding) that Christ operate within a narrow sectarian box of your devising.

We do not believe that Christ abandoned the faithful who earnestly sought him, only that he withdrew his endorsement from organizations which found other Gospels more to thier liking.

There is no evidence of that, I don't claim that they did fail.

And yet you predicate their success/failure on your own narrow sectarian interests.

2 Timothy 1:1-6; particularly verse 6

These verses establish a procedure- they do not establish that it was carried out.

Your claim is no more proves Catholic "authority" than my citation of Article Two of the Constitution "proves" I was elected President.

What objective evidence do you have that the Catholic teachings are (as you imply) unchanged over the last two thousand years?

The Roman Catacombs, the (until 1500's) undisputed belief that the Eucharist IS the Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity of Christ(you won't find any "Christian" group that denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist before 1500 AD)

In other words, you believe the Catholic Church is God's Church because the Catholic Church told you so and as Dod's Church they would never lie.

A typical, and wholly unoriginal exercise in circular logic and blind acceptance of dogma.

So....Because a secular source has manuscripts that were tampered with Jesus wasn't crucified by Pontius Pilate?

Not quite, but you do have a genuine gift for absolutist assertions don't you?

Also, there was no other Christian Church in the 11th century but the Catholic Church. Don't forget it was a Catholic that translated all existing Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts into Latin in the 5th century(St. Jerome) which was for at least 1000 years the measure on which future translations were based on.

And thus, you make my actual point (almost as well as I could).

For roughly 1100 years, all of the extant manuscripts that point to Catholic authority resided in Catholic hands, were copied by Catholic scribes, and revised/edited/translated by Catholic theologians.

The conflict of interest and opportunity for "helping" the truth along are staggering.

You have no independent corroboration.

No external verification.

The very sources you cite as proof of Catholic authority are suspect precisely because they lay excusively in Catholic hands.

We do not know what the original manuscripts said- but we do know (Catholics scholars themselves admit) that they were tampered with.

If I were to suddenly produce a will which named me as the sole heir to Howard Hughes fortune- which no one had ever before seen and which no one could corroborate outside my immediate family, I would be immediately denounced as a fraud.

Catholic claims of priestly authority are suspect for the same reasons: the massive conflict of interest, the self-reverential claims, and the lack of external corroboration.

Let's put it another way:

A man may claim to be Napoleon and strut and fret to his heart's content- but all the letters HE can write attesting to the truthfulness of the claim just doesn't make it so.

Edited June 6, 2013 by selek

[Anddenex]

Gal 4:4-5

4)But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

5)to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption.

Which 'fullness of times' are you referring to?

There is only one "dispensation" of the fullness of times, and only one I am referring to. The link will provide you with information to read for yourself, with other information for your personal study.

Teachings of Brigham Young

Teaching of Joseph Smith.

Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual

Bruce R. McConkie

[Just_A_Guy]

However, Christ prayed that the Twelve would be successful,

And so they were. They preached Christ Jesus, and Him crucified. Thousands and thousands embraced the message in its purity; and even when the apostles were no longer around to maintain universal doctrinal purity, the writings they left influenced the lives of millions more for the better. No, the Twelve did not "fail".

But the keys to govern the Church as a whole, that the Twelve held, largely died with them.

He promised that the Holy Spirit would never leave . . .

Mormons distinguish between the "power" and the "gift" of the Holy Ghost. The latter, we hold, was absent from about the second or third century onwards; but the former was certainly in place and we freely acknowledge that it was a major catalyst in a number of events that preceded Joseph Smith's lifetime.

. . . and there has been a visible entity that has taught the same truths for over 2000 years.

This isn't really the best forum to discuss that. Suffice it to say: I disagree.

And again, why is this "dispensation" successful where the Twelve failed?

Specific promises from duly authorized apostles. Examples:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

Every previous gospel dispensation has drifted into apostasy, but ours will not. True, there will be some individuals who will fall away; but the kingdom of God will remain intact to welcome the return of its head—even Jesus Christ.

I'm not aware of anywhere in the Bible where the Lord made that promise to the early Church. Matthew 16:18 is ambiguous. Mormons interpret the "rock" as being, not Peter himself, but the concept of revelation (the means by which Peter had learned of Christ's divinity, referenced in the preceding verse). Thus, under this interpretation, the Lord's assurance that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it" is not an assurance to the institution, but to the individual supplicant: that, as Paul will later reiterate, there is no power on earth or in hell that overcome that process of personal revelation and separate him or her from Christ (See Romans 8:38-39).

Does the Law of Consent mean that if the president receives a revelation that homosexual unions shall be known as a binding marriage and can be sealed in the Temple, the Quorum votes yes on it and the majority of the faithful agree, then homosexual marriages are recognized by the LDS church?

Speaking in hypotheticals: Sure. And if the Pope and the college of cardinals claim to have received inspiration that homosexual unions shall be known as a binding marriage, and the majority of the Catholic faithful agree, then homosexual marriages would be recognized by the Catholic church.

I presume you would object to this statement, because you believe your church to be immune from such worldly influence. We believe similarly about our church. But if you look at either institution from a purely secular standpoint: yes, if the leadership changes a policy, and the membership agrees, then the policy will be changed. That's Organizational Management 101.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[ElectofGod]

***Disclaimer, This is a new thought to me, Its my opinion, and I have changed my opinions MANY times!*****Hack it to death if you feel like it. Just do so courteously . I am in the pondering stages before I ASK.

Here are some thoughts to add regarding the final dispensations. If you read in Alma 13, "if it be soon that he will come in his glory we do not know" but perhaps in their lifetime, they thought it was soon back than! If I interpret it right?

I posted this on another thread:

22 January 1843 (Sunday). At Temple.

Wilford Woodruff Journal: joseph Smith lecture

He remarked some say the kingdom of God was not

set up on earth untill the day of pentecost & that John did not

preach the Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins But

I say in the name of the Lord that the kingdom of God was set up

on earth from the days of Adam to the present time. Whenever

there has been a righteous man on earth unto whom God revealed

his word & gave power & authority to administer in his name. And

whare their is a Priest of God, A minister who has power &

Authority from God to administer in the ordinances of the Gospel

& officiate in the Priesthood of God, theire is the kingdom of

God

How is it with the kingdom of God, whare did the

Kingdom of God begin, whare their is no kingdom of God their is

no salvation. What Constitutes the Kingdom of God Whare there is

a Prophet a priest or a righteous man unto whom God giveshis

oracles there is the Kingdom of God, & whare the oracles of God

are not there the Kingdom of God is not,

He states the kingdom of God has been here since the beginning.

67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

This is the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times of the Gentiles.

A cleansing will destroy the majority of all people in America, even latterday saints. Than The kingdom of Zion will be built, from the faithful of the latterday saints and anyone else the Lord has already called to do so. BUT, "it will be given back to the remnant" for the lamanite remnant will bulid the New Jerusalem. Most Gentiles will not but stay in their cities and build up there.

The LDS church will be non-existent (but authority still present) at this point but the few faithful saints WILL be a part of it!

This is when the final Gathering takes place, the lost 10 tribes are gathered in from the north, the heathen nations receive the gospel, AFTER NJ is built. Part two of the marvelous work and wonder. This will be a MUCH greater WONDER. For the entire world will know of Zion and its beauty, "it will be terrible to the wicked".

3Nephi 21:14 Yea, wo be unto the Gentiles except they repent; for it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Father, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots;

15 And I will cut off the cities of thy land, and throw down all thy strongholds;

16 And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thy land, and thou shalt have no more soothsayers;

17 Thy graven images I will also cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee, and thou shalt no more worship the works of thy hands;

18 And I will pluck up thy groves out of the midst of thee; so will I destroy thy cities.

19 And it shall come to pass that all lyings, and deceivings, and envyings, and strifes, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, shall be done away.

20 For it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that at that day whosoever will not repent and come unto my Beloved Son, them will I cut off from among my people, O house of Israel;

21 And I will execute vengeance and fury upon them, even as upon the heathen [heathen nations], such as they have not heard.

22 But if they will repent and hearken unto my words, and harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them, and they shall come in unto the covenant and be numbered among this the remnant of Jacob, unto whom I have given this land for their inheritance;

23 And they shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob, and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they may build a city, which shall be called the New Jerusalem.

24 And then shall they assist my people that they may be gathered in, who are scattered upon all the face of the land, in unto the New Jerusalem.

25 And then shall the power of heaven come down among them; and I also will be in the midst.

26 And then shall the work of the Father commence at that day, even when this gospel shall be preached among the remnant of this people. Verily I say unto you, at that day shall the work of the Father commence among all the dispersed of my people, yea, even the tribes which have been lost, which the Father hath led away out of Jerusalem.

27 Yea, the work shall commence among all the dispersed of my people, with the Father to prepare the way whereby they may come unto me, that they may call on the Father in my name.

28 Yea, and then shall the work commence, with the Father among all nations in preparing the way whereby his people may be gathered home to the land of their inheritance.

29 And they shall go out from all nations; and they shall not go out in haste, nor go by flight, for I will go before them, saith the Father, and I will be their rearward.

You see that the final gathering and building of of the Lord's kingdom takes place AFTER Zion (NJ). (Not surprisingly so, it will be a wonderful place) This could be called the Dispensation of the gathering from the four quarters of the earth and the building up of Zion.

I think this is what the other person kept referring to.

[ElectofGod]

When the Gentiles sin against the gospel and are proudful and reject the fulness of the gospel, the fulness of the gospel will be taken from them.

3 Nephi 16:6 And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.

7 Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.

8 But wo, saith the Father, unto the unbelieving of the Gentiles�for notwithstanding they have come forth upon the face of this land, and have scattered my people who are of the house of Israel; and my people who are of the house of Israel have been cast out from among them, and have been trodden under feet by them;

9 And because of the mercies of the Father unto the Gentiles, and also the judgments of the Father upon my people who are of the house of Israel, verily, verily, I say unto you, that after all this, and I have caused my people who are of the house of Israel to be smitten, and to be afflicted, and to be slain, and to be cast out from among them, and to become hated by them, and to become a hiss and a byword among them�

10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

11 And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them.

12 And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fulness of my gospel.

13 But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel.

14 And I will not suffer my people, who are of the house of Israel, to go through among them, and tread them down, saith the Father.

15 But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them, yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel.

Here are other quotes on this topic.

LDSLastDays.com Both modern day prophets and scripture references.

So since the time of Joseph Smith we have rejected the fulness, "for four generations" to remember the covenant with the fathers than it will be taken away.

Edited June 6, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Just_A_Guy]

So since the time of Joseph Smith we have rejected the fulness,

Who's "we"?

[Finrock]

Coincidentally, my family and I were just reading this chapter in 3 Nephi 16 two nights ago and I was specifically wondering if verse 10 is speaking about something that has already occurred from my perspective or does it speak to something that will occur? I can not fully explain this verse or this whole chapter, really.

Regards,

Finrock

[ElectofGod]

Coincidentally, my family and I were just reading this chapter in 3 Nephi 16 two nights ago and I was specifically wondering if verse 10 is speaking about something that has already occurred from my perspective or does it speak to something that will occur? I can not fully explain this verse or this whole chapter, really.

Regards,

Finrock

Definitely future??? (98%), because he says in vs 11 the fulness will go back to the jews at some point. We know that happens towards the end just before he comes in Glory. Maybe NJ will be built about the same time he comes to Mt Olives? Not sure on the timeline. Dozens of views on this.

Also It seems AFTER the gentiles reject it, for a time they will be chastened than he gives this "chiasmus"...

13 But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel.

Saying, they have another chance to repent. Also goes on if they do not. That link has some good quotes on the subject.

Just_A_Guy, I'll let you decide...

Anyone who does not accept the fulness , both LDS and non LDS alike. I have rejected it myself as I have not received the blessings of it yet. But I am working on it slowly

The question is What is the fulness ? How is it rejected?

“The gospel might be likened to the keyboard of a piano—a full keyboard with a selection of keys on which one who is trained can play a variety without limits; a ballad to express love, a march to rally, a melody to soothe, and a hymn to inspire; an endless variety to suit every mood and satisfy every need. How shortsighted it is, then, to choose a single key and endlessly tap out the monotony of a single note, or even two or three notes, when the full keyboard of limitless harmony can be played. How disappointing when the fullness of the gospel, the whole keyboard, is here upon the earth, that many churches tap on a single key. The note they stress may be essential to a complete harmony of religious experience, but it is, nonetheless, not all there is. It isn’t the fullness.” Boyd K. Packer, “The Only True and Living Church,” Ensign, Dec 1971, 40

The fulness of the gospel consists in those laws, doctrines, ordinances, powers, and authorities needed to enable men to gain the fulness of salvation. Those who have the gospel fulness do not necessarily enjoy the fulness of gospel knowledge or understand all of the doctrines of the plan of salvation. But they do have the fulness of the priesthood and sealing power by which men can be sealed up unto eternal life. The fulness of the gospel grows out of the fulness of the sealing power and not out of the fulness of gospel knowledge. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 333.)

The fulness of the everlasting gospel, on the other hand, is the higher program of salvation which is concerned with developing in man the divine truths, powers, gifts, and blessings of the Holy Spirit until he is able to partake of the divine nature, or glory, of God and make his calling and election sure to a fulness of glory in the resurrection. . . . The earthly program of this higher phase of the plan of life and salvation is consummated when man receives the fulness of the sealing power of the priesthood. (Hyrum L. Andrus, Principles of Perfection [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1970], 17.)

Doctrine of Christ: 2 nephi 31; 32:1-7

D&C20:8 And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon;

9 Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;

Edited June 6, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Just_A_Guy]

Ah, I see we're back to Denver Snuffer's if-you-haven't-seen-Jesus-like-I-have-you're-going-to-hell tomfoolery.

[ElectofGod]

Ah, I see we're back to Denver Snuffer's if-you-haven't-seen-Jesus-like-I-have-you're-going-to-hell tomfoolery.

If you got that from those quotes taht are ACCEPTED by LDS than why bring in someone who I SAID NOTHING ABOUT? Its like you won't believe ANYthing some man has stated and will reject anything "LDS" authorities have on the matter if it even RELATES to that man has said.

I would love to hear what you think the fulness is? I didn't even tell you. To say I have rejected it means nothing in this ballpark. Here is what I was referring too (one of two scriptures, I won't quote the other)

2 Nephi 4:17 Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, my heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities.

18 I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me.

19 And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.

Again: With underlining.

“The gospel might be likened to the keyboard of a piano—a full keyboard with a selection of keys on which one who is trained can play a variety without limits; a ballad to express love, a march to rally, a melody to soothe, and a hymn to inspire; an endless variety to suit every mood and satisfy every need. How shortsighted it is, then, to choose a single key and endlessly tap out the monotony of a single note, or even two or three notes, when the full keyboard of limitless harmony can be played. How disappointing when the fullness of the gospel, the whole keyboard, is here upon the earth, that many churches tap on a single key. The note they stress may be essential to a complete harmony of religious experience, but it is, nonetheless, not all there is. It isn’t the fullness.” Boyd K. Packer, “The Only True and Living Church,” Ensign, Dec 1971, 40

Quote:

The fulness of the gospel consists in those laws, doctrines, ordinances, powers, and authorities needed to enable men to gain the fulness of salvation. Those who have the gospel fulness do not necessarily enjoy the fulness of gospel knowledge or understand all of the doctrines of the plan of salvation. But they do have the fulness of the priesthood and sealing power by which men can be sealed up unto eternal life. [Temple] The fulness of the gospel grows out of the fulness of the sealing power and not out of the fulness of gospel knowledge. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 333.)

Quote:

The fulness of the everlasting gospel, on the other hand, is the higher program of salvation which is concerned with developing in man the divine truths, powers, gifts, and blessings of the Holy Spirit until he is able to partake of the divine nature, or glory, of God and make his calling and election sure to a fulness of glory in the resurrection. . . . The earthly program of this higher phase of the plan of life and salvation is consummated when man receives the fulness of the sealing power of the priesthood. (Hyrum L. Andrus, Principles of Perfection [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1970], 17.)

Maybe you will accept BYU.

20. The Doctrine of Christ: 2 Nephi 31–32 | Religious Studies Center

An Overview of the Doctrine of Christ

The doctrine of Christ as explained by Nephi in 2 Nephi includes the following elements:

Approaching the task “with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent” (31:13).

Seeking understanding, to be “brought into the light,” through prayer and effort (32:4, 8, 9).

“Repenting of your sins” (31:13).

Being “willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water” (31:13).

Receiving “the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost” (31:13).

Pressing “forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men [and] feasting upon the word of Christ” (31:20; 32:3).

Enduring “to the end” (31:20).

Receiving the promise of eternal life (31:20).

Now I quote the same scriptures verbatim starting at verse 19 in 2 nephi chapter 31.

19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Continuing in chapter 32 he simplifies it for us:

1 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, I suppose that ye ponder somewhat in your hearts concerning that which ye should do after ye have entered in by the way. But, behold, why do ye ponder these things in your hearts?

2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.

5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

6 Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.

7 And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be.

Simple, receive the Holy Ghost so that we have it with us ALWAYS. Is the admonition in the sacrament prayer. I have rejected that notion thus causing the holy ghost to not be with me as often as it could be. I have yet to submit willingly to all things the lord seest fit upon me (Mosiah 3). I have yet to fear man, and not seek my own life.

All these are signs of one who HAS NOT been fully converted. (alma 5) A foolish virgin indeed. So have I rejected the fulness? Yes. Because I am a slothful servant that intends to good but never gets around to doing it. I am learning to overcome this with he Lord's help. But until I DO it doesn't matter what I know. As superficial knowledge means nothing without EXPERIENCE which brings REAL knowledge.

I got some free time I will keep quoting ....

LDs.org: Scriptures - Fulness

Fulness

See also Abundance ; Plenty

in thy presence is fulness of joy: Ps. 16:11 .

earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness: Ps. 24:1 . ( 1 Cor. 10:26 . )

of his fulness have all we received: John 1:16 .

until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in: Rom. 11:25 .

fulness of the blessing of the gospel: Rom. 15:29 .

when the fulness of the time was come: Gal. 4:4 .

fulness of him that filleth all in all: Eph. 1:23 .

ye might be filled with all the fulness of God: Eph. 3:19 .

measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Eph. 4:13 .

in him should all fulness dwell: Col. 1:19 .

in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead: Col. 2:9 .

it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord: 1 Ne. 13:24 .

fulness of the gospel … come unto the Gentiles: 1 Ne. 15:13 .

fulness of the wrath of God was upon them: 1 Ne. 17:35 . ( 1 Ne. 22:16 ; 2 Ne. 1:17 ; Ether 2:9–10 . )

in the fulness of time he cometh: 2 Ne. 2:3 .

shall reject the fulness of my gospel: 3 Ne. 16:10 .

Father hath given me fulness of joy: 3 Ne. 28:10 .

fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed: D&C 1:23 . ( D&C 14:10 ; D&C 35:17 . )

Thou shalt preach the fulness of my gospel: D&C 39:11 .

which is the fulness of the gospel: D&C 42:12 .

do this, the fulness of the earth is yours: D&C 59:16 .

beheld the glory of the Son … and received of his fulness: D&C 76:20 .

because he gave me of his fulness: D&C 93:4 .

from grace to grace, until he received a fulness: D&C 93:13 .

fulness of the record of John: D&C 93:18 .

no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth: D&C 93:27 .

spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy: D&C 93:33 .

receive a fulness of the Holy Ghost: D&C 109:15 .

priesthood given … dispensation of the fulness of times: D&C 112:30 . ( D&C 124:41 ; D&C 128:18–20 . )

everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory: D&C 132:6 . ( D&C 132:19 . )

sent the fulness of the everlasting gospel: D&C 135:3 . ( JS—H 1:34 . )

Enoch … received a fulness of joy: Moses 7:67 .

book … fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it: JS—H 1:34 .

fulness of the Gentiles was soon to come in: JS—H 1:41 .

Didn't have time to quote a Ensign article or conference talk.

I didn't say what the fulness is, still have not only given resources to find it.

Enjoy!

[bytor2112]

Simple, receive the Holy Ghost so that we have it with us ALWAYS. Is the admonition in the sacrament prayer. I have rejected that notion thus causing the holy ghost to not be with me as often as it could be. I have yet to submit willingly to all things the lord seest fit upon me (Mosiah 3). I have yet to fear man, and not seek my own life.

All these are signs of one who HAS NOT been fully converted. (alma 5) A foolish virgin indeed. So have I rejected the fulness? Yes. Because I am a slothful servant that intends to good but never gets around to doing it. I am learning to overcome this with he Lord's help. But until I DO it doesn't matter what I know. As superficial knowledge means nothing without EXPERIENCE which brings REAL knowledge.

Respectfully, the sacrament prayer is that we should always remember HIM and keep HIS commandments that we may always have HIS Spirit. Unless you are living in great error, open rebellion or involved in gross transgressions....you really haven't rejected the "fulness" of the Gospel. Perhaps, you haven't fully partaken of the fulness of HIS blessings.

I often reflect on this verse from Doctrine and Covenants:

" For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation."

I am an endowed member of the church and have entered into the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage and have been blessed with many Sacred Spiritual gifts that we are each entitled to but do not all seek or receive. Please note, that is not a boast or prideful comment, I am surely among the weakest of the Lord's servants. The Lord blesses us as we are ready to receive, here a little there a little.....so that we are not under greater condemnation.

It's a journey......

[Just_A_Guy]

If you got that from those quotes taht are ACCEPTED by LDS than why bring in someone who I SAID NOTHING ABOUT? Its like you won't believe ANYthing some man has stated and will reject anything "LDS" authorities have on the matter if it even RELATES to that man has said.

I would love to hear what you think the fulness is? I didn't even tell you. To say I have rejected it means nothing in this ballpark. Here is what I was referring too (one of two scriptures, I won't quote the other)

(For bewildered observers of this thread: EoG and I have previously had some discussions regarding Denver Snuffer, e.g., here.)

EoG, your post is a textbook example of one of Snuffer's favorite tactics: put together carefully selected scriptures with a minimum of context in such a way as to lead your reader to a certain conclusion, feign shock and bewilderment when someone actually reaches that conclusion and expresses disagreement with said conclusion, but then also make a couple of digs about why the conclusion--even though you wouldn't dream of asserting such a thing--is pretty much right. Moreover, you provide quotes that don't even independently state what you want me to think they state (for example, 2 Ne 31:20 explicitly puts receiving the promise of eternal life after enduring to the end. It doesn't support C&E in this life as integral to the Doctrine of Christ).

The tactic Snuffer pushes is thoroughly dishonest. I have made a point of avoiding stating whether I think Snuffer's purported 2003 visit really occurred; but I'll tell you this: As long as he continues those dishonest tactics, I daresay he won't be getting another such vision anytime soon. And that goes for his followers, too.

So, games aside: Your argument is apparently that one must receive one's calling and election in this life or risk the punishment of God. Without running to the writings of one of Snuffer's much-admired FLDS theologians (Woolley, Musser, et al), can you find me a single specific, explicit and orthodox LDS statement that agrees with this assertion? Because not a single one of the quotes you have provided to date, does that.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[ElectofGod]

Respectfully, the sacrament prayer is that we should always remember HIM and keep HIS commandments that we may always have HIS Spirit. Unless you are living in great error, open rebellion or involved in gross transgressions....you really haven't rejected the "fulness" of the Gospel. Perhaps, you haven't fully partaken of the fulness of HIS blessings.

I often reflect on this verse from Doctrine and Covenants:

" For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation."

I am an endowed member of the church and have entered into the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage and have been blessed with many Sacred Spiritual gifts that we are each entitled to but do not all seek or receive. Please note, that is not a boast or prideful comment, I am surely among the weakest of the Lord's servants. The Lord blesses us as we are ready to receive, here a little there a little.....so that we are not under greater condemnation.

It's a journey......

I agree with you here. His spirit has many symbolism and levels in the scriptures. Haight gives a very specific one in The Sacrament talk. Either way I HAVE NOT entered into the Everlasting Covenant yet. JUNE 14! :)... There is only one way to ALWAYS have it though, its to keep his commandments. All blessings follow those who do this.

Its context, rejecting it versus just not receiving the blessings yet are two different things. One could not have all the blessings yet and have NOT rejected it.