Law of Consent: Doctrine

[ElectofGod]

(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.

You can think what you want. I didn't add comments due to wanting people to come to their own conclusions. I never heard of those theologians why bring them up?

(for example, 2 Ne 31:20 explicitly puts receiving the promise of eternal life after enduring to the end.

It certainly does. Thats because you don't receive your C&E UNTIL you have endured to the end. Thats because the END is where one receives eternal life. 2 nehpi 33:4

4 And I know that the Lord God will consecrate my prayers for the gain of my people. And the words which I have written in weakness will be made strong unto them; for it persuadeth them to do good; it maketh known unto them of their fathers; and it speaketh of Jesus, and persuadeth them to believe in him, and to endure to the end, which is life eternal.

Otherwards the end of the day of probation

9 I also have charity for the Gentiles. But behold, for none of these can I hope except they shall be reconciled unto Christ, and enter into the narrow gate, and walk in the strait path which leads to life, and continue in the path until the end of the day of probation.

Once you have reached the end of your probation you receive your C&E (if qualified for it). C&E also can be to have the day of probation (day of judgment) advanced in this life to receive the promise of eternal life (McConkie, paraphrase). I can quote all the scriptures in the world if you interpret them differently it won't matter. So I will just quote some and leave you to decide what YOU believe. I am not here to convince anyone is wrong when the things I know are so uncertain with myself.

But now you ask... I will quote scripture but if you interpret it differently so be-it. It up to each of us to decide what the truth is.

D&C 131:5 (May 17th, 1843.) The more sure word of prophecy means a man’s knowing that he is sealed up unto eternal life, by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood.

6 It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.

2 nephi 32:7 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.

Ignorance is a knowledge of truth, which truth he could NOT share because of ignorance. The truth we must each gain at sometime on our path into the eternities.

101:37 Therefore, care not for the body, neither the life of the body; but care for the soul, and for the life of the soul.

38 And seek the face of the Lord always, that in patience ye may possess your souls, and ye shall have eternal life.

Until one has proven he cares not for the body he will not have eternal life. Once proven he will. That point is different for everyone. I have no clue when it will happen for each of us.

Terrestial:

76:74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

Celestial

51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—

52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;

53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

What is the Testimony of Jesus?

This is Jesus testifying that you are saved... It is Him telling you the more sure word of prophecy. “First to be sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise that is the testimony of Jesus.” (Words of Joseph Smith, p. 209)...

The Prophet said that the veil might as well be rent today as any day, provided we come together as the elders of the kingdom in faith and in righteousness and qualify to have the visions of eternity. Here is a statement from Joseph Smith:

“Salvation cannot come without revelation [and I am not now speaking about the revelation that gave the dispensation in which we live—I am speaking of personal revelation to individuals]; it is vain for anyone to minister without it. No man is a minister of Jesus Christ without being a prophet. No man can be a minister of Jesus Christ except he has a testimony of Jesus; and this is the spirit of prophecy. Whenever salvation has been administered, it has been by testimony. Men of the present time testify of heaven and hell, and have never seen either; and I will say that no man knows these things without this.” (Teachings, p. 160.)

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1980/06/how-to-get-personal-revelation?lang=eng

Its quite clear (to me) in that last quote by McConkie, that salvation only comes from revelation. That revelation is to gain the testimony of Jesus, a true minister, is one who has SEEN heaven and hell. Joseph says its in VAIN to minister without it. If you think it means something else than take what you want from it.

I don't care how you interpret it, but DONT put my opinions wiht a man who I never read until the last few months.

I believed THESE THINGS AS A MISSIONARY (most of it) before I ever read an LDS book besides the book of mormon.

I could tie in tons of more but whats the point? This is not the subject of the thread.

alma 34:32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.

33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

Edited June 7, 2013 by ElectofGod

[ElectofGod]

This however I am certain:

Many of us have a superficial knowledge and rely upon the Lord and his goodness to see us through the trials and perils of life.

But if we are to have faith like Enoch and Elijah we must believe what they believed, know what they knew, and live as they lived.

May I invite you to join with me in gaining a sound and sure knowledge of the Atonement.

The Purifying Power of Gethsemane - general-conference

Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for, from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for the truth's sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do his will, he does know, most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not, nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.

(Joseph Smith, Lectures on Faith 6:7)

We will NOT receive the blessings of Abram (Abraham), Saul (Paul), Adam (Michael), and all the other men UNTIL we DO what they have DONE.

"It will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave"

Joseph Smith

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Joseph Fielding Smith, ed.

Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Press, 1938), pp.345-348

[selek]

You can think what you want. I didn't add comments due to wanting people to come to their own conclusions. I never heard of those theologians why bring them up?

That's called "a dodge" EoG- and it's not the first time you've been caught quote mining unrelated statements to support your private Gospel.

Answer the question you were asked: "can you find me a single specific, explicit and orthodox LDS statement that agrees with this assertion?"

Also, your "I didn't add comments due to wanting people to come to their own conclusions" sounds suspiciously like "I didn't want to distract them from the obvious conclusion I am pushing."

I will quote scripture but if you interpret it differently so be-it. It up to each of us to decide what the truth is.

This is the same sort of rhetorical nonsense you were pushing in the "Who is..." thread: arbitrarily redefining terms to mean what YOU want them to mean in order to push a particular conclusion: and then playing the victim when we fail to fall in line with your sudden "enlightenment".

It was dishonest then, it's dishonest now.

The following statement is a particularly poignant example of the technique:

Ignorance is a knowledge of truth, which truth he could NOT share because of ignorance.

You might just as readily say that "'black' is a form of 'white' which he could not share because of 'black'."

The sentence is meaningless and unintelligible on its face, yet you tout it as if it were the highest wisdom.

You keep decorating your arguments with phrases like "my revelation" and "clear to me"- as though that nonsense holds some particular cachet in LDS circles.

IT DOES NOT.

As you finally admitted in the "Who Is" thread, "personal" revelation does not- and never HAS- trumped the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Your last half-dozen posts have been a blatant and naked attempt to peddle your personal Gospel as something of value to the faithful Latter-day Saint.

When we point out that your dogma is at variance with the Gospel, you feign shock, bewilderment, and dive head-long into passive-aggressive blame and evasion tactics, as though it is our fault that you cannot defend your peculiar doctrines using authoritative sources.

Despite that false piety and "just-thinking out-loud" facade in which you drape yourself, you are NOT a prophet, nor a seer, nor a revelator unto this people, and we are not obliged to curtsey when your present falsehoods and false doctrine in the name of "revelation".

Its quite clear (to me) in that last quote by McConkie, that salvation only comes from revelation. That revelation is to gain the testimony of Jesus, a true minister, is one who has SEEN heaven and hell. Joseph says its in VAIN to minister without it. If you think it means something else than take what you want from it.

More special pleading, more arbitrary redefinition of basic LDS theology to suit your particular zeitgeist.

I said it before, and I say it now: I believe with a fair amount of confidence that President McConkie would be appalled at you using his words in this way.

Like the Pharisees of old, you are attempting to corrupt the true meaning of the law in order to advance your own personal interpretation.

That's exactly the sort of nonsense which turned a day of rest made for man into an exercise in micromanagement which limited the number of steps a person could legally take each day.

I could tie in tons of more but whats the point? This is not the subject of the thread.

In other words, now that someone's willing to examine your assertions, you are no longer interested in "exploring" them- you much prefer a docile and supine audience which swallows your assertions without questioning them.

[Guest]

Okay, pause for a minute. Let me catch up. My name was brought up a few pages back. I just want to clarify that one.

For DCE:

The difference between homosexual marriage and Priesthood Authority is that the first is against the gospel, the 2nd one is not.

The pattern of Priesthood Authority is clear from the Old Testament times. It is granted to a selected few. And it is put in the charge of men. Therefore, expanding the selection to a bigger pool of men does not run contrary to gospel truth. Now, if Priesthood Authority were to be expanded to include women, then it would run contrary to gospel truth. Because, in the order of Priesthood Power, Women are charged to open the gate from Pre-Mortal Existence to Mortal Existence with the aid of men, whereas Men are charged to open the gate from Mortal Existence to Post-Mortal Existence with the aid of women. And in both instances, Priesthood Power is exercised under the Marriage Covenant.

In the same token, homosexual marriages, goes against the established organization of the Kingdom of God because it lacks one part in the exercise of Priesthood Power. Note the distinction between Priesthood Authority and Priesthood Power. If you need this clarified I'll give a follow up.

So, the reason why scripture/doctrine as revealed to the Prophets is made subject to the Law of Consent because revelation can only be true if it does not conflict with established truths of the Kingdom of God.

A perfect and super easily understood example would be if President Monson ever announces that he received revelation from our Heavenly Father that Jesus Christ is not God - then, you know for a surety that President Monson has fallen off the strait and narrow because it goes against established truths of the Kingdom of God.

Make sense?

Now, when things are not as clear - then new revelation may simply clarify our understanding of an established truth. This is what happened in the restoration of the church under Joseph Smith. It is not that it made the gospel that has been revealed throughout the ages false. It was merely clarified - given better understanding through the restoration of lost knowledge that made for a more complete understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Edited June 7, 2013 by anatess

[Traveler]

Thought I would add something that I think is missing in this discussion that has to do with covenants. There are a number of parts necessary to complete a covenant. Certain roles that are played. For example, as we covenant with G-d there are obviously two individuals – G-d and man. G-d is the proctor of the covenant and in mortality (our fallen state) G-d is always represented in proxy through Jesus Christ. This is why the Priesthood that is held in mortality must be after the “order” of Christ who is the mediator. The order of Christ (Priesthood – Melchizedek) has two parts. The first part is the authority. In essence this is membership which is the right to represent, by proxy, G-d. But besides the authority there is order. The order is established by keys. In Abraham chapter 3 this order is explained. Within the order there is always one that presides. It is the presiding authority that is directly associated with the keys of the priesthood and therefore either is the representative proxy or appoints the representative proxy. This is important to understand concerning the order. It must also be noted that in this order the proctor or representative proxy also is judge over the covenant or determines if the covenant was fulfilled (judged see Luke 22:30).

However there is another role of the covenant and that is the role that we play. When we covenant with G-d (his priesthood proxy ó proctor) we accept by consent to be subjects of or to G-d and his proxy. But there is a caveat – what happen when we think the proctor is abusing or over reaching his position of proctor and misrepresenting G-d. We can appeal to the order of proxy but there is another possibility according to covenant. We can take responsibility upon ourselves and relieve the appointed proxy representative of condemnation for their error and take the responsibility of the covenant upon ourselves. This is the option of consent or common consent. This is a risky step because if we step incorrectly we bring condemnation upon ourselves – but had we remained obedient to the order of the priesthood then the condemnation would fall upon the proctor in the order. This is why we cannot be led into condemnation by being obedient to our priesthood authority order – even if the priesthood authority is wrong.

What this all means is that when we give our consent then we are not held accountable. When we do not give consent we become accountable. I think the principle that many miss in this accountability within the order of the priesthood is that if we know someone is abusing their place in the order that we will reap condemnation on them by our obedience to them but we can remove our portion of condemnation by removing our consent.

Thus the conclusion is that the proper (righteous) reason to exercise not giving our consent and to reject an erroring priesthood authority is not in any effort to condemn them but to save them from condemnation.

The Traveler

[ElectofGod]

I have tried to courtesous in my posts. But this is ridiculous. I have asked YOU what you think they mean. But no whwere have I seen anyone interpret it. In the other post I added lots of comments, here I decided to leave them OUT for that very purpose.

I can''t even post authoritative quotes without being chastised seriously?

That's called "a dodge" EoG- and it's not the first time you've been caught quote mining unrelated statements to support your private Gospel.

UNRELATED? Seriously? All THOSE QUOTES WERE DEFINING WHAT THE FULNESS of the gospel WAS. THAT WAS THE MESSAGE OF THE POST.

Answer the question you were asked: "can you find me a single specific, explicit and orthodox LDS statement that agrees with this assertion?"

I am not even sure anymore what you guys are looking for? That C&E must be in this life? I have not sated that once. But if you think you can get in heaven without it (this life or the next) good luck to you.

It was dishonest then, it's dishonest now.

Right so I can't find LDS QUOTES to define what something means? FROM PACKER, McConkie, Joseph Smith... Nor will you even read what they say and tell me.

The following statement is a particularly poignant example of the technique:

You might just as readily say that "'black' is a form of 'white' which he could not share because of 'black'."

The sentence is meaningless and unintelligible on its face, yet you tout it as if it were the highest wisdom.

You keep decorating your arguments with phrases like "my revelation" and "clear to me"- as though that nonsense holds some particular cachet in LDS circles.

WHAT revelation am I claiming to have? Please tell me. Clear to me? So is EVERY post on this ENTIRE website.

As you finally admitted in the "Who Is" thread, "personal" revelation does not- and never HAS- trumped the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Careful, I SAID GOSPEL. Thou shalt not kill, its a commandment and teaching of hte gospel... BUT the higher law is to do WHAT THE SPIRIT tells you to do. "yield to the spirit in all things". Thus Nephhi was able to kill.

Thus Abraham was allowed to shed innocent blood, his son, even if he was asked to stop it. In the progression of every man they will be asked to sacrifice all things by a specfici test. AGAIN TEACHING OF JOSEPH SMITH, "Every man will be tried as was Abraham".(paraphrase)

Your last half-dozen posts have been a blatant and naked attempt to peddle your personal Gospel as something of value to the faithful Latter-day Saint.

When we point out that your dogma is at variance with the Gospel, you feign shock, bewilderment, and dive head-long into passive-aggressive blame and evasion tactics, as though it is our fault that you cannot defend your peculiar doctrines using authoritative sources.

Particular doctrines? That are taught in General Conference. OK THAN. C&E is an eternal truth. Its in dozens of places on lds.org... Go search you will be surprised.

Despite that false piety and "just-thinking out-loud" facade in which you drape yourself, you are NOT a prophet, nor a seer, nor a revelator unto this people, and we are not obliged to curtsey when your present falsehoods and false doctrine in the name of "revelation".

I have claimed NONE. Nor do I see what I am teaching is contrary to wahts spoken in General Conference. IF you are reading outside the box because you think I BELIEVE SOMETHING else than I HAVE STATED HERE... That that is YOU GUYS taking what I SAY for what I AM NOT SAYING.

Only reason we have a problem here is because JUST_A_GUY knows I have read Denver Snuffer. But the funny thing is I HAVE NOT READ A SINGLE BOOK. A total of 12 chapters in two different books.

More special pleading, more arbitrary redefinition of basic LDS theology to suit your particular zeitgeist.

hahhaha. Again what have I taught that is contrary? Name one thing?

Like the Pharisees of old, you are attempting to corrupt the true meaning of the law in order to advance your own personal interpretation.

If you think you are so right, tell me?

In other words, now that someone's willing to examine your assertions, you are no longer interested in "exploring" them- you much prefer a docile and supine audience which swallows your assertions without questioning them.

No because we have gone this route before FOR 20 PAGES. I don't wish to here. I posted a few major ones that is all.

Even LDS hates the word repentance. It has become very apparent.

Edited June 7, 2013 by ElectofGod

[selek]

I have tried to courtesous in my posts. But this is ridiculous.

"Passive aggressive" does not equal "courteous".

"Cagey", "elusive", and "uninformative" are not hallmarks of courteousy, but of duplicity.

I have asked YOU what you think they mean. But no whwere have I seen anyone interpret it. In the other post I added lots of comments, here I decided to leave them OUT for that very purpose.

This is the third time you've ducked answering JAG's question.

One begins to wonder why...

I can''t even post authoritative quotes without being chastised seriously?

This is yet another red herring in a long string of false accusations.

It is not "posting authoritative quotes" that is the problem, it is your habit of ripping them out of context and sewing them into some sort of crazy-quilt pastiche of private theology- which you then attempt to foist on the rest of us.

Answer the question you were asked and drop the frantic handwaving. It's not fooling anyone.

Even LDS hates the word repentance. It has become very apparent.

Oh, horse pockey.

The LDS have no problem with repentance- we preach (and most of us practice) repentance every day.

What YOU are peddling, however, is not "repentance"; that's just one more word you've cheerfully bastardized and corrupted in your ongoing quest to proselyte the Mormon people.

Contrary to your wail of "persecution", however, what has become "very apparent" is that you are not acting (or arguing) in good faith.

This assessment is based on:

1) your numerous out of context quotes

2) your overt and repeated failure to lay out all of your premises before hand (while regularly referring back to those you have not revealed as though they are the rosetta stone by which all is made clear).

2) your arbitrary and capricious "redefinitions" of standard terms to mean what you want them to mean.

3) the multiple instances of "special pleading" (similar, but not identical, to #2 above).

4) your steadfast refusal to answer direct questions with direct evidence.

5) your insistence on claiming "personal revelation" (by definition, unfalsifiable) as justification for your flights of fancy,

6) your oft-repeated insinuation that failure to agree with your terms is a sign of faithlessness or other deep-seated personal failure (see #5, above),

7) your refusal to acknowledge the authoritative nature of the teachings of the Church (except where they agree with your premices)

and

8) your near-reflexive complaints of "intolerance" and "persecution" whenever someone dares to challenge your personal version of theology- no matter how innocuous that challenge might be.

Your passive-aggressive, woe-is-me, persecution schtick has worn thin to the point of transparency.

Now it's time for you to provide some substantive answers.

[ElectofGod]

"Passive aggressive" does not equal "courteous".

"Cagey", "elusive", and "uninformative" are not hallmarks of courteousy, but of duplicity.

This is the third time you've ducked answering JAG's question.

One begins to wonder why...

This is yet another red herring in a long string of false accusations.

It is not "posting authoritative quotes" that is the problem, it is your habit of ripping them out of context and sewing them into some sort of crazy-quilt pastiche of private theology- which you then attempt to foist on the rest of us.

Answer the question you were asked and drop the frantic handwaving. It's not fooling anyone.

Oh, horse pockey.

The LDS have no problem with repentance- we preach (and most of us practice) repentance every day.

What YOU are peddling, however, is not "repentance"; that's just one more word you've cheerfully bastardized and corrupted in your ongoing quest to proselyte the Mormon people.

Contrary to your wail of "persecution", however, what has become "very apparent" is that you are not acting (or arguing) in good faith.

This assessment is based on:

1) your numerous out of context quotes

2) your overt and repeated failure to lay out all of your premises before hand (while regularly referring back to those you have not revealed as though they are the rosetta stone by which all is made clear).

2) your arbitrary and capricious "redefinitions" of standard terms to mean what you want them to mean.

3) the multiple instances of "special pleading" (similar, but not identical, to #2 above).

4) your steadfast refusal to answer direct questions with direct evidence.

5) your insistence on claiming "personal revelation" (by definition, unfalsifiable) as justification for your flights of fancy,

6) your oft-repeated insinuation that failure to agree with your terms is a sign of faithlessness or other deep-seated personal failure (see #5, above),

7) your refusal to acknowledge the authoritative nature of the teachings of the Church (except where they agree with your premices)

and

8) your near-reflexive complaints of "intolerance" and "persecution" whenever someone dares to challenge your personal version of theology- no matter how innocuous that challenge might be.

Your passive-aggressive, woe-is-me, persecution schtick has worn thin to the point of transparency.

Now it's time for you to provide some substantive answers.

You did not answer ONE of my questions. You condemn me yet have NO insight for what your condemning me for.

I assume you are referring to this question?

Your argument is apparently that one must receive one's calling and election in this life or risk the punishment of God.

I did answer it in response to byots post. I AGREED with his post. His post was about us not rejecting the fulness just because we have not received the blessings yet. As long as we are on the path yielding to the spirit, everything will work out.

To state anyone who does not have their C&E in this life would face God's punishment would be foolishness. The path is so individualized for everyone to state it has to be one way would be putting restrictions on God. The path is the same, the savior showed us that path, however; our point on that path is different. To state someone has to be on a particular place on that path else face God's punishment when we were all born in a different place (standing, due to 1st estate obedience) on the path would bring condemnation upon myself for unrighteous judgments. Its like you both are trying to get me to contradict myself.

All these blessings are given to those who walk the path, but nobody will finish that path in this life. Its up to us to start walking that path NOW.

Spiritual ordinaces/ Physcial Ordiances

Baptism by Water

Gift of the Holy Ghost

Baptism by Fire

Prophecy

Visions

Dreams

Ministry of Angels

Justification, Sanctifcation, Purifcation

Initiatories

Anointings

Endowment

2nd anointing

Calling and Election

Second Comforter

Washing of the feet

Ressurection of the dead

Plus all those that have not been revealed or I skipped over.

After all we learn all children will make it to heaven under the age of 8.

I'll quote myself:

One could not have all the blessings yet and have NOT rejected it.

Edited June 7, 2013 by ElectofGod

[selek]

You did not answer ONE of my questions.

No, I have not.

Given your methods thus far, I see no need to "feed the furnace", because I neither believe that you are arguing in good faith nor do I believe you are serious about understanding what the LDS church teaches.

You condemn me yet have NO insight for what your condemning me for.

This is yet another in a long line of passive-aggressive tantrums and yet another statement that makes no objective sense.

You may believe that I am mistaken in my assessments, wrong-headed in my thinking, or even ill-informed to the point of foolishness.

You may have your own notions about whether or not my assessments are just, but it is simply asinine to claim that I have no insight into my actions, opinions, and assessments.

You might just as credibly argue that I have no insight into why I chose to eat a double cheeseburger and onion rings for lunch.

You may question the wisdom of that decision (onion rings give me heartburn), but to claim that I don't know why I did it is to reveal one* of us as a fool.

To state anyone who does not have their C&E in this life would face God's punishment would be foolishness.

So you are now rejecting the earlier premise you yourself floated.

As such, your post is the literal fulfillment of this prediction:

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 all that you've caved on this particular point of Calling and Election, you've made no effort to correct the distorted quotes or "ignorance is a knowledge of the truth" double-speak you've been called out on.

If and when you are ready to engage in a serious discussion, using authorized and authoritative sources in context, I will be happy to discuss this with you.

Unless and until then, I will regard you as little more than a hobbyist looking for a receptive audience to peddle your pet theories.

In the interim, I have hobbies of my own on which I can more profitably squander my time.

Edited June 7, 2013 by selek

[Just_A_Guy]

You can think what you want. I didn't add comments due to wanting people to come to their own conclusions. I never heard of those theologians why bring them up?

You have heard of those theologians--e.g., here--and you went so far as to defend the use of their writings in mainstream LDS discourse--e.g., here.

It certainly does. Thats because you don't receive your C&E UNTIL you have endured to the end. Thats because the END is where one receives eternal life. 2 nehpi 33:4

So, per 2 Nephi 31, you endure until you receive eternal life, and then you have eternal life? That's kind of . . . tautological, to put it mildly.

And, as Selek says, my initial challenge was that you provide "a single specific, explicit and orthodox LDS statement that agrees with [the] assertion" that "one must receive one's calling and election in this life or risk the punishment of God." Now you again play the same game of "I never said that!!!!"--but then provide (ambiguous) quote after (ambiguous) quote attempting to buttress your position. I'll get to that in a minute, but first I would strongly encourage you to stand up and be counted. If you agree with the idea, admit it. If you don't agree with the idea, quit defending it and we can move on to something we'll both enjoy more.

Now, with regard to the quotes you did offer: The two quotes that come closest to meeting the criteria I set out (single, specific, explicit, and orthodox) are McConkie, and Smith's alleged definition of the spirit of prophecy. But they are both problematic.

Joseph Smith's alleged definition of the testimony of Jesus as the "spirit of prophecy" is a bit confusing as-presented. The only part of your quote block that allegedly comes from Smith is the portion in quotation marks. The trouble is that that isn't actually a quote--it's part of a one-paragraph synopsis (by James Burgess) of a two-hour sermon given in May of 1843. Burgess's synopsis is the only one of six accounts of that sermon (some of which were FAR more extensive) to refer to the "testimony of Jesus", or indeed to use the word "testimony" at all.

Does the Book of Revelation define the testimony of Jesus as the spirit of prophecy? Sure. Is that what Smith and Rigdon were alluding to in 1832 when they committed D&C 76 to writing; and did Smith intend to relate back to the 1832 doctrine when he expounded the doctrine of C&E over a decade later? That is undefined. It's interesting how many people decry correlation and the standardization of LDS teaching; but then insist that Joseph Smith must have only ever have used one word or phrase in exactly one way in a variety of contexts over a period extending well over a decade.

As for McConkie: That quote, as you seek to apply it, contradicts McConkie's prior teachings. For example, in Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 1:251, McConkie writes:

"Nothing more than the testimony of Jesus is needed to make a person a prophet; and if this revealed knowledge has not been received, a person is not a prophet, no matter how many other talents or gifts he may have. But when a person has received a revelation from the Spirit certifying to the divinity of Christ, he is then in a position to press forward in righteousness and gain other revelations including those which foretell future events."

At DNTC 1:526, 1:534-535, and 3:565, McConkie also references the spirit of prophecy and/or the testimony of Christ; and from context it's clear he's not talking in those instances about C&E or about a direct visitation of Christ in His glory. (I'm leaving out a number of other citations that are more ambiguous in character.)

Moreover: if McConkie interpreted Joseph the way you do, and a priesthood holder who hasn't seen heaven and hell in a vision is serving "in vain"--then why didn't McConkie call all the missionaries home (except for those who said they'd seen Jesus)?

Do you believe that each and every moment of the two years you spent as a missionary, were in vain? Because that's the logical implication of what you seem to want me to think McConkie/Smith are saying.

So, do you?

Edited June 7, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[ElectofGod]

No, I have not. Given your methods thus far, I see no need to "feed the furnace", because I neither believe that you are arguing in good faith nor do I believe you are serious about understanding what the LDS church teaches.

This is yet another in a long line of passive-aggressive tantrums and yet another statement that makes no objective sense.

You may believe that I am mistaken in my assessments, wrong-headed in my thinking, or even ill-informed to the point of foolishness.

You may have your own notions about whether or not my assessments are just, but it is simply asinine to claim that I have no insight into my actions, opinions, and assessments.

You might just as credibly argue that I have no insight into why chose to eat a double cheeseburger and onion rings for lunch.

You may question the wisdom of that decision (onion rings give me heartburn), but to claim that I don't know why I did it is to reveal one* of us as a fool.

So you are now rejecting the earlier premise you yourself floated.

As such, your post is the literal fulfillment of this prediction:

For all that you've caved on this particular point of Calling and Election, you've made no effort to correct the distorted quotes or "ignorance is a knowledge of the truth" double-speak you've been called out on.

If and when you are ready to engage in a serious discussion, using authorized and authoritative sources in context, I will be happy to discuss this with you.

Unless and until then, I will regard you as little more than a hobbyist looking for a receptive audience to peddle your pet theories.

In the interim, I have hobbies of my own on which I can more profitably squander my time.

Haha your out to prove me wrong. That is your only motive. But at least you addressed ONE issue you had.

Ignorance is a LACK of knowledge of the truth.

Right here in wiki's definition.

Ignorance is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge).[1] The word ignorant is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used as an insult to describe individuals who deliberately ignore or disregard important information or facts. Ignoramus is commonly used in the US, the UK, and Ireland as a term for someone who is willfully ignorant.

Ignorance is distinguished from stupidity, although both can lead to "unwise" acts.

Ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I quoted SCRIPTURES about the fulness of the gospel. Yet you say I used them out of context. Oh please. The doctrine of Christ is the fulness of the gospel. The book of mormon is the fulness of the gospel.

So you are now rejecting the earlier premise you yourself floated.

I rejected NOTHING you ASSUMED! Perhaps you purposely trying to find fault in my statements you are disregarding what the truth is.

The premise is this: (JAG's question) Do you have to receive your C&E in this life...

As you define this life in mortality... I responded

My quotes about his question were regarding do you have to receive your C&E BEFORE you get into heaven. YES. You have to be sealed by the holy spirit of promise. To deny this you are outright DENYING SCRIPTURE. That can happen NOW (this life) or the SPIRIT world (continuation of THIS LIFE, eternity). I stated that in MY ORIGINAL post...

[Just_A_Guy]

To state anyone who does not have their C&E in this life would face God's punishment would be foolishness. . . . That can happen NOW (this life) or the SPIRIT world (continuation of THIS LIFE, eternity)

Thank you!!!!

That's what I was waiting for. Wasn't it easy?

Edited June 7, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Finrock]

Good evening Just_A_Guy. I hope you are well. :)

Thank you!!!!

That's what I was waiting for. Wasn't it easy?

The truth is that he actually answered in his very next post to you.

Once you have reached the end of your probation you receive your C&E (if qualified for it). C&E also can be to have the day of probation (day of judgment) advanced in this life to receive the promise of eternal life (McConkie, paraphrase) (Post 51).

This is clearly saying that you will receive your C&E at the end of your probation (if qualified) or receiving your C&E can, not must, can, also mean to have the day of probation advanced in this mortal life to receive the promise of eternal life.

Regards,

Finrock

[Letrell]

What the heck is a C&E?

[james12]

Shorthand for calling and election made sure.

[Just_A_Guy]

Good evening Just_A_Guy. I hope you are well. :)

The truth is that he actually answered in his very next post to you.

This is clearly saying that you will receive your C&E at the end of your probation (if qualified) or receiving your C&E can, not must, can, also mean to have the day of probation advanced in this mortal life to receive the promise of eternal life.

Regards,

Finrock

Thanks, Finrock. I didn't read it that way; but I'll let the matter lie with a simple mea culpa if I was in fact misreading EoG.

[ElectofGod]

The question was already answered but I will reiterate what has already been said one last time. Some of this IS personal opinion. So others won't be confused.

Also, I do tend to look at some things differently so as Finrock showed my words can be READ differently by different people.

To make it short I will just show one example for my purposes. Know there are many more.

D&C 137:5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

Many will be saved according to their desires and what they would receive if permitted to do so.

Few posts back I stated:

All these blessings are given to those who walk the path, but nobody will finish that path in this life. Its up to us to start walking that path NOW.

Spiritual ordinaces/ Physcial Ordiances

Baptism by Water

Gift of the Holy Ghost

Baptism by Fire

Prophecy

Visions

Dreams

Ministry of Angels

Justification, Sanctifcation, Purifcation

Initiatories

Anointings

Endowment (token, sign, name, penalty)

2nd anointing

Calling and Election made sure

Second Comforter

Washing of the feet

Ressurection of the dead

Plus all those that have not been revealed or I skipped over.

The questions is twofold:

1) What path am I ABLE to walk in this life or where am I ON that path?

2) What am I WILLING to receive?

1) Was it given to me in this life to be baptized? Receive Endowment? Receive Second Comforter?

What if Nephi rejected to receive his personal witness of the savior in mortality would he have been saved? What if Peter James and john did not live a life to see Christ on the mount of olives? To be witnesses of His Resurrection? These men were CALLED to be such for their ministry. What if Enoch rejected translation? What were the blessings received of the 12 apostles in the book of mormon who saw Christ. What were the differences between the 3 who STAYED versus those 9 who went speedily to heaven?

I will note the 3 gained a greater reward in heaven. The 9 still go to heaven but their reward is not the same.

Everyone is CALLED for something in this life.

I will relate a parable to answer the questions.

Jesus told the story of a master who gave each of his three servants a sum of money. The amounts were set according to each servant’s previously demonstrated capabilities. The man then left for a long time. When he returned, he asked each of these servants to report what he had done with the money.

The first two servants revealed they had doubled his investment. “Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord,” was the master’s reply (Matt. 25:21; see also Matt. 25:23).

The Other Servant

The third servant then came trembling before his master. He had already heard what the others had reported and knew that he could not give a similar report. “I was afraid,” the servant said, “and went and hid thy talent in the earth” (Matt. 25:25). The master was upset. “Thou wicked and slothful servant,” he said. Then he commanded, “Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents” (Matt. 25:26, 28).

The Savior then gave the interpretation of the parable: Those who obtain other talents receive more talents in abundance. But those who do not obtain other talents shall lose even the talents they had initially (see Matt. 25:28–29).

Obtaining Other Talents

Every person comes to earth as a unique individual. Similar threads may run in families, but each of us has a tapestry all our own. Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote: “Each person in this life is endowed with those talents and capacities which his pre-earth life entitle him to receive. Some by obedience to law acquired one talent and some another.” 2

The Lord made it clear that it is not good enough for us simply to return to Him the talents He has given us. We are to improve upon and add to our talents. He has promised that if we multiply our talents we will receive eternal joy.

In modern revelation the Lord affirmed the principles in this parable: “But with some I am not well pleased, for … they hide the talent which I have given unto them, because of the fear of man. … Thou shalt not idle away thy time, neither shalt thou bury thy talent that it may not be known” (D&C 60:2, 13).

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2003/08/parables-of-jesus-the-parable-of-the-talents?lang=eng

Otherwards, we start on the path were we are AT and we start walking as far as we are ABLE to on that path. Thus improve our time.

Also end with this quote from that talk.

3 Princples to learn:

Seek earnestly to discover the talents the Lord has given you.

Use your talents to build up the kingdom of God.

Acknowledge God’s hand in your success.

Talents could be many things, abilities, gifts of the spirit, ordinances of the gospel, covenants one must RECEIVE, covenants one must LIVE, etc...

[selek]

Some of this IS personal opinion. So others won't be confused.

In order that others be not confused, you need to be far more specific about what is your opinion, and what is the authentic teaching of the Church.

Lumping them into one pile with the warning that "some of this is licorice, some of this is plastic insulation" is of little value when the whole mess is intended to be swallowed whole.

1) What path am I ABLE to walk in this life or where am I ON that path?

I have a problem with this question/metaphor. There IS only one path back to the Father: the one laid out by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. There is only one gate into Heaven, and it is straight and narrow.

Whether in this life of the next, those who wish to dwell with Heavenly Father will enter in through that gate, not a multiplicity of paths.

I also find your "we all start at different points" reasoning to be problematic (for many of the same reasons).

There are no "royal lineages" within the Church.

A son or daughter of Brigham Young is no more a Latter-day Saint, nor any closer to the Kingdom of Heaven (at birth) than is a son of Warren Jeffs or William Law.

Each of them must discover and nurture the same testimony, make and accept the same covenants.

Yes, our individual circumstances may vary, making it easier for someone to hear or learn the teachings of the Church, but no one will be denied those teachings or that truth.

We all walk the same path, must learn the same truths, and make the same covenants.

Yes, there are those who will fall by the wayside, but the path itself is the same.

2) What am I WILLING to receive?

This question, like so much else you have proferred, is contra-scriptural and undoctrinal.

The Gospel is not a buffet where one can pick-and-choose which covenants are desirable and which are incovenient. You don't get to pick all of Entrée A, but none of Entrée B, and a few bites of Entrée C.

You are either a willing to accept all that the Gospel entails and to endure to the end or you are not.

Moreover, your premise ignores the fact that Gospel truths are taught line-upon-line and precept-upon-precept.

Eternal truths are revealed to us on two conditions: as we seek for them, and as we are ready/worthy of them.

The truth of the Gospel is one of ongoing growth and revelation. You either walk the covenant as Christ reveals it or you accept a lesser covenant and a lesser glory.

You don't get to dictate terms by deciding "What am I WILLING to receive?" before you even leave the starting gate.

You either trust Christ and walk the path as he reveals it, or you wait back at the gate, wondering why there is no oil in your lamp.

1) Was it given to me in this life to be baptized? Receive Endowment? Receive Second Comforter?

None of which is relevant.

Whether you receive these ordinances in this life or the next matters not- only your willingness to do so when the Lord asks it of you.

What matters is walking the path before you to the best of your ability- of keeping your feet rather than tripping because you are so busily looking beyond the mark.

What if Nephi rejected to receive his personal witness of the savior in mortality would he have been saved? What if Peter James and john did not live a life to see Christ on the mount of olives? To be witnesses of His Resurrection? These men were CALLED to be such for their ministry. What if Enoch rejected translation? What were the blessings received of the 12 apostles in the book of mormon who saw Christ.

I would like some clarification about this monologue.

At first blush, you appear to be making an argument for predestination rather than foreordination.

I will agree that these men were foreordained to their tasks, but categorically reject the notion that they were predestined to fulfill it.

Each of them retained (and retains today) their agency. They all had the choice to either obey or walk away.

In any case, the answer is simple: Had they failed to pick up the burden offered them, then another would have been appointed in their stead.

The works of God are not thwarted by the weaknesses of men (as witnessed by the first 118 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript).

What were the differences between the 3 who STAYED versus those 9 who went speedily to heaven?

You ask this question, then presume to answer it in the very next sentence. Why that partcular rhetorical flourish?

I will note the 3 gained a greater reward in heaven. The 9 still go to heaven but their reward is not the same.

Call For References, please.

Everyone is CALLED for something in this life.

Call For References. I don't believe I've heard this particular "truth" expounded by those with the authority to teach it.

Otherwards, we start on the path were we are AT and we start walking as far as we are ABLE to on that path.

All of which renders your lengthy checklist of ordinances and gifts and all the needless worrying about C&E, the Second Comforter, and all the rest of it moot.

We are either making the best time and effort on what we have been given or we are squandering the days of our probation.

If you are in the former category, all the things on your list will come in due time.

If you are in the latter, you are ineligible anyway.

As Latter-day Saints, we should be focused on making the most of the covenants and opportunities we are given, not obsessing over an idealized and arbitrary checklist or on "keeping up with the Joneses" in some vain tit-for-tat comparison of who has received what ordinations, offices, or callings.

Edited June 9, 2013 by selek

[ElectofGod]

Surprising I almost agree with every statement in your response. The funny thing is you go and state how one of mine is incorrect than the very next few sentences you go and state the same thing

You clarified many of the points I was getting at. Even if I didn't directly do so.

I have a problem with this question/metaphor. There IS only one path back to the Father: the one laid out by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. There is only one gate into Heaven, and it is straight and narrow.

I re-read my question. It was phrased wrong. This statement by your clarfies my question. i did not mean what path but "how much" so to speak. I agree my analogies are not the best but it was the only way I knew how to express my thoughts.

Whether in this life of the next, those who wish to dwell with Heavenly Father will enter in through that gate, not a multiplicity of paths.

What I meant. Thanks for correcting my statement.

I also find your "we all start at different points" reasoning to be problematic (for many of the same reasons).

There are no "royal lineages" within the Church.

There is a "royal priesthood" (search lds.org for it), but I don't think you mean that. Here is the few points I do disagree but perhaps I am looking at from a different side of the issue than you.

A son or daughter of Brigham Young is no more a Latter-day Saint, nor any closer to the Kingdom of Heaven (at birth) than is a son of Warren Jeffs or William Law.

You bring up foreordination. Here is why I am unsure of how you view it. Would you state Jesus was closer to the kingdom of God at birth or not? I would state yes. Did he have just as much chance to fall as the rest of us? Yes. But he proved himself in the pre-existence that he would not (my belief) thus his obedience made him closer to the kingdom of God.

However spiritually (spiritual birth) speaking we were all at the Same point as you refer to. BUT, everyone no matter where they are at still has the ability to repent and finish the path.

Each of them must discover and nurture the same testimony, make and accept the same covenants.

Yes, our individual circumstances may vary, making it easier for someone to hear or learn the teachings of the Church, but no one will be denied those teachings or that truth.

Exactly.

We all walk the same path, must learn the same truths, and make the same covenants.

Said perfectly. This is what I have attempted to state the past 4 posts or so.

Yes, there are those who will fall by the wayside, but the path itself is the same.

This question, like so much else you have proferred, is contra-scriptural and undoctrinal.

The Gospel is not a buffet where one can pick-and-choose which covenants are desirable and which are incovenient. You don't get to pick all of Entrée A, but none of Entrée B, and a few bites of Entrée C.

You are either a willing to accept all that the Gospel entails and to endure to the end or you are not.

You reject my statement than below write...

only your willingness to do so when the Lord asks it of you.

Which is exactly what I was trying to say in this question.

Moreover, your premise ignores the fact that Gospel truths are taught line-upon-line and precept-upon-precept.

This is exactly what my premises are based off of.

Eternal truths are revealed to us on two conditions: as we seek for them, and as we are ready/worthy of them.

Perfectly said.

The truth of the Gospel is one of ongoing growth and revelation. You either walk the covenant as Christ reveals it or you accept a lesser covenant and a lesser glory.

Perfectly said.

You don't get to dictate terms by deciding "What am I WILLING to receive?" before you even leave the starting gate.

Exactly. You must be willing to leave the gate

You either trust Christ and walk the path as he reveals it, or you wait back at the gate, wondering why there is no oil in your lamp.

Exactly

None of which is relevant.

On the contrary, its the most important truths to learn. You can't walk a path you know nothing about. But you may just mean OVERLY focusing on it? Than I agree.

Whether you receive these ordinances in this life or the next matters not- only your willingness to do so when the Lord asks it of you.

What matters is walking the path before you to the best of your ability- of keeping your feet rather than tripping because you are so busily looking beyond the mark.

I agree. I don't call learning about the path looking beyond the mark. I don't have time to find the quote. But the doctrines of our eternal salvation according to Joseph Smith are thee most important subject matter to study.

I will agree that these men were foreordained to their tasks, but categorically reject the notion that they were predestined to fulfill it.

I can agree with this. What I am saying if we are called to do something and don't fill it we are not improving our talents but hiding them in the earth. (putting off the kingdom of God)

Each of them retained (and retains today) their agency. They all had the choice to either obey or walk away.

Exactly. This is how it was in the pre-existence.

In any case, the answer is simple: Had they failed to pick up the burden offered them, then another would have been appointed in their stead.

The works of God are not thwarted by the weaknesses of men (as witnessed by the first 118 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript).

Agree. But it does not change the fact THAT PERSON will come under condemnation for not multiplying their talents.

3 nephites, Call For References, please.

3 Nephi 28:7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.

....

9 And again, ye shall not have pain while ye shall dwell in the flesh, neither sorrow save it be for the sins of the world; and all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand.

"How great shall be your joy if you bring one soul unto me." Than there are scriptures that state your blessings with them will be even greater with many souls. These men will bring MANY.

I don't believe I've heard this particular "truth" expounded by those with the authority to teach it.

Many are called few are chosen. Maybe not everyone but at least many. Though don't we believe all are sons and all are called to return home to God? God has placed us here for a purpose. That is what I mean by Called. Called with a purpose.

All of which renders your lengthy checklist of ordinances and gifts and all the needless worrying about C&E, the Second Comforter, and all the rest of it moot.

We are either making the best time and effort on what we have been given or we are squandering the days of our probation.

If you are in the former category, all the things on your list will come in due time.

Not if people don't become aware of these things. The lord gives us blessings (were worthy of) when we ASK. Thus we should become aware. Not worry as you said just aware.

Also there is another side to this too.

If you are in the latter, you are ineligible anyway.

Agree.

As Latter-day Saints, we should be focused on making the most of the covenants and opportunities we are given, not obsessing over an idealized and arbitrary checklist or on "keeping up with the Joneses" in some vain tit-for-tat comparison of who has received what ordinations, offices, or callings.

Agreed.

There is no checklist, its "yield to the spirit in all things", "it will show unto you all things you must do"... THAN all things will fall into place.

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

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

I'm sorry, I don't see how verse 6 can be interpreted that way. St. Paul says that Timothy has the gift of God through the imposition of Paul's hands, how is this instructions and not an event already occurred?

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

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

Are these statements necessary?

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

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.

How so? If the giving the Keys to the Kingdom were part of the authority Christ gave, how did they not get passed along with all the other gifts given to disciples such as Timothy, Titus and Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicholas of Antioch by the laying of hands?

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.

If that was how doctrines were issued out in the Catholic Church, then probably. However, the way it works with the Pope is he makes a declaration "Ex Cathedra"(from the chair) and it is law. Those who disagree are just out of communion with the Church. For example, up until the 1950's all Christian groups considered artificial contraceptions as evil. By the time Humanae Vitae was declared by Pope Paul VI, only a few still held to that belief. Even groups within the Catholic Church disagreed with the Pope. And it is sad to say that today a vast amount of Catholics practice AC and believe the Church to be wrong and that the Church will soon change its teaching. It won't change because nothing that Pope Francis can say can change the fact that AC is an intrinsic evil.

[Just_A_Guy]

How so? If the giving the Keys to the Kingdom were part of the authority Christ gave, how did they not get passed along with all the other gifts given to disciples such as Timothy, Titus and Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicholas of Antioch by the laying of hands?

Per LDS teaching, Christ gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and his fellow apostles. The apostles, in turn, delegated a portion of their authority to local officials. However, they did not give local officials--either individually, or collectively--the authority to govern the church as a whole. So if the apostles disappear en masse without appointing their successors, then (per LDS teaching) the local bishops or traveling evangelists could carry on with the congregations in which they were appointed to serve but have no authority over other congregations or to appoint new apostles to govern the church-at-large.

If that was how doctrines were issued out in the Catholic Church, then probably. However, the way it works with the Pope is he makes a declaration "Ex Cathedra"(from the chair) and it is law. Those who disagree are just out of communion with the Church. For example, up until the 1950's all Christian groups considered artificial contraceptions as evil. By the time Humanae Vitae was declared by Pope Paul VI, only a few still held to that belief. Even groups within the Catholic Church disagreed with the Pope. And it is sad to say that today a vast amount of Catholics practice AC and believe the Church to be wrong and that the Church will soon change its teaching. It won't change because nothing that Pope Francis can say can change the fact that AC is an intrinsic evil.

I appreciate your insight into Catholic governance, and thanks for that.

I think your underlying point, though, is more or less as I suggested. Organizationally, it sounds like if the Pope issues an ex cathedra pronouncment sanctioning gay marriage, then that's what will happen within the church. However, you don't believe such a scenario will ever play out in real life, because you accept His Holiness as Christ's vicar on earth.

It's the same with us Mormons and the way we view the President of the our church.

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

Per LDS teaching, Christ gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and his fellow apostles. The apostles, in turn, delegated a portion of their authority to local officials. However, they did not give local officials--either individually, or collectively--the authority to govern the church as a whole. So if the apostles disappear en masse without appointing their successors, then (per LDS teaching) the local bishops or traveling evangelists could carry on with the congregations in which they were appointed to serve but have no authority over other congregations or to appoint new apostles to govern the church-at-large.

I don't see the logic in that, they gave their disciples only some of Christ's authority but withheld the authority to have authority? It seems like in Acts the Church functioned differently than that.

I think your underlying point, though, is more or less as I suggested. Organizationally, it sounds like if the Pope issues an ex cathedra pronouncment sanctioning gay marriage, then that's what will happen within the church. However, you don't believe such a scenario will ever play out in real life, because you accept His Holiness as Christ's vicar on earth.

It's the same with us Mormons and the way we view the President of the our church.

Almost, except it seems to me that the LDS have there own say in personal matters when applying doctrine to their lives and no situation is the same. So it's almost like each LDS household teaches its own truth in accordance with what is happening to them at the time.

I see the difference between the LDS position on artificial contraception and the Catholic position is that in the LDS view AC is morally admissable if used in the context of marriage and its use condoned and supervised by the priesthood holder of the house. The Catholic view being that it is never admissable in any circumstance because it goes against life, it denies God into the marital act of conjugal love.

[Guest]

I don't see the logic in that, they gave their disciples only some of Christ's authority but withheld the authority to have authority? It seems like in Acts the Church functioned differently than that.

This is the same authority that Catholics claim today... the Bishops govern their own Churches, the Bishop of Rome ALONE holds the authority over all of them. But, for a while there in Catholic History, the authority of the Bishop of Rome to govern over all the Bishops was in question, hence the schism. The Catholics, of course, claim that the Bishop of Rome holds all the authority as passed on from Peter. The Eastern Churches do not. As LDS, we do not believe this authority to govern all the bishops was ever passed down after the death of the last Apostle.

Almost, except it seems to me that the LDS have there own say in personal matters when applying doctrine to their lives and no situation is the same. So it's almost like each LDS household teaches its own truth in accordance with what is happening to them at the time.

I see the difference between the LDS position on artificial contraception and the Catholic position is that in the LDS view AC is morally admissable if used in the context of marriage and its use condoned and supervised by the priesthood holder of the house. The Catholic view being that it is never admissable in any circumstance because it goes against life, it denies God into the marital act of conjugal love.

Actually, this is similar to Catholic Organization except that the end of the authority lies with the Parish Priest and his appointed lay ministers. Therefore, a Parish Priest and his lay ministers reserve the authority to apply their own personal spiritual inspiration over the Parish to which they have the authority. Each individual Catholic receives their own spiritual inspiration in the application of Catholic doctrines in their own lives.

In the LDS organization, priesthood power is held by all LDS members who made and are keeping their covenants. Priesthood authority is held by male members who made and are keeping their covenants to preside over their own families. Therefore, the authority that the Parish Priest holds over the entire Parish is similar to the authority of a covenanted father who is a worthy priesthood holder to preside over his home.

And just like a Parish Priest cannot decree anything contrary to the edict of the Vatican, a Father presiding over his family cannot decree anything contrary to established truths from the First Presidency.

Edited June 13, 2013 by anatess

[Guest]

I see the difference between the LDS position on artificial contraception and the Catholic position is that in the LDS view AC is morally admissable if used in the context of marriage and its use condoned and supervised by the priesthood holder of the house. The Catholic view being that it is never admissable in any circumstance because it goes against life, it denies God into the marital act of conjugal love.

Now, as far as AC goes... this is not a difference on personal revelation. This is a difference in doctrine. The Catholics lack the teaching of pre-mortal existence. This is the missing doctrine that caused the different views between Catholics and LDS on AC.

Catholics believe that man is created by God during conception - both body and spirit. The LDS do not believe this. The LDS believe that God created the body during conception but the Spirit is eternal. It existed before the formation of the earth. It is pre-mortal Spirits that waged war in the heavens to determine which path to follow - Jesus Christ's or Lucifer's. One part of these pre-mortal spirits were foreordained to specific tasks in the Plan for our Salvation, a second part followed the plan with Jesus Christ, a third part followed Lucifer and therefore refused mortality. All of us who are born on the earth chose in our pre-mortal exitence to be given mortal bodies and go through mortality.

Because of this, the LDS believe that the Spirit joins the Body sometime after conception and before birth. The exact time the Spirit enters is not known. Therefore, unlike the Catholic faith, the LDS faith do not believe that all miscarried babies are spiritual souls, therefore, AC, and even abortion, is not necessarily the death of a spirit. Hence, abortion in case of rape may be acceptable in the LDS faith as authorized by the bishop through his power of discernment.

Edited June 13, 2013 by anatess