Do other religions have some bit of truth to them?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

As I remember it states something along the lines of the narrator explaining that the room you are now in represents "the telestial kingdom", or "the world in which you now live". After that it is referred to as God instructing messengers to visit man in "the telestial world."

Anyone who wants to walk through a temple open house before it is dedicated will be explained that.

Go visit the temple again.  You'll see where you're misquoting it.

[Rob Osborn]

31 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what being redeemed from hell means...  Like Alma the Younger no unrepentant person is ever going to set foot in any of the Glories of Heaven. The redemption from hell requires repentance... it is the only way it has ever worked no matter what ever misunderstanding you or other might have.  That repentance is clearly foreseen in the idea that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess.  Those who remain unrepentant after that are the Sons of Perdition  

So why does our church teach that there are unrepentant whoremongers, liars, etc, that are saved from hell? I say this in light of the fact that the current church doctrine is that all those who were wicked but then repent in spirit prison before resurrection and judgment inherit terrestrial glory while those who choose not to repent in spirit prison before resurrection and judgment inherit telestial glory.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

So why does our church teach that there are unrepentant whoremongers, liars, etc, that are saved from hell?

 

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think it's been said in a number of ways in this thread already; but to make the point a little more succinctly:

We don't.

 

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Go visit the temple again.  You'll see where you're misquoting it.

Im pretty 100% sure that the narrator explains that the room represents the telestial kingdom or the world which we now live in.

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So why does our church teach that there are unrepentant whoremongers, liars, etc, that are saved from hell? I say this in light of the fact that the current church doctrine is that all those who were wicked but then repent in spirit prison before resurrection and judgment inherit terrestrial glory while those who choose not to repent in spirit prison before resurrection and judgment inherit telestial glory.

What part of

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We don't.

 

Is unclear to you?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im pretty 100% sure that the narrator explains that the room represents the telestial kingdom or the world which we now live in.

Go to the temple again.  Try listening this time.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Go to the temple again.  Try listening this time.

lol! You be nice young man!   

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

A person must be completely cleansed from all sin in order to be saved.

Section 19 describes eternal punishment for the unrepentant which befalls the sons of perdition. The suffering spoken of in the first few verses of section 19 is describing the type of suffering that befalls those who remain unrepentant after the millennium at judgment.

This a continuation of the pattern of not answering my question, using terms that can mean anything without descriptive context, and asserting opinion without justification. It really stifles conversation.

[zil]

10 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

pretty 100% sure

It that like being kind of pregnant?

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, zil said:

It that like being kind of pregnant?

I actually have that part of the endowment memorized. I pretty much said it perfectly word for word. So I know I am right, its not really an arguable point.

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This a continuation of the pattern of not answering my question, using terms that can mean anything without descriptive context, and asserting opinion without justification. It really stifles conversation.

So what we need to discuss then is proper definitions. Im fine with that.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I actually have that part of the endowment memorized. I pretty much said it perfectly word for word. So I know I am right, its not really an arguable point.

Your ears are only one way to listen.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I actually have that part of the endowment memorized. I pretty much said it perfectly word for word. So I know I am right, its not really an arguable point.

Rob, you are walking a thin line here my friend. If you "knew you were right" you wouldn't say that, you'd simply know and move on. And if you aren't here to argue and debate, are you expecting us all to just blindly listen to you and obey? 

I like your posts (I really do, you provide fresh ideas even when I don't agree )  but you need to be careful. 

Edited December 30, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Your ears are only one way to listen.

Right. And if you aren't going to listen, why should we? 

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Rob, you are walking a thin line here my friend. If you "knew you were right" you wouldn't say that, you'd simply know and move on. And if you aren't here to argue and debate, are you expecting us all to just blindly listen to you and obey? 

I like your posts (I really do, you provide fresh ideas even when I don't agree )  but you need to be careful. 

People are saying I need to go back and listen more carefully. I know I dont because I have listened very carefully over the years so there would be no mistake. Sure enough, it perfectly explains what I am saying. For me its not an argument because I know perfectly what it says and I am right. But it bothers me a little when others say I have it wrong. Trust me, I dont have it wrong. Its okay though, it took years of going for me to catch it too. I think it stems from the idea that we have preconceived notions or beliefs about heaven going into the temple and so we hear only what we want to hear. Its what really started me to try to understand heaven better. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

People are saying I need to go back and listen more carefully. I know I dont because I have listened very carefully over the years so there would be no mistake. Sure enough, it perfectly explains what I am saying. For me its not an argument because I know perfectly what it says and I am right. But it bothers me a little when others say I have it wrong. Trust me, I dont have it wrong. Its okay though, it took years of going for me to catch it too. I think it stems from the idea that we have preconceived notions or beliefs about heaven going into the temple and so we hear only what we want to hear. Its what really started me to try to understand heaven better. 

Ok Rob, but human memory is notoriously unreliable. You are, of course, free to believe what you want too but if you aren't going to listen to us why should we listen to you? 

[estradling75]

Lets break this down... If we believe that All scripture is of God (Timothy 3:16-17) (Which as LDS we do) then we can not take a scripture and divorce it from the context of all the other scriptures.   We can also know that if we "interpret" a passage of scripture such a way that it puts it in conflict with other scripture then our "interpretation" is wrong.  We are missing context/understanding. This is where @Rob Osborn (and others like him) fail. 

It should be really easy to see this trigger point of conflicted scriptural understanding as a personal failure not a God failure.  Until they do they will continue to wrest the scriptures to their destruction (2 Peter 3:16 )

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So what we need to discuss then is proper definitions. Im fine with that.

No; before that, you need to answer my question, which you haven't been fine with.

[Just_A_Guy]

[Mod hat on for a minute]

Folks, we all know that discussing the endowment is going to be a very sensitive issue.  While some measure of generalities might (and indeed, have been) alluded to, a discussion that parses the actual verbiage of the endowment simply isn't possible on this forum. 

To the extent that our individual recollections differ, we're just going to have to each return to the temple and refresh our own memories.  In the context of this particular discussion, it is expected that all parties will be able to justify their respective positions without specific quotations from the temple ritual. 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No; before that, you need to answer my question, which you haven't been fine with.

What specific question? Lets start with that.

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

[Mod hat on for a minute]

Folks, we all know that discussing the endowment is going to be a very sensitive issue.  While some measure of generalities might (and indeed, have been) alluded to, a discussion that parses the actual verbiage of the endowment simply isn't possible on this forum. 

To the extent that our individual recollections differ, we're just going to have to each return to the temple and refresh our own memories.  In the context of this particular discussion, we're going to have to try to justify our respective positions without specific citations to the temple ritual. 

I agree.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

As I remember it states something along the lines of the narrator explaining that the room you are now in represents "the telestial kingdom", or "the world in which you now live". After that it is referred to as God instructing messengers to visit man in "the telestial world."

Santa Claus represents God's love, or a child's desire for toys. Thus, God's love is a child's desire for toys.

The English language is somewhat more subtle than you appear to be inclined to recognize.

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Anyone who wants to walk through a temple open house before it is dedicated will be explained that.

New temples have World Rooms? Huh. I've never seen that in any temple constructed in my lifetime. And as @MormonGator is quick to note, that covers a considerable span.

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Santa Claus represents God's love, or a child's desire for toys. Thus, God's love is a child's desire for toys.

The English language is somewhat more subtle than you appear to be inclined to recognize.

New temples have World Rooms? Huh. I've never seen that in any temple constructed in my lifetime. And as @MormonGator is quick to note, that covers a considerable span.

Temples have rooms inside them and if you go to an open house on a new temple or to one that has been refurbished they will explain in the walkthrough the various rooms. Three of those rooms shown are the telestial room which they explain as the world we now live in room, the terrestrial room and the celestial room. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

What specific question? Lets start with that.

Look here: Posted 3 hours ago ; it's the paragraph with the question mark in it. The question is also reflected in the last sentence of that same post.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

People are saying I need to go back and listen more carefully. I know I dont because I have listened very carefully over the years so there would be no mistake. Sure enough, it perfectly explains what I am saying. For me its not an argument because I know perfectly what it says and I am right. But it bothers me a little when others say I have it wrong. Trust me, I dont have it wrong. Its okay though, it took years of going for me to catch it too. I think it stems from the idea that we have preconceived notions or beliefs about heaven going into the temple and so we hear only what we want to hear. Its what really started me to try to understand heaven better. 

OK, let's go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt.  I could have a faulty memory. You're quoting it right.  Then you're breaking forum rules.  That's bad.

Further, you're using the endowment as part of an argument for doctrines it may or may not be intending.  Given the largely allegorical nature of the endowment, you're forcing your interpretation into the endowment.  And you're using ONE word in said ceremony to justify the departure from the consensus of latter-day apostles over nearly 200 years.  Thus we find that it is a moot point what the exact wording is, except that if you're correct, you're breaking forum rules.

If you're so certain about your position, why have you only issued challenges and not accepted any?  That is, you've made statements and come back with challenging questions that we have answered, you ignored, then repeated the question.  Why?  We've asked you questions which you've ignored. Why?

What is more likely, that you, in your solitary opinion, may have gotten something wrong?  Or that the Church doctrine as presented by prophets and apostles have carefully looked at the doctrines and teachings of the scriptures and prophetic quotes and interpreted this incorrectly?

Quote

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers...

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Eph 4

A major reason we even have an organized religion with a foundation of prophets and apostles (with Jesus Christ Himself as the chief cornerstone) is that any individual can interpret anything.  We are safer following the prophet.  But you would have us believe that your interpretation will trump the practice and consensus of the prophets?

Rob, I know you have been faithful in many things.  But this one topic seems to say that you're only faithful when you agree already.  Will you be faithful when you disagree?

Edited December 30, 2016 by Guest