Principle of Salvation and Eternal Progression theory

[Rob Osborn]

I wanted to continue this topic we had going on another thread about heaven and hell but with a slightly different angle. Its rather obvious that everyone has their own ideas, thoughts, and opinions on what is required for salvation, what heaven includes, what it doesnt include, if we can progress from glory to glory, become Gods ourselves, etc. I do not for a second believe that our doctrine on the matter, in the details, is anything we can all agree upon. I do believe we all generally agree on certain aspects but in the details everything changes, and those differences really add up to major contradictions.

My question going forward is do we think it possible that our doctrine concerning the entire plan of salvation will evolve into a different and more perfect framework than what we have now or will we continue to just add to what we have now and continue in general confusion on the details? It seems obvious to me that we are enduring through the Bruce R. McConkie style of definitions and teachings of salvation still but are slowly replacing it with different views and definitions now that are more in line with mainstream Christianity. I see this in aspects such as the way the bible dictionary defines a subject vs. how the guide to the scriptures defines the same subject. Do or can these small subtle changes add up to major shifts in theory and principle concerning the doctrine of salvation and eternal progression? If so, how does that change come about? Is it through the collective understanding of the individual church members advancing more perfectly in theory and principle and then spreading to the point where leaders get involved and ask the Lord? Do we have the right, and perhaps even the "duty" to look for problems and help in seeking to perfect the principle as members or do we all just follow like obedient yet blind sheep thinking we are incapable of learning new truths on our own?

[Rob Osborn]

77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom.
78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its rather obvious that everyone has their own ideas, thoughts, and opinions on what is required for salvation, what heaven includes, what it doesnt include, if we can progress from glory to glory, become Gods ourselves, etc.

True. In any field that doesn't completely have all the information (but enough information) there will be people with their own ideas, their own thoughts, pertaining to aspects that have not yet been fully revealed.

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

 I do not for a second believe that our doctrine on the matter, in the details, is anything we can all agree upon. I do believe we all generally agree on certain aspects but in the details everything changes, and those differences really add up to major contradictions.

We disagree with your first sentence in the above quoted statement. The doctrine is plenty enough for us to agree upon; however, in order to agree each of us must truly be desiring truth, without itching ears, or doctrines that conform to our views. This leads to your second statement allowing for -- major contradictions.

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

My question going forward is do we think it possible that our doctrine concerning the entire plan of salvation will evolve into a different and more perfect framework than what we have now or will we continue to just add to what we have now and continue in general confusion on the details?

On first note, the dichotomy created with this sentence isn't working. Either we receive more knowledge that is different and more perfect (emphasis on different), or we receive more that adds to what we have now and stay in confusion. We are able to add to what we have now and cease confusion, it doesn't need to be "different" although I would love a "more perfect" knowledge of the truth.

According to records, we have the following statement from Joseph Smith, "Paul ascended into the third heavens, and he could understand the three principal rounds of Jacob’s ladder—the telestial, the terrestrial, and the celestial glories or kingdoms, where Paul saw and heard things which were not lawful for him to utter.  I could explain a hundred fold more than I ever have of the glories of the kingdoms manifested to me in the vision, were I permitted, and were the people prepared to receive them. The Lord deals with this people as a tender parent with a child, communicating light and intelligence and the knowledge of his ways as they can bear it." (emphasis added)

This speaks to the Church collectively. There are some individuals who may have been able to bear an increased understanding of the eternities; unfortunately, there are individuals who are unable to bear it. Individually though we can learn all the principles and doctrines of the eternities if we are more concerned with truth -- what is.

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

It seems obvious to me that we are enduring through the Bruce R. McConkie style of definitions and teachings of salvation still but are slowly replacing it with different views and definitions now that are more in line with mainstream Christianity. I see this in aspects such as the way the bible dictionary defines a subject vs. how the guide to the scriptures defines the same subject.

Example where you see doctrine becoming more inline with mainstream Christianity from the Bible Dictionary and the guide to scriptures please. This way I can understand better where you are coming from.

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Do or can these small subtle changes add up to major shifts in theory and principle concerning the doctrine of salvation and eternal progression? If so, how does that change come about? Is it through the collective understanding of the individual church members advancing more perfectly in theory and principle and then spreading to the point where leaders get involved and ask the Lord? Do we have the right, and perhaps even the "duty" to look for problems and help in seeking to perfect the principle as members or do we all just follow like obedient yet blind sheep thinking we are incapable of learning new truths on our own?

Yes, small changes are able to create major shifts in theory and principle as more is revealed. The change will occur the same way it has occurred since Adam. The Lord will reveal his secrets to his servants the prophets who then will reveal them to the Church collectively. This does not mean only prophets are able to learn unrevealed principles and doctrines of truth. I believe I have already learned truths that have not yet been revealed; however, you will never read or hear me share them. The Lord has given a proper method of revealing new truths, and once those truths are revealed through his prophets I will begin to share them also.

Collective membership in relation to Church leadership and revealed doctrine creates an interesting symbiotic relationship in the Church. There are important times where the collective body will provide opportunities for the Church leadership to make decisions. This, I believe, is in part why the Church currently holds general assemblies with local leaders. This provides an opportunity for Church leadership to hear and see for themselves collectively what is happening in given areas where the Church is located and then make educated decisions, accompanied by prayer (revelation) to act. Does Church leadership require a collective understanding from individual church members to reveal new doctrine? No. Moses did not require individual church members to bring about the Law of Moses. Joseph Smith did not require individual church members increase in understanding of Zion to reveal aspects of Zion. The Lord was only necessary. The real question, are our prophets and apostles guided by Jesus Christ. If so, then that is what is most important, and my obedience to revealed principles is the first law of the heavens.

The last inquiry appears to create a false dichotomy. We have a right to look for problems to make changes, or we are blind sheep incapable of learning. This, to me, is clearly false. The extreme of the first position leads to excommunication, as people then begin to think they can tell the Church what to do collectively ignoring stewardship. The Old Testament, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants offers evidence of people who looked for problems and it never turned out well for them (e.g. an easy example is Laman and Lemuel who constantly looked at the problems with Lehi and Nephi, and we know who the Lord supported). We have modern day examples of excommunicated members who have esteemed their "right" to be more than what it is (e.g. like the member who is trying to force "second baptisms" in the Church because he disagrees with how stakes handle baptisms).

We have a right to be instructed by God's spirit of truth. We have a right to increase scripture study and to follow the prophets for our prophet and learning. We have "rights" within our stewardship to act according to principle, doctrines, and truths. Problems begin to occur when people begin to step beyond their stewardship in the Church. Oliver Cowdery stepped beyond his stewardship and it didn't end well for him, until he repented, but by that time he had lost a wonderful opportunity that was given to another.

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, Anddenex said:

True. In any field that doesn't completely have all the information (but enough information) there will be people with their own ideas, their own thoughts, pertaining to aspects that have not yet been fully revealed.

We disagree with your first sentence in the above quoted statement. The doctrine is plenty enough for us to agree upon; however, in order to agree each of us must truly be desiring truth, without itching ears, or doctrines that conform to our views. This leads to your second statement allowing for -- major contradictions.

On first note, the dichotomy created with this sentence isn't working. Either we receive more knowledge that is different and more perfect (emphasis on different), or we receive more that adds to what we have now and stay in confusion. We are able to add to what we have now and cease confusion, it doesn't need to be "different" although I would love a "more perfect" knowledge of the truth.

According to records, we have the following statement from Joseph Smith, "Paul ascended into the third heavens, and he could understand the three principal rounds of Jacob’s ladder—the telestial, the terrestrial, and the celestial glories or kingdoms, where Paul saw and heard things which were not lawful for him to utter.  I could explain a hundred fold more than I ever have of the glories of the kingdoms manifested to me in the vision, were I permitted, and were the people prepared to receive them. The Lord deals with this people as a tender parent with a child, communicating light and intelligence and the knowledge of his ways as they can bear it." (emphasis added)

This speaks to the Church collectively. There are some individuals who may have been able to bear an increased understanding of the eternities; unfortunately, there are individuals who are unable to bear it. Individually though we can learn all the principles and doctrines of the eternities if we are more concerned with truth -- what is.

Example where you see doctrine becoming more inline with mainstream Christianity from the Bible Dictionary and the guide to scriptures please. This way I can understand better where you are coming from.

Yes, small changes are able to create major shifts in theory and principle as more is revealed. The change will occur the same way it has occurred since Adam. The Lord will reveal his secrets to his servants the prophets who then will reveal them to the Church collectively. This does not mean only prophets are able to learn unrevealed principles and doctrines of truth. I believe I have already learned truths that have not yet been revealed; however, you will never read or hear me share them. The Lord has given a proper method of revealing new truths, and once those truths are revealed through his prophets I will begin to share them also.

Collective membership in relation to Church leadership and revealed doctrine creates an interesting symbiotic relationship in the Church. There are important times where the collective body will provide opportunities for the Church leadership to make decisions. This, I believe, is in part why the Church currently holds general assemblies with local leaders. This provides an opportunity for Church leadership to hear and see for themselves collectively what is happening in given areas where the Church is located and then make educated decisions, accompanied by prayer (revelation) to act. Does Church leadership require a collective understanding from individual church members to reveal new doctrine? No. Moses did not require individual church members to bring about the Law of Moses. Joseph Smith did not require individual church members increase in understanding of Zion to reveal aspects of Zion. The Lord was only necessary. The real question, are our prophets and apostles guided by Jesus Christ. If so, then that is what is most important, and my obedience to revealed principles is the first law of the heavens.

The last inquiry appears to create a false dichotomy. We have a right to look for problems to make changes, or we are blind sheep incapable of learning. This, to me, is clearly false. The extreme of the first position leads to excommunication, as people then begin to think they can tell the Church what to do collectively ignoring stewardship. The Old Testament, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants offers evidence of people who looked for problems and it never turned out well for them (e.g. an easy example is Laman and Lemuel who constantly looked at the problems with Lehi and Nephi, and we know who the Lord supported). We have modern day examples of excommunicated members who have esteemed their "right" to be more than what it is (e.g. like the member who is trying to force "second baptisms" in the Church because he disagrees with how stakes handle baptisms).

We have a right to be instructed by God's spirit of truth. We have a right to increase scripture study and to follow the prophets for our prophet and learning. We have "rights" within our stewardship to act according to principle, doctrines, and truths. Problems begin to occur when people begin to step beyond their stewardship in the Church. Oliver Cowdery stepped beyond his stewardship and it didn't end well for him, until he repented, but by that time he had lost a wonderful opportunity that was given to another.

Im sort of torn over the subject because on the one hand I completely love and sustain all of my church leaders but on the other I see how doctrine has changed and been reshaped over the course of our history and it continues to change. I think in the past everything was left up to one person whereas now we have councils and dialogue to come up with doctrine that is then approved or ratified by church leadership. More input by members and councils, including women, is happening now more than ever before. The structure and way we teach and learn now is different. I thus think the church leadership is recognizing that we each have ability to find truths. We are still a ways off but our correlation and defining of doctrine is improving.

I know that if one of us do find a doctrine that we honestly and humbly believe isnt correct that its not our right to teach "officially" what is right or wrong. But, I do believe we have a duty to raise awareness with our leaders possible doctrines for clarification.

Bruce R. McConkie was very intelligent and brilliant as a gospel scholar. He was pretty much the single person who defined LDS doctrine that brought about a correlation amongst the scriptures, footnotes, headings, manuals, etc, that blossomed in his era.

But, some of his ideas created some contradictions that werent in harmony with how a lot of Christianity viewed certain doctrines. For instance, McConkie introduced a different definition of "damnation" into mormonism that raised some red flags. He defined it as anything less than exaltation in the highest level of the celestial kingdom. This now meant that one could be saved and damned at the same time which, for obvious reasons, critics jumped all over to hammer the church. More recent attempts at defining topics by the church have taken place and we are slowly changing some of the wording to be less contradictory.  But, I believe this is happening at a more collective level by multiple peoples/councils/boards. We no longer are just letting one apostle or prophet define all doctrine.

We also live in a day and age where all of our doctrine is digitalized and thus more search friendly and its a lot easier to see contradictions and errors and this is leading to change. But we still have a long way to go. I thus posted that scripture in my second post because we, as members need dialogue so that we can get more perfect in theory of doctrine.

[Vort]

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

 I think in the past everything was left up to one person whereas now we have councils and dialogue to come up with doctrine that is then approved or ratified by church leadership.

I think you have a flawed model of how doctrine is received.

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think you have a flawed model of how doctrine is received.

Yeah.  For a while there I thought he was talking about the beginnings of the Catholic Church.

[zil]

47 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think you have a flawed model of how doctrine is received.

I think he may have a flawed definition of doctrine (confusing it with such things as principle, policy, and program).

[Traveler]

It is a personal observation of mine that in general things spiritual seem rather vague.  I believe that anciently this was better understood better than in our modern era.  Of necessity our modern technology requires precision and exactness.  Just to launch a long term geosynchronous satellite into orbit requires a great deal of planning, exact calculations, simulations and testing.  There is very little debate over the details of the theory of how this is accomplished because we have a history or success and failure.  Those that argue flawed specifics of theory are very quickly separated from those that have advanced their understanding through practices. 

With both religion and politics we tend to dramatize our theoretical understanding void of any empirical validation.  Rather we argue based more in personal desire rather that practical application.  Often in the religious community not only is empirical validation lacking – it is often viewed as blasphemous and to speak of validation as heresy.   If there is any seeming validation it is based is understanding and interpretation of scripture.  In essence circular logic that is unsubstantiated beyond theatrical definitions and believed but not validated results.  In essence because we cannot validate anything beyond the grave we think it is faith that defines our understanding – a faith based on what we think is true.

I personally believe we can only cross a threshold of faith and understanding by personally going to G-d, not as a singular option but lifelong pursuit and journey validating step by step understanding as given by Isaiah. Many – including some on this forum will treat any new understanding with hostility rather than an opportunity to learn and come to a greater understanding.  For example often I will ask why a person believes something (including something I also believe – so I can validate my own thinking) but rather than express why they believe a thing – they claim a scripture validates the thought.  I also have access to scripture and can reach conclusions from study but I am trying to understand what processes and validations others have tried.  But often when asking the response is somewhat hostile - and that is always a surprise to me.

As to the Plan of Salvation – the principles are both simple and amazing.  In essence, G-d has a plan to revolutionize the intelligence and spirit of man to become one with and in the eternal perfections and powers of G-d himself.  A plan that is limited only by individual desire to become like G-d.  Not a plan to take shape sometime at some distant and unknowable place and time but a plan that will begin or continue on at this very moment and place in time.  A plan that as (or like) a journey can and should be validated with each step – even each step taken in faith.  The world can squabble over this thought or that perception – but the plan of G-d rolls forward with greater precision than mankind launching a long term geosynchronous satellite into orbit and we are well into what the ancients called – The Last Days.  Not because of wickedness but because of principles of truth being brought back and even new things specific to the Last Days established even more so than in the days of Noah, Abraham, Moses ore even the Apostles of Christ (from which the likes of all scripture is and was given).

 

The Traveler

Edited January 3, 2017 by Traveler

[Guest]

I just asked my 15 yo daughter what she thought of the doctrine of progression between kingdoms.  I gave her no other background nor did I indicate what my take on it was or anything to persuade her opinion.  But she is the one kid that we feel like we never need to worry about not fulfilling her spiritual responsibilities.

Her response:

Quote

Eat, drink, and be merry.  Nevertheless, fear God...

She had not read any of the previous discussion here, nor have I mentioned it.

And, yes, she quoted the entire verse off the top of her head.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Vort said:

I think you have a flawed model of how doctrine is received.

The proclamation to the world on the family is doctrine revealed in these latter days. But did it just come to the one singular prophet who wrote it word for word? No, it was drafted, changed, redrafted, changed and a final draft was made agreeable amongst the first presidency and quorum of the twelve apostles before it was finally penned and agreed upon by all members of that council to become the official doctrinal position of the church. That was how that revelation came about. In like manner, a lot of the changes in policy that get penned in the official instruction manuals of the church are done in the same manner. God works with prophets through councils a lot of ti es in these latter days.

[Rob Osborn]

42 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I just asked my 15 yo daughter what she thought of the doctrine of progression between kingdoms.  I gave her no other background nor did I indicate what my take on it was or anything to persuade her opinion.  But she is the one kid that we feel like we never need to worry about not fulfilling her spiritual responsibilities.

Her response:

She had not read any of the previous discussion here, nor have I mentioned it.

And, yes, she quoted the entire verse off the top of her head.

Before section 76 became popular the Book of Mormon and New Testament was all the early saints had to teach the plan of salvation. Even after the vision of 76 was revealed to Joseph Smith it took many decades before it started to become a new doctrine. Then the endowment came along and it was many years later after that in which people began to understand it contained a new doctrine. Whats interesting about this is that if you separated out the BoM, the D&C and church manuals, and the temple endowment and gave only each doctrine separately to three unknowing individuals you would have three individuals teach three distinctively different plans of salvation. Of interest to me is the idea that these three doctrines do not correlate very well with each other- if I picked any one of them and only taught it, by itself it would disagree in general with the other choices. If we really believe in revelation, line upon line, shouldnt the most recent revelation be the one we should be using? Im somewhat thus baffled then why we do not teach the plan of salvation/plan of eternal progression as taught in the temple and use supporting scriptures from the BoM, NT, PoGP, and D&C to back it up and help substantiate the temple teaching as the most perfect and most correct.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Before section 76 became popular the Book of Mormon and New Testament was all the early saints had to teach the plan of salvation. Even after the vision of 76 was revealed to Joseph Smith it took many decades before it started to become a new doctrine. Then the endowment came along and it was many years later after that in which people began to understand it contained a new doctrine. Whats interesting about this is that if you separated out the BoM, the D&C and church manuals, and the temple endowment and gave only each doctrine separately to three unknowing individuals you would have three individuals teach three distinctively different plans of salvation. Of interest to me is the idea that these three doctrines do not correlate very well with each other- if I picked any one of them and only taught it, by itself it would disagree in general with the other choices. If we really believe in revelation, line upon line, shouldnt the most recent revelation be the one we should be using? Im somewhat thus baffled then why we do not teach the plan of salvation/plan of eternal progression as taught in the temple and use supporting scriptures from the BoM, NT, PoGP, and D&C to back it up and help substantiate the temple teaching as the most perfect and most correct.

So... We have the Bible.  Guess how many different interpretations we have of the Bible in all of Christendom.  Quadzillion.  It took another book - The Book of Mormon to RESOLVE the Bible.  So, why need a BoM when we already have the Bible?

The principle of things do not change.  People's interpretation of it can cause it to change.  That's why we have PROPHETS to steer us back into the strait and narrow path.  Line upon line, precept upon precept applies to the Church as well.

Eternal Marriage did not just get restored by God telling Joseph Smith in his prayers - Marriage is Eternal.  Rather, he was commanded to take a second wife.  My husband would respond in the same manner as Joseph Smith - What?  Seriously??? All the way to... What am I gonna tell my wife?  Please, Lord, do I really have to?  This method of restoration had a purpose even as it tested the mettle of the prophets and the members.

In any case, there is one principle of the Plan of Salvation.  Facets of it are taught in different areas as it pertains to that lesson's purpose.  You're not going to teach the principles of the Temple in Primary, for example.  Although it is the same Plan of Salvation.  It is when you start to see the whole quilt instead of the individual square that your confusion will be resolved.

Here's another exercise... read all the different accounts of the First Vision made by Joseph Smith.  See if you can identify how they are the same principle even as it focuses on different facets of that testimony so much so that anti-Mormons have pointed to it and said - see!  He changed his story many times!  I mean, it's pretty much the same thing reading all the 4 gospels from 4 different authors.  The same story, different purposes... sometimes making it sound like they're different gospels - I mean, they can't even use the same names in the accounts of  Jesus' family tree... same principle, different purposes, see?

Edited January 3, 2017 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So... We have the Bible.  Guess how many different interpretations we have of the Bible in all of Christendom.  Quadzillion.  It took another book - The Book of Mormon to RESOLVE the Bible.  So, why need a BoM when we already have the Bible?

The principle of things do not change.  People's interpretation of it can cause it to change.  That's why we have PROPHETS to steer us back into the strait and narrow path.  Line upon line, precept upon precept applies to the Church as well.

Eternal Marriage did not just get restored by God telling Joseph Smith in his prayers - Marriage is Eternal.  Rather, he was commanded to take a second wife.  My husband would respond in the same manner as Joseph Smith - What?  Seriously??? All the way to... What am I gonna tell my wife?  Please, Lord, do I really have to?  This method of restoration had a purpose even as it tested the mettle of the prophets and the members.

In any case, there is one principle of the Plan of Salvation.  Facets of it are taught in different areas as it pertains to that lesson's purpose.  You're not going to teach the principles of the Temple in Primary, for example.  Although it is the same Plan of Salvation.  It is when you start to see the whole quilt instead of the individual square that your confusion will be resolved.

Here's another exercise... read all the different accounts of the First Vision made by Joseph Smith.  See if you can identify how they are the same principle even as it focuses on different facets of that testimony so much so that anti-Mormons have pointed to it and said - see!  He changed his story many times!  I mean, it's pretty much the same thing reading all the 4 gospels from 4 different authors.  The same story, different purposes... sometimes making it sound like they're different gospels - I mean, they can't even use the same names in the accounts of  Jesus' family tree... same principle, different purposes, see?

The plan of salvation is true. How we define it, interpret it or perceive it may not be true. The temple, as part two in my opinion of section 76, defines more clearly the three kingdoms. Now all we have to do is listen, open our hears to hear for clarification. I remember once when I told someone who was taking the temple preparation class that the plan of salvation as taught in the temple is not the same thing you have been taught up to this point so just be aware. Another person said I was wrong. I said "really"? "So where in the temple do we teach about where the telestial kingdom is?" He couldnt tell me. I said- "according to the plan of salvation according to the temple, this very earth is the telestial kingdom". He again said I was wrong. I said "so then why do we teach that it is in the temple?" Needless to say we never could come to any agreement. The point here being that we should be honest, more honest, in what we do teach. Of course I could say "this earth is the telestial kingdom according to the temple doctrine", but no one would believe me, even say I was teaching a false doctrine. For me, my understanding on the matter, it means I should either shut my ears whenever our earth is called "the telestial kingdom" and "telestial world" in the temple cause they dont really mean it, or, I should take the words literally and make it part of my belief of truth. But, then it makes it hard to knowingly teach in church one plan while believing in another more advanced understanding.

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im somewhat thus baffled then why we do not teach the plan of salvation/plan of eternal progression as taught in the temple and use supporting scriptures from the BoM, NT, PoGP, and D&C to back it up and help substantiate the temple teaching as the most perfect and most correct.

I will respond to your previous reply; however, I will quickly respond to this statement. The plan of salvation as taught in the scriptures and the temple are all the same, and that which is taught in the temple is currently being taught.

[zil]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The proclamation to the world on the family is doctrine revealed in these latter days. But did it just come to the one singular prophet who wrote it word for word? No, it was drafted, changed, redrafted, changed and a final draft was made agreeable amongst the first presidency and quorum of the twelve apostles before it was finally penned and agreed upon by all members of that council to become the official doctrinal position of the church. That was how that revelation came about. In like manner, a lot of the changes in policy that get penned in the official instruction manuals of the church are done in the same manner. God works with prophets through councils a lot of ti es in these latter days.

There is no new doctrine in the proclamation.  That they collaborated to find a way to word a proclamation explaining the doctrine of eternal families (which has been taught in every dispensation from Adam on, and which Joseph Smith restored in our dispensation) does not indicate a new method of establishing doctrine - it indicates they collaborated to phrase a proclamation in terms the world could understand.

"world" is not equal to "kingdom", are not equal to "law", are not equal to "glory".  To conflate all these terms into one meaning will cause one to err.  And I'm gonna shut up now cuz @Anddenex will say something far better than what I could say.

[Anddenex]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

"world" is not equal to "kingdom", are not equal to "law", are not equal to "glory".  To conflate all these terms into one meaning will cause one to err.  And I'm gonna shut up now cuz @Anddenex will say something far better than what I could say.

Not too sure about this as this initial first sentence sums up nicely something I will reiterate. You are always so kind in my direction.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Before section 76 became popular the Book of Mormon...

You quoted my last post, so I'm going to assume that you intended it to have something to do with what I posted. .  .  .  .

I can't figure out what it has to do with my post.

Hmm.  I indicated the topic.  Ok, we're on the same general topic.  I quoted the Book of Mormon.  You indicated that the D&C came after the BoM, so the D&C indicates progression between kingdoms (says you) and that seems to contradict the BoM quote I gave, so the BoM is no longer valid.

But, that would go against what you have said your position is.  So, what are you saying again?  Oh yeah, the stuff you already repeated for the, what fifth time now?

One more time.  I'm not going to accept that the endowment is a doctrinal declaration of the three kingdoms except as a very general and over arching archetype.  If the end of your argument is that the endowment says so, First, I disagree it teaches what you think it teaches, and Second, I'm not going to discuss it in detail on a public forum.

Stick with the standard works and we can have a discussion.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I will respond to your previous reply; however, I will quickly respond to this statement. The plan of salvation as taught in the scriptures and the temple are all the same, and that which is taught in the temple is currently being taught.

It isnt being taught anywhere outside of the temple official dialogue. You will find no official teaching by the church outside the temple of our world being the telestial kingdom and we are in it and progress next to the terrestrial kingdom then the celestial. And certainly, in the temple, we do not teach that the telestial or terrestrial kingdoms are separate eternal worlds after resurrection and judgment.

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You quoted my last post, so I'm going to assume that you intended it to have something to do with what I posted. .  .  .  .

I can't figure out what it has to do with my post.

Hmm.  I indicated the topic.  Ok, we're on the same general topic.  I quoted the Book of Mormon.  You indicated that the D&C came after the BoM, so the D&C indicates progression between kingdoms (says you) and that seems to contradict the BoM quote I gave, so the BoM is no longer valid.

But, that would go against what you have said your position is.  So, what are you saying again?  Oh yeah, the stuff you already repeated for the, what fifth time now?

One more time.  I'm not going to accept that the endowment is a doctrinal declaration of the three kingdoms except as a very general and over arching archetype.  If the end of your argument is that the endowment says so, First, I disagree it teaches what you think it teaches, and Second, I'm not going to discuss it in detail on a public forum.

Stick with the standard works and we can have a discussion.

Okay, I will leave out the temple. 

So, I am curious what you think about the parable of the wheat and the tares as found in Matthew and further explained in the D&C. In the parable it is explained that the field is the world. The good seed (the wheat) are the children of God and the tares are the seed or children of the devil. In our latter day the harvest has begun. This harvest will continue till the end of the millennium when all the wheat are gathered up and then the tares are bundled and burned.

So, in the end there will either be wheat or tares. No mention is made that some other third or fourth type exist, just the two.

In D&C section 101, a revelation was given to Joseph Smith. This revelation came after both section 76 and 88. Here is the verse on the parable from section 101-

"65 Therefore, I must gather together my people, according to the parable of the wheat and the tares, that the wheat may be secured in the garners to possess eternal life, and be crowned with celestial glory, when I shall come in the kingdom of my Father to reward every man according as his work shall be;
66 While the tares shall be bound in bundles, and their bands made strong, that they may be burned with unquenchable fire."

According to this, all of the wheat will gain eternal life and celestial glory. The tares on the other hand are the devil and his angels which will be the ones burned. No other group exists but to either be a wheat or a tare. Its obvious to me that the wheat being stored in the garners is figurative of "temples" and it is there where we store the names of those wheat which is figurative for all who are saved through the atonement who are begotten sons and daughters of Christ and are members of the church of the firstborn. It is during the millennium that all of the temple work will be accomplished for all the saved where Christ presents the kingdom (those names of the wheat in the garners) to the Father spotless. 

In order for these verses and parable of the wheat and tares to be true, all of the saved gain celestial glory. Failure to attain celestial glory here means you are a tare and must be burned (not saved).

[Anddenex]

On 1/2/2017 at 11:38 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Im sort of torn over the subject because on the one hand I completely love and sustain all of my church leaders but on the other I see how doctrine has changed and been reshaped over the course of our history and it continues to change. I think in the past everything was left up to one person whereas now we have councils and dialogue to come up with doctrine that is then approved or ratified by church leadership. More input by members and councils, including women, is happening now more than ever before. The structure and way we teach and learn now is different. I thus think the church leadership is recognizing that we each have ability to find truths. We are still a ways off but our correlation and defining of doctrine is improving.

I will seek to be as succinct as possible in my reply as their are multiple thoughts within this paragraph. There is one consistency in life -- change -- and as members of the Church we shouldn't be torn over any "change" in the Church, and our love for and sustaining of Church leaders need not dwindle. We are at odds pertaining to doctrinal changes which are being reshaped (terms that define doctrinal increase: expand, expound, and enlighten).

Our past history gives evidence to the rise of doctrines and practices (i.e. Word of Wisdom) that were first initiated by the question of someone close to the prophet; however, this revelation didn't occur from a group or individual that was constantly pressuring change. Church leadership has always recognized that each member of the Church is able to find truths. All our standard works are evidence of this truth, and this isn't any new change. Each generation is influenced by their past and present knowledge and revelation. The structure and way we teach and learn is a wonderful change (although not a doctrinal change). This is good.

The last sentence is puzzling to me as I am not sure what is being presented, as whose "judgement" decides what is improving? Mine. Yours. The prophets and apostles. The prophets and apostles continue the same pattern in defining what is doctrine. The Church appears to continue to follow this method of revealing doctrine to the body of the Church: Manual. Church leaders are however more cautious than in the past and with good reason, and this is a welcomed change, but calling this "defining of doctrine is improving" doesn't appear to fit the category.

On 1/2/2017 at 11:38 PM, Rob Osborn said:

I know that if one of us do find a doctrine that we honestly and humbly believe isnt correct that its not our right to teach "officially" what is right or wrong. But, I do believe we have a duty to raise awareness with our leaders possible doctrines for clarification.

The first paragraph puzzles me as there isn't any doctrine that is "incorrect." This is what makes doctrine, doctrine. Doctrine is truth. Doctrine is "what is" and we will always be incorrect if we assume "doctrine" isn't correct. Let's review this statement from the manual previously shared, "I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency … will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord. …

"I testify that if we shall look to the First Presidency and follow their counsel and direction, no power on earth can stay or change our course as a church, and as individuals we shall gain peace in this life and be inheritors of eternal glory in the world to come" (Joseph Fielding Smith, “Eternal Keys and the Right to Preside,” Ensign, July 1972, 88).

In reference to "raising awareness" with local leaders I couldn't agree more. That a person assumes they are more wise than a combined Presidency of the Church, and the Twelve Apostles is dumb founding to me. This is a question I ponder when members want to "raise awareness" to the collective body of God's anointed, "Why do people think the Lord hasn't raised awareness himself to his leaders whom he has called and given keys to lead"? If our Church leaders were to begin to move forward on something the Lord did not approve, why do people think the Lord wouldn't stop them, as the Lord did with Samuel when calling a new king for Israel? The prophet had decided on a different brother, but the Lord refused this brother and let the prophet know. On individual cases, the Lord will indeed allow a prophet to learn from sad experienced as he did with Joseph and Martin Harris.

On 1/2/2017 at 11:38 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Bruce R. McConkie was very intelligent and brilliant as a gospel scholar. He was pretty much the single person who defined LDS doctrine that brought about a correlation amongst the scriptures, footnotes, headings, manuals, etc, that blossomed in his era.

But, some of his ideas created some contradictions that werent in harmony with how a lot of Christianity viewed certain doctrines. For instance, McConkie introduced a different definition of "damnation" into mormonism that raised some red flags. He defined it as anything less than exaltation in the highest level of the celestial kingdom. This now meant that one could be saved and damned at the same time which, for obvious reasons, critics jumped all over to hammer the church. More recent attempts at defining topics by the church have taken place and we are slowly changing some of the wording to be less contradictory.  But, I believe this is happening at a more collective level by multiple peoples/councils/boards. We no longer are just letting one apostle or prophet define all doctrine.

We also live in a day and age where all of our doctrine is digitalized and thus more search friendly and its a lot easier to see contradictions and errors and this is leading to change. But we still have a long way to go. I thus posted that scripture in my second post because we, as members need dialogue so that we can get more perfect in theory of doctrine.

Bruce R. McConkie wasn't a single person that defined LDS doctrine, otherwise there wouldn't have been any need for multiple revisions to "Mormon Doctrine." Also, he didn't introduce a new definition of damnation into Mormonism. I understood this concept of "damnation" while on my mission. Bruce R. McConkie is correct pertaining to his thoughts on damnation. Anything less than the highest level in the celestial kingdom is damnation, or better said, to be damned to a degree. The concept being taught is that any lack of progression is a form of damnation, or being damned, a state where one is not able to progress any further. Doctrine and Covenants 132: 17, "For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever." (emphasis added) If a person is to continue "forever and ever" without exaltation then this individual is in a state of being damned.

If you read the manual provided you will see it isn't "one" apostle that determines doctrine. Now, as pertaining to "one" prophet it appears this can be the case depending on the circumstance and need of the Church. I am fine with Jesus being the "one" to reveal or to expound on doctrine, while he lived. I am fine with Joseph Smith being "one" as certain times due to his calling and his time period; however, as times and periods change it appears the Church has been following this manual of revealing truth, doctrine, for a long time now, at least through the whole of my generation (4 decades).

Yes, I love the fact I have almost all (if not all) published Church materials on one digital device -- AWESOME! The scripture posted is wonderful and it is why we have different meeting in church, so we are able to be instructed more sufficiently in theory, in doctrine, and in practice. Where does this instruction come from? That is the key.

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

It isnt being taught anywhere outside of the temple official dialogue. You will find no official teaching by the church outside the temple of our world being the telestial kingdom and we are in it and progress next to the terrestrial kingdom then the celestial. And certainly, in the temple, we do not teach that the telestial or terrestrial kingdoms are separate eternal worlds after resurrection and judgment.

True, because the concept of our world/earth being the "telestial kingdom" isn't doctrine and it isn't taught in the temple. I will actually reference @zil's post, "world" is not equal to "kingdom", are not equal to "law", are not equal to "glory".  To conflate all these terms into one meaning will cause one to err." Our earth is in a telestial state, not kingdom. Our earth during the millennium is in a terrestial state, not a kingdom. The earth becomes a "kingdom" (the celestial kingdom) when it is renewed and receives its paradisiacal glory.

The temple doesn't need to teach, explicitly, that the telestial and terrestial are separate eternal worlds. The doctrine is already implied as scriptures, particularly modern scripture and the combined teachings of apostles and prophets have defined them as separate kingdoms. The moment we enter the temple doesn't remove/negate what has been taught, and what continues to be taught. It is already implied, due to revealed doctrine, nothing new, nothing different, nothing changed.

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Anddenex

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I will seek to be as succinct as possible in my reply as their are multiple thoughts within this paragraph. There is one consistency in life -- change -- and as members of the Church we shouldn't be torn over any "change" in the Church, and our love for and sustaining of Church leaders need not dwindle. We are at odds pertaining to doctrinal changes which are being reshaped (terms that define doctrinal increase: expand, expound, and enlighten).

Our past history gives evidence to the rise of doctrines and practices (i.e. Word of Wisdom) that were first initiated by the question of someone close to the prophet; however, this revelation didn't occur from a group or individual that was constantly pressuring change. Church leadership has always recognized that each member of the Church is able to find truths. All our standard works are evidence of this truth, and this isn't any new change. Each generation is influenced by their past and present knowledge and revelation. The structure and way we teach and learn is a wonderful change (although not a doctrinal change). This is good.

The last sentence is puzzling to me as I am not sure what is being presented, as whose "judgement" decides what is improving? Mine. Yours. The prophets and apostles. The prophets and apostles continue the same pattern in defining what is doctrine. The Church appears to continue to follow this method of revealing doctrine to the body of the Church: Manual. Church leaders are however more cautious than in the past and with good reason, and this is a welcomed change, but calling this "defining of doctrine is improving" doesn't appear to fit the category.

The first paragraph puzzles me as there isn't any doctrine that is "incorrect." This is what makes doctrine, doctrine. Doctrine is truth. Doctrine is "what is" and we will always be incorrect if we assume "doctrine" isn't correct. Let's review this statement from the manual previously shared, "I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency … will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord. …

"I testify that if we shall look to the First Presidency and follow their counsel and direction, no power on earth can stay or change our course as a church, and as individuals we shall gain peace in this life and be inheritors of eternal glory in the world to come" (Joseph Fielding Smith, “Eternal Keys and the Right to Preside,” Ensign, July 1972, 88).

In reference to "raising awareness" with local leaders I couldn't agree more. That a person assumes they are more wise than a combined Presidency of the Church, and the Twelve Apostles is dumb founding to me. This is a question I ponder when members want to "raise awareness" to the collective body of God's anointed, "Why do people think the Lord hasn't raised awareness himself to his leaders whom he has called and given keys to lead"? If our Church leaders were to begin to move forward on something the Lord did not approve, why do people think the Lord wouldn't stop them, as the Lord did with Samuel when calling a new king for Israel? The prophet had decided on a different brother, but the Lord refused this brother and let the prophet know. On individual cases, the Lord will indeed allow a prophet to learn from sad experienced as he did with Joseph and Martin Harris.

Bruce R. McConkie wasn't a single person that defined LDS doctrine, otherwise there wouldn't have been any need for multiple revisions to "Mormon Doctrine." Also, he didn't introduce a new definition of damnation into Mormonism. I understood this concept of "damnation" while on my mission. Bruce R. McConkie is correct pertaining to his thoughts on damnation. Anything less than the highest level in the celestial kingdom is damnation, or better said, to be damned to a degree. The concept being taught is that any lack of progression is a form of damnation, or being damned, a state where one is not able to progress any further. Doctrine and Covenants 132: 17, "For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever." (emphasis added) If a person is to continue "forever and ever" without exaltation then this individual is in a state of being damned.

If you read the manual provided you will see it isn't "one" apostle that determines doctrine. Now, as pertaining to "one" prophet it appears this can be the case depending on the circumstance and need of the Church. I am fine with Jesus being the "one" to reveal or to expound on doctrine, while he lived. I am fine with Joseph Smith being "one" as certain times due to his calling and his time period; however, as times and periods change it appears the Church has been following this manual of revealing truth, doctrine, for a long time now, at least through the whole of my generation (4 decades).

Yes, I love the fact I have almost all (if not all) published Church materials on one digital device -- AWESOME! The scripture posted is wonderful and it is why we have different meeting in church, so we are able to be instructed more sufficiently in theory, in doctrine, and in practice. Where does this instruction come from? That is the key.

True, because the concept of our world/earth being the "telestial kingdom" isn't doctrine and it isn't taught in the temple. I will actually reference @zil's post, "world" is not equal to "kingdom", are not equal to "law", are not equal to "glory".  To conflate all these terms into one meaning will cause one to err." Our earth is in a telestial state, not kingdom. Our earth during the millennium is in a terrestial state, not a kingdom. The earth becomes a "kingdom" (the celestial kingdom) when it is renewed and receives its paradisiacal glory.

The temple doesn't need to teach, explicitly, that the telestial and terrestial are separate eternal worlds. The doctrine is already implied as scriptures, particularly modern scripture and the combined teachings of apostles and prophets have defined them as separate kingdoms. The moment we enter the temple doesn't remove/negate what has been taught, and what continues to be taught. It is already implied, due to revealed doctrine, nothing new, nothing different, nothing changed.

 

Two things-

As far as I can tell it was Bruce R. McConkie that wrote the original "Bible Dictionary" and was the one who redefined various words and terms, one of which is the word "damnation". But, it was Joseph Smith who pretty much wrote the Book of Mormon and revelations now found in the D&C. Joseph Smith exclusively used the word in scripture in the same manner of his Protestant upbringing and peers around him. I did a research project years ago and went back through all of the writings and teachings I could find of Joseph Smith where he used any form of the word (damn, damned, damnation). In "every" instance, including all scripture, Joseph Smith used the word to mean what it meant to him in his day. From the 1828 Websters dictionary we have this definition-

"

Damn

DAMN, verb transitive

1. To sentence to eternal torments in a future state; to punish in hell."

Joseph Smith usage of the word in his writings and teachings was always in the context of condemnation to hell. It wasnt until long after Joseph Smith that folks changed or redefined how Joseph Smith used the word because it no longer meant what the current belief of the time decided it should be according to their interpretation. This was due to trying to reinterpret the original meaning into a different belief system. The classic scripture type such as -

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned. (3 Nephi 11:33-34)

was  redefined because the current belief established after Joseph Smith wrote the BoM was that baptism was only needed for entrance into the Celestial kingdom and because the telestial and terrestrial were considered "heaven" it had to be redefined so as to not make scriptures such as this one and many many more just like it false. Thus, the definitiin of the word was changed from its original meaning and all of mormon doctrine followed suit and persists with us to this day.

But in close examination of all of Joseph Smith's teachings and writings the word as Joseph used it means the condemnation to hell. Hell is always associated with the word in scripture. In no place in scripture is it used in any context other than the condemnation to hell. The implication is obvious though, it means our current doctrine, on many points, is incorrect.

The second issue is just how the temple uses the term "Telestial Kingdom". The temple exactky defines our current earth as both "the telestial kingdom" and " the telestial world". This is the same exact wording as found in scripture such as section 76. How then are we not to equate the two together? How are we supposed to believe the temple wording means something ekse when in fact these are the exact words that define our current earth?

[Just_A_Guy]

19 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The proclamation to the world on the family is doctrine revealed in these latter days. But did it just come to the one singular prophet who wrote it word for word? No, it was drafted, changed, redrafted, changed and a final draft was made agreeable amongst the first presidency and quorum of the twelve apostles before it was finally penned and agreed upon by all members of that council to become the official doctrinal position of the church. That was how that revelation came about. In like manner, a lot of the changes in policy that get penned in the official instruction manuals of the church are done in the same manner. God works with prophets through councils a lot of ti es in these latter days.

Rob, I'm going to apologize in advance for the way I participate here.  I think you have some really intriguing ideas and I would like to engage with them deeply; but this week I just don't have the time. So my responses are going to be scattershot and it's going to feel like I'm just poking holes, even though that isn't really my intent.

That said: I think the broader use of the Joseph Smith Papers publications is going to undercut a lot of this notion of Joseph Smith singlehandedly receiving unalterable revelations verbatim from God's own lips.  We see the handwriting of Joseph and other scribes freely and liberally editing his revelations--sometimes post-publication. We see "revelation" sections that are actually mashups of four or five separate documents, other portions of which seem not to have been particularly inspired.  We see inspired, committee-written constitutions or public policy statements subsequently being given the imprimatur of "revelations".  

I think a more mature understanding of the textual evolution of the D&C is going to lead careful students to conclude that with the exception of a handful of verbatim revelations; the process Joseph generally followed was to take indistinct spiritual feelings and impressions and then reduce them, with the help of others, into language which he even then regarded as relatively fluid and subject to further correction/articulation.  In that regard, other than its noncanonical status the Proclamation on the Family fits into Joseph's revelatory paradigm very well indeed.  

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The plan of salvation is true. How we define it, interpret it or perceive it may not be true. The temple, as part two in my opinion of section 76, defines more clearly the three kingdoms. Now all we have to do is listen, open our hears to hear for clarification. I remember once when I told someone who was taking the temple preparation class that the plan of salvation as taught in the temple is not the same thing you have been taught up to this point so just be aware. Another person said I was wrong. I said "really"? "So where in the temple do we teach about where the telestial kingdom is?" He couldnt tell me. I said- "according to the plan of salvation according to the temple, this very earth is the telestial kingdom". He again said I was wrong. I said "so then why do we teach that it is in the temple?" Needless to say we never could come to any agreement. The point here being that we should be honest, more honest, in what we do teach. Of course I could say "this earth is the telestial kingdom according to the temple doctrine", but no one would believe me, even say I was teaching a false doctrine. For me, my understanding on the matter, it means I should either shut my ears whenever our earth is called "the telestial kingdom" and "telestial world" in the temple cause they dont really mean it, or, I should take the words literally and make it part of my belief of truth. But, then it makes it hard to knowingly teach in church one plan while believing in another more advanced understanding.

I humbly and sincerely suggest that your interpretation or perception of the Temple's depiction of the Plan of Salvation - especially about the earth - is not quite true.

Zil and Anddenex explained quite clearly where the misunderstanding is.

As far as a general observation.  I think you limit yourself when you take one word and you apply one strict connotation to it.  The perfect example is the word "damned".  To think that Joseph Smith only has one strict and narrow definition of the word damned when he utters it is limiting your understanding.  Words have shades of meaning and connotation called "context".  It is this "context" that prophets, seers, revelators like Bruce McConkie expounds on to increase your understanding.  But if you limit yourself to the strict and narrow meaning of words as a scholarly study instead of a spiritual study then the quilt will never come together.

I have a testimony of this.  I sat on the beach while I was still a very devout Catholic and tried to resolve my testimony of ONE GOD as a Trinitarian to the ONE GOD of the LDS Church.  Same words, very different context.  My testimony of One God as a Catholic was immovable.  Pulling myself off that square to see the quilt was a very spiritual experience for me and as I journeyed on the path to conversion, that spiritual study made me appreciate my Catholic background even more where I gained those testimonies.  It is hard for me to explain it but it is like pieces of a puzzle with my existing testimonies as a Catholic jumbled as puzzle pieces with the new things I learned as an investigator and finally they all fell into place that brought my mind peace.  My existing testimonies did not all of a sudden become false because of the new knowledge.  Rather, they got added upon.  So, when you are ready to put those seemingly conflicting puzzle pieces together and look for how they connect together to form the whole, give it a shot and see where it leads you.

Edited January 4, 2017 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I humbly and sincerely suggest that your interpretation or perception of the Temple's depiction of the Plan of Salvation - especially about the earth - is not quite true.

Zil and Anddenex explained quite clearly where the misunderstanding is.

As far as a general observation.  I think you limit yourself when you take one word and you apply one strict connotation to it.  The perfect example is the word "damned".  To think that Joseph Smith only has one strict and narrow definition of the word damned when he utters it is limiting your understanding.  Words have shades of meaning and connotation called "context".  It is this "context" that prophets, seers, revelators like Bruce McConkie expounds on to increase your understanding.  But if you limit yourself to the strict and narrow meaning of words as a scholarly study instead of a spiritual study then the quilt will never come together.

I have a testimony of this.  I sat on the beach while I was still a very devout Catholic and tried to resolve my testimony of ONE GOD as a Trinitarian to the ONE GOD of the LDS Church.  Same words, very different context.  My testimony of One God as a Catholic was immovable.  Pulling myself off that square to see the quilt was a very spiritual experience for me and as I journeyed on the path to conversion, that spiritual study made me appreciate my Catholic background even more where I gained those testimonies.  It is hard for me to explain it but it is like pieces of a puzzle with my existing testimonies as a Catholic jumbled as puzzle pieces with the new things I learned as an investigator and finally they all fell into place that brought my mind peace.  My existing testimonies did not all of a sudden become false because of the new knowledge.  Rather, they got added upon.  So, when you are ready to put those seemingly conflicting puzzle pieces together and look for how they connect together to form the whole, give it a shot and see where it leads you.

This isnt something I just stunmbled upon. I have been studying it for decades. The more I study (such as how Joseph used the word "damnation") the more I am convinced that from a church doctrine point of view our general understanding of salvation and heaven is wrong on a few points. For me its about how to go forward in finding out the best way to seek answers/ clarification from church leaders.

[anatess2]

36 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

This isnt something I just stunmbled upon. I have been studying it for decades. The more I study (such as how Joseph used the word "damnation") the more I am convinced that from a church doctrine point of view our general understanding of salvation and heaven is wrong on a few points. For me its about how to go forward in finding out the best way to seek answers/ clarification from church leaders.

See... this is the thing... we studied it too.  For decades.

Matter of fact, many many many learned men who spent their entire life doing nothing but studying these things (St. Augustine, St. Ignatius, Irraneous, Origen, etc. etc.) have shown that you can study something to death yet get no closer to Truth... especially if you come from a position where you first reject Truth as taught by the prophets.

Edited January 4, 2017 by anatess2