Vort Posted January 4, 2017 Report Share Posted January 4, 2017 47 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. There are a great many things about which our general understanding is wrong. And I'm talking about the Latter-day Saints, not the world population in general. What of it? Ours is not to correct the Church as a whole, unless we have been called and ordained to that end. Ours is to sustain our leaders, love them, and help them move the work forward. We don't do that by publicly pointing out and complaining about what we think are mistakes in interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 5 hours ago, anatess2 said: 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. Well, thats them and they lacked everything we have access to. Im not far off from the truth. You may not believe that but thats okay too. I am not rejecting the prophets, just rejecting some of the points of our doctrine that are contradictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 4 hours ago, Vort said: There are a great many things about which our general understanding is wrong. And I'm talking about the Latter-day Saints, not the world population in general. What of it? Ours is not to correct the Church as a whole, unless we have been called and ordained to that end. Ours is to sustain our leaders, love them, and help them move the work forward. We don't do that by publicly pointing out and complaining about what we think are mistakes in interpretation. Theres nothing wrong with correcting a broken paradigm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said: Theres nothing wrong with correcting a broken paradigm. Except when you to take it upon yourself to assume its broken and that you need to fix it... when you know (or claim to believe) that God has a prophet and leaders that he has called for that express purpose. Because that means that you are saying don't listen to President Monson and the 12... Listen to me because I have studied it for a long time Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, estradling75 said: Except when you to take it upon yourself to assume its broken and that you need to fix it... when you know (or claim to believe) that God has a prophet and leaders that he has called for that express purpose. Because that means that you are saying don't listen to President Monson and the 12... Listen to me because I have studied it for a long time Im not taking it upon myself to fix it. Its not my stewardship to fix. But I do believe its within our stewardship as members to seek the truth and ask for clarification from our leaders if we come to conclusions that trouble our conscious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, estradling75 said: Except when you to take it upon yourself to assume its broken and that you need to fix it... when you know (or claim to believe) that God has a prophet and leaders that he has called for that express purpose. Because that means that you are saying don't listen to President Monson and the 12... Listen to me because I have studied it for a long time Im not taking it upon myself to fix it. Its not my stewardship to fix. But I do believe its within our stewardship as members to seek the truth and ask for clarification from our leaders if we come to conclusions that trouble our conscious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 13 hours ago, Rob Osborn said: The implication is obvious though, it means our current doctrine, on many points, is incorrect. The obvious implication is that "Rob Osborn" believes the current interpretation of doctrine on many points is incorrect. We have a combined presidency of the Church and its 12 apostles that would disagree with you pertaining to the interpretation of Joseph Smith and the word "damned." What is obvious to me is that you are pigeonholing Joseph's use of the word damned to mean one thing. Damned also means, "stopped in progress." Anyone who does not receive the fullness of the Father, and enter into his glory is damned. Doctrine and Covenants 132: 4, "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory." Who doesn't enter into God's glory? Anyone who had not received the fullness of the Father. These people are damned. This verse is evidence of multiple meanings of Joseph Smith's words; thus, this statement, "But in close examination of all of Joseph Smith's teachings and writings the word as Joseph used it means the condemnation to hell," is confirmed false, and Bruce R. McConkie and current leadership are correct. A close examination of the word "damned" as used by Joseph and modern day prophets has more meaning than just meaning "condemned to hell" as you have ascribed to Joseph. Two verses later we are able to receive a second witness from words given to Joseph Smith, "And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God." Those who are not able to abide by celestial laws, pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, will be damned -- stopped in progress -- as they will not receive eternal lives, eternal increase. More of Joseph Smith's words, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, they who believe not on your words, and are not baptized in water in my name, for the remission of their sins, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, shall be damned, and shall not come into my Father’s kingdom where my Father and I am." They are not received in the Father's kingdom where Christ and the Father dwell. The highest degree of glory. The obvious implication, those who inherit a telestial or terrestial glory, who are not with the Christ and the Father in his kingdom are damned. In light of this, I am puzzled as to what words from Joseph Smith you have been studying that you interpret his words only to mean one thing when those who have keys, and scriptures teach plainly multiple meanings to the word damned. 13 hours ago, Rob Osborn said: 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". The Bible Dictionary was added to the scriptures the same way the footnotes were added, by agreement from church leadership, and thank goodness they were. They have expanded and increased our knowledge and intelligence of gospel truths and doctrine. They are for our profit and learning. 13 hours ago, Rob Osborn said: 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? As there isn't anything really new presented I share what I previously posted, "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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said: Theres nothing wrong with correcting a broken paradigm. 35 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: Im not taking it upon myself to fix it. Its not my stewardship to fix. But I do believe its within our stewardship as members to seek the truth and ask for clarification from our leaders if we come to conclusions that trouble our conscious. So nothing wrong with "Correcting" something... But you are not "Fixing" it.... that is as clear as mud.. Pretty much the thing you are "correcting" but not "fixing" because you have studied so much... Is the exact same thing that President Monson and the 12 in their collective years studying, prayer, and receiving revelation as part of their stewardships have decided not to do anything about. But instead of "Correcting and Fixing' yourself so that you are in harmony with them... You continue to pound your head again the wall and self justify your actions with such logical twisting that you are "correcting" but not "fixing" Edited January 5, 2017 by estradling75 Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 13 minutes ago, Anddenex said: The obvious implication is that "Rob Osborn" believes the current interpretation of doctrine on many points is incorrect. We have a combined presidency of the Church and its 12 apostles that would disagree with you pertaining to the interpretation of Joseph Smith and the word "damned." What is obvious to me is that you are pigeonholing Joseph's use of the word damned to mean one thing. Damned also means, "stopped in progress." Anyone who does not receive the fullness of the Father, and enter into his glory is damned. Doctrine and Covenants 132: 4, "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory." Who doesn't enter into God's glory? Anyone who had not received the fullness of the Father. These people are damned. This verse is evidence of multiple meanings of Joseph Smith's words; thus, this statement, "But in close examination of all of Joseph Smith's teachings and writings the word as Joseph used it means the condemnation to hell," is confirmed false, and Bruce R. McConkie and current leadership are correct. A close examination of the word "damned" as used by Joseph and modern day prophets has more meaning than just meaning "condemned to hell" as you have ascribed to Joseph. Two verses later we are able to receive a second witness from words given to Joseph Smith, "And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God." Those who are not able to abide by celestial laws, pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, will be damned -- stopped in progress -- as they will not receive eternal lives, eternal increase. More of Joseph Smith's words, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, they who believe not on your words, and are not baptized in water in my name, for the remission of their sins, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, shall be damned, and shall not come into my Father’s kingdom where my Father and I am." They are not received in the Father's kingdom where Christ and the Father dwell. The highest degree of glory. The obvious implication, those who inherit a telestial or terrestial glory, who are not with the Christ and the Father in his kingdom are damned. In light of this, I am puzzled as to what words from Joseph Smith you have been studying that you interpret his words only to mean one thing when those who have keys, and scriptures teach plainly multiple meanings to the word damned. The Bible Dictionary was added to the scriptures the same way the footnotes were added, by agreement from church leadership, and thank goodness they were. They have expanded and increased our knowledge and intelligence of gospel truths and doctrine. They are for our profit and learning. As there isn't anything really new presented I share what I previously posted, "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." The verses you quote from section 132 do not mean what you think they mean. Read it again. It specifically states that all those who choose to enter into the covenant and then, after receiving the covenant, do not show obedience to it after having entered into it will be damned. This means they will be condemned to hell at least temporarily upon death. Continue to read all of the verses in context- "26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God." (D&C 132:26) Also cross reference to - "21 And the soul that sins against this covenant, and hardeneth his heart against it, shall be dealt with according to the laws of my church, and shall be delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption." (D&C 82:21) "9 Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. 10 And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."(D&C 104:9-10) The verses you quoted in 132 are meant in this light. Its a temporary damnation to hell for those who entered into the covenent but then were disobedient in it. They are or will be condemned to hell (damned) until the day of redemption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 11 minutes ago, estradling75 said: So nothing wrong with "Correcting" something... But you are not "Fixing" it.... that is as clear as mud.. Pretty much the thing you are "correcting" but not "fixing" because you have studied so much... Is the exact same thing that President Monson and the 12 in their collective years studying, prayer, and receiving revelation as part of their stewardships have decided not to do anything about. But instead of "Correcting and Fixing' yourself so that you are in harmony with them... You continue to pound your head again the wall and self justify your actions with such logical twisting that you are "correcting" but not "fixing" The only logical twisting I see are those parts of our doctrine that creates contradiction. Im trying to unravel it in my mind and make sense of what logically makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: The only logical twisting I see are those parts of our doctrine that creates contradiction. Im trying to unravel it in my mind and make sense of what logically makes sense. The first point of your logic should be your testimony of Christ and his church. That Christ gospel makes sense and has no contradictions. Therefore any contradiction, any entanglement you need to unravel are because of your weakness in understanding and reasoning. Not because of God, not because of the church, but because of you. The moment you type the words "doctrine that creates contradiction" you have failed in faith and the logic that flows from that. Edited January 5, 2017 by estradling75 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, estradling75 said: The first point of your logic should be your testimony of Christ and his church. That Christ gospel makes sense and has no contradictions. Therefore any contradiction, any entanglement you need to unravel are because of your weakness in understanding and reasoning. Not because of God, not because of the church, but because of you. The moment you type the words "doctrine that creates contradiction" you have failed in faith logic that flows from that. Not sure I follow you. If somethings not true, its not true. It doesnt effect my testimony one bit, I know what the truth is and how to direct myself to find it. That same mechanism in me just so happened to see a weak link and I just want to see it fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said: Not sure I follow you. If somethings not true, its not true. It doesnt effect my testimony one bit, I know what the truth is and how to direct myself to find it. That same mechanism in me just so happened to see a weak link and I just want to see it fixed. The thing is... When you say that something is not true (or a weak link) that was taught by God through his prophets... That is hubris to the extreme because you are saying you know more about truth then God on what should be said and done... Saying you don't understand how all the pieces fit together is wildly different then saying the pieces are lies to be fixed. The first one is a clear acknowledgment of the scriptures that God's ways are not our ways, his thoughts are not our thoughts and that we are nothing... The second is saying based on my own knowledge and learning I am wiser then God and see errors in his setup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said: The verses you quote from section 132 do not mean what you think they mean. Read it again. It specifically states that all those who choose to enter into the covenant and then, after receiving the covenant, do not show obedience to it after having entered into it will be damned. This means they will be condemned to hell at least temporarily upon death. Continue to read all of the verses in context- "26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God." (D&C 132:26) Also cross reference to - "21 And the soul that sins against this covenant, and hardeneth his heart against it, shall be dealt with according to the laws of my church, and shall be delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption." (D&C 82:21) "9 Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. 10 And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."(D&C 104:9-10) The verses you quoted in 132 are meant in this light. Its a temporary damnation to hell for those who entered into the covenent but then were disobedient in it. They are or will be condemned to hell (damned) until the day of redemption. Have, and it is clear what they mean and it doesn't coincide with your personal interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 9 minutes ago, Anddenex said: Have, and it is clear what they mean and it doesn't coincide with your personal interpretation. Read it over again, especially verse 6. You are arguing that those who dont enter into the covenent become damned for failure to do so. But, it says the opposite. Here- "6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God." It states that those who do enter into the covenent but then arent obedient to it are damned. It then explains later on in the section that these "damned" are destroyed in the flesh and delivered over to Satan in hell. "Damned" in section 132 means condemnation to hell just like all other instances of it in the D&C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 3 hours ago, estradling75 said: The thing is... When you say that something is not true (or a weak link) that was taught by God through his prophets... That is hubris to the extreme because you are saying you know more about truth then God on what should be said and done... Saying you don't understand how all the pieces fit together is wildly different then saying the pieces are lies to be fixed. The first one is a clear acknowledgment of the scriptures that God's ways are not our ways, his thoughts are not our thoughts and that we are nothing... The second is saying based on my own knowledge and learning I am wiser then God and see errors in his setup So, if I said the pieces somehow do not add up, it would be fine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said: So, if I said the pieces somehow do not add up, it would be fine? If you said it with the t assumption that you were talking about your own personal limits to make such additions. (which presumes you accept that they do add up you you just don't see how yet) However in this thread (and others) you present such as God given Facts that everyone should agree with and that if they don't then they clearly have not studied enough. And that is where you get push back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, estradling75 said: If you said it with the t assumption that you were talking about your own personal limits to make such additions. (which presumes you accept that they do add up you you just don't see how yet) However in this thread (and others) you present such as God given Facts that everyone should agree with and that if they don't then they clearly have not studied enough. And that is where you get push back. That sounds kind of like one can not understand a doctrine that is and must be true because he just doesnt get it because all doctrine is and must be true. Thats kind of circular reasoning isnt it? Edited January 5, 2017 by Rob Osborn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said: That sounds kind of like one can not understand a doctrine that is and must be true because he just doesnt get it because all doctrine is and must be true. Thats kind of circular reasoning isnt it? No... Its called Faith... Faith that God does not give false doctrine... And if it is not of God then it is the opinion of man and not doctrine. The fact that you can't see that plain truth is astonishing Edited January 5, 2017 by estradling75 Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 43 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said: Read it over again, especially verse 6. You are arguing that those who dont enter into the covenent become damned for failure to do so. But, it says the opposite. Here- "6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God." It states that those who do enter into the covenent but then arent obedient to it are damned. It then explains later on in the section that these "damned" are destroyed in the flesh and delivered over to Satan in hell. "Damned" in section 132 means condemnation to hell just like all other instances of it in the D&C. Have, and it still doesn't coincide with the interpretation you are sending forth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 28 minutes ago, estradling75 said: No... Its called Faith... Faith that God does not give false doctrine... And if it is not of God then it is the opinion of man and not doctrine. The fact that you can't see that plan truth is astonishing Oh, I do believe God has revealed his truth, we just havent connected the dots yet somehow. For instance- why the temple teaches that our very earth right now is "the telestial kingdom", yet no one believes it even though that is exactly what it says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, Anddenex said: Have, and it still doesn't coincide with the interpretation you are sending forth. Well, you certainly failed to prove your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said: Oh, I do believe God has revealed his truth, we just havent connected the dots yet somehow. For instance- why the temple teaches that our very earth right now is "the telestial kingdom", yet no one believes it even though that is exactly what it says. So God revealed his truth to President Monson... but according to you President Monson is too thick to understand and do his job of passing that along to the rest of us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said: Well, you certainly failed to prove your argument. Thank you. We feel the same way about someone "failing" to prove an argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 11 minutes ago, Anddenex said: Thank you. We feel the same way about someone "failing" to prove an argument. Except in this case you never proved your point, even after I countered. Please show how how these verses in 132 prove that failing to enter into the new and everlasting covenent results in damnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.