Alma 41:4

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

In verses 50-52 it describes how those who are saved are thus saved. Read-

50 And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just
51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given
52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;

This is the testimony part describing these individuals-

40 And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us
41 That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness;
42 That through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him;
43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.

I don’t see how this relates to what we’ve been talking about, but verses 40-43 come before 50-52, and you neglected to include verse 53 which is a key principle concerning the highest of the three or four kingdoms, and despite as many as enjoy it (verse 67, “innumerable”), not everyone does (verse 109, also “innumerable”), and those that are somewhere in between are described in the verses between, whether they are “innumerable” or not.

These verses also show that, of those that might be saved (everyone), those that come forth in the resurrection of the just have faithfully submitted their will to the Lord and did what the Lord willed them to do in consideration of His atoning sacrifice. They receive the same blessings as Joseph Smith did in the beginning of D&C 88, which culminates in the immortal realization of the Holy Spirit of promise that had been received, which is eternal life, and in a later revelation we learn even more, in terms of exaltation.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I'm very happy you shared that because you are proving my point. Further down in the exact same lesson, we find:

"5.The tares (see D&C 86:4) represent evil doctrines and those who spread them. “Traditionally, tares have been identified with the darnel weed, a species of bearded rye-grass which closely resembles wheat in the early growth period and which is found in modern Palestine. This weed has a bitter taste; if eaten in any appreciable amount, either separately or when mixed with bread, it causes dizziness and often acts as a violent emetic.” (McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 1:296.)

President Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out that “even in the Church the tares are to be found. It is the tares which are to be gathered up and burned from all over the world, but those in the Church will also be gathered out and find their place in the fire. [See D&C 112:23–26.] The Savior also bore witness of [this. When] speaking to the Nephites he said: ‘For it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that at that day whosoever will not repent and come unto my Beloved Son, them will I cut off from my people, O house of Israel.’ (3 Nephi 21:20.)” (Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:354.)"

Thus we have an example of how the parables offer multiple levels of understanding available for contextual application, and the line-upon-line approach to teaching a principle from the simplistic to the more complex and nuanced, all approved by the Lord's servants. In this case, teachings and those who uphold them, hence my earlier comments. Of course this approach can operate in a regressive rather than a progressive fashion (dwindling), but that is not the Lord's will.

Eberything in its proper context though.

In section 101 the "tares" are the wicked people.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don’t see how this relates to what we’ve been talking about, but verses 40-43 come before 50-52, and you neglected to include verse 53 which is a key principle concerning the highest of the three or four kingdoms, and despite as many as enjoy it (verse 67, “innumerable”), not everyone does (verse 109, also “innumerable”), and those that are somewhere in between are described in the verses between, whether they are “innumerable” or not.

 

These verses also show that, of those that might be saved (everyone), those that come forth in the resurrection of the just have faithfully submitted their will to the Lord and did what the Lord willed them to do in consideration of His atoning sacrifice. They receive the same blessings as Joseph Smith did in the beginning of D&C 88, which culminates in the immortal realization of the Holy Spirit of promise that had been received, which is eternal life, and in a later revelation we learn even more, in terms of exaltation.

 

Verses 50-70 of section 76 describe the final state of all the saved at judgment.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Eberything in its proper context though.

In section 101 the "tares" are the wicked people.

Exactly. That is why I am happy that you've shared the lesson that teaches more than one context; both are correct.

On the otehr hand, Joseph Smith misinterpreting the subject matter he recorded as D&C 76 seems to me a false context since we have scripture on three contextualized teachings on the afterlife, as follows: the Lord's teaching about it in terms of the aim of His Atonement; in terms of the aims of people in relation to it; and, in terms of His expanding on both of these with the teachings on exaltation. We have three congruent and complementary contexts and needn't attribute our inability to see their relationship to Joseph Smith's misinterpretation.

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Verses 50-70 of section 76 describe the final state of all the saved at judgment.

Of course it does (see above).

[Rob Osborn]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Exactly. That is why I am happy that you've shared the lesson that teaches more than one context; both are correct.

On the otehr hand, Joseph Smith misinterpreting the subject matter he recorded as D&C 76 seems to me a false context since we have scripture on three contextualized teachings on the afterlife, as follows: the Lord's teaching about it in terms of the aim of His Atonement; in terms of the aims of people in relation to it; and, in terms of His expanding on both of these with the teachings on exaltation. We have three congruent and complementary contexts and needn't attribute our inability to see their relationship to Joseph Smith's misinterpretation.

Of course it does (see above).

Lets look at the verses I would like to expound upon-

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. (D&C 101:65-66)

Its obvious that in this context the wheat spoken of are the children of God and the tares are the wicked who will be burned with unquenchable fire. Croos reference here-

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; (Matt. 13:37-38)

There is no doubt that this is the great separation at the end of the world, the righteous on the right hand to inherit eternal life and the wicked on the left to be cast into the lake of fire.

One thing we have to take into account when speaking of the telestial, terrestrial and celestial kingdoms is that the temple endowment is the most recent revelation concerning the details of the plan of salvation. That endowment teaches that we progress through the kingdoms, not that we inherit one of the lower kingdoms. If one was to make a diagram of the plan of salvation as taught by the temple it would show all three kingdoms but the major difference would be that the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms are both kingdoms we must pass through as part of the path that leads back to Heavenly Fathers presence in the celestial kingdom. Because the wording of "the telestial kingdom", "the telestial world" is identical in both scripture and the endowment I must say that they are probably speaking of the same thing.

[mordorbund]

18 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I beg to differ, and, so does the church

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-81-89/section-86-the-parable-of-the-wheat-and-the-tares?lang=eng

Like Nephi, seer of olden times, I will hold to the irony rod.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Lets look at the verses I would like to expound upon-

Because your arguments against the LDS Church teachings on D&C 76 require acceptance of an erroneous Universalist misinterpretation by Joseph Smith, point-by-point arguments like these are not productive. They all rely on theological bias.

Because that is the basis for your view, in order that your arguments hold any weight, you must, by means other than using a strictly Protestant interpretation of the LDS scriptures and temple endowment, credibly establish that Joseph Smith indeed misunderstood his vision.

[Rob Osborn]

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Because your arguments against the LDS Church teachings on D&C 76 require acceptance of an erroneous Universalist misinterpretation by Joseph Smith, point-by-point arguments like these are not productive. They all rely on theological bias.

 

Because that is the basis for your view, in order that your arguments hold any weight, you must, by means other than using a strictly Protestant interpretation of the LDS scriptures and temple endowment, credibly establish that Joseph Smith indeed misunderstood his vision.

 

Its obviously not understood correctly. All of LDS scripture shows a strict heaven or hell construct. Im curious as to your take on this earth right now being the telestial kingdom. What, or how, does this information fit within your beliefs about the plan of salvation?

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its obviously not understood correctly. All of LDS scripture shows a strict heaven or hell construct. Im curious as to your take on this earth right now being the telestial kingdom. What, or how, does this information fit within your beliefs about the plan of salvation?

As I said, you will have to provide compelling evidence that Joseph Smith did not understand his vision before we can have a productive conversation on your theology. You cannot present a cogent argument about the strict interpretation of LDS scripture until you do that, because your whole case rests on it.

But I am happy to discuss our respective take on things.

My take on his earth right now is that it is figuratively or colloquially called the telestial kingdom. The term is used to describe our natural (as in fallen) world without covenants and where all (anyone and any light) can be spiritually lost. Similarly, my take is that terrestrial is used to describe the paradisaical pre-Fall and Millennial conditions (temporally, physically and spiritually), and that "heaven-on-earth" we are blessed to possess through active, pre-temple covenant-keeping while living in this telestial world. My take is that celestial is used to describe the temple covenant of marriage entered into while in this telestial world, and keeping it contributes to a terrestrial and even celestial quality of life in the home and family life, at least in a preparatory sense.

[Rob Osborn]

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As I said, you will have to provide compelling evidence that Joseph Smith did not understand his vision before we can have a productive conversation on your theology. You cannot present a cogent argument about the strict interpretation of LDS scripture until you do that, because your whole case rests on it.

But I am happy to discuss our respective take on things.

My take on his earth right now is that it is figuratively or colloquially called the telestial kingdom. The term is used to describe our natural (as in fallen) world without covenants and where all (anyone and any light) can be spiritually lost. Similarly, my take is that terrestrial is used to describe the paradisaical pre-Fall and Millennial conditions (temporally, physically and spiritually), and that "heaven-on-earth" we are blessed to possess through active, pre-temple covenant-keeping while living in this telestial world. My take is that celestial is used to describe the temple covenant of marriage entered into while in this telestial world, and keeping it contributes to a terrestrial and even celestial quality of life in the home and family life, at least in a preparatory sense.

So, if I give scripture that comes after what was revealed in section 76 and 88 that causes a contradiction then is that proof?

Im not sure I understand just exactly what you mean by "figuratively or colloquially".  The temple is very clear that the world room is a representation of the very world we now live in which is called the telestial kingdom/ telestial world.

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, if I give scripture that comes after what was revealed in section 76 and 88 that causes a contradiction then is that proof?

Im not sure I understand just exactly what you mean by "figuratively or colloquially".  The temple is very clear that the world room is a representation of the very world we now live in which is called the telestial kingdom/ telestial world.

You would have to prove that the scripture is contradictory. But since defining it as contradictory relies on Joseph having a misunderstanding in the first place, the crux of supporting the theology is establishing that his misunderstanding exists, and not simply the biased claim of contradiction.

I have no problem with the temple using the word “telestial” either. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” The names that I and the temple use to identify “this world as it is right now” / "the very world we now live in" do not change what it is. The same word can be used in multiple ways, depending on context.

I use it “figuratively” in that I am not referring to “this earth right now” as the literally the same kingdom of glory, or even the same planet (borrowing from D&C 88) identified in D&C 76. I use it “colloquially” in that only LDS would refer to “this earth right now” with that kind of terminology. I think the temple also borrows the term from D&C 76 to convey that it is the only kind of place where the natural man, an enemy to God, can move and act.

[Rob Osborn]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You would have to prove that the scripture is contradictory. But since defining it as contradictory relies on Joseph having a misunderstanding in the first place, the crux of supporting the theology is establishing that his misunderstanding exists, and not simply the biased claim of contradiction.

 

I have no problem with the temple using the word “telestial” either. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” The names that I and the temple use to identify “this world as it is right now” / "the very world we now live in" do not change what it is. The same word can be used in multiple ways, depending on context.

 

I use it “figuratively” in that I am not referring to “this earth right now” as the literally the same kingdom of glory, or even the same planet (borrowing from D&C 88) identified in D&C 76. I use it “colloquially” in that only LDS would refer to “this earth right now” with that kind of terminology. I think the temple also borrows the term from D&C 76 to convey that it is the only kind of place where the natural man, an enemy to God, can move and act.

 

I am going to have to take a different approach I guess as we have different understandings of definitions, semantics and principles. Give me a bit to rethink it.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

You would have to prove that the scripture is contradictory. But since defining it as contradictory relies on Joseph having a misunderstanding in the first place, the crux of supporting the theology is establishing that his misunderstanding exists, and not simply the biased claim of contradiction.

 

I have no problem with the temple using the word “telestial” either. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” The names that I and the temple use to identify “this world as it is right now” / "the very world we now live in" do not change what it is. The same word can be used in multiple ways, depending on context.

 

I use it “figuratively” in that I am not referring to “this earth right now” as the literally the same kingdom of glory, or even the same planet (borrowing from D&C 88) identified in D&C 76. I use it “colloquially” in that only LDS would refer to “this earth right now” with that kind of terminology. I think the temple also borrows the term from D&C 76 to convey that it is the only kind of place where the natural man, an enemy to God, can move and act.

 

Many years ago I set out to really understand the basic principles of the gospel. I wanted to see just how well our doctrine holds up under scrutiny. What started out as a quick weekend project has turned into massive research and study into the workings of the gospel. Ive been at it now for almost two decades and I have found some interesting things out.

One of the main issues that kept coming up was how we use our words versus how dictionaries use those same words. I found that we kind of invented our own dictionary so that contradictions would not arise. But, are they warranted? No. Another issue that goes along with those redefined terms and words was that we tend to have a seemingly unending way we can use those words to mean anything we want it to mean also. This in turn makes for interpreting scripture extremely hard if not impossible. Take the word "damn" for example. In our doctrine it can mean anything from being cast into outer darkness to being a type of salvation. The word "saved" can mean everything from being equated to exaltation in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom to just receiving a physical body in the resurrection.

Thus, it gets very difficult in understanding doctrine when there are a myriad of different ways to define words to mean whatever we wish on any particular day to mean. The sad part is that the main key core scriptures of our doctrine, the Book of Mormon, almost exclusively use the words and terms identical to the protestant upbringing of Joseph Smith and the 1828 version of Websters dictionary. For instance, the word "damn" in Joseph Smiths day only meant one thing- to be condemned to hell or the state of the condemned already in hell. Joseph Smith didnt invent a new language or different set of semantics with the Book of Mormon. Once one understands this very simple principle then the gospel easily is interpreted. But, in caution also, in doing so it shows some of the mistakes that have crept into our doctrine. One of those is the erroneous belief or teaching that one can be saved eternally from hell without repentance and baptism (telestial heirs), they just have to suffer themselves for their own sins first. 

Almost entirely, every LDS member do not properly understand the most basic parts of the gospel because of the errors of our redefinition of words and terms. Trust me when I say I know because I have tried every way with great care to make our definitiobs work. They just flat dont work and vecause no one is willing to study it out on their own the same repeated errors continue to tge point that because they are said so much it must be true and everyone is fine at that and move on unknowingly. You ask any member what it means to be "damned" and almost exclusively you are gonba get this reply- "to be stopped in ones progress". But, no scripture uses this word like that, not even once! 

So, years ago I decided to see if every basic word used in discussing the gospel as found in the scripture is defined according to Joseph Smiths protestant upbringing coupled with an era specific dictionary. What I found was that this principle was exactly correct.

In these kind of discussions about the pkan of salcation it thus gets almost impossible to dialogue because the way I use words and what they mean to me is not the same as they are used and meant by you. So we play the semantics merry-go-round and dont ever make much headway.

In order for us to understand each other, especially for you understanding my background, its paramount that when I use certain words and terms like salvation, saved, damned, lake of fire and brimstone, the second death, right hand or left hand, sheep or goats, wheat or tares, etc, I am using and understanding them different than you.

[Rob Osborn]

A simple list of axioms is important. Here is just a short list of what a few of the most important ones might be-

1. One must repent, be baptized, and receive the holy ghost in order to be saved eternally from hell after resurrection and judgment.

2. One must have a change of heart completely, being born of the spirit into life in order to be saved eternally from hell after redurrection and judment.

3. One must become fully cleansed from all sin and sinful ways to be saved from hell eternally after resurrection and judgment.

4. After one is born again he must endure to the end obeying all the commandments in order to be saved eternally from hell after resurrection and judgment

5. No one can escape the damnation of an eternal hell if they do not believe Christ in complete faith and actions.

6. No one can reject an ordinance along the path and still be saved from hell

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Many years ago I set out to really understand the basic principles of the gospel. I wanted to see just how well our doctrine holds up under scrutiny. What started out as a quick weekend project has turned into massive research and study into the workings of the gospel. Ive been at it now for almost two decades and I have found some interesting things out.

One of the main issues that kept coming up was how we use our words versus how dictionaries use those same words. I found that we kind of invented our own dictionary so that contradictions would not arise. But, are they warranted? No. Another issue that goes along with those redefined terms and words was that we tend to have a seemingly unending way we can use those words to mean anything we want it to mean also. This in turn makes for interpreting scripture extremely hard if not impossible. Take the word "damn" for example. In our doctrine it can mean anything from being cast into outer darkness to being a type of salvation. The word "saved" can mean everything from being equated to exaltation in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom to just receiving a physical body in the resurrection.

Thus, it gets very difficult in understanding doctrine when there are a myriad of different ways to define words to mean whatever we wish on any particular day to mean. The sad part is that the main key core scriptures of our doctrine, the Book of Mormon, almost exclusively use the words and terms identical to the protestant upbringing of Joseph Smith and the 1828 version of Websters dictionary. For instance, the word "damn" in Joseph Smiths day only meant one thing- to be condemned to hell or the state of the condemned already in hell. Joseph Smith didnt invent a new language or different set of semantics with the Book of Mormon. Once one understands this very simple principle then the gospel easily is interpreted. But, in caution also, in doing so it shows some of the mistakes that have crept into our doctrine. One of those is the erroneous belief or teaching that one can be saved eternally from hell without repentance and baptism (telestial heirs), they just have to suffer themselves for their own sins first. 

Almost entirely, every LDS member do not properly understand the most basic parts of the gospel because of the errors of our redefinition of words and terms. Trust me when I say I know because I have tried every way with great care to make our definitiobs work. They just flat dont work and vecause no one is willing to study it out on their own the same repeated errors continue to tge point that because they are said so much it must be true and everyone is fine at that and move on unknowingly. You ask any member what it means to be "damned" and almost exclusively you are gonba get this reply- "to be stopped in ones progress". But, no scripture uses this word like that, not even once! 

So, years ago I decided to see if every basic word used in discussing the gospel as found in the scripture is defined according to Joseph Smiths protestant upbringing coupled with an era specific dictionary. What I found was that this principle was exactly correct.

In these kind of discussions about the pkan of salcation it thus gets almost impossible to dialogue because the way I use words and what they mean to me is not the same as they are used and meant by you. So we play the semantics merry-go-round and dont ever make much headway.

In order for us to understand each other, especially for you understanding my background, its paramount that when I use certain words and terms like salvation, saved, damned, lake of fire and brimstone, the second death, right hand or left hand, sheep or goats, wheat or tares, etc, I am using and understanding them different than you.

“I know a guy…” on another message board who would be worth talking to about how we use words and language; semantics. I’ll PM you the board and his name and you may be able to start a thread on this topic (language!) or PM him.

I agree with the imprecision of our language and terms. We hear about it from the pulpit, usually in terms of converts adjusting to the jargon, but also more recently about “the Atonement” versus “the Atonement of Jesus Christ.” As much as we should strive for a pure language, I believe the Holy Spirit conveys the most essential and expedient information, and with that (perhaps more importantly) what we do and become with that information. I also believe the Holy Spirit smooths out the potential for doctrinal misunderstanding, as the writers of the Book of Mormon depended on due their weakness in writing and occasional sense of imperfection in recording details.

I certainly appreciate the scholarship involved in understanding the original texts, but perhaps the 19^th century Protestant (Biblical, earlier) terminology used in presenting the Book of Mormon translation, rather the meaning attached to it, was and is in need of correction, hence the revelations Joseph received later. He didn’t invent a new language, he revealed new spiritual meaning instead. For this reason I'm thinking he understood precisely what he communicated in the record of his vision.

Sometimes a more perfect understanding is wrapped in old terminology – an interesting application of new wine in old bottles; fortunately, words and language possess a flexibility bottles do not.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 5/11/2017 at 7:27 AM, CV75 said:

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

He loves to make stuff up and declare it pure and correct doctrine.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

“I know a guy…” on another message board who would be worth talking to about how we use words and language; semantics. I’ll PM you the board and his name and you may be able to start a thread on this topic (language!) or PM him.

 

I agree with the imprecision of our language and terms. We hear about it from the pulpit, usually in terms of converts adjusting to the jargon, but also more recently about “the Atonement” versus “the Atonement of Jesus Christ.” As much as we should strive for a pure language, I believe the Holy Spirit conveys the most essential and expedient information, and with that (perhaps more importantly) what we do and become with that information. I also believe the Holy Spirit smooths out the potential for doctrinal misunderstanding, as the writers of the Book of Mormon depended on due their weakness in writing and occasional sense of imperfection in recording details.

 

I certainly appreciate the scholarship involved in understanding the original texts, but perhaps the 19^th century Protestant (Biblical, earlier) terminology used in presenting the Book of Mormon translation, rather the meaning attached to it, was and is in need of correction, hence the revelations Joseph received later. He didn’t invent a new language, he revealed new spiritual meaning instead. For this reason I'm thinking he understood precisely what he communicated in the record of his vision.

 

Sometimes a more perfect understanding is wrapped in old terminology – an interesting application of new wine in old bottles; fortunately, words and language possess a flexibility bottles do not.

 

The Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of our religion, the most correct book on earth. There is no need to redefine its terminology, words, etc. We may want to divorce the strict dichotomy of heaven or hell as found in its pages but the fact remains that the very paramount quotes from Jesus Christ himself, in 3 Nephi, describe his gospel is indeed a very strict heaven or hell paradigm.

Its interesting because if I teach the plan of salvation as taught strictly from the Book of Mormon Im going to have most Mormons crying fowl play against me. What do we teach? Why are we afraid to address these realities, these contradictions in our teachings?

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

He loves to make stuff up and declare it pure and correct doctrine.

If you want to join the discussion thats great, but dont sit on the sidelines and take jabs you cant or are unwilling to defend or back up.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of our religion, the most correct book on earth. There is no need to redefine its terminology, words, etc. We may want to divorce the strict dichotomy of heaven or hell as found in its pages but the fact remains that the very paramount quotes from Jesus Christ himself, in 3 Nephi, describe his gospel is indeed a very strict heaven or hell paradigm.

Its interesting because if I teach the plan of salvation as taught strictly from the Book of Mormon Im going to have most Mormons crying fowl play against me. What do we teach? Why are we afraid to address these realities, these contradictions in our teachings?

But the same prophet who translated the Book or Mormon also recorded D&C 76 and the other revelations we've discussed. The kind of bias and capacity to err and misunderstand the products of his divine gifts that you attribute to him must apply to his interpreting the Book of Mormon as well, especially given that he was the least experienced at that time. This is why establishing that point is so crucial to your arguments, but it creates a contradiction. One one hand he misunderstood or misreported what the Lord gave him; and on the other, the Book or Mormon must be as unreliable as you say D&C 76 is and not much of a cornerstone (keystone).

Why, in 2017, would anyone choose to teach the plan of salvation strictly from the Book of Mormon? If by "we" you mean the correlated Church lessons, I don't think it is a matter of fear that we don't teach from a single source, but a matter of synthesizing the message obtained from of all the canon on the subject.

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

But the same prophet who translated the Book or Mormon also recorded D&C 76 and the other revelations we've discussed. The kind of bias and capacity to err and misunderstand the products of his divine gifts that you attribute to him must apply to his interpreting the Book of Mormon as well, especially given that he was the least experienced at that time. This is why establishing that point is so crucial to your arguments, but it creates a contradiction. One one hand he misunderstood or misreported what the Lord gave him; and on the other, the Book or Mormon must be as unreliable as you say D&C 76 is and not much of a cornerstone (keystone).

Why, in 2017, would anyone choose to teach the plan of salvation strictly from the Book of Mormon? If by "we" you mean the correlated Church lessons, I don't think it is a matter of fear that we don't teach from a single source, but a matter of synthesizing the message obtained from of all the canon on the subject.

So, then we should use the temple endowment also, revealed by Joseph Smith also. Then you have those other D&C teachings like the parable of the wheat and the tares that get skated around.

[Rob Osborn]

Section 76 itself contains issues that are not easily remedied.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

If you want to join the discussion thats great, but dont sit on the sidelines and take jabs you cant or are unwilling to defend or back up.

What are you going to do about it? If I'm not breaking site rules I'll say what I want when I want to.

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What are you going to do about it? If I'm not breaking site rules I'll say what I want when I want to.

What stuff am I making up? Lets start with that.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

What stuff am I making up? Lets start with that.

I'm more interested in sitting on the sidelines and taking jabs.

[Rob Osborn]

23 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm more interested in sitting on the sidelines and taking jabs.

Dont have any case do ya?