What is doctrine and what is not?

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

When I put his exact quote:

... into google, limiting the site to lds.org, the only result I get from October 2017 GC is this:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/be-ye-therefore-perfect-eventually?lang=eng

Also, unless there was a secret session, I'm not aware of a talk by President Monson.

Well, here's one at least:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/we-never-walk-alone?lang=eng

Did you think I was lying?

Edited November 9, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[zil]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well, here's one at least:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/we-never-walk-alone?lang=eng

Did you think I was lying?

No, Rob said "last conference", which to me means October 2017 conference, so I was looking explicitly for a talk from that particular conference with the exact full quote he posted.

I can't even find "telestial kingdom" as a phrase in the link you posted, so now I'm thinking I missed your point somewhere.  I'll go back and check.

Edited November 9, 2017 by zil
Ah, "telestial world" got it

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

No, Rob said "last conference", which to me means October 2017 conference, so I was looking explicitly for a talk from that particular conference with the exact full quote he posted.

I can't even find "telestial kingdom" as a phrase in the link you posted, so now I'm thinking I missed your point somewhere.  I'll go back and check.

Oh...well Monson wasn't even there. So...okay.

(The phrase used in the link was telestial world, btw.)

Edited November 9, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Just out of curiosity. If you think the temple and D&C 76 are contrary, and Joseph Smith, at some point, was off his rocker and screwed up...what makes you conclude that the temple isn't the screwed up paradigm instead of D&C 76?

I think both the temple doctrine and Joseph having his vision is true. The part I question is how Joseph interpreted the vision. This post may get lengthy. To start, Joseph was inquiring about tge kingdom of heaven. He was confused about things. The heading to section 76 reads-

"A vision given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Sidney Rigdon, at Hiram, Ohio, February 16, 1832. Prefacing the record of this vision, Joseph Smith’s history states: “Upon my return from Amherst conference, I resumed the translation of the Scriptures. From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled. It appeared self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body the term ‘Heaven,’ as intended for the Saints’ eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one. Accordingly, … while translating St. John’s Gospel, myself and Elder Rigdon saw the following vision.” At the time this vision was given, the Prophet was translating John 5:29."

To place this within proper context John 5:29 reads-

"29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation"

As is apparent the verse was translated or given differently as verses 16-17 reads-

"16 Speaking of the resurrection of the dead, concerning those who shall hear the voice of the Son of Man:
17 And shall come forth; they who have done good, in the resurrection of the just; and they who have done evil, in the resurrection of the unjust."

Both John 5:29 and verses 16-17 mean the same thing. We know that John 5:29 isnt wrong because the Book of Mormon has a similar verse to John 5:29. 3rd Nephi 26:4-5 is paraphrasing the doctrines that Christ taught the Nephites, It reads-

4 And even unto the great and last day, when all people, and all kindreds, and all nations and tongues shall stand before God, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil
5 If they be good, to the resurrection of everlasting life; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of damnation; being on a parallel, the one on the one hand and the other on the other hand, according to the mercy, and the justice, and the holiness which is in Christ, who was before the world began."

This is important to understand in going forward, there is a resurrection of the just unto eternal life and a resurrection of the unjust unto eternal damnation. There arent any other outcomes in the resurrection, its either the one or the other, one on the right hand and the other on the left hand. What the vision, I believe, is trying to show Joseph in vision is that the scriptures are exactly right that in the end, at resurrection and judgment, all mankind will either aspire into one of these two stark outcomes. Either we are resurrected into being justified unto receiving eternal life in Gods kingdom, or, we are resurrected but not justified and thus receive eternal damnation. These are the only two outcomes, there isnt a third or fourth outcome. Of utmost importance at this point is correctly understanding that "damnation" is and must be defined as condemnation to hell. LDS scholars have done this diservice over the years to try to make heads and tails over certain scriptures that create an other wise paradox in the belief system. This is one of the points where confusion has arisen because our doctrine is derailed from the truth on this seemingly ever so small point. 

To move on, this is why putting truth in principle is paramount to understanding. So, the angel is thus showing that perhaps contrary to Josephs initial wondering and belief, in the end, heaven really does consist of all the justified unto eternal life and that only these are the ones Christ has power to save eternally both physically and spiritually. The rest must go into eternal damnation in hell because they refuse to believe and repent and show obedience to the gospel. But, to make it clear how man gets to that state of being justified the angel shows Joseph the vision. He starts by showing these two opposing outcomes up through verse 70. But then he shows Joseph the state of man going through both the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms. This is where it gets confusing because Joseph doesnt realize that these two kingdoms are in fact this very earth as it progresses forward in order to get man to the point where he is either justified to receive eternal life or be cast aside to receive eternal damnation. It isnt until much later when the endowment comes to light and practice that this knowledge is made known. Joseph is then martyred and this knowledge and how it was coming to light line upon line was basically put on hold.

The temple endowment is pretty much the most correct doctrine we have regarding the full plan of salvation. It is the key to understanding all of the doctrines of Christ. Thus, it comes as no surprise then, that in the temple we learn that this very earth is "the telestial kingdom" as is spoken of in the scriptures and that John 5:29 is exactly correct in there only being two outcomes. As part of our journey to this being justified unto eternal life we must pass through the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms, learning line upon line, until we come to that great judgment, at the veil, where we either are allowed into the celestial kingdom to receive eternal life or we are not let in and are without the gates with the devil and his angels in perdition. If we go back and thus read the vision over again we then pick out several truths that werent seen before because of self imposed blinders. One of these truths we see is that part of the visuon of the current state of of some of the telestial individuals shown to Joseph are in fact sons of perdition. How could there be sons of perdition in heaven? Impossible! Thus we can see that the vision Joseph is seeing is this earth in its three stages and the participants in each of those phases. Towards the end of the vision it specifically again points out that there will be two groups- those caught up into the cloud as part of the church of the firstborn and those who remain. Of particular interest here is that its speaking of the telestial beings at that point and explaining that of all Gods children it is this specific group that do not attain membership into the church of the firstborn. The church of the firstborn includes all the celestial kingdom inhabitants and no others.

Hearkening back to this separation of these two groups then we can be asdured this doctrine is a principle of truth. Otherwise scriptures like these make no sense-

 

27 And the righteous shall be gathered on my right hand unto eternal life; and the wicked on my left hand will I be ashamed to own before the Father;
28 Wherefore I will say unto them—Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. (D&C 29:27-28)

 So, are these two scriptures true? Is it true that there are only two groups, the one on the right hand who are declared righteous and all to receive eternal life, while the remaining are declared wicked to be cast out, not part of Gods kingdom, into hell being the devil and his angels?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think both the temple doctrine and Joseph having his vision is true.

The point remains...how do you know that Joseph, being so apparently able to flounder in his interpretation of revelation, didn't mess up the temple ceremony?

[Rob Osborn]

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The point remains...how do you know that Joseph, being so apparently able to flounder in his interpretation of revelation, didn't mess up the temple ceremony?

Because, when you read the "Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith" you can see a change starting from 1832 up through his death in 1844 where his views had and were changing in regards to the plan of salvation. If one couples that with the progression of building temples and the endowment its rather easy to see that the endowment doctrine was that graduation of the plan of salvation being revealed in greater light and perfection. Even at Joseph Smiths death it was still not understood what and how eternal marriage and sealings were for. It wasnt until many years later that that part of receiving greater light had become graduated into a more perfect doctrine.

We must remember and acknowledge that many parts of our doctrine and ordinances have changed since 1832

Edited November 9, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[Vort]

[mordorbund]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I am greatly impressed with her form.

ETA: That's why I gave you a trophy as her proxy.

Edited November 9, 2017 by mordorbund

[Vort]

1 minute ago, mordorbund said:

I am greatly impressed with her form.

Note how deliberately she points her toes. There's just something about a girl like that that makes me trust her.

[Rob Osborn]

The sideshow eh?

[mordorbund]

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

Note how deliberately she points her toes. There's just something about a girl like that that makes me trust her.

And she has the proper "bounce" - not just with her pony tail, but also in her spine.

[zil]

I think her "costume" could have been better though.  And I have to confess a personal preference for buckskin horses.

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

That doesn't seem very nice if you are posting it in regards to Rob Osborn's discussion currently.  Is there a reason to post this, unless you are posting pictures of you and your family in reference to yourself in some way, in which case I have missed your connection to the discussion. 

Not sure why you'd post that picture of your family if that is so, or how that relates...but Rob had a very graceful response.

Edited November 10, 2017 by JohnsonJones
Computer crashed hard after hitting respond and I started typing...unsure if from the image or not?

[JohnsonJones]

On the topic at hand, the gospel in the LDS church is a wonderful thing.  In many instances, it leaves many things up to our interpretation.  In others, things are clarified from the pulpit or otherwise to ensure that we are not mistaken in the current understanding.  (Doctrine basically being our four standard works, which as per Joseph Fielding Smith can also be included to have modern revelation, but if something conflicts with what has come before [scripture being the baseline of our judging that] it is therefore not doctrine).

Now, I must admit, I do not share Rob Osborn's interpretation or understanding of the three kingdoms of heaven, but I am beginning to understand HOW he gets to the understanding and interpretation.

We already do believe some of the things he espouses, especially in regards to the Saints.  We, as the Saints do exist in a Telestial world, and when the Millenium comes, I think some have stated that it will become a Terrestrial world.  Whether that is or is not, I suppose is up to the individual interpretation.  After that, in regards for the Saints, we hope to go to a Celestial World and receive our exaltation. 

We all have an idea of how that may work, but as Nephi stated if he understood the Condescension of God, in short he said, I do not know the meaning of all things.  It is possible that though we understand the basics, we do not understand all that is to come or at least how it is to occur or work.

Admittedly, Rob Osborn's explanation does not parallel that of our modern interpretations of what Section 76 as per our gospel manuals or otherwise, but I do not see that his explanation would necessarily oppose what is written in Section 76 all on it's own with careful reading. 

What is clear to me is that Rob Osborn has a very defined idea of what it means, and I think that currently, nothing stated thus far is going to change that idea.  In that, I am trying to understand him and his ideas more and focus on what could be important.  I do not think I understand everything there is about his beliefs at this point, but I can strive to understand his approach. 

That would not necessarily be the miscellanea of the gospel, or things that will not be resolved between individuals, but more on the correct principles and ordinances...that of faith, repentance, Baptism, and the Holy Ghost as well as keeping all the commandments we have been given and hence enduring to the end.  It is probably far more important to focus on our common things than that which differs.

If wanting to point out differences between what I believe and what Rob Osborn believes on the topic however, I would probably utilize Gospel Principles and other fundamental explanations about our current modern interpretations of scriptures in relation to what a Majority of LDS Saints currently believe today.  It may be that his ideas are correct, but they are currently not shared by a majority of the church, and so to differentiate that it could be easier to make that clear by directly referencing various publications put out by the LDS church that make it abundantly clear what the majority currently believe on the topic.

With great respect to Rob.

Edited November 10, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

Of interest, our doctrines are found in our Four Standard Works, but if one wants what our current interpretations of our basic doctrines are as a church...this is probably a good start where they are summarized, but without having to read several hundred pages worth of material.

Basic Doctrines

Note, while this page is up today, the LDS website does change occasionally, so I cannot say whether it will be the same page tomorrow or in the future, but right now the link should work.

[Rob Osborn]

35 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

On the topic at hand, the gospel in the LDS church is a wonderful thing.  In many instances, it leaves many things up to our interpretation.  In others, things are clarified from the pulpit or otherwise to ensure that we are not mistaken in the current understanding.  (Doctrine basically being our four standard works, which as per Joseph Fielding Smith can also be included to have modern revelation, but if something conflicts with what has come before [scripture being the baseline of our judging that] it is therefore not doctrine).

Now, I must admit, I do share Rob Osborn's interpretation or understanding of the three kingdoms of heaven, but I am beginning to understand HOW he gets to the understanding and interpretation.

We already do believe some of the things he espouses, especially in regards to the Saints.  We, as the Saints do exist in a Telestial world, and when the Millenium comes, I think some have stated that it will become a Terrestrial world.  Whether that is or is not, I suppose is up to the individual interpretation.  After that, in regards for the Saints, we hope to go to a Celestial World and receive our exaltation. 

We all have an idea of how that may work, but as Nephi stated if he understood the Condescension of God, in short he said, I do not know the meaning of all things.  It is possible that though we understand the basics, we do not understand all that is to come or at least how it is to occur or work.

Admittedly, Rob Osborn's explanation does not parallel that of our modern interpretations of what Section 76 as per our gospel manuals or otherwise, but I do not see that his explanation would necessarily oppose what is written in Section 76 all on it's own with careful reading. 

What is clear to me is that Rob Osborn has a very defined idea of what it means, and I think that currently, nothing stated thus far is going to change that idea.  In that, I am trying to understand him and his ideas more and focus on what could be important.  I do not think I understand everything there is about his beliefs at this point, but I can strive to understand his approach. 

That would not necessarily be the miscellanea of the gospel, or things that will not be resolved between individuals, but more on the correct principles and ordinances...that of faith, repentance, Baptism, and the Holy Ghost as well as keeping all the commandments we have been given and hence enduring to the end.  It is probably far more important to focus on our common things than that which differs.

If wanting to point out differences between what I believe and what Rob Osborn believes on the topic however, I would probably utilize Gospel Principles and other fundamental explanations about our current modern interpretations of scriptures in relation to what a Majority of LDS Saints currently believe today.  It may be that his ideas are correct, but they are currently not shared by a majority of the church, and so to differentiate that it could be easier to make that clear by directly referencing various publications put out by the LDS church that make it abundantly clear what the majority currently believe on the topic.

With great respect to Rob.

Thanks JohnsonJones,

Its interesting that to me, some twenty years ago when I started actively trying to figure and understand these gospels issues out for myself, that my own paradigm has changed over the years, line upon line too. I have always felt that the principle and doctrine of salvation is true. My whole project started with defining words correctly and from there I realized there were some misleading and ill defined topics. Early on I came to my first conclusion that baptism was absolutely required to be saved from the eternal hell. That early paradigm still incorporated all three separate worlds of glory for the saved. But then, like falling dominos, none of it made much sense. Shortly thereafter I went to the temple and became endowed and learned that the plan taught in the temple was quite a bit different than what we learn in Sunday school. Needless to say, its taken many years of careful study to now come to what I now believe. But, and its important, I have never swayed from those correct founding principles of truth as taught by Christ. My eyes now see a world full of people who are all hoping for the same result- eternal life in Gods kingdom. They may not know it but truly, in the end, we only have two options- eternal life in Gods kingdom or to be cast aside into outer darkness! That truth is taught more than any other doctrine in all scripture throughout all dispensations. We cannot deviate from that principle of truth. All of the gospel, plan of salvation must fit in that simple yet stark paradigm. Its thus misleading and a disfavor to teach otherwise.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its thus misleading and a disfavor to teach otherwise.

Those darned misleading church materials.

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Those darned misleading church materials.

Aye

[Vort]

1 hour ago, zil said:

I have to confess a personal preference for buckskin horses.

Comes with the fountain pen personality, I think.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

27 And the righteous shall be gathered on my right hand unto eternal life; and the wicked on my left hand will I be ashamed to own before the Father;
28 Wherefore I will say unto them—Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. (D&C 29:27-28)

 So, are these two scriptures true? Is it true that there are only two groups, the one on the right hand who are declared righteous and all to receive eternal life, while the remaining are declared wicked to be cast out, not part of Gods kingdom, into hell being the devil and his angels?

I made a diagram. You rejected it because you're more interested in seeing it your way than you are in actually understanding and reconciling the "truth". You can claim your mortal reasoned interpretations of things constitute "truth" but your conclusion that our doctrine is wrong hold 0% water. Zip. Nil. None.

As much as I respect @JohnsonJones's idea of finding value in your ideas, the conclusion itself merits nothing except the stricture.

Whereas some took exception to my label of "hell", and from a certain point of view they have a point, if that top label in said diagram was replaced with the word "damnation" it's absolutely 100% correct. (Interestingly enough, your scripture above supports my thinking that "hell" means different things in different places in the scriptures)*. Anything short of exaltation, as you have pointed out, is clearly damnation. That damnation is only equivalent to outer darkness is where you go wildly astray. Believe what you will. Go start your own church if you want. Then you can establish doctrine however your brain sees fit. Stop trying to impose your false doctrine on the church though.

* Regarding different usage of the term, "hell" other than "outer darkness", clearly in phrases such as, "hell shall rage against thee", "And the devil shall gather together his armies; even the hosts of hell", "Which dark and blackening deeds are enough to make hell itself shudder", and "let earth and hell combine against you", are not referring to outer darkness or spirit prison. The instances are an example of how "hell" can mean something other than the narrow definition you and others seem to want to give it. "Hell" in and of itself is not actually a "doctrinal" term. There is not "doctrine" that specifies exactly what "hell" means in every case. It's a word that describes a place we don't even believe in at all...a lake of fire and brimstone burning for all eternity. It's usage is symbolic for a state of misery. Any state of misery can properly be called, at some level, "hell". As there is only one state of "a fulness of joy", then everywhere else, being at least to some degree less than that fullness, may be called "hell". But -- if we are determined to call only outer darkness or spirit prison hell, then it is plainly false to equate hell with any state of damnation.

[Rob Osborn]

24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I made a diagram. You rejected it because you're more interested in seeing it your way than you are in actually understanding and reconciling the "truth". You can claim your mortal reasoned interpretations of things constitute "truth" but your conclusion that our doctrine is wrong hold 0% water. Zip. Nil. None.

As much as I respect @JohnsonJones's idea of finding value in your ideas, the conclusion itself merits nothing except the stricture.

Whereas some took exception to my label of "hell", and from a certain point of view they have a point, if that top label in said diagram was replaced with the word "damnation" it's absolutely 100% correct. (Interestingly enough, your scripture above supports my thinking that "hell" means different things in different places in the scriptures)*. Anything short of exaltation, as you have pointed out, is clearly damnation. That damnation is only equivalent to outer darkness is where you go wildly astray. Believe what you will. Go start your own church if you want. Then you can establish doctrine however your brain sees fit. Stop trying to impose your false doctrine on the church though.

* Regarding different usage of the term, "hell" other than "outer darkness", clearly in phrases such as, "hell shall rage against thee", "And the devil shall gather together his armies; even the hosts of hell", "Which dark and blackening deeds are enough to make hell itself shudder", and "let earth and hell combine against you", are not referring to outer darkness or spirit prison. The instances are an example of how "hell" can mean something other than the narrow definition you and others seem to want to give it. "Hell" in and of itself is not actually a "doctrinal" term. There is not "doctrine" that specifies exactly what "hell" means in every case. It's a word that describes a place we don't even believe in at all...a lake of fire and brimstone burning for all eternity. It's usage is symbolic for a state of misery. Any state of misery can properly be called, at some level, "hell". As there is only one state of "a fulness of joy", then everywhere else, being at least to some degree less than that fullness, may be called "hell". But -- if we are determined to call only outer darkness or spirit prison hell, then it is plainly false to equate hell with any state of damnation.

I rejected your diagram because it has no scriptural support. I find it interesting that you have to modify the scriptures I quoted above to fit your belief. Its pretty easy to understand so I am wondering why the modification? What about it is wrong? Are there somehow some saved bodies on the left hand that are grouped with the devil and his angels going into everlasting fire? Tell me where the subpar fit into the verses I quoted who are neither righteous or wicked? Is there another hand? Is there a group Christ left out or forgot?

Edited November 10, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[The Folk Prophet]

50 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

 I find it interesting that you have to modify the scriptures I quoted above to fit your belief. Its pretty easy to understand so I am wondering why the modification? 

What on earth are you talking about?

[Rob Osborn]

Nevermind

Edited November 10, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

 

Still no clue.

[The Folk Prophet]

@Rob Osborn, I gotta say. Despite the fact that I consider some of your views egregiously wrong and feel compelled to call them out as false doctrine in the strongest language I can muster, you are one stand-up fellow!

I often (as you may have noticed) interact with others who, despite my great efforts to interact civilly, accuse me of being all sorts of nasty and horrible. But you, who actually might have a legitimate claim to my being nasty and horrible toward, never, ever sink to name calling or personal attacks.

You, my friend, are a good guy. (Despite the fact that I believe some of your conclusions are whack-a-doodle.)

As I have had this put into perspective recently in some of my interactions with others who have not treated me so well, I think I owe you an apology.

Don't misunderstand me. When you claim that the church's doctrine is wrong I will continue in my hearty defense...but.... I will make efforts to improve the means by which I do it and, at the very least, put the same effort into being civil with you as I do with those who, despite those efforts, express themselves with the vile characteristics they accuse me of having. And, even if I fail sometimes, in my over zealous interests in defending the gospel, I still want you to know how much I respect your level demeanor, even if I do not respect all of your conclusions.

Edited November 10, 2017 by The Folk Prophet