Adam and Eve and Evolution

[zlllch]

43 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I don't really think there is much need for discussion on these points.  I understand completely with what you are saying, but I also think you understand the scriptural references that define my position of emphasis as it relates to your position of emphasis.  One could argue that if God's plan embraces a central perspective of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man that it matters very little how close a religious body comes to any manifest charitable behaviors as part of their existence.  If salvific ordinances is the only distinction of significance and "that's it" but it is after all referred to as a plan of salvation then it might bear greater recognition that salvific ordinances are the required means by which the Lord achieves the ultimate desires he has for his children of salvation in eternal life. That those who partake of the ordinances of salvation are required to be charitable is not the same as saying that those who become charitable achieve the benefits of the ordinances of salvation.  This is my work and my glory defined as "to bring about the charitable natures of godliness in the children of God" might sound a bit lofty but it leaves us all short of his glory.

If you are a purest, and I believe you to be so, it surprises me to see you slide a little to the left to what I would believe to be a personal interpretation or expectation of the gospel which is perhaps excessively influenced by a socially informed graciousness, while stepping over 1 Nephi 14:10:

If in the process of association with your small Methodist church any one of them benefits from the association in your charitable efforts and sees the rest of the light that hopefully shines from your efforts then, then there is joy to be had in your efforts if they find their way to those salvific ordinances. 

Moroni 7 

6 For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.

12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.

If people of other faiths do not have the chance to fully understand and accept the saving ordinances in this life, they will in the next. All will have an equal opportunity to understand and accept baptism. Who are we to judge another person's eternal salvation based on whether or not they are members of our church? 

I think much more can be gleaned by a person's desires and real intent. In the end, God "will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts." (D&C 137:9) They will need baptism to be saved. "Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved." (2 Nephi 10:24) But everyone will have the opportunity to accept that grace, and we are unfit to judge whether or not they have had that opportunity yet.

Edited December 21, 2017 by zlllch

[brlenox]

4 minutes ago, zlllch said:

Moroni 7 

6 For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.

12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.

If people of other faiths do not have the chance to fully understand and accept the saving ordinances in this life, they will in the next. All will have an equal opportunity to understand and accept baptism. Who are we to judge another person's eternal salvation based on whether or not they are members of our church? 

I think much more can be gleaned by a person's desires and real intent. In the end, God "will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts." (D&C 137:9) They will need baptism to be saved. "Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved." (2 Nephi 10:24) But everyone will have the opportunity to accept that grace, and we are unfit to judge whether or not they have had that opportunity yet. 

These are fine sentiments and I concur but you have missed the point of my commentary which was initiated on the Brigham Young story which has perfectly informed you against the underlying motivations that appear in your defenses. 

[zlllch]

2 minutes ago, brlenox said:

These are fine sentiments and I concur but you have missed the point of my commentary which was initiated on the Brigham Young story which has perfectly informed you against the underlying motivations that appear in your defenses. 

I was mostly trying to refute the idea that other churches are of the devil. If they accomplish good, what source could that good flow from other than God?

[brlenox]

4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Speaking from the opposite side of the specific issue being debated here, I agree with this observation. It is really interesting how this debate highlights thoughts, ideas, and philosophies around how we read, interpret, and understand scripture and other statements from prophets and apostles. I don't claim any particular insights into The Right Way (TM) to read and understand the revelations, but it is interesting how differently different people read and understand them.

Another interesting statement. I tend to want to agree with you, but I have found it interesting how often any kind of disagreement with prophets and apostles gets treated by other members as some kind of disloyalty or "road to apostasy."

Probably a topic for its own thread, but I do find these asides very interesting.

 

23 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I believe we can be loyal to the prophets even though we may disagree with areas of the gospel we feel are needing attention to fix errors. In fact, my own testimony has actually increased knowing that our understanding of the doctrine of Jesus Christ is becoming more perfect. I am also pleased to see the general attitude of the church leadership continue to change and respect other religions as partners in the cause of Christ. In the early church it was almost seen that other Christian religions were from the devil. That has greatly changed. We now respect and partner with other churches to bring about Christs gospel.

For me the issue is the presumption that God needs us to define "areas of the gospel we feel are needing attention to fix errors." Where the apostles and prophets take the hit for being the instigators of needed change, I find that to be a false supposition.  The lowest denomination is self.  If we want to change something it needs to be there.  If the Lord sees our efforts and considers the example we manifest of significance he will put you somewhere to expand on that standard.

Here on this thread we have talked much about the evolutionary possibilities that many feel portend to the development of man.  Perhaps the more vital ones are the evolutionary possibilities that speak to the nature of a living organism of a different type.  The gospel, the church, the membership, the leadership, the scriptures all are integral elements of the body of the Kingdom of God. I personally feel a life force that ebbs and flows and magnifies and digresses just as we see in any organism. Most of that relates to the nature of the membership aspect of the body of the kingdom. Perhaps you missed the Brigham story above but he says several thing of profound insight.  One is this comment here:

Quote

He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose.

We see the same principle approached in Alma 12:9 where the Lord talks about taking truths or the understanding of truths away from his children because they harden their hearts, but rewarding with understanding those that do not harden their hearts.  If in time they should become sufficiently hardened then they are led down to destruction.  

What would this look like if it were not just scripture speak but the body of the church or a large portion of it were becoming hardened in their hearts.  You would need to notify no one as the natural forces that come to bear would find the body of the church diminished in their understandings of the mysteries of God. Thus we see after a period of social indoctrination of a generation or so a growing body of members that judge the leadership of the church on a Babylonian context of inclusion of all peoples for the attitudes towards the LGBTQW community.  And even in the midst of a manifest effort to preach that these are sinful children of God no different than the rest of us and to be loved and taught as any other, a mystery will be diminished in understanding and many will claim a fast moving victory is imminent in "areas of the gospel we feel are needing attention to fix errors."

As Brigham points out it is in response to the attitudes of the body of the saints that the organism of the church is moved upon by the forces of God. We have seen of the past few years some areas of expansion and of late we have seen many of the mysteries taken from the body...and most don't even notice but herald and applaud responses designed to reduce auto rejection of the gospel from social conditioning so that we do not offend before someone even has a chance to consider upon the gospels other messages pertaining to salvation.  This is all part and parcel of the evolving nature of a living organization.

I could go on and on in developing this commentary but I suspect it will not merit that much attention.    

[brlenox]

27 minutes ago, zlllch said:

I was mostly trying to refute the idea that other churches are of the devil. If they accomplish good, what source could that good flow from other than God?

However, have you refuted anything? 1 Nephi is very clear in the delineation it provides as to what is the church of the devil.  It is a true observation and part of scripture.  We can't just ignore what it says because we prefer to find another verse that we wish to interpret according to some other paradigm.  Your verses from Moroni are equally true therefore they cannot mean anything that robs 1 Nephi 14 of its truth. They may and do speak to a different truth that needs to be respected and put into the picture in such a way to preserve the truth of other verses that are also true. We shouldn't impugn the integrity of one scripture by citing another as if the second set of verse is superior in truth than the first.

Honestly look at the objective you are trying to accomplish.  Is it not to negate the clarity of 1 Nephi by obscuring it with another scripture that is better suited to your interpretations of the better way?

Let's try an experiment, go back to 1 Nephi 14 and tell me what it says to you.  Don't try to find someway around it and don't feel the need to defend any of the discussion that we are having. Just tell me what possibilities can be derived from 1 Nephi 14 that isn't influenced by this discussion here...then we can go back to your verses and integrate them to our overall picture.

Edited December 21, 2017 by brlenox

[zlllch]

48 minutes ago, brlenox said:

However, have you refuted anything? 1 Nephi is very clear in the delineation it provides as to what is the church of the devil.  It is a true observation and art of scripture.  We can't just ignore what it says because we prefer to find another verse that we wish to interpret according to some other paradigm.  Your verses are equally true therefore they cannot mean anything that robs 1 Nephi 14 of its truth. They may and do speak to a different truth that needs to be respected and put into the picture in such a way to preserve the truth of other verses that are also true. 

Honestly look at the objective you are trying to accomplish.  Is it not to negate the clarity of 1 Nephi by obscuring it with another scripture that is better suited to your interpretations of the better way?

Let's try an experiment, go back to 1 Nephi 14 and tell me what it says to you.  Don't try to find someway around it and don't feel the need to defend any of the discussion that we are having. Just tell me what possibilities can be derived from 1 Nephi 14 that isn't influenced by this discussion here..

1 Nephi 14 says that there are two churches only, the church of God, and the church of the devil. It all depends on how you define "the church of God" and "the church of the devil." I don't think "the church of God" or "the church of the devil" refers to any one organization or religion. "The church of God" to me is defined as anything that is good, because all that is good is of God. "The church of the devil" to me is defined as anything that is evil, because all that is evil is of the devil.

Have other religions and churches been influenced by "the church of the devil?" Yes. Many plain and precious things were removed from the Bible because of "the church of the devil's" influence. But other religions have also been influenced by "the church of God." How can a church be of the devil, and at the same time promote the good works of it's membership? All that is good is of God. Good has no other source. As far as a church promotes good, it is "the church of God," and as far as it promotes evil, it is "the church of the devil." Most churches and religions are a mixture of both, and we can judge how much they are influenced by God, or by the devil, by their fruits. "Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven." (3 Nephi 14:20, 21)

"Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil." (D&C 18:20) I understand that to mean: do not contend against other churches and religions, because they are doing the best they can with the truth that they have; only contend against "the church of the devil," or in other words, evil. We have seen this in the recent efforts of the LDS church to cooperate with other religions to do good and accomplish God's work. We don't contend with them, we unite with them in good works because all that is good is of God.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by zlllch

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I am very sorry to hear this. I had hoped that you would be more responsible with your private beliefs than to convince those you love most of them. That will lead to no good end.

This response precisely shows why communicating in person makes all the difference. We are all going to heaven, its all good.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I think I understand why you dislike the phrase "empirical evidence".  There is interesting empirical evidence of ancient achievements - but it does not appear to be feasible to include such things in our discussion.  BTW - by definition, empirical evidence is not and cannot be biased.  And yet there are some that will stand in the bright sun of noon day – and declare it night.

 

The Traveler

Those who use "empirical evidence" in their language are almost always speaking of scientific matters that deal with the origins of humanity and life. Those two subjects hardly ever have any truly "empirical evidence". Thus, why its biased.

[Vort]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

We are all going to heaven, its all good.

In 2 Nephi 28:7-9, Nephi teaches his people (and us) about "false and vain and foolish doctrines" such as you propound.

Quote

Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us. And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

Alma 1:4 uses the example of the fantastically wicked Nehor as an illustration of the eternal danger of this doctrine you preach.

Quote

And [Nehor] also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.

You would be wise to avoid teaching such damnable doctrines, even if you yourself want to embrace them. Certainly teaching them to those you love best goes against your own best interests.

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

In 2 Nephi 28:7-9, Nephi teaches his people (and us) about "false and vain and foolish doctrines" such as you propound.

Alma 1:4 uses the example of the fantastically wicked Nehor as an illustration of the eternal danger of this doctrine you preach.

You would be wise to avoid teaching such damnable doctrines, even if you yourself want to embrace them. Certainly teaching them to those you love best goes against your own best interests.

You dont pay attention, I teach the opposite. Dont equate me with Nehor, we are at opposite ends of doctrine teaching.

[Vort]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

You dont pay attention, I teach the opposite. Dont equate me with Nehor, we are at opposite ends of doctrine teaching.

Please help me out, Rob. How is your teaching:

"We are all going to heaven, its all good"

the opposite of Nehor's teaching?

"[A]ll mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life"

Can you clear that up for me? Because they look pretty much identical, especially given your past history of expressing this idea in public.

[brlenox]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Please help me out, Rob. How is your teaching:

"We are all going to heaven, its all good"

the opposite of Nehor's teaching?

"[A]ll mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life"

Can you clear that up for me? Because they look pretty much identical, especially given your past history of expressing this idea in public.

Are we sure he is not just pulling your chain? At least I hope so.  I do not remember much of his material over the years and this is recent exposure for me now but I didn't get Denver Snuffer out of what I read...until now...

Edited December 21, 2017 by brlenox

[zil]

27 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Are we sure he is not just pulling your chain?

If he is, he's got a lot of persistence and determination to spend so much time (and it's a lot of time) trying to convince people of something he doesn't believe.  Indeed, he's been doing it so long and so stubbornly that if he doesn't believe it, he runs the risk of being like Korihor and coming to believe his own lies.  What's more, if he continues in success, and does so repeating the things he's said here (about understanding Joseph Smith's vision better than JS or any prophet / apostle since), well, he might be in for Church discipline at some point.

[brlenox]

9 minutes ago, zlllch said:

1 Nephi 14 says that there are two churches only, the church of God, and the church of the devil. It all depends on how you define "the church of God" and "the church of the devil." I don't think "the church of God" or "the church of the devil" refers to any one organization or religion. "The church of God" to me is defined as anything that is good, because all that is good is of God. "The church of the devil" to me is defined as anything that is evil, because all that is evil is of the devil. Have other religions and churches been influenced by "the church of the devil?" Yes. Many plain and precious things were removed from the Bible because of "the church of the devil's" influence. But other religions have also been influenced by "the church of God." How can a church be of the devil, and at the same time promote the good works of it's membership? All that is good is of God. Good has no other source. As far as a church promotes good, it is "the church of God," and as far as it promotes evil, it is "the church of the devil." Most churches and religions are a mixture of both, and we can judge how much they are influenced by God or the devil by their fruits. "Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven." (3 Nephi 14:20, 21)

"Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil." (D&C 18:20) I understand that to mean: do not contend against other churches and religions, because they are doing the best they can with the truth that they have; only contend against "the church of the devil," or in other words, evil. We have seen this in the recent efforts of the LDS church to cooperate with other religions to do good and accomplish God's work. We don't contend with them, we unite with them in good works because all that is good is of God.

Beautifully done.  I really like the answer. I disagree with it but you have raised several associations that give this a feel of reasonableness and might cause one to reconsider their stance.  As Aggrippa "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." ...but not quite.

I do appreciate your willingness here and I do not want to be perceived as disparaging your observations.  They really are compelling, you have a capacity for intelligent and persuasive presentation of your ideas. But I feel like you are conforming to a standard of definition that is influenced by an excessive priority for generosity and kindness as a measurement of imbalanced superiority.

What I am going to do is show you how come I believe this.  First, I am careful with certain types of observations - It is as you say all about how we define the church of God and the church of the devil. However, for such a critical definition should we rely upon personal talent in locution or should we build a set of sources that might inform our own prejudices so that we do not fall prey the tutelage of an era or period of time in social instruction.  Your whole premise falls upon defining the Church of the Devil and the Church of God.  If I was going to build a definition I would consider observations such as these:

Quote

This is the Church of Jesus Christ. There are churches of men all over the land and they have great cathedrals, synagogues, and other houses of worship running into the hundreds of millions of dollars. They are churches of men. They teach the doctrines of men, combined with the philosophies and ethics and other ideas and ideals that men have partly developed and partly found in sacred places and interpreted for themselves” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, pg.421).

  

 

Quote

 

1.) “What is the church of the devil in our day, and where is the seat of her power? …It is all of the systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that perverted the pure and perfect gospel …It is communism; it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it is modern Christianity in all its parts” (McConkie, Bruce R., The Millennial Messiah, pp.54-55).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

2.) "I was answered that I must join none of them (Christian Churches), for they were all wrong...that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight" (Joseph Smith History 1:19).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

3.) When asked “Will all be damned but Mormons?” Smith replied, “Yes, and a great portion of them unless they repent and work righteousness” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 119).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

4.) "...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels." (The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

5.) “To say that Satan sits in the place of God in Christianity after the time of the Apostles is not to say that all that is in it is satanic…Still, ‘the power of God unto salvation’ (Rom. 1:16) is absent from all but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which the Lord himself has proclaimed to be ‘the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth (D&C 1:30). Satan’s goal of hindering many of God’s children from returning to their Father’s glory is thus realized.” (BYU Professor Kent P. Jackson, “Early Signs of the Apostasy,” Ensign, December 1984, p. 9)

 

If this was my own personal study I would have pages of every quote, every scripture, every anecdotal story I could find that spoke to the subject I was researching because I do not care what I believe at the moment before I do my research I simply want to know the truth. However, I don't want to tax anyone more than I normally do so let's just examine these 5 references. 

If I put it in simplest terms there is a pretty clear definition from Elder McConkie, Christ, Joseph Smith, and Elder Jackson.  It contains elements of what you say but it puts into perspective that even though there may be some good in these other organizations it does not alter their final summation as the church of the devil. It should also be clear as to what might constitute the church of God - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints seems the only one that can fit that bill according to these 5 sources.

I stop here as I do have tendency to go on and on but I think this is adequate to make the point.

[brlenox]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

If he is, he's got a lot of persistence and determination to spend so much time (and it's a lot of time) trying to convince people of something he doesn't believe.  Indeed, he's been doing it so long and so stubbornly that if he doesn't believe it, he runs the risk of being like Korihor and coming to believe his own lies.  What's more, if he continues in success, and does so repeating the things he's said here (about understanding Joseph Smith's vision better than JS or any prophet / apostle since), well, he might be in for Church discipline at some point.

How tragic. At this point I would not of supposed it to be so.  But upon these cautions I shall observe more closely.  It is clear he is knowledgeable and I appreciate people who go to the lengths required to be classed as such.  I also understand the pitfalls that lead those of intellect away from the gospel.

 

Thanks for your insight.

Edited December 21, 2017 by brlenox

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I find it interesting that I can say its my opinion that our view of the plan of salvation has flaws and people call me on the road to apostacy and yet others say that the 1909 statement is wrong and everyones fine with mocking God by not attributing our race as His offspring. I find it rather disturbing that people call me apostate for saying baptism is required in order to be saved from the eternal hell and yet they are fine saying past prophets were wrong in stating our physical bodies are the literal offspring of God.

Although I agree with you, I would venture to say that expressing the view of "the plan of salvation has flaws" in comparison with a different interpretation (even when it seems pretty clear as to what was said) is different.

The first is saying the prophets (the Church) are teaching a flawed understanding of the plan of salvation. In comparison with, this is my opinion on what has been revealed in scripture. The first sentence is implying the prophets (the Church) are leading us astray -- which isn't true. The second simply saying, "This is my personal interpretation on what has been revealed. I understand some people may disagree, but that is my thoughts on the matter." The second doesn't direct any comment toward the leaders nor the Church. The first though can be interpreted as apostacy.

In relation to the 1909 statement, people are providing a different interpretation -- an interpretation I would disagree with -- they are not coming out and saying that Joseph F. Smith and his two counselors were wrong. If they are, then yes they are -- in that principle and teaching -- in a state of apostacy also.

To have an opinion, is not apostacy. To come out and say a prophetic teaching is flawed, or wrong, or that the Church is wrong is a state of apostacy. We have plenty of evidence in our modern day of people who are struggling with their testimony, or leaving the Church, which only confirms the first sign of apostacy is judging incorrectly the leaders of the Church.

I have never heard anyone stating it is apostacy to say people require baptism to be saved. This is evident from scripture and baptism for the dead. Now if someone is saying children under 8 need baptism, well the Book of Mormon is clear on the subject and doesn't need my assistance.

The last portion, is an interpretation of scripture, and they are saying they disagree with your interpretation. This is fine and OK, when interpretation, personal interpretation, of doctrine is given. I have never read any scripture or prophetic words that say our physical bodies are the literal offspring of God. What scriptures are you referring to? My physical body is the product of my mom and dad. Now if we say, that God is the creator of what made my physical body, then I would agree. We are the offspring of God, our spirits mandate that. Our physical body though, not familiar with any scripture that highlights this.

[brlenox]

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I find it interesting that I can say its my opinion that our view of the plan of salvation has flaws and people call me on the road to apostacy and yet others say that the 1909 statement is wrong and everyones fine with mocking God by not attributing our race as His offspring. I find it rather disturbing that people call me apostate for saying baptism is required in order to be saved from the eternal hell and yet they are fine saying past prophets were wrong in stating our physical bodies are the literal offspring of God.

Is there somewhere on this forum where you elucidate on " our view of the plan of salvation has flaws" and also the concept of our physical bodies being literal offspring of God.  I would like to understand what you are actually saying as opposed to trying to grasp any meaning from these two sound bites.

Edited December 22, 2017 by brlenox

[zlllch]

6 hours ago, brlenox said:

Beautifully done.  I really like the answer. I disagree with it but you have raised several associations that give this a feel of reasonableness and might cause one to reconsider their stance.  As Aggrippa "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." ...but not quite.

I do appreciate your willingness here and I do not want to be perceived as disparaging your observations.  They really are compelling, you have a capacity for intelligent and persuasive presentation of your ideas. But I feel like you are conforming to a standard of definition that is influenced by an excessive priority for generosity and kindness as a measurement of imbalanced superiority.

What I am going to do is show you how come I believe this.  First, I am careful with certain types of observations - It is as you say all about how we define the church of God and the church of the devil. However, for such a critical definition should we rely upon personal talent in locution or should we build a set of sources that might inform our own prejudices so that we do not fall prey the tutelage of an era or period of time in social instruction.  Your whole premise falls upon defining the Church of the Devil and the Church of God.  If I was going to build a definition I would consider observations such as these:

  

 

If this was my own personal study I would have pages of every quote, every scripture, every anecdotal story I could find that spoke to the subject I was researching because I do not care what I believe at the moment before I do my research I simply want to know the truth. However, I don't want to tax anyone more than I normally do so let's just examine these 5 references. 

If I put it in simplest terms there is a pretty clear definition from Elder McConkie, Christ, Joseph Smith, and Elder Jackson.  It contains elements of what you say but it puts into perspective that even though there may be some good in these other organizations it does not alter their final summation as the church of the devil. It should also be clear as to what might constitute the church of God - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints seems the only one that can fit that bill according to these 5 sources.

I stop here as I do have tendency to go on and on but I think this is adequate to make the point.

I like your answer as well, and I have to say, I'm not too upset about being accused of having "an excessive priority for generosity and kindness" haha. 

I understand where you're coming from here, and I agree with a few of the points you made, but I disagree with your conclusion and I'll explain why.

It has to do with the quotes you cited, but mostly one in particular. I like the one from Spencer W. Kimball, that one I agree with fully. The one from Joseph Smith History I think is mostly referring to whatever churches were prevalent in the area Joseph lived at the time, and specifically those churches. The fruits of those churches were likely no good at all, and that's why they were "an abomination in [God's] sight." They were very influenced by my definition for "the church of the devil" (evil).

Your third quote I think understands "Mormons" as those who have been baptized, and in this case it would be correct. If a person is not baptized, they can't be saved, and even if they are baptized, if they don't repent, they can't be saved. But, all will have the opportunity to accept baptism either in this life or the next. Those who accept it and are baptized will become "Mormons." All else will be damned. There are billions of people alive today that will never have the opportunity to accept baptism. Are they damned because they weren't "Mormons?" No, because they will have the opportunity to become "Mormons" in the next life by accepting baptism.

I like your fifth quote, and can understand why you have reached your conclusion based on what it says. Although, I think there is a distinction between all churches being "of the devil" or "the church of the devil" and merely being influenced by the devil to a certain degree. I stand by my previous statement that "as far as a church promotes good, it is 'the church of God,' and as far as it promotes evil, it is 'the church of the devil.' "

I don't know the history or context of the fourth quote so I'm not going to address it at this time.

The quote by Bruce R. McConkie is the reason I disagree with your conclusion. Here's why:

Bruce R. McConkie is the author of a book called "Mormon Doctrine." The first edition of this book contained enough errors for President David O. McKay to say that it was "not approved as an authoritative book," and should not be republished. That edition of "Mormon Doctrine" contained this statement: "It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization."

Eventually a second edition of "Mormon Doctrine" was released, and the above statement was removed. In it's place was this statement, which subsequent church leaders have closely adhered to as the authoritative definition for "the great and abominable church" or "the church of the devil." It reads: "The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature — whether political, philosophical, educational, economic social, fraternal, civic, or religious — which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God."

It is from this definition that I derive my previous explanation. For a church to be "the church of the devil" it has to be "designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God." Are all modern churches and religions except the LDS church designed to lead men away from God? I would argue that no, they are not. I think for the most part, modern churches and religions are designed to lead men towards God, and towards his laws, at least as much as their limited amount of knowledge will allow them to. They are not perfect in this because they don't have the authority of the priesthood or the truth of the restored Gospel, but they are doing the best that they can with what they have. And if an organization doesn't lead to God specifically, many lead towards good works, which are of God. Are there modern churches and religions which are designed to lead men away from God? Sure. And we can know them by their fruits. But to assume that all modern churches and religions (save the LDS church) are specifically designed to lead men away from God and his laws, and into the captivity of the devil, is a gross exaggeration in my opinion. 

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by zlllch
"not approved as an authoritative book" was not a declaration from the First Presidency, it was a statement made by President David O. McKay in a phone call to Joseph Fielding Smith

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Here are a few considerations to think about – strictly from a scientific point of view.

. Evolution is not all “random chance”.  Man has formed symbiotic relationships with many life forms from protozoa to highly evolved complex plants and animals that changes the natural or wild course of evolution – in the past we have called some of these relationships “domestications”.   Humans are not the only organisms to follow such evolutionary modification paths but humans are the most complex intelligent life form so involved.

. We are about to enter a new phase of evolution where human intelligence plays a direct role in staging fast and significant evolution with cloning, genetic engineering and intelligently introducing new species or reintroducing same or modified extinct species and also the introduction of artificial intelligence.  

. Besides bio evolution; since the domestication of fire man has been involved directly in the evolution of matter.  Already there are claims that man is changing climate and with the introduction of nuclear fusion and fission man is dependently altering evolution.

. Already there are advances in “artificial intelligence” that will change the evolution of intelligence and what can be manipulated through intelligence.  This feedback evolutionary track is already being considered and worried about – you can Google artificial intelligent singularity.

. It has long been believed that anything that “CAN” happen can be made to happen or rehappen through intelligent engineering and design.   

All this is basically what I have been implying and is in essence what most think G-d is and is capable of doing anyway.  Religious theologians have long argued that such “thinking” negates the need for G-d and have fought such notions from their inceptions – but science keeps taking steps that are getting us closer to realizing our actual potential.  But for me – especially from a scientific point of view – if we are to survive as a species not only must we evolve in what we all identify as scientifically – but we must also evolve religiously.  

I believe the Gospel of Jesus targeted intelligent religious evolution in projecting that we become “Born Again” and “New Creatures”.  The definition of evolution is “Change”.  I believe that such evolution is targeted to even change our thinking or “Thoughts”.  “For my thoughts are not your thought neither are my ways your ways”.  But there is a great deal of “religious” resistance (opposition) to evolution – especially evolution of what we call religion.  I believe such resistance began as a war in the pre-existence.  For me I find the LDS thinking the most advanced and capable of moving mankind forward in all aspects of understanding.  The only means to bring the truths science and religion together intelligently in the full light of truth.  But change is not without resistance and has never been possible without opposition as an existing possibility – even from the best and brightest among us.

 

The Traveler

I appreciate these sentiments. I think truth is truth, whether it is arrived at scientifically or religiously/spiritually. The only point of reconciliation I see between the two approaches is recognition of and submission to the Source of truth, and that will never be obtained through scientific means. Only through Jesus Christ are all things reconciled, and reconciled only to Him according to His standard of truth.

Some say Alma 32 is a scientific method, but it is really the eternal, spiritual principle -- the faith and knowledge dynamic that is driven by will (desire) and choice -- which inspires the scientific method.

An observation about your list of scientific advancements: we are on the verge of establishing life forms that do not die, immortal in every practical respect, except that something (or someone) can still eat them or squish them or dispose of them, or change them into something else entirely. We can also change the genome of individuals directly, but this does cannot drive their spiritual rebirth (which sounds like the adversary's plan--designer gods!).

[Vort]

1 hour ago, zlllch said:

The first edition of this book [Mormon Doctrine] contained enough errors for the First Presidency to declare that it was "not approved as an authoritative book," and should not be republished.

I believe this statement is mistaken on at least two counts.

First: As far as I know, the First Presidency did not "declare that [the book Mormon Doctrine] was 'not approved as an authoritative book'." I disbelieve that ever happened, though I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong. I can see no reason the First Presidency would ever do such a thing. McConkie himself so declared in the preface. It should be obvious to any Latter-day Saint that a book, even one written by a Seventy (which was Elder McConkie's position when Mormon Doctrine was originally published), is not "authoritative" in proclaiming doctrine. Why on earth would the First Presidency go around proclaiming this book and that book as not being "authoritative", when no book of the sort is "authoritative"?

Second: My understanding is that the First Presidency did not declare that Mormon Doctrine "should not be republished". Rather, according to Greg Prince -- someone I personally characterize as an anti-Mormon, and in any case hardly a faithful or even an unbiased source -- President McKay opined that the book should not go to a second printing without certain changes being made. As I recall, that specifically included the identification of the Roman Catholic Church as Nephi's "great and abominable whore" and a laundry list of other, mostly fairly minor, matters.

People took exception to the seemingly dictatorial tone of Mormon Doctrine as much as they did to any specific teachings therein, especially from the second edition on. As far as I can tell, this is still the case.

In my opinion, most Latter-day Saints familiar with the book probably agree that Elder McConkie overreached in naming his encyclopedic work "Mormon Doctrine". But presumptuous or not, the title accurately reflects the majority of the content of the book, at least as things were understood in the Church at the time of its publication. Given how influential the book has been on at least two generations of General Authorities and other leaders, I personally think it would be worthwhile to spend less time finding fault with Mormon Doctrine -- a favorite pastime of anti-Mormons, fringe Mormons, and self-styled intellectual Mormons -- and more time analyzing its contents to gain insight into scriptural teachings.

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

Please help me out, Rob. How is your teaching:

"We are all going to heaven, its all good"

the opposite of Nehor's teaching?

"[A]ll mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life"

Can you clear that up for me? Because they look pretty much identical, especially given your past history of expressing this idea in public.

Its all about the context. When I said "we" I was referring to that part of my family in whom i have shared my beliefs with.

You of all people should know that my understanding of who makes it to heaven is identical to Book of Mormon teachings where only those who repent and are baptised are saved.

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, brlenox said:

Is there somewhere on this forum where you elucidate on " our view of the plan of salvation has flaws" and also the concept of our physical bodies being literal offspring of God.  I would like to understand what you are actually saying as opposed to trying to grasp any meaning from these two sound bites.

Long story short- I believe, like the Book of Mormon, that there is one heaven for all the saved go to while the rest go into hell. I do not believe in the three world model of heaven, doesnt make sense and creates lots of contradictions. 

As for Adam, its quite clear in reading the geneologies of the bible that Adams father is God.

[zlllch]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

First: As far as I know, the First Presidency did not "declare that [the book Mormon Doctrine] was 'not approved as an authoritative book'." I disbelieve that ever happened, though I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong. I can see no reason the First Presidency would ever do such a thing. McConkie himself so declared in the preface. It should be obvious to any Latter-day Saint that a book, even one written by a Seventy (which was Elder McConkie's position when Mormon Doctrine was originally published), is not "authoritative" in proclaiming doctrine. Why on earth would the First Presidency go around proclaiming this book and that book as not being "authoritative", when no book of the sort is "authoritative"?

Second: My understanding is that the First Presidency did not declare that Mormon Doctrine "should not be republished". Rather, according to Greg Prince -- someone I personally characterize as an anti-Mormon, and in any case hardly a faithful or even an unbiased source -- President McKay opined that the book should not go to a second printing without certain changes being made. As I recall, that specifically included the identification of the Roman Catholic Church as Nephi's "great and abominable whore" and a laundry list of other, mostly fairly minor, matters.

President McKay in a phone call to Joesph Fielding Smith regarding the book:

" 'Now, Brother Smith, [Brother McConkie] is a General Authority, and we do not want to give him a public rebuke that would be embarrassing to him and lessen his influence with the members of the Church, so we shall speak to the Twelve at our meeting in the temple tomorrow, and tell them that Brother McConkie's book is not approved as an authoritative book, and that it should not be republished, even if the errors... are corrected.' Brother Smith agreed with this suggestion to report to the Twelve, and said, 'That is the best thing to do.' " -- Horne, Dennis B. (2000). Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights From His Life & Teachings. Eborn Books.

From President McKay's office notes:

"We [the First Presidency of the church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, 'Mormon Doctrine' recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition." -- Paul, Erich Robert (1992). Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology. University of Illinois Press

Eventually though, it was revised and republished. 

"On July 5, 1966, President McKay invited Elder McConkie into his office and gave approval for the book to be reprinted if appropriate changes were made and approved. Elder Spencer W. Kimball [of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] was assigned to be Elder McConkie's mentor in making those changes .... My father told me that President McKay had so directed him. In addition to that, I am in possession of handwritten papers by my father affirming that direction." -- McConkie, Joseph Fielding (2003). The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son.

One of these changes was the one I cited in my previous post. I was wrong in characterizing the statement that 'Mormon Doctrine' "is not approved as an authoritative book" as a declaration from the First Presidency, but President McKay is still the source of that statement. I will revise my post to reflect that.

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by zlllch

[wenglund]

14 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I have dreams and visions also. But my existance isnt any different than ancient people. Things like the creation, the fall, the global flood, etc, all have symbolisms but the reality is they are also historical events.

I get the sense that we are talking past each other. I will take responsibility for that since I tend to think way outside the box--often out in left field.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[brlenox]

.

Edited December 22, 2017 by brlenox