Adam and Eve and Evolution

[brlenox]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

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.

It would be an interesting debate for you and I to work through your first observation.  You have to leap over so many references of prophetic origin that the real issue would appear that you have discounted voices of value in support of self - affirmation.  However, what you believe as stated would not be apostasy in my mind simply an error in reading and in understanding  but perhaps how you dismiss the prophets and apostles might be a point of concern. Pending actual examples, I am just going to leave this alone for now.

I understand where you are coming from on the scriptural sources for the Adam / God considerations and again cannot class that as apostate.  I have studied the Adam God material for years but still do not feel I have the level of  understanding necessary to discount any of it or to approve wholeheartedly.  I do believe Brigham Young  deserves the right to be heard out at a time when he can explain his precise intent - I think few are qualified to speak for him. 

Edited December 22, 2017 by brlenox

[brlenox]

5 hours ago, zlllch said:

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. 

 

First, I would like to say how much I appreciate that you can talk head on in a frank discussion of strong disagreement and maintain your composure and not take this to a personal level.  That has become so rare and my first experience on this forum with a couple of other blokes left me wondering if that was possible.

I knew the Elder McConkie quote was going to be the big derailer as for whatever reason people have such trouble with his and his Father in Laws precise and clear definitions.  However, if I can I would like to disabuse you of the issues in Mormon Doctrine and the cause of the uproar. 

There were two apostles appointed to do the review of Mormon doctrine - Mark E. Peterson who tended to not be supportive and Marion G. Romney who tended to be supportive. One of the big issues with the text as determined by Elder Peterson was the copious references to the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.  Elder McConkie was years ahead of his time in believing that the RLDS had not made any changes to Joseph Smiths efforts.  However, as the RLDS held the original manuscript the church had no way to validate the text that the RLDS printed.  The vast majority of the "errors" counted in Mormon Doctrine are any and all references to the Joseph Smith Translation of the bible.  Today, now that through the efforts of Matthews we have actually seen the original manuscript and found the RLDS were true to Joseph's translation.  Thus the huge number touted as errors in the text during the review completely evaporate now that we have sanctioned the use of the Joseph Smith Translation.   This is off of the top of my head, from a memory in decline ... so subject to verification this is my recollection.  ( Note a google search has located a source that speaks to this issue with far more exactness than my memory.  It is a better defense over all and provides insight concerning the nature of the disagreement and how it was overcome.  http://ndbf.net/002k/ is the location.

As to the other part of your response I would like to look at that tomorrow after I get whatever sleep I can muster this evening. And again I appreciate your congenial spirit in light of my very direct challenge to your material.  I still think you are very far off base in your interpretation but your heart is right on in how you portray your maturity in discussion.  

[zlllch]

2 hours ago, brlenox said:

First, I would like to say how much I appreciate that you can talk head on in a frank discussion of strong disagreement and maintain your composure and not take this to a personal level.  That has become so rare and my first experience on this forum with a couple of other blokes left me wondering if that was possible.

I knew the Elder McConkie quote was going to be the big derailer as for whatever reason people have such trouble with his and his Father in Laws precise and clear definitions.  However, if I can I would like to disabuse you of the issues in Mormon Doctrine and the cause of the uproar. 

There were two apostles appointed to do the review of Mormon doctrine - Mark E. Peterson who tended to not be supportive and Marion G. Romney who tended to be supportive. One of the big issues with the text as determined by Elder Peterson was the copious references to the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.  Elder McConkie was years ahead of his time in believing that the RLDS had not made any changes to Joseph Smiths efforts.  However, as the RLDS held the original manuscript the church had no way to validate the text that the RLDS printed.  The vast majority of the "errors" counted in Mormon Doctrine are any and all references to the Joseph Smith Translation of the bible.  Today, now that through the efforts of Matthews we have actually seen the original manuscript and found the RLDS were true to Joseph's translation.  Thus the huge number touted as errors in the text during the review completely evaporate now that we have sanctioned the use of the Joseph Smith Translation.   This is off of the top of my head, from a memory in decline ... so subject to verification this is my recollection.  ( Note a google search has located a source that speaks to this issue with far more exactness than my memory.  It is a better defense over all and provides insight concerning the nature of the disagreement and how it was overcome.  http://ndbf.net/002k/ is the location.

As to the other part of your response I would like to look at that tomorrow after I get whatever sleep I can muster this evening. And again I appreciate your congenial spirit in light of my very direct challenge to your material.  I still think you are very far off base in your interpretation but your heart is right on in how you portray your maturity in discussion.  

I too would like to thank you for your composure and civility. You've been very respectful, and I've enjoyed our discussion. Though we may disagree, that is no reason for any ill treatment of one another. Thanks again, and I'm going to ask you to bear with me for a while, and have an open mind as you read this post.

I want to try something a little different here. For a moment, let's forget about the controversial circumstances surrounding "Mormon Doctrine," and focus only on the quotes themselves (the ones from the first and second editions of "Mormon Doctrine"). They contradict each other. Either one could be more authoritative than the other depending on how you interpret the reasons behind the changes to "Mormon Doctrine." Is the first edition more authoritative because of it's use of the Joseph Smith Translation, or is the second edition more authoritative because it was revised to better reflect church doctrine and approved by the apostles to be reprinted? I can't see how the use of the Joseph Smith Translation even relates to this particular subject of the great and abominable church, but right now, in this post, we don't care about any of that. 

So here we have two statements, both created in some respect by high ranking leaders of the church, which seem to contradict each other. Which of the church leaders are right? How can we know? Can they really both be right? One of them must be wrong. And for me, that's ok because I am fine with the fact that church leaders make mistakes. But which one made the mistake? Which edition is correct? Let's forget about all that, and just focus on the statements themselves.

Let's read both of them side by side. Let's ponder them for a while, and weigh the possibilities that one or the other may or may not be correct. Think only about the logic of the statements themselves, not the situation in which they were given. Analyze them without bias. Which one feels more right? Which one speaks to your understanding of logic? Which one makes more sense? Which one is more harmonious with what you already know about the Gospel? I'm not trying to convert you to my point of view here, I just want you to take a real deep look at your own thoughts and feelings on the matter.

I think that as we do this, if we ask God to guide our understanding, if we do it humbly and with real intent, leaning not unto our own understanding, but trusting in the Lord with all our hearts, we can discover the truth for ourselves through the power of the Holy Ghost, for the Spirit of God will speak to our minds and our hearts, and manifest the truth unto us. 

I have done this, and I have come to my own conclusion, but it shouldn't matter to you which conclusion I came to, because you can come to your own conclusion. This situation here, with two contradictory statements made by church leaders, reminds me of the situation Joseph Smith was in when he first followed the admonition of James 1:5, that "if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." Joseph, "in the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions," often said to himself "what is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?"

Through the power of God, Joseph's question was answered, and he received wisdom directly from the source of all wisdom. It didn't come to him from any mortal man, but straight from God himself.  I am of the belief that God's promise in James 1:5 is extended to all, and if we ask of God with real intent, we can receive personal revelation straight from God himself, through the power of the Holy Ghost. All it requires is the humility to ask him, and that we lean not unto our own understanding so that we can accept his answer if it is contrary to our own understanding.

I hope you'll forgive me if I've over stepped my bounds here, but I have spoken my heart on the matter. I say these things not to try to convert you to my point of view, but to make light of the wonderful miracle of personal revelation. How amazing it is that God can reveal truth directly to us through the power of the Holy Ghost, without the need for another man to be our intermediary!

I know you're an intelligent and good person, and that what I've said here isn't new to you, but I'm tired of debating which church leader said this, and which church leader said that. Above all else, I believe what I believe about the definition of "the great and abominable church" not because of the statements of church leaders (although my beliefs are based on their statements), but because of the Spirit which confirms and testifies to me that what I believe is true. I feel it in my heart and in my mind, and I have truly spoken my heart on this subject, and I hope you'll forgive me if I am out of place, or have seemed presumptuous. Thank you for engaging in this dialogue with me, and I hope that what I've said can be of some worth to you.

[Rob Osborn]

8 hours ago, brlenox said:

It would be an interesting debate for you and I to work through your first observation.  You have to leap over so many references of prophetic origin that the real issue would appear that you have discounted voices of value in support of self - affirmation.  However, what you believe as stated would not be apostasy in my mind simply an error in reading and in understanding  but perhaps how you dismiss the prophets and apostles might be a point of concern. Pending actual examples, I am just going to leave this alone for now.

I understand where you are coming from on the scriptural sources for the Adam / God considerations and again cannot class that as apostate.  I have studied the Adam God material for years but still do not feel I have the level of  understanding necessary to discount any of it or to approve wholeheartedly.  I do believe Brigham Young  deserves the right to be heard out at a time when he can explain his precise intent - I think few are qualified to speak for him. 

If you want we can have a private conversation between us on the plan of salvation. Im not off in a strange path at all, its very compelling and is based on Joseph Smiths revelations.

[estradling75]

In the Doctrine and Covenants  section 43 we read

4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

7 For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

From this scripture it is very clear that for the Church the Teachings are going to come from the one appointed.  Other scriptures give us the Law of Witnesses and the commandment of the Quorums and Presidencies to be One.  Between these two scriptural ideas we get the path the Lord ordained for us to know what is of him.  Namely the teachings that come from the The First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 being united.

Anything less then this is at best speculative... and at worse deceptive teachings designed to lead one astray.

So now on to the subject matter of the thread.  On the subject matter of evolution the leaders of the church have not been united.  Individual leaders have had strong opinions on the subject but the history and current teaching of the church https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng  is that there God has not sent through the gate, that he has not ordained a clear and final answer on this subject.

Because of this we can have what ever Idea we want and still be in harmony with the church.  But if we take our Idea and declare that we know the truth and try to proclaim it to everyone well, everyone is commanded to "receive not the teachings"

On the other subject of the Three Degrees of Glory...  The First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 are united on what to be taught.  They have the missionaries teach it, they have in the manuals, they teach it themselves.  While there is room around the fringes for different possibilities the Core idea of final Judgement into Three Kingdom of Glory has passed through the gate, and is the teaching the Lord wants us to believe and learn.  While it is possible that the Lord can send greater light and knowledge that changes this, as of right now he has not done so.

This means that anyone teaching contrary to the Core idea of the Three kingdoms is not of God, and we are commanded in the scriptures NOT to receive them 

Edited December 22, 2017 by estradling75

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

If you want we can have a private conversation between us on the plan of salvation. Im not off in a strange path at all, its very compelling and is based on Joseph Smiths revelations.

 

Just as a point for all to ponder – In all my life I have never conversed with anyone that did not think that, whatever their belief, that it was G-d that inspired it.

 

The Traveler

Edited December 22, 2017 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

50 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Just as a point for all to ponder – In all my life I have never conversed with anyone that did not think that, whatever their belief, that it was G-d that inspired it.

 

The Traveler

And ?

[Rob Osborn]

57 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

In the Doctrine and Covenants  section 43 we read

4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

7 For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

From this scripture it is very clear that for the Church the Teachings are going to come from the one appointed.  Other scriptures give us the Law of Witnesses and the commandment of the Quorums and Presidencies to be One.  Between these two scriptural ideas we get the path the Lord ordained for us to know what is of him.  Namely the teachings that come from the The First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 being united.

Anything less then this is at best speculative... and at worse deceptive teachings designed to lead one astray.

So now on to the subject matter of the thread.  On the subject matter of evolution the leaders of the church have not been united.  Individual leaders have had strong opinions on the subject but the history and current teaching of the church https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng  is that there God has not sent through the gate, that he has not ordained a clear and final answer on this subject.

Because of this we can have what ever Idea we want and still be in harmony with the church.  But if we take our Idea and declare that we know the truth and try to proclaim it to everyone well, everyone is commanded to "receive not the teachings"

On the other subject of the Three Degrees of Glory...  The First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 are united on what to be taught.  They have the missionaries teach it, they have in the manuals, they teach it themselves.  While there is room around the fringes for different possibilities the Core idea of final Judgement into Three Kingdom of Glory has passed through the gate, and is the teaching the Lord wants us to believe and learn.  While it is possible that the Lord can send greater light and knowledge that changes this, as of right now he has not done so.

This means that anyone teaching contrary to the Core idea of the Three kingdoms is not of God, and we are commanded in the scriptures NOT to receive them 

So, what about those who teach contrary to the 1909 evolution statement. Should we NOT receive them?

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, what about those who teach contrary to the 1909 evolution statement. Should we NOT receive them?

The 1909 statement... or your very narrow interpretation there of?   Because many apostles have disagreed with your narrow interpretation of it while agreeing with 1909 statement.  And since the church's position is that there is no position.  Only those that try to declare that the church does have a position should not be received.  And all discussion should be regarded as speculative at best

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

The 1909 statement... or your very narrow interpretation there of?   Because many apostles have disagreed with your narrow interpretation of it while agreeing with 1909 statement.  And since the church's position is that there is no position.  Only those that try to declare that the church does have a position should not be received.  And all discussion should be regarded as speculative at best

So, when it says that it represents the churches doctrine we should disregard that?

BTW, I can put forth my "opinion" which is completely different than teaching it in the church as doctrine. Please dont accuse me of the latter.

Were all in here giving "opinions". 

[estradling75]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

So, when it says that it represents the churches doctrine we should disregard that?

BTW, I can put forth my "opinion" which is completely different than teaching it in the church as doctrine. Please dont accuse me of the latter.

Were all in here giving "opinions". 

When I can link to you what the Living Prophets and the 12 are currently declaring (which I did and will do again here https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng

Then the past should be treated as the past and not presented as the course of action that God really meant or what the church members should really be doing now.  While you and everyone else can have whatever "opinion" you want on the subject, but the minute you declare someone else wrong and you are contrary to the current teachings you have stepped beyond just having an opinion.

 

[Vort]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

When I can link to you what the Living Prophets and the 12 are currently declaring (which I did and will do again here https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng

This doesn't count, because it disagrees with Rob's beliefs. It is of no more moment than, say, Section 76 of the "Doctrine" and "Covenants".

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

This doesn't count, because it disagrees with Rob's beliefs. It is of no more moment than, say, Section 76 of the "Doctrine" and "Covenants".

It is very possible that will be his opinion on the matter.

For anyone and everyone else who might see this that link makes it clear in the very first line that

Quote

The Church has no official position on the theory of evolution. Organic evolution, or changes to species’ inherited traits over time, is a matter for scientific study. Nothing has been revealed concerning evolution.

Then it links the 1909 declaration as additional references.  Clearly God's chosen leaders for the church , in unity, see no conflict between the current and prior statements. 

[Rob Osborn]

32 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

When I can link to you what the Living Prophets and the 12 are currently declaring (which I did and will do again here https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng

Then the past should be treated as the past and not presented as the course of action that God really meant or what the church members should really be doing now.  While you and everyone else can have whatever "opinion" you want on the subject, but the minute you declare someone else wrong and you are contrary to the current teachings you have stepped beyond just having an opinion.

 

Well, you are wrong. 

BTW, where are the signatures of the 12 and first presidency on that 2016 article as thats your definition.

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, you are wrong. 

BTW, where are the signatures of the 12 and first presidency on that 2016 article as thats your definition.

And you are not received.   As for the signatures... the scriptures don't call for signatures... they call for unity...  It has been published in several format for over a year now and not in some rinky dink backwoods operation as an official statement of the churches position... that is a testament to their unity..

[estradling75]

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, you are wrong.

Prove it...  Cite the scriptures where I got how the Lord instructed this church to be run and the members to accept or reject them wrong?  Should be really easy to prove from the scriptures that the Lord did not set up the church the way I described. 

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

And you are not received.   As for the signatures... the scriptures don't call for signatures... they call for unity...  It has been published in several format for over a year now and not in some rinky dink backwoods operation as an official statement of the churches position... that is a testament to their unity..

So, when it references the 1909 article are we to disregard it?

[Rob Osborn]

Just now, estradling75 said:

Prove it...  Cite the scriptures where I got how the Lord instructed this church to be run and the members to accept or reject them wrong?  Should be really easy to prove from the scriptures that the Lord did not set up the church the way I described. 

to clarify my point. You are wrong about discussing opinions vs. doctrine.

[estradling75]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

So, when it references the 1909 article are we to disregard it?

Not at all.  We are to accept that the 1909 article supports the current position and if we think otherwise we have the wrong understanding of what the 1909 is really saying

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

to clarify my point. You are wrong about discussing opinions vs. doctrine.

The Doctrine and Covenants  disagrees with you let me post it again

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

7 For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

 

[brlenox]

9 hours ago, zlllch said:

I too would like to thank you for your composure and civility. You've been very respectful, and I've enjoyed our discussion. Though we may disagree, that is no reason for any ill treatment of one another. Thanks again, and I'm going to ask you to bear with me for a while, and have an open mind as you read this post.

I want to try something a little different here. For a moment, let's forget about the controversial circumstances surrounding "Mormon Doctrine," and focus only on the quotes themselves (the ones from the first and second editions of "Mormon Doctrine"). They contradict each other. Either one could be more authoritative than the other depending on how you interpret the reasons behind the changes to "Mormon Doctrine." Is the first edition more authoritative because of it's use of the Joseph Smith Translation, or is the second edition more authoritative because it was revised to better reflect church doctrine and approved by the apostles to be reprinted? I can't see how the use of the Joseph Smith Translation even relates to this particular subject of the great and abominable church, but right now, in this post, we don't care about any of that. 

So here we have two statements, both created in some respect by high ranking leaders of the church, which seem to contradict each other. Which of the church leaders are right? How can we know? Can they really both be right? One of them must be wrong. And for me, that's ok because I am fine with the fact that church leaders make mistakes. But which one made the mistake? Which edition is correct? Let's forget about all that, and just focus on the statements themselves.

Let's read both of them side by side. Let's ponder them for a while, and weigh the possibilities that one or the other may or may not be correct. Think only about the logic of the statements themselves, not the situation in which they were given. Analyze them without bias. Which one feels more right? Which one speaks to your understanding of logic? Which one makes more sense? Which one is more harmonious with what you already know about the Gospel? I'm not trying to convert you to my point of view here, I just want you to take a real deep look at your own thoughts and feelings on the matter.

I think that as we do this, if we ask God to guide our understanding, if we do it humbly and with real intent, leaning not unto our own understanding, but trusting in the Lord with all our hearts, we can discover the truth for ourselves through the power of the Holy Ghost, for the Spirit of God will speak to our minds and our hearts, and manifest the truth unto us. 

I have done this, and I have come to my own conclusion, but it shouldn't matter to you which conclusion I came to, because you can come to your own conclusion. This situation here, with two contradictory statements made by church leaders, reminds me of the situation Joseph Smith was in when he first followed the admonition of James 1:5, that "if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." Joseph, "in the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions," often said to himself "what is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?"

Through the power of God, Joseph's question was answered, and he received wisdom directly from the source of all wisdom. It didn't come to him from any mortal man, but straight from God himself.  I am of the belief that God's promise in James 1:5 is extended to all, and if we ask of God with real intent, we can receive personal revelation straight from God himself, through the power of the Holy Ghost. All it requires is the humility to ask him, and that we lean not unto our own understanding so that we can accept his answer if it is contrary to our own understanding.

I hope you'll forgive me if I've over stepped my bounds here, but I have spoken my heart on the matter. I say these things not to try to convert you to my point of view, but to make light of the wonderful miracle of personal revelation. How amazing it is that God can reveal truth directly to us through the power of the Holy Ghost, without the need for another man to be our intermediary!

I know you're an intelligent and good person, and that what I've said here isn't new to you, but I'm tired of debating which church leader said this, and which church leader said that. Above all else, I believe what I believe about the definition of "the great and abominable church" not because of the statements of church leaders (although my beliefs are based on their statements), but because of the Spirit which confirms and testifies to me that what I believe is true. I feel it in my heart and in my mind, and I have truly spoken my heart on this subject, and I hope you'll forgive me if I am out of place, or have seemed presumptuous. Thank you for engaging in this dialogue with me, and I hope that what I've said can be of some worth to you.

This is tragic...I had a response well underway and then lost the whole of it in a cyber blink...very frustrating.  Anyway I have some things I have to get to so will not try to recreate at this time.  One thing Is, If you do not mind I would appreciate if you copied the exact two quotes that you want to analyze in to a post as I did not provide two Mormon Doctrine quotes in my list and I presume you must be referencing something from the link I provided or elsewhere.

As far as over stepping bounds...I have none. That's part of my problem with some folks is I am hoping they can be as candid with me as I am with them and maintain decorum in genuine and thoughtful conversation.  If you can handle me saying something is completely wrong and illustrating why I think so with legitimate sources  then I can handle twice that.  I am impossible to offend. 

We do have some fundamental differences in how we view apostles and prophets and how we evaluate their positions on things which completely alters our learning styles.  That's what I was writing up when my PC betrayed me.  I can't get back to it at the moment but later when I get your quotes I will work it in as it is very germane to our process of evaluation.

Thanks much...

[brlenox]

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

If you want we can have a private conversation between us on the plan of salvation. Im not off in a strange path at all, its very compelling and is based on Joseph Smiths revelations.

I would appreciate that opportunity.

[brlenox]

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

In the Doctrine and Covenants  section 43 we read

4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

7 For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

From this scripture it is very clear that for the Church the Teachings are going to come from the one appointed.  Other scriptures give us the Law of Witnesses and the commandment of the Quorums and Presidencies to be One.  Between these two scriptural ideas we get the path the Lord ordained for us to know what is of him.  Namely the teachings that come from the The First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 being united.

Anything less then this is at best speculative... and at worse deceptive teachings designed to lead one astray.

So now on to the subject matter of the thread.  On the subject matter of evolution the leaders of the church have not been united.  Individual leaders have had strong opinions on the subject but the history and current teaching of the church https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng  is that there God has not sent through the gate, that he has not ordained a clear and final answer on this subject.

Because of this we can have what ever Idea we want and still be in harmony with the church.  But if we take our Idea and declare that we know the truth and try to proclaim it to everyone well, everyone is commanded to "receive not the teachings"

On the other subject of the Three Degrees of Glory...  The First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 are united on what to be taught.  They have the missionaries teach it, they have in the manuals, they teach it themselves.  While there is room around the fringes for different possibilities the Core idea of final Judgement into Three Kingdom of Glory has passed through the gate, and is the teaching the Lord wants us to believe and learn.  While it is possible that the Lord can send greater light and knowledge that changes this, as of right now he has not done so.

This means that anyone teaching contrary to the Core idea of the Three kingdoms is not of God, and we are commanded in the scriptures NOT to receive them 

Just my thoughts for what it is worth.  I wish it was all so easy as this makes it look. I believe it could be if it were not for an electronic age where sometimes we share private understandings when we might better be restrained. 

I often reflect on Joseph Smith sitting in a conference and remarking that he would love to teach the saints of the greater mysteries and other truths but he knew that they could not abide what he could teach.  It becomes obvious to me that there is within the realm of our attainment information that one my grasp and another may not.  Over the years, I have sought specifically to be taught some of the things that I think Joseph understood but could not speak to.  In certain areas, such as understanding the atonement, I believe that has taken place.  I have seen how people respond to simple clarifications of more precise understanding which one would think are simply benign insight adjustments and they go through the roof.  Try to explain that paying the price for our sins was not a price exacted by our sinful behavior but was something way beyond that and people get all guishy faced on saying over and over that the scriptures say he paid the price for our sins.  Yes, yes they do but how that was accomplished they can't get to because their fear of learning gets in the way.

What is important to me is that usually when we get private interpretations, what reveals them more than anything is not always the actual doctrine under discussion but can it be circumscribed into the one great whole.  The checks and balances of adjacent gospel principles ofttimes is all that has to be explored to excise an errant thought.  D&C 19 is very instructive in this principle.  Now again I realize I am commenting on some material that I do not have experience with.  You folks do and perhaps it has been vetted and a consensus reached of error.  Perhaps in time I will run into this material but I suspect it will not be so shocking if I can track through valid witnesses of God, and scripture how the individual reached their conclusions.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

The Doctrine and Covenants  disagrees with you let me post it again

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

7 For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

 

Like I said, I offer up an opinion. Its different. Im done discussing it, I wish not to have contention. Have a Merry Christmas.

[Rob Osborn]

32 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I would appreciate that opportunity.

Pm me and I would love to discuss my opinions with you.