Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

If we just take the standard definition the church gives 

... ... ...

We can critique this and show this is incorrect based on principle. 

... ... ...

I think what should be done is to take the current dictionary definition that mainstream Christianity accepts as it relates to theology and see if it holds up. And, it does just that. 

 

Rob, are you really proposing that we reject the words of the current prophets and apostles in favor of what mainstream Christianity accepts? 

 

Are you really proposing that our modern apostles don't have as deep an understanding of the truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as you? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long has this back and forth gone on with ZERO progress?  Rob doesn't appear to be anywhere closer to forsaking the applicable beliefs and definitions he has, which to most of us are clearly contrary to the leadership of the Church.  Likewise, he has made no headway in convincing us that his definitions and beliefs are the most accurate and/or correct.
Image result for repetition meme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Colirio said:

 

Rob, are you really proposing that we reject the words of the current prophets and apostles in favor of what mainstream Christianity accepts? 

 

Are you really proposing that our modern apostles don't have as deep an understanding of the truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as you? 

 

What I am suggesting is that we read it with its proper understanding- how Joseph Smith intended it. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and wrote most of the revelations contained in the D&C and PoGP with the best words as was understood in his day from the English language. The Book of Mormon especially contains specific meanings that the Lord wanted conveyed to us. Joseph Smith used words common to him in his day and from his schooling and upbringing which was largely protestent style. Parts of the BoM contain the actual teachings from the Saviors own lips in his instruction to the Nephites. That translation into the English language carried with it a specific meaning. Joseph Smith captured that beautifully. Over time, and well after his death, a general new understanding of the gospel started to emerge.  In that process scholarly apostles such as Bruce R. McConkie had ideas in regards to this new understanding but in so doing had to change the meaning of certain words like "damnation" which in turn changed the original meaning of the Book of Mormon.

Speaking as an advocate of Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith the original intent of scriptures like these-

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
            33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
            34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned. (3rd Nephi 11:32-34)

These scriptures are from Christ Himself. The intent of it means that he will save all that believe in him, the rest will be damned. Anyone familiar with the Book of Mormon knows that to be damned is to be sentenced to hell. 

Is defending Joseph Smith's original meaning wrong? Was the Book of Mormon teachings of Christ and his message to the Nephites wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, person0 said:

How long has this back and forth gone on with ZERO progress?  Rob doesn't appear to be anywhere closer to forsaking the applicable beliefs and definitions he has, which to most of us are clearly contrary to the leadership of the Church.  Likewise, he has made no headway in convincing us that his definitions and beliefs are the most accurate and/or correct.
Image result for repetition meme

Back at you, no one is able to produce a single indisputable scripture that refutes my argument. Sure, there plenty of commentary but no one has pulled up a single scripture that refutes my argument I am making. All I ask, if you say I am wrong, is to produce a scripture stating so. So far, no one has produced one. Ive produced quite a lot proving my case. Surely, if Im wrong, it should be easy to pull out a myriad of scriptures stating where Im wrong. So far, no one has been able to. Do you have a specific scripture that refutes my argument? Thats where the rubber meets the road.

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

If we just take the standard definition the church gives which is-

"The state of being stopped in one’s progress and denied access to the presence of God and His glory. Damnation exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and they will be damned to that extent"

We can critique this

You’ve been critiquing it without seeing the critique of the critique, quite evidently to a great degree and extent! You never address the critique, just waffle and repeat. If you can't or won't address the points I made here: Posted Friday at 04:40 PM  , all you post is simply is nothing more than waffling.

Note that “continuation” -- as in “continued from grace to grace,” “continue …until ye are perfected,” “continuation of the seeds,” “continuation of the lives,” “herein is the work of my Father continued [note what is said is being continued: His children's progress!],” etc. -- is synonymous with “progress.”

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The D&C actually strongly reinforces the definition of damnation as being condemned to hell.

See above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2018 at 2:40 PM, CV75 said:

 

The problem really is (for you), according to Webster (1828), damnation is a sentence or condemnation. Sentences and condemnations are the curtailment of one’s right and privilege to act independently (agency). The Lord explains that moral agency is how “every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity.” Where damnation and agency point toward the future state (not tense!) while in opposition to each other (see D&C 93:30-31), you should be able to see their respective connection with progress. Damnation is a stoppage of progress, agency is a catalyst of progress. Does that make sense? (Your comment on torment makes some sense in a very narrow way, but doesn't address the real problem about misunderstanding the fuller and deeper scope of what damnation means).

 

So, you would have to prove that anything above repentance and baptism yet short of becoming a god is damnation. The scriptures state otherwise that all one has to do to not be damned is repent and be baptized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, wheres your scriptures that refute my ideas? Im still waiting.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng

Quote

It is proposed that we sustain Thomas Spencer Monson as prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Henry Bennion Eyring as First Counselor in the First Presidency; and Dieter Friedrich Uchtdorf as Second Counselor in the First Presidency.

Those in favor may manifest it.

Those opposed, if any, may manifest it.

It is proposed that we sustain Russell Marion Nelson as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the following as members of that Quorum: Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, M. Russell Ballard, Robert D. Hales, Jeffrey R. Holland, David A. Bednar, Quentin L. Cook, D. Todd Christofferson, Neil L. Andersen, Ronald A. Rasband, Gary E. Stevenson, and Dale G. Renlund.

Those in favor, please manifest it.

Any opposed may so indicate.

It is proposed that we sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Jeremiah 1:4–5; Amos 3:7; John 15:16; D&C 1:37–38

Ezekiel 3:16–17; Ephesians 4:11–14

Ephesians 2:19–20

D&C 21:4–6

Abraham 3:22–23; Matthew 16:15–19;

https://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/music/library/childrens-songbook/follow-the-prophet?lang=eng

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, wheres your scriptures that refute my ideas? Im still waiting.

I believe my point is that the burden of proof is on you. You're the one who wants to change the entire church's understanding. You keep claiming you've given tons of evidence. That's a blatant, biased, bullcrap lie.

I'm still waiting for you to give me a scripture that proves your point(s). I've seen nothing but a bunch of head-in-the-sand interpretations and "I've thought this through and so it must be right" nonsense, and "this word means what I say it means and not what you say it means because I say so" garbage.

I, for one, could care less about proving the teachings of the church to you. They are what they are and they are pretty straighforward. You've determined you don't believe them and that's you're smarter than everyone and must be right. Well, believe what you will. Your salvation and/or damnation is between you and God. But if you want to convince others that you're right and the church is wrong, then it's not us who need to provide "proof". The teachings of the church are what they are, and that is sufficient for me. You can reject them all you want, but your so-called proof holds about as much water as the Jehovah's Witness's "proof" did when I was in high school or the Baptist's "proof" did when I was on my mission, on any other of the thousands of denominations out there who are so confident that they're just as smart as you and they have the "correct" interpretation of the scriptures, because they know what the words "really" mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, do modern prophets refute the Book of Mormon and Christ's testimony contained therein?

They refute YOUR interpretation(s) of the Book of Mormon and Christ's testimony contained therein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How so?

 

Faith that is incomplete or in something that is not true.  Thus, it brings us back to the original concept I attempted to put across - that ignorance (thinking something that is not true – whether by knowledge or faith) will exclude someone from exercising agency or acting according to their will.

It would seem logical that faith would then be the more dangerous – in that someone would think something to be true based on a lack of (incomplete) knowledge would be an obvious mistake in the light of truth and thus easy to discard, correct and have a change of mind and heart, whereas faith set in false assumptions is impossible to overcome – even in the full light of truth obvious to everyone that bases their understanding and action in knowledge.

In short, as long as faith is a vehicle to increased knowledge of the truth it will support agency and will – but if someone is deceived (ignorant – which would seem more likely with faith based conclusions) I am convinced that their will and agency is a non-factor in in their choices and thus will have a high probability of regret and change with increased knowledge. 

Thank you for your interest and responses.  However, I am left without any indication of your heart or mind in the matter or how you come to your understanding of things or if you have even attempted a conclusion.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I believe my point is that the burden of proof is on you. You're the one who wants to change the entire church's understanding. You keep claiming you've given tons of evidence. That's a blatant, biased, bullcrap lie.

I'm still waiting for you to give me a scripture that proves your point(s). I've seen nothing but a bunch of head-in-the-sand interpretations and "I've thought this through and so it must be right" nonsense, and "this word means what I say it means and not what you say it means because I say so" garbage.

I, for one, could care less about proving the teachings of the church to you. They are what they are and they are pretty straighforward. You've determined you don't believe them and that's you're smarter than everyone and must be right. Well, believe what you will. Your salvation and/or damnation is between you and God. But if you want to convince others that you're right and the church is wrong, then it's not us who need to provide "proof". The teachings of the church are what they are, and that is sufficient for me. You can reject them all you want, but your so-called proof holds about as much water as the Jehovah's Witness's "proof" did when I was in high school or the Baptist's "proof" did when I was on my mission, on any other of the thousands of denominations out there who are so confident that they're just as smart as you and they have the "correct" interpretation of the scriptures, because they know what the words "really" mean.

Okay, perhaps we can go through one by one on some scriptures. Perhaps you can show me my blatant errors. Lets start with this one-

"11 If they be good, to the resurrection of endless life and happiness; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of endless damnation, being delivered up to the devil, who hath subjected them, which is damnation" (Mosiah 16:11)

This scripture defines being delivered up to the devil as damnation. Is this Book of Mormon teaching incorrect?

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It would seem logical that faith would then be the more dangerous

It would "seem". But God is wiser than us, fortunately. So I'll trust in His word on the matter.

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Thank you for your interest and responses.  However, I am left without any indication of your heart or mind in the matter or how you come to your understanding of things or if you have even attempted a conclusion.

My heart and mind on the matter isn't complicated. God sent us to earth to TRY OUR FAITH. That is the crux of the matter. That is the point of our agency. We will exercise faith in Him or we won't.

No, I can't draw a final conclusion beyond that. Neither can you. We do not understand the eternities well enough.

But what I CAN do is trust God, trust His Word, and believe Him when He teaches us that we must live by faith, exercise our faith, and that all things are made possible by faith. I believe Him when He tells us that we are saved by faith in His name. I believe Him when he says he gave us our agency to choose between having faith in Him or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It would "seem". But God is wiser than us, fortunately. So I'll trust in His word on the matter.

My heart and mind on the matter isn't complicated. God sent us to earth to TRY OUR FAITH. That is the crux of the matter. That is the point of our agency. We will exercise faith in Him or we won't.

No, I can't draw a final conclusion beyond that. Neither can you. We do not understand the eternities well enough.

But what I CAN do is trust God, trust His Word, and believe Him when He teaches us that we must live by faith, exercise our faith, and that all things are made possible by faith. I believe Him when He tells us that we are saved by faith in His name. I believe Him when he says he gave us our agency to choose between having faith in Him or not.

 

My question is much like Joseph Smith's in the Lectures on Faith - That is, how can someone have faith in G-d without any knowledge of him?

Plus, according to Alma – as we experiment with faith our knowledge increases.  Have you not experienced this?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Okay, perhaps we can go through one by one on some scriptures.

You won't prove the living prophets and apostles wrong no matter how clever you get. I don't of course, have to get clever, because I agree with the living prophets and apostles. But I'll try and explain this to you one more time anyhow......

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

"11 If they be good, to the resurrection of endless life and happiness; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of endless damnation, being delivered up to the devil, who hath subjected them, which is damnation" (Mosiah 16:11)

This scripture defines being delivered up to the devil as damnation. Is this Book of Mormon teaching incorrect?

Let me explain the meaning of the word "is" to you, English master. It's a word that implies that one thing has the state, quality, identity, nature, role, etc., of another thing. No one believes or claims that damnation does not have as one of its meaning being delivered to and subjection to the devil.

If I say, "a dog is man's best friend", did I just define the word "dog". Did I just give the one and only true and pure definition whereby all others may be discarded. So "a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell..." cannot be true if one accepts the idiom "man's best friend"?

It does not, in any regard, specify an explicit ONE AND ONLY meaning, and your implication that it does is deceptive and underhanded.

Moreover, every meaning that has been presented by others and myself that you are discarding EASILY fits within this. Not returning to the presence of our Father to dwell with Him where we gain eternal lives is the same thing as being delivered up to the devil. Failing to gain eternal progression is the opposite of gaining eternal progression. Our not gaining eternal progression is the goal of the devil. He wants us damned because the meaning of the word is to be restricted from something and he wants us restricted from eternal progression.

Legally this meaning is factual. Condemnation and damnation are/were legal terms that mean restriction. Restriction from freedom by condemnation/damnation to jail or restricted from life by condemnation/damnation to death or restricted from a country by condemnation/damnation to banishment. It's not a hard stretch to interpret that to equal "stopped from". If you are condemned/damned to die, then you are restricted/stopped from living. If you are condemned/damned to jail, then you are restricted/stopped from walking around freely. If you are condemned/damned to hell then you are restricted/stopped from heaven.

The correlation of the two words, dammed and damned, despite the fact that they do not share an etymological source is not that big of a deal. But it's easy to move past and still clearly understand the overall meaning(s) of the words in the teachings of the church and how the scriptures are meant to be understood as WE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BY OUR PROPHETS AND APOSTLES and manuals, and lessons, and conference talks, and etc., again and again repeatedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Traveler said:

My question is much like Joseph Smith's in the Lectures on Faith - That is, how can someone have faith in G-d without any knowledge of him?

But you seem to be implying we must have ALL knowledge of Him before we can exercise agency. Faith does require knowledge, but only some knowledge. That's the whole idea here. We live behind the veil so we have to live by faith because we see through a glass darkly. We can exercise agency with "some" knowledge by faith. That "some" knowledge is provided freely, and to those where it isn't, there is no accountability.

26 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Plus, according to Alma – as we experiment with faith our knowledge increases.  Have you not experienced this?

A weird question. Relates to the discussion...how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You won't prove the living prophets and apostles wrong no matter how clever you get. I don't of course, have to get clever, because I agree with the living prophets and apostles. But I'll try and explain this to you one more time anyhow......

Let me explain the meaning of the word "is" to you, English master. It's a word that implies that one thing has the state, quality, identity, nature, role, etc., of another thing. No one believes or claims that damnation does not have as one of its meaning being delivered to and subjection to the devil.

If I say, "a dog is man's best friend", did I just define the word "dog". Did I just give the one and only true and pure definition whereby all others may be discarded. So "a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell..." cannot be true if one accepts the idiom "man's best friend"?

It does not, in any regard, specify an explicit ONE AND ONLY meaning, and your implication that it does is deceptive and underhanded.

Moreover, every meaning that has been presented by others and myself that you are discarding EASILY fits within this. Not returning to the presence of our Father to dwell with Him where we gain eternal lives is the same thing as being delivered up to the devil. Failing to gain eternal progression is the opposite of gaining eternal progression. Our not gaining eternal progression is the goal of the devil. He wants us damned because the meaning of the word is to be restricted from something and he wants us restricted from eternal progression.

Legally this meaning is factual. Condemnation and damnation are/were legal terms that mean restriction. Restriction from freedom by condemnation/damnation to jail or restricted from life by condemnation/damnation to death or restricted from a country by condemnation/damnation to banishment. It's not a hard stretch to interpret that to equal "stopped from". If you are condemned/damned to die, then you are restricted/stopped from living. If you are condemned/damned to jail, then you are restricted/stopped from walking around freely. If you are condemned/damned to hell then you are restricted/stopped from heaven.

The correlation of the two words, dammed and damned, despite the fact that they do not share an etymological source is not that big of a deal. But it's easy to move past and still clearly understand the overall meaning(s) of the words in the teachings of the church and how the scriptures are meant to be understood as WE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BY OUR PROPHETS AND APOSTLES and manuals, and lessons, and conference talks, and etc., again and again repeatedly.

Hum...so, I was able to use a scripture to show how damnation is defined. But you didnt show me with scripture where you are right. Can you, using the scriptures, show where not gaining the highest degree within the celestial glory is damnation? I know it doesnt exist but who knows, maybe I missed one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...so, I was able to use a scripture to show how damnation is defined. But you didnt show me with scripture where you are right. Can you, using the scriptures, show where not gaining the highest degree within the celestial glory is damnation? I know it doesnt exist but who knows, maybe I missed one.

I'm pretty sure @The Folk Prophet already did.

D&C 132:4

Quote

For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant [of marriage]; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

I'm pretty sure @The Folk Prophet already did.

D&C 132:4

 

And I already showed earlier that the meaning of this scripture is only understood by reading all the scriptures around it. It clearly states that if you enter into this covenant and then disobey you will be damned. That damnation is explained that upon ones death he will be delivered up unto the devil in hell until the day of his redemption. That is the exact meaning of being damned as explained in section 132.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

And I already showed earlier that the meaning of this scripture is only understood by reading all the scriptures around it. It clearly states that if you enter into this covenant and then disobey you will be damned. That damnation is explained that upon ones death he will be delivered up unto the devil in hell until the day of his redemption. That is the exact meaning of being damned as explained in section 132.

So.... salvation through damnation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share