Am I understanding this right?

[Telemantros]

I see. The views that systematic theology is worthless (even that there can never be a systematic theology in principle)are beginning to make sense given your views of open canon and the prophet. I also believe that I know understand your views of salvation. I very much disagree (for another thread sometime), but at least I'm understanding your views, which is helpful. Thanks.

Tele

Edited October 15, 2018 by Telemantros

[anatess2]

On 10/13/2018 at 3:17 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Forgive me, but I’m not sure what “justified” really means here.  We just aren’t used to speaking/thinking in those terms.  We think of our relationship with God in very much of a parent-child context.  How would you engage me if I asked you when your kids will be finally justified in your eyes?  Would you point to the moment your kids were potty trained?  When they learn to talk?  To walk?  To hug?  To read?  When they graduate from middle school, or high school?  

To me “salvation” is a process, a conversation, an education; with God continually teaching and encouraging and calling us to do better, and with us sometimes walking, sometimes running, sometimes falling—but hopefully always moving forward to answer His calls.  And as @Jane_Doe says, it’s never really over.  

If you’re asking when we are at a point where we will never fall from grace—the answer revolves around an LDS term called “having your calling and election made sure”, receiving the “more sure word of prophecy”, or receiving the “second comforter”.  Those phrases all refer to the same thing:  a time when Jesus Christ Himself appears to you and promises that your salvation is assured.  That may occur in this life, or it may not happen until the resurrection.  

"Justified' in Christendom is that action of cleansing/removing of sins and making the soul righteous/perfected.  How one is justified is a point of contention between the Catholics and the Protestants... usually ends up in works vs grace arguments.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Telemantros said:

I see. The views that systematic theology is worthless (even that there can never be a systematic theology in principle)are beginning to make sense given your views of open canon and the prophet. I also believe that I know understand your views of salvation. I very much disagree (for another thread sometime), but at least I'm understanding your views, which is helpful. Thanks.

Tele

Tele, in addition to this, the difference in our understanding of the ousia of God juxtaposed with the ousia of Man also puts a totally different import to the topic of salvation.  In the rest of Christendom, mankind is saved and he becomes like God.  In LDS belief, mankind is saved (from spiritual death - the end of a soul's progression) and continues on to exaltation to literally become one with God.  This is considered a great blasphemy in Christian circles which makes them deny us the Christian label.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Telemantros said:

I see. The views that systematic theology is worthless (even that there can never be a systematic theology in principle)are beginning to make sense given your views of open canon and the prophet. I also believe that I know understand your views of salvation. I very much disagree (for another thread sometime), but at least I'm understanding your views, which is helpful. Thanks.

Tele

Key words highlighted.  I wouldn't go so far as saying it is "worthless".  But it is certainly worth ... less than what you might consider it.

We're given revelation to guide us and sometimes give specifics.  But there is no way that all the intents and wisdom of God can be contained in a single book.  Or even a collection of books.  Instead, we seek revelation from the Holy Ghost to guide us in our understanding and application of the overarching principles provided in scripture both ancient and modern, including the most recent counsel by living prophets.

In so doing, it is only natural for human beings to try to make sense of it in our own minds and thus explain it and understand it better for ourselves.  Additionally, we need to have some sort of logical way of teaching this to others.  So, there ends up being the practice of epitemology via exegesis as a matter of course.  But we always proceed down that path knowing that it is just our best guess and the best way we can understand and explain it to ourselves and others.  It is not considered "revelation".  As such, those conclusions and interpretations are always hold less authority than the revealed word of God.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Guest

[mordorbund]

21 hours ago, theplains said:

According to the Gospel Principles manual, it mentioned that heavenly parents attained their fullness of joy.  Has the LDS Church
offered any new information as to whom atoned for their sins so they could eventually achieve exaltation?

Thanks,
Jim

Not since the last time you asked.

Jim, how do you keep the women in your life from getting pregnant by the Holy Spirit? Is there some sort of holy contraception that they use? Do you ban them from being moved upon by the Spirit? Or are their menstruations sufficient to repel the Spirit for a month?

Also, has Biblical Christianity shared any new information about God the Father getting cuckolded by the Holy Spirit?

[Guest Scott]

Quote

From what I understand, our Heavenly Parents were, like Jesus, free from sin. Imagine what they think of us! 

Well, they must have thought pretty highly of us or otherwise they wouldn't have sacrificed their Only Begotten Son for us.  At least that's how I look at it.  

[The Folk Prophet]

On 10/14/2018 at 4:00 PM, Sunday21 said:

From what I understand, our Heavenly Parents were, like Jesus, free from sin.

Prove it. I mean I know you can come up with some non-canonized quotes about our Heavenly Father that imply or say such, but our Heavenly Mother?

[The Folk Prophet]

On 10/14/2018 at 7:30 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Speculation beyond that degree illustrates a certain degree of contempt for Them.

Really? So the idea of complete repentance washing someone's stain, though red as blood, white as snow, and remembered no more is to show contempt?

[Vort]

I'm still waiting for @theplains to answer @mordorbund's questions.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Vort

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Really? So the idea of complete repentance washing someone's stain, though red as blood, white as snow, and remembered no more is to show contempt?

Sure, if a) that “someone” never sinned in the first place; and/or b) that “someone’s” sin is being hypothesized about solely to make some third party feel better about themselves.

I daresay either one of us would take some umbrage if some random guy started openly hypothesizing about, and perseverating on, the possibility that you or I may have ever been a child molester.  I daresay that we still wouldn’t be too happy about it even if we were indeed guilty of, and had been cleansed from, the misdeeds that had been ascribed to us.  

Edited October 20, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sure, if a) that “someone” never sinned in the first place; and/or b) that “someone’s” sin is being hypothesized about solely to make some third party feel better about themselves.

I daresay either one of us would take some umbrage if some random guy started openly hypothesizing about, and perseverating on, the possibility that you or I may have ever been a child molester.  I daresay that we still wouldn’t be too happy about it even if we were indeed guilty of, and had been cleansed from, the misdeeds that had been ascribed to us.  

Putting a pin in the "child molester" hyperbole...

There's a distinct difference between assuming someone must have done a specific sinful deed and conjecture that,  purely statistically speaking, it is likely that any given exalted being probably didn't live a sinless life, and understanding that with the atonement and forgiveness, that one who did sin but repented is on exact equivalent footing as all other exalted beings. Because "all" means "all" and "perfect" means "perfect". There is nothing contemptuous about that theory whatsoever.

And, taking the pin out.... equating such a theory...even loosely...to an implication that others are accusing God of being a child molester is somewhat imprudent -- don't you think?

[Just_A_Guy]

56 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Putting a pin in the "child molester" hyperbole...

[1]There's a distinct difference between assuming someone must have done a specific sinful deed and conjecture that,  purely statistically speaking, it is likely that any given exalted being probably didn't live a sinless life, and understanding that with the atonement and forgiveness, that one who did sin but repented is on exact equivalent footing as all other exalted beings. Because "all" means "all" and "perfect" means "perfect". There is nothing contemptuous about that theory whatsoever.

[2]And, taking the pin out.... equating such a theory...even loosely...to an implication that others are accusing God of being a child molester is somewhat imprudent -- don't you think?

[1]  I don’t think that’s where theplains was going, or a distinction he would find persuasive.  

[2]  The implication isn’t that others are accusing God of being a child molester.  The implication is that others are accusing God of doing something that is contrary to what we know of His current nature, with absolutely zero evidence and no theological justification beyond “well, I have sinned, so He probably has, too.”

Edited October 20, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[theplains]

19 hours ago, Vort said:

I'm still waiting for @theplains to answer @mordorbund's questions.

I don't believe physical sexual contact was involved when Mary became pregnant with Jesus.  It was a miraculous
conception.

Is this what Latter-day Saints also believe?

Jim

[Vort]

15 minutes ago, theplains said:

I don't believe physical sexual contact was involved when Mary became pregnant with Jesus.  It was a miraculous
conception.

Is this what Latter-day Saints also believe?

Jim

Now, Jim, quit dodging the questions. Just answer them. They're clear and simple.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 10/20/2018 at 8:56 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

[1]  I don’t think that’s where theplains was going, or a distinction he would find persuasive.  

How do you know?

On 10/20/2018 at 8:56 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

no theological justification beyond “well, I have sinned, so He probably has, too.”

That's, imo, plenty of theological justification. But not really what I'm on about.

I believe that God was once a man. I believe that arguments that he must have been a perfect man, just like the Savior, are moderately weak, and stem from some sort of strange mortal arrogance that has no place in the eternities. That attitude seems to be, "my God must never haves sinned". And yet, what if He had? Does it make Him less if that were the case? Or, as you put it, is the idea that He may well have been a regular mortal who, through whatever means (presumably, someone atoned for His sins too if this were the case...a perfectly reasonable presumption) humbled Himself and gained His exaltation -- is that idea really showing contempt for Him?

Or to apply it to us and our Savior.... Is His atonement not infinite enough that we, upon our exaltation, will be less exalted somehow because we weren't perfect through mortality like He was? The idea, in my thinking, that God the Father "must" have been perfect because thinking He might have worked through mortality as most mortals must shows some level of contempt for him is, actually, methinks, showing a kind of contempt for the power of our Savior to save and completely make us whole, render our garments white, and wash away all stains as if they never were.

On 10/20/2018 at 8:56 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

accusing

See...this whole take is strange to me. Why is it an accusation? It's perception, right? Glass half full/empty. Why can't it be commendatory instead of accusatory? How amazing that He made the choice to humble Himself and show the faith it took to work through His mortality and achieve exaltation! Why must that be an accusation? In an eternal sense, I suspect, our "sins" in life will be more akin to a child learning to walk. Is it accusatory to suggest that a child fell down a bunch while learning to walk? Or is it commendatory that they actually learned how to walk?

Only one man learned to walk without ever falling down. That doesn't render everyone else's falls anything more than what they are, children learning to walk. The only valid accusation lies on individuals who refuse to learn to walk.

[Just_A_Guy]

25 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How do you know?

That's, imo, plenty of theological justification. But not really what I'm on about.

I believe that God was once a man. I believe that arguments that he must have been a perfect man, just like the Savior, are moderately weak, and stem from some sort of strange mortal arrogance that has no place in the eternities. That attitude seems to be, "my God must never haves sinned". And yet, what if He had? Does it make Him less if that were the case? Or, as you put it, is the idea that He may well have been a regular mortal who, through whatever means (presumably, someone atoned for His sins too if this were the case...a perfectly reasonable presumption) humbled Himself and gained His exaltation -- is that idea really showing contempt for Him?

Or to apply it to us and our Savior.... Is His atonement not infinite enough that we, upon our exaltation, will be less exalted somehow because we weren't perfect through mortality like He was? The idea, in my thinking, that God the Father "must" have been perfect because thinking He might have worked through mortality as most mortals must shows some level of contempt for him is, actually, methinks, showing a kind of contempt for the power of our Savior to save and completely make us whole, render our garments white, and wash away all stains as if they never were.

See...this whole take is strange to me. Why is it an accusation? It's perception, right? Glass half full/empty. Why can't it be commendatory instead of accusatory? How amazing that He made the choice to humble Himself and show the faith it took to work through His mortality and achieve exaltation! Why must that be an accusation? In an eternal sense, I suspect, our "sins" in life will be more akin to a child learning to walk. Is it accusatory to suggest that a child fell down a bunch while learning to walk? Or is it commendatory that they actually learned how to walk?

Only one man learned to walk without ever falling down. That doesn't render everyone else's falls anything more than what they are, children learning to walk. The only valid accusation lies on individuals who refuse to learn to walk.

I am not arguing that God, in mortality, did everything perfectly.  I am simply submitting that we don’t know.  

I’m OK, hypothetically, with a god who sinned and repented many eons ago.

I am not OK attributing sin where I don’t know it exists.  

As great an achievement as repentance is—never having sinned in the first place is  pretty gol durned impressive too; and I don’t think we should close that door on our Heavenly Parents just because it makes us feel better about our own mortality.  

Why, just earlier this month; many board members concluded that even if Brett Kavanaugh had brutally tried to rape a girl back in high school, his sterling conduct since then more or less absolved him.  But that didn’t prevent them from bemoaning the fact that the story constitutes an “accusation”—and a highly offensive one at that.

People don’t like having shameful stuff they didn’t do being written into their histories; and I daresay exalted Beings aren’t really fans of the practice either.  

Edited October 21, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I am not arguing that God, in mortality, did everything perfectly.  I am simply submitting that we don’t know.  

I’m OK, hypothetically, with a god who sinned and repented many eons ago.  

Well...if we agree.....then what are we arguing about?

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I am not OK attributing sin where I don’t know it exists.

I think this response is off target re the question. The question did not seem intent upon accusing God of anything, but centered on the idea of atonement and how it may have worked in His mortality. If He was the savior of His mortality than that is the answer to the question. If he was not then it stands to reason that someone was.

Clearly the answer is a big, fat, WE HAVE NO IDEA. But I don't think the idea was to accuse.

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As great an achievement as repentance is—never having sinned in the first place is  pretty gol durned impressive too; and I don’t think we should close that door on our Heavenly Parents just because it makes us feel better about our own mortality.  

Once again...this is mis-focused! It's not about our feeling better about ourselves. It's about our faith in the power of the atonement. Granted, the atonement does, indeed, make us feel better about ourselves I suppose...but not in the smug self-satisfied way you seem to be implying.

16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Why, just earlier this month; many board members concluded that even if Brett Kavanaugh had brutally tried to rape a girl back in high school, his sterling conduct since then more or less absolved him

I think when we compare mortal governmental justice systems to the eternal atonement-centered justice system of God we're setting ourselves up for failure straightaway.