Recommended Posts

Humm...lots of throwing my name around and stating things incorrectly about my beliefs.

First off, the definition of spiritual death is "being dead or unresponsive to the Spirit". Merely being born into mortality isn't spiritual death. Spiritual death comes through sin and disobedience. Children, we are told, are "alive in Christ" meaning they are spiritually alive. When we sin we die spiritually and need to be "reborn" again to the things of the Spirit. We do this through repentance and baptism and getting the gift of the Holy Ghost. Thus we are born again and alive again to the spirit- we are spiritually alive.

Now, as for why I believe the way I do about the three kingdoms. We have to look at the whole picture and how it was constructed line upon line. Section 76 was given fairly early in Joseph's restoration of the gospel. Many truths were lost. Section 76 was given in answer to Joseph's inquiry with his belief there must be more than one kingdom within God's mansions. Thus section 76 was given. What's important to understand though is that even though Joseph is given the vision he is still left to interpret the kingdoms.

Fast forward now to the endowment. I'm surprised no one has brought this aspect into the discussion. The endowment is the most complete discussion we have detailing the full plan of salvation. In our endowment we learn about our progression from our heavenly Father into the fallen world and from there through world's of glory until we return again to our Heavenly Father's presence in the Celestial kingdom. In order to do so we progress from the telestial kingdom to the terrestrial and then to the Celestial kingdom. Important to this progression, and what's desperately missing from this conversation, the required endowment and accompanying ordinances and covenants are centered directly on our marriage with our spouse and is the very required obedience and key words for admittance into the Celestial kingdom.

Now one could rightly say this is my own interpretation but the reality remains- we are in the lowest heaven or glory now. Paul ascending to the third heaven is meaning going from our heaven- the telestial to the vision of the third-  the Celestial where we will progress to.

Edited by Rob Osborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This SUCKS!!!  I was 90% complete with an epic-length response.  Bad mouse click.  *POOF*.  Gone.   AAARRRGGGHHH!!!  Ok shorter response:

@The Folk Prophet

I went through all three sections mentioned before and a few others that were linked with cross-references.  You might have guessed that I'm really into cross-references.   In preparing this response, I did my best to argue from both sides of the debate thus far.  Could these scriptures be taken to mean what you are saying?  Yes, they could.  Could they be taken to mean what I'm saying?  Yes, they could.  So, I'm afraid were not going to be helped much by scriptures.

But let's take a look at your two points of debate:

1) Meaning of fulness and exalted: You kept bolding the word "fulness".  And I understood your argument to mean that we cannot have a fulness without having everything.  OK. That does appear to be what 76 and 88 are saying.  Here is where I thought your argument paralleled Rob's argument that there are no degrees of glory at all.  

The Book of Mormon makes no mention of the degrees of glory at all. So, Rob uses that to indicate that there are none.  And he has come up with a different interpretation of the section 76 and all mentions of degrees of glory.  You're saying the same thing.  Just shift the focus from three degrees of glory to three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom.  Then shift BoM to 76 and 76 to 131.  It is completely parallel. 

Because of what you read in an earlier revelation (which only had a specific focus) you then insist that a later revelation cannot be talking about what it obviously (by your own admission) seems to be saying.  But that is simply denying FURTHER light and knowledge. The other revelations had a narrow focus.  And it did so for the same reason that the BoM only speaks of the heaven/hell dichotomy.  That's what the Lord wants us to focus on.  He doesn't want us to "settle".  That's what I believe Joseph Smith meant when he told that sister that she didn't know what she was talking about.

My argument:  What if the word "glory" in 131:1 were replaced with "kingdom"?  That would be pretty conclusive, right?

When I mentioned that the usage of the word "glory" meant "kingdom" it was in context of the same topic in the same meaning via cross-references provided by Apostles of God who, believe it or not, happen to know a thing or two about scriptures.  And when they point to words here and decide they are related to words here, I tend to view things from that perspective.  That's the difference between your methodology and my methodology.  You're simply using personal understanding of scriptures.  I'm being guided by prophets and apostles.

2) Obedient enough to obtain the Celestial.  But rebellious enough to refuse to get married in the N.A.E.C.O.M. (Section 132). I will admit that there isn't much revelation on the lower degrees of the Celestial.  As far as I can tell, it is only mentioned in 131 and nowhere else in all of scripture.  Perhaps it is wrong to make the delineation of "baptism" vs "celestial marriage".  We simply don't know.  But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Heavenly Mother.  She exists.  We don't know much else.  So what's there to talk about? Perhaps we should take the same attitude with the three degrees in the Celestial.

Here is the current Church Statement on the matter.  Beware: it isn't as clear as it may seem.

Quote

From another revelation to the Prophet Joseph, we learn that there are three degrees within the celestial kingdom. To be exalted in the highest degree and continue eternally in family relationships, we must enter into “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage” and be true to that covenant. In other words, temple marriage is a requirement for obtaining the highest degree of celestial glory. (See D&C 131:1–4.) All who are worthy to enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage will have that opportunity, whether in this life or the next.

https://www.lds.org/topics/kingdoms-of-glory?lang=eng

First, they say there are three degrees within the celestial kingdom.  Then they cite D&C 131 (the very section we're debating about) as the scriptural support for the first statement indicating there is a "highest degree of the celestial glory".  That would certainly indicate that the current interpretation by apostles is that "glory" used in 131:1 is, in fact, "kingdom".

BUT!!!

Then notice the last sentence.  All who simply didn't have the opportunity or were unable for whatever reasons, but desired to be married will have the opportunity in this life or the next.  That pretty much says anyone who is worthy of the Celestial Kingdom will be married.

HOWEVER!!!

The "All who are worthy" preamble is an interesting one.  Does this indicate that there will be varying levels of righteousness even for those who inherit the Celestial?  That's what it seems to be saying to me.  You could argue that it doesn't actually say that.  And you'd be right.  It doesn't explicitly and unequivocally say that.  But I can't make much sense out of it otherwise.  And there is another point where your methodology differs from mine.  You have decided that because you can't explain something, the current official interpretation must be incorrect.  I take the route of trying to find an explanation to align myself with the current official interpretation or be satisfied with "I don't know."

What if it is that there were some things that they simply never learned in this life that they simply won't be able to learn in the next?  What if....We could keep speculating on and on.  It would just be speculation.

I find it completely plausible that there is something that HAS NOT BEEN REVEALED that makes some people "not worthy" of that vicarious covenant of marriage, while still being worthy of he Celestial Kingdom.  Maybe it wasn't about obtaining ordinances.  But it was some OTHER measure of worthiness.

Bottom line:  We don't know.  And until we know, I tend to stick with the current interpretation by prophets and apostles.

EDIT: Yes, this was the shorter version.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But isn't that what you were berating Rob about?  That the one word MUST mean the same thing each time?

Even I don't stand by the one word must mean the same thing each time. However, when dealing specifically with the gospel topic of "salvation" and "eternal life" it does pretty much mean the same thing every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I wrote up a full reply but I've decided you don't actually care to discuss this with me anyhow so I've erased it and have decided to ignore your input on the matter.

:confused:

I was actually following what you were stating quite carefully, that comment was that I am MORE inclined to believe what a prophet has talked about and stated than an individual on the internet.

Do you feel that we should NOT listen to what the actual Prophets of the Church have told us...and if so...why not?

I'm not sure why You feel that means I do not want to discuss this (though you are mostly correct.  I mostly have just read what has been talked about and only intruded to comment on something that seemed to discount our belief that there is a pre-existence, than we made choices there that impacted our life after that, and also seemed to go counter to the idea [though admittedly not a doctrine] that it is NOT luck in where we are born, but is a plan and a purpose for where we are and who we are.  That we have been foreordained prior to this life, and that where we are born and what we may accomplish has all been foreordained in heaven.  This is something discussed upon all the way back to Joseph Smith and at least as recently as Harold B. Lee and Spencer W. Kimball.  (and in fact, if we go back to the scriptures, inferred by Job and by Abraham amongst others).

Of course, none of it is specified as directly stated in doctrine or outright stated in how we are talking about it in the scriptures itself...sooo...we are free to believe what we want.  It means that your beliefs on the matter are probably just as valid as mine as far as Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints go.

Joseph Smith referred to different stations within the Celestial Kingdom itself.  Of the highest one was required to have entered into the New and Everlasting Covenant.

However, if one declined to enter into this they were NOT denied entry into the Celestial Kingdom itself.  Instead, they were to be servants of those who had received that exaltation.  This is not a bad thing, it merely means that while those who are exalted serve their offspring, they are helped and aided by others who are in the Celestial Kingdom.  In addition, there is another group which is composed of those who are not married but also receive thrones and authority.  Some of these he referred to as being the children that died in birth, and originally felt that these would retain their infancy.  Thus he discussed that there would be babes that would sit on thrones eternally in the Celestial Kingdom.  This was apparently clarified later in which it remained that they would not be sealed or married, but would grow to adulthood and parents would have the opportunity to help them advance in the Kingdom.

This here brings us to at least two distinctions, and possibly three (depending on how you see unmarried children through no fault of their own who are called upon as rulers themselves in the Celestial Kingdom). 

None of that is doctrine, but at least a few of his comments on it can be found in the "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" [that's a book one can buy that's has been somewhat popular in the past].

Now in regards to children that fell away, this was indicated early on, but really brought more strongly on by the Teachings of Joseph F. Smith.  Joseph Fielding Smith is probably the most accessible and explains it the easiest to understand, however.

A basic idea on MY understanding of what he was saying...

When you are SEALED as a family, that is a COVENANT.  It is a VERY STRONG covenant and the marriage covenant is between a man, a woman and the Lord.  IT IS NOT between them and the children, yet the children who are born in the covenant are STILL SEALED to their parents.  The children were NOT part of the covenant as it was made in the flesh in the temple when the man and woman were sealed for time and eternity as husband and wife.  Their vote to approve or disapprove did not take effect.  The covenant thus is between the husband and wife at the time of it's making in the temple.  That family, thus, is an eternal family sealed together by covenant by the Power and authority of the Lord.  The covenant between the couple and the Lord binds them and all their family together in THAT covenant.  Thus, children who are born (or as I would opine, who choose in the preexistence to become part of that family and covenant) are also included within that sealing power uniting the family together as a FAMILY unit under the Patriarchal order.

The Lord does NOT care about our ideas of fair.  We, as people and natural men are very UNFAIR and do not understand the power nor authority of the Lord.  Parents who enter into this covenant have entered into the Patriarchal order.  This is the same order as in heaven.  It is what gives the Father the authority to be our Father and to govern as such.  Each Father in their own family gains this authority to govern and be the head of his household in righteousness. 

We DO NOT EARN our salvation or exaltation.  In fact, we are CONDEMNED from the moment that we sin.  It is ONLY through the power and mercy of our Father that we are able to be saved.  We show our faithfulness as best we can, but we cannot save ourselves.  Who are we, then, to say whether those who have fallen into sin are unworthy or not?  We are ALL unworthy and thus any condemnation or salvation from the Father is fair.

In that context, Joseph Fielding Smith (though I think Brigham Young has the more famous statement directly stating this) has laid out that the sealing powers of the Fathers extend from Adam all the way down the chains to the last generation.  Parents who are sealed together and receive their exaltation will not need be bereft of their children.  Just like the mother who loses the infant is promised to be able to have that child in the Celestial Kingdom, so are parents promised that if their children die otherwise (or fall away) they may also have those children in eternity.

There is a CAVEAT for those children that fall away of their own accord after the age of accountability.  They do NOT receive the Celestial Glory.  They receive whatever glory they are to receive (whether it is Telestial or Terrestrial).  If they merit punishment in hell, they will MEET EVERY punishment as accorded to them.  ONLY after that, after receiving whatever glory they are afforded, IF the parents desire (and I would imagine the child desires) will the child be able to go dwell with them in the Celestial Kingdom. This does NOT grant them a greater glory, but merely affords them that they can dwell within the Celestial Kingdom with their family.  They do not receive exaltation or are they Celestialized.   They will be their in their Telestial or Terrestrial body.

How this works, I do NOT know.

My theory is that Joseph Smith and later prophets have touched upon this (but this is a PERSONAL theory).  When it talks about the three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom to me it speaks similarly to what Joseph Smith indicated, but allowing the idea for those children that have not attained the Celestial glory itself. 

At the highest degree, or exaltation are those that are in the New and Everlasting covenant. They are spouses sealed together for all eternity.

The second degree would be those who rejected the New and Everlasting Covenant, did not enter into it of their own accord, or for some reason (by laws set in heaven) are unable to enter into it.  This may also be the children that Joseph Smith referred to, though more modern feelings [past 50-60 years] on the matter from many indicate that these children upon reaching adulthood may also have a choice to enter into the New and Everlasting Covenant themselves.

The third and lowest degree are composed of those who do NOT have Celestial bodies, and thus may have difficulty bearing the full glory of the Kingdom.  They thus are delegated to a degree where they can subsist, but yet dwell in the Kingdom with their families.  These are those children that do NOT have a Celestial glory, but dwell there nonetheless.

Anyways, overall I think I have been more interested in reading responses than being deeply involved with discussion.  If that is what you meant, you are correct, but to indicate that I am simply ignoring what you have written (as I have followed with great interest, and thus WHY I even asked for clarity when one statement seemed to be contrary to others you had made in the thread...a peculiarity which still has not really been clarified as of yet and thus leads more to confusion on my part on what your actual stance or beliefs on the matter are) is not accurate.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

And I understood your argument to mean that we cannot have a fulness without having everything.  OK. That does appear to be what 76 and 88 are saying.

You mean that I'm saying we can't have fulness without having a fullness?

Because, of course, it's perfectly reasonable that we could have a fulness...but.....not?

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You're saying the same thing.  Just shift the focus from three degrees of glory to three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom.  Then shift BoM to 76 and 76 to 131.  It is completely parallel. 

Let's parse that:

Idea 1:

The older BOM has no specific mention of the three degrees therefore but a later revelation specifically teaching us about them.

Idea 2:

The older revelation specifically teaching that those in the Celestial Kingdom will have a fulness, will be gods, and will have all the Father has, and the later revelation on Celestial Marriage also teaches that it brings a fulness, they will will be gods, and will have all the Father has.

Really? Completely parallel?

I think you'd better check your logic.

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You're simply using personal understanding of scriptures.

Do you really believe that?

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So what's there to talk about?

Stuff.

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You have decided that because you can't explain something, the current official interpretation must be incorrect.

Maybe you should re-review my various "I may be/probably am wrong" comments.

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I take the route of trying to find an explanation to align myself with the current official interpretation

What makes you think I am not doing that?

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

or be satisfied with "I don't know."

I'm perfectly satisfied with "I don't know"

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I find it completely plausible that there is something that HAS NOT BEEN REVEALED that makes some people "not worthy" of that vicarious covenant of marriage, while still being worthy of he Celestial Kingdom

Except that it would deny things already revealed that would seem to make God a liar. It would deny the power of the atonement and forgiveness. It would imply that "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" doesn't actually mean "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow".

I'm perfectly willing to accept further light and knowledge on the matter. I don't believe for a second that further light and knowledge means casting aside core principles of the gospel such as the power of the atonement, forgiveness, and agency -- principles that actually matter and are exceedingly important to understand, embrace, and put one's trust in completely, to explain an idea that is unimportant, has very little in the way of explanation or revelation, and whether we understand it or not, has no real bearing on choices we make in this life.

I'm not going to disregard important eternal principles to explain a cross-reference. If the cross-reference is correct then the explanation cannot be a disregard for basic, important gospel principles.

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

And until we know, I tend to stick with the current interpretation by prophets and apostles.

Sounds like a good plan. Whereas I have stated that I'm probably wrong, you might well understand that I "tend" toward the same. That doesn't mean I'm not looking for better answers than a cross-reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

that comment was that I am MORE inclined to believe what a prophet has talked about and stated than an individual on the internet.

And filled with snark, condescension, and disrespect. That's your prerogative. But I'm not going to engage in conversations where I'm treated that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You mean that I'm saying we can't have fulness without having a fullness?

Yeah, funny that.

Quote

Because, of course, it's perfectly reasonable that we could have a fulness...but.....not?

Not what I said.

Quote

Let's parse that:

Idea 1:

The older BOM has no specific mention of the three degrees therefore but a later revelation specifically teaching us about them.

Idea 2:

The older revelation specifically teaching that those in the Celestial Kingdom will have a fulness, will be gods, and will have all the Father has, and the later revelation on Celestial Marriage also teaches that it brings a fulness, they will will be gods, and will have all the Father has.

As I said, there is an unknown regarding what the lower degrees of the celestial really are or what the qualifications are.  But it appears they do exist.  You're trying to deny that.

Quote

Really? Completely parallel?

I think you'd better check your logic.

What I see is two choices:

1. Believe the old was complete and the new must be brought to agree completely with the old.
2. Believe the new is "greater light and knowledge" that provides MORE DETAIL than the old.  So, the old must be brought to agree with the additional light we now know.

TFP, I do mean this in honest sincerity.  This is not just to win a debate point.  I honestly don't see the difference.  You and Rob both choose #1.  I'm choosing #2.  So, I would be VERY happy to hear you educate me on what the difference is.  How is my logic flawed in seeing these as the two available choices/attitudes/methods?

I'm going to state for the record, that I don't believe you're anything like Rob.  You're much easier to reason with. And you actually have logic in your processes.  But you'll have to explain ON THIS ONE TOPIC: what is the difference between your belief that the NEW must conform to the old, rather than the old being added to by the new?

Quote

Do you really believe that?

What makes you think I am not doing that?

I honestly don't know what you're actual methodology is.  I only know what you've posted.  And from your posts, I don't see any effort to align your interpretation with that of the apostles.  If I'm wrong, tell me how you're doing that with this interpretation.

Quote

Stuff.

Ok.  So, I've been remodeling my house.  And it's a big pain.  It's going way over budget and... Oh.. You probably didn't mean that.

Quote

Maybe you should re-review my various "I may be/probably am wrong" comments.

I'm perfectly satisfied with "I don't know"

Ok then.

Quote

Except that it would deny things already revealed that would seem to make God a liar. It would deny the power of the atonement and forgiveness. It would imply that "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" doesn't actually mean "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow".

How is that different than the three degrees of glory?  Again, not a debate point.  I simply don't see a difference.  I'm sincerely asking you to educate me.  Please.

The three degrees of glory.  The three degrees of the celestial.  They are all gradations with definitions that we don't fully understand.

38 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Sounds like a good plan. Whereas I have stated that I'm probably wrong, you might well understand that I "tend" toward the same.

Sounds good.

Quote

That doesn't mean I'm not looking for better answers than a cross-reference.

It wasn't meant to be "an answer".  It was meant to define what, not explain why or how.  I don't believe we have the why or how.  So, no answers are currently available.

Hence, our agreement: We don't know.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I honestly don't see the difference.  You and Rob both choose #1.  I'm choosing #2.  So, I would be VERY happy to hear you educate me on what the difference is.  How is my logic flawed in seeing these as the two available choices/attitudes/methods?

I'm going to state for the record, that I don't believe you're anything like Rob

You guys gonna just continue to throw my name out there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

This SUCKS!!!  I was 90% complete with an epic-length response.  Bad mouse click.  *POOF*.  Gone.   AAARRRGGGHHH!!!  Ok shorter response:

[...]

EDIT: Yes, this was the shorter version.

Wholly cow. Did you already have a publisher lined up, too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I honestly don't see the difference.

This is super basic logic here.

The Book of Mormon talks about saved and damned and leaves it at that. The fact that the D&C explains that there are gradations of damnation doesn't render the Book of Mormon wrong. In fact it explicitly states in vs 17 that it's talking about these two states. The resurrection of the just being the Celestial (v50,65) and the resurrection of the unjust being everyone else. There is absolutely no conflict between the teachings in the Book of Mormon and D&C 76 whatsoever. A view that there is conflict is based on an astounding level of inept reasoning.

D&C 76 explains that those in the Celestial Kingdom will have a fulness, be gods, have all that the Father has, etc. D&C 132 explains that only those that are married will have a fulness, be gods, have all that the Father has, etc. D&C 131 then introduces the idea that two lower levels of the Celestial Kingdom may not require marriage, hence, in accordance with D&C 132, they will be in the Celestial Kingdom but not have a fulness, not be gods, not have all the Father has, etc. That idea does, indeed, seem to contradict D&C 76.

If you cannot see the difference I'm sorry.

I'm not adamant that D&C 131 isn't clarifying something that was left out of D&C 76. But there is a whole world of difference in the thought processes here, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop lumping me in with the astounding levels of inept reasoning types.

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

But you'll have to explain ON THIS ONE TOPIC: what is the difference between your belief that the NEW must conform to the old, rather than the old being added to by the new?

New and old are irrelevant. Truth is truth. God can't say in one moment that only those with a broken heart and a contrite spirit are saved (exalted) and then in the next moment "update" that to He actually saves (exalts) people without a broken heart and a contrite spirit. How can we trust a God who doesn't speak consistent eternal truth in one moment and the next.

The new must conform to the old and the old must conform to the new. Truth is eternal. I'm interested in the truth more that I am in which is new and which is old.

As I've said, and I'll repeat it again, I am perfectly content with the idea that I might be wrong. What I'm not content with is disregarding some pretty plain teachings in D&C 76 without a better explanation.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

You honestly don't see the difference between:

Source 1: No information

Source 2: Some information

vs

Source 1: Some information

Source 2: The same information

This is super basic logic here.

The Book of Mormon talks about saved and damned and leaves it at that. The fact that the D&C explains that there are gradations of damnation doesn't render the Book of Mormon wrong. In fact it explicitly states in vs 17 that it's talking about these two states. The resurrection of the just being the Celestial (v50,65) and the resurrection of the unjust being everyone else. There is absolutely no conflict between the teachings in the Book of Mormon the D&C 76 whatsoever. A view that there is conflict is based on an astounding level of inept reasoning.

D&C 76 explains that those in the Celestial Kingdom will have a fulness, be gods, have all that the Father has, etc. D&C 132 explains that only those that are married will have a fulness, be gods, have all that the Father has, etc. D&C 131 then introduces the idea that two lower levels of the Celestial Kingdom may not require marriage, hence, in accordance with D&C 132, they will be in the Celestial Kingdom but not have a fulness, not be gods, not have all the Father has, etc. That idea does, indeed, seem to contradict D&C 76.

If you cannot see the difference I'm sorry.

I'm not adamant that D&C 131 isn't clarifying something that was left out of D&C 76. But there is a whole world of difference in the thought processes here, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop lumping me in with the astounding levels of inept reasoning types.

New and old are irrelevant. Truth is truth. God can't say in one moment that only those with a broken heart and a contrite spirit are saved (exalted) and then in the next moment "update" that to He actually saves (exalts) people without a broken heart and a contrite spirit. How can we trust a God who doesn't speak consistent eternal truth in one moment and the next.

The new must conform to the old and the old must conform to the new. Truth is eternal. I'm interested in the truth more that I am in which is new and which is old.

As I've said, and I'll repeat it again, I am perfectly content with the idea that I might be wrong. What I'm not content with is disregarding some pretty plain teachings in D&C 76 without an better explanation.

I wholly disagree. The Book of Mormon does lay out the saved/damned dichotomy. So does the New Testament, they run parallel. The D&C builds upon this same dichotomy. Saved and damned still have the same meaning in the D&C as the BoM and NT lays out. These fundamental mistakes with semantics is the number one reason we can't figure it out. The principle of truth is in the Book of Mormon lays out the framework of the plan of salvation. Being saved means being saved from an eternal hell with the devil and his angels. Being damned means to be sentenced or condemned  to hell. Those words always mean that in the context of the plan of salvation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Fixed.

You are being very disrespectful. 

I understand that when we debate and I always bring scriptures to the table and use them and you have nothing to counter from scripture so you resort to your disrespectful tactics that it must be your way of putting blinders on. I get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If you feel this way, then why are you continuing to try and engage with me?

I'm trying to have an honest and open discussion. I am not the one who is being disrespectful. If you want to be disrespectful that's fine, whatever, but if we are in an open public forum where all can have input and be listened to we should at least engage everyone's honest inquiry. You stated your belief about being saved/damned. I disagreed. It's your obligation in fair debate to reply and counter instead of give me the finger so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I am not the one who is being disrespectful.

Ah. So you respect my views on the matter?

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

If you want to be disrespectful that's fine, whatever, but if we are in an open public forum where all can have input and be listened to

So, your idea of an open public forum is that everyone should be forced to listen to your views?

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

we should at least engage everyone's honest inquiry.

You have no inquiry. You have demands that you frame as inquiry.

Regardless, I believe I'll select for myself who I "should" engage with, thank you very much.

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

It's your obligation in fair debate to reply and counter instead of give me the finger so to speak.

We are not debating. You are being disregarded.

On a side note, there's actually a middle finger icon in the new icons. Haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Ah. So you respect my views on the matter?

So, your idea of an open public forum is that everyone should be forced to listen to your views?

You have no inquiry. You have demands that you frame as inquiry.

Regardless, I believe I'll select for myself who I "should" engage with, thank you very much.

We are not debating. You are being disregarded.

On a side note, there's actually a middle finger icon in the new icons. Haha.

I do respect your views. I also "respectfully" disagree. Would you please address where you think my beliefs are incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I do respect your views.

You respect my view that you are walking on apostate grounds? That you are preaching of false, vain, and foolish doctrines? That your views are harmful to God's church and its members? That your approach puts you squarely in line with the approach that caused the great apostasy?

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Would you please address where you think my beliefs are incorrect?

So it's one or the other here -- you tell me which:

1. Your memory is really, really, really, REALLY poor.

or

2. You fully well know that I've addressed this time and again and you are playing a game now pretending like I haven't in order to make it look like there's no cause for my having taken the "disregard Rob" approach I am.

You cannot nag me into engaging with you on this matter. I will continue to disregard the posts you make on the plan of salvation. If you address your posts directly to me, AT BEST, I'll acknowledge them with a snoring icon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I do respect your views. I also "respectfully" disagree. Would you please address where you think my beliefs are incorrect?

 

I'm pretty sure that your same points were addressed originally in this 23 page thread. 

 

Your ideas were proven to be incorrect both scripturally and by modern prophets in the thread by multiple posters and in several other threads since that time. 

 

I know of at least one other thread within the last week alone that you have attempted to push your same  interpretative agenda that disagrees with the interpretations set forth by modern prophets and apostles. 

 

The pretense that you are trying to engage in a debate is false. You attempt to create limitations on everyone else by stating that they are ONLY allowed to use scriptures and not modern prophetic statements. 

 

It is NOT everyone else, including the authorized servants of God, who are wrong on the issue. YOU are wrong about the realities of eternity, Rob. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You respect my view that you are walking on apostate grounds? That you are preaching of false, vain, and foolish doctrines? That your views are harmful to God's church and its members? That your approach puts you squarely in line with the approach that caused the great apostasy?

So it's one or the other here -- you tell me which:

1. Your memory is really, really, really, REALLY poor.

or

2. You fully well know that I've addressed this time and again and you are playing a game now pretending like I haven't in order to make it look like there's no cause for my having taken the "disregard Rob" approach I am.

You cannot nag me into engaging with you on this matter. I will continue to disregard the posts you make on the plan of salvation. If you address your posts directly to me, AT BEST, I'll acknowledge them with a snoring icon.

Im not walking on apostate ground. We all have some beliefs that we disagree upon within the church doctrine. Its rather obvioys by everyones differing views on this matter in here. No two people completely agree. That isnt grounds for being apostate. If I am teaching vain and foolish doctrines as you contend, rather than attack my character why not refute them with scripture? How are my views harmful when I teach the exact doctrine that Christ said is his doctrine as he himself stated in the Book of Mormon? So, is my teaching the Book of Mormon plan of salvation leading people into harm? Should I stop quoting the Book of Mormon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im not walking on apostate ground. We all have some beliefs that we disagree upon within the church doctrine. Its rather obvioys by everyones differing views on this matter in here. No two people completely agree. That isnt grounds for being apostate. If I am teaching vain and foolish doctrines as you contend, rather than attack my character why not refute them with scripture? How are my views harmful when I teach the exact doctrine that Christ said is his doctrine as he himself stated in the Book of Mormon? So, is my teaching the Book of Mormon plan of salvation leading people into harm? Should I stop quoting the Book of Mormon?

:sleeping:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Colirio said:

 

I'm pretty sure that your same points were addressed originally in this 23 page thread. 

 

Your ideas were proven to be incorrect both scripturally and by modern prophets in the thread by multiple posters and in several other threads since that time. 

 

I know of at least one other thread within the last week alone that you have attempted to push your same  interpretative agenda that disagrees with the interpretations set forth by modern prophets and apostles. 

 

The pretense that you are trying to engage in a debate is false. You attempt to create limitations on everyone else by stating that they are ONLY allowed to use scriptures and not modern prophetic statements. 

 

It is NOT everyone else, including the authorized servants of God, who are wrong on the issue. YOU are wrong about the realities of eternity, Rob. 

Please cite scripture that refutes

 

9 minutes ago, Colirio said:

 

I'm pretty sure that your same points were addressed originally in this 23 page thread. 

 

Your ideas were proven to be incorrect both scripturally and by modern prophets in the thread by multiple posters and in several other threads since that time. 

 

I know of at least one other thread within the last week alone that you have attempted to push your same  interpretative agenda that disagrees with the interpretations set forth by modern prophets and apostles. 

 

The pretense that you are trying to engage in a debate is false. You attempt to create limitations on everyone else by stating that they are ONLY allowed to use scriptures and not modern prophetic statements. 

 

It is NOT everyone else, including the authorized servants of God, who are wrong on the issue. YOU are wrong about the realities of eternity, Rob. 

So, on the very specific topic of saved or damned, can you cite scripture showing where I am in error? I may indeed be incorrect. Refresh my memory, dont just say it is so. Provide some scriptures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now