Wheat and Tares and Other Gospel Verses

[Traveler]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Failing the second estate puts one in the same place as those who failed their first. That place is hell with the devil and his angels.

So you think the first estate failed to meet the objective of separating those that follow G-d from those that follow Satan?   If that is true - what is the reasons for following one or the other if there is no consequence.  If choosing to following G-d is a temporary choice - why would anyone even consider it - you answer makes not sense.  Satan gets everybody because everyone sins and fails the second estate - including you.

 

The Traveler

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im not following what you are saying. Why is it that we tend to try to read things into the parable when its not warranted? There are only wheat or tares, theres nothing else, just those two.

I know you are not following, or perhaps not willing to follow, what I am saying. Yes, the parable focuses on wheat and tares. Bringing other related truths to bear upon beyond the narrowest interpretation of the parable, as the OP does, is very different than reading into it. That is the kind of Spirit-guided consideration that "Come Follow Me" encourages us to do. You do not accept those truths for your own reasons.

[Rob Osborn]

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I know you are not following, or perhaps not willing to follow, what I am saying. Yes, the parable focuses on wheat and tares. Bringing other related truths to bear upon beyond the narrowest interpretation of the parable, as the OP does, is very different than reading into it. That is the kind of Spirit-guided consideration that "Come Follow Me" encourages us to do. You do not accept those truths for your own reasons.

There's nothing to read into it, that's the whole point. We have this impossible dilemma where we can't accept the dichotomy because we can't see this truth. We try to read things into it to fit what we want but yet isn't true.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

So you think the first estate failed to meet the objective of separating those that follow G-d from those that follow Satan?   If that is true - what is the reasons for following one or the other if there is no consequence.  If choosing to following G-d is a temporary choice - why would anyone even consider it - you answer makes not sense.  Satan gets everybody because everyone sins and fails the second estate - including you.

 

The Traveler

The whole point is to gravitate towards godliness. In that process some are lost because they choose not to come into the light or recieve light and truth.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Rob Osborn

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

There is doctrine, false doctrines, and true doctrines. One of the problems we have as members is the belief that any and all doctrine taught by the church must be true and anything that even hints at not aligning is false and not true.  But as I am showing with this parable of the wheat and the tares, there certainly is this true doctrine that in the end all of the saved recieve celestial glory it shows that we are not complete in our doctrine in it being all true. Certainly, we are indeed in the Telestial kingdom, just as the truthfulness is plainly made manifest in our holy temples and by a prophet of God. But, again, our understanding of this truth is shrouded in doctrines that are not necessarily true. I can clearly point out contradictions in our doctrine proving we teach false doctrines. So, where does this leave us? What or whom should we shun and whom or what to embrace?

There is doctrine, false doctrines, and true doctrines.

We find agreement.

One of the problems we have as members is the belief that any and all doctrine taught by the church must be true and anything that even hints at not aligning is false and not true.

This isn't a problem, it is a protection against individuals who would seek to provide their own doctrine. The Book of Mormon is evidence of people/individuals who began to teach their own doctrine according to scripture. The provided their own interpretation and began to teach their interpretation as truth. Those who believe were lead astray. They who stuck with the Lord's servants remained true and faithful. We can see this in the Old Testament, New Testament, and early Church history.

When a doctrine is interpreted by the Church, through the Lord's servants, anything outside of that or that contradicts it -- if taught as truth -- should be shunned. If a person wants to share their own opinion and their own thoughts, that is fine as long as it is expressed as an opinion.

But as I am showing with this parable of the wheat and the tares, there certainly is this true doctrine that in the end all of the saved recieve celestial glory it shows that we are not complete in our doctrine in it being all true.

What you are providing is a person interpretation of a parable, not what actually occurs after this life. In order to accept this you have to reject what else is taught in scripture as previously shared. We should recognize we are not "complete" with a lot of truth. We do not have all the truth, but what we have doesn't agree with your interpretation of the scripture provided, and other scriptures that are interwoven. It appears you have "fixated" on a scripture while ignoring other scriptures, or a personal interpretation that can be found no where else -- that this is a line upon line teaching from 76, 88, to 101. This is a "personal view" from your perspective, not a doctrinal truth.

As you are unable to provide any witness besides your own, there is no prophetic witness to agree (apostle or prophet), I accept your personal interpretation as an opinion. I have provided multiple witnesses, that are current teachings from the Lord's servants. They carry more weight than a personal view.

Certainly, we are indeed in the Telestial kingdom, just as the truthfulness is plainly made manifest in our holy temples and by a prophet of God.

This interpretation is at odds with revealed word, revealed interpretation, and scripture. People receive Telestial glory AFTER the resurrection? Do you believe we are currently resurrected beings that are living in the Terrestrial kingdom? If not, then how you are interpreting the temple and a prophets words are again at odds.

What I am hearing is that Rob feels the Lord has revealed something to him that he hasn't the prophets and apostles as they continue to teach incorrect doctrine from 76, 88, and 101 because they have not yet learned that this was a line upon line teaching. I am pretty sure, if they are still teaching it is because the Spirit has already witnessed this truth and thus they teach it. I don't believe one minute that the prophet and apostles would teach something multiple times and be in error, providing more than one witness without any prophet or apostle saying, "That is not correct."

I simply ask, can you provide one statement from an apostle or prophet that would provide an additional witness to your theory? I have already provided multiple witnesses to the contrary.

But, again, our understanding of this truth is shrouded in doctrines that are not necessarily true. I can clearly point out contradictions in our doctrine proving we teach false doctrines. So, where does this leave us? What or whom should we shun and whom or what to embrace?

First sentence is personal opinion. One, you have no other witness to your truth. Two, you can not provide any witness from Church authorities, God's authorities he reveals His secrets to, to back up your belief.

It leaves us in the same place all the sons and daughters of God have been. Trust in the Lord, His servants, and his Holy Spirit.

I have already made clear what should be shunned and what should be accepted.

 

[Anddenex]

Quote

@Rob OsbornI can clearly point out contradictions in our doctrine proving we teach false doctrines. So, where does this leave us? What or whom should we shun and whom or what to embrace? 

I want to focus clearly on this statement because I don't believe my response above accurately covers the question.

I can clearly point out contradictions in our doctrine proving we teach false doctrines.

Here is where we draw a fine line, and every member of the Church needs to be cautious. We have members of the Church who strongly believe in many things that are not inline with Church teachings. They have assumed a "contradiction" exists because of their own belief in what is true.

I believe you can point out contradictions you think/feel are there, thus increasing your belief we teach false doctrine. The contradictions you think are there are not there. Contradictions occur for many reasons, the number one reason I would say is our personal belief and our unwillingness to see things as they really are. We have assumed we have seen something the Lord's servants haven't.

Example, I have seen you strongly defend the flood and other things, while others would provide a different theory. They would say that our current teachings aren't correct either, and feel strongly they have received some other witness than the prophets, or feel they have to justify teachings via scientific theory. Are they right in believing their contradiction, or once again is the revealed word through prophets and apostles correct through multiple witnesses from the Lord's servants?

Another option is simply we do not have enough details provided by the Lord, and thus we think we see contradictions once again where there are none. It is our limited understanding that creates the contradiction according to our frame of reference.

So, where does this leave us? What or whom should we shun and whom or what to embrace?

I don't have trouble with this. The Lord declared he reveals his secrets through his servants the prophets. If there are multiple witnesses of teaching from apostles and prophets and there are no prophets or apostles that contradict or provide an alternative thought, then it is an easy decision -- I move forward with the Lord's servants whom he has specified as his revelators and seers.

If a person is not able to provide any witness to their theory, or opinion, except their own word. This once again is easy. Their opinion, and I can shun it. If the Lord's servants agree with a definition and have provided multiple witnesses and teachings -- giving interpretation to scripture -- and a member contradicts their interpretation and says they are teaching false doctrine. Once again, I can safely shun the member's interpretation and accept the Lord's servants -- as it is the Lord who declared that by His servants he declares his word.

So, I will embrace always the Lord's servants. I can find no evidence in scripture where a person who decided to turn against or contradict the Lord's servants that it turned out well for them. I can find plenty of evidence though in scripture where the opposite is the case.

But I do find intriguing what @person0 shared, and have wondered the same, when the Lord's servants have taught something so plain (i.e Adam and Eve were literal people, that the garden experience happened, etc...) and yet I am dumb founded by how many members reject this, find fault, or turn to science to try to discover God's revealed word.

If this keeps them in the gospel, then, keep believing I say. But, this idea of heavens and glory has been taught so plainly by the Lord's servants I am not sure how anyone would disagree or try to find something else. That is just me though.

[The Folk Prophet]

38 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

If this keeps them in the gospel

This is the real question, isn't it. I believe that, ultimately, it won't. It cannot.

The test we face is not one of intellectual prowess. It is one of humility.

[askandanswer]

6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

There are only wheat or tares, theres nothing else, just those two.

I'm not a farmer but I believe that there is more than one kind of wheat. And quite possibly, in addition to seperating the wheat from the tares, some farmers might seperate their good wheat from their bad wheat and treat them in different ways, and sell them to different sellers for different purposes. ( know that at least here in Australia, we have good hard Winter wheat, and wheat that is not Winter wheat, and they are sold for different amounts and different purposes. Probably there is more than one kind of tare. These importants fact are completely overlooked in the parable. This is just one example of the dangers of relying too much on a particularly narrow interpretation. 

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Anddenex said:

There is doctrine, false doctrines, and true doctrines.

We find agreement.

One of the problems we have as members is the belief that any and all doctrine taught by the church must be true and anything that even hints at not aligning is false and not true.

This isn't a problem, it is a protection against individuals who would seek to provide their own doctrine. The Book of Mormon is evidence of people/individuals who began to teach their own doctrine according to scripture. The provided their own interpretation and began to teach their interpretation as truth. Those who believe were lead astray. They who stuck with the Lord's servants remained true and faithful. We can see this in the Old Testament, New Testament, and early Church history.

When a doctrine is interpreted by the Church, through the Lord's servants, anything outside of that or that contradicts it -- if taught as truth -- should be shunned. If a person wants to share their own opinion and their own thoughts, that is fine as long as it is expressed as an opinion.

But as I am showing with this parable of the wheat and the tares, there certainly is this true doctrine that in the end all of the saved recieve celestial glory it shows that we are not complete in our doctrine in it being all true.

What you are providing is a person interpretation of a parable, not what actually occurs after this life. In order to accept this you have to reject what else is taught in scripture as previously shared. We should recognize we are not "complete" with a lot of truth. We do not have all the truth, but what we have doesn't agree with your interpretation of the scripture provided, and other scriptures that are interwoven. It appears you have "fixated" on a scripture while ignoring other scriptures, or a personal interpretation that can be found no where else -- that this is a line upon line teaching from 76, 88, to 101. This is a "personal view" from your perspective, not a doctrinal truth.

As you are unable to provide any witness besides your own, there is no prophetic witness to agree (apostle or prophet), I accept your personal interpretation as an opinion. I have provided multiple witnesses, that are current teachings from the Lord's servants. They carry more weight than a personal view.

Certainly, we are indeed in the Telestial kingdom, just as the truthfulness is plainly made manifest in our holy temples and by a prophet of God.

This interpretation is at odds with revealed word, revealed interpretation, and scripture. People receive Telestial glory AFTER the resurrection? Do you believe we are currently resurrected beings that are living in the Terrestrial kingdom? If not, then how you are interpreting the temple and a prophets words are again at odds.

What I am hearing is that Rob feels the Lord has revealed something to him that he hasn't the prophets and apostles as they continue to teach incorrect doctrine from 76, 88, and 101 because they have not yet learned that this was a line upon line teaching. I am pretty sure, if they are still teaching it is because the Spirit has already witnessed this truth and thus they teach it. I don't believe one minute that the prophet and apostles would teach something multiple times and be in error, providing more than one witness without any prophet or apostle saying, "That is not correct."

I simply ask, can you provide one statement from an apostle or prophet that would provide an additional witness to your theory? I have already provided multiple witnesses to the contrary.

But, again, our understanding of this truth is shrouded in doctrines that are not necessarily true. I can clearly point out contradictions in our doctrine proving we teach false doctrines. So, where does this leave us? What or whom should we shun and whom or what to embrace?

First sentence is personal opinion. One, you have no other witness to your truth. Two, you can not provide any witness from Church authorities, God's authorities he reveals His secrets to, to back up your belief.

It leaves us in the same place all the sons and daughters of God have been. Trust in the Lord, His servants, and his Holy Spirit.

I have already made clear what should be shunned and what should be accepted.

 

What is "doctrinal truth"? This is really the heart of the matter. Only one person testifies something is true and that is the Holy Ghost. Over the years, the decades, we have taught various doctrines, mostly true. But, the doctrines have changed in some degree since the Book of Mormon was first translated. Some of these were with a better understanding of the Godhead, vicarious work for the dead, etc. Along in there came various sections such as is now recorded in section 76. Suddenly our doctrine changed. What's interesting though is that so was Joseph Smith's understanding of salvation changing after the vision of 76. Over the course of the next decade his views modified greatly. You can read of these in the "Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith". In these later years much of the endowment was revealed along with the vicarious work. Along in here came doctrines concerning eternal marriage and polygamy that weren't really correct. As a testimony, my wife's seventh great grandmother was one of the secret wives of Joseph Smith. Even our religion isn't immune from false doctrines.

My point here is that the doctrine was all along being revealed and along with it came unnecessary baggage- false or incorrect doctrines. And this because of man's faulty reasoning. The endowment and temple work for the dead was one of the last doctrines revealed that was coming together when Joseph Smith died. In fact, as we read in section 138, much of the doctrine concerning the work for the dead and who it was for wasn't revealed until well after Joseph's death.

So, basically, we have these pieces all line upon line in succession culminating in section 138 and the temple. Now, this is an interesting fact- if you take section 138 and the endowment, by themselves and show them both to a new member who knows nothing of the rest of scripture and LDS doctrine and ask them to make a diagram of the plan of salvation from those two sources, which represent the last line upon line, and you will get a diagram that looks nothing like what we teach from manuals. Why? Do we not teach the correct doctrine in section 138 and the temple?

I find it interesting then that people say we should view the endowment in light of section 76. No, we should view section 76 in light of the endowment. Well, that changes everything!

Truth is about correlating doctrine with diligence and then seeking confirmation from the Spirit. That said, the Book of Mormon contains the foundational truths of Christ's gospel. In it we find a very strict dichotomy of heaven or hell. But even more than that it spells out very well the type of beings Christ saves and doesn't save. In truth, all further doctrine had to build off this foundation. If we thus take both the first which is the first line (the Book of Mormon) and the last (which is section 138, the temple endowment) they should eShop, they should coincide.  And that's exactly what we find. Now, of course it's going to take some time for us to connect the dots and doctrine to change yet again, become more perfect in theory.

[Just_A_Guy]

My goodness, @Rob Osborn.  Every analogy or parable or metaphor breaks down at a certain level of comparison.  You can’t extrapolate, from the parable of the widow’s mite, that God prefers the contributions of people whose spouses happen to be dead.  You can’t extrapolate, from the parable of the talents, that our heavenly reward is monetary in nature and may be exchanged or bartered for other goods and services.  You can’t extrapolate,  from the parable of the fig tree, that the kingdom of God will ultimately wither and die, and be chopped down and sold as surplus low-grade lumber.  You have to look at the parable in the context it was given.  

In this case, the parable of the wheat and tares is not intended—either in Matthew, or in D&C 101–as a comprehensive list of the grades of eternal rewards.  It is intended, in Matthew, to explain why God differs good and evil to coexist for the time being; and in D&C 101, to bolster the case for a physical gathering  of the Church to a geographical centerplace.  It’s not a matter of God misleading us or saying stuff that isn’t strictly “true”; it’s just that God says stuff in a way that is calculated to elicit a particular reaction and induce specific actions.  (D&C 19:7)

Sure, we can “liken” a scriptural passage to ourselves in ways that transcend the original context to uncover precious gems of knowledge.  But “likening” can easily cross into “wresting” if we start approaching any particular scripture dogmatically and denying the existence of its context, idiosyncrasies, nuances, limitations, and ambiguities.  

Edited January 16, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I want to focus clearly on this statement because I don't believe my response above accurately covers the question.

I can clearly point out contradictions in our doctrine proving we teach false doctrines.

Here is where we draw a fine line, and every member of the Church needs to be cautious. We have members of the Church who strongly believe in many things that are not inline with Church teachings. They have assumed a "contradiction" exists because of their own belief in what is true.

I believe you can point out contradictions you think/feel are there, thus increasing your belief we teach false doctrine. The contradictions you think are there are not there. Contradictions occur for many reasons, the number one reason I would say is our personal belief and our unwillingness to see things as they really are. We have assumed we have seen something the Lord's servants haven't.

Example, I have seen you strongly defend the flood and other things, while others would provide a different theory. They would say that our current teachings aren't correct either, and feel strongly they have received some other witness than the prophets, or feel they have to justify teachings via scientific theory. Are they right in believing their contradiction, or once again is the revealed word through prophets and apostles correct through multiple witnesses from the Lord's servants?

Another option is simply we do not have enough details provided by the Lord, and thus we think we see contradictions once again where there are none. It is our limited understanding that creates the contradiction according to our frame of reference.

So, where does this leave us? What or whom should we shun and whom or what to embrace?

I don't have trouble with this. The Lord declared he reveals his secrets through his servants the prophets. If there are multiple witnesses of teaching from apostles and prophets and there are no prophets or apostles that contradict or provide an alternative thought, then it is an easy decision -- I move forward with the Lord's servants whom he has specified as his revelators and seers.

If a person is not able to provide any witness to their theory, or opinion, except their own word. This once again is easy. Their opinion, and I can shun it. If the Lord's servants agree with a definition and have provided multiple witnesses and teachings -- giving interpretation to scripture -- and a member contradicts their interpretation and says they are teaching false doctrine. Once again, I can safely shun the member's interpretation and accept the Lord's servants -- as it is the Lord who declared that by His servants he declares his word.

So, I will embrace always the Lord's servants. I can find no evidence in scripture where a person who decided to turn against or contradict the Lord's servants that it turned out well for them. I can find plenty of evidence though in scripture where the opposite is the case.

But I do find intriguing what @person0 shared, and have wondered the same, when the Lord's servants have taught something so plain (i.e Adam and Eve were literal people, that the garden experience happened, etc...) and yet I am dumb founded by how many members reject this, find fault, or turn to science to try to discover God's revealed word.

If this keeps them in the gospel, then, keep believing I say. But, this idea of heavens and glory has been taught so plainly by the Lord's servants I am not sure how anyone would disagree or try to find something else. That is just me though.

As an example, just recently, a modern prophet declared in General Conference that we are now in the Telestial kingdom. How many saints actually believe this or even noticed?

[Rob Osborn]

22 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I'm not a farmer but I believe that there is more than one kind of wheat. And quite possibly, in addition to seperating the wheat from the tares, some farmers might seperate their good wheat from their bad wheat and treat them in different ways, and sell them to different sellers for different purposes. ( know that at least here in Australia, we have good hard Winter wheat, and wheat that is not Winter wheat, and they are sold for different amounts and different purposes. Probably there is more than one kind of tare. These importants fact are completely overlooked in the parable. This is just one example of the dangers of relying too much on a particularly narrow interpretation. 

But the parable doesn't demand such. It's written in a manner to differentiate between two groups. It's associated with his other teachings such as the righteous on the right hand and the wicked on the left. Now certainly there are different degrees of both righteousness and wickedness. But that's not the point and this is shown in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. In the end they all receive the same reward even though some were more diligent or worked longer. The reward itself is salvation from hell and there isn't degrees of salvation from hell. One is either saved from it 100% or not at all. And that is the point being made in the parable of the wheat and the tares. The wheat all receive eternal life in Celestial glory. Sure, once there, there are varrying degrees. But that's not what the parable is showing or teaching.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

My goodness, @Rob Osborn.  Every analogy or parable or metaphor breaks down at a certain level of comparison.  You can’t extrapolate, from the parable of the widow’s mite, that God prefers the contributions of people whose spouses happen to be dead.  You can’t extrapolate, from the parable of the talents, that our heavenly reward is monetary in nature and may be exchanged or bartered for other goods and services.  You can’t extrapolate,  from the parable of the fig tree, that the kingdom of God will ultimately wither and die, and be chopped down and sold as surplus low-grade lumber.  You have to look at the parable in the context it was given.  

In this case, the parable of the wheat and tares is not intended—either in Matthew, or in D&C 101–as a comprehensive list of the grades of eternal rewards.  It is intended, in Matthew, to explain why God differs good and evil to coexist for the time being; and in D&C 101, to bolster the case for a physical gathering  of the Church to a geographical centerplace.  It’s not a matter of God misleading us or saying stuff that isn’t strictly “true”; it’s just that God says stuff in a way that is calculated to elicit a particular reaction and induce specific actions.  (D&C 19:7)

Sure, we can “liken” a scriptural passage to ourselves in ways that transcend the original context to uncover precious gems of knowledge.  But “likening” can easily cross into “wresting” if we start approaching any particular scripture dogmatically and denying the existence of its context, idiosyncrasies, nuances, and ambiguities.  

Okay, one question- in the parable, who is the wheat?

[Just_A_Guy]

21 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Okay, one question- in the parable, who is the wheat?

In Jesus’ parable, it doesn’t really matter. The point isn’t their identities, the degree of their righteousness, or the quality of their eternal rewards; the point is that they and the tares—good and evil—exist together.  

 In D&C 101, the wheat is the “Saints” (v. 64) or “My people” who choose to gather (v 65) or the members of the various churches (v 67); who “may“ (not necessarily “will”) be crowned with “celestial” glory (which may denote “celestial” in the D&C 76 sense of the word, or just “celestial” as a generic term for “heavenly” or “divine”; the context is ambiguous).

Edited January 16, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In Jesus’ parable, it doesn’t really matter. The point isn’t their identities, the degree of their righteousness, or the quality of their eternal rewards; the point is that they and the tares—good and evil—exist together.  

 In D&C 101, the wheat is the “Saints” (v. 64) or “My people” who choose to gather (v 65) or the members of the various churches (v 67); who “may“ (not necessarily “will”) be crowned with “celestial” glory (is that “celestial” in the D&C 76 sense of the word, or just “celestial” as a generic term for “heavenly” or “divine”?)

The gathering is the gathering of all those into the temple with their own personal ordinances. These all get saved, they are the wheat, the only ones Christ cleanses and saves. The Garner's are temples as verse 64 explains. All the vicarious work we do in temples is this gathering of the wheat into the garners. Only those who are stored in the garners are saved. And they are all given both "eternal life" and "Celestial glory".

Edited January 16, 2019 by Rob Osborn

[Just_A_Guy]

16 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The gathering is the gathering of all those into the temple with their own personal ordinances. These all get saved, they are the wheat, the only ones Christ cleanses and saves. The Garner's are temples as verse 64 explains. All the vicarious work we do in temples is this gathering of the wheat into the garners. Only those who are stored in the garners are saved. And they are all given both "eternal life" and "Celestial glory".

By “likening”, maybe.  But that’s neither a textually faithful or contextually honest analysis of either Matthew 13 or D&C 101.

[Rob Osborn]

50 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

By “likening”, maybe.  But that’s neither a textually faithful or contextually honest analysis of either Matthew 13 or D&C 101.

Really? How so?

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

There's nothing to read into it, that's the whole point. We have this impossible dilemma where we can't accept the dichotomy because we can't see this truth. We try to read things into it to fit what we want but yet isn't true.

No, the point is that we have more than parables, more than one principle, and more than one level of understanding for any of them. Your false dichotomy is that they contradict each other and cannot be reconciled into the greater whole.

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, the point is that we have more than parables, more than one principle, and more than one level of understanding for any of them. Your false dichotomy is that they contradict each other and cannot be reconciled into the greater whole.

So, how does one understand these verses in light of the greater whole-

43 And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his probation—that by his natural death he might be raised in immortality unto eternal life, even as many as would believe;
            44 And they that believe not unto eternal damnation; for they cannot be redeemed from their spiritual fall, because they repent not.

45 For they love darkness rather than light, and their deeds are evil, and they receive their wages of whom they list to obey. (D&C 29:43-45)

[Just_A_Guy]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Really? How so?

For one thing, as a matter of textual analysis—you’re making stuff up*.  D&C 101:64 says nothing about temples or vicarious work, and the Church had no knowledge of the latter principle at the time the revelation was given.  You’re glomming onto the revelation’s allusion to “holy places”, assuming that that can *only* mean the temple, and then bootstrapping in the idea vicarious work for good measure.  You’re also taking ambiguous terms like “saved” and then forcing them into the single definition you find most convenient, to the exclusion of all other definitions; and you’re inserting absolutes into your paradigm that aren’t in the text of the scriptural passage being butchered (the text doesn’t say *all* the “wheat” WILL be “secured”; it says the wheat MAY be secured). 

For another thing:  D&C 101 was given for for a particular purpose and to address particular issues; and you haven’t yet shown a lot of interest or awareness in what those questions were or how the revelation works to answer them.  So far you seem more interested in how the revelation can be forced to to serve the interests of your theological hobby horse. 

 

 

 

 

*Again, there’s nothing inherently wrong with using the Spirit to find additional layers of possible meaning in the scriptures beyond what the mortal authors intended.  That’s classical “likening”.  But when you then try to use those insights in a debate to bolster a conclusion contrary to the teachings of the Church to suggest that “this scripture means only thus and not that”—that is, to put things mildly, a highly disingenuous line of discussion.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

What is "doctrinal truth"? This is really the heart of the matter. Only one person testifies something is true and that is the Holy Ghost. Over the years, the decades, we have taught various doctrines, mostly true. But, the doctrines have changed in some degree since the Book of Mormon was first translated. Some of these were with a better understanding of the Godhead, vicarious work for the dead, etc. Along in there came various sections such as is now recorded in section 76. Suddenly our doctrine changed. What's interesting though is that so was Joseph Smith's understanding of salvation changing after the vision of 76. Over the course of the next decade his views modified greatly. You can read of these in the "Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith". In these later years much of the endowment was revealed along with the vicarious work. Along in here came doctrines concerning eternal marriage and polygamy that weren't really correct. As a testimony, my wife's seventh great grandmother was one of the secret wives of Joseph Smith. Even our religion isn't immune from false doctrines.

My point here is that the doctrine was all along being revealed and along with it came unnecessary baggage- false or incorrect doctrines. And this because of man's faulty reasoning. The endowment and temple work for the dead was one of the last doctrines revealed that was coming together when Joseph Smith died. In fact, as we read in section 138, much of the doctrine concerning the work for the dead and who it was for wasn't revealed until well after Joseph's death.

So, basically, we have these pieces all line upon line in succession culminating in section 138 and the temple. Now, this is an interesting fact- if you take section 138 and the endowment, by themselves and show them both to a new member who knows nothing of the rest of scripture and LDS doctrine and ask them to make a diagram of the plan of salvation from those two sources, which represent the last line upon line, and you will get a diagram that looks nothing like what we teach from manuals. Why? Do we not teach the correct doctrine in section 138 and the temple?

I find it interesting then that people say we should view the endowment in light of section 76. No, we should view section 76 in light of the endowment. Well, that changes everything!

Truth is about correlating doctrine with diligence and then seeking confirmation from the Spirit. That said, the Book of Mormon contains the foundational truths of Christ's gospel. In it we find a very strict dichotomy of heaven or hell. But even more than that it spells out very well the type of beings Christ saves and doesn't save. In truth, all further doctrine had to build off this foundation. If we thus take both the first which is the first line (the Book of Mormon) and the last (which is section 138, the temple endowment) they should eShop, they should coincide.  And that's exactly what we find. Now, of course it's going to take some time for us to connect the dots and doctrine to change yet again, become more perfect in theory.

What is "doctrinal truth"? This is really the heart of the matter. Only one person testifies something is true and that is the Holy Ghost.

We find agreement that understanding what is doctrinal truth is at the heart of the matter. The Holy Ghost is the member of the Godhead that delivers truth, but is not the only person that testifies of truth. We have the following scripture that specifies in the mouth of two or three witnesses is every word established.

Doctrinal truth is anything that is true -- things as they really are. The Lord, as you have specified, will provide us with doctrinal truth line upon line according to what he -- the Lord -- feels we should have:

Quote

For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true. Alma 28:8

The point you are making isn't substantiated by anyone else but yourself. Therein is the heart of the matter of this discussion. You can provide no other witness than your own thoughts and opinions regarding your beliefs, and what you call false and true doctrine.

I find it interesting then that people say we should view the endowment in light of section 76. No, we should view section 76 in light of the endowment. Well, that changes everything!

Both of these ideas are actually correct. The temple endowment and scripture should be interpreted according to what is truth and what has been revealed.  This includes the words of modern prophets and apostles. We should view the endowment in light of section 76 and in light of modern revelation. We should also review prophetic revelation in light of scripture and the endowment. We should view section 76 (all scripture) in light of the endowment and modern revelation. I have discovered nothing has changed. Truth is truth. What is, is. What is not, is not.

Truth is about correlating doctrine with diligence and then seeking confirmation from the Spirit.

We find agreement here. And hopefully, we do not put ourselves in a position to be deceived by an opposing spirit as others have, by which they can provide scriptural examples even if their belief contradicts modern revelation and current teachings.

That said, the Book of Mormon contains the foundational truths of Christ's gospel.

Partially true. The Book of Mormon, The Holy Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price contain doctrinal truth, foundations of the gospel of Jesus Christ. All these books of scripture, in light of modern revelation and interpretation as given by the Lord's servants, contain what it is the Lord wants us to know.

If our interpretation varies from the Lord's servants, and the Lord has provided multiple witnesses from his servants, and our interpretation does not coincide, then we should rethink the following, "Truth is about correlating doctrine with diligence and then seeking confirmation from the Spirit," as the chances are higher we are not listening to the correct spirit.

 

[Rob Osborn]

27 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

For one thing, as a matter of textual analysis—you’re making stuff up*.  D&C 101:64 says nothing about temples or vicarious work, and the Church had no knowledge of the latter principle at the time the revelation was given.  You’re glomming onto the revelation’s allusion to “holy places”, assuming that that can *only* mean the temple, and then bootstrapping in the idea vicarious work for good measure.  You’re also taking ambiguous terms like “saved” and then forcing them into the single definition you find most convenient, to the exclusion of all other definitions; and you’re inserting absolutes into your paradigm that aren’t in the text of the scriptural passage being butchered (the text doesn’t say *all* the “wheat” WILL be “secured”; it says the wheat MAY be secured). 

For another thing:  D&C 101 was given for for a particular purpose and to address particular issues; and you haven’t yet shown a lot of interest or awareness in what those questions were or how the revelation works to answer them.  So far you seem more interested in how the revelation can be forced to to serve the interests of your theological hobby horse. 

 

 

 

 

*Again, there’s nothing inherently wrong with using the Spirit to find additional layers of possible meaning in the scriptures beyond what the mortal authors intended.  That’s classical “likening”.  But when you then try to use those insights in a debate to bolster a conclusion contrary to the teachings of the Church to suggest that “this scripture means only thus and not that”—that is, to put things mildly, a highly disingenuous line of discussion.

The "garners" are temples. The harvest is gathering names and doing work in the temple and building them up in His holy house. This is a talk from David A. Bednar-

“Behold, the field was ripe, and blessed are ye, for ye did thrust in the sickle, and did reap with your might, yea, all the day long did ye labor; and behold the number of your sheaves! And they shall be gathered into the garners, that they are not wasted” (Alma 26:5).

The sheaves in this analogy represent newly baptized members of the Church. The garners are the holy temples." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/honorably-hold-a-name-and-standing?lang=eng

I don't just make this stuff up, I study and research.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

What is "doctrinal truth"? This is really the heart of the matter. Only one person testifies something is true and that is the Holy Ghost.

We find agreement that understanding what is doctrinal truth is at the heart of the matter. The Holy Ghost is the member of the Godhead that delivers truth, but is not the only person that testifies of truth. We have the following scripture that specifies in the mouth of two or three witnesses is every word established.

Doctrinal truth is anything that is true -- things as they really are. The Lord, as you have specified, will provide us with doctrinal truth line upon line according to what he -- the Lord -- feels we should have:

The point you are making isn't substantiated by anyone else but yourself. Therein is the heart of the matter of this discussion. You can provide no other witness than your own thoughts and opinions regarding your beliefs, and what you call false and true doctrine.

I find it interesting then that people say we should view the endowment in light of section 76. No, we should view section 76 in light of the endowment. Well, that changes everything!

Both of these ideas are actually correct. The temple endowment and scripture should be interpreted according to what is truth and what has been revealed.  This includes the words of modern prophets and apostles. We should view the endowment in light of section 76 and in light of modern revelation. We should also review prophetic revelation in light of scripture and the endowment. We should view section 76 (all scripture) in light of the endowment and modern revelation. I have discovered nothing has changed. Truth is truth. What is, is. What is not, is not.

Truth is about correlating doctrine with diligence and then seeking confirmation from the Spirit.

We find agreement here. And hopefully, we do not put ourselves in a position to be deceived by an opposing spirit as others have, by which they can provide scriptural examples even if their belief contradicts modern revelation and current teachings.

That said, the Book of Mormon contains the foundational truths of Christ's gospel.

Partially true. The Book of Mormon, The Holy Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price contain doctrinal truth, foundations of the gospel of Jesus Christ. All these books of scripture, in light of modern revelation and interpretation as given by the Lord's servants, contain what it is the Lord wants us to know.

If our interpretation varies from the Lord's servants, and the Lord has provided multiple witnesses from his servants, and our interpretation does not coincide, then we should rethink the following, "Truth is about correlating doctrine with diligence and then seeking confirmation from the Spirit," as the chances are higher we are not listening to the correct spirit.

 

So I'm curious, what do you think when a prophet declared that we are now in the telestial kingdom? Is this a witness of truth?

[Anddenex]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

As an example, just recently, a modern prophet declared in General Conference that we are now in the Telestial kingdom. How many saints actually believe this or even noticed?

My dear brother, I have heard you say this multiple times, without any quote given. As previously requested provide the quote from General Conference so that I may read the quote in context.

I believe there are many Saints that recognize the symbolism of this being the Telestial Kingdom, it makes perfect sense in light of modern revelation. I will though provide you once again with quotes from General Conference that contradict the dichotomy you present as truth.

Quote

Another unchanging principle, brothers and sisters, is that of your eventual judgment. Each of you will be judged according to your individual works and the desires of your hearts.43 You will not be required to pay the debt of any other. Your eventual placement in the celestial, terrestrial, or telestial kingdom will not be determined by chance. The Lord has prescribed unchanging requirements for each. You can know what the scriptures teach, and pattern your lives accordingly. Russell M. Nelson

Quote

These three degrees of glory relate to postmortal life. They relate to the immortality of the human soul. That gift of immortality became a reality because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.37 This important word—atonement—in any of its forms, is mentioned only once in the King James Version of the New Testament!38 In the Book of Mormon, it appears 39 times! Russell M. Nelson

Quote

Even the lowest kingdom of glory, the telestial kingdom, “surpasses all understanding,” and numberless people will inherit this salvation. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf

And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding; D&C 76:89 (emphasis mine)

We are informed that the lowest kingdom, Telestial Kingdom surpasses our understanding? In light of how you interpret "Telestial Kingdom" how does this Kingdom surpass my understanding when I am already living in it? The more I hear and read your understanding the more modern revelation and scripture contradicts it. I mean, if I am living in the Telestial Kingdom, as Rob Osborn interprets it -- heck -- this world/kingdom doesn't surpass my understanding -- I am living it!! Again, a contradiction I find with your interpretation and revealed truth, doctrine. The telestial glory/kingdom is received upon "final judgement" (correlates with scripture and modern revelation)

Quote

 

In their final judgment, the children of God will be assigned to a kingdom of glory for which their obedience has qualified them. In his letters to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul described these places. He told of a vision in which he was “caught up to the third heaven” and “heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter” (2 Cor. 12:2, 4). Speaking of the resurrection of the dead, he described “celestial bodies,” “bodies terrestrial” (1 Cor. 15:40), and “bodies telestial” (JST, 1 Cor. 15:40), each pertaining to a different degree of glory. He likened these different glories to the sun, to the moon, and to different stars (see 1 Cor. 15:41). (emphasis mine)

We learn from modern revelation that these three different degrees of glory have a special relationship to the three different members of the Godhead.

The lowest degree is the telestial domain of those who “received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets” (D&C 76:101) and who have had to suffer for their wickedness. But even this degree has a glory that “surpasses all understanding” (D&C 76:89). Its occupants receive the Holy Spirit and the administering of angels, for even those who have been wicked will ultimately be “heirs of [this degree of] salvation” (D&C 76:88). Dallin H. Oaks

Quote

It is true that scriptures foretell the final days of the earth’s temporal existence as a telestial sphere. The earth will then be renewed and receive its paradisiacal, or terrestrial, glory. (See A of F 1:10.) Ultimately, the earth will become celestialized. (See Rev. 21:1; D&C 77:1; D&C 88:25–26.) But its last days must be preceded by its latter days! Russell M. Nelson (emphasis mine)

Quote

We must remember this world is a telestial environment. Our children grow up in this environment. (emphasis mine - Ezra Taft Benson)

Quote

 

In that resurrected state, Paul said, there are “celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial, and bodies telestial; but the glory of the celestial, one; and the terrestrial, another; and the telestial, another” (JST, 1 Cor. 15:40).

Those who have lived after the manner of the world shall go to a telestial kingdom whose glory is as the stars. (Spencer W. Kimball)

 

Quote

Telestial glory will be reserved for individuals who “received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus” (D&C 76:82). These individuals will receive their glory after being redeemed from spirit prison, which is sometimes called hell (see D&C 76:84, 106). A detailed explanation of those who will inherit telestial glory is found in Doctrine and Covenants 76:81–90, 98–106, 109–112. (Manual)

Quote

Here and now in mortality, each one of us is having the opportunity of choosing the kind of laws we elect to obey. We are now living and obeying celestial laws that will make us candidates for celestial glory, or we are living terrestrial laws that will make us candidates for … terrestrial glory, or telestial law. The place we shall occupy in the eternal worlds will be determined by the obedience we yield to the laws of these various kingdoms during the time we have here in mortality upon the earth. Harold B. Lee (emphasis mine)

What I have done is provided multiple witnesses of revealed truth and interpretation. What I am receiving from you is that I need to trust Rob's interpretation, without Rob providing any further witness of his interpretation. What I discover is Rob isn't providing doctrinal truth, but his thoughts on the matter, that I can in the right spirit reject.

On a finishing note, as you strongly feel this earth is the Telestial Kingdom of Glory:
 

Quote

 

The Lord has described those who will inherit the telestial kingdom.

Those who profess to follow Christ or the prophets but willfully reject the gospel, the testimony of Jesus, the prophets, and the everlasting covenant will inherit the telestial kingdom (see D&C 76:99–101).

The inhabitants of the telestial kingdom will include those who were murderers, liars, sorcerers, adulterers, and whoremongers—in general, the wicked people of the earth (see D&C 76:103; Revelation 22:15). These inhabitants of the telestial kingdom will have become clean through their suffering so that they can abide telestial glory.

The inhabitants of the telestial kingdom will be as innumerable as the stars (see D&C 76:109).

 

If so, then we are all screwed, because those assigned to the Telestial Kingdom have been defined. Thanks Rob for consigning us all to an eternal damnation in the Telestial Kingdom with your interpretation.

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

My dear brother, I have heard you say this multiple times, without any quote given. As previously requested provide the quote from General Conference so that I may read the quote in context.

I believe there are many Saints that recognize the symbolism of this being the Telestial Kingdom, it makes perfect sense in light of modern revelation. I will though provide you once again with quotes from General Conference that contradict the dichotomy you present as truth.

We are informed that the lowest kingdom, Telestial Kingdom surpasses our understanding? In light of how you interpret "Telestial Kingdom" how does this Kingdom surpass my understanding when I am already living in it? The more I hear and read your understanding the more modern revelation and scripture contradicts it. I mean, if I am living in the Telestial Kingdom, as Rob Osborn interprets it -- heck -- this world/kingdom doesn't surpass my understanding -- I am living it!! Again, a contradiction I find with your interpretation and revealed truth, doctrine. The telestial glory/kingdom is received upon "final judgement" (correlates with scripture and modern revelation)

What I have done is provided multiple witnesses of revealed truth and interpretation. What I am receiving from you is that I need to trust Rob's interpretation, without Rob providing any further witness of his interpretation. What I discover is Rob isn't providing doctrinal truth, but his thoughts on the matter, that I can in the right spirit reject.

On a finishing note, as you strongly feel this earth is the Telestial Kingdom of Glory:
 

If so, then we are all screwed, because those assigned to the Telestial Kingdom have been defined. Thanks Rob for consigning us all to an eternal damnation in the Telestial Kingdom with your interpretation.

Here is the quote-

"To put this issue in context, may I remind all of us that we live in a fallen world and for now we are a fallen people. We are in the telestial kingdom; that is spelled with a t, not a c."  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/be-ye-therefore-perfect-eventually?lang=eng

And BTW, as said in scripture, one of the groups in the telestial kingdoms-

103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.

It doesn't say they "were" but rather "are" meaning they are still that distinction. How is it that there are liars and whoremongers in heaven?