Commandments (Blessings and Curses)

[Traveler]

It has always been interesting to me how individuals interpret doctrine (things taught in scripture).  I have mentioned that I do not think doctrine is worthy of the respect most people in the religious community place on doctrine.  But beyond doctrine there is very little to discuss concerning religion and discussing religion (doctrine) is a very popular activity – that rivals, perhaps even politics.  And it does seem that even the news is obsessed with discussing politics and religion – especially the relationship of politics and religion.

Let us now take a step into doctrine that is manifested in Christianity, Judaism and Islam.  The Eden epoch.  In Genesis 3 Adam and Eve are being rebuked for partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

In verse 17 Adam is specifically rebuked because he “hearkened unto the voice of thy wife” and partook of the fruit.  Because Adam did what he did the scripture tells us that the ground is cursed and that Adam will eat in “sorrow” every day of his life. 

Verse 18 seems to indicate that thorns and thistles will be brought from the ground and then in verse 19 that Adam will “sweat” (work) until he dies for the necessities of survival (bread).

So here are some questions concerning doctrine:

#1. Are commandments a blessing or a curse?

#2. Was Adam commanded, given a prophesy or just given advice – or are these verses explanations of a covenant?

#3. If someone is given a free meal – if they accept it are they loyal to the commandment of G-d given in Genesis chapter 3.  And a caveat – why did Jesus feed the 5,000 without sweat?  How does what Jesus did relate to Genesis?  Was something change concerning the doctrine of working (sweating) to eat?

#4 Will the millennium have new covenants, laws, commandments,  blessings and doctrine?  Is it possible that doctrine changes based on covenants, laws, commandments and blessings?

#5 AS we learn doctrine – does it change our covenants, laws, commandments and blessings or as we make new covenants, receive new laws, commandments and blessings – can it change our doctrine?

 

I have asked these questions – not so much for a compartmentalized answer as much as to generate thoughts and discussions for the purpose of learning and expanding our understanding of things.  Especially that we can examine how the spirit speaks to us – not just about the specific questions but concerning differences of opinions.

Thanks in advance for reading my post and for any additions, ideas and insights.

 

The Traveler

Edited May 2, 2019 by Traveler

[Fifthziff]

An elevator can take you up or down, just depends on what button you push. 

[GaleG]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have asked these questions – not so much for a compartmentalized answer as much as to generate thoughts and discussions for the purpose of learning and expanding our understanding of things.  Especially that we can examine how the spirit speaks to us – not just about the specific questions but concerning differences of opinions.

Thanks in advance for reading my post and for any additions, ideas and insights.

 

The Traveler

Maybe instead of the word 'rebuked', I would use the word 'punished'.

One thing I noticed is that both Adam and Eve play the blame game. Adam blames Eve. She
in turn places blame on the serpent. Both fail to take responsibility for their own disobedience.
Their first sin leads to other failures (hiding and trying to cover their nakedness their own way
with the fig leaf aprons). I feel it's the same thing today - people still wearing their own fig leaf
aprons (good works, thinking they are not bad enough to deserve separation from God, idols,
etc) instead of approaching Him by his prescribed way.

Thank you,

Gale

[Anddenex]

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

It has always been interesting to me how individuals interpret doctrine (things taught in scripture).  I have mentioned that I do not think doctrine is worthy of the respect most people in the religious community place on doctrine.  But beyond doctrine there is very little to discuss concerning religion and discussing religion (doctrine) is a very popular activity – that rivals, perhaps even politics.  And it does seem that even the news is obsessed with discussing politics and religion – especially the relationship of politics and religion.

Let us now take a step into doctrine that is manifested in Christianity, Judaism and Islam.  The Eden epoch.  In Genesis 3 Adam and Eve are being rebuked for partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

In verse 17 Adam is specifically rebuked because he “hearkened unto the voice of thy wife” and partook of the fruit.  Because Adam did what he did the scripture tells us that the ground is cursed and that Adam will eat in “sorrow” every day of his life. 

Verse 18 seems to indicate that thorns and thistles will be brought from the ground and then in verse 19 that Adam will “sweat” (work) until he dies for the necessities of survival (bread).

So here are some questions concerning doctrine:

#1. Are commandments a blessing or a curse?

#2. Was Adam commanded, given a prophesy or just given advice – or are these verses explanations of a covenant?

#3. If someone is given a free meal – if they accept it are they loyal to the commandment of G-d given in Genesis chapter 3.  And a caveat – why did Jesus feed the 5,000 without sweat?  How does what Jesus did relate to Genesis?  Was something change concerning the doctrine of working (sweating) to eat?

#4 Will the millennium have new covenants, laws, commandments,  blessings and doctrine?  Is it possible that doctrine changes based on covenants, laws, commandments and blessings?

#5 AS we learn doctrine – does it change our covenants, laws, commandments and blessings or as we make new covenants, receive new laws, commandments and blessings – can it change our doctrine?

 

I have asked these questions – not so much for a compartmentalized answer as much as to generate thoughts and discussions for the purpose of learning and expanding our understanding of things.  Especially that we can examine how the spirit speaks to us – not just about the specific questions but concerning differences of opinions.

Thanks in advance for reading my post and for any additions, ideas and insights.

 

The Traveler

We will probably find disagreement pertaining to the following statement, "I do not think doctrine is worthy of the respect..." This is OK; although doctrine, we would not know whom to worship, and we would not know his true character.

#1. Are commandments a blessing or a curse?

Commandments are always a blessing; although, the result of keeping a commandment some may define as a curse. As the statement goes, "Do what is right and let the consequence follow." The consequence of doing what is right is not always a blessing (as to the eyes of this world).

#2. Was Adam commanded, given a prophesy or just given advice – or are these verses explanations of a covenant?

Adam appears to have received all three. A command (Do not partake). A prophecy (if you partake you will die and be cast out). And advice (nevertheless you may choose for thyself).  This doesn't mean the command couldn't have changed with more knowledge if they had waited to partake of the fruit of good and evil. The question, upon Eve's enlightenment, what would have been different if Eve first approached Adam and then they both prayed to the Father regarding new knowledge?

#3. If someone is given a free meal – if they accept it are they loyal to the commandment of G-d given in Genesis chapter 3.  And a caveat – why did Jesus feed the 5,000 without sweat?  How does what Jesus did relate to Genesis?  Was something change concerning the doctrine of working (sweating) to eat?

Yes. The commandment doesn't interfere with a friend inviting a friend over and offering a meal they did not earn through sweat. Just as the commandment doesn't change if I invited people, or even people followed, and I recognized they were hungry and knowing God had blessed me with more that I am able to feed others.

The commandment would be possibly broken, more likely broken, if they came back again not to hear Christ's words but only to be fed once more, and then once more, until everyday they were asking for fish and bread not by the sweat of their brow.

Nothing changed, all things remained as they are.

#4 Will the millennium have new covenants, laws, commandments,  blessings and doctrine?  Is it possible that doctrine changes based on covenants, laws, commandments and blessings?

Yes, most likely. I would think not experiencing the death we do now is a blessing. We will receive more knowledge, doctrine pertaining to the eternities. I would assume new commandments and covenants will be received as we are no longer living a Telestial law. We are living Terrestrial laws and Celestial laws.

How one defines "doctrine" yes the doctrine can change. If one defines "doctrine" as anything that is taught or proclaimed to the people, then doctrine will change. If "doctrine" is defined as truth, it will not change. The doctrine of Christ as our Savior will not change because we now live during the millennium. The doctrine of no longer practicing polygamy could indeed change, depending on the prophecy of "all things being restored" in Christ's church.

Laws and commandments could definitely change, as we will be living a higher law. Look to the higher law of divorce as given by our Lord in the New Testament that we do not as of right now practice. I believe it was President Nelson (Elder Nelson at the time) who said it was a Celestial law we are not living currently.

So as to laws changes or simply being removed? Does the law change if we move from Telestial living to Terrestrial living and to Celestial living, or are these laws already in place, and we simply learn them as we go. The Telestial laws still remain in a Telestial world. The Terrestrial laws still remain in a Terrestrial world although I have received Celestial laws.

In that light, they don't change, we simply progress from one state to another through laws and covenants.

#5 AS we learn doctrine – does it change our covenants, laws, commandments and blessings or as we make new covenants, receive new laws, commandments and blessings – can it change our doctrine?

I think this goes along with #4.

 

[GaleG]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Adam appears to have received all three. A command (Do not partake). A prophecy (if you partake you will die and be cast out). And advice (nevertheless you may choose for thyself).

Hello,

I don't view it as a prophecy but rather as punishment.  My reading of Alma 42 shows this with
a specific reference to Adam and Eve.

Isn't the phrase  nevertheless you may choose for thyself  applicable to all the commandments
since we may choose for ourselves to either obey or disobey?

Thank you,

Gale

[Anddenex]

20 minutes ago, GaleG said:

Hello,

I don't view it as a prophecy but rather as punishment.  My reading of Alma 42 shows this with
a specific reference to Adam and Eve.

Isn't the phrase  nevertheless you may choose for thyself  applicable to all the commandments
since we may choose for ourselves to either obey or disobey?

Thank you,

Gale

A prophecy is something that would happen in the future, which can prophesy of a punishment. When Jonah prophesied to the city that if they did not repent, then the city would receive the wrath of God that is a prophecy connected to a punishment. There are prophecies that are also connected to blessings. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Pertaining to Adam and Eve and the commandment given with "nevertheless thou mayest choose for thyself" isn't the same as every commandment we have received. We have our agency, this is true also and we can choose to either obey or disobey, but there has been no other commandment with the condition from the Father "nevertheless thou mayest choose for thyself."  Adam and Eve were in a position like no other son or daughter of God.

[GaleG]

On 5/3/2019 at 6:29 PM, Anddenex said:

A prophecy is something that would happen in the future, which can prophesy of a punishment.

..., but there has been no other commandment with the condition from the Father "nevertheless thou mayest choose for thyself." Adam and Eve were in a position like no other son or daughter of God.

According to Alma chapter 42, were Adam and Eve punished with death and expulsion from God's
presence? 

What is the significance/implication of that commandment's condition?  And do you believe
this condition was applicable to Eve too? (if yes, reference please).

Thank you,

Gale

[Anddenex]

6 hours ago, GaleG said:

According to Alma chapter 42, were Adam and Eve punished with death and expulsion from God's
presence? 

What is the significance/implication of that commandment's condition?  And do you believe
this condition was applicable to Eve too? (if yes, reference please).

Thank you,

Gale

The first statement we already agree upon. Adam and Eve were punished or received what God told them would occur if they partook of the fruit. What God told them would occur, is the prophecy (which is what a prophecy is, a statement of something that will happen in the future).

What is your understanding of a prophecy, or to prophesy?

If you are referring to the condition of "Nevertheless thou mayest choose for thyself" is the only time the Father has given such a statement in correlation with the commandment not to eat. Adam and Eve's experience in the garden of Eden is like no other experience since their fall. Adam and Eve received the same condition in the garden of Eden. As the condition was given to both of them, then yes it would apply to equally to Eve as it did Adam.

[Traveler]

It appears that the discussion has gone a little sideways from what I intended.  I was attempting to highlight the scriptures that dealt with post fall.  It would appear that the discussion is centered around pre-fall.  In particular I wanted to bring the discussion to "WORK" and specifically to work that causes sweat.   I can understand that many do not like to talk about work.  In general, our society is both lazy and lethargic - perhaps more so that any previous generation.  Politically there are discussions about privilege classes that are able to achieve and prosper without work.  That it is unfair for some to have when many are not haves.  

There are many that think they are "above" certain jobs - or that working in certain fields is demeaning.   We make fun of someone working at a fast food place - "flipping" burgers.  It is all so interesting - I was taught to never accept or expect any thing for free.  

I thought to start with Genesis chapter 3.  What is work - A blessing or a curse?  Is there a divine law that demands work?  Is work a commandment?  Here is a very interesting question: - is work a sacrifice?  Was Adam required to work?  Are we required to work?  Is work at its core a good thing or evil thing to be avoided if possible?  Can we be saved without work?  Is repentance work?  And we never got to what is meant by a day of "rest".

But I also intended to talk about doctrine - and use the example of the doctrine concerning work.  How does doctrine relate to the law of G-d, and his covenants and commandments?  Is there a difference between being taught doctrine - or being taught the law, the covenants, the commandments and the ordinances?

 

The Traveler

[Guest Mores]

On 5/2/2019 at 5:25 PM, Traveler said:

It has always been interesting to me how individuals interpret doctrine (things taught in scripture).  I have mentioned that I do not think doctrine is worthy of the respect most people in the religious community place on doctrine.  But beyond doctrine there is very little to discuss concerning religion and discussing religion (doctrine) is a very popular activity – that rivals, perhaps even politics.  And it does seem that even the news is obsessed with discussing politics and religion – especially the relationship of politics and religion.

You keep making statements about "doctrine" which show a negative connotation to the word.  And I'm having trouble figuring out what you're getting at.  I think you need to explain just what definition of "doctrine" you're using and why it is bad.

[Traveler]

10 minutes ago, Mores said:

You keep making statements about "doctrine" which show a negative connotation to the word.  And I'm having trouble figuring out what you're getting at.  I think you need to explain just what definition of "doctrine" you're using and why it is bad.

Because when we argue doctrine - we do not argue what is but what we think ought to be.  There is too much ambiguity in doctrine because it is anything that a human teaches.  Truth comes only from the G-d of truth.  There is no understanding between men unless a divine spirit assists and no mortal man possesses all spiritual gifts (See Moroni 10).  And yet here I am trying to express a doctrine of doctrine.  It is not that I or anyone else is wrong except that we, at our best and by ourselves, are lacking and not complete (diminished ruined or lost) when there a spirit contention - which turns truth into lies. 

Thanks for asking for my opinion

 

The Traveler

[Guest Mores]

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

Because when we argue doctrine - we do not argue what is but what we think ought to be.  There is too much ambiguity in doctrine because it is anything that a human teaches.  Truth comes only from the G-d of truth.  There is no understanding between men unless a divine spirit assists and no mortal man possesses all spiritual gifts (See Moroni 10).  And yet here I am trying to express a doctrine of doctrine.  It is not that I or anyone else is wrong except that we, at our best and by ourselves, are lacking and not complete (diminished ruined or lost) when there a spirit contention - which turns truth into lies. 

Thanks for asking for my opinion

 

The Traveler

So, what is your definition of "doctrine" that everyone is getting wrong?

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Mores said:

So, what is your definition of "doctrine" that everyone is getting wrong?

Doctrine seems to cover a great spectrum of ideas - It appears to me that the definition most widely used and understood would be "The philosophies of men mingled with scripture".  Philosophies meaning or connected to Ideas, Thoughts, Expressions and Understandings.

Thanks for asking - what do you understand to define "Doctrine"?  And you do not have to answer; but where do we learn that "Doctrine" was first being taught to mankind?

 

The Traveler

[Guest Mores]

Just now, Traveler said:

Doctrine seems to cover a great spectrum of ideas - It appears to me that the definition most widely used and understood would be "The philosophies of men mingled with scripture".  Philosophies meaning or connected to Ideas, Thoughts, Expressions and Understandings.

Thanks for asking - what do you understand to define "Doctrine"?  And you do not have to answer; but where do we learn that "Doctrine" was first being taught to mankind?

First, I need to express that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you.  I just want to know what you're really trying to say.  I still don't think I understand that yet.  If I don't understand what you're saying, how can I agree or disagree with it?

When you say "Philosophies of men mingled with scripture" I tend to think I know what you're talking about.  But then you apply it to areas that I wouldn't normally characterize that way.  So, then I'm back to square one.  I have no idea what you're talking about.

When I think of doctrine, I agree that it can encompass a wide spectrum.  Doctrine is simply "an idea that is taught on a common or systemic level."  We can say,"Doctrine according to Traveler" for example. And this would simply mean one man's opinion or interpretation.  And it is fine to consider such things. But they cannot be accepted as "true doctrine" until it is confirmed by the Spirit.

When you denounce doctrine with such a broad brush, you are denouncing even true doctrine -- by extension.  I would hope we can agree there are things we would call "false doctrine" and "true doctrine."  Although it may be difficult for mortal men to properly categorize much of the stuff we hear.  If you don't at least acknowledge this much, then we're having a severe semantic meltdown.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Mores said:

having a severe semantic meltdown

Welcome to the internet.

[mikbone]

After the fall, Satan was cursed and so was the Earth. But neither Adam nor Eve were cursed!  Adam and Eve initially thought that they were being disciplined for their transgressions, but we now recognize that they were given blessings in disguise. 

Adam was blessed with the ability to work and provide for himself and his family. He was to work the ground by the sweat of his brow to destroy the thorns and thistles and protect the herb of the field that he may eat bread, until the day he died and returned to the dust.[1]  

Let us realize that the privilege to work is a gift, that power to work is a blessing, that love of work is success. – David O McKay

Hard work forever pays - Charlie Puth, Cameron Thomaz, Justin Frank, Andrew Cedar. “See You Again.” Atlantic, 2015.

Moses 1:39 This is my work and my glory -

God's plan required Adam and Eve to be isolated for multiple decades so that they could pass through a period of learning, reflection and gain perspective on life. Although God told Adam that he would work and eat in sorrow all the days of his life, sorrow was not the only feeling or emotion that Adam experienced. Adam received joy and satisfaction as He began to provide for his family. Yes, the fruit in the garden was free, easily accessible, and sweet, but there was no sense of accomplishment. Prior to the fall, Adam had no way to really appreciate the paradisiacal glory of the Garden of Eden, it was all he knew. Sure, when Adam ate his first crude loaf of bread, he realized that it was a poor substitute for Godly sustenance. But, hunger is the best seasoning.[2]  Work causes sorrow just as much as exercise causes pain, or humility leads to weakness. 

The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods.[3]

 

---

[1]Moses 4:23-25

[2]The best meal I ever had was a cup of water and a soda cracker after a 4 day fast. 

[3]Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, December 23, 1776

Edited May 7, 2019 by mikbone

[Traveler]

On 5/7/2019 at 8:15 AM, Mores said:

First, I need to express that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you.  I just want to know what you're really trying to say.  I still don't think I understand that yet.  If I don't understand what you're saying, how can I agree or disagree with it?

When you say "Philosophies of men mingled with scripture" I tend to think I know what you're talking about.  But then you apply it to areas that I wouldn't normally characterize that way.  So, then I'm back to square one.  I have no idea what you're talking about.

When I think of doctrine, I agree that it can encompass a wide spectrum.  Doctrine is simply "an idea that is taught on a common or systemic level."  We can say,"Doctrine according to Traveler" for example. And this would simply mean one man's opinion or interpretation.  And it is fine to consider such things. But they cannot be accepted as "true doctrine" until it is confirmed by the Spirit.

When you denounce doctrine with such a broad brush, you are denouncing even true doctrine -- by extension.  I would hope we can agree there are things we would call "false doctrine" and "true doctrine."  Although it may be difficult for mortal men to properly categorize much of the stuff we hear.  If you don't at least acknowledge this much, then we're having a severe semantic meltdown.

There is an ancient idea (doctrine) that is described in scripture with the English term "living water".  We find this symbolic reference numerous times in scripture both directly and indirectly.  There are two ancient concepts of "living water".  One is that the water is flowing and is in motion (definitely not contained).  The other concept is a known source of origin.   Anciently water could not be declared as "living water" unless these two criteria were met.

One principle that I believe you have touched on that is absolutely critical.  We can say, "Doctrine according to The Traveler".  The only doctrine that I can express is that "doctrine according to The Traveler".  I am the source of that doctrine.  Likewise you are the source of "doctrine according to Mores.   As you can see, there really is no such thing as "Church Doctrine".  (At least according to the understanding of The Traveler).  The Church cannot speak, write or in anyway communicate.  The Church cannot be a source - but like a lake it can collect many sources that are dependent on the climate and weather - that would be symbolic in this expression as G-d.  

When I converse - I can only speak my doctrine.  Now, there is another concept to "living water" that has to do with unbounded and flowing.  In reality my thoughts are not just my thoughts but rather my interpretation of the thoughts of others I have learned from.  We are all plagiaristic.   Our fault and downfall of doctrine is thinking our individual doctrine (understanding of things) is authoritive beyond who we are.

 

The Traveler

[Guest Mores]

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The only doctrine that I can express is that "doctrine according to The Traveler".  I am the source of that doctrine. 
Likewise you are the source of "doctrine according to Mores.   

Understood.  I can see that.

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

As you can see, there really is no such thing as "Church Doctrine".  (At least according to the understanding of The Traveler). 

Disagree.

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The Church cannot speak, write or in anyway communicate.  The Church cannot be a source - but like a lake it can collect many sources that are dependent on the climate and weather - that would be symbolic in this expression as G-d.  

If you know about monarch of history, you may know that the monarch was considered the living embodiment of the nation.  If Pharaoh was healthy, then Egypt was healthy.  If Pharaoh was ill, Egypt was ill.

Some nobility were not simply known as their title.  They were called by the land they represented.  The "Duke of York" was simply "York".  This was not a simple abbreviation.  It was the way they thought about the nobles.  That is why a betrayal of the King was betrayal of the nation.  Thus Gwenevere was convicted of treason for her tryst with Lancelot, not simply adultery.

In the Church there is a parallel, but it is not quite so literal.  We recognize the Savior as the head of this Church.  But in ancient times, all disciples of Christ were considered "the body of Christ".  Today, we'd like to think of it in a similar way, but not so literally.  To hurt a brother, hurt the body and so on. 

In today's Church, we have apostles (defined as "especial witnesses" of Jesus Christ).  When they speak in formal ways, it is considered "Church Doctrine".  They speak "for the Church".

You have a valid point that with each iteration of retelling from that point gets more and more muddied as a game of telephone.  It is nonetheless important to read and study scriptures as well as official declarations from the apostles.  While we recognize that any human being is going to put an interpretive spin on anything they hear or read, we hope that the Spirit will guide us all to the "true meaning" of what we learn from the oracles of the Lord.

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

When I converse - I can only speak my doctrine.  Now, there is another concept to "living water" that has to do with unbounded and flowing.  In reality my thoughts are not just my thoughts but rather my interpretation of the thoughts of others I have learned from.  We are all plagiaristic.   Our fault and downfall of doctrine is thinking our individual doctrine (understanding of things) is authoritive beyond who we are.

A lot of what you are saying seems to be that we all have weakness in telling the "unfiltered" truths of God.  And that may be true.  But it doesn't make it wrong to teach it.

Quote

And it came to pass that when Alma had come to the city of Ammonihah he began to preach the word of God unto them.

 -- Alma 8:8

And it came to pass that Aaron came to the city of Jerusalem, and first began to preach to the Amalekites. And he began to preach to them in their synagogues

 -- Alma 21:4

The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament

 -- D&C 20:46

For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

 -- 1 Cor 9:16

Apparently, we're supposed to preach and to teach an to EXPOUND, etc. Woe unto us if we do NOT preach and teach the gospel.

So what is it that you're really after?  What is it that bothers you?

Quote

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

 -- 1 Cor 1

Here the Lord makes a clear distinction between preaching the wisdom of men vs the wisdom of the Lord.  While I definitely agree that we do not want to continue in mingling the philosophies of men with scripture, that does NOT mean we need to cease teaching the wisdom of the Lord.

Quote

...we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

 -- 1 Ne 25:26

Without preaching the doctrine of Christ, how do we know what source to look for a remission of our sins?

[Traveler]

You missed a most important point I made - 

Quote

Our fault and downfall of doctrine is thinking our individual doctrine (understanding of things) is authoritive beyond who we are.

In short we have no more authority to speak than to act.  If we have authority to act then we have authority to speak - and vice versa.  The source of authority is congruent with the authority - but we must realize that just like flowing water the pollutants will be added to the water according to the ground it flow over and through.

And you have brought up another very important point.  When it comes to the things of the spirit there are two critical elements.  First is that truth be spoken.  But the second is just as important and that is that truth must be understood.  If fact - it is the doctrine of The Traveler that it is much more important that truth be discerned than it is to be spoken.  I believe that the spirit (Holy Ghost) can testify to truths that can be discerned from flawed opinions of the person speaking.   Thus it does not matter if Alma speaks because he was a prophet or was once a discenter. We can listen with the spirit and ourselves know the truth.   Not just because someone is authorized but because we can, by covenant of the gift of the Holy Ghost know the truth of all things.

No one needs President Nelson to speak as much as they need the Holy Ghost to understand.  Joseph told Pharaoh that truth from G-d will have multiple witnesses.  If we the church is one source - then what is the other witness of doctrine?

 

The Traveler

[Guest Mores]

19 minutes ago, Traveler said:

You missed a most important point I made - 

No I didn't.  I addressed it multiple times.  Once while specifically quoting it.  Additional times because this same sentiment was the central them to which I responded.  You can say it was only my own doctrine.  But I gave you plenty of scriptural reference for a reason.  If you cast off my words as the philosophy of one man, then don't cast off the words of the Lord through scripture.

Quote

In short we have no more authority to speak than to act.  If we have authority to act then we have authority to speak - and vice versa.  The source of authority is congruent with the authority - but we must realize that just like flowing water the pollutants will be added to the water according to the ground it flow over and through.

That is true.  No more than.  But no less either.  And we do have that authority.  Even more than that, we have a commandment to do so.

Quote

And you have brought up another very important point.  When it comes to the things of the spirit there are two critical elements.  First is that truth be spoken.  But the second is just as important and that is that truth must be understood.  If fact - it is the doctrine of The Traveler that it is much more important that truth be discerned than it is to be spoken. 

I believe these are hand-in-hand.

Quote

17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.

19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

 -- D&C 50:17-21

That isn't a mystery.  Is it any more plain that people only hear the truth when we teach the truth?

Quote

I believe that the spirit (Holy Ghost) can testify to truths that can be discerned from flawed opinions of the person speaking.   

I don't agree.  I believe that the Spirit makes up for flaws in our vocabulary or our speaking ability or whatever.  But we still need to teach "in the spirit of truth".  You can ponder what that means for yourself.

Quote

No one needs President Nelson to speak as much as they need the Holy Ghost to understand.  Joseph told Pharaoh that truth from G-d will have multiple witnesses.  If we the church is one source - then what is the other witness of doctrine?

Christ said:

Quote

I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

 -- John 8:18

And there is a reason we send missionaries out two-by-two.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Mores

[GaleG]

On 5/5/2019 at 3:47 PM, Anddenex said:

What is your understanding of a prophecy, or to prophesy?

I suppose indicating that something will happen in the future based on God-given
knowledge.

But if I told my child, if I had one, that you will get burned if you put your hand on
a hot stove, I wouldn't consider that a prophecy if and when it did occur. i.e. I would
not be a prophetess.

Hope that helps.

Gale

[Anddenex]

14 hours ago, GaleG said:

I suppose indicating that something will happen in the future based on God-given
knowledge.

But if I told my child, if I had one, that you will get burned if you put your hand on
a hot stove, I wouldn't consider that a prophecy if and when it did occur. i.e. I would
not be a prophetess.

Hope that helps.

Gale

Thank you. To further conversation, would you consider the following a punishment or prophecy or both: 1 Samuel 8: 10-19.

 

[Traveler]

On 5/8/2019 at 10:35 AM, Mores said:

No I didn't.  I addressed it multiple times.  Once while specifically quoting it.  Additional times because this same sentiment was the central them to which I responded.  You can say it was only my own doctrine.  But I gave you plenty of scriptural reference for a reason.  If you cast off my words as the philosophy of one man, then don't cast off the words of the Lord through scripture.

That is true.  No more than.  But no less either.  And we do have that authority.  Even more than that, we have a commandment to do so.

I believe these are hand-in-hand.

That isn't a mystery.  Is it any more plain that people only hear the truth when we teach the truth?

I don't agree.  I believe that the Spirit makes up for flaws in our vocabulary or our speaking ability or whatever.  But we still need to teach "in the spirit of truth".  You can ponder what that means for yourself.

Christ said:

And there is a reason we send missionaries out two-by-two.

Sorry I have not gotten back to you sooner.  Thank you for your responses and efforts.  A couple of points.  There is a great deal I agree with concerning your statements.  I should be more diligent in pointing our similarities.  I would begin by pointing to Moroni chapter 10 and Moroni's discussion about "gifts" of the spirit.  Gifts are a little different than blessings even though there are a lot of similarities.  The primary difference, as I understand, is that gifts are unearned.  But please do not misunderstand me when I say unearned because all things of the spirit must be according to principles of righteousness.  Thus that which is of light and truth and the spirit of light and truth can only be exercised through light and truth.

There is something a little odd and I will try to express it with the most extreme example.  Satan is a liar and cannot speak the truth.  And yet things spoken by Satan are recorded in scripture that our understanding of light and truth be expanded.  Also Satan quotes scripture - he does so as a lie.  Just as light and truth can be literally used by darkness.  Likewise G-d is the G-d of light and truth and cannot lie.  There is something more that words and their symbolic meaning that comprise light and truth in opposition to darkness and lies.  Thus, it is not scripture that is light and truth but G-d.  The scriptures are only a means to bring us close to G-d - but we can only know him through the spirit of truth and light.

Because many religions believe truth to be in scripture - independent of anything else - they believe the scriptures are the authority of G-d and that authority can be used to define the law, ordinances and covenants.  Some may say it is doctrine but It is really principles of righteousness that authority is not in scripture or what a prophet speaks but the opposite.  It is by divine authority (priesthood) through which the light and truth of salvation is taught.  Even though we are commanded to witness and teach truths - there are keys necessary in order to teach the plan of salvation.  This is all so interesting because an unauthorized (lacking authority) person can quote word for word the teachings of the plan of salvation and it is not the same as someone authorized.  Likewise a prophet can quote someone authorized and make truth and light known.

It does not matter so much what you and I speak as it is what we teach comes from the spirit through us.  In the same manner it does not matter so much what anyone teaches as it is that you and I hear through the spirit.

 

The Traveler 

[Traveler]

On 5/9/2019 at 9:22 PM, GaleG said:

I suppose indicating that something will happen in the future based on God-given
knowledge.

But if I told my child, if I had one, that you will get burned if you put your hand on
a hot stove, I wouldn't consider that a prophecy if and when it did occur. i.e. I would
not be a prophetess.

Hope that helps.

Gale

May I suggest something?  I believe if you tell a child - do not play with the stove or I will spank you -- that is punishment.  Also If you tell a child - if you are hurt I will take care of you, if you are burned by a hot stove I will bandage your burn and apply healing ointment  to help it heal.  That would be a blessing.  They are also spoken in a spirit of prophecy even it may never occur.  It is an indication that your care transcends time.

If you say to a child - touch a not stove and you will get burned -- that is not prophetic or punishment but rather a consequence of acting on bad choices.  It is my belief that G-d does not punish us but he will warn us of undesirable consequences that result from acting on bad choices

There is another dimension that is not being discussed and that concerns discipline and reproof.  But I believe we should be aware that discipline and reproof are blessings and not punishment.

 

The Traveler

[Guest Mores]

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

Sorry I have not gotten back to you sooner.  Thank you for your responses and efforts.  A couple of points.  There is a great deal I agree with concerning your statements.  I should be more diligent in pointing our similarities.  I would begin by pointing to Moroni chapter 10 and Moroni's discussion about "gifts" of the spirit.  Gifts are a little different than blessings even though there are a lot of similarities.  The primary difference, as I understand, is that gifts are unearned.  But please do not misunderstand me when I say unearned because all things of the spirit must be according to principles of righteousness.  Thus that which is of light and truth and the spirit of light and truth can only be exercised through light and truth.

There is something a little odd and I will try to express it with the most extreme example.  Satan is a liar and cannot speak the truth.  And yet things spoken by Satan are recorded in scripture that our understanding of light and truth be expanded.  Also Satan quotes scripture - he does so as a lie.  Just as light and truth can be literally used by darkness.  Likewise G-d is the G-d of light and truth and cannot lie.  There is something more that words and their symbolic meaning that comprise light and truth in opposition to darkness and lies.  Thus, it is not scripture that is light and truth but G-d.  The scriptures are only a means to bring us close to G-d - but we can only know him through the spirit of truth and light.

Because many religions believe truth to be in scripture - independent of anything else - they believe the scriptures are the authority of G-d and that authority can be used to define the law, ordinances and covenants.  Some may say it is doctrine but It is really principles of righteousness that authority is not in scripture or what a prophet speaks but the opposite.  It is by divine authority (priesthood) through which the light and truth of salvation is taught.  Even though we are commanded to witness and teach truths - there are keys necessary in order to teach the plan of salvation.  This is all so interesting because an unauthorized (lacking authority) person can quote word for word the teachings of the plan of salvation and it is not the same as someone authorized.  Likewise a prophet can quote someone authorized and make truth and light known.

It does not matter so much what you and I speak as it is what we teach comes from the spirit through us.  In the same manner it does not matter so much what anyone teaches as it is that you and I hear through the spirit.

You said that you wanted to point out what we had in common.  And then you start by pointing out something completely unrelated to what we're discussing.  So, where is the stuff we have in common?

Here's my take.  One primary point you're making is that we need to depend on the Spirit to truly teach us anything meaningful when speaking of "things as they really are and as they really will be."  I absolutely 100% agree with that.  I certainly hope that is what you were getting at.  "Things as they really are and as they really will be" is a more complete and more specific definition of "true doctrine".  And that is what we're both hoping to truly know and understand so that such knowledge and understanding will better guide our lives.  So, that is where we have things in common -- I hope.

Here's where we differ.  Looking at your second paragraph, the bottom line is that we cannot trust the words of scriptures.  I'm truly hoping that is not what you mean.  But that really is what you said.   I'm giving you the opportunity to correct, clarify, expand, change, etc.  I really hope that is not what you meant.  Please clarify.  Please don't bring yet another tangent (as you are wont to do).  Just explain what you believe the purpose of scriptures is.

Yes, there are errors in scriptures.  Yes, people can interpret them to mean whatever they want them to mean.  But I see scriptures serving the same purpose as a urim and thummim.  They only serve their proper function when guided by the Spirit.  Even so, they are a tool to help us get at true doctrine.  But again, even acknowledging this much, what I'm getting out of what you wrote is that we must throw out scriptures.  That's only for the prophet to tell us what they mean.

I gave you the scriptures which said the same things that I said in my own words.  We all know about personal interpretations.  But the scriptures I offered you are for your interpretation as the Spirit is available to you.  But instead of offering your interpretation of the scriptures, you reject scriptures outright as an aide and guide to learning true doctrine. 

It really does sound like you're saying that scriptures are not for us to read and study.  Why, then, are we commanded to study them daily? 

Why do we come together at church to study and discuss them together?  There is no general authority there to interpret for us. But we come together specifically to bring the results of our study together.  Do we have keys?  We've been told for a generation or two that every member is a missionary.  We're commanded as bearers of the priesthood to preach, teach, exhort, and to baptize.  All of these are under the guidance of the bishop (directly or delegated).  And he holds keys to direct it.  So, what keys do we lack?

Edited May 13, 2019 by Mores