The Great Plan of Salvation vs Principles & Doctrine

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Interesting position to take. What is true then?

I can agree that we teach a lot of things in ignorance, but that doesn't mean it's not true. We may not know how to put the pieces together, but that doesn't mean that the pieces do go together. In the example you quoted, it referenced scripture. Was the scripture just not true? or was the ideas that were taught based on that scripture not true? Based on one your responses, it appears that you have no problem with spirit prison or that people are kept from paradise by their own choice so that probably isn't the issue. Perhaps it's the idea of hell as being a temporary condition for them that is not true. Perhaps after rejecting the truth and staying in prision, they ought to be made sons of Perdition or placed in permanent hell?

But I do agree with you, we do teach a lot of things that we don't know how it works. We say we are the God's children and it seems that some people think this means a 9 month pregancy and 50 billion personal births. The idea is ludicrous. That doesn't mean that we're not God's children. It just means that we don't know what makes us God's children. When we explain how things are done when we don't know, it is very likely that we will get the "how" of how things are done, wrong.

The paragraph from the manual I quoted is just plain wrong. It quotes from section 19 to identify those who never repent, remove themselves from the mercy of Christ, suffer like Christ and then go into telestial glory. There are several problems with this that stick out so bad it makes me wonder how we ever arrive at such teachings. The first problem is that section 19, in reference to those who do not repent, is speaking solely of those at the end of the millennium who do not repent. The second problem is that one cannot possibly suffer like Christ without their physical body. The third problem is that if one removes themselves from the mercy of Christ they cannot be saved in mercy later. All of these teachings are wrong, they go directly against every single doctrine of Christ. Christ taught that one must repent or they cannot ever be saved. The manual teaches otherwise. It teaches that these telestial heirs do not repent in this life nor in the spirit prison. How then can they possibly be saved? Without repentance and baptism, either in this life or tge next, no one can become cleansed from all their sins in order to be saved from an otherwise eternal hell that awaits all the unrepentant.

[Just_A_Guy]

57 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The paragraph from the manual I quoted is just plain wrong. It quotes from section 19 to identify those who never repent, remove themselves from the mercy of Christ, suffer like Christ and then go into telestial glory. There are several problems with this that stick out so bad it makes me wonder how we ever arrive at such teachings. The first problem is that section 19, in reference to those who do not repent, is speaking solely of those at the end of the millennium who do not repent. The second problem is that one cannot possibly suffer like Christ without their physical body. The third problem is that if one removes themselves from the mercy of Christ they cannot be saved in mercy later. All of these teachings are wrong, they go directly against every single doctrine of Christ. Christ taught that one must repent or they cannot ever be saved. The manual teaches otherwise. It teaches that these telestial heirs do not repent in this life nor in the spirit prison. How then can they possibly be saved? Without repentance and baptism, either in this life or tge next, no one can become cleansed from all their sins in order to be saved from an otherwise eternal hell that awaits all the unrepentant.

I agree that it's unfortunate that the manual can be read as suggesting that the impenitent can still be saved in the Telestial Kingdom without undergoing repentance; and it's also unfortunate that it can be read as suggesting that the Telestial essentially "save themselves", to some degree, by suffering for their own sins.  But we should probably note that to a significant degree, these are interpretations that we create for ourselves by reading the text exclusively through the lens of a "penal substitution" theory of the Atonement popularized, inter alia, by President Packer's parable of the mediator.  If you look at the sufferings of hell, not as the repayment of some intangible debt, but as a schooling process that prepares us to seek and receive Christ's mercy; the bare text of the manual becomes much less objectionable.  And IIRC, the current Gospel Principles manual is basically a rehash of something that was written before Packer's parable came to dominate LDS thinking on the Atonement and the nature of justice/mercy/hell.

Moreover, the thrust of the lesson is about the nature of the spirit world (and, in this subsection, the nature of torment in spirit prison); and I think the assumption the paragraph builds on (but never explicitly articulates) is D&C 19:20:  that the crux of one's anguish in spirit prison is the separation from God's spirit (and by extension all the goodness, beauty, and truth in this universe of which He is the ultimate originator).  I reject the notion that the sufferings warned against in Section 19 can only be experienced in the eternities--the revelation flat-out says that Martin Harris experienced a portion of them in the here-and-now; and for him those sufferings were primarily spiritual rather than physical in nature.

I'm comfortable suggesting that this part of the manual is drafted inartfully and maybe even anachronistic in that it is subject to easy misinterpretation by a generation of Mormons who grew up on President Packer's interpretation and assume that his paradigm is the only paradigm.  But I think when we brashly say "yeah, the Church is wrong", we're opening some doors that don't lead to anyplace good. 

Edited June 8, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If you look at the sufferings of hell, not as the repayment of some intangible debt, but as a schooling process that prepares us to seek and receive Christ's mercy; the bare text of the manual becomes much less objectionable.

Though this becomes the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I agree that it's unfortunate that the manual can be read as suggesting that the impenitent can still be saved in the Telestial Kingdom without undergoing repentance; and it's also unfortunate that it can be read as suggesting that the Telestial essentially "save themselves", to some degree, by suffering for their own sins.  But we should probably note that to a significant degree, these are interpretations that we create for ourselves by reading the text exclusively through the lens of a "penal substitution" theory of the Atonement popularized, inter alia, by President Packer's parable of the mediator.  If you look at the sufferings of hell, not as the repayment of some intangible debt, but as a schooling process that prepares us to seek and receive Christ's mercy; the bare text of the manual becomes much less objectionable.  And IIRC, the current Gospel Principles manual is basically a rehash of something that was written before Packer's parable came to dominate LDS thinking on the Atonement and the nature of justice/mercy/hell.

Moreover, the thrust of the lesson is about the nature of the spirit world (and, in this subsection, the nature of torment in spirit prison); and I think the assumption the paragraph builds on (but never articulates) is D&C 19:20:  that the crux of one's anguish in spirit prison is the separation from God's spirit (and by extension all the goodness, beauty, and truth in this universe of which He is the ultimate originator).  I reject the notion that the sufferings warned against in Section 19 can only be experienced in the eternities--the revelation flat-out says that Martin Harris experienced a portion of them in the here-and-now; and those sufferings were primarily spiritual rather than physical in nature.

I'm comfortable suggesting that this part of the manual is drafted inartfully and maybe even anachronistic in that it is subject to easy misinterpretation by a generation of Mormons who grew up on President Packer's interpretation and assume that his paradigm is the only paradigm.  But I think when we brashly say "yeah, the Church is wrong", we're opening some doors that don't lead to anyplace good. 

If a manual, endorsed by the church and continuing in its publication, is wrong, and in this case I am sure it is, then the church is wrong in this doctrine. The bottom line is it reflects on actual church doctrine and not on who may have written it or whose particular philosophy it came from.

I think people get too defensive when they are confronted with someone saying a certain doctrine is wrong. We all want to live in a picture perfect world where the ideals, teachings, etc, are correct and cant be wrong. For me it actually makes more sense to recognize that there will be mistakes, misunderstandings, etc in establishing truth and doctrine. Its thus sad that some members are actually convinced that we have always been perfectly correct in our doctrine and teachings.

[Vort]

On 6/2/2017 at 8:06 AM, Rob Osborn said:

Quote from chapter 41 of Gospel Principles-

"Also in the spirit prison are those who rejected the gospel after it was preached to them either on earth or in the spirit prison. These spirits suffer in a condition known as hell. They have removed themselves from the mercy of Jesus Christ, who said, “Behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit” (D&C 19:16–18). After suffering for their sins, they will be allowed, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to inherit the lowest degree of glory, which is the telestial kingdom."

There are some things that just arent true. The above paragraph from the manual just isnt true.

The above paragraph is indeed true. It is not complete, but every individual doctrine taught therein is perfectly true.

• Are those who reject the gospel condemned to a postmortal condition called "hell" because of their rejection of the gospel? Yes.
• Have they removed themselves from Christ's mercy? Yes.
• Did Jesus Christ actually say, “Behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit” (D&C 19:16–18)? Indeed he did, yes, unless you disbelieve the Doctrine and Covenants.
• Does the above bullet point mean that those unrepentant sinners will have to suffer for (i.e. because of, or due to) their sins? Yes, it does.
• At some point after such suffering, will they be redeemed from hell and allowed to enter a kingdom of glory, namely, the telestial kingdom? Yes, indeed.
• Will that redemption from hell take place through the atonement of Jesus Christ? Of course. There is no other way.

Every single point above is pure, absolute, unassailable, inarguable LDS doctrine. Every one.

So which of those do you disagree with?

It is my supposition that you object to the presumed implication that the unrepentant sinners mentioned above somehow "redeem themselves" through their suffering for their own sin. But this is not what the paragraph teaches; indeed, it teaches exactly the opposite, that the redemption takes place through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Their suffering is the unavoidable consequence of their choice to turn from the gospel when it was offered to them. You can view this as "divine punishment" if you like, or you can see it as a simple case of natural consequence. And their sufferings are indeed, in some manner, like those suffered by the Lord -- which Jesus himself testified was the case. That doesn't mean those sufferings sanctify the sinners. They don't. The atonement of Christ sanctifies the sinners, eventually, when they will finally accept it.

You should be far more careful than you are, and far less willing to proclaim the Church's teachings as faulty and yourself as the reliable source of truth. You are acting well beyond the pale.

[Just_A_Guy]

22 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

If a manual, endorsed by the church and continuing in its publication, is wrong, and in this case I am sure it is, then the church is wrong in this doctrine. The bottom line is it reflects on actual church doctrine and not on who may have written it or whose particular philosophy it came from.

I think people get too defensive when they are confronted with someone saying a certain doctrine is wrong. We all want to live in a picture perfect world where the ideals, teachings, etc, are correct and cant be wrong. For me it actually makes more sense to recognize that there will be mistakes, misunderstandings, etc in establishing truth and doctrine. Its thus sad that some members are actually convinced that we have always been perfectly correct in our doctrine and teachings.

I'm all for recognizing the limits of our understanding and our curriculum materials.  That said, I also think we need to grow up and take some responsibility for our own spiritual development; rather than insist that the Church Curriculum Committee is at fault when it fails to save us from our own sloppiness and prejudice by--whether deliberately or not--using loaded language that serves only to drive wedges between the Church membership and its leadership. 

Very few would argue that the Bible becomes "wrong" due to our own failure to understand the culture and assumptions of its authors--unless they had an agenda.  So when I see someone saying "The Church is WRONG about x", my initial reaction is:  "Gee, what ELSE does he want me to disagree with the Church about?"  Because--forgive me--but my experience is that these sorts of innuendoes are rarely made either in a vacuum or out of mere pedantic scruples.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Rob Osborn]

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

The above paragraph is indeed true. It is not complete, but every individual doctrine taught therein is perfectly true.

• Are those who reject the gospel condemned to a postmortal condition called "hell" because of their rejection of the gospel? Yes.
• Have they removed themselves from Christ's mercy? Yes.
• Did Jesus Christ actually say, “Behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit” (D&C 19:16–18)? Indeed he did, yes, unless you disbelieve the Doctrine and Covenants.
• Does the above bullet point mean that those unrepentant sinners will have to suffer for (i.e. because of, or due to) their sins? Yes, it does.
• At some point after such suffering, will they be redeemed from hell and allowed to enter a kingdom of glory, namely, the telestial kingdom? Yes, indeed.
• Will that redemption from hell take place through the atonement of Jesus Christ? Of course. There is no other way.

Every single point above is pure, absolute, unassailable, inarguable LDS doctrine. Every one.

So which of those do you disagree with?

It is my supposition that you object to the presumed implication that the unrepentant sinners mentioned above somehow "redeem themselves" through their suffering for their own sin. But this is not what the paragraph teaches; indeed, it teaches exactly the opposite, that the redemption takes place through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Their suffering is the unavoidable consequence of their choice to turn from the gospel when it was offered to them. You can view this as "divine punishment" if you like, or you can see it as a simple case of natural consequence. And their sufferings are indeed, in some manner, like those suffered by the Lord -- which Jesus himself testified was the case. That doesn't mean those sufferings sanctify the sinners. They don't. The atonement of Christ sanctifies the sinners, eventually, when they will finally accept it.

You should be far more careful than you are, and far less willing to proclaim the Church's teachings as faulty and yourself as the reliable source of truth. You are acting well beyond the pale.

You miss the points I made.

The manual states they do not repent- that they remain unrepentant. If they did repent at some point in the spirit world they would be terrestrial bound.  This is paramount because the verses in section 19 concerning the unrepentant is pointed directly at the sons of perdition, not heirs of salvation.

The only way redemption from sin through Christ works is repentance and baptism. It is impossible outside of repentance and baptism. Again, the manual is wrong.

Being completely removed from Christs mercy means one is not justified to be cleansed through the blood of Christ. Again, the manual  is wrong.

[Rob Osborn]

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I'm all for recognizing the limits of our understanding and our curriculum materials.  That said, I also think we need to grow up and take some responsibility for our own spiritual development; rather than insist that the Church Curriculum Committee is at fault when it fails to save us from our own sloppiness and prejudice by--whether deliberately or not--using loaded language that serves only to drive wedges between the Church membership and its leadership. 

Very few would argue that the Bible becomes "wrong" due to our own failure to understand the culture and assumptions of its authors--unless they had an agenda.  So when I see someone saying "The Church is WRONG about x", my initial reaction is:  "Gee, what ELSE does he want me to disagree with the Church about?"  Because--forgive me--but my experience is that these sorts of innuendoes are rarely made either in a vacuum or out of mere pedantic scruples.

Take this advice-

My testimony of the gospel, within my membership in the LDS church, is actually strengthened by coming to the realization of truths found in the error of some of our churches doctrine. Its not a wedge at all. Its about getting up to the next line of real truth. I have nothing but love for Joseph Smith and all of the prophets. But, this love has become forged in the knowledge that all of us are imperfect and are yet at the pinnacle of truth but which we all strive for. 

Theres no doubt that our doctrine will continue to evolve and in that process change wuite drastically on many important points. History shows this as fact.

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

My testimony of the gospel, within my membership in the LDS church, is actually strengthened by coming to the realization of truths found in the error of some of our churches doctrine.

Translation: "My conviction of how right I am is strengthened by my doubling down on how much smarter I am to have figured out how much smarter I am than those who write church manuals and define church doctrines."

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its not a wedge at all.

You think because you just say stuff and you think that way that it must be absolute truth. Calling our church's doctrine wrong implies those who define it are mistaken. Implying (no...actually saying) that members have the ability to find truth on their own outside of the pattern and authority the Lord has given for teaching truth DOES drive a wedge between lay member and their leaders who they are supposed to be able to trust implicitly within the scope of that pattern and authority.

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

But, this love has become forged in the knowledge that all of us are imperfect and are yet at the pinnacle of truth but which we all strive for. 

All of us except you, of course.

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Theres no doubt that our doctrine will continue to evolve and in that process change wuite drastically on many important points. History shows this as fact.

History does not prove a thing in this regard. That being said, we know that some things evolve and that we are given truths line upon line. That is doctrine. (Unless someone decides it's not, randomly, for whatever reason, and decides it's their place to declare it wrong...but...wait...that's not how it works...but I digress). Where we take exception is in the idea that YOU or any lay member are the source of that evolution and that your views that "the church is wrong" hold any merit whatsoever and should be given any credence. You are not that source, your views hold no merit, and they should be given no credence. I'll trust my authorized church manual over Joe Schmoe on the internet, thank you very much.

Edited June 8, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Translation: "My conviction of how right I am is strengthened by my doubling down on how much smarter I am to have figured out how much smarter I am than those who write church manuals and define church doctrines."

You think because you just say stuff and you think that way that it must be absolute truth. Calling our church's doctrine wrong implies those who define is are mistaken. Implying (no...actually saying) that members have the ability to find truth on their own outside of the pattern and authority the Lord has given for teaching truth DOES drive a wedge between lay member and their leaders who they are supposed to be able to trust implicitly within the scope of that pattern and authority.

All of us except you, of course.

History does not prove a thing in this regard. That being said, we know that some things evolve and that we are given truths line upon line. That is doctrine. (Unless someone decides it's not, randomly, for whatever reason, and decides it's their place to declare it wrong...but...wait...that's not how it works...but I digress). Where we take exception is in the idea that YOU or any lay member are the source of that evolution and that your views that "the church is wrong" hold any merit whatsoever and should be given any credence. You are not that source, your views hold no merit, and they should be given no credence. I'll trust my authorized church manual over Joe Schmoe on the internet, thank you very much.

I believe we could sum up this entire critique as: Rob is straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Guest

[Colirio]

6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

You miss the points I made.

The manual states they do not repent- that they remain unrepentant. If they did repent at some point in the spirit world they would be terrestrial bound.  This is paramount because the verses in section 19 concerning the unrepentant is pointed directly at the sons of perdition, not heirs of salvation.

The only way redemption from sin through Christ works is repentance and baptism. It is impossible outside of repentance and baptism. Again, the manual is wrong.

Being completely removed from Christs mercy means one is not justified to be cleansed through the blood of Christ. Again, the manual  is wrong.

 

Rob, you are misinterpreting what is stated. You also fail to take other doctrine into consideration. 

 

Mosiah 27:31 Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye.

 

 

On page 1, I encouraged you to study by faith as well as by learning.

To be bold, what that means is that you should assume that if the doctrine seems to not fit, then YOU are the one not understanding the teachings. It's not the manual, the prophets, the scriptures, or the church that is wrong.

 

Learning by faith means that you have to accept some things based on faith until you can come to a better understanding of how the pieces fit together. Instead of assuming that doctrines conflict with each other, prayerfully pondering how they might both be true will enlighten your understanding to even greater truths. 

 

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Translation: "My conviction of how right I am is strengthened by my doubling down on how much smarter I am to have figured out how much smarter I am than those who write church manuals and define church doctrines."

You think because you just say stuff and you think that way that it must be absolute truth. Calling our church's doctrine wrong implies those who define is are mistaken. Implying (no...actually saying) that members have the ability to find truth on their own outside of the pattern and authority the Lord has given for teaching truth DOES drive a wedge between lay member and their leaders who they are supposed to be able to trust implicitly within the scope of that pattern and authority.

All of us except you, of course.

History does not prove a thing in this regard. That being said, we know that some things evolve and that we are given truths line upon line. That is doctrine. (Unless someone decides it's not, randomly, for whatever reason, and decides it's their place to declare it wrong...but...wait...that's not how it works...but I digress). Where we take exception is in the idea that YOU or any lay member are the source of that evolution and that your views that "the church is wrong" hold any merit whatsoever and should be given any credence. You are not that source, your views hold no merit, and they should be given no credence. I'll trust my authorized church manual over Joe Schmoe on the internet, thank you very much.

Its kind of hard to dialogue with your arrogance. But, I will continue to entertain nevertheless.

Any of us are capable of finding the truth on matters. We are children of God, blessed with gifts and intelligence. My own patriarchal blessing tells me I have the intelligence to gather information and the ability to discern gospel truths and that when I arrive at those conclusions to seek out my elder priesthood leaders to confirm those findings. Theres no doubt in my mind that some of my conclusions are correct. I think we all have the duty to judge and question all things to know if they are true.

I actually am in the process of finalizing my findings to send up to have them confirmed. If we are teaching some false doctrines, its our duty to seek out and find solutions. Its true that it is not my right to reveal truth on gospel matters in behalf of the church. But, it is my gift or ability to perhaps help in the process of correcting faulty or probelmatic doctrines. The prophet and apostles have the right to reveal truth and confirm truth wherever it comes from, which very well indeed can come from members of Christs church.

[Rob Osborn]

53 minutes ago, Colirio said:

 

Rob, you are misinterpreting what is stated. You also fail to take other doctrine into consideration. 

 

Mosiah 27:31 Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye.

 

 

On page 1, I encouraged you to study by faith as well as by learning.

To be bold, what that means is that you should assume that if the doctrine seems to not fit, then YOU are the one not understanding the teachings. It's not the manual, the prophets, the scriptures, or the church that is wrong.

 

Learning by faith means that you have to accept some things based on faith until you can come to a better understanding of how the pieces fit together. Instead of assuming that doctrines conflict with each other, prayerfully pondering how they might both be true will enlighten your understanding to even greater truths. 

 

I have been prayerfully pondering the subject. The spirit testifies to me that I need to continue my pursuits on this course.

Perhaps you could enlighten me on just how the opening verses of section 19 are to be understood if you think I am misinterpreting them.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its kind of hard to dialogue with your arrogance.

Says the guy who thinks he knows better than the church on what doctrine is accurate.

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Any of us are capable of finding the truth on matters.

Through God's pattern.

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

My own patriarchal blessing tells me I have the intelligence to gather information

Through God's pattern.

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

and that when I arrive at those conclusions to seek out my elder priesthood leaders to confirm those findings.

...interesting. By this do you claim that you have had "elder priesthood leaders" (whatever that means) confirm that the doctrine taught in the church manuals is false? Ah...I see in reading further you have not done this. I wonder where this confidence of yours actually comes from then.

15 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Theres no doubt in my mind that some of my conclusions are correct.

Clearly.

15 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think we all have the duty to judge and question all things to know if they are true.

Through God's pattern.

15 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I actually am in the process of finalizing my findings to send up to have them confirmed. 

Good luck with that.

Just out of curiosity, what's your plan when and if they (whoever they are) respond back that you're wrong?

17 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

But, it is my gift or ability to perhaps help in the process of correcting faulty or probelmatic doctrines. 

No. That is the purview of the prophets and apostles.

18 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

which very well indeed can come from members of Christs church.

No. That is not God's pattern. It also distinctly omits the principle of stewardship as it relates to revelation.

Of course you won't accept this. You have determined of your own accord what God's pattern is and any argument, support, reference, or quote that contradicts your ideas you will simply claim as part of the "mistakes" of our leaders. Puts you in a nice position to get away with thinking and saying whatever you want. It isn't convincing.

[Vort]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

You miss the points I made.

On the contrary, Rob, it is you who is missing the point. The Church's manual might perhaps be incomplete in its teaching of this principle, but it is certainly not wrong. That is your own hubris speaking.

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The manual states they do not repent- that they remain unrepentant.

Incorrect. The manual states that they do not repent when the gospel is preached to them. It doesn't say they never repent at any time afterward. That is your own (wrong) inference.

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The only way redemption from sin through Christ works is repentance and baptism. It is impossible outside of repentance and baptism. Again, the manual is wrong.

I don't believe the manual ever, at any point, denies the above doctrine.

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Being completely removed from Christs mercy means one is not justified to be cleansed through the blood of Christ. Again, the manual  is wrong.

No, Rob. You are wrong, not the manual. You are assigning a false meaning to a teaching, then yelling, "Look! It's false!"

Being completely removed from Christ's mercy means that you have removed yourself from Christ's mercy. Period. It doesn't mean anything else. Alma Jr. was completely removed from Christ's mercy. So he remained -- until he repented. Then he wasn't removed from Christ's mercy any more.

It is both unprofitable and treacherous of you to pursue this course of setting yourself up as the arbiter of Church teachings. That is not your calling. You do a disservice to the Church, to yourself, and to anyone who listens to you when you proclaim such heretical teachings. Please, for your own sake and everyone else's, stop trying to show how smart you think you are by pointing out what you consider to be errors in the Church's teachings. You are factually mistaken, and you run the risk of damaging yourself and anyone who gives ear to what you say.

[Just_A_Guy]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its not a wedge at all. Its about getting up to the next line of real truth.

"Real truth"--as determined by . . . who, exactly? 

I've already agreed that Church curriculum materials are imperfect; and I'd further agree that the restoration is ongoing.  But this business of brazenly saying "no, the Church is wrong"--I stand by my earlier post.  This rhetoric is the stuff of Snuffer, and Kelley, and Dehlin, and Jeffs, and an ignominious line of agenda-laden snipers and wannabe prophets of this dispensation that stretches all the way back to Philastus Hurlbut.

When was the last time you said the scriptures were "wrong", Rob?  Can you point to a single instance in this forum where you've made that claim?  If you can point to such an instance I'll happily chalk our differences up to mere semantical preference.  

But if not, I would further ask:  if you wouldn't say it about the prophets who lived thousands of years ago, why would you make a point of saying it about prophets who lived a hundred years ago; or ten years ago?

Quote

Theres no doubt in my mind that some of my conclusions are correct.

On your actual doctrinal interpretation about whether the Telestial ultimately repent, I think we are on the same page.  And I think it'd be a great idea to write the Curriculum Committee and say "hey, page x could easily be misread to create a false impression.  Could it be worded differently in the future?"  What I object to is your using your own individualized cultural/theological context to read a facially neutral Church manual in a particular way, then crowing that your own interpretation constitutes an error on the part of the Church, and then setting yourself up as some kind of restorer of light and knowledge that the Church leadership has allowed to slip through their fingers.  

Don't complain that the Church has cracks in the walls, when you've been running around with a wrecking ball for the last half hour.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

38 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its kind of hard to dialogue with your arrogance.

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Philastus Hurlbut

 What an unfortunate name.

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Says the guy who thinks he knows better than the church on what doctrine is accurate.

Through God's pattern.

Through God's pattern.

...interesting. By this do you claim that you have had "elder priesthood leaders" (whatever that means) confirm that the doctrine taught in the church manuals is false? Ah...I see in reading further you have not done this. I wonder where this confidence of yours actually comes from then.

Clearly.

Through God's pattern.

Good luck with that.

Just out of curiosity, what's your plan when and if they (whoever they are) respond back that you're wrong?

No. That is the purview of the prophets and apostles.

No. That is not God's pattern. It also distinctly omits the principle of stewardship as it relates to revelation.

Of course you won't accept this. You have determined of your own accord what God's pattern is and any argument, support, reference, or quote that contradicts your ideas you will simply claim as part of the "mistakes" of our leaders. Puts you in a nice position to get away with thinking and saying whatever you want. It isn't convincing.

You can believe whatever you want. I am confident, as a church that we will arrive at the truth. We arent there yet. Have a nice day.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You can believe whatever you want. 

Thank you for your permission.

[Rob Osborn]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

On the contrary, Rob, it is you who is missing the point. The Church's manual might perhaps be incomplete in its teaching of this principle, but it is certainly not wrong. That is your own hubris speaking.

Incorrect. The manual states that they do not repent when the gospel is preached to them. It doesn't say they never repent at any time afterward. That is your own (wrong) inference.

I don't believe the manual ever, at any point, denies the above doctrine.

No, Rob. You are wrong, not the manual. You are assigning a false meaning to a teaching, then yelling, "Look! It's false!"

Being completely removed from Christ's mercy means that you have removed yourself from Christ's mercy. Period. It doesn't mean anything else. Alma Jr. was completely removed from Christ's mercy. So he remained -- until he repented. Then he wasn't removed from Christ's mercy any more.

It is both unprofitable and treacherous of you to pursue this course of setting yourself up as the arbiter of Church teachings. That is not your calling. You do a disservice to the Church, to yourself, and to anyone who listens to you when you proclaim such heretical teachings. Please, for your own sake and everyone else's, stop trying to show how smart you think you are by pointing out what you consider to be errors in the Church's teachings. You are factually mistaken, and you run the risk of damaging yourself and anyone who gives ear to what you say.

You can believe what you want. That manual is wrong. I have clearly shown this to be so. Try countering with actual scripture or official doctrine, Here-

Show me where it says the telestial heirs repent and are baptized.

[Rob Osborn]

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

"Real truth"--as determined by . . . who, exactly? 

I've already agreed that Church curriculum materials are imperfect; and I'd further agree that the restoration is ongoing.  But this business of brazenly saying "no, the Church is wrong"--I stand by my earlier post.  This rhetoric is the stuff of Snuffer, and Kelley, and Dehlin, and Jeffs, and an ignominious line of agenda-laden snipers and wannabe prophets of this dispensation that stretches all the way back to Philastus Hurlbut.

When was the last time you said the scriptures were "wrong", Rob?  Can you point to a single instance in this forum where you've made that claim?  If you can point to such an instance I'll happily chalk our differences up to mere semantical preference.  

But if not, I would further ask:  if you wouldn't say it about the prophets who lived thousands of years ago, why would you make a point of saying it about prophets who lived a hundred years ago; or ten years ago?

 

 

On your actual doctrinal interpretation about whether the Telestial ultimately repent, I think we are on the same page.  What I object to is your using your own individualized cultural/theological context to read a facially neutral Church manual in a particular way, and then crowing that your own interpretation constitutes an error on the part of the Church.  Don't complain that the Church has cracks in the walls, when you've been running around with a wrecking ball for the last half hour.

I am definitly not like Dehlin, snuffer, etc. I actually love our prophets and heed their counsel. My only point is that not all of our doctrine is 100% perfect. If not perfect, then perhaps we should discuss it.

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Thank you for your permission.

Your welcome. Glad to be of service.

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You can believe what you want. That manual is wrong. I have clearly shown this to be so. Try countering with actual scripture or official doctrine, Here-

Show me where it says the telestial heirs repent and are baptized.

Rob, I call on you to shed yourself of your pride and repent of your sins.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, zil said:

 What an unfortunate name.