In Theory, In Principle, In Doctrine, In The Law of the Gospel

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

However much of what’s taught is recorded in scripture. 

Yes, a lot of it is. But there are actually saving covenants made with doctrine that is explained and only found in the temple. The process upon which married couples are saved and enter into the Celestial glory for instance isn't found anywhere in scripture.

[BJ64]

42 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I agree. Doctrine is what is taught. Obviously the doctrine of Christ as found in the Book of Mormon is going to be true and unchanging. The doctrine concerning the Godhead on the other hand received several modifications over church history.  The same can be said of heaven and the three glories, race and the priesthood, etc. I personally don't have any problems with changing doctrine or evolving doctrine. I do however take up issue when we claim things like the Lectures on Faith was never doctrine or calling the reasons for the priesthood ban with Negros as mere "theories" and not doctrine. The evidence of their day shows that they clearly were "doctrines". My beef is that it just helps fuel the fire with our critics. Why can't we just admit that we had doctrine in our past that wasn't perfect or even wrong? Is it because we are so stuck on trying to define "doctrine" only as "unchanging truth"? 

I believe that anything that was repeatedly taught by prophets and apostles was considered doctrine in its day. 

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I believe that anything that was repeatedly taught by prophets and apostles was considered doctrine in its day. 

I agree.

[wenglund]

8 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I understand what you mean. There are some very knowledgeable people in our ward. Including former bishops and stake presidents, seminary and institute teachers and I’m sure a lot who just don’t comment but those I’m referring to are those who make plenty of comments but you can judge by what they say that their knowledge of the gospel is shallow. Of course all that is really necessary is a good basic knowledge of the important gospel precepts but many don’t seem to have a good understanding of basics things such as the plan of salvation, the word of wisdom, the fall of Adam or the atonement. 

I suppose it depends upon where one lives. I currently live in a Ward filled with BYU professors, lawyers, and successful businessmen, many of whom are former bishops and stake presidents--we currently have 17 of the High Priests in our ward who are serving in BYU stakes. We even have one of Elder Bednar's sons in our Bishopric.  So, Sunday School and Priesthood lessons reflect a wealth of knowledge.

Whereas, on my mission, several of the small Wards or branches were heavily populated with converts, and so the lessons on Sunday presented a steep learning curve for most.

And, while there may have been a large gap in doctrinal knowledge between the two examples above, both were/are relatively similar in the things that matter most in the gospel--i.e. humility and charitable service. As Elder Oaks pointed out during  April 2017 General Conference:, in his talk on, "The Godhead and the Plan of Salvation":

Quote

Because we have the truth about the Godhead and our relationship to Them, the purpose of life, and the nature of our eternal destiny, we have the ultimate road map and assurance for our journey through mortality. We know whom we worship and why we worship. We know who we are and what we can become (see D&C 93:19). We know who makes it all possible, and we know what we must do to enjoy the ultimate blessings that come through God’s plan of salvation. How do we know all of this? We know by the revelations of God to His prophets and to each of us individually.

Attaining what the Apostle Paul described as “the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13) requires far more than acquiring knowledge. It is not even enough for us to be convinced of the gospel; we must act and think so that we are converted by it. In contrast to the institutions of the world, which teach us to know something, the plan of salvation and the gospel of Jesus Christ challenge us to become something.

I take this to mean that while knowledge of doctrinal things is of value, the gospel is ultimately about becoming like Christ by doing the things of Christ.  In this regard, I  happen to observe a relatively uneducated  and simple farmer and his wife, who through their charitable actions demonstrated a comprehension of the Savior's path  that was awe-inspiring, and yet I got the impression that they would quickly get lost if discussions of religion went beyond the basics.  I discovered from this profound experience that in the eternal scheme of things, character matters far more than appearing learned.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, they arent. The endowment along with the covenants and signs and tokens are not discussed in the scriptures. 

 

Clearly your scriptural knowledge is significantly less than you seem to believe it to be.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Clearly your scriptural knowledge is significantly less than you seem to believe it to be.

I admit I don't have a great scripture knowledge. Can you show me where in the scriptures it shows the temple particulars?

[The Folk Prophet]

44 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I admit I don't have a great scripture knowledge. Can you show me where in the scriptures it shows the temple particulars?

No. You can try speaking to a temple president or some such if you are honestly interested. But I won't (and can't) speak of these things in details.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I agree. Doctrine is what is taught. Obviously the doctrine of Christ as found in the Book of Mormon is going to be true and unchanging. The doctrine concerning the Godhead on the other hand received several modifications over church history.  The same can be said of heaven and the three glories, race and the priesthood, etc. I personally don't have any problems with changing doctrine or evolving doctrine. I do however take up issue when we claim things like the Lectures on Faith was never doctrine or calling the reasons for the priesthood ban with Negros as mere "theories" and not doctrine. The evidence of their day shows that they clearly were "doctrines". My beef is that it just helps fuel the fire with our critics. Why can't we just admit that we had doctrine in our past that wasn't perfect or even wrong? Is it because we are so stuck on trying to define "doctrine" only as "unchanging truth"? 

I wouldn’t worry about the First Presidency and the Twelve fueling the fire with our critics. It is more important to sustain them where they stand, just as we are to lift where we stand ( https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/lift-where-you-stand?lang=eng ).

This ties in with Jesus’ doctrine that there should be no disputations among us, that contention is the antithesis of His doctrine, and that we shall give heed to His servants in our own day. I would say that quibbling over doctrine and its definition as justification to avoid offending critics or to promote one’s contrary interpretation (a “tenet” – see Webster 1828* -- which is a distraction and runs against D&C 19:31) or to project, promote and predict corrections and to our current doctrine.

We all know that the First Presidency and the Twelve often mention that our doctrine evolves; that we have an open canon and continuing revelation, etc. They generally do it without condemning the past doctrine (Adam-God might be an exception), those who taught it in the past (apostates might be an exception), or where it came from (e.g. the Bible). This is the tone of the Race and Priesthood article, since you mentioned “theories of the past.” In comparison to the revealed will of the Lord in 1978, these teachings were theories, and since they were not tied to Christ’s doctrine in 3 Nephi, there is a good deal of room for the essay to refer to them as theories.

* “TEN'ET, noun [Latin tenet he holds.] Any opinion, principle, dogma or doctrine which a person believes or maintains as true; as the tenets of Plato or of Cicero. The tenets of christians are adopted from the Scriptures; but different interpretations give rise to a great diversity of tenets.”

Edited May 9, 2018 by CV75

[BJ64]

52 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

No. You can try speaking to a temple president or some such if you are honestly interested. But I won't (and can't) speak of these things in details.

In a general sense you could say that the commandments  mentioned in the temple are in scripture. 

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

No. You can try speaking to a temple president or some such if you are honestly interested. But I won't (and can't) speak of these things in details.

So basically you are stating they aren't found in the scriptures, I have to go to the temple to find out. Gotcha.

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

So basically you are stating they aren't found in the scriptures, I have to go to the temple to find out. Gotcha.

No, what he's saying is that providing a list of scriptures detailing temple teachings is too close to revealing a liturgy he holds sacred. I could also provide a script by pasting newspapers letters on a blank piece of paper. "I'm not revealing anything, it's just newspaper clippings!" but don't think @The Folk Prophet would be comfortable with that either.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I wouldn’t worry about the First Presidency and the Twelve fueling the fire with our critics. It is more important to sustain them where they stand, just as we are to lift where we stand ( https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/lift-where-you-stand?lang=eng ).

This ties in with Jesus’ doctrine that there should be no disputations among us, that contention is the antithesis of His doctrine, and that we shall give heed to His servants in our own day. I would say that quibbling over doctrine and its definition as justification to avoid offending critics or to promote one’s contrary interpretation (a “tenet” – see Webster 1828* -- which is a distraction and runs against D&C 19:31) or to project, promote and predict corrections and to our current doctrine.

We all know that the First Presidency and the Twelve often mention that our doctrine evolves; that we have an open canon and continuing revelation, etc. They generally do it without condemning the past doctrine (Adam-God might be an exception), those who taught it in the past (apostates might be an exception), or where it came from (e.g. the Bible). This is the tone of the Race and Priesthood article, since you mentioned “theories of the past.” In comparison to the revealed will of the Lord in 1978, these teachings were theories, and since they were not tied to Christ’s doctrine in 3 Nephi, there is a good deal of room for the essay to refer to them as theories.

* “TEN'ET, noun [Latin tenet he holds.] Any opinion, principle, dogma or doctrine which a person believes or maintains as true; as the tenets of Plato or of Cicero. The tenets of christians are adopted from the Scriptures; but different interpretations give rise to a great diversity of tenets.”

I think we all can agreewe sustain the prophets. This all part of learning the gospel and preparing ourselves in the defense of the gospel. For the most part we discuss these things without disputations. Part of learning though requires, at times, to wade through dialogue of dissent. Even the apostles- the prophets do this in their chambers to advance the doctrine, church plicies, directions, etc.

The church published essay on race and the priesthood is a well thought and written response for the most part. I dont even mind that they mention the "theories part. What troubles me, and its a semantics issue I believe, is how in this paragraph they state

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."

Truthfully the boldend part I underlined should read- "the doctrines and theories in the past..."

It matters because it actually was part of LDS doctrine promoted and taught by proohets and apostles. Those doctrines filtered down into congregations throughout the world and was a common teaching. It was therefore a "doctrine". Was it part of Christs doctrine? No, it was a false doctrine. The semantics issue is that the church somehow wants to equate doctrine as truth and in so doing remove themselves from calling it a doctrine even though in the past prophets and apostles called it "doctrine". I can understand tge move by the church to teach only Christs doctrine but we must be mindful that Christs doctrine stands on its own and is always true. Our doctrines (that which we teach in church) may or may not be in harmony with Christs doctrines.

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

No, what he's saying is that providing a list of scriptures detailing temple teachings is too close to revealing a liturgy he holds sacred. I could also provide a script by pasting newspapers letters on a blank piece of paper. "I'm not revealing anything, it's just newspaper clippings!" but don't think @The Folk Prophet would be comfortable with that either.

There arent scriptures detailing the ordinances and endowments- the very specifics of the signs and tokens and procedures in the scripture. Sure, the scriptures mention receiving a new name, holy robes of purity and priesthood power and things like that. What the scriptures do not contain are the very rites and procedures which is "doctrine" of those ceremonies. It is why Joseph Smith received separate and further revelation to know.

[BJ64]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

It matters because it actually was part of LDS doctrine promoted and taught by proohets and apostles. Those doctrines filtered down into congregations throughout the world and was a common teaching. It was therefore a "doctrine". Was it part of Christs doctrine? No, it was a false doctrine. 

I’m not sure I would call it a false doctrine.The teaching that the descendants of Cain we’re cursed as to the priesthood is scriptural and well documented. However I think that perhaps one of the false theories that have been disavowed is the theory that the black Africans are the descendent of Cain. Other dark skinned people were not banned from the priesthood. Perhaps it is only speculation that black Africans are descendants of Cain. 

Other theories such as being less valiant in the pre-earth life I believe are purely faults.

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I’m not sure I would call it a false doctrine.The teaching that the descendants of Cain we’re cursed as to the priesthood is scriptural and well documented. However I think that perhaps one of the false theories that have been disavowed is the theory that the black Africans are the descendent of Cain. Other dark skinned people were not banned from the priesthood. Perhaps it is only speculation that black Africans are descendants of Cain. 

Other theories such as being less valiant in the pre-earth life I believe are purely faults.

I agree. 

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

The teaching that the descendants of Cain we’re cursed as to the priesthood is scriptural and well documented.

[BJ64]

50 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Abraham 1:24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, throughHam, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

 

However there seems to be some controversy as to whether the curse of Ham’s descendants and the curse of Cain are the same. 

[mordorbund]

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Abraham 1:24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, throughHam, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

 

However there seems to be some controversy as to whether the curse of Ham’s descendants and the curse of Cain are the same. 

How can there be controversy if "The teaching that the descendants of Cain we’re cursed as to the priesthood is scriptural and well documented"?

What is Ham's curse mentioned in vs 24? Is that well documented in the scriptures? What about the lineage which prevented Pharaoh from having the right of Priesthood? Was that the lineage of Ham? or was that lineage through Egyptus?

[mordorbund]

Bonus: What is Cain's curse, as documented in the scriptures?

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

There arent scriptures detailing the ordinances and endowments- the very specifics of the signs and tokens and procedures in the scripture. Sure, the scriptures mention receiving a new name, holy robes of purity and priesthood power and things like that. What the scriptures do not contain are the very rites and procedures which is "doctrine" of those ceremonies. It is why Joseph Smith received separate and further revelation to know.

If that's all I meant I wouldn't have a problem presenting/discussing them publicly.

[BJ64]

5 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Bonus: What is Cain's curse, as documented in the scriptures?

Genesis 4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;
12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

 

Notice that there is a mark put upon Cain. However I don’t know that it is documented that the mark was black skin. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think we all can agreewe sustain the prophets. This all part of learning the gospel and preparing ourselves in the defense of the gospel. For the most part we discuss these things without disputations. Part of learning though requires, at times, to wade through dialogue of dissent. Even the apostles- the prophets do this in their chambers to advance the doctrine, church plicies, directions, etc.

The church published essay on race and the priesthood is a well thought and written response for the most part. I dont even mind that they mention the "theories part. What troubles me, and its a semantics issue I believe, is how in this paragraph they state

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."

Truthfully the boldend part I underlined should read- "the doctrines and theories in the past..."

It matters because it actually was part of LDS doctrine promoted and taught by proohets and apostles. Those doctrines filtered down into congregations throughout the world and was a common teaching. It was therefore a "doctrine". Was it part of Christs doctrine? No, it was a false doctrine. The semantics issue is that the church somehow wants to equate doctrine as truth and in so doing remove themselves from calling it a doctrine even though in the past prophets and apostles called it "doctrine". I can understand tge move by the church to teach only Christs doctrine but we must be mindful that Christs doctrine stands on its own and is always true. Our doctrines (that which we teach in church) may or may not be in harmony with Christs doctrines.

Yes, it is semantic, which often serves a valid purpose or context. I explained why I think the essay’s use of “theories” is sufficient and accurate. It conveys the relative importance and relevance of what was taught in the past relative to the fundamental doctrine of Christ and in relation to all else that is taught today. The exact revelatory basis for them, or whether there was one, is simply not known so “theories” really is the best term to use.

3 Nephi 12:1 is designed to inspire and protect the faith of those who tend to chafe because they wonder whether our correlated teachings are in harmony with Christ’s doctrines, sophisticated or nuanced enough for the truly elect, broad enough for society’s acceptance, etc. The message of these chapters is that it is better to heed the message (and doctrines, covenants and ordinances) of the Lord’s united servants than to provoke contention and disputation in reaction to second-guessing them over less important doctrines.

[mordorbund]

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Genesis 4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;
12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

 

Notice that there is a mark put upon Cain. However I don’t know that it is documented that the mark was black skin. 

You mentioned earlier that you thought that the connection between Cain's mark and black skin was just a speculation. I don't disagree with that. If you're curious, there's one or two passages in Moses that could be used to bolster that position.

You've done something interesting here, and I wonder if you realize it. I asked you about Cain's curse, and while you quoted verses that delineate it, you decided to call attention to the mark. The mark is not the curse. The two, while being related, are not the same.

Which brings me back to my call for references: How does this passage show that Cain's descendants (or even Cain himself) were cursed pertaining to Priesthood? Did he till the soil by Priesthood authority? Or is this a veiled reference to his inability to attend quorum meetings?

[BJ64]

13 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

How can there be controversy if "The teaching that the descendants of Cain we’re cursed as to the priesthood is scriptural and well documented"?

What is Ham's curse mentioned in vs 24? Is that well documented in the scriptures? What about the lineage which prevented Pharaoh from having the right of Priesthood? Was that the lineage of Ham? or was that lineage through Egyptus?

I think that he Egyptus is believed to be a descendent of Cain thus preserving the curse in the land. However there is also the curse of Canaan which may be an entirely separate curse.

Genesis 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

[Rob Osborn]

23 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If that's all I meant I wouldn't have a problem presenting/discussing them publicly.

Yeah, this conversation aint going anywhere is it?