The Seven Deadly Heresies

[Black Moclips]

That is correct - that is indeed Elder McConkie's view, which I haven't been, nor am now, addressing. All I did was ask the question "I wonder if publicly opposing the Lord's anointed, without being called to that calling, would prevent one from being exalted?"

I wonder if that really is a calling, Publice Opposer of the Lord's Annointed. I've seen some stretches as callings go, but that may be the best one yet.

[consiglieri]

It can become deadly if people don't ever see a need to repent from it.

I do not believe God is so narrow as to damn somebody for believing something about Him that is not strictly correct, whether repented of or not.

And I would be willing to bet that we all believe something about God that is not strictly correct.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I wonder if that really is a calling, Publice Opposer of the Lord's Annointed. I've seen some stretches as callings go, but that may be the best one yet.

This calling, like that of bishop, is one that can be righteously aspired to.

[Log]

I wonder if that really is a calling, Publice Opposer of the Lord's Annointed. I've seen some stretches as callings go, but that may be the best one yet.

Yes, yes, humor, ha ha, ambiguous phrasing, funny all-round.

Will ark-steadying (publicly opposing the teachings of the Lord's anointed leaders), without authority, lead to exaltation?

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

While I don't believe public disagreement with our religious leaders is a good idea. I equally dislike the idea that every word they speak or write is somehow infallible or inerrant, and MUST be accepted by the Church, or me.

[LDSMusic483]

I do not believe God is so narrow as to damn somebody for believing something about Him that is not strictly correct, whether repented of or not.

So repentance isn't needed for exaltation? Good to know! And my emphasis isn't necessarily towards the nature of God, but the actions. If someone thinks they don't need to continue serving, or reading their scriptures, or praying, or paying tithing, or striving to become better and more than they are, I think there is a definite problem with that which could cause spiritual death.

[consiglieri]

So repentance isn't needed for exaltation? Good to know! And my emphasis isn't necessarily towards the nature of God, but the actions. If someone thinks they don't need to continue serving, or reading their scriptures, or praying, or paying tithing, or striving to become better and more than they are, I think there is a definite problem with that which could cause spiritual death.

You will note that my remark was geared specifically toward the concept of repenting of a belief, not an act.

[LDSMusic483]

You will note that my remark was geared specifically toward the concept of repenting of a belief, not an act.

And if the belief is about actions?

[Zeta-Flux]

consiglieri:

While I don't believe public disagreement with our religious leaders is a good idea. I equally dislike the idea that every word they speak or write is somehow infallible or inerrant, and MUST be accepted by the Church, or me.

And I don't like Log's implication that quoting the First Presidency's refutation is "opposing the Lord's anointed" or stepping beyond one's authority.

On the other hand, I can understand that badmouthing Elder McConkie is inappropriate.

[Log]

And I don't like Log's implication that quoting the First Presidency's refutation is "opposing the Lord's anointed" or stepping beyond one's authority.

On the other hand, I can understand that badmouthing Elder McConkie is inappropriate.

tâ??s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord. One can work to correct them by some other means.... Elder Oaks

And, again, to cite BRM:

Now you know that this does not mean that individuals should not do research and make discoveries and write articles. What it does mean is that what they write should be faith promoting and where doctrines are concerned, should be in harmony with that which comes from the head of the Church. And those at the head of the Church have the obligation to teach that which is in harmony with the Standard Works. If they err then be silent on the point and leave the event in the hands of the Lord. Some day all of us will stand before the judgment bar and be accountable for our teachings. And where there have been disagreements the Lord will judge between us. In the meantime if we want to save our own souls we need to strive with all the power we have to be in harmony with the revelations and not to be teaching or promulgating doctrines that suit our fancy.

Whether I like a thing or not is irrelevant to its truth.

[Zeta-Flux]

Log,

It is one thing to criticize leaders. It is another to point out that *higher* authorities have criticized a doctrine said leader is promulgating. One has to do with the leader. The other has nothing to do with the leader, per se, and everything to do with teaching correct principles (as McConkie's quote talks about).

To put it in other words, it is quite irrelevant who taught the idea that God is not progressing in knowledge, as long as we know said person holds less authority than those who taught that He is progressing in knowledge.

As I said before, I simply disagree with you on this issue. I do not believe it is wrong to quote Presidents of the church when those words could potentially contradict what an apostle has stated. I do not believe that the quotations above are speaking to this issue, but rather the issue of fault-finding/nit-picking and criticizing a specific person in office. I do not believe that citing higher authorities is ark-steadying, or criticizing leaders, or speaking evil of the Lord's anointed (if done the right way--I imagine it depends on context, etc...). Rather, it is instructing others what higher authorities have clarified in the matter.

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

That puts them on a level of inerrancy that only God can live up too.

[Lightbearer]

I do not believe God is so narrow as to damn somebody for believing something about Him that is not strictly correct, whether repented of or not.

So essentially you are advocating the position that it really does not matter what one believes? My contention and I believe it was Elder McConkie's as well is that if we believe anything that is not in strict accordance with the truth then we will be damned to that extent. Because it is impossible to have true faith unto salvation in that which is false. Joseph Smith himself taught that God is all knowing and that there is nothing that He does not know. He also taught that a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge. So if you adhere to the idea that God is still increasing in knowledge then you are declaring that God Himself is not a "saved" being. I admit it is hard for us mortals to understand how God can have all knowledge and all power, yet it is so according to the scriptures. Here is the reference:

(2 Nephi 9:20) "O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it."

That is good enough for me to validate Elder McConkie's argument on at least that point.

[Zeta-Flux]

So essentially you are advocating the position that it really does not matter what one believes? My contention and I believe it was Elder McConkie's as well is that if we believe anything that is not in strict accordance with the truth then we will be damned to that extent. Because it is impossible to have true faith unto salvation in that which is false. Joseph Smith himself taught that God is all knowing and that there is nothing that He does not know. He also taught that a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge. So if you adhere to the idea that God is still increasing in knowledge then you are declaring that God Himself is not a "saved" being. I admit it is hard for us mortals to understand how God can have all knowledge and all power, yet it is so according to the scriptures. Here is the reference:That is good enough for me to validate Elder McConkie's argument on at least that point.

I love 2 Nephi 9:20. I believe God knows all things. I also believe God learns; such as when Christ learned, according to the flesh, how to succor His people (see Alma 7:12; and verse 13 for another scripture which teaches that God knows all thing).

[consiglieri]

So essentially you are advocating the position that it really does not matter what one believes? My contention and I believe it was Elder McConkie's as well is that if we believe anything that is not in strict accordance with the truth then we will be damned to that extent. Because it is impossible to have true faith unto salvation in that which is false. Joseph Smith himself taught that God is all knowing and that there is nothing that He does not know. He also taught that a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge. So if you adhere to the idea that God is still increasing in knowledge then you are declaring that God Himself is not a "saved" being. I admit it is hard for us mortals to understand how God can have all knowledge and all power, yet it is so according to the scriptures. Here is the reference:That is good enough for me to validate Elder McConkie's argument on at least that point.

If you wish to use the Book of Mormon to define God, would you also agree that God is "from everlasting to everlasting" without at least some sort of caveat?

I am not advocating the position that it "really does not matter what one believes." Belief in Jesus Christ as our Savior is critical.

What I am advocating is that strict belief in what Bruce R. McConkie was pleased to call "Mormon Doctrine," or "The Doctrines of Salvation" is absolutely not necessary to salvation.

If it were, we would be damning all Christian saints who lived before the restoration; for according to the Doctrine and Covenants, things have been revealed in this dispensation that have been hid from the foundation of the world.

Joseph Smith did not, in my opinion, teach that God has all knowledge. I think your reliance on the Lectures on Faith as being written by Joseph Smith may be misplaced.

When Joseph Smith said that a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge, the knowledge he spoke of was specifically the knowledge that one is saved; i.e., having one's calling and election made sure, I believe.

I would think that God has obtained the knowledge that His calling and election is made sure.

But it is interesting that you argue that God must know all things or he is not completely "saved." Meanwhile, I argue that if God does know all things, he is "damned," according to the Mormon understanding of that word.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zeta-Flux]

Joseph Smith did not, in my opinion, teach that God has all knowledge. I think your reliance on the Lectures on Faith as being written by Joseph Smith may be misplaced.

Consiglieri,

The Lectures on Faith are not the only place that Joseph taught about God's omniscience.

[consiglieri]

Consiglieri,

The Lectures on Faith are not the only place that Joseph taught about God's omniscience.

You sure may be right about that ZF!

But I will take a wild stab and guess that, if Joseph Smith himself actually taught the concept, it would have been before the Nauvoo period.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Rob Osborn]

How is it any different if I define doctrine or whether an apostle defines doctrine especially if we are just giving the best of our opinions? The seven deadly heresies talk is merely his opinion and really no different than if I gave a talk on sunday about what I think to be the seven deadly heresies. His talk is not scripture and neither is mine, they both are just the opinions of man- theories if you will.

It is ok to question what an apostle says, it is not ok however to question the integrity of an apostle just based off what he says though, of coarse unless he is slandering someone unduly.

77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom.

78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:77 - 78)

Seems as if we are not really there yet doctrinally speaking. We are still trying to perfect our theory of how the gospel works. God knows, but we surely do not yet understand it.

[Brade]

I love 2 Nephi 9:20. I believe God knows all things. I also believe God learns; such as when Christ learned, according to the flesh, how to succor His people (see Alma 7:12; and verse 13 for another scripture which teaches that God knows all thing).

I don't see how God can both know all things and learn something. To learn something is just to say that one doesn't know that thing. If God knows all things and doesn't know something (because He learns it) then a contradiction is being uttered. You have to drop one or the other. If you assert the contradiction is true then everything is both true and false by the principle of explosion. For any proposition P and not P can be reduced on seperate lines of an argument to just P and not P. Any proposition (or compound) can be added to by the rule of addition. The rule of addition states that for any P, P or Q. But, since the argument also asserts not P, not P can operate on P or Q. Therefore, Q (by disjunctive syllogism). This is the principle of explosion. It's called that because every bit of nonsense one can imagine results from asserting a contradiction is true. I've not bothered rendering out all the rules of inference and to be quite honest I'm probably a little shaky on all the names and associated truth tables as proofs since it's been a little while since I've taken propositional and predicate logic. But, since Q can stand for anything anyone could possibly imagine then if God knows all things and God also learns it's also true that God doesn't exist or that he's a giant fried shrimp with 38.5 eyes and no brain.

[Lightbearer]

If you wish to use the Book of Mormon to define God, would you also agree that God is "from everlasting to everlasting" without at least some sort of caveat?

I am not advocating the position that it "really does not matter what one believes." Belief in Jesus Christ as our Savior is critical.

What I am advocating is that strict belief in what Bruce R. McConkie was pleased to call "Mormon Doctrine," or "The Doctrines of Salvation" is absolutely not necessary to salvation.

If it were, we would be damning all Christian saints who lived before the restoration; for according to the Doctrine and Covenants, things have been revealed in this dispensation that have been hid from the foundation of the world.

Joseph Smith did not, in my opinion, teach that God has all knowledge. I think your reliance on the Lectures on Faith as being written by Joseph Smith may be misplaced.

When Joseph Smith said that a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge, the knowledge he spoke of was specifically the knowledge that one is saved; i.e., having one's calling and election made sure, I believe.

I would think that God has obtained the knowledge that His calling and election is made sure.

But it is interesting that you argue that God must know all things or he is not completely "saved." Meanwhile, I argue that if God does know all things, he is "damned," according to the Mormon understanding of that word.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The problem with saying that God does not know all things... or that God is a "student God" is to take away the teachings of the scriptures and yes God is from everlasting to everlasting... just as we shall be if we are exalted. I offer the following as evidence of scriptures revealed through Joseph Smith either by translation or revelation which do say God knows all things and there is nothing He needs to learn:

(Moroni 7:22) "For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing."

Also the following:

(Alma 40:5) "Now, whether there shall be one time, or a second time, or a third time, that men shall come forth from the dead, it mattereth not; for God knoweth all these things; and it sufficeth me to know that this is the caseâ??that there is a time appointed that all shall rise from the dead."

If that is unclear what about the following:

(Mormon 8:17) "And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire."

Also:

(D&C 38:1-3) "THUS saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I Am, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made;The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes; I am the same which spake, and the world was made, and all things came by me."

Also:

(D&C 88:6-7) "He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made."

Also:

(Moses 1:6) "And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all."

Also the following:

(Abraham 2:8 ) "My name is Jehovah, and I know the end from the beginning; therefore my hand shall be over thee."

And I did not even get started on the Bible, again I cannot see one scripture that states that He is ignorant of anything. The problem with the idea of God not knowing all things is that it makes Him something other than an infinite being, because if He did not know some law He could possibly break it... thus God could sin, or lie, or not accurately prophesy thus it would reduce revelation to a scientific hypothesis, which is subject to change. That is what the scriptures mean when they say He is unchangeable (not that He was never a mortal) but that He does not and cannot make a mistake. That is what the Prophet meant when he said that we are saved only as fast as we gain knowledge, if we possess all knowledge and all power then we are a God. I would ask you for scriptures (not writings from the Journal of Discourses) that prove that God does not know all things.

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

As a believer in reincarnation, I see beliefs as only important when they influence ones actions. There are no damnable doctrines.

[consiglieri]

Hello,

As a believer in reincarnation, I see beliefs as only important when they influence ones actions. There are no damnable doctrines.

Then maybe I will start to believe in reincarnation, too, as we seem to be so much in agreement on the other issue.

Truth be told, I think there is a great deal to reincarnation, and I believe it is practiced . . . only on different worlds rather than the same one.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[emeliza]

Then maybe I will start to believe in reincarnation, too, as we seem to be so much in agreement on the other issue.

Truth be told, I think there is a great deal to reincarnation, and I believe it is practiced . . . only on different worlds rather than the same one.

Dang, if I didn't know better I would say you were listening in on my lunch conversation today. Mine was about different dimensions though rather than different worlds. Same idea though.

[Rob Osborn]

Knowledge, I am going to take it one step more.

God possibly cannot know "all things" and this is why-

All things (futurally speaking) have not yet been played out and never will be. If God did know all things he would know exactly how the rest of the future of the gods will play out. Speaking now in hindsight, if gos does know all things then God intentionally created Satan for the purpose of him becoming evil as part of his plan. He also would know before he created his children who would become evil and who wouldn't and thus- as part of his designs he would intentionally create some of his children to becoem angels to his created devil as part of his plan. The logic of this is that god himself must be evil if he can knowingly create and manipulate an evilness as part of his plan.

That is not good logic! He cannot possibly know who will fall and who won't while they are still in an infant spiritual state. He may know "all" things as they exist presently, and even be able to recall the past in perfect clarity, but he cannot do the same with the future, with that he can only work off of probables and this does not mean that the probables are anything exact.

So, god is all knowing as far as what we do and that we cannot hide from him, and that he can give us the best advice which will lead us into salvation, but he is not all knowing in the futurally speaking sense- no one possibly could be. That said, the potential for him to know every single possibility and know with perfect clarity the best way to handle the circumstance- it being limitless, he is far from "all knowing". He too like everyone else will continue to find a never-ending chain of events and circumstances that will take some work at figuring out and that itself will always be a learning experience bringing also with it a never-ending plane of increased intelligence.

[Lightbearer]

Then maybe I will start to believe in reincarnation, too, as we seem to be so much in agreement on the other issue.

Truth be told, I think there is a great deal to reincarnation, and I believe it is practiced . . . only on different worlds rather than the same one.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

So if I get you right you are saying that you do not believe that unbelief is a sin in and of itself? If so then what of the following:

(D&C 58:15) "But if he repent not of his sins, which are unbelief and blindness of heart, let him take heed lest he fall."

From this I understand we are not only accountable for what we do but what we believe once the truth has been manifest to us.

[LDSMusic483]

Knowledge, I am going to take it one step more.

God possibly cannot know "all things" and this is why-

All things (futurally speaking) have not yet been played out and never will be. If God did know all things he would know exactly how the rest of the future of the gods will play out. Speaking now in hindsight, if gos does know all things then God intentionally created Satan for the purpose of him becoming evil as part of his plan. He also would know before he created his children who would become evil and who wouldn't and thus- as part of his designs he would intentionally create some of his children to becoem angels to his created devil as part of his plan. The logic of this is that god himself must be evil if he can knowingly create and manipulate an evilness as part of his plan.

That is not good logic! He cannot possibly know who will fall and who won't while they are still in an infant spiritual state. He may know "all" things as they exist presently, and even be able to recall the past in perfect clarity, but he cannot do the same with the future, with that he can only work off of probables and this does not mean that the probables are anything exact.

So, god is all knowing as far as what we do and that we cannot hide from him, and that he can give us the best advice which will lead us into salvation, but he is not all knowing in the futurally speaking sense- no one possibly could be. That said, the potential for him to know every single possibility and know with perfect clarity the best way to handle the circumstance- it being limitless, he is far from "all knowing". He too like everyone else will continue to find a never-ending chain of events and circumstances that will take some work at figuring out and that itself will always be a learning experience bringing also with it a never-ending plane of increased intelligence.

Ron, if God came and told you that you would get some crazy idea's regarding the kingdoms of glory and His knowledge before you were born, would you believe it? You'd probably be like...no no no...I would never do that! Even though God may know who is going to choose evil and who will not, that does not mean he is responsible for them choosing it. He allows them to choose how they would like to. And I wouldn't say "evilness" is part of his plan, but an opposition of all things sure is! Judas Iscariot was prophesied about years before he was born. God KNEW what he would do with his agency. That doesn't mean that Judas should be deprived the opportunity to become a spirit child, gain a body and try to work out his own salvation. God is responsible for giving us the opportunity to progress. His foreknowledge of what we will do with that agency does not constitute responsibility of such. Would God be just to only allow those who would act righteously the opportunity to live? If what you say is true, then there is no reason for prophecy, because God could never know what is going to happen. Christ couldn't have prophesied that Peter would deny him thrice! What would have happened if Peter had only done so twice? Christ would then have been a false prophet and everyone would have lost confidence in him! If you want to believe your idea of Gods perfect knowledge remove all prophecies from the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price because it would only be guess work as to what God THINKS might happen and false prophecies would abound.