Mormons In The Middle - Conference

[DBMormon]

I am not misquoting you. You believe in universal salvation, the doctrine God rejected in the pre-existence. God will not exalt everybody.

Wrong, I don't believe that. I don'rt believe he will exhalt all, but I believe he will exhalt all who are willing and who keep pressing forward with steadfastness.

[DBMormon]

deleted

Edited May 2, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

Wrong, I don't believe that. I don'rt believe he will exhalt all, but I believe he will exhalt all who are willing and who keep pressing forward with steadfastness.

You can't keep your positions straight, or else I don't understand you.

I assume now that you now agree that the ultimate reward of exaltation comes only at the end, after enduring to the end, and only after submitting to Priesthood ordinances.

I can certainly quote from several portions of your talk where it is evident that you don't agree with this, although I can understand you playing to the apostates a bit.

[canard78]

God's Grace helps me before, during, and after I do all I can do.

Ether 12:27 - I can not do it all (now) I am working towards (pressing forward with steadfastness) to do it all some day (perfection somewhere in the eternities). God Grace will help me now in my falling short to improve through his grace. My responsibility knowing the truth is to stay in covenant (be willing to do what he requires) keep the laws and ordinances and "TRYING" to follow Christ and his teachings. And repenting when I don't. He in turn promises me his spirit. Over time his Grace (him and I working together with his divine help) will perfect me - though not in this life.

As Canard said, your view is dismal

No way the majority of church Leaders read 2nd Nephi 25:23 the way you do.

It's weird - my view made a church magazine recently (modern revelation trumps old policies)

http://www.lds.org/new-era/2012/08/his-grace-is-sufficient?lang=eng

Please show me a sermon that we have to expend our own best efforts first or do all we can do first (written in the last 10 years)? I actually doubt you could find one in the last 30 but being unsure we'll say ten.

Nevo said his view was dismal. But it doesn't matter. I agree with you and Nevo... His view is dismal.

I fully agree with your expression of grace and the eternities. All are entitled to saving grace and exaltation. Else what the heck do I keep going to the temple for all those dead people for???!!!

[ksfisher]

All are entitled to saving grace and exaltation.

I about fell out of my chair when I read this. Do you really mean that all are entitled to exaltation? Perhaps I'm reading more into this than you meant, but it make the celestial kingdom sound like a welfare state. And much like this verse:

Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: ^aEat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

2 Nephi 28:7

[Nevo]

But God's work is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of ALL men. The church quickens the pace and saves one from heartache and gives one a family to support through trials, something a Heavenly Father cares much about. But he is rescuing all his children.

Well, Lorenzo Snow, for one, agreed with this.

God loves his offspring, the human family. His design is not simply to furnish happiness to the few here, called Latter-day Saints. The plan and scheme that he is now carrying out is for universal salvation; not only for the salvation of the Latter-day Saints, but for the salvation of every man and woman on the face of the earth, for those also in the spirit world, and for those who may hereafter come upon the face of the earth. It is for the salvation of every son and daughter of Adam. They are the offspring of the Almighty, he loves them all and his plans are for the salvation of the whole, and he will bring all up into that position in which they will be as happy and as comfortable as they are willing to be. (JD 14:308; cf. JD 23:338-42)

[Bob Crockett]

Well, Lorenzo Snow, for one, agreed with this.

I don't see that quote in that talk. Maybe I'm missing it, but the talk isn't that long.

Rather, Snow says in this talk: ". . . His mission was to make provision by which the benefits of the everlasting Gospel, not as I say, Israel alone, but the whole human race." He talks about expanding the preaching of the Gospel to the world. "The Lord has not in view merely the salvation of a few people called Latter-day Saints, who have been or who may be gathered into these vallyes, but he salvation of all men, the living and the dead."

But, when Snow talks about "salvation" in this talk, he's referring to the preaching of the Gospel to all. But to be saved, "[w]e have go to be perfect, and come to the measure of the statute of Christ Jesus, in order that the world may know that Jesus has sent and commissioned His Apostles, and restored the Holy Priesthood."

There just isn't any such thing as "universal salvation" in the Church, except sometimes the Brethren refer to "salvation" as equivalent to being a "savior" on Mt. Zion where work is done for the dead who may or many not accept it. Snow in his talk equates "saviors" to mere preaching the gospel. "God intends to make us saviors not only of man that now sewll on the earth but of many in the spirit world: He will not only place us in a position to save ourselves, but He will make us competent to assist in the redemption of the many of the offspring of the Almighty." Even this language doesn't suggest universality.

I'd say that if you believe in the Protestant doctrine of universal salvation you have a profound misunderstanding of the gospel. When the church refers to "universal salvation", it means only to the need to do temple work for the conditional acceptance of the dead. See http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/02/message-from-the-first-presidency-salvation-universal?lang=eng.

[rpn]

Does anyone doubt that His work is INTENDED for all? But that is not the same thing as believing that all will ultimately accept their role and submit to Him so they ARE exalted.

[DBMormon]

Does anyone doubt that His work is INTENDED for all? But that is not the same thing as believing that all will ultimately accept their role and submit to Him so they ARE exalted.

And this is where I stand. God offers Salvation to all his children, LDS or otherwise and is working to bring them all home. Some will rebel and some will choose not to move forward. They will unfortunately cut themselves off from exhaltation.

[Nevo]

I don't see that quote in that talk. Maybe I'm missing it, but the talk isn't that long.

Here is the link. The quote is in the lower half of the second column of text.

There just isn't any such thing as "universal salvation" in the Church

No, not in the strict sense. D&C 76 clearly states that Christ "saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him" (43). But even these will be resurrected.

Will all be exalted? No. But I think President Snow is probably correct that God "will bring all up into that position in which they will be as happy and as comfortable as they are willing to be" (compare D&C 88:32).

(I take it you're not a fan of this book)

[Bob Crockett]

And this is where I stand. God offers Salvation to all his children, LDS or otherwise and is working to bring them all home. Some will rebel and some will choose not to move forward. They will unfortunately cut themselves off from exhaltation.

However, what sparked this dialogue was your Kirtland talk. I don't have time to listen to it again, and I perhaps got it wrong as I was listening while driving, but I was convinced that you said that there were alternative ways to salvation, alternative from the Church. But, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. I don' t do well at all with audio files; largely a waste of time.

[Bob Crockett]

Here is the link. The quote is in the lower half of the second column of text.

That is nowhere near the cite you gave me above; not even the same volume. But, even so, this new quote has nothing to do with the Protestant doctrine of universal salvation. Merely, citing to the talk that you gave me originally, Elder Snow used the term "universal salvation" to denote nothing more than the results of Cornelius' vision, which he cites. That is, preaching the gospel. The problem often is semantics. Being "saved" also means going through childbirth. But, and I come back to my original point, Bro. Reel's teachings are off in terms of grace and salvation, but part of the problem I have in dealing with it is that he relies too much on audio files where I can't give chapter and verse.

[Bob Crockett]

Does anyone doubt that His work is INTENDED for all? But that is not the same thing as believing that all will ultimately accept their role and submit to Him so they ARE exalted.

I agree with you. But, Bro. Reel seems to say that the Church isn't the possessor of all truth (and the way he said it was more along the lines of -- there are other ways to God equally as effective), and he misquotes the Pearl of Great Price to say that God's mission statement is to bring about the exaltation of all men, and Bro. Reel further seemed to suggest to the apostates in the audience that they could find salvation their own way. (Again, an audio file with conflicting things said; I could be wrong. I think that the podcast method of disseminating information atrocious, but I'm old-fashioned.)

[SeekingUnderstanding]

That is nowhere near the cite you gave me above; not even the same volume. But, even so, this new quote has nothing to do with the Protestant doctrine of universal salvation. Merely, citing to the talk that you gave me originally, Elder Snow used the term "universal salvation" to denote nothing more than the results of Cornelius' vision, which he cites. That is, preaching the gospel. The problem often is semantics. Being "saved" also means going through childbirth. But, and I come back to my original point, Bro. Reel's teachings are off in terms of grace and salvation, but part of the problem I have in dealing with it is that he relies too much on audio files where I can't give chapter and verse.

Perhaps you took the cross reference quote to be the source? Note Nevo's post lists JD 14:308 as the source and JD 23 as a cross reference.

[Bob Crockett]

Well, glory be. He/she has my apologies.

[Scott Lloyd]

the section of the handbook quoted is not the part I was speaking of. My thoughts had to do more with discipline

One can gather what I am thinking of by reading Bro. Mitch Mayne's talk.

http://mitchmayne.bl...ference_14.html

Now I have read the handbook and share that what he quotes is accurate and that while I don't take his exact view on it I absolutely see room for that interpretation, It also leaves room to handle this situations outside of formal church discipline. This is gray area.

I notice here that Mayne seems to equate Church discipline procedure with the convening of a disciplinary council potentially resulting in disfellowshipment or excommunication. I would suggest that it is broader than that.

It could entail, for example, informal counseling of the offender by his priesthood leader, perhaps involving probation or at least a stringent warning from the leader that the offender's sinful behavior must cease. I see such a case progressing to the point of a formal disciplinary council or not, depending on how the person responds.

And yes, such discipline could include the temporary withholding of certain privileges as the priesthood leader, moved upon by the Spirit and working within his province as a "common judge in Israel," is so disposed, whether or not this is associated with a formal disciplinary council. The withholding of a temple recommend is an example of such a corrective action.

As to whether the person ought to be given a Church calling, I see it as depending in large measure on the person's attitude. Calmoriah wrote wisely when she stated:

I think the biggest issue is if they are public with their sins as opposed to private...iow, if they are proud of their sins and secure in them.

Serving in a Church position, calling or assignment is a privilege as well as a responsibility. Such a privilege ought not go to one who is defiant in his breaking of the laws of God — such as engaging in sex with someone other than his lawfully wedded spouse — and is determined to continue on in that defiance.

And it should go without saying that by "lawfully wedded," I mean according to God's laws, not man's.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Skylla]

Bob Crockett: Let people speak for their own beliefs.

Skylla

[DBMormon]

However, what sparked this dialogue was your Kirtland talk. I don't have time to listen to it again, and I perhaps got it wrong as I was listening while driving, but I was convinced that you said that there were alternative ways to salvation, alternative from the Church. But, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. I don' t do well at all with audio files; largely a waste of time.

I agree with you. But, Bro. Reel seems to say that the Church isn't the possessor of all truth (and the way he said it was more along the lines of -- there are other ways to God equally as effective), and he misquotes the Pearl of Great Price to say that God's mission statement is to bring about the exaltation of all men, and Bro. Reel further seemed to suggest to the apostates in the audience that they could find salvation their own way. (Again, an audio file with conflicting things said; I could be wrong. I think that the podcast method of disseminating information atrocious, but I'm old-fashioned.)

One minute you apologize and say you may have misheard me, then two posts later your telling people what I said that is incorrect and again misquoting me

Edited May 2, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I notice here that Mayne seems to equate Church discipline procedure with the convening of a disciplinary council potentially resulting in disfellowshipment or excommunication. I would suggest that it is broader than that.

It could entail, for example, informal counseling of the offender by his priesthood leader, perhaps involving probation or at least a stringent warning from the leader that the offender's sinful behavior must cease. I see such a case progressing to the point of a formal disciplinary council or not, depending on how the person responds.

And yes, such discipline could include the temporary withholding of certain privileges as the priesthood leader, moved upon by the Spirit and working within his province as a "common judge in Israel," is so disposed, whether or not this is associated with a formal disciplinary council. The withholding of a temple recommend is an example of such a corrective action.

As to whether the person ought to be given a Church calling, I see it as depending in large measure on the person's attitude. Calmoriah wrote wisely when she stated:

Serving in a Church position, calling or assignment is a privilege as well as a responsibility. Such a privilege ought not go to one who is defiant in his breaking of the laws of God — such as engaging in sex with someone other than his lawfully wedded spouse — and is determined to continue on in that defiance.

And it should go without saying that by "lawfully wedded," I mean according to God's laws, not man's.

Like I said Scott, I take it differently then him, but I see room for flexibility that was not there in the old handbook.

[Deborah]

Perhaps. DBMormon who attended and presented and just might describe himself as a Mormon in the middle certainly is not lukewarm. He strikes me as very passionate and very engaged in the things that he believes in. It's my opinion that the scripture is misapplied very frequently.

Being passionate and hot or cold are not the same thing. A lot of politicians are passionate about keeping themselves in office but vacillate in conviction with every poll. Lukewarm has to do with conviction and dedication not whether you like to argue about something.

[DBMormon]

Bob, I just went back and listened to my talk. The only comment I make that is even remotely close to what your accusing is that I say "I don't believe the Church encompasses all truth, nor do I think it claims to"

Also I believed I quoted Moses 1:39 almost perfect except I said referring to God "It is my work...." instead of "this is my work....."

"He wants to bring home all his children, not just his cute mormon children, but all of them" Does he not want that?

Please be more sure in the future. you seem to have a habit of making my words fit your view of what I am.

[DBMormon]

Being passionate and hot or cold are not the same thing. A lot of politicians are passionate about keeping themselves in office but vacillate in conviction with every poll. Lukewarm has to do with conviction and dedication not whether you like to argue about something.

There is also a difference between being tugged back and forth between faith and doubt but serving with all your might. You seem to insinuate that a lack of conviction in spiritual knowledge is the the gauge but I would add that many have a spiritual knowledge and stay on the sideline. I'd rather have someone struggling and lukewarm with testimony but playing their best in the game. I have a member I know who has major doubts, and yet he does all he is asked to do.

I would argue Conviction and dedication are two different things when deciding if someone is lukewarm. One who is dedicated but has no conviction is not lukewarm. In fact I see the opposite

James - "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."

Me - Faith is not knowing, but acting when you don't know".

Edited May 2, 2013 by DBMormon

[Deborah]

I would argue Conviction and dedication are two different things when deciding if someone is lukewarm. One who is dedicated but has no conviction is not lukewarm. In fact I see the opposite

Regardless, too many sites designed intially to help those lacking conviction unintentionally end up leading them away from the church and even the founders of such sites end up leaving beause negativity feeds negativity.

[Bob Crockett]

One minute you apologize and say you may have misheard me, then two posts later your telling people what I said that is incorrect and again misquoting me

I guess I am more interested in having you tell me if you believe there are alternative ways to exaltation. I''m uncertain because I couldn't quite make out your point. That's why I'm asking. If you'd rather me not ask you questions just say so, my friend.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[canard78]

I about fell out of my chair when I read this. Do you really mean that all are entitled to exaltation? Perhaps I'm reading more into this than you meant, but it make the celestial kingdom sound like a welfare state. And much like this verse:

Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: ^aEat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

2 Nephi 28:7

That's perhaps your views on social welfare entitlement kicking in. I'm not talking about some freebie handout.

No, entitled as in:

entitled - qualified for by right according to law; "we are all entitled to equal protection under the law"

But everyone is still under the law. I'm entitled under the law. If I break or abandon that law then I'm no longer entitled to it.