The Increasing Size Of The Tent Of Mormonism

[DBMormon]

By the first was it the word of God as recorded on gold plates hidden in a hillside?

I think so, but I allow others to think differently

[Stone holm]

This sounds like the half way Covenant that the Puritans developed when subsequent generations couldn't muster conversion testimonies.

[Calm]

I don't really get the metaphor?

Safe harbour as opposed to open water...boats getting shipwrecked and people getting lost at sea...however, even in the most controlled and thus supposedly safe environments such as our homes, people can still be injured or lost....thus membership in the Church is no guarantee of safety.

Too subtle humour, sorry.

Edited July 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

I am not speaking of church teachings but rather that which as a culture we have accepted as truth and isn't though many were taught by a leader at some point. Edit/added - Though many times local and general leaders hold up the nonsense and administer based on it.

age of earth

evolution

true means we have all truth

rejecting the LDS gospel when offered to you and you reject salvation and have blown you opportunity

God doesn't work through other faiths to save his children as only our church is God's True Church.

great and abominable church = Catholic

10 years ago 90% of LDS would have accepted these and others, it is coming to an end. We are also ending the mentality that disagreement with leaders and testing their words against the HG is a sign of apostacy. The recent quotes on Doctrine have opened the way for discarding past nonsense and future nonsense.

We are collectively moving from solid stage three in Fowler's paradigm to something closer to stage four

Off hand, I cannot think of any elements of the things you mention that are saving, core truths. That has always been the case, to the best of my knowledge. Are there some, perhaps many, who are too provincial in their possession of "truth" as members of the Church of Jesus Christ? Are there some (perhaps many) who have been too dogmatic in their declaration of such "truth"? Are there some who have made "gospel hobbies" of the non-central aspects of the Gospel? Yes. Perhaps leadership in the past wasn't as quick to emphasize what is central, core, or essential to our doctrine and what is not. But Christ (His sacrifice, His teaching, His appearance to Joseph Smith, His restoration of priesthood keys, and so on) has always been at the center of our doctrine.

[Kenngo1969]

Tidy meme....but does it really stand up to scrutiny? Not so much...since as I stated earlier religion is filled with falsehoods and myth...hardly where one would go were they truly seeking empirical truth. But that's not to suggest that religion is devoid of truth, just not empirical truth. Guess that's why there's so many religions all conflicting with each other

Aren't Living Prophets, an Open Canon, and Continuing Revelation grand?!!

[Stone holm]

Safe harbour as opposed to open water...boats getting shipwrecked and people getting lost at sea...however, even in the most controlled and thus supposedly safe environments such as our homes, people can still be injured or lost....thus membership in the Church is no guarantee of safety.

Too subtle humour, sorry.

Safe harbour as a legal term means that if you do such and such you will not be prosecuted even if you are possibly later determined to be in violation. To Mormonism I would translate that to mean that if you follow the admonition of the prophet The Lord will not hold you. Accountable. The defendants at Nuremburg, however, were not allowed that defence.

[Kenngo1969]

Tenants live in houses. Tenets are beliefs.

There's a Deputy Chief slot open with the Grammar Police. (I'm the Chief, so you can't have my spot! PM me your resume if you're interested. ) Edited July 7, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Sleeper Cell]

Has a religious claim ever replaced a confirmed scientific truth? I don't know if any

How does a “confirmed scientific truth” differ from an ordinary scientific truth?

[Johnnie Cake]

Tidy meme....but does it really stand up to scrutiny? Not so much...since as I stated earlier religion is filled with falsehoods and myth...hardly where one would go were they truly seeking empirical truth. But that's not to suggest that religion is devoid of truth, just not empirical truth. Guess that's why there's so many religions all conflicting with each other

[Brian 2.0]

If you want facts take a science class. If you want truth take a class on religion.

The Saints have no problem with science, and we have no reason to fear it. Look to science to explain the how God did it, and look to God for why he did it.

I wish it were that easy and the two spheres never overlapped, but they sometimes do.

Take age of the earth, which has been mentioned in this thread...

"Look to science to explain how God did it" = The Earth is billions of years old

"Look to God to explain why He did it" = Yes we can find God's reasons for creating the earth, but we also get religion saying Earth is 6000 years old.

There is overlap, and a lot of people's questions come down to what to do with those elements of overlap.

[Bob Crockett]

Ordinances on some level are necessary

What do you mean by "some level"? Do you think that the unrepentant homosexual Buddist in Shanghai who dies without ever hearing of the church must have LDS ordinances to be saved? If so, isn't that working one's way to heaven?

[BlueDreams]

Personally, I think it's a good thing that science has helped us reject these false religious truths-myths.

I don't see it as necessarily good or bad. There wasn't/isn't something terribly detrimental about believing there is a young earth. I've met plenty of people who do and they continue on, living their lives, having their various successes and challenges just like anybody else. Tacking on a few million years to a history that has little immediate effect on the present if you know it or not doesn't seem all that astounding. And frankly the theory of evolution has also been used poorly in social circumstances in the past (think various eugenics practices and social darwinism).

Has the opposite ever happened? Has a religious claim ever replaced a confirmed scientific truth? I don't know if any

I don't know about confirmed. My fields of interest are strongly within the realm of psychology and social issues academically. And I don't know if I'd call evolution and scientific truth....more like scientific theory (a very useful one)....the age of the earth has more substantial evidence....but all things are open to change because much of scientific research in these matters are not closed fields.

I know within the field of psych that there is no scientific fact that is 100% confirmed that is beyond the basic biological functioning. Human thought and behavior is hard to tack down, though plenty have tried to do just that....and failed. Personally, religion focuses on this fuzzy area of human relationship with others, the world around them, and a higher power of some sort. The truths found are not about factualizing the world; this isn't the goal of faith. It's less about what happens within the realm of our 5 senses, but that wishy washy area of meaning and significance in action that goes beyond fact. Basically, I'm saying it's comparing apples and oranges. Though I think scientific study and research can definitely be of use in religious topics, and religious principles can help navigate parameters of ethics and such the fields of knowledge use a different basis of assumptions and reasoning and purpose.

Going back to psychology, On my mission I witnessed things that definitely expanded my understanding of what faith/religion could do. Certain things were so mind-blowing to me that I had a moment wondering what in the world I could do in therapy. Faith gave a sense of stability and change in people that could often be dramatic. Within myself, the work that God did on me in 9 months outstripped all that had been done through education, a couple of therapists, and conventional worldly methods that gave me coping skill but not as thorough of a healing that He did. Obviously, I think there's still good merit in the field or I wouldn't be persuing it. But I also recognize that "truth" however defined, is not inherently good or bad. It's a matter what's done with it and how society uses their various means to understand and interpret the world.

With luv,

BD

[canard78]

What do you mean by "some level"? Do you think that the unrepentant homosexual Buddist in Shanghai who dies without ever hearing of the church must have LDS ordinances to be saved? If so, isn't that working one's way to heaven?

I've met him. He's a great guy - God put him and the other billion+ Chinese exactly where they would flourish best and make the most of their 'turn on earth.'

I suggest you get yourself a copy of some of the Confucian/Daoist principles. The Chinese still practice them today. They are beautiful teachings, inspired by God to enlighten an entire nation.

[Stone holm]

What do you mean by "some level"? Do you think that the unrepentant homosexual Buddist in Shanghai who dies without ever hearing of the church must have LDS ordinances to be saved? If so, isn't that working one's way to heaven?

Don't understand this argument, are you arguing against works?

[Bob Crockett]

Don't understand this argument, are you arguing against works?

St. Augustine went down the slippery slope of being saved by grace until he was forced to concede that the Church's sacraments were required by every person hoping for salvation, a concept foreign to the notion that one cannot be saved by one's works.

I am interested in how far DBMormon is willing to press his case for many paths to exaltation and for that reason I pose my questions for which I am waiting an answer.

I believe that no person who has ever been born cannot be saved without obtaining LDS ordinances and without working out his salvation with fear and trembling. A New Age philosophy that Jesus saves all and loves all without regard to their choices in life is, well, basically a philosophy that signs on to The Rejected Plan.

[Teancum]

St. Augustine went down the slippery slope of being saved by grace until he was forced to concede that the Church's sacraments were required by every person hoping for salvation, a concept foreign to the notion that one cannot be saved by one's works.

I am interested in how far DBMormon is willing to press his case for many paths to exaltation and for that reason I pose my questions for which I am waiting an answer.

I believe that no person who has ever been born cannot be saved without obtaining LDS ordinances and without working out his salvation with fear and trembling. A New Age philosophy that Jesus saves all and loves all without regard to their choices in life is, well, basically a philosophy that signs on to The Rejected Plan.

Define "saved." As noted directly to you above D&C 76 and 19 seem to disagree with your position at least to some level of salvation.

[Bob Crockett]

Define "saved." As noted directly to you above D&C 76 and 19 seem to disagree with your position at least to some level of salvation.

"I . . . spoke ot the people, showing them that to get salvation we must not only do some things, but everything which God has commanded. Men may preach and practice everything except those things which God commands us to do and will be damned at the last." TPJS 332.

"God did elect or predestinate, that all those who would be saved, should be saved in Christ Jesus, and through obedience to the Gospel; but He passes over no man's sins, but visits them with correction, and if His children will not repent of their sins He will discard them." TPJS 189.

"Baptism is a sign to God, to angels, and to heaven that we do the will of God, and there is no other way beneath the heavens whereby God hath ordained for man to come to Him to be saved, and enter into the Kingdom of God, except faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, and baptism for the remission of sins, and any other course is in vain; then you have the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost." TPJS 198.

See also, Joseph Fielding Smith, Salvation: The Plan of Salvation in Doctrines of Salvation 2:1, where he describes "conditional salvation" and "unconditional salvation." "Conditional salvation" is "salvation" to the rest of Christianity and the way the Prophet Joseph Smith used the word "salvation" in describing celestial glory and redemption of the dead. "Unconditional salvation" is, in Mormon speak, the resurrection.

What confuses things is that in Christian theology, salvation almost always means reconciliation with God, and does not mean the resurrection. However, "saved" has other connotations, such as that a woman can only be saved in childbearing. But, in reconciliation, some Christian denominations (such as the Universalists) believe in universal salvation -- God will beat us with a few stripes and in the end we will be saved. The New Age philosophy of Jesus teaches that salvation comes to all because of God's love, and He will not judge our lifestyle choices. There are churches in my area which cater to the Hollywood crowd which teach exactly that. One of my favorite orators, Joel Osteen, seems to lean in that direction.

It is difficult to be precise about "salvation" and "saved" because even within the Church those who preach and sermonize are imprecise. But I read Joseph Smith to use salvation interchangeably with exaltation, and exaltation means celestial glory without end.

Where I take exception with DBMormon's theology is that he teaches that there are many paths to "exhaltation", as he puts it, and that ordinances are only required "to some degree." (Those are my quote marks.) I don't want to put words in his mouth, however; it is hard to understand his philosophy in an area which really lacks precision in the first place. In other words, Christian and Mormon theology in the area is imprecise and contradictory; DBMormon's postings are imprecise and contradictory and are further complicated by unique spelling choices which may nor may not have some signficance to him.

When one tries to systemize Mormon salvific theology, there's one more Mormon General Authority or writer to contradict you. What does it all mean? I'm as likely to be wrong as DBMormon is right, I suppose.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[thesometimesaint]

Tidy meme....but does it really stand up to scrutiny? Not so much...since as I stated earlier religion is filled with falsehoods and myth...hardly where one would go were they truly seeking empirical truth. But that's not to suggest that religion is devoid of truth, just not empirical truth. Guess that's why there's so many religions all conflicting with each other

Which one defines the universe we live in. Newton, Einstein, Quantum Mechanics. You get ONLY one choice.

[Teancum]

"I . . . spoke ot the people, showing them that to get salvation we must not only do some things, but everything which God has commanded. Men may preach and practice everything except those things which God commands us to do and will be damned at the last." TPJS 332.

"God did elect or predestinate, that all those who would be saved, should be saved in Christ Jesus, and through obedience to the Gospel; but He passes over no man's sins, but visits them with correction, and if His children will not repent of their sins He will discard them." TPJS 189.

"Baptism is a sign to God, to angels, and to heaven that we do the will of God, and there is no other way beneath the heavens whereby God hath ordained for man to come to Him to be saved, and enter into the Kingdom of God, except faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, and baptism for the remission of sins, and any other course is in vain; then you have the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost." TPJS 198.

See also, Joseph Fielding Smith, Salvation: The Plan of Salvation in Doctrines of Salvation 2:1, where he describes "conditional salvation" and "unconditional salvation." "Conditional salvation" is "salvation" to the rest of Christianity and the way the Prophet Joseph Smith used the word "salvation" in describing celestial glory and redemption of the dead. "Unconditional salvation" is, in Mormon speak, the resurrection.

What confuses things is that in Christian theology, salvation almost always means reconciliation with God, and does not mean the resurrection. However, "saved" has other connotations, such as that a woman can only be saved in childbearing. But, in reconciliation, some Christian denominations (such as the Universalists) believe in universal salvation -- God will beat us with a few stripes and in the end we will be saved. The New Age philosophy of Jesus teaches that salvation comes to all because of God's love, and He will not judge our lifestyle choices. There are churches in my area which cater to the Hollywood crowd which teach exactly that. One of my favorite orators, Joel Osteen, seems to lean in that direction.

It is difficult to be precise about "salvation" and "saved" because even within the Church those who preach and sermonize are imprecise. But I read Joseph Smith to use salvation interchangeably with exaltation, and exaltation means celestial glory without end.

Where I take exception with DBMormon's theology is that he teaches that there are many paths to "exhaltation", as he puts it, and that ordinances are only required "to some degree." (Those are my quote marks.) I don't want to put words in his mouth, however; it is hard to understand his philosophy in an area which really lacks precision in the first place. In other words, Christian and Mormon theology in the area is imprecise and contradictory; DBMormon's postings are imprecise and contradictory and are further complicated by unique spelling choices which may nor may not have some signficance to him.

When one tries to systemize Mormon salvific theology, there's one more Mormon General Authority or writer to contradict you. What does it all mean? I'm as likely to be wrong as DBMormon is right, I suppose.

Very good. So when you say save you mean exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Then I agree that at least in Mormon doctrine LDS ordinances are necessary to be exalted. However this passage teaches salvation with a meaning that there is a glory for all except Sons of Perdition:

D&C 76:40-43:

40 And this is the ^agospel, the glad ^btidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us—

41 That he ^acame into the world, even Jesus, to be ^bcrucified for the world, and to ^cbear the sins of the ^dworld, and to ^esanctify the world, and to ^fcleanse it from all unrighteousness;

42 That through him all might be ^asaved whom the Father had put into his ^bpower and made by him;

43 Who ^aglorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of ^bperdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.

I will also note that my understanding of when a Christian says saved they mean you go to heaven when you die. There is not all this distinctions between resurrection as a free gift vs going to the top heaven as obedience to rules and regulations and ordinances as well as all the in between tuff that the LDS Church presents. There is the concept of justification which puts you into heaven and sanctification which may get you more crowns whatever that means. So when we talk about salvation with non LDS we need to spell out what we mean. And as you have demonstrated it is also confusing amongst members of the LDS Church.

[Tacenda]

A thought occurred to me. It is this, what if polygamy marriage is legal in the near future? Since SSM is becoming that, it makes sense that polygamy will too. In fact Cody Brown is suing the state of Utah, for the right to live his religion w/o the law stepping in. They don't want to hide it any longer or feel shame for it. If it does become legal, how could the church turn it's back on them? It is the reason it got started in the first place. In fact I see a scene in my mind of several different kinds of families attending church...a gay couple with an adopted or petri dish child or children, a polygamist family, a black & white couple, more than the usual, a woman dressed in a hijab outfit (for Ellen), and many more not the norm. Can or will our church come to this, or must it continually be segregated, and yes I do add in the temple with church! I keep thinking of the scene with Sally Field in the movie "Places in the Heart". Where at the end it shows an imagined scene with people from different walks and speaks of love and inclusion. ETA: Here is the last scene from the movie. Notice how there weren't many in the congregation at first and at the end it is filled. [media=]

Edited July 7, 2013 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

Very good. So when you say save you mean exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Then I agree that at least in Mormon doctrine LDS ordinances are necessary to be exalted. However this passage teaches salvation with a meaning that there is a glory for all except Sons of Perdition:

D&C 76:40-43:

40 And this is the ^agospel, the glad ^btidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us—

came into the world, even Jesus, to be ^bcrucified for the world, and to ^cbear the sins of the ^dworld, and to ^esanctify the world, and to ^fcleanse it from all unrighteousness;

saved whom the Father had put into his ^bpower and made by him;

glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of ^bperdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.

I will also note that my understanding of when a Christian says saved they mean you go to heaven when you die. There is not all this distinctions between resurrection as a free gift vs going to the top heaven as obedience to rules and regulations and ordinances as well as all the in between tuff that the LDS Church presents. There is the concept of justification which puts you into heaven and sanctification which may get you more crowns whatever that means. So when we talk about salvation with non LDS we need to spell out what we mean. And as you have demonstrated it is also confusing amongst members of the LDS Church.

Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Receipt of the Holy Ghost. Those aren't just Mormons doctrines. They are well articulated in the Bible.

Even the SoP's that received their Second Estate will be Resurrected. They will have ascendency over those that did not. However I don't see that as a strong selling point.

The idea that there is a one size fits all Heaven is counter to the Bible.

We don't get more crowns. We are all get but one crown each, that of righteousness.

Of course we need to define terms. However we spare no expense to teach others our doctrines. ALL we ask in return is that they give us a fair hearing whether they end up accepting the Restored Gospel or not.

[Bob Crockett]

D&C 76:40-43: and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of ^bperdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.

According to TPJS, this does not mean that all will be saved. The passage merely means that the plan is contingently available to all who obey, i.e., do works of obedience.

"All sin, and all blasphemies, and every transgression, except one, that man can be guilty of, may be forgiven; and there is a salvation for all men, either in this world or the world to come, who have not committed the unpardonable sin, there being a provision either in this world or the world of spirits. Hence God hath made a provision that every spirit in the eternal world can be ferreted out and saved unless he has committed that unpardonable sin which cannot be remitted to him either in this world or the world of spirits. God has wrought out a salvation for all men, unless they have committed a certain sin; and every man who has a friend in the eternal world can save him, unless he has committed the unpardonable sin. And so you can see how far you can be a savior. . . . Hence the salvation of Jesus Christ was wrought out for all men, in order to triumph over the devil; for if it did not catch him in one place, it would in another; for he stood up as a Savior. All will suffer until they obey Christ himself." TPJS 356-57.

[Teancum]

According to TPJS, this does not mean that all will be saved. The passage merely means that the plan is contingently available to all who obey, i.e., do works of obedience.

"All sin, and all blasphemies, and every transgression, except one, that man can be guilty of, may be forgiven; and there is a salvation for all men, either in this world or the world to come, who have not committed the unpardonable sin, there being a provision either in this world or the world of spirits. Hence God hath made a provision that every spirit in the eternal world can be ferreted out and saved unless he has committed that unpardonable sin which cannot be remitted to him either in this world or the world of spirits. God has wrought out a salvation for all men, unless they have committed a certain sin; and every man who has a friend in the eternal world can save him, unless he has committed the unpardonable sin. And so you can see how far you can be a savior. . . . Hence the salvation of Jesus Christ was wrought out for all men, in order to triumph over the devil; for if it did not catch him in one place, it would in another; for he stood up as a Savior. All will suffer until they obey Christ himself." TPJS 356-57.

Seems to me Joseph is contradicting his won revelation.

[thesometimesaint]

The SoP's are those that by their own act of will refuse to repent.

[Stone holm]

I think there seems to be some confusion on this thread over the terms saved and salvation . I do not believe the connote exaltation, rather they refer to not taking a trip to outer darkness or in some cases spirit prison.