Stuff I Would Just As Soon Not Known

[Sevenbak]

You manifest multiple issues as to why these things create the grief in you that you are experiencing. First your spiritual education efforts are being driven by internet forum. You manifest a distinct discomfort with understanding what it is to be taught by the spirit and have chosen other guides.  Men and women who do not know correct doctrine and who also have grown accustomed to not asking God for understanding but are content to listen to each other and make their best guess. As long as that satisfies and provides answers to your questions, chances are you will hear no higher influences.

 

Second you have often indicated that you have little respect for the general authorities.  Those put forth by God to guide your efforts have been reduced in your mind to generally unreliable sources for spiritual insight. You put little credence in their guidance and thus what value they might be to helping you through your misunderstandings is further eroded by your lack of confidence.  Of course this brings us back to my first statement.  It is the providence of the spirit to confirm to your understanding those chosen of God are his servants. Either you have not sought this level of inspiration and now find yourself suffering the inevitable bewilderment of those who will take no guide, and the easy answers provided by those who cannot guide have become your preference or the weakness of your relationship with the spirit has left you not able to detect the spirits confirmations to you of such things.

 

To nut shell it, I can only think of the counsel that Wilford Woodruff and Brigham Young both received from Joseph Smith in visions after his death. His clearest counsel was to the effect that the single most important focus that every member must be engaged in before their spiritual growth can be sure is to "get the Holy Ghost."   It's absence or weak presence is crippling your own progress. 

Samlam, that is very wise council.  Line upon line is a truth, and there is no way around it.  

 

Perhaps Mormon put it best...

 

 

9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.  (3 Nephi 26:9-10)

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't recall making an accusation?

I am sorry but it was thinly veiled..IMHO.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Huh? My approved history? Subsequent posts?

I believe what your post would be your desire, answer every charge ever made against the Church, and not stop there, suggest other assumed scandals, classes on Church finances, the listing of every polygamist wife, and changes of "men on the moon", and certainly your veiled accusation of anti-Semite leadership, as well as an anti-Mormon Internet about Mitt Romney, and the Churches involvement in anything you feel political. You are or seem intelligent to me, so you get it, if not in Eray comment, Just do a reread of your own words in the thread and then admitting you don't know if it is true...Also I think Eray was making a point how little time there would be to discuss doctrine,so each class would end up being a what if, instead of know doctrine taught according to those we are suppose to follow.

[Stone holm]

I believe what your post would be your desire, answer every charge ever made against the Church, and not stop there, suggest other assumed scandals, classes on Church finances, the listing of every polygamist wife, and changes of "men on the moon", and certainly your veiled accusation of anti-Semite leadership, as well as an anti-Mormon Internet about Mitt Romney, and the Churches involvement in anything you feel political. You are or seem intelligent to me, so you get it, if not in Eray comment, Just do a reread of your own words in the thread and then admitting you don't know if it is true...Also I think Eray was making a point how little time there would be to discuss doctrine,so each class would end up being a what if, instead of know doctrine taught according to those we are suppose to follow.

No. I taught Gospel Doctrine for many years and never did any of the things suggested. I do, however, believe the manuals could be improved. And it does bother me that we apparently have a rite in the Church that is not taught openly. If you read my OP carefully, you will see no accusation. What I mentioned is what shows up if a person resorts to a google search in order to seek more information. Before I did that search I did a search on the Church's Gospel Library iPad application and got nothing. Had I got something either confirming or denying the rite's existence, I would have had no need for the google search. Cinepro posted an informative link, but got admonished for his efforts.

[ERayR]

Why would you expect a by invitation only ordinance should be public?

[Robert F. Smith]

Ignorance is not bliss. God knows everything even the bad stuff. So if we really want to be like God we have to know the good from the bad.

So, does that mean that, like Supreme Court justices, we all need to read or ogle plenty of porn so that we will know the difference?

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't see "control freak" in anything you said. What I was addressing is the angst that too many parents feel to shield their children from the world, and for far too long.

 

There is nothing of what I actually said in your objection, and math analogy. Of course children learn as they mature, and we don't dump grad school on them in first grade, the very idea. You also don't excuse not trying to foster a heavenly environment in your own home with fallacious reasoning, like "The world will teach them this crap, so it might as well start here, better to learn it from their father than from strangers". Just because the world has crap in it doesn't mean we allow it in our homes. Example is how parents really teach. Words bounce off. And dogma largely bounces off too, as only the children naturally drawn to it continue in it. Your religious dogma will work with some but not all children....

Is that what happened to you, Beast:  Dumped grad school on you in first grade?  Were you traumatized by the calculus?  Too much too soon?

[SamIam]

That sounds nice and tidy. What are your sources for that?

 

Some of many many references.

 

When he first began to teach it (using the term), he specifically defined “calling and election sure” as a revelation from Jesus Christ directly to an individual absolutely assuring eternal life in words such as “Son” or “Daughter” – “Thou shalt be exalted”!” He taught that those who heard such an audible voice could then approach the Lord and through prayer receive the mysteries of godliness by the manifestations of the “Second Comforter. Words of Joseph Smith p 200-202

 

 

It is the privilege of all those who have made their calling and election sure to see God; to talk with him face to face; to commune with him on a personal basis from time to time. These are the ones upon whom the Lord sends the Second Comforter. Their inheritance of exaltation and eternal life is assured, and so it becomes with them here and now in this life as it will be with all exalted beings in the life to come. They become the friends of God and converse with him on a friendly basis as one man speaks to another. (B. McConkie, The Promised Messiah: he First Coming of Christ  584.)

 

 

C. Making our calling and election sure is an important quest of mortal life.

1. The elect of God are those who hear His voice and obey Him (see D&C 29:7 ).

2. To make our calling and election sure requires diligence and effort in developing godlike attributes (see 2 Peter 1:10–12 ; Mosiah 5:15 ; 2 Timothy 4:7–8 ).

3. While many are called of God to receive His blessings, comparatively few become worthy of them see Luke 13:23–24 ;Matthew 22:11–14 ;D&C 121:34–40 ).

4. We are free to choose for ourselves (see 2 Nephi 2:27 ;10:23 ;Helaman 14:30 ). Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual Chapter 19

 

 

I know that God our Father lives, that we are, as Paul said, his offspring. I know that we dwelt in his presence in pre-earth life and that we shall continue to live beyond the grave. I know that we may return into his presence, if we meet his terms. I know that while we are here in mortality there is a means of communication between him and us. I know it is possible for men to so live that they may hear his voice and know his words and that to receive "the Holy Spirit of promise" while here in mortality is possible. And so, in the words of the Prophet Joseph, "... I ... exhort you to go on and continue to call upon God until (by the more sure word of prophecy) you make your calling and election sure for yourselves,..." (HC 5:389.) In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.  Making Our Calling and Election Sure Marion G. Romney, Cnfrnce Report, October 1965-

 

 

As we have already seen, making one's calling and election sure comes after and grows out of celestial marriage. Eternal life does not and cannot exist for a man or a woman alone, because in its very nature it consists of the continuation of the family unit in eternity. Thus the revelation on marriage speaks both of celestial marriage (in which the conditional promises of eternal life are given) and of making one's calling and election sure (in which the unconditional promise of eternal life are given) in one and the same sentence—which sentence also says that those who commit sins (except "murder whereby to shed innocent blood") after being sealed up unto eternal life shall still gain exaltation. This is the language: "Then"—that is, after their calling and election has been made sure—"shall it be written in the Lamb's Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods," because they have eternal life. (D. & C. 132:19-20.)

    

The revelation speaks of that obedience out of which eternal life grows, and still speaking both of celestial marriage and of making one's calling and election sure says: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment"—that is, if they are both married and have their calling and election made sure—"and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God." (D. & C. 132:26.)

 

…matter of being destroyed in the flesh and delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption is the doctrine of blood atonement, where under those here involved are not cleansed by the blood of Christ, but must pay the penalty for their own sins. This principle can only operate in a day, as that of Moses, when there is no separation of Church and state and when the Church has power to take life. Of conditions in our day, and as to how this law applies to us, President Joseph Fielding Smith says: "We cannot destroy men in the flesh, because we do not control the lives of men and do not have power to pass sentences upon them which involve capital punishment. In the days when there was a theocracy on the earth, then this decree was enforced. What the Lord will do in lieu of this, because we cannot destroy in the flesh, I am unable to say, but it will have to be made up in some other way." (Doc of Sal vol. 2, p. 97.) (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols.345.)

 

 

There are 3 grand principles or orders of Priesthood portrayed in this chapter [Heb 7].

1st Levitical which was never able to administer a Blessing but only to bind heavy burdens which neither they nor their father [were] able to bear.

2 Abrahams Patriarchal power [endowment thru temple marriage] which is the greatest yet experienced in this church [the second anointing ordinance which makes a man a king & priest was introduced a month later].

3d That of Melchisedec who had still greater power even power of an endless life of which was our Lord Jesus Christ which also Abraham obtained by the offering of his son Isaac which was not the power of a Prophet nor apostle nor Patriarch only but of King & Priest to God to open the windows of Heaven and pour out the peace & law of endless Life to man & no man can attain to the Joint heirship with Jesus Christ without being administered to by one having the same power & Authority of Melchisedec.(Manuscript History of the Church, Ms/d/4409; August 27, 1843; CHD; Franklin D. Richards "Scriptural Items".)

 

[Robert F. Smith]

I have to ask, what Internet site, and why are you mentioning Mitt Romney, no insult intended but you have been very public about your feelings concerning the right. As for Hitler and Eva, I know most know who Hitler is, I know few who know who Eva Braun is, and unless it was after watching the History Chanel the night before, many Temple workers would not know. Names can be submitted by anyone (although unless family or been dead a very long time...you are not supposed too). The person who did it, may have taken another look and thought, well this can't be that Hitler. Why do so many always assume the worst? I would say 90% or more of the Internet is trash...IMHO. Though I do like it here, but fear I am not well liked, especially by GG, when I rag on BYU. :)

Eva, maybe, but Adolf?  We certainly know that the work must be done for all.  But in his case, I think that the assignment to category Perdition is a foregone conclusion.

[Tiki]

Eva, maybe, but Adolf?  We certainly know that the work must be done for all.  But in his case, I think that the assignment to category Perdition is a foregone conclusion.

Do you ever study the scriptures?

[volgadon]

Eva, maybe, but Adolf?  We certainly know that the work must be done for all.  But in his case, I think that the assignment to category Perdition is a foregone conclusion.

 

I'm personally very bothered that members have submitted temple work for Adolf Hitler. My personal inclination would be to lay aside proxy work for satanic individuals like Hitler and Stalin. If God wants the work done for people who have calculatingly murdered and destroyed his other children on such a scale, he can provide a specific revelation.

 

I suspect that one of the reasons for doing Hitler's work is the trickling down of a residue of the certain amount of esteem in which Hitler was held by some members in the Western US.

 

Here is one example, and it is ironic that Richards dreamed his dream in the home of a distant relative of mine. http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=268

[SamIam]

Do you ever study the scriptures?

Tiki, tiki, tiki - I don't think I would go there if I was you....

[Tacenda]

Tiki, tiki, tiki - I don't think I would go there if I was you....

The only way is it's being sarcastic, haha.

[Stargazer]

Not having read through the entire thread, and possibly I've missed this reference being given already, but the one mention I could find on lds.org of the "second anointing" was found in "Doctrines of the Gospel", in the Teacher's Manual.  Here's a LINK.

 

This is the reference (emphasis added):

 

 

 

Introduction

Caution: Exercise caution while discussing the doctrine of having our calling and election made sure. Avoid speculation. Use only the sources given here and in the student manual. Do not attempt in any way to discuss or answer questions about the second anointing.

 

I think that the key item here is AVOID SPECULATION.  You can't answer questions without knowledge.  A teacher is generally expected to know more about the subject at hand than he or she is going to impart to the pupil.  There is no reason to get into a discussion over something that is considered so sacred that in the entire Church website, in all public Church materials, there is only one mention of it, and it is mentioned only to say Don't Try to Discuss It.

 

I was a little put off by the concern over whether Mitt Romney had received this ordinance, as if there were something wrong with that.  What? 

 

Several years ago, I found a book in my local Barnes and Noble called "The Mysteries of Godliness" which was all about temple ordinances, including the SA.  The book was written either by a nonmember or a lapsed member.  Or so I thought.  I don't remember if I actually knew this one way or another.  It was certainly not published by the Church.  There was only one copy, so I bought it -- with the idea that if I bought it, it might not fall into enemy hands, so to speak.  I did read some of the book, and it was actually interesting, in a certain horrifying way.  The one thing germane to THIS discussion is that the book reported that the SA used to be performed far more frequently than it is now.  A concern by a member of the Q12 was reported in the book, to the point that he was concerned that the ordinance might become "lost", since it hadn't been performed in such a long time for anyone, that there was some danger that the last person with the authority to perform it might die without passing along the necessary details.

 

If there is an ordinance which is performed so seldom, and the recipients are admonished to speak of it not at all, what point is there in even revealing to ANYONE that it even exists?  I don't see the point, quite frankly.  Let's put it in the basic lessons for investigators, right?  "Oh, by the way, there is a special ordinance performed in the temple by special authority, but very few ever receive it, and they are told not to disclose that they received it, or even if the ordinance is even real."  What is the freaking point of this?

 

Guess what?  From time to time, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself occasionally makes a personal visitation to certain persons whom He deems worthy and ready to receive such a visitation.  Think it doesn't happen?  Check the definition of "Comforter" in the LDS Bible Dictionary:

 

Comforter

Two Comforters are spoken of. The first is the Holy Ghost (John 14:16–27; Moro. 8:26; D&C 21:9; 42:17; 90:11). The Second Comforter is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. “When any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him” (D&C 88:3–4; 130:3; HC 3:381). See also Holy Ghost.

 

Do we see this taught in regular course in the Gospel Doctrine manual?  Or in the basic investigator lessons?  It's in the scriptures, obviously, but maybe some people don't read the scriptures well enough to find it.  OR maybe they don't understand what they read.  It's hidden in plain sight, clearly enough.

 

I don't expect to receive either the SA nor the Second Comforter in this life.  And it's no problem to me if it never comes up for discussion again, here or anywhere else.  I suppose it is impossible for someone who might be involved with answering questions by investigators (or enemies of the Church), to avoid the issue coming up, and so obviously you gotta know something about it.  But to get wrapped around the axle over it?  Puh-lease.  If God visited you personally and spilled to you everything He knows, by golly would you ever be wrapped around an axle.  Get a grip, people.  There are mysteries so deep that we cannot possibly comprehend them with our mortal brains -- is there a problem if because of this Father doesn't tell us about them?  We are now seeing only the merest hint of all that is out there. 

 

And it's clear to me why we don't have more revealed to us: we go completely Gah-gah over what we do have.

 

I just do not understand how this issue even causes anyone to marvel!  We were told at the beginning of this dispensation that all things would be restored in this dispensation.  Things that had been available to previous dispensations, but which had been lost.  We have in the Patristic writings hints of esoteric ordinances that were not committed to paper or parchment, and that only a special few ever received them.  We think that these ordinances were what we see in the Endowment, but there's no information available that constrains what was then lost to just the Endowment. 

 

Well, that's my 2 cents.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

I'm personally very bothered that members have submitted temple work for Adolf Hitler. My personal inclination would be to lay aside proxy work for satanic individuals like Hitler and Stalin. If God wants the work done for people who have calculatingly murdered and destroyed his other children on such a scale, he can provide a specific revelation.

 

I suspect that one of the reasons for doing Hitler's work is the trickling down of a residue of the certain amount of esteem in which Hitler was held by some members in the Western US.

 

Here is one example, and it is ironic that Richards dreamed his dream in the home of a distant relative of mine. http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=268

 

I'm not bothered about this at all, except that some people get really worked up about it.  Not that I have any esteem at all for AH.  I tell you, that if I had gone to an endowment session and seen that the person I was doing the work for was The AH himself, I would refuse to participate.  But that it got done?  Whatever. 

 

Are we aware that Genghis Khan has probably had his work done, too?  I am not going to bother to check.  But Genghis Khan's descendants are reputed to number in the millions -- GH had wives and concubines like nobody's business (It is said that his harem reached anywhere from 2,000–3,000 women, and his son's did similarly), and did a fair amount of raping, all in a day's work.  GH excelled Hitler and Stalin in numbers of people converted to mulch.  It is written "Overall, the Mongol violence and depredations killed up to three-fourths of the population of the Iranian Plateau, possibly 10 to 15 million people."  And that's just one geographic area.  Are we going to go ballistic because the Great Khan has had his work done?  How about many other mass murderers?

 

I think we can safely leave this whole issue in the hands of God.  Stop stressing over it!

 

Edited to Add:

 

I am so dense sometimes.  You're not stressing over AH & Co getting their work done, so much as concerned that some supposed Latter-day Saint would submit the names and/or do the work for them.  That's understandable.  Of course AH has no descendants, but possibly blood relatives still living, and maybe maybe a blood relative has become a member of the Church.

 

My personal theory is that some wolf-in-sheeps-clothing of a member has submitted these names, not a faithful member.  Since there is a so-called journalist in SLC who loves to go looking for these things and tar the Church with it.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

Oh, and what are you going to do, if, when you get to the other side, that Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin repented of the evil they had done, received the benefit of the Atonement, and even (gasp!) received Exaltation?  Would it be like the fuddy-duddies who gave back their OBE's because the Beatles got it, too?  You'd protest by handing back your Exaltation?

 

Not that I expect it to come to a question.  Just for the sake of argument.

 

It's in God's hands, though.  I trust Him fully.

[why me]

Eva, maybe, but Adolf?  We certainly know that the work must be done for all.  But in his case, I think that the assignment to category Perdition is a foregone conclusion.

I don't think that it is. We would need to see just what happened in his life when he was a child. He had a very loving mother but a not so loving father. He also came under the influences of certain ideological influences that were prevalent in Austria at the time of his youth Not to mention his reading by American authors in Eugenics. And then we would need to see the economic conditions in which he lived as a young man---not good. And how he interpreted the treaty that caused such hardship among the german population. He was a product of his time. Interestingly, when one reads the memoirs of those closest to him, his secretary, valet, photographer and driver, all said that he was a very nice guy and he treated those closest to him rather well. He loved children and was a real charmer with the ladies.

 

But he was a psychopath.

[LordUther]

Eva, maybe, but Adolf? We certainly know that the work must be done for all. But in his case, I think that the assignment to category Perdition is a foregone conclusion.

Adolph Hitler's baptism was performed at the London Temple on Dec 10 1993, in the morning. I know this to be fact. And it was done on temple roll not family file. I was at the temple that day and met the guy that was baptised for him.

[why me]

 

 

And eva? She was a young woman when she met Hitler in Hoffmann's studio. And she fell in love with him. He treated her well and they formed a close bond. Her favorite pastime was sports, buying clothes and filming at the berghoff, which is why we have so many films of life at the berghoff.

Oh..I made a mistake with the buttons.

Edited September 24, 2013 by why me

[CV75]

I had always felt that in the Church knowledge was a blessing and that we should encourage members as knowledgeable as possible by reading not only the Scriptures, but the sayings of the Prophets, and the History of the Church. 

I think above anything, we best seek knowledge as guided by the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Those that don't have this gift best seek it the same way we all did before we had the Gift; by the Light of Christ or by the power of the Holy Ghost in a confirmatory way. That often leads us to and through a variety or sources of information, and in our weakness we learn to distinguish between what is reliable and/or edifying and that which is not.

 

So I think a member should gain knowledge by faithfully seeking guidance by the Spirit in whatever source material he comes across, despite whatever in his own judgement he might think of it.

[Stone holm]

Why would you expect a by invitation only ordinance should be public?

If we were talking about some rite that was mere honorary stuff like being elevated to the 33 degree in Scottish Rite, or an Honorary Doctorate, that would be one thing and I would agree.  However, this little discussed rite is so entangled with the doctrine of having ones calling and election made sure that it falls into a much different category.  All members are encouraged to have their calling and election made sure and this is something that they are openly encouraged to seek and strive to achieve.  Yet, this rite is kept very close to the vest.  The result is you can have people who do stumble onto it, thinking its some kind of weeding out process as was implied in this thread with the comments about many are called few are chosen, which would suggest to some that if you don’t receive these rites perhaps you are less worthy.  This is a difficult public relations situation for the Church.

[Stone holm]

Eva, maybe, but Adolf?  We certainly know that the work must be done for all.  But in his case, I think that the assignment to category Perdition is a foregone conclusion.

 

Although it was not my intent to trigger debate on this issue, I think we have to be careful about assigning the Son of Perdition status to any individual.  Talmage and Joseph F. Smith disagreed as to the status of Judas, and Spencer W. Kimball said that he didn't know and could be quoted for that.  Calvin Coolidge and my adopted State of Vermont used eugenics to justify the sterilization of the Abenaki Indians and was one of the persons cited approvingly by Adolf along with Henry Ford -- yet I doubt anyone would chalk him up for perdition status.

[ERayR]

If we were talking about some rite that was mere honorary stuff like being elevated to the 33 degree in Scottish Rite, or an Honorary Doctorate, that would be one thing and I would agree.  However, this little discussed rite is so entangled with the doctrine of having ones calling and election made sure that it falls into a much different category.  All members are encouraged to have their calling and election made sure and this is something that they are openly encouraged to seek and strive to achieve.  Yet, this rite is kept very close to the vest.  The result is you can have people who do stumble onto it, thinking its some kind of weeding out process as was implied in this thread with the comments about many are called few are chosen, which would suggest to some that if you don’t receive these rites perhaps you are less worthy.  This is a difficult public relations situation for the Church.

 

I assure you it is not honorary and if/when you reach that point you will learn all about it. 

 

Why do so many worry so much about these things instead of perfecting what is already available?

[Senator]

 

 

Why do so many worry so much about these things instead of perfecting what is already available?

 

I don't think so many worry about these things as much as they wonder about them.

[Stone holm]

I assure you it is not honorary and if/when you reach that point you will learn all about it. 

 

Why do so many worry so much about these things instead of perfecting what is already available?

 

If you actually read the quote you would see that I in nowise indicated that this was an "honorary", but clearly differentiated it from an "honorary".  People wonder about this for the same reason that the Brethren exhort them to have their calling and election made sure -- they are seeking further light and knowledge, rather than waiting for it to fall in their laps.