CCRW Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 making fun of ya ... bored ... need some more topics
Tacenda Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Pity that, Tacenda... Frankly, I find the promise of being with my loved ones through eternity heavenly... because of the authority of priesthood keys and the sealing power... what a gift... what a heavenly gift, to live each day knowing that if I keep my covenants, I will one day take my dear husband's hand as I step through the veil...GGThrone's to me mean dominion over, somewhat like a queen and king. Principalities means ruler, none of this ever sounded good to me. I'll hopefully be with those that are in the village, hopefully by a beach and some mountains, with plenty to read, animals surrounding, plants to grow and harvest, a lot like here on earth. Heaven with gold streets, yuck! I'll hopefully be the angel that helps others, especially those on earth not that I do enough here but think the "Touched by an Angel" version sounds good. There won't be any harp playing for me, like some think angels do. Hopefully my husband will work along side of me and I'll be with my kids and their kids. I've never been fond of people in power unless they do something good with it. And I'm not into building worlds like in video and computer games. I'm pretty dull sounding right? My idea of heaven is basically what we have here on earth, so yeah, terrestrial is just fine. Jesus will be there too, yay. What will you and your husband do? What do you think GG?
canard78 Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 I actually kind of feel bad for Bill. First, because I know he is a good guy and I hope he knows I know that. Second, because of the spiritual experiences I have had over the past two months which are directly related to the doctrines contained in 132. I know this discussion was meant as hypothetical. But I don't want to even let it go that far. I am not willing to give up a few verses of scripture that make me uncomfortable (and there are a few) for doctrines I know are true.You know?What an interesting notion, that you can know the unknowable. Do you know like this guy "knows" that infant baptism is needed?http://members.tjc.org/sites/en/my/cr/pj/USGA%20Newsletter/Testimonies/Testimonies.pdfOr do you know like this guy knows Baha'i scripture is true and infallible?http://bahaihistoryuk.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/nigel-moody/Or perhaps like this person knows that the book of Uranthia is true (a book supposedly channeling alien wisdom):http://www.squarecircles.com/UrantiaMovementHistory/hiftub/100martha.groh.htmYou believe, you hope, you don't know, just as the three examples don't either.
DBMormon Posted April 25, 2015 Author Posted April 25, 2015 I don't believe DB is advocating throwing it out, he is simply suggesting that individual members should have a right to leave it out of their personal belief system without retribution from Stake authorities, as there are examples of the church itself second-guessing previous teachings, some spoken by prophets themselves invoking the name of God.AMEN... YES
canard78 Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Discard 132 and you may as well discard the temple, because all of the doctrinal underpinnings pertaining thereto are found in 132.In fact, discard 132, and the Church of Jesus Christ ceases to be, having been redefined out of existence.And you're right: It won't happen.And yet, President Grant was quite happy publishing a condensed version of the D&C in 1930 which removed 132. (Ref "Latter-day revelation")This was also the version that many of the translations into new languages were based on.
The Nehor Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 So the thinking HAS been done- good to know. I would take this more seriously if those who trumpeted this line would prove they are capable of thinking. Otherwise others doing the thinking for them is probably necessary. 1
carbon dioxide Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 I will go as far as anyone who publicly advocates for its removal should be excommunicated. I dont care the forum. It is that big of a deal.That is a little harsh. Now he if starts an organization of "Repeal 132" and tries to pull an "Ordain Women", then excommunication would be in order. 1
carbon dioxide Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 When does "revelation" ever take a capital R ?At the beginning of a sentence. 1
Mystery Meat Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Well, your insinuation that those who dare to have questions and express them are somehow less faithful or valiant, is exactly a glowing review. Not even close to what has been said. Like you missed it by a whole light year.
Mystery Meat Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 You know?What an interesting notion, that you can know the unknowable.Do you know like this guy "knows" that infant baptism is needed?http://members.tjc.org/sites/en/my/cr/pj/USGA%20Newsletter/Testimonies/Testimonies.pdfOr do you know like this guy knows Baha'i scripture is true and infallible?http://bahaihistoryuk.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/nigel-moody/Or perhaps like this person knows that the book of Uranthia is true (a book supposedly channeling alien wisdom):http://www.squarecircles.com/UrantiaMovementHistory/hiftub/100martha.groh.htmYou believe, you hope, you don't know, just as the three examples don't either. No, I know. I am not talking about feelings or warm and fuzzies. I am talking about actual, concrete, and unmistakeable knowledge. As for your doctrine that it is impossible to know, I will remind you that Korihor in the Book of Mormon taught the same thing. I would advise you and all others who read the false doctrine you espoused in your post to consider the same. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 That is a little harsh. Now he if starts an organization of "Repeal 132" and tries to pull an "Ordain Women", then excommunication would be in order.That's all I was trying to say.
Mystery Meat Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 That is a little harsh. Now he if starts an organization of "Repeal 132" and tries to pull an "Ordain Women", then excommunication would be in order. To be clear, and repeat what I have already said, I do not think Bill is worthy of excommunication for starting this thread. I also don't think there is anything wrong with asking questions. But advocating for the removal of Section 132 is not asking questions.
Popular Post Mystery Meat Posted April 25, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 25, 2015 You know?What an interesting notion, that you can know the unknowable.Do you know like this guy "knows" that infant baptism is needed?http://members.tjc.org/sites/en/my/cr/pj/USGA%20Newsletter/Testimonies/Testimonies.pdfOr do you know like this guy knows Baha'i scripture is true and infallible?http://bahaihistoryuk.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/nigel-moody/Or perhaps like this person knows that the book of Uranthia is true (a book supposedly channeling alien wisdom):http://www.squarecircles.com/UrantiaMovementHistory/hiftub/100martha.groh.htmYou believe, you hope, you don't know, just as the three examples don't either. "How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ." -Korihor-Alma 30:15 I feel very comfortable in calling this teaching a false and insidious doctrine. 5
Sleeper Cell Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) You know?What an interesting notion, that you can know the unknowable.... You believe, you hope, you don't know, just as the three examples don't either. Another interesting notion is “knowing” that something is "unknowable," just because you do not know it and some of those who claim to know it disagree with each other. Is this really your reasoning, or have I misunderstood? Why isn’t it possible that one of those who claims to know, really does know? Edited April 25, 2015 by Sleeper Cell 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) And yet, President Grant was quite happy publishing a condensed version of the D&C in 1930 which removed 132. (Ref "Latter-day revelation") This was also the version that many of the translations into new languages were based on.I went back and looked at your 2013 thread on this. If I remember correctly, "selections from" compilations of the Book of Mormon have also been made in non-standard languages to meet an urgent need while the entire book is awaiting translation. It's not my understanding that the "selections from" book was ever meant to replace the entire book permanently. Was that the case with what you are talking about? Edited April 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
CCRW Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 I would take this more seriously if those who trumpeted this line would prove they are capable of thinking. Otherwise others doing the thinking for them is probably necessary.Said the guy with califlower ears!
Garden Girl Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 (edited) Throne's to me mean dominion over, somewhat like a queen and king. Principalities means ruler, none of this ever sounded good to me.What will you and your husband do? What do you think GG? What will we do? As you have said, I'm sure we won't be sitting around playing harps... what we will actually be doing has not been fully revealed as yet... but we get glimpses in the temple ordinances, Whatever we will be doing, whatever our role, it will be to the glory of God... GG Edited April 26, 2015 by Garden Girl 1
The Nehor Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 Said the guy with califlower ears! Is that really your best shot? Pathetic. 1
JLHPROF Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 Throne's to me mean dominion over, somewhat like a queen and king. Principalities means ruler, none of this ever sounded good to me.I'll hopefully be with those that are in the village, hopefully by a beach and some mountains, with plenty to read, animals surrounding, plants to grow and harvest, a lot like here on earth. Heaven with gold streets, yuck! I'll hopefully be the angel that helps others, especially those on earth not that I do enough here but think the "Touched by an Angel" version sounds good. There won't be any harp playing for me, like some think angels do. Hopefully my husband will work along side of me and I'll be with my kids and their kids.I've never been fond of people in power unless they do something good with it. And I'm not into building worlds like in video and computer games. I'm pretty dull sounding right? My idea of heaven is basically what we have here on earth, so yeah, terrestrial is just fine. Jesus will be there too, yay. What will you and your husband do? What do you think GG? I will say to you what Joseph said to Brigham Young's sister:“Sister, you talk very foolishly, you do not know what you will want.” As a baptized and endowed member of the Church there are two paths for you - Celestial Salvation or Celestial Exaltation. Those who reject exaltation will be servants to those who accept it. 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
CCRW Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 (edited) Those who reject exaltation will be servants to those who accept it. Can I be Nehor's servant? then I can continue to box his ears from time to time. Edited April 26, 2015 by CCRW 1
JLHPROF Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 Can I be Nehor's servant? then I can continue to box his ears from time to time. Oh somehow I think Nehor will be in charge no matter where he ends up. 2
Tacenda Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 (edited) I will say to you what Joseph said to Brigham Young's sister:“Sister, you talk very foolishly, you do not know what you will want.”As a baptized and endowed member of the Church there are two paths for you - Celestial Salvation or Celestial Exaltation. Those who reject exaltation will be servants to those who accept it.16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.Well, foolish or not, I'll be happy. And these scriptures aren't in the word of God, the Bible. It paints a much different picture, and says a lot about false prophets. If they make a prophecy and it doesn't come to pass, they're false prophets. This has happened with our early prophets, so how am I to trust what JS put down in the D & C. How do I even know it hasn't been changed. How many changes have been made to the BoM, thousands, and not all grammatical, etc. ETA: So now you're giving me a reason to resign, at least I won't be a servant in the CK to you and the other polygamist Gods & Goddesses, that's messed up. The thought that people would even want servants is lame, IMO. Edited April 26, 2015 by Tacenda
tonie Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 (edited) At a minimum it should be acknowledged that we set aside portions of canon (song of solomon, parts of the law of moses, old D&C section 109, lectures on faith) as not binding and in some cases as not divine truth or from God. At a minimum it must be acknowledged that we have on occasion discarded what was believed by our prophets to be revelations. At a minimum it must be acknowledged that we leave room for leaders to think they got info from an angel of God only to have been deceived. On this basis it appears Mormonism itself may possibly give you permission to personally discard portions of its theology and proposed revelations.------------------------------------------------------------In my personal views I have not discarded 132 though I admit i am very uncomfortable with it. The episode this comes from is here http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/04/shaking-hands-and-drawn-sword/ The difference I see with the 2 of the circumstances and an individual, is that The Church official took a position, even if that position meant disregarding a prior position. I think asking "Did Joseph seek to shake the Angles hand" is desparation; as was suggested earlier the same could be asked of Mary, Joseph, John's father, Abraham, or anyone who claimed a Heavenly visitation. However, I do not see that providing a basis for me discard whatever I please. However, however, each of us is free to choose what we beleive. It is not as though DBMormon, or the Allens, are the first people for take an pick-and-choose approach regarding the Church...apologist pick and choose as well. Edited April 26, 2015 by tonie
JLHPROF Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 Well, foolish or not, I'll be happy. And these scriptures aren't in the word of God, the Bible. It paints a much different picture, and says a lot about false prophets. If they make a prophecy and it doesn't come to pass, they're false prophets. This has happened with our early prophets, so how am I to trust what JS put down in the D & C. How do I even know it hasn't been changed. How many changes have been been made to the BoM, thousands, and not all grammatical, etc. ETA: So now you're giving me a reason to resign, at least I won't be a servant in the CK. That's messed up. I think you need to reread your D&C 76.Telestial and Terrestrial are no longer options for those who enter into the waters of Baptism regardless of Church membership. But if you have really reached the point where the Bible is the only scripture you accept and where you reject the prophet of the dispensation, then you will be in my prayers. Mormonism IS the true restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Nothing can change that. 1
tonie Posted April 26, 2015 Posted April 26, 2015 I think you need to reread your D&C 76.Telestial and Terrestrial are no longer options for those who enter into the waters of Baptism regardless of Church membership. Really. Section 76 78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.
Recommended Posts