What Is The The Core Teaching Of The Gospel?

[Gray]

We have sins we don't acknowledge to one extent or another. Not until we realize they are sins do are we able to stop and say, "oops, I've been sinning on this point. I need to try and fix that"

 

We all have the beam in our eyes. 

[Gray]

The same as the Father.  To love people no matter what, but to not look upon their sins with the least degree of allowance.

And despite claims to the contrary we don't seem to be able to differentiate.

To use the current topic, we may be required to love those in a SSM or those who support SSM, but we do not have to accept, respect, or approve of the practice in any way, nor treat it as anything other than a grievous sin.

 

I think what Jesus said was to not judge other, and before you even try, to take the beam out of your eye (which is impossible).

 

I should say of course that we can never say with confidence that the historical Jesus really said "x". Subjectively I find that to be the best of the teachings attributed to Jesus, though.

 

Let's try not to get bogged down too much on the current topic, though.

[bluebell]

If you can demonstrate objectively that something hurtful is doing more good than harm, then fine. Of course that's rarely the case with theological stakes. Usually what it comes down to is loving your theology more than you love the people it hurts, for all practical purposes

 

That's a completely subjective statement that you don't know. I might as well say 'usually gray's theology comes down to loving people more than he loves God, for all practical purposes' and it would be as helpful and true as the statement in bold above.

 

The Spirit can help us know whether or not something does more good than harm, as well as practical experience.  

[bluebell]

I think what Jesus said was to not judge other, and before you even try, to take the beam out of your eye (which is impossible).

 

 

 

It's not impossible, otherwise no one would ever be able to call anyone to repentance, which would be a problem since the Lord frequently requires his prophets and leaders to do just that.

[stemelbow]

It's not impossible, otherwise no one would ever be able to call anyone to repentance, which would be a problem since the Lord frequently requires his prophets and leaders to do just that.

I'm with Gray on this. We all have something in our eyes all the time. That does not mean that we not preach repentance nor gospel principles. It really means we don't know what others need, nor what others are dealing with, exactly.

[stemelbow]

That's a completely subjective statement that you don't know. I might as well say 'usually gray's theology comes down to loving people more than he loves God, for all practical purposes' and it would be as helpful and true as the statement in bold above.

 

The Spirit can help us know whether or not something does more good than harm, as well as practical experience.

I think his qualifications should work to temper your objection. He said, "usually" and "if you can demonstrate..."

Whose Spirit-dealings are more important that another's? To you, it's yours. To your brother, it is his.

[bluebell]

I'm with Gray on this. We all have something in our eyes all the time. That does not mean that we not preach repentance nor gospel principles. It really means we don't know what others need, nor what others are dealing with, exactly.

 

Then how do we ever help each other or judge when someone needs to repent or judge whether or not something that a person is teaching and doing is actually of God?  We can't forget that Jesus also commanded-

 

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

That would be a weird thing to command people, if it was impossible because we all have beams in our eyes all the time.

[Scott Lloyd]

If you had to distill Christianity into one "core" belief (which I think is impossible to do, really, but here go), I'd say it is

 

For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

 

(D-R translation... I'll fight your protestant King James Version with my Catholic Douay-Rheims translation! )

I like this.

 

And your Catholic translation is OK with me!

[bluebell]

I think his qualifications should work to temper your objection. He said, "usually" and "if you can demonstrate..."

Whose Spirit-dealings are more important that another's? To you, it's yours. To your brother, it is his.

So, if i put the words 'usually' and 'if you can demonstrate' before what i said about him, what i said about him would be acceptable?

I don't think anyone's spirit dealings are more important than another's. That's why i don't imply that someone cares more about themselves or a church, or whatever, than they do about people or obeying God, if their beliefs disagree with mine.

I try not to assign inferior motives to people who see things a different way than i do. I truly believe that people can be wrong about something, and still have perfect motives.

Edited November 13, 2015 by bluebell

[filovirus]

If you had to distill Christianity into one "core" belief (which I think is impossible to do, really, but here go), I'd say it is

For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

(D-R translation... I'll fight your protestant King James Version with my Catholic Douay-Rheims translation! )

For God so loved the world (love of God)

As to give his only begotten son (atonement)

That whosoever believeth (faith)

May not perish (repentance/obedience)

But may have life everlasting (exaltation)

Edited November 13, 2015 by filovirus

[Gray]

That's a completely subjective statement that you don't know. I might as well say 'usually gray's theology comes down to loving people more than he loves God, for all practical purposes' and it would be as helpful and true as the statement in bold above.

 

The Spirit can help us know whether or not something does more good than harm, as well as practical experience.  

 

Well, Jesus taught us how to discern good trees from bad. Good fruit = good tree. But sometimes our ancillary doctrines try to tell us to ignore the good fruit and call the tree bad anyway.  

Edited November 13, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

It's not impossible, otherwise no one would ever be able to call anyone to repentance, which would be a problem since the Lord frequently requires his prophets and leaders to do just that.

 

The beam is sin. I don't know any sinless people, do you?

[Gray]

 

Then how do we ever help each other or judge when someone needs to repent or judge whether or not something that a person is teaching and doing is actually of God?  We can't forget that Jesus also commanded-

 

"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

That would be a weird thing to command people, if it was impossible because we all have beams in our eyes all the time.

 

Different communities had a different understanding of Jesus' teachings on judging.  In Matthew and 3 Nephi he is quoted as simply saying "judge not"

Edited November 13, 2015 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

And this is how ancillary doctrines come to eclipse the core teachings. 

That rep point was an error.

 

Ridiculous.  Look around you.  Male and Female are kind of a big deal.  Adam and Eve- the fall, redemption- no reproduction before the fall- gender in the pre-existence?  Ancillary?

 

It is the one doctrine that defines Mormonism from all other "Christians".

 

This is how to propagandize and minimize central conflicts

[filovirus]

The beam is sin. I don't know any sinless people, do you?

There are lots of types of sin I have never done but others have. And vice versa. The whole beam/mote analogy is about hipocracy.

[The Nehor]

We all have the beam in our eyes.

I upgraded to the mote package for only $19.95 plus shipping and handling.

[mfbukowski]

If not taken too far or made to exclude those who aren't doing actual harm to the community, I think that's wonderful

Ideas can be harmful to the community even if they are tolerated or even popular.  Mentioning one would get me in trouble with Mr. Godwin.

 

Critics of religion even think that religious belief is harmful to the community.  Certainly endless wars have been fought by proponents of ideas of those "who aren't doong actual harm to the community"

 

The key of course is how much those ideas challenge the "rules" of peaceful living and whether or not they are "taken too far" whatever that means.

 

In fact I suppose proponents of SSM may actually think the church takes things "too far" and the church thinks that the SSM folks take things "too far"

 

So the comment itself doesn't get us "too far" either.

[mfbukowski]

I think what Jesus said was to not judge other, and before you even try, to take the beam out of your eye (which is impossible).

 

I should say of course that we can never say with confidence that the historical Jesus really said "x". Subjectively I find that to be the best of the teachings attributed to Jesus, though.

 

Let's try not to get bogged down too much on the current topic, though.

So you don't like the cleansing of the temple part, or the "go and sin no more" part?

 

You just like the gentle reassuring, it doesn't matter what you do, love is all you need part?  The "if it feels good do it" part?

[Ahab]

Core of the gospel, huh. I'll say it's the core of the message we got in our family council meeting when our Father introduced the gospel plan to us before we started to be born here on this planet. Before Lucifer rebelled against that plan, and what was at the core of what he was rebelling against.

Progression! As in eternal progression.

However it happens, and whatever the reasons were for why our Father wanted to introduce the plan to us and set it in motion, the core of the gospel is the essence of what the gospel produces for those who accept and follow the plan.

[Ahab]

The beam is sin. I don't know any sinless people, do you?

I know lots of people with no sin. People who have been forgiven for their past sins because they have forsaken (turned away from/repented from) them. And if they ever do sin in the future they will most likely turn away from that sin (or those sins) too which will mean they will not have any sins then either.

It's pretty easy to be without sin. Just repent when necessary and you won't have any sins either.

[Ahab]

The beam is sin. I don't know any sinless people, do you?

I know lots of people with no sin. People who have been forgiven for their past sins because they have forsaken (turned away from/repented from) them. And if they ever do sin in the future they will most likely turn away from that sin (or those sins) too which will mean they will not have any sins then either.

It's pretty easy to be without sin. Just repent when necessary and you won't have any sins either.

[JLHPROF]

Different communities had a different understanding of Jesus' teachings on judging.  In Matthew and 3 Nephi he is quoted as simply saying "judge not"

 

And in JST Matthew 7 he said:  

1 Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people.

2 Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment.

[bluebell]

Different communities had a different understanding of Jesus' teachings on judging.  In Matthew and 3 Nephi he is quoted as simply saying "judge not"

 

You seem to be trying to hold the LDS community to an understanding of Jesus' teachings (by ignoring some of them) that the church doesn't support.  The church has always functioned on the concept of judging righteously.

[bluebell]

Well, Jesus taught us how to discern good trees from bad. Good fruit = good tree. But sometimes our ancillary doctrines try to tell us to ignore the good fruit and call the tree bad anyway.  

 

I'm sorry but i'm not sure what you are trying to say here.  Wouldn't it be just as correct for someone who disagrees with you to say that some people want to ignore the bad fruit and call the tree good anyway?  Or am i completely confused on your point?

 

I don't see the use in these abstract 'unsupported by anything but personal opinion' concepts as evidence that a certain point of view is correct.  It just turns into dueling 'i'm more in tune with the Spirit than you are' posts (where everyone ends up looking like an idiot).

[bluebell]

The beam is sin. I don't know any sinless people, do you?

 

In my understanding, the beam can't just be 'sin' because then what Jesus said is contradictory to His other teachings. He would basically be saying 'you can never help someone overcome their sins because you are always sinful.'  That doesn't make sense though because He sends people to call others to repentance all the time.

 

When you read the verse in context it seems clear that this is a teaching on not being a hypocrite.  The 'don't try to make someone feel bad for sleeping in on sunday and missing church when you are having an affair' kind of thing.  Spiritually get yourself right before you try to spiritually help others.