Disciples of Christ or Disciples of Church

[waveslider]

39 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

My reading of the New Testament is that this issue is at the heart of Jesus's ministry.

Let me give one example in case this point seems obscure:

 

Were you saying something about being "exalted" . . . ? 

 

Yes, I was saying something about being exalted, but it wasn't exalting one's self, but rather being exalted through Christ's atonement, by obeying the commandments set forth by our Father in Heaven, who has every right to exalt us. Perhaps you should look at a few more scriptures that pertain a little better to what I am saying:

"2  In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also."
John 14:2-3

"I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven."
2 Corinthians 12:2

"40  There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41  There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42  So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:"
1 Corinthians 15:40-42

[waveslider]

49 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Unless they die before moving out of the house . . .

I think you don't understand what temple work is. Most of what goes on in the temple is for those who have passed on to the other side without gaining their essential ordinances they need while in mortality. We do things like, "Baptism For The Dead," which entails standing in proxy, while being baptized for someone else who has already passed on. This leaves them with the ability to accept or reject the ordinance, rather than just being consigned to not getting the full benefits of accepting Christ's teachings and atonement, even if they only accept it within the spirit realm, sometimes known as Paradise.

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I think you don't understand what temple work is. Most of what goes on in the temple is for those who have passed on to the other side without gaining their essential ordinances they need while in mortality. We do things like, "Baptism For The Dead," which entails standing in proxy, while being baptized for someone else who has already passed on. This leaves them with the ability to accept or reject the ordinance, rather than just being consigned to not getting the full benefits of accepting Christ's teachings and atonement, even if they only accept it within the spirit realm, sometimes known as Paradise.

This is another good argument for my side, I think.

If children with gay parents don't need to receive ordinances of salvation on the basis they can receive them posthumously in the temple should they die before moving out, on what basis can we say that kids with straight parents must receive them?

[ERMD]

On 8/9/2016 at 1:15 PM, rockpond said:

One can fully utilize the atonement without commandments and ordinances.

No. One cannot; not fully, at least.

[waveslider]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This is another good argument for my side, I think.

If children with gay parents don't need to receive ordinances of salvation on the basis they can receive them posthumously in the temple should they die before moving out, on what basis can we say that kids with straight parents must receive them?

Let's put in different terms, where physical health is what is at risk, rather than spiritual health.

Let's say a kid is being raised by two parents who both smoke in the house. This kid is going to end up with a lot of health problems, and unfortunately may even die before he gets a chance to grow up and move out where he can at least breath fresh air where he resides.

Let's say another kid has parents that only choose to smoke outside, so as not to subject their child to second hand smoke. What would be the benefit for that kid to not take up smoking himself? Or to move out, when he gets a little older, into a house full of smokers and subjecting himself to their second hand smoke instead?

Your question seems akin to this, but more on a spiritual sense of things, rather than a physical sense.

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Let's put in different terms, where physical health is what is at risk, rather than spiritual health.

Let's say a kid is being raised by two parents who both smoke in the house. This kid is going to end up with a lot of health problems, and unfortunately may even die before he gets a chance to grow up and move out where he can at least breath fresh air where he resides.

Let's say another kid has parents that only choose to smoke outside, so as not to subject their child to second hand smoke. What would be the benefit for that kid to not take up smoking himself? Or to move out, when he gets a little older, into a house full of smokers and subjecting himself to their second hand smoke instead?

Your question seems akin to this, but more on a spiritual sense of things, rather than a physical sense.

You're suggesting that having gay parents damages a child spiritually like secondhand smoke damages a child physically? Yikes. 

[waveslider]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You're suggesting that having gay parents damages a child spiritually like secondhand smoke damages a child physically? Yikes. 

If it keeps that child from gaining needed ordinances it does.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You're suggesting that having gay parents damages a child spiritually like secondhand smoke damages a child physically? Yikes.

Yes.  It does.

"Isaiah 5:20 ¶Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

It teaches them that sin is acceptable and even normal.  It teaches them to call evil good.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, waveslider said:

If it keeps that child from gaining needed ordinances it does.

IOW it's the policy that damages kids spiritually. No argument here, unless you're going to argue as Mfbukowski does that not receiving the ordinances has no effect on a child. 

Edited August 10, 2016 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.  It does.

"Isaiah 5:20 ¶Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

It teaches them that sin is acceptable and even normal.  It teaches them to call evil good.

So, having unmarried straight parents doesn't teach them that sin is acceptable? Okay then. 

[waveslider]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

IOW it's the policy that damages kids spiritually. No argument here, unless you're going to argue as Mfbukowski does that not receiving the ordinances has no effect on a child. 

That is actually only one way it does. I think JLHPROF brought another good point on how it damages a kid spiritually as well.

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.  It does.

"Isaiah 5:20 ¶Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

It teaches them that sin is acceptable and even normal.  It teaches them to call evil good.

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by waveslider
mistaken identity

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, waveslider said:

That is actually only one way it does. I think Jkwilliams brought another good point on how it damages a kid spiritually as well.

 

Don't put that on me!

[waveslider]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, having unmarried straight parents doesn't teach them that sin is acceptable? Okay then. 

That also teaches them that sin is acceptable.

[waveslider]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Don't put that on me!

Sorry, I have already edited my mistake.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, waveslider said:

That also teaches them that sin is acceptable.

But not enough to deny them saving ordinances. Basically what I see is the church saying that same-sex marriage is unique in its absolute incompatibility with children receiving ordinances. Why not just say that? This business about protecting kids from conflicting messages is silly and disingenuous. 

[waveslider]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But not enough to deny them saving ordinances. Basically what I see is the church saying that same-sex marriage is unique in its absolute incompatibility with children receiving ordinances. Why not just say that? This business about protecting kids from conflicting messages is silly and disingenuous. 

I'm not the one who makes these policies so I don't have anything but assumptions as to why that is. If I had to assume though, it might be because the gay couple would have to consciously adopt a child into such a relationship, as opposed to the chance of accidentally bringing a child into the situation. But who knows. Both scenarios are bad and end up hurting the child in one way or another. To be perfectly frank. I'm really glad that I am not a policy maker, just a follower of Christ.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, waveslider said:

I'm not the one who makes these policies so I don't have anything but assumptions as to why that is. If I had to assume though, it might be because the gay couple would have to consciously adopt a child into such a relationship, as opposed to the chance of accidentally bringing a child into the situation. But who knows. Both scenarios are bad and end up hurting the child in one way or another. To be perfectly frank. I'm really glad that I am not a policy maker, just a follower of Christ.

I am just glad I don't feel any need to defend an indefensible policy. 

[waveslider]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I am just glad I don't feel any need to defend an indefensible policy. 

I haven't been trying to defend an indefensible policy either.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 8/9/2016 at 0:05 PM, The Nehor said:

Faith in Christ is surrounded by the idea that Christ is the head of the Church and leads and directs it. The commandments and ordinances are the conditions laid out to fully utilize the atonement. 

Sorry Nehor, No amount of repentance/ordination/submission will get you out of hook....The oblivion will meet you no matter what.....Enjoy the life while it lasts......

 

 

[Calm]

On August 9, 28 Heisei at 1:59 PM, stemelbow said:

Maybe to you.  But to God it might not.  he probably will not see a difference between you, if you are exalted, and he who lived in 1015 on Easter Island and is also exalted. 

I think it matters to God a lot if we have the choice, are significantly informed about that choice and still turn it down.  Probably because while it may not be a one to one correspondence because some may have significantly mitigating factors influencing their decision, for many (perhaps even most, perhaps not) it will indicate what choice they will make when it is time for their judgment about how they want to live eternity, a part of the Body of Christ or not.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes and no.  A person who does not know the gospel but would accept the gospel fully if they had opportunity can be exalted.  However if a person chooses not to be a member or leaves the Church having known the gospel can't be exalted.  The best they can do is the Terrestrial kingdom. 

"Known the Gospel" is key, imo.

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But not enough to deny them saving ordinances. Basically what I see is the church saying that same-sex marriage is unique in its absolute incompatibility with children receiving ordinances. Why not just say that? This business about protecting kids from conflicting messages is silly and disingenuous. 

Except that the same refusal of ordinances takes place in the case of those involved in polygamy.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Except that the same refusal of ordinances takes place in the case of those involved in polygamy.

So, these two sins are the only ones that disqualify children from saving ordinances. Why?

[Calm]

In the next life we will likely receive tons more knowledge than we do in this life and more accurate as well.  There is also a huge part of the world's population that has had minimal, if any, education.

For those who are suggesting putting off ordinance work until the next life since it will be availablefor everyone, do you also suggest not wasting one's time and money on a college education or even the lower levels?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

As long as I can remember, the church has taught that to have the companionship of the Holy Ghost, one must receive it by the laying on of hands. Likewise, sanctification through the Atonement comes only through the covenant of baptism. 

Are you saying these doctrines have changed recently? 

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1988/10/the-supernal-gift-of-the-atonement?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/receive-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng&_r=1