Disciples of Christ or Disciples of Church

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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

So, your position is that those who do not receive these ordinances have the same blessings as those who do? And I thought I was an apostate.

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

What is unique about choosing to participate in a covenant relationship that has been defined by God as an abomination?  (I am using the term "abomination" because polygamy is labeled that in Jacob and homosexual sex, which is essentially intended to be sanctified through marriage just as heterosexual sex is, in Leviticus not because I think either are repulsive or more sinful than adultery or fornication, but because I think there is a quality to sins that God labels "abomination" that sets them apart.  Also  I don't think one can even measure how "sinful" a sin is, what is seen as trivial---gossip perhaps---may actually be what causes a soul to rot in hell longer than any who sin through polygamy or homosexual marrage.)

In both cases those participating are taking a relationship (marriage) that God has appointed to mankind as an essential part of exaltation---it may even be the most fundamental and ultimate aspect of exaltation*** the joining of man and woman to become God---and instead using it to justify sin.

***I believe all who enter the CK are promised to be one with God so exaltation may be something that allows us to experience that oneness in a new, more full way or it may be that the nonexalted only experience a partial oneness because without exaltation, without being part of the man-woman god union---the divine pair, they cannot fully comprehend the experience of being God.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

What is unique about choosing to participate in a covenant relationship that has been defined by God as an abomination?  (I am using the term "abomination" because polygamy is labeled that in Jacob and homosexual sex, which is essentially intended to be sanctified through marriage just as heterosexual sex is, in Leviticus not because I think either are repulsive or more sinful than adultery or fornication, but because I think there is a quality to sins that God labels "abomination" that sets them apart.  Also  I don't think one can even measure how "sinful" a sin is, what is seen as trivial---gossip perhaps---may actually be what causes a soul to rot in hell longer than any who sin through polygamy or homosexual marrage.)

In both cases those participating are taking a relationship (marriage) that God has appointed to mankind as an essential part of exaltation---it may even be the most fundamental and ultimate aspect of exaltation*** the joining of man and woman to become God---and instead using it to justify sin.

***I believe all who enter the CK are promised to be one with God so exaltation may be something that allows us to experience that oneness in a new, more full way or it may be that the nonexalted only experience a partial oneness because without exaltation, without being part of the man-woman god union, they cannot fully comprehend the experience of being God.

Fair enough, but a lot of sins are called abominations in the scriptures. I still find it antithetical to the gospel to deny saving ordinances to children based on the actions of their parents. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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

Sure it does.
I never claimed unmarried straight parents are any better than homosexual couples.
Both are setting examples of sin for their children.

[UtahTexan]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Fair enough, but a lot of sins are called abominations in the scriptures. I still find it antithetical to the gospel to deny saving ordinances to children based on the actions of their parents. 

Have you been in the position of the children you are talking about?

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

Not at all.
And I'm tired of this false righteous indignation over the policy change.

From the very founding of the Church families were not allowed to be taught the gospel or baptized if the family head was against the Church.
That policy softened to allow baptism if permission was reluctantly given.

And like it or not, believing SSM is ok IS against the Church.
 

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Fair enough, but a lot of sins are called abominations in the scriptures.

I didn't say otherwise.  I believe "abomination" means a certain type of sin with a particularly persistent quality of building a wall between mankind and God, most likely because it requires a mindset that labels sin as good and perhaps even good as sin, but I would need to doublecheck to see if usage is consistent.

I am not saying that polygamy and SSM are apostasies because they are abominations.  I am saying they may rate apostasy status because they are taking a divinely appointed covenantal relationship, possibly the most sacred covenantal relationship available to mankind (even when it is not the higher form of temple ordinance) and using it for purposes forbidden by God.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Not at all.
And I'm tired of this false righteous indignation over the policy change.

From the very founding of the Church families were not allowed to be taught the gospel or baptized if the family head was against the Church.
That policy softened to allow baptism if permission was reluctantly given.

And like it or not, believing SSM is ok IS against the Church.
 

Why would you think it's false indignation? That's a pretty crappy accusation. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I didn't say otherwise.  I believe "abomination" means a certain type of sin with a particularly persistent quality of building a wall between mankind and God, most likely because it requires a mindset that labels sin as good and perhaps even good as sin, but I would need to doublecheck to see if usage is consistent.

I am not saying that polygamy and SSM are apostasies because they are abominations.  I am saying they may rate apostasy status because they are taking a divinely appointed covenantal relationship, possibly the most sacred covenantal relationship available to mankind (even when it is not the higher form of temple ordinance) and using it for purposes forbidden by God.

I can understand that. I don't understand turning away children. Sorry for the derail. This just really bothers me. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Why would you think it's false indignation? That's a pretty crappy accusation. 

Because there is no correct righteous principle that is causing the indignation.
In order to have true righteous indignation you first have to be on the side of righteousness.
SSM is not that side.

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, your position is that those who do not receive these ordinances have the same blessings as those who do? And I thought I was an apostate.

Of course I never said that.

All will have the opportunity. Your distortions speak for themselves.

Delaying, not denying baptism is the best solution. Those who never heard of Christ will have the exact same opportunities as we all have.

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Because there is no correct righteous principle that is causing the indignation.
In order to have true righteous indignation you first have to be on the side of righteousness.
SSM is not that side.

Is it righteous to turn children away from the church? I don't think so. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Of course I never said that.

All will have the opportunity. Your distortions speak for themselves.

Delaying, not denying baptism is the best solution. Those who never heard of Christ will have the exact same opportunities as we all have.

i was trying to understand your position, not distorting. Oh, well. 

[carbon dioxide]

29 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Fair enough, but a lot of sins are called abominations in the scriptures. I still find it antithetical to the gospel to deny saving ordinances to children based on the actions of their parents. 

I would agree but apparently God may make exceptions to the rules by granting a pardon for a certain period of time based on certain conditions being present.  Some children of heterosexual kids can't be baptized because their parents object.  God does not put condemnation on them for the actions of their parents.  God looks at all the circumstances. Its not like a child of a gay couple is damned if they die in a car crash at 14 before they are baptized.  God knows what they kid would do if the conditions exist that allowed them to be baptized.  I am not a big fan of the policy.  I think it could have been done differently but at the same time I think people make too big an issue out of it.

[Calm]

One could stipulate that the family that is created by an act of apostasy is itself part of that apostasy (since the covenant of marriage is not independent of the family it creates, but both exist as part of the other).  Thus children, by circumstance and not by choice, are participating in an apostasy by being part of that family and they should not be held accountable for that participation until old enough to demonstrate their acceptance and understanding that the behaviour is in apostasy and that they themselves reject it and remove themselves from fully participating in it by removing themselves from the stewardship of their parents (this does not mean to me that they have to see themselves as no longer part of the family relationship, it is more recognizing that there is not an eternal and ordained by God covenantal bond existing between family members and there never can be even as they all continue to love each other dearly and remain children of the Father and Mother).

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would agree but apparently God may make exceptions to the rules by granting a pardon for a certain period of time based on certain conditions being present.  Some children of heterosexual kids can't be baptized because their parents object.  God does not put condemnation on them for the actions of their parents.  God looks at all the circumstances. Its not like a child of a gay couple is damned if they die in a car crash at 14 before they are baptized.  God knows what they kid would do if the conditions exist that allowed them to be baptized.  I am not a big fan of the policy.  I think it could have been done differently but at the same time I think people make too big an issue out of it.

I will drop this. In all honesty this policy really hit me hard, so much that it surprised me. I really hope this will be rescinded sooner than later. 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Is it righteous to turn children away from the church? I don't think so. 

If they are living under a family head that opposes the doctrines of the Church, yes.  100%.

No child should have to choose between the standards of their religion and the home environment in which they live. 
To make a minor child do so is pure evil.

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

If they are living under a family head that opposes the doctrines of the Church, yes.  100%.

No child should have to choose between the standards of their religion and the home environment in which they live. 
To make a minor child do so is pure evil.
 

It happens all the time when nonmember parents allow their kids to be baptized. If that is evil, half the baptisms in my mission were evil. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

i was trying to understand your position, not distorting. Oh, well. 

Uh huh

So what is your position on the atonement?  That it is ineffective without baptism and non-members are without its blessings?

And that the Holy Ghost cannot testify to non members?

Just trying to understand your position  You keep jumping from subject to subject

Quote

Yup. The cleansing power of the Atonement and the companionship of the Holy Ghost are crucial to help guide young people as they grow up and face increasing temptations, unless of course their parents are gay. 

Quote

 

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? 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

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......

Wow, I have attempted to live most of my life in accordance with the will of God. I have conversed with God and seen miracles and visions. I felt assured I would find eternal life. Then this post came along. Now I know it was all for nothing and I should never have turned down that orgy.  

[jkwilliams]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh huh

So what is your position on the atonement?  That it is ineffective without baptism and non-members are without its blessings?

The free gift of the Atonement is salvation from physical death. Sanctification from sin by the cleansing power of the Atonement is available only through the covenant of baptism. From the LDS Bible Dictionary:

Quote

Jesus Christ, as the Only Begotten Son of God and the only sinless person to live on this earth, was the only one capable of making an atonement for mankind. By His selection and foreordination in the Grand Council before the world was formed, His divine Sonship, His sinless life, the shedding of His blood in the garden of Gethsemane, His death on the cross and subsequent bodily resurrection from the grave, He made a perfect atonement for all mankind. All are covered unconditionally as pertaining to the Fall of Adam. Hence, all shall rise from the dead with immortal bodies because of Jesus’ Atonement. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22), and all little children are innocent at birth. The Atonement is conditional, however, so far as each person’s individual sins are concerned, and touches every one to the degree that he has faith in Jesus Christ, repents of his sins, and obeys the gospel. The services of the Day of Atonement foreshadowed the atoning work of Christ (Lev. 4; 23:26–32; Heb. 9). The scriptures point out that no law, ordinance, or sacrifice would be satisfactory if it were not for the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:1–9; 2 Ne. 9:5–24; Mosiah 13:27–32).

So, yes, the unconditional part of the Atonement (resurrection) applies to all, whether baptized or not. The conditional part (salvation from sin) does not apply to those who have not entered into the covenant. This is basic doctrine, but when I said it, you called it "false," so I asked for clarification. You replied with a link to a conference talk outlining the basic doctrine I had just given. 

Quote

And that the Holy Ghost cannot testify to non members?

Just trying to understand your position  You keep jumping from subject to subject

Actually, I've just been outlining basic LDS doctrine, not jumping from subject to subject. According to church doctrine, the Holy Ghost can and does testify to nonmembers. What I said was that, according to all I've ever been taught in the church. the "the companionship of the Holy Ghost" is crucial in guiding young people through the trials and temptations of life. Such companionship is not available to those who have not received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Again, from the Bible Dictionary:

Quote

The Holy Ghost is manifested to men on the earth both as the power of the Holy Ghost and as the gift of the Holy Ghost. The power can come upon one before baptism and is the convincing witness that the gospel is true. By the power of the Holy Ghost a person receives a testimony of Jesus Christ and of His work and the work of His servants upon the earth. The gift can come only after proper and authorized baptism and is conferred by the laying on of hands, as in Acts 8:12–25 and Moro. 2. The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to have, whenever one is worthy, the companionship of the Holy Ghost. For those who receive this gift, the Holy Ghost acts as a cleansing agent to purify them and sanctify them from all sin.

This is, again, basic church doctrine, which you labeled "false." When I asked you to clarify, you provided a link to a conference talk that outlined the same basic doctrine.  

In summary, those who do not enter into the covenant of baptism and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands do not have access to the sanctifying power of the Atonement and the companionship of the Holy Ghost. All my life I have been taught that these two blessings are crucial to navigating the trials and temptations of life. I am surprised that you think these doctrines are "false" and "with no basis," at least when they come from me. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by jkwilliams

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I wouldn't know what it means to be significantly informed about that choice and turning it down.  The choice was never to be about being informed, so much as being inspired.  The problem we've seen and need to learn to deal with is, reasonable people are turning it down because inspiration is not having it's impact.  It feels to me like we're no different than the Church in the early centuries now.  But, they had something going for them that we do not.  We're losing our ability to impact as time is continuing while they gained, significantly. 

But inspiration will come again, I'm sure.

[stemelbow]

18 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. 

No repentance for leavers, huh?  I'm not sure we know that, but thanks for chiming in.

[stemelbow]

37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

 

In summary, those who do not enter into the covenant of baptism and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands do not have access to the sanctifying power of the Atonement and the companionship of the Holy Ghost. All my life I have been taught that these two blessings are crucial to navigating the trials and temptations of life. I am surprised that you think these doctrines are "false" and "with no basis," at least when they come from me. 

I'd say for the sake of truth we need to move away from the two points you raise, but you are correct in they are basic LDS teaching.  After the policy and the seeming attempt to downplay the companionship of the HOly Ghost, suggesting the kids of gay parents don't need it or something was an interesting step that might suggest the companionship of the Holy Ghost ain't no thing. 

[jkwilliams]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd say for the sake of truth we need to move away from the two points you raise, but you are correct in they are basic LDS teaching.  After the policy and the seeming attempt to downplay the companionship of the HOly Ghost, suggesting the kids of gay parents don't need it or something was an interesting step that might suggest the companionship of the Holy Ghost ain't no thing. 

Maybe I was being too flippant in my initial comments, but what I said wasn't false or without basis. I'm with you that it's weird hearing people say, in essence, no, being baptized and having the companionship of the Holy Ghost are not as important as you might think for children.