Gordon b hinkley Manuel

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Except it is likely the manual didn't have that.

TBH Calm, I was upset, and cannot now confirm exactly what the manual did say. But I was responding to what the teacher said about the lesson. Perhaps I will look it up. Nevertheless I will honestly say, that I disagree with the brethren on a good number of topics. I do believe in the gospel of Christ, and the founding principles of this church, but there are a good number of places I disagree with previous or current "doctrine." For instance I disagree with:

- polygamy as a necessary element of exaltation, unless directly commanded.

- that God "married" Mary. I believe Jesus was the begotten Son by covenant rather than "by blood" or "lineage."

- that the Lord dispensed with sacrifice.

and a good number of other things. If the church wants to kick me out for my beliefs, they know where to find me. Nonetheless, I no longer try to "teach the church," because I often find my personal belief to be in conflict with teachings. The dispensation thing is just another area. And by the way JS is not the head of the "last dispensation." See, there ya go...

 

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Note my highlight. The Bible study I am speaking of was when I was a child. We had a good teacher. It was my first real exposure to anything about the KJV. I believe he introduced the OT with a little spiel about the Hebrew and Greek, which I didn't quite understand, but it was my first exposure to it. As we read in class, he would ask us what we thought of the stories - even why God put Jonah in the belly of the whale, etc. So yes, we did get the Baptist point of view but he encouraged us to try to understand the scriptures. 

I will give an example of the type of thing I think my suggested commentary would discuss. When it came to the "name" Melchisedek, it would show a linked name. which would take the reader to the commentary page. As another poster has posted here:

"MLK is Semitic for king, so any variation of that will have that meaning in related languages. Mulek, Melek, Molock, etc. are all different versions with the same idea. No surprise that Pashtun, Urdu, or other area languages have that. 

MLKZDK = Melchizedek = king of righteousness"

So it appears Melchizedek was not the person's name, but an acquired title. It may then go on to say that traditionally, the Rabbis have believed that this Melchizedek is Shem. It may then discuss whether this was possible given Shem's age etc. It does not need to give a definitive answer as to whether this is all in fact true as a revelation. But I think this information provides a good background to help the reader understand what is going on with Melchizedek and  Abraham. I don't  know of any  talk by a GA that will go into this kind of detail. The page could also provide links to any upcoming OT church videos on point. So it would kind of be like an expansion of the "dictionary" index portion of our current quads. Now if anything like this interests people, it would be available online, and could also be a source of further discussion in a class. My guess is 99% of the church membership does not know anything like this as to the name of the "Melchisedek priesthood"  which is used so prominently in our church.

 

Reading the scriptures and the lessons in the Gospel Doctrine manual will not provide info like I have given above. This is why I am suggesting the possibility of another class. We have another simplified class for investigators and new members called Gospel Essentials. Why not have another class for advanced scripture study for those who want it? As you said there is not enough time in the Gospel Doctrine class to go into this type of detail. I think some people just don't want this kind of detail. It is boring to them. Some people like myself find it crucial, and devour it. In any event, even if there is not an additional class, perhaps you can see why it would be a great tool for home use as an online commentary, where people can access as their time allows for FHE, daily scripture reading, etc. If the church is serious about encouraging the learning process at home, this is certainly a way to do it, it seems to me - this online commentary. It would also be available for investigators, etc. I just think it would be a great tool. That would also keep out the "pet teachings" of class instructors or the one-viewpoint tendency of some class instructors of other sects, while encouraging membership to pray about these things. I don't know if that scares the leadership or something, but I think it would allow the membership to progress in their understanding of the scriptures, and promote the great founding principle of this church that we welcome the truth from whatsoever source it may come.

As for our classes being somehow better than other sects as you seem to suggest by allowing questions, etc, let me give you one of my experiences from Gospel Doctrine. The lesson was on Moses and the issue of dispensations was addressed. I believe the teacher said that Moses was the head of a dispensation and reintroduced the priesthood (from the manual). I raised my hand and said something like "actually, I believe Moses received the priesthood from Jethro his father-in-law." The teacher responded in a very negative fashion, and said something to the extent "if you believe that...." Well it just so happens that in our D&C we are told that Moses received the priesthood from Jethro. So, we see the attitude I think that the manual is always right and is not to be challenged. I ended up going to a second Gospel Doctrine class after that. I think this is the danger that is engendered from "teaching only from the manual." I can see how other people might get discouraged from participating or raising questions from this type of perceived reaction. A home setting and online commentary avoids this kind of thing while still allowing errors to be pointed out with online submissions.

I am sorry your Gospel Doctrine teacher was off base by not being humble enough to accept information that he/she hadn't known about. Where Moses received the priesthood, and by whom, doesn't make it so the Moses' time as prophet wasn't a separate dispensation though. I think things like worshiping an idol as soon as Moses' back was turned illustrates the wayward beliefs these people held.

As far as Melchizedek is concerned, you are correct that the name translates from Hebrew as, "King of righteousness," which information can be had by anyone at a quick reference to footnotes in the LDS editions of the scriptures under Melchizedek, where it appears. A quick look at the Bible dictionary shows us that what you learned about Melchizedek not being a person who was named that is misinformation:

"Melchizedek
 See also Melchizedek Priesthood; Jerusalem; Jebus
 A notable prophet and leader who lived about 2000 B.C. He is called the king of Salem (Jerusalem), king of peace, and "priest of the most High God." Unfortunately, information concerning him in the Bible is relatively scarce, being limited to Gen. 14: 18-20; Heb. 4: 6; Heb. 7: 1-3. Mention of the priesthood of Melchizedek is given in several other instances, primarily in Psalms and in Hebrews. However, latter-day revelation gives us much more about him and his priesthood (see JST Gen. 14: 17-40; JST Heb. 7: 1-3; Alma 13: 14-19; D&C 84: 14; D&C 107: 1-4). From these sources we realize something of the greatness of this prophet and the grandeur of his ministry."

I tend to believe revelation as opposed to a well meaning, studied out, assessment without such revelation, by a teacher who I believe didn't intend to give out wrong information but still managed to because of educated speculation. I'm not trying to knock your teacher as a child, he/she very well could have been more of a humble servant than your Gospel Doctrine teacher who didn't care to listen to what you were bringing up, especially since it sounds like your teacher wanted feed back from you as you were being taught things. I wish that was the case with more preachers from other denominations. I'm quite certain I would have attended, and still would attend, more Bible studies if feed back were allowed during the study groups' time around here.

Anyway, I think this might be the reason why these types of more in depth study of the scriptures aren't being taught in Sunday School, although I do remember some very in depth things brought up in Institute classes, that I attended when I was younger. There were details into the Hebrew and Greek languages that I never would have known had I not attended those classes. Also in Seminary I remember learning how to reference things for myself within the LDS printings of the scriptures, that are chalk full of in depth study as you are suggesting.

I'm not trying to knock what you have learned at all, and I respect other denominations and their clergy and members. I in fact see many of them who are more humble servants of Christ than some in our very own church. I am only trying to point out that this church is directly led by revelation from Christ himself and you just won't find as much truth anywhere else, even if the lessons only remain on a basic level for most of the time. That is mostly a result of our own lack of participation in study and sharing of the Gospel, where many people think that if they aren't studying something that they never studied before, they aren't getting new information. I personally find new information in the same old topics time and time again, as I grow line upon line and precept upon precept, through the help of the Holy Spirit.

These basics are actually quite deep if you are willing to dig into them and fully try to understand them, prayerfully.... even fasting and prayer together. I find that basics such as the concept of, "Love," go much more deep than most people realize until they actually experience that love on a personalized, spiritual level directly from their Heavenly Father. It truly is, "simply," incomprehensible to the mortal mind. These understandings that we receive directly from Spirit speaking to spirit are what constitutes the, "Mysteries of God." Not the logical study, all by itself, of deep rabbit holes, like the root meanings of words in the ancient languages that our scriptures were originally written in. When we build our understandings based on our personally revealed mysteries of God, we will find that we understand those rabbit holes in ways that the, "Arm of flesh," can never obtain, hence the Timothy's words: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Timothy 3:7. Too many members don't even realize that virtually all members have at least one mystery of God, or at least should have one. It is called a testimony. If a testimony isn't one of those mysteries for someone, I suggest getting a real testimony then, because all the other mysteries build upon that first one.

[RevTestament]

38 minutes ago, CMZ said:

3. Read the scriptures first.

If we will read the assigned scripture block before reading the lesson materials or any supplementary material, and write down any impressions we have as to doctrinal insights, questions we might ask, and invitations we might extend, then by exercising our agency in this way, we will maximize the Spirit that will come to us. We will become spiritually self-reliant. I have found that when I read the scriptures and have a question, there is often the temptation to immediately go to the commentaries for the answer. But if I restrain myself from doing that and instead wrestle with the issue, usually some personal inspiration will come. Sometimes the answer I get is the same as is in the commentary, but now the answer is mine, not theirs. Other times I may gain an insight that was customized for me and is different from the commentaries.

If I had gone straight to the commentaries, I would have lost those benefits. President Marion G. Romney made this candid observation: “When I drink from a spring I like to get the water where it comes out of the ground, not down the stream after the cattle have waded in it” (quoted by Elder J. Richard Clarke, “My Soul Delighteth in the Scriptures,” Oct. 1982 general conference). The lesson materials can be very helpful, but they should never interfere or take priority over our personal relationship with the scriptures and the Spirit.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/5-ways-to-become-a-teacher-come-from-god?lang=eng

Well, this I very much agree with. I have always made understanding and following the scriptures a priority over other teachings. I believe this is how I ended up in the LDS church - I believed the Bible over the teachings of men. I am glad the church seems to realize the occasional limitations of the manuals, and I hope they will encourage teachers to at least recognize that not everybody interprets scripture the same, but to simply make it clear the way the brethren currently interpret them without denigrating others. 

[CMZ]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

TBH Calm, I was upset, and cannot now confirm exactly what the manual did say. But I was responding to what the teacher said about the lesson. Perhaps I will look it up. Nevertheless I will honestly say, that I disagree with the brethren on a good number of topics. I do believe in the gospel of Christ, and the founding principles of this church, but there are a good number of places I disagree with previous or current "doctrine." For instance I disagree with:

- polygamy as a necessary element of exaltation, unless directly commanded.

- that God "married" Mary. I believe Jesus was the begotten Son by covenant rather than "by blood" or "lineage."

- that the Lord dispensed with sacrifice.

and a good number of other things. If the church wants to kick me out for my beliefs, they know where to find me. Nonetheless, I no longer try to "teach the church," because I often find my personal belief to be in conflict with teachings. The dispensation thing is just another area. And by the way JS is not the head of the "last dispensation." See, there ya go...

 

Can you clarify the polygamy thing?

Does the Church teach that God married Mary?

Does the Church say the Lord dispensed with sacrifice? Are you saying animal sacrifice should still be practiced? Because the law of sacrifice is still very much in effect, just not animal sacrifice, except what the sons of Levi may do later on.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

TBH Calm, I was upset, and cannot now confirm exactly what the manual did say. But I was responding to what the teacher said about the lesson. Perhaps I will look it up. Nevertheless I will honestly say, that I disagree with the brethren on a good number of topics. I do believe in the gospel of Christ, and the founding principles of this church, but there are a good number of places I disagree with previous or current "doctrine."....

No problem, I think the teacher was quite wrong in his approach as well as his info.  I just don't think it is likely that his error was based on "the manual is always right". I have no doubt that this occurs, I have issues with ways evolution and other things have been presented in the manuals where quotes outside of scriptures and prophets were given more weight imo.  My apologies if you felt I was discounting either your experience or your POV.  I actually wanted you to feel better that the Church didn't likely have this in the manual.

[RevTestament]

52 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Can you clarify the polygamy thing?

BY taught that polygamy was an essential teaching of exaltation. There is also a quote of JS on it, although I don't know if BY was later putting words in his mouth. I would rely on the date of publication to eliminate that possibility. Do I believe JS was commanded to enter into polygamy? Not really. I believe he misunderstood. I believe he was instructed to teach the correct principles, but was not commanded to marry any specific woman. That's a covenant, and the Lord doesn't seem to command covenants.

Quote

Does the Church teach that God married Mary?

This was the belief of Parley Pratt I believe. BY taught that Mary did not conceive by the HS. He taught that Jesus was "naturally begotten," although exactly what he meant by that is debatable. The church no longer teaches this, thank goodness.

Quote

Does the Church say the Lord dispensed with sacrifice? Are you saying animal sacrifice should still be practiced? Because the law of sacrifice is still very much in effect, just not animal sacrifice, except what the sons of Levi may do later on.

Yes, the Church has printed manuals which say sacrifice is dispensed with based on a scripture from the BoM apparently, and that has become the common belief of the Church membership. The BoM does make it clear that the Lord commanded the Nephites to stop sacrifice of animals. It is also clear from the NT. However, I believe those sacrifices in the Torah do not merely represent the sacrifice of Jesus. They represent the sacrifice of the lamb, which is the body of Christ. In other words like BY, I do not believe God has dispensed with blood sacrifice/atonement. It is just that future sacrifices such as the ones by the two witnesses do not atone for the sins of the whole world. 

Any sacrifice by the sons of Levi of animals will not be accepted by God. 

Zech 12: 8 In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

No problem, I think the teacher was quite wrong in his approach as well as his info.  I just don't think it is likely that his error was based on "the manual is always right". I have no doubt that this occurs, I have issues with ways evolution and other things have been presented in the manuals where quotes outside of scriptures and prophets were given more weight imo.  My apologies if you felt I was discounting either your experience or your POV.  I actually wanted you to feel better that the Church didn't likely have this in the manual.

That is possible, and before blaming the Church further, I will have to confirm what the manual said. It is possible that it was just the assumption of this teacher. No need to apologize Calm.. we're good

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

BY taught that polygamy was an essential teaching of exaltation. There is also a quote of JS on it, although I don't know if BY was later putting words in his mouth. I would rely on the date of publication to eliminate that possibility. Do I believe JS was commanded to enter into polygamy? Not really. I believe he misunderstood. I believe he was instructed to teach the correct principles, but was not commanded to marry any specific woman. That's a covenant, and the Lord doesn't seem to command covenants.

There are quotes by several prophets stating this.  Not just JS and BY.  But JFS, JT, and others.
But personally I believe polygamy to be eternal in nature, but that God revoked the practice and requirement under our agency.
The law itself still exists but we are not permitted to enter into it.
As for the Lord commanding specific marriages because they are covenants, I don't agree.

Quote

This was the belief of Parley Pratt I believe. BY taught that Mary did not conceive by the HS. He taught that Jesus was "naturally begotten," although exactly what he meant by that is debatable. The church no longer teaches this, thank goodness.

Personally I agree with this doctrine.  The Church doesn't teach that this didn't happen.  They just teach that we don't know and shouldn't speculate.  So I'll just choose to agree with the early brethren without bothering to speculate.

Quote

Yes, the Church has printed manuals which say sacrifice is dispensed with based on a scripture from the BoM apparently, and that has become the common belief of the Church membership.

Joseph taught that sacrifice would be restored.  Not something I find pleasant but when God commands we do whatever is commanded.

[RevTestament]

55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There are quotes by several prophets stating this.  Not just JS and BY.  But JFS, JT, and others.

repeating an error doesn't make it right. JFS also taught that the priesthood to Elijah Abel had been rescinded and was in error, when the record shows it was not. He was denied the temple covenants under Brigham Young tho. Personally, I believe the Church was simply unwilling to suffer the lampooning and persecution any more - it seems the press often associated allowing in Blacks with the mixing of races and polygamy. Where were all those blacks going to go after the civil war? Was the church willing to absorb them at the expense of being lampooned in the national press? Perhaps not. Those were cruel times, and the church was trying to keep the Feds out of issues of statehood, polygamy, etc. Adding a free black people to the mix was just one more issue to get lampooned over, which would court a bad public opinion when it came to statehood. This explains the reversal in direction, but lack of a "revelation."

Quote

But personally I believe polygamy to be eternal in nature, but that God revoked the practice and requirement under our agency.
The law itself still exists but we are not permitted to enter into it.

That doesn't make polygamy necessary for exaltation. The Jews had a law of inheritance if a man had two wives. There just is no revelation in the standard works that temporal polygamy is necessary for exaltation. Since God doesn't do anything He has not revealed to His servants, then polygamy is not necessary for exaltation. Rather I believe that teaching is responsible for a lot of grief and suffering which is abhorrent to God.

Quote

As for the Lord commanding specific marriages because they are covenants, I don't agree.

You don't agree that God wouldn't command me to marry a specific wife against her will perhaps? or you don't agree that God doesn't command people to enter covenants?

Quote

Personally I agree with this doctrine.  The Church doesn't teach that this didn't happen.  They just teach that we don't know and shouldn't speculate.  So I'll just choose to agree with the early brethren without bothering to speculate.

If so, then the Bible and the BoM are wrong about Mary being a virgin, and "knowing no man." Sorry, I'll believe the BoM and the Bible. It seems to me BY just misunderstood the Begotten nature of Christ. The Bible makes it clear in Acts, Hebrews, and the OT that Jesus was Begotten by the oath/covenant of God. To teach otherwise is to throw out huge chunks of the Bible, and to deny the things of God. It seems to me that BY did not understand these oracles. JS did.

Quote

Joseph taught that sacrifice would be restored.  Not something I find pleasant but when God commands we do whatever is commanded.

The very nature of "sacrifice" is voluntary. Otherwise it is not efficacious. This is why Peter had to be turned for a testimony.

[CMZ]

Quote

Since God doesn't do anything He has not revealed to His servants, then polygamy is not necessary for exaltation. Rather I believe that teaching is responsible for a lot of grief and suffering which is abhorrent to God.

RevTestament might be the first person I've hard of who is upset that the Church teaches that polygamy is necessary for exaltation, especially since they don't teach it, and the teachings from long ago to the effect that it is necessary were made for the time period in which they were made. Polygamy can be invoked or revoked as God sees fit. For the time being it's been revoked and since it's revoked for the time being it is not necessary for someone to enter it in order to achieve exaltation.

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, CMZ said:

RevTestament might be the first person I've hard of who is upset that the Church teaches that polygamy is necessary for exaltation, especially since they don't teach it, and the teachings from long ago to the effect that it is necessary were made for the time period in which they were made. Polygamy can be invoked or revoked as God sees fit. For the time being it's been revoked and since it's revoked for the time being it is not necessary for someone to enter it in order to achieve exaltation.

I think you missed my point. My point is that it never has been necessary for exaltation according to section 132.... and I realize that the church doesn't teach that anymore. Calm gave a link to an article on LDS.org about this which is either on this thread or some other recent thread. But JLHprof will disagree with you.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think you missed my point. My point is that it never has been necessary for exaltation according to section 132.... and I realize that the church doesn't teach that anymore. Calm gave a link to an article on LDS.org about this which is either on this thread or some other recent thread. But JLHprof will disagree with you.

My thinking is the term "necessary for exaltation" is something of a misnomer.
Like there is some kind of checklist that gets you a prize.

God is God because he follows eternal laws.  If God ceased to follow eternal laws he would cease to be God.
In order for us to be as God is we will have to follow the same laws that make him God.  It's not a prize.  It's a natural consequence of obedience to law.

Mormonism (even today) can't avoid recognizing that polygamous marriages will exist/continue into eternity.  Whether that makes polygamy an eternal law or just a subset of eternal marriage is the question.

Edited August 16, 2016 by JLHPROF

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My thinking is the term "necessary for exaltation" is something of a misnomer.
Like there is some kind of checklist that gets you a prize.

God is God because he follows eternal laws.  If God ceased to follow eternal laws he would cease to be God.
In order for us to be as God is we will have to follow the same laws that make him God.  It's not a prize.  It's a natural consequence of obedience to law.

Mormonism (even today) can't avoid recognizing that polygamous marriages will exist/continue into eternity.  Whether that makes polygamy an eternal law or just a subset of eternal marriage is the question.

Well, I think I understand where you are coming from, but if not, I apologize. I think you understand what I mean in my statements tho. 

At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, I do not view polygamy as a law. I view it as a covenant between a man and more than one woman since each woman must consent to it to be a covenant. The covenant in Section 132 is speaking of the covenant of marriage with at least one woman. That fulfills the covenant. Whether that is merely temporal or is spiritual is an issue in my mind, however I am not going to discuss this anymore on this thread... This would actually be another area for the commentary to address  with a link to the most recent Ensign articles and LDS.org essays, which I seem to agree with. For the sake of completeness there could also be a link to BY's comments in the JoD with any comments the church wishes to make about them.

[CMZ]

It's necessary when commanded. Just like it's necessary to build an ark when commanded.

I do agree that celestial marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman and that plural marriage is something that can potentially grow out of it.

 

D&C 132 does clearly say, "If a man marry a wife (not two or more wives)... then shall they be gods... " This stands above any statement Brigham Young made, although what Brigham Young said applied to the time period in which he made his statements. And there may come a time when polygamy is commanded again. The Book of Mormon and the D&C make it clear that the provision could come back into effect. Now people can link to my online commentary if there is any confusion on the matter.

Edited August 16, 2016 by CMZ

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

It's necessary when commanded. Just like it's necessary to build an ark when commanded.

I do agree that celestial marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman and that plural marriage is something that can potentially grow out of it.

 

D&C 132 does clearly say, "If a man marry a wife (not two or more wives)... then shall they be gods... " This stands above any statement Brigham Young made, although what Brigham Young said applied to the time period in which he made his statements.

And which the vast majority of the church was not "called" to live as "commanded." ...sigh...maybe just certain members and GAs were obedient enough to be "called" and become gods/elohim. Or BY was just teaching his understanding of what JS said...

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, I do not view polygamy as a law.

That is your choice, but D&C 132 specifies that it is.
And Jacob 2 shows that God can command it as he chooses.  And if God commands it what does it become?  A commandment, also known as a law.

[CMZ]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

And which the vast majority of the church was not "called" to live as "commanded." ...sigh...maybe just certain members and GAs were obedient enough to be "called" and become gods/elohim. Or BY was just teaching his understanding of what JS said...

Since the Church does not allow polygamy right now, and hasn't for quite some time, you really don't have much to worry about. If it really was for just certain members and GAs then, hey, even less reason for you to be concerned.

Edited August 16, 2016 by CMZ

[CMZ]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

And which the vast majority of the church was not "called" to live as "commanded." ...sigh...maybe just certain members and GAs were obedient enough to be "called" and become gods/elohim. Or BY was just teaching his understanding of what JS said...

But I do think the statement here evinces a misunderstanding of the potential for mortals to become Gods by seeing it as limited to far fewer people than it really is.

Edited August 16, 2016 by CMZ

[mnn727]

21 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Well, I will just state from my point of view that the seven main dispensations correspond to the 7 main covenant periods which just happen to be 1000 year periods, as well as the 7 eyes of the lamb of Revelation. And JS is the head of the sixth such covenant - the everlasting covenant promised to the Gentiles by the Lord in Isaiah. Whether there are other subdispensations  of the gospel is not something I have prayed specifically about. It would seem that Moses was definitely the head of a gospel dispensation to Israel or at least a dispensation of law. The law, however, was subordinate to the covenant, which is where the gospel truly lies, which would make Moses' dispensation subordinate to Abraham. Moses not only received the priesthood from Jethro, but received instruction from him. However, I think I need to drop this topic rather than derail the thread...

Since Scripture and established doctrine do not speak to this, would you like some Sunday School teacher speculating on this? Especially when many people believe everything some person in Church teaches them?

I have no problem with you or anyone else studying scripture by yourself or as a family, the Church encourages it in fact. However there will always be new members and there will always be those that spend zero time studying outside of class and they need the things that will bring them salvation and exaltation, not the deep mysteries of scripture.

BTW the Institute manuals will give you a verse by verse commentary that it sounds like a number of people on this thread are looking for. I've had all 4 manuals since the late 80's. It appears they have been updated, not sure if they are still the same format

Edited August 16, 2016 by mnn727

[toon]

I heard that, in celebration of this manual, the City of West Jordon is changing it's name to West Gordon.  The major point of debate before the city council was whether to retain or discard the "West."

[CMZ]

27 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

BTW the Institute manuals will give you a verse by verse commentary that it sounds like a number of people on this thread are looking for. I've had all 4 manuals since the late 80's. It appears they have been updated, not sure if they are still the same format

Those have been mentioned in this thread.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

But I do think the statement here evinces a misunderstanding of the potential for mortals to become Gods by seeing it as limited to far fewer people than it really is.

Or the way polygamy was practiced "evinces a misunderstanding of the potential for mortals to become Gods by seeing it as limited to far fewer people than it really is."

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

Since Scripture and established doctrine do not speak to this, would you like some Sunday School teacher speculating on this? Especially when many people believe everything some person in Church teaches them?

I have no problem with you or anyone else studying scripture by yourself or as a family, the Church encourages it in fact. However there will always be new members and there will always be those that spend zero time studying outside of class and they need the things that will bring them salvation and exaltation, not the deep mysteries of scripture.

We have that. We have Gospel Essentials and Gospel Doctrine. The thing I was seeing from several members is a desire to be able to study something more deeply. Again the Institute manuals are good. If that is all the church membership wants, then we're good. Not enough people seem to be evincing any interest in an online commentary so I'll shut up, and let you all figure it out on your own. I know I wouldn't agree with everything the church would put in the commentary anyway. Despite that fact, I suggested it as being helpful. As for the 7 main dispensations, if they are speculation, then perhaps the church shouldn't speculate on them at all. I've stated some of my reasons why I don't believe what some of the GAs have taught. Obviously, I'm on my own here. I accept that. It is basically the story of my life.

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That is your choice, but D&C 132 specifies that it is.

Not in my reading:

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations,oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

This law of sealing is further distinguished from the covenant of marriage in verse 18:

18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, 

Performing the covenant in accordance with the legal authority is what makes it eternal - the same with the other covenants. But making the covenants is not a commandment or a law, and therefore it is not a sin not to make them.

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by RevTestament

[bsjkki]

Why can't we have an Institute class during Sunday School?  The manuals are already prepared, the depth is deeper and it is all approved.  I know many would appreciate the option.