Doctrinal Mastery Changes

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well than add the policy revelations to the D&C.

The Church seems very gun shy about putting anything forth as a possibility for canonization.

Which is funny when you consider such gems as D&C 120 -  1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, the time is now come, that it shall be disposed of by a council, composed of the First Presidency of my Church, and of the bishop and his council, and by my high council; and by mine own voice unto them, saith the Lord. Even so. Amen.

Surely the revelations of the 20th and 21st century are of more import to the members than this and should be canonized for study?

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Oh well growing up in the Church and then going out to the world as a missionary I was taught, and then I taught that having a Prophet met God was telling the LDS Church and its adherents that we had something far better than anyone else.  In the words of President Benson we had today's news today.   I guess really having prophets and apostles is not as helpful as I once thought it was.

It is far better. Are you trying to say that other churches have prophesied just as many truths? Are you saying that all of a sudden we are all supposed to be able to know all things? Like I said I don't think many of us truly realize exactly how far we really are fallen, from the fall of Adam. Revelation is built line upon line, precept upon precept. We need to first recognize His voice, before we can understand what is being said. The better we learn to recognize His voice the more clearer that revelation comes. God uses imperfect humans to run His church, and that means mistakes are made, but it doesn't mean that He doesn't communicate with those who are in His church, including the church leaders He has called and chosen. Eternal progression isn't just sometime in the future. Eternal is now as well as past and present. We, including prophets and apostles, are progressing from a very fallen state.

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Or say that they read it.   We were always required to read the book of scripture for honors. 

Why not expect them to continue to know references for 25 doctrines? Especially if required to read the whole book?

or say that they know the references for 25, doctrines?

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why doesn't it apply? This is the CES curriculum for all seminaries for this school year.

I like that the church is opening a discussion to the differences of policy and doctrines, but they don't seem to be clear themselves.

I didn't get this kind of study...I am thinking it would be a great thing to learn policies/doctrines, the differences and what they are.  But are they backing down?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The Church seems very gun shy about putting anything forth as a possibility for canonization.

Which is funny when you consider such gems as D&C 120 -  1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, the time is now come, that it shall be disposed of by a council, composed of the First Presidency of my Church, and of the bishop and his council, and by my high council; and by mine own voice unto them, saith the Lord. Even so. Amen.

Surely the revelations of the 20th and 21st century are of more import to the members than this and should be canonized for study?

I have always thought of these types of revelation as demonstrating how the day to day stuff worked under the Lord's guidance.  It is important to know how it was done, but once known it is not the general membership's role to keep track of the more personal or mundane instructions.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Calm

[rongo]

58 minutes ago, waveslider said:

or say that they know the references for 25, doctrines?

You had to pass off your scripture mastery (at least, we had to). Like with Articles of Faith in primary . . .

You have to take their word for it on the reading. I'm not criticizing that. Just not requiring that they know the scripture mastery scriptures.

[waveslider]

30 minutes ago, rongo said:

You had to pass off your scripture mastery (at least, we had to). Like with Articles of Faith in primary . . .

You have to take their word for it on the reading. I'm not criticizing that. Just not requiring that they know the scripture mastery scriptures.

So there aren't ways to cheat to pass off scripture mastery? Cheating is cheating, and if a kid is going to say the read it when they didn't it is just the same.

[rongo]

You can only cheat at scripture mastery if your teacher is lame. 

You're right, though. Cheaters are cheaters, period. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I have always thought of these types of revelation as demonstrating how the day to day stuff worked under the Lord's guidance.  It is important to know how it was done, but once known it is not the general membership's role to keep track of the more personal or mundane instructions.

You're a little more optimistic than I am. 
Personally I think everything today works entirely on "feelings".
And that the actual "word" of God (by voice, vision etc) on subjects hasn't happened in quite some time.

Not that that means there is no revelation.  Just that there is nothing to canonize/study and hasn't been in years.  Just the claim that inspiration was received.  Just take a look at OD2.  No word of God.  Just apostolic testimony that the spirit spoke to them.

So the most significant communication from God of the past 50 years was received and there is absolutely nothing to canonize but the press release.  (Not to mention all the ones that didn't even get an official declaration out of their receipt).

Edited September 3, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, waveslider said:

It is far better. Are you trying to say that other churches have prophesied just as many truths? Are you saying that all of a sudden we are all supposed to be able to know all things? Like I said I don't think many of us truly realize exactly how far we really are fallen, from the fall of Adam. Revelation is built line upon line, precept upon precept. We need to first recognize His voice, before we can understand what is being said. The better we learn to recognize His voice the more clearer that revelation comes. God uses imperfect humans to run His church, and that means mistakes are made, but it doesn't mean that He doesn't communicate with those who are in His church, including the church leaders He has called and chosen. Eternal progression isn't just sometime in the future. Eternal is now as well as past and present. We, including prophets and apostles, are progressing from a very fallen state.

I am saying thqt when I read much of what is used to defend what church leaders say and have said it seems they get a lot wrong and see through the glass as darkly as most of us do.   But when I was a missionary I taught people that we had prophets and apostles who told us God's words and gave us God's direction as much as Mosed, Noah, Peter, Paul and so on. Perhaps I was wrong. 

[waveslider]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am saying thqt when I read much of what is used to defend what church leaders say and have said it seems they get a lot wrong and see through the glass as darkly as most of us do.   But when I was a missionary I taught people that we had prophets and apostles who told us God's words and gave us God's direction as much as Mosed, Noah, Peter, Paul and so on. Perhaps I was wrong. 

No you weren't wrong. Perhaps instead of just relying upon what is used to defend what church leaders say, we could take it directly to God, along with fasting, studying and pondering. When I was on my mission I taught, (I am assuming here) and you probably taught as well, that we can also gain our own personal revelation, that what those prophets said was the word of God, actually is the word of God. Nephi gives a  wonderful example of doing just that when his father, who was the prophet for them, had the vision of the tree of life. He went to God himself and found further knowledge and revelation to not only help himself understand what was meant by the prophet Lehi's message of what God revealed to him, but to help him explain it to his brothers who didn't go to God and saw contradiction and confusion instead. These brothers tried to just rationalize away as something they would never be able to understand. These brothers obviously thought their dad was some kind of kook or something because they didn't turn to God, but instead just tried to figure things out on their own:

"11  Now this he spake because of the stiffneckedness of Laman and Lemuel; for behold they did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man, and had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance, and their gold, and their silver, and their precious things, to perish in the wilderness. And this they said he had done because of the foolish imaginations of his heart.
12  And thus Laman and Lemuel, being the eldest, did murmur against their father. And they did murmur because they knew not the dealings of that God who had created them."
1 Nephi 2:11-12

Is is possible that we are guilty of the same thing sometimes, not knowing the dealings of God, or in other words, not seeing the big picture enough to conclude that there are incompatible teachings that don't make sense to a human finite mind, instead of exercising faith that we will someday know what it is that hinders us from understanding what exactly happened here, and having faith the the Spirit is guiding us correctly regardless of our rationalizations of not understanding things? Just a thought anyway.

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

You can only cheat at scripture mastery if your teacher is lame. 

You're right, though. Cheaters are cheaters, period. 

Or if you are more cunning than the teacher, who isn't lame.

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't see there are dueling prophets.  I see prophets who speak according to their own understanding in the day they were living.  Prophets don't know everything.  They only know what God has revealed to them and even then they might not have a clear understanding of that.  We can expect a prophets who live in different time periods have different takes on a subject if they are basing their view on some new information or understanding that another prophet did not have. 

So Adam was God in 1875, but not now?

[carbon dioxide]

16 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

So Adam was God in 1875, but not now?

God the Father?  No.  But Adam is the ancient of days and was made "Lord over the earth" by the Father and I believe Adam is still Lord over the earth until Christ comes to him at Adam-ondi-Ahman and takes control.  Adam role in things is much greater than we realize.  He does hold the keys of salvation under Christ.  When an angel is sent to someone, it is Adam that sends that personally sends that angel.  I avoid using the word "God" with Adam as I give that title to the Father and Son and I prefer to avoid confusion but Adam has obtained his exaltation and the roles that has been given to him, in practical terms he acts as God does.  In some ways calling Adam "God" it not way off the mark.  So the whole Adam-God thing does not really bother me since my views of it keeps all the actors in their distinct roles and everything is in order.

Edited September 4, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Flexible]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

God the Father?  No.  But Adam is the ancient of days and was made "Lord over the earth" by the Father and I believe Adam is still Lord over the earth until Christ comes to him at Adam-ondi-Ahman and takes control.  Adam role in things is much greater than we realize.  He does hold the keys of salvation under Christ.  When an angel is sent to someone, it is Adam that sends that personally sends that angel.  I avoid using the word "God" with Adam as I give that title to the Father and Son and I prefer to avoid confusion but Adam has obtained his exaltation and the roles that has been given to him, in practical terms he acts as God does.  In some ways calling Adam "God" it not way off the mark.  So the whole Adam-God thing does not really bother me since my views of it keeps all the actors in their distinct roles and everything is in order.

What you're saying was taught by Joseph, and also taught in Brigham's day.  But Brigham took it a giant leap forward and declared Adam as God the Father and Elohim as our heavenly grandfather.  So which doctrine would  you have followed if you suddenly found yourself in Brigham's day?  

[rongo]

7 hours ago, waveslider said:

Or if you are more cunning than the teacher, who isn't lame.

This is getting silly.

If you have to pass off your scripture mastery to your teacher (as I did), how does a cunning-but-slacker student who doesn't know his scripture mastery bluff past his non-lame teacher? If he can, then doesn't that make his teacher lame?

You're gonna have to draw me a picture. I'm not seeing how this would work. 

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

So Adam was God in 1875, but not now?

No, he's still God.

Quote

God the Father?  No.  But Adam is the ancient of days and was made "Lord over the earth" by the Father and I believe Adam is still Lord over the earth until Christ comes to him at Adam-ondi-Ahman and takes control.  Adam role in things is much greater than we realize.  He does hold the keys of salvation under Christ.  When an angel is sent to someone, it is Adam that sends that personally sends that angel.

So close...

Edited September 4, 2016 by JLHPROF

[waveslider]

11 hours ago, rongo said:

This is getting silly.

If you have to pass off your scripture mastery to your teacher (as I did), how does a cunning-but-slacker student who doesn't know his scripture mastery bluff past his non-lame teacher? If he can, then doesn't that make his teacher lame?

You're gonna have to draw me a picture. I'm not seeing how this would work. 

I agree it's kind of lame. I guess I should have put an emoticon to show the silliness. to answer your question I'm sure there are a few youtube videos that could show how it could be done. To me though it seems like more work to do some elaborate scam to get past a smart teacher than simply studying.

[maxrep12]

And it will be remembered as, "Seminary Gate", or perhaps, "Doctrinal Master Gate".

I feel like we have now seen the final, final, final draft, but will not be surprised if another future, "final" revision peeks it's head round the corner.

Carry Jenkins, one who declares there is no demand for caffeine pop at byu, come and sit and explain. Share with us what is buzzing in the mind of President News Room.

Edited September 5, 2016 by maxrep12
Added a second gate name

[RevTestament]

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 11:52 PM, sunstoned said:

So Adam was God in 1875, but not now?

Adam is in the house of Elohim, yes. He is Elohim, but He is not El Elyon, the Most High God. Elohim gets translated into English as gods, but it is a plural of Eloah, which is used sparingly in the OT in reference to being the rock of our salvation or the stone of Israel. So as Elohim, Adam is part of the stone of the temple or family of Elohim with Christ being the chief cornerstone. So in a limited sense, like Christ he becomes our father, and is our temporal spiritual father.

[maxrep12]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Adam is in the house of Elohim, yes. He is Elohim, but He is not El Elyon, the Most High God. Elohim gets translated into English as gods, but it is a plural of Eloah, which is used sparingly in the OT in reference to being the rock of our salvation or the stone of Israel. So as Elohim, Adam is part of the stone of the temple or family of Elohim with Christ being the chief cornerstone. So in a limited sense, like Christ he becomes our father, and is our temporal spiritual father.

And this is where sophistry and desperation align in an unfortunate attempt to recomission Brigham's views.

I have every confidence that brother Young's view was to be understood in the straightforward manner in which it was delivered.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Adam is in the house of Elohim, yes. He is Elohim, but He is not El Elyon, the Most High God. Elohim gets translated into English as gods, but it is a plural of Eloah, which is used sparingly in the OT in reference to being the rock of our salvation or the stone of Israel. So as Elohim, Adam is part of the stone of the temple or family of Elohim with Christ being the chief cornerstone. So in a limited sense, like Christ he becomes our father, and is our temporal spiritual father.

Truly, the gospel is simply wonderful and wonderfully simple.

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, maxrep12 said:

And this is where sophistry and desperation align in an unfortunate attempt to recomission Brigham's views.

I have every confidence that brother Young's view was to be understood in the straightforward manner in which it was delivered.

 

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

Truly, the gospel is simply wonderful and wonderfully simple.

nothing retroactive about it 

D&C 27:11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;

[carbon dioxide]

On 9/4/2016 at 1:46 AM, Flexible said:

What you're saying was taught by Joseph, and also taught in Brigham's day.  But Brigham took it a giant leap forward and declared Adam as God the Father and Elohim as our heavenly grandfather.  So which doctrine would  you have followed if you suddenly found yourself in Brigham's day?  

I would follow the doctrine that closely matches what is in the standard works as if God requires me to know anything, it is the stuff in those sources.  Anything beyond that I reconcile with the standard works.  I don't see Adam to be God the Father.  Adam is the father of the human family.  All mankind springs forth from him but he is not my Heavenly Father as described by Jesus and as show in the temple.  God the Father along with the Son made Adam Lord over the whole earth and Adam remains in the capacity until Adam-ondi-Ahman when Christ comes to Adam and the priesthood keys that Adam currently holds are transferred to Christ. 

This is my vision of how God the Father runs things. Perhaps I am going beyond what the scriptures teach but this is what makes sense to me.  The Father and Son have created billions of worlds.  How do they run these billions of worlds on a regular basis?  I believe they appoint an individual to run the daily affairs of that world.  Sort of like a large company appoints local managers to run each individual store.  On our world, Adam runs the day to day things that go on while doing things under the direction of the Christ.  Adam represents Christ in all things perfectly.  If one was to go to another world, Adam would have nothing to do with that world.  Another individual would be over it like Adam is over our world.  One day Adam will be replaced by Christ and that will be in the not too distant future.   If I am wrong on this, I don't mind.  Its not a big deal but this is how I think things work,

Edited September 6, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Flexible]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would follow the doctrine that closely matches what is in the standard works as if God requires me to know anything, it is the stuff in those sources.  Anything beyond that I reconcile with the standard works.  I don't see Adam to be God the Father.  Adam is the father of the human family.  All mankind springs forth from him but he is not my Heavenly Father as described by Jesus and as show in the temple.  God the Father along with the Son made Adam Lord over the whole earth and Adam remains in the capacity until Adam-ondi-Ahman when Christ comes to Adam and the priesthood keys that Adam currently holds are transferred to Christ. 

This is my vision of how God the Father runs things. Perhaps I am going beyond what the scriptures teach but this is what makes sense to me.  The Father and Son have created billions of worlds.  How do they run these billions of worlds on a regular basis?  I believe they appoint an individual to run the daily affairs of that world.  Sort of like a large company appoints local managers to run each individual store.  On our world, Adam runs the day to day things that go on while doing things under the direction of the Christ.  Adam represents Christ in all things perfectly.  If one was to go to another world, Adam would have nothing to do with that world.  Another individual would be over it like Adam is over our world.  One day Adam will be replaced by Christ and that will be in the not too distant future.   If I am wrong on this, I don't mind.  Its not a big deal but this is how I think things work,

That is my belief as well, and is consistent I believe with Joseph's teachings.  You would have been standing side by side with Orson Pratt in resisting Brigham's teaching. In our culture that takes Moxie!