What if it's ALL true?

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, CV75 said:

It is wonderful in that it leaves so much room for freedom to think and act; to exercise faith, patience and other virtues; to stretch and grow. It is wonderful in that it provides contrast to that which is most essential. And none of the essays are 100% ambiguous on 100% of the information.

I am  not sure I have and idea what your point was above.  Can you clarify?

[canard78]

On 20/12/2016 at 9:14 PM, Jeanne said:

Really....why do I think there is something wrong with this picture???

Isn't that how science and research works? We update our text books as new information arises and new conclusions are reached. Shouldn't the essays do the same?

I might disagree with the conclusions and the evidence they choose to emphasise and I can certainly go to additional sources if I want, but shouldn't the church reasonably be able to update their own publications?

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, SteveO said:

You ever read "Preach My Gospel"?  I'd suggest you pick it up sometime and give it a read.  In it, you'll read the following at the beginning of chapter one:

Invite others to come unto Christ by helping them receive the restored gospel through faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end.

Now, is there anything you don't understand about that phrase?  The standard works are what they are.  You read the same words as I do.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ hasn't changed.  It's been the same process as outlined above.   

You want to discuss the process of the translation of the Book of Mormon?  By all means, go for it.  You want to argue over whether or not the scrolls of The Book of Abraham was from the Book of the Dead and not divinely inspired?  Have at it.  The Book of Genesis?  Literal or metaphor?  Dunno, come on this board and give us your opinion...I'd love to hear it.  

But when a missionary knocks on someones door and teaches them a lesson, they give them a copy of The Book of Mormon.  The same copy you and I and everyone else has.  The same words, the same Moroni's promise.  You want to interpret what's in it?  Go for it.  You want to read someone's commentary on what's in it?  There's plenty of books.  You want to see what the brethren have to say on any given verse--guess what, you can get that too.

You picking up the theme here?  But you guys sure do insist on being led around by the nose on every single issue. 

At the end of the week, I go to church to partake of the sacrament which has been blessed with restored priesthood power, repent of my sins, and learn the best I know how (and the best others know how) on where to improve in my day to day life.  I administer blessings with restored priesthood power and authority as needed.  At General Conference, I listen to the words of the brethren and sisters and the First Presidency.  And afterwards, guess what?  You can interpret them and apply them as YOU SEE FIT.  Read the scriptures, pray, repent continuously.  Try and be like Jesus.  Wash, rinse, repeat.  And repeat.  And repeat.  And repeat.  And repeat.  And repeat.  And repeat.  And repeat.  And repeat.  And repeat.  And repeat.  And repeat.  And repeat.  And repeat.  And repeat.  And repeat.  And repeat...until we become perfected in Christ.  That should take you to the rest of your life and well into the next. 

President Monson is a Prophet.  The gift of prophecy is the Testimony of Jesus Christ.  You going to argue he doesn't do that every six months?  The primary role of a prophet is to declare repentance.  The role of Seer and Revelator are currently not utilized because we have everything we need to know at the present time.  Outside of that, you can prayerfully take their understanding to the best of their ability any way you want.  Need a more authoritative statement?  Again:   https://www.lds.org/scriptures?lang=eng  read, take to the Lord in prayer, and figure it out.

NOW--if you disagree with any of the above, and I'm sure you do, it doesn't change the fact that that's going to be what we are judged on in the Mormon Church.  Not our position on homosexuality.  Not our position on the process of translation of The Book of Mormon.  Not our opinion on women and the priesthood or blacks and the priesthood.  And you are free to disagree and question and hypothesize all the live long day about those topics.  But the TRUTH we share with the world, and the TRUTH we preach every Sunday is as follows:

Invite others to come unto Christ by helping them receive the restored gospel through faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end.   

 

Outside of that, do whatever it is you need to do.  You are free to do so.   

 

Yes I have read Preach my Gospel. Yes I know the missionary program of the Church has been watered down to the most basic Christian message.  It has not always been so.  It seems to be more so today for a variety of reasons.  I will let anyone speculate on those and not share what I think lest I come across more cynical than most already view me as here.  But I can tell you this WAS NOT the message I preached solely as a missionary 38 years ago. It has changed SIGNIFCANTLY over the years. The Church wants to focus on the basis message because, well, to go beyond that is really problematic for its truth claims that used to mean something,

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am  not sure I have and idea what your point was above.  Can you clarify?

Yet you responded to it once already here: Posted 22 hours ago ... (hmmm...) Maybe you should retrace the conversation and pay better attention this time around LOL

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, SteveO said:

More flawed assumptions and incorrect perceptions.

No not really.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sounds a little hard to me.  And how does one distinguish "true dogma" from "erroneous dogma"?

I don't believe in dogma, just opinions.  All we have is language to express opinions and both opinions and language are pretty ambiguous. .  It is not my fault you were taught dogma as a child- it's time to accept ambiguity.  This is a complicated world.

We are stuck with symbols and interpretations

If I was taught dogma as a "Child" it lays at the hands of those you think through feelings God is telling you are Prophets and Apostles of God and that they represent the One and Only True Church.  Lay it at their feet not mine.  And oh by the way I have no doubt that those in power in the LDS Church do not buy into you ambiguous definitions of truth.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Come on bro, that ain't a real answer. Put some effort into it. I was looking forward to your answer.

I gave an initial "real answer" answer to this early in the thread. Might be on page one.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yet you responded to it once already here: Posted 22 hours ago ... (hmmm...) Maybe you should retrace the conversation and pay better attention this time around LOL

 

 

Ahh yes sorry.  Hard to keep track of it all.

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Yes I have read Preach my Gospel. Yes I know the missionary program of the Church has been watered down to the most basic Christian message.  It has not always been so.  It seems to be more so today for a variety of reasons.  I will let anyone speculate on those and not share what I think lest I come across more cynical than most already view me as here.  But I can tell you this WAS NOT the message I preached solely as a missionary 38 years ago. It has changed SIGNIFCANTLY over the years. The Church wants to focus on the basis message because, well, to go beyond that is really problematic for its truth claims that used to mean something,

Alright, we'll let's discuss this then.  I'm genuinely interested to know how significantly the missionary message has changed.  

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

Isn't that how science and research works? We update our text books as new information arises and new conclusions are reached. Shouldn't the essays do the same?

I might disagree with the conclusions and the evidence they choose to emphasise and I can certainly go to additional sources if I want, but shouldn't the church reasonably be able to update their own publications?

Now that I understand that the essays are rather teaching tools.  I get your point.  I was so excited when the essays came out because it was a huge beginning for members and non members alike to get some idea of where the church stands on all the questions we share.  I had thought the essays were closer to doctrine than they are..so yeah..I couldn't imagine more changes.  Thanks!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

Isn't that how science and research works? We update our text books as new information arises and new conclusions are reached. Shouldn't the essays do the same?

I might disagree with the conclusions and the evidence they choose to emphasise and I can certainly go to additional sources if I want, but shouldn't the church reasonably be able to update their own publications?

It comes across as rather strange to me that often those vigorously proclaiming the Church has done things wrong in the past are also the ones who criticize the Church for updating its approach. (Speaking generally, not identifying specific individuals).

Edited December 22, 2016 by Calm

[SteveO]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

It comes across as rather strange to me that often those vigorously proclaiming the Church has done things wrong in the past are also the ones who criticize the Church for updating its approach. (Speaking generally, not identifying specific individuals).

Well, it seems the critics are insisting that the church has never allowed for mistakes administratively or among the leadership--delegitimizing, in their eyes, the solutions being currently offered to remedy the past mistakes they complain about.  

Rock and hard place indeed...

 

[bcuzbcuz]

11 hours ago, cdowis said:

Yes, indeed.  I definitely detect paranoia in those who see things hiding in the bushes  that are not there.

What do you call it when there is something hiding in the bushes and you see it and name it for what it is? History revisionism is not just something made up in dime novels, sovjet photos and Orwell's "1984". But then again, you didn't acknowledge that you have read "1984" so you may be talking about something you know nothing about.

What is your opinion of Richard Bushman's quote at ldsanswers.org "Richard Bushman: I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change."

[bcuzbcuz]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Temple covenant includes a promise before God to participate in all rites and ordinances pertaining to marriage.
Do you know of any rites and ordinances pertaining to marriage that occur post-sealing?

In all of Mormon history I only know of two ordinances requiring a married couple that come after we are sealed.
One we don't talk about and is barely acknowledged as existing.  And the other is polygamy.

I see you answer my question with an ambiguous question. You said that I should check the marriage covenant regarding plural marriage. I asked you for  CFR. Please respond properly.

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I see you answer my question with an ambiguous question. You said that I should check the marriage covenant regarding plural marriage. I asked you for  CFR. Please respond properly.

You know I cannot quote the temple marriage covenant verbatim on this board and it is an inappropriate thing to CFR.
I already answered your CFR with a paraphrased quote that is more than sufficient to explain my point.

Quote

Temple covenant includes a promise before God to participate in all rites and ordinances pertaining to marriage.
Do you know of any rites and ordinances pertaining to marriage that occur post-sealing?

In all of Mormon history I only know of two ordinances requiring a married couple that come after we are sealed.
One we don't talk about and is barely acknowledged as existing.  And the other is polygamy.

 

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

What do you call it when there is something hiding in the bushes and you see it and name it for what it is? History revisionism is not just something made up in dime novels, sovjet photos and Orwell's "1984". But then again, you didn't acknowledge that you have read "1984" so you may be talking about something you know nothing about.

I have read the book, so I do indeed know what I am talking about.  Thus, your post is based on a false assumption.

What is your opinion of Richard Bushman's quote at ldsanswers.org "Richard Bushman: I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change."

I agree with him completely.  But there is an appropriate place/forum/medium for such instruction and information is given.  A class in Church History and a Sunday School class would be very different in what is being taught, although each would have truth taught -- but a difference in the range of information and the purpose of the class.

I believe strongly in milk before meat.

 

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, SteveO said:

Alright, we'll let's discuss this then.  I'm genuinely interested to know how significantly the missionary message has changed.  

In 1979 when I was a missionary the message was:

The Church of Jesus Christ, the one he established when he was on earth is gone. Christianity it in a state of apostasy.

God called a prophet-Joseph Smith-to restore true Christianity as well as priesthood authority for the ordinances of Salvation.

God has a living prophet today-Spencer W. Kimball who God speaks to just like God did to Moses or Noah.

Not only that but God's true church has 12 apostles just like the Church did when Jesus was alive.

If that is true you need to follow this prophet and apostles. 

 

 

We said little to nothing about Jesus Christ and his atonement,  Sure there was a discussion about repentance and forgiveness but the focus was entirely on the LDS Church being a restoration of ancient Christianity and God speaking to the world through men who were as much prophets and apostles as were those in the Bible.  The emphasis that Preach my Gospel has on a more generic "come unto Jesus"  message was entirely absent.

[SteveO]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

In 1979 when I was a missionary the message was:

The Church of Jesus Christ, the one he established when he was on earth is gone. Christianity it in a state of apostasy.

God called a prophet-Joseph Smith-to restore true Christianity as well as priesthood authority for the ordinances of Salvation.

God has a living prophet today-Spencer W. Kimball who God speaks to just like God did to Moses or Noah.

Not only that but God's true church has 12 apostles just like the Church did when Jesus was alive.

If that is true you need to follow this prophet and apostles. 

 

 

We said little to nothing about Jesus Christ and his atonement,  Sure there was a discussion about repentance and forgiveness but the focus was entirely on the LDS Church being a restoration of ancient Christianity and God speaking to the world through men who were as much prophets and apostles as were those in the Bible.  The emphasis that Preach my Gospel has on a more generic "come unto Jesus"  message was entirely absent.

I'd say little has changed in the teaching, we still teach all that, just ADDED emphasis, or rather renewed emphasis on Jesus Christ and the atonement.  The only thing maybe we need to switch up is giving the impression that the current prophet speaks to the Lord face to face "like Moses".

But I'm not really seeing a drastic change in the way we teach.  

Like I said before in this thread, I think our mistake previously WASN'T emphasizing Jesus Christ and His Gospel, and it leads to a weak foundation everywhere else.  People are leading with their doubts, and not with a strong testimony in JC or the atonement.

[JLHPROF]

On 12/22/2016 at 3:09 PM, Teancum said:

Not only that but God's true church has 12 apostles just like the Church did when Jesus was alive.

Actually we have a couple of spares.  15 at least, more some times.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/22/2016 at 2:09 PM, Teancum said:

In 1979 when I was a missionary the message was:

The Church of Jesus Christ, the one he established when he was on earth is gone. Christianity it in a state of apostasy.

God called a prophet-Joseph Smith-to restore true Christianity as well as priesthood authority for the ordinances of Salvation.

God has a living prophet today-Spencer W. Kimball who God speaks to just like God did to Moses or Noah.

Not only that but God's true church has 12 apostles just like the Church did when Jesus was alive.

If that is true you need to follow this prophet and apostles. 

 

 

We said little to nothing about Jesus Christ and his atonement,  Sure there was a discussion about repentance and forgiveness but the focus was entirely on the LDS Church being a restoration of ancient Christianity and God speaking to the world through men who were as much prophets and apostles as were those in the Bible.  The emphasis that Preach my Gospel has on a more generic "come unto Jesus"  message was entirely absent.

I have noticed that virtually every post you make has the same theme- " THAT is not what I was taught-" or "That is not what the LDS church teaches!"

You seem to be very hung up on the inescapable fact that times have changed.

I surmise from your comments that you are in your late 50's, I have about 10 years on you- I am in my late 60's

I was baptized around the time you were a missionary, so I too have seen the changes.  You definitely emphasize them and find them disturbing I think- at least the fact that what is emphasized now is different than what was emphasized in the past.   I am wondering why that bothers you so much.

To me, the message is the same, it is hard to discern, but now it seems that Christ is now more emphasized.  The idea of orthopraxis instead of fundamentalism is definitely now more the emphasis.

But I still don't know why that bothers you so much.

[cdowis]

On 12/22/2016 at 5:09 PM, Teancum said:

In 1979 when I was a missionary the message was:

The Church of Jesus Christ, the one he established when he was on earth is gone. Christianity it in a state of apostasy.

God called a prophet-Joseph Smith-to restore true Christianity as well as priesthood authority for the ordinances of Salvation.

God has a living prophet today-Spencer W. Kimball who God speaks to just like God did to Moses or Noah.

Not only that but God's true church has 12 apostles just like the Church did when Jesus was alive.

If that is true you need to follow this prophet and apostles. 

 

 

We said little to nothing about Jesus Christ and his atonement,  Sure there was a discussion about repentance and forgiveness but the focus was entirely on the LDS Church being a restoration of ancient Christianity and God speaking to the world through men who were as much prophets and apostles as were those in the Bible.  The emphasis that Preach my Gospel has on a more generic "come unto Jesus"  message was entirely absent.

Back in the day, the assumption was that we were primarily teaching Christians who were, at the least, familiar with and accepted the basics of the Christian religion.  And the discussions were designed for Christians who need to move from the basics to the fullness of the Gospel.

On my mission in Germany, I discovered in this Christian nation that almost every person I spoke to was an unbeliever.  That they were losing a knowledge even of the basics of the mission of Christ, so I had to adapt my lessons to this reality.  I guess, over time, the church discovered this new reality, and made the changes to focus on Christ and the basics which was being lost among the nominal Christians.

We could no longer depend on church attendance  and family to teach these principles.  I remember with the new discussions thinking, "It's about time!"  The other reason for the discussions was to get away from rote memory discussions, and teaching by the Spirit.

Edited December 25, 2016 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

6 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Back in the day, the assumption was that we were primarily teaching Christians who were, at the least, familiar with and accepted the basics of the Christian religion.  And the discussions were designed for Christians who need to move from the basics to the fullness of the Gospel.

On my mission in Germany, I discovered in this Christian nation that almost every person I spoke to was an unbeliever.  That they were losing a knowledge even of the basics of the mission of Christ, so I had to adapt my lessons to this reality.  I guess, over time, the church discovered this new reality, and made the changes to focus on Christ and the basics which was being lost among the nominal Christians.

We could no longer depend on church attendance  and family to teach these principles.

You had to adapt your lessons to fit the reality....to Lutheran Christians or to non-Christians? And your mission president let you change the lessons? Our mission president would never, ever have given an OK to any missionary changing the lessons. (We had 6 lessons that we learned by heart and that we firmly believed were inspired renditions of the essentials of the church, designed to prepare investigators for baptism) 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

You had to adapt your lessons to fit the reality....to Lutheran Christians or to non-Christians? And your mission president let you change the lessons? Our mission president would never, ever have given an OK to any missionary changing the lessons. (We had 6 lessons that we learned by heart and that we firmly believed were inspired renditions of the essentials of the church, designed to prepare investigators for baptism) 

That's the difference between Mr Brown and Gospel Principles.  The whole idea of gospel principles was to get away from memorized lessons to following the spirit and tailoring the lessons to fit the investigator.

You will see fewer and fewer scripted lessons and more reading of the scriptures.  That has already happened with the youth and now finally they are trusting adults to actually make their own lessons.  You see that in the trend toward teacher councils etc.

But IF you don't attend church or haven't for years, you would not know that.

[bcuzbcuz]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That's the difference between Mr Brown and Gospel Principles.  The whole idea of gospel principles was to get away from memorized lessons to following the spirit and tailoring the lessons to fit the investigator.

You will see fewer and fewer scripted lessons and more reading of the scriptures.  That has already happened with the youth and now finally they are trusting adults to actually make their own lessons.  You see that in the trend toward teacher councils etc.

But IF you don't attend church or haven't for years, you would not know that.

I was referring to many years ago. But you're right I don't attend church to stay in tune with missionary lesson plans.

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

You had to adapt your lessons to fit the reality....to Lutheran Christians or to non-Christians? And your mission president let you change the lessons? Our mission president would never, ever have given an OK to any missionary changing the lessons. (We had 6 lessons that we learned by heart and that we firmly believed were inspired renditions of the essentials of the church, designed to prepare investigators for baptism) 

They were all atheists.

Typically we were invited into a home to teach about once a month, and we gave them the "Reader;s Digest" version of Mormonism -- Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.  We were able to get into a home about once a month, and maybe twice a year invited for a second visit.  The typical missionary had one baptism for his entire mission.  Now, forty years later, about six or more missions at that time have been combined into a single mission.

Edited December 26, 2016 by cdowis