Scott Lloyd Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 13 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: No you haven’t. Yes I have. I cited Paul's statement that we will be joint-heirs with Christ of all the Father hath. That you think this a "trite generalization" is your problem, not mine. Quote Please don’t patronise people for asking you to provide more specific details beyond your trite generalisations. I'm not obliged to provide you with speculative detail that hasn't been revealed. Nor do I consider it wise to do so. And I'm not bound by your definition of doctrine.
ALarson Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm not obliged to provide you with speculative detail that hasn't been revealed. Nor do I consider it wise to do so. Do you apply that to the details that past Prophets have taught (regarding polygamy being lived as Gods and populating & reigning over your own worlds)? Do you call that "speculative detail"? Scott, you don't want to admit that doctrines have changed but then you refuse to talk about them other than just vaguely. You avoid dealing with details past Prophets taught that are no longer taught or that have been corrected. But that's what is meant by stating that they have evolved or changed. Edited August 31, 2017 by ALarson
Marginal Gains Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Yes I have. I cited Paul's statement that we will be joint-heirs with Christ of all the Father hath. That you think this a "trite generalization" is your problem, not mine. I'm not obliged to provide you with speculative detail that hasn't been revealed. Nor do I consider it wise to do so. And I'm not bound by your definition of doctrine. No detail about what “be like God” actually means or involves, but you think the doctrine is clear? Seriously? It might just mean we can all be 6 foot 2 with blue eyes. ‘We can be like God’ is a meaningless statement unless details are given about what attributes etc this involves. It’s doctrinally unclear, as you have ably (albeit unwittingly) demonstrated. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, ALarson said: Which is proof that doctrinal teachings change and are corrected at times and even Prophets make mistakes regarding some of their teachings. But note that even in his letter, he refers to it as "doctrine" . It's proof of nothing more than that you are confused in your mind about what constitutes doctrine. In times past, there may have been difficulty among Church members in differentiating between pure doctrine and folklore/speculation. That became less of a problem after priesthood correlation was put in place. Ironically it seems some of those who complain about Church doctrine being indeterminate are also some of those who malign priesthood correlation, which has as one of its purposes to safeguard the purity of the doctrine. Edited August 31, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
ALarson Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It's proof of nothing more than that you are confused in your mind about what constitutes doctrine. And, all those past leaders and Prophets were confused too, huh? I get why you're in denial over this Scott, I truly do. You're one who claims you'd never state that Prophets and leaders are infallible, yet you are also one who refuses to discuss mistakes made or that teachings and doctrines have changed or evolved because of past errors. Once again, I do understand. No need to continue the back and forth as we won't agree. I'll move on....
Scott Lloyd Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: No detail about what “be like God” actually means or involves, but you think the doctrine is clear? Seriously? It might just mean we can all be 6 foot 2 with blue eyes. I said it was clear as far as it goes. It doesn't have to be comprehensive in detail to be clear. To phrase it another way, I don't need to have every little detail spelled out to me to accept the broad concept that exalted beings will be like God in every meaningful way. Quote ‘We can be like God’ is a meaningless statement unless details are given about what attributes etc this involves. It’s doctrinally unclear, as you have ably (albeit unwittingly) demonstrated. Inheriting with Jesus Christ all that the Father has seems quite inclusive, and for a reasonable person, is quite enough to give meaning to the statement, though it might not answer conclusively every little whimsical question that might occur to you. Edited August 31, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 12 minutes ago, ALarson said: Do you apply that to the details that past Prophets have taught (regarding polygamy being lived as Gods and populating & reigning over your own worlds)? Do you call that "speculative detail"? Past prophets, like others have been prone to engage in speculation. If, as you are at pains to remind me, they are not infallible, why do you think the above would not be true?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: And, all those past leaders and Prophets were confused too, huh? I get why you're in denial over this Scott, I truly do. You're one who claims you'd never state that Prophets and leaders are infallible, yet you are also one who refuses to discuss mistakes made or that teachings and doctrines have changed or evolved because of past errors. Once again, I do understand. No need to continue the back and forth as we won't agree. I'll move on.... Probably best that you do. I don't know why you are so angry about this.
Marginal Gains Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I said it was clear as far as it goes. It doesn't have to be comprehensive in detail to be clear. Inheriting with Jesus Christ all that the Father seems quite inclusive, and for a reasonable person, is quite enough to give meaning to the statement, though it might not answer conclusively every little whimsical question that might occur to you. “Inheriting all that the Father {has}” is quite inclusive, but we need to know what’s included. Can you point to anything doctrinal that informs us what is included and what isn’t. For instance, do we inherit the authority to change the doctrinal position of the Church?
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Past prophets, like others have been prone to engage in speculation. If, as you are at pains to remind me, they are not infallible, why do you think the above would not be true? Church Doctrine = whatever subjectively aligns with each individual's paradigm Speculation = whatever doesn't subjectively align with each individual's paradigm
Marginal Gains Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Past prophets, like others have been prone to engage in speculation. If, as you are at pains to remind me, they are not infallible, why do you think the above would not be true? Are current Prophets prone to engage in speculation, or was it just ‘past’ ones....? Because when those past Prophets were engaging in speculation, they were current Prophets. Edited August 31, 2017 by Marginal Gains
Scott Lloyd Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 9 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: “Inheriting all that the Father {has}” is quite inclusive, but we need to know what’s included. I can't imagine why your eternal salvation would be dependent upon knowing that. Quote Can you point to anything doctrinal that informs us what is included and what isn’t. From Doctrine and Covenants 84:38 Quote 37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; 38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him. To me, the word "all" doesn't leave out anything. Quote For instance, do we inherit the authority to change the doctrinal position of the Church? To change what doctrinal position of the Church? 1
Marginal Gains Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I can't imagine why your eternal salvation would be dependent upon knowing that. From Doctrine and Covenants 84:38 To me, the word "all" doesn't leave out anything. To change what doctrinal position of the Church? All very ambiguous. If I inherited all that the father has I’d be able to change any doctrinal position of the church, wouldn’t I?
ALarson Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Probably best that you do. I don't know why you are so angry about this. Yes, that laughing face means I'm angry....ha! Honestly though, no anger here. But your denial is pretty amazing to watch! And again, I do understand. Edited August 31, 2017 by ALarson
Scott Lloyd Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 10 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: Are current Prophets prone to engage in speculation, or was it just ‘past’ ones....? Because when those past Prophets were engaging in speculation, they were current Prophets. Everyone is fallible. But my impression is that a lot has been learned over time and that current Church leaders are more circumspect about what they say from the pulpit than others have been in times past.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, ALarson said: Yes, that laughing face means I'm angry....ha! Honestly though, no anger here. But your denial is pretty amazing to watch! And again, I do understand. Laughing does not always indicate merriment and good will. Sometimes it is used as a way to convey contempt. As, for example, when one engages in mockery. And you are angry. You and Marginal Gains are trying to beat up on me because I won't genuflect to your points. Looks like hope_for_things is starting to chime in too. Edited August 31, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 17 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: All very ambiguous. If I inherited all that the father has I’d be able to change any doctrinal position of the church, wouldn’t I? You're free to speculate all you like, I suppose. Just don't pass it off as doctrine.
ALarson Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Laughing does not always indicate merriment and good will. Sometimes it is used as a way to convey contempt. As, for example, when one engages in mockery. And you are angry. Not at all (being completely honest here...). And when I put a laughing or smiley face that's because I mean it as thinking something is amusing or something that makes me smile. Maybe you do it as mockery, but I hope not. What's ironic is you've completely proven the opposite point of view regarding what your intent was in posting this thread.
Marginal Gains Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You're free to speculate all you like, I suppose. Just don't pass it off as doctrine. Again, you’ve unwittingly demonstrates the point.
clarkgoble Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 1 hour ago, ALarson said: No, in reality Brigham Young stated that it was doctrine (and so did other leaders). He also had it added to the teachings in the temple. You may deny it was ever taught as doctrine, but statements and records certainly show otherwise. I could post many, many others from several sources calling it "doctrine". One really has to be careful here since technically only a few parts of the theory have been rejected. My experience is that people conflate it all. To get everything clear I'd suggest looking at Matt Brown's Fair paper from a few years back. To be clear the idea that Adam is father and god are completely fine doctrines even today. The main issue is whether Adam is God the Father and physical father of Jesus and of our spirits. The idea that Adam was an already resurrected being before falling to a terrestrial state in the garden and a telestial state after the fruit.Those are considered false. I'd note that none of the quotes you provide specify that. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 10 minutes ago, ALarson said: Not at all (being completely honest here...). And when I put a laughing or smiley face that's because I mean it as thinking something is amusing or something that makes me smile. Maybe you do it as mockery, but I hope not. What's ironic is you've completely proven the opposite point of view regarding what your intent was in posting this thread. You keep telling yourself that and I know you desperately want to believe it, but it simply isn't true. I don't have to understand every single detail about deification or theosis or divine exaltation to accept and embrace it as true conceptually. Any reasonable mind ought to be able to grasp that. The same goes for anything else on Dan Peterson's list of 50 items.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: Again, you’ve unwittingly demonstrates the point. Not at all.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: One really has to be careful here since technically only a few parts of the theory have been rejected. My experience is that people conflate it all. To get everything clear I'd suggest looking at Matt Brown's Fair paper from a few years back. To be clear the idea that Adam is father and god are completely fine doctrines even today. The main issue is whether Adam is God the Father and physical father of Jesus and of our spirits. The idea that Adam was an already resurrected being before falling to a terrestrial state in the garden and a telestial state after the fruit.Those are considered false. I'd note that none of the quotes you provide specify that. Thank you. I recall that paper by Matt Brown. It was a good one. We lost a brilliant thinker and a fine scholar when he passed away a few years ago. I miss him.
Marginal Gains Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Not at all. Completely.
JLHPROF Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 40 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: All very ambiguous. If I inherited all that the father has I’d be able to change any doctrinal position of the church, wouldn’t I? Except you don't inherit all in this life. Even Christ didn't inherit all in this life. And yes, once all has been inherited, revelation can be given to those still stumbling around in mortality to correct a wrong doctrinal position. 1
Recommended Posts