Pres. Uchtdorf at first session: the g and s building

[Bobbieaware]

54 minutes ago, Rich Hansen said:

Nobel prizes.

 

The honors of men? Big deal.

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Unlike some visions found in the scriptures, Lehi' dream is a rather easy one to understand. The vision is speaking specifically of people who either embrace Christ and his gospel or those reject Christ and the gospel. So at least according to Lehi's vision, those who hold fast to the iron rod of the word of God, and partake of the fruit of the tree of life, are believers in Christ. It's a real stretch to imagine that some of those who are holding fast to the word of God are people who don't even believe God exists.  

The vision also strongly suggests one is not justified in coming to the conclusion that every unbeliever will eventually wind up being found within the walls of the great and spacious building. This is because the particular class of unbelievers who occupy the great and spacious building are the sort who enjoy mocking and putting down others. Meanwhile there are other unbelievers who have enough of the light of Christ dwelling within them -- even though they don't realize they do -- that they are inclined to be kind to others and not of the disposition to mock and make fun of religious people for their deeply-held beliefs. Nevertheless, one cannot conclude these kinder unbelievers are going to be found among those believers in God who are holding fast to the word of God in Lehi's dream. But the day of their encounter with God and their tests of faith on the path of the iron rod that leads to the tree of life will come sooner or later.

2 For verily the voice of the Lord is unto all men, and there is none to escape; and there is no eye that shall not see, neither ear that shall not hear, neither heart that shall not be penetrated. (D&C 1)

Because I believe in Christ and am holding fast to the word of God, I believe I am one of those clinging to the iron rod somewhere along the path that leads to the tree of life. And their have even been days when I have tasted the fruit.

 

 

I"m curious, what made you choose your screenname - Bobbieaware?

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

So you acknowledge the Gospel is is about both fruits (works) AND beliefs -- "The gospel is about fruits and beliefs only in as much as you follow the principles. Is the following corollary to the above equally valid? 'The Gospel is about beliefs and the fruits of belief, only in as much as what is believed is true.'

Yes, I think I agree with this, although I would have a very liberal definition for truth in this scenario and it would be contextual.  

[Five Solas]

On 9/23/2017 at 6:18 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf is giving an important address at the first session (women's session) of general conference right now.

He is referring to Lehi's dream and speaking specifically about the great and spacious building in that dream, applying it to those who doubt, let go of the iron rod, wander away from the path and even join those in the building in their mocking and laughing at those who are still on the path.

"Choosing the path of discipleship will lead to the fulfillment of your divine nature."

...

Seems like a pretty empty claim, at least to me. 

Per the Bible, we humans are image bearers of God (Genesis 1:26).  That gives us worth, that makes us different from the rest of God's creation.  But that doesn't grant us a divine nature, anymore than the mirror in the bathroom bearing my image shares my nature.  Scripture describes only one man as having a divine nature, and his name was Jesus (I'll skip listing verses in support of what Christians call the "Hypostatic Union"--but they are many). 

It would be interesting to hear Uchtdorf explain what he means by his words, "divine nature" and what he supposes "fulfillment" would look like, materially or otherwise.   

--Erik

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Seems like a pretty empty claim, at least to me. 

Per the Bible, we humans are image bearers of God (Genesis 1:26).  That gives us worth, that makes us different from the rest of God's creation.  But that doesn't grant us a divine nature, anymore than the mirror in the bathroom bearing my image shares my nature.  Scripture describes only one man as having a divine nature, and his name was Jesus (I'll skip listing verses in support of what Christians call the "Hypostatic Union"--but they are many). 

It would be interesting to hear Uchtdorf explain what he means by his words, "divine nature" and what he supposes "fulfillment" would look like, materially or otherwise.   

--Erik

The phrase, as it's used in the LDS church, comes from 2 Peter 1: 4-7

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.  And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;  And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;  And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

We believe that we inherit divine qualities from our Father in Heaven (just as all children inherit qualities from their parents), and that we have a duty to develop them.  We develop them by following Christ, who makes that inheritance possible.

So no, not an empty claim.

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by bluebell

[Five Solas]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The phrase, as it's used in the LDS church, comes from 2 Peter 1: 4-7

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.  And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;  And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;  And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

We believe that we inherit divine qualities from our Father in Heaven (just as all children inherit qualities from their parents), and that we have a duty to develop them.  We develop them by following Christ, who makes that inheritance possible.

So no, not an empty claim.

 

Uchtdorf uses "divine nature" in the present tense, bluebell.  To Uchtdorf, it's something we have already.  That's an altogether different notion from "you may become partakers" (NASB) expressed in 2 Peter. 

--Erik

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Seems like a pretty empty claim, at least to me. 

Per the Bible, we humans are image bearers of God (Genesis 1:26).  That gives us worth, that makes us different from the rest of God's creation.  But that doesn't grant us a divine nature, anymore than the mirror in the bathroom bearing my image shares my nature.  Scripture describes only one man as having a divine nature, and his name was Jesus (I'll skip listing verses in support of what Christians call the "Hypostatic Union"--but they are many). 

It would be interesting to hear Uchtdorf explain what he means by his words, "divine nature" and what he supposes "fulfillment" would look like, materially or otherwise.   

--Erik

Paul believed that Jesus was adopted by God at his resurrection and transformed into a divine spirit being. A new species. He also believed that followers of Jesus would be similarly transformed, joint heirs with Christ. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Gray

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I think I agree with this, although I would have a very liberal definition for truth in this scenario and it would be contextual.  

As in the Book of Mormon is "scripture" but only in a very liberal definition of the word because the whole book, from start to finish, including the most significant chapters pertaining to the Savior's post-resurrection ministry among the Nephites, is a fraudulent work of pure fiction?

[Five Solas]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Paul believed that Jesus was adopted by God at his resurrection and transformed a divine, spirit being. A new species. He also believed that followers of Jesus would be similarly transformed and made divine. 

share a few verses, please!

:0)

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

As in the Book of Mormon is "scripture" but only in a very liberal definition of the word because the whole book, from start to finish, including the most significant chapters pertaining to the Savior's post-resurrection ministry among the Nephites, is a fraudulent work of pure fiction?

The status of the BoM as scripture is not contingent upon its historicity, and that goes for all works of scripture.  

I meant liberal definition of truth because some people conflate religious truths with other types of truth, and some people think religious truth is universal and I think its often contextual and relative.  

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Uchtdorf uses "divine nature" in the present tense, bluebell.  To Uchtdorf, it's something we have already.  That's an altogether different notion from "you may become partakers" (NASB) expressed in 2 Peter. 

--Erik

He spoke both in the present and future tense.

As i said, LDS believe that we currently have a divine nature because we are all, as Paul said to both believers and nonbelievers, the offspring of God.  All offspring have the same nature as their parents, and the inborn ability to eventually grow to be like them.  (Present tense divine nature.)

Because of the Fall, it is through the Atonement of Christ that we ultimately gain the fulfillment of our divine nature and become like our Father in Heaven, by becoming joint-heirs in Christ.  (Future tense divine nature.)

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So you're more a believer in faith than works it sounds like?   

I believe in the doctrine of Christ as He Himself defined it:

 

Quote

 

31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.

 

(3 Nephi 11:31-41)

To me, "doctrine of Christ" is synonymous with "gospel of Christ."

The words "of Christ" are in the phrase "gospel of Christ" for a reason.

If one does not believe in Christ, one does not believe in HIs doctrine. As stated above, "And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them."

 

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If one does not believe in Christ, one does not believe in HIs doctrine.

I don't really agree with that statement, Scott.  I have know many who follow the teachings (or doctrines) of Christ who are not Christian or who don't even believe Christ lived.  I've had discussions with a few of them and they express that they believe the teachings attributed to the fictional teacher or man, "Jesus Christ", are good teachings to live by.  Many of them are some of the best, most Christlike people I know.

Edited September 26, 2017 by ALarson

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

share a few verses, please!

:0)

Okay, I'm going to cheat a little and go beyond Paul:

Quote

 

Hebrews 1:4-5

 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
    today I have become your Father”?

 

 

Quote

Philippians 2:5-11, “The attitude you should have is the one Christ had: Although he existed in the form of God he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God. Instead, he emptied himself and took the form of a slave and came to be in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient until death, even on a cross. For this reason God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name. And so, in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and of those underground. And every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

 

Quote

1 Cor 15

 

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man,so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.

50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”[h]

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Seems like a pretty empty claim, at least to me. 

Per the Bible, we humans are image bearers of God (Genesis 1:26).  That gives us worth, that makes us different from the rest of God's creation.  But that doesn't grant us a divine nature, anymore than the mirror in the bathroom bearing my image shares my nature.  Scripture describes only one man as having a divine nature, and his name was Jesus (I'll skip listing verses in support of what Christians call the "Hypostatic Union"--but they are many). 

It would be interesting to hear Uchtdorf explain what he means by his words, "divine nature" and what he supposes "fulfillment" would look like, materially or otherwise.   

--Erik

This is one example where Protestant theology lacks the fullness of the gospel.

The gospel, as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith, includes the doctrine of exalation, whereby those who make and keep covenants with God may inherit all that He has, including all of His divine attributes and, yes, His divine nature.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't really agree with that statement, Scott.  I have know many who follow the teachings (or doctrines) of Christ who are not Christian or who don't even believe Christ lived.  I've had discussions with a few of them and they express that they believe the teachings attributed to the fictional teacher or man, "Jesus Christ", are good teachings to live by.  Many of them are some of the best, most Christlike people I know.

I've no doubt they will be blessed to the extent they practice Christlike virtues, but I cannot accept a contradiction of what Christ said in the verses I cited about embracing His gospel.

 

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't really agree with that statement, Scott.  I have know many who follow the teachings (or doctrines) of Christ who are not Christian or who don't even believe Christ lived.  I've had discussions with a few of them and they express that they believe the teachings attributed to the fictional teacher or man, "Jesus Christ", are good teachings to live by.  Many of them are some of the best, most Christlike people I know.

This brings up something I've been thinking about for a while. What's the best way to honor Jesus? To follow the gospel he most likely taught? That is to say, the gospel of good works and of distributive justice culminating in the eschaton. Or to follow the theologies that were developed after his death about salvation through belief in Jesus? 

As someone coming from a restorationist tradition, my inclination is to go back to the source. There are of course counter arguments to that too. 

But, perhaps that's a topic for another thread. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Gray

[mnn727]

On 9/24/2017 at 11:31 AM, Tacenda said:

I also tuned in late because I went to a movie and caught Elder Uchtdorf's talk that was almost over. I wasn't happy that he made the analogy with the tree of life and the people laughing in the big and spacious building, it seemed he was making an analogy directed to members such as me, minus the laughing outsiders but those that turn away from the tree because of doubt. Or atleast that's how I took it. 

I have not yet heard/read his talk, but why weren't you happy with what he said? 

If you leave the path, if you worry about the people in the building more than the Iron Rod, you won't end up at the Tree. Certainly its not the first time you've heard that story, its in the BoM.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is one example where Protestant theology lacks the fullness of the gospel.

The gospel, as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith, includes the doctrine of exalation, whereby those who make and keep covenants with God may inherit all that He has, including all of His divine attributes and, yes, His divine nature.

As far as I know, becoming a joint-heir with Christ in receiving all that the Father has is a part of protestant doctrine.  The bible teaches it in Romans 8:17 and Revelation 21:7.  But for some reason they don't believe that inheriting all actually means all.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

This brings up something I've been thinking about for a while. What's the best way to honor Jesus? To follow the gospel he most likely taught? That is to say, the gospel of good works and of distributive justice culminating in the eschaton. Or to follow the theologies that were developed after his death about salvation through belief in Jesus? 

As someone coming from a restorationist tradition, my inclination is to go back to the source. 

But, perhaps that's a topic for another thread. 

It probably is a topic for another thread, but, can we, on our own, really differentiate between what Jesus taught and what was developed by people?  Everything that we know about Jesus, including what he taught, is filtered through other people and written down either before or after His death.

Ultimately, there is no difference between the teaching of Jesus which says "love your enemies" and the teaching of Jesus which says "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe in the doctrine of Christ as He Himself defined it:

 

(3 Nephi 11:31-41)

To me, "doctrine of Christ" is synonymous with "gospel of Christ."

The words "of Christ" are in the phrase "gospel of Christ" for a reason.

If one does not believe in Christ, one does not believe in HIs doctrine. As stated above, "And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them."

 

This is still a matter of interpretation.  How can we judge whether someone "believes in Christ"?  I would submit that following the principles as espoused by Christ, or "feeding his sheep" is the measuring stick for this belief.  I'm not one that cares about confessing the name of Jesus, and I can't imagine why God would care about that either. 

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It probably is a topic for another thread, but, can we, on our own, really differentiate between what Jesus taught and what was developed by people?  Everything that we know about Jesus, including what he taught, is filtered through other people and written down either before or after His death.

Ultimately, there is no difference between the teaching of Jesus which says "love your enemies" and the teaching of Jesus which says "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  

It's fuzzy, admittedly. But there are things that attributed to Jesus with more historical likelihood of him having taught it and others with less historical likelihood of him having taught it. It's unlikely, for example, that Jesus ever wanted or intended that anyone should worship him or consider him to be a divine being. It's unlikely that Jesus ever had a notion about atoning for the sins of humanity. That's how his death was interpreted only in hindsight. 

But we'll never have any historical certainty here. 

Maybe this belongs in a new thread. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Gray

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's fuzzy, admittedly. But there are things that attributed to Jesus with more historical likelihood of him having taught it and others with less historical likelihood of him having taught it. It's unlikely, for example, that Jesus ever wanted or intended that anyone should worship him or consider him to be a divine being. It's unlikely that Jesus ever had a notion about atoning for the sins of humanity. That's how his death was interpreted only in hindsight. 

But we'll never have any historical certainty here. 

Maybe this belongs in a new thread. 

Why is that unlikely?

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why is that unlikely?

Should we start another thread to discuss?

[mnn727]

17 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

Another question: Can you name one good thing the atheists have that the Latter-Day Saints don't already have?

10% more money and extra sleep on Sundays? ---- sorry, couldn't help myself there.