New Revelations and the Future

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

Please let it be the two hour block. Please let it be the two hour block.

And putting Scouting out of its misery (and us out of ours). 

Edited April 9, 2018 by rongo

[stemelbow]

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 12:36 AM, The Nehor said:

 

I can also say that these changes are only the beginning.

 

Changes?  or revelation?  So was not the age change thingy a change?  a revelation?  Wasn't the nov 2015 policy change a change or a revelation?  Surprised to see you think the Elders and High priests meeting together and the renaming of home teaching as a beginning of changes.  

[CMZ]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course not.  I remember the warning of the prophet Joseph well and my temple covenants.  I do not condemn our leaders or the Church, nor do I call myself righteous.

I simply compare and contrast the revelation, doctrine, and ordinances restored by revelation straight from God and the heavens above through the Prophet Joseph Smith and systematized by his immediate successors against the Church today.

Seeing the differences, the plain and precious things lost, and the lack of recorded revelation that brought them about is easy to see.

But as I have repeatedly said here consistently God can course correct his own ship.  Not my place to do it, no matter how glaring the change from the early truths may be.

Is there a lack of recorded revelation or is it a lack for a while of published revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants? Because I think there's an important difference.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Nelson’s version of revelation is indistinguishable from normal corporate decision making processes, except they (corporate decision making processes) happen much faster and with more reliable and effective results.

Corporations make decisions unanimously with the influence of the Holy Spirit?

id like to know what company does that 

[Avatar4321]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Changes?  or revelation?  So was not the age change thingy a change?  a revelation?  Wasn't the nov 2015 policy change a change or a revelation?  Surprised to see you think the Elders and High priests meeting together and the renaming of home teaching as a beginning of changes.  

I’m puzzled as to why you think the beginning of changes doesn’t include all of the above.

the Lord is setting His House in order and preparing laborers for the vineyard

[MiserereNobis]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Never again a mention of the word consubstantial

So, if I start a thread on the Holy Trinity you promise you won't post?

 

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, Gray said:

Please let it be the two hour block. Please let it be the two hour block.

That is exactly what my dad said when I told him there was more coming.  

Wait.....you are not my dad are you?

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I’m puzzled as to why you think the beginning of changes doesn’t include all of the above.

the Lord is setting His House in order and preparing laborers for the vineyard

I didn't say that.  I was confused too, when Nehor proclaimed these most recent changes as the beginning of changes to come.  I thought changes were already happening.  

The Lord or the people making those decisions are trying to fix the mess already created, maybe.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is exactly what my dad said when I told him there was more coming.  

Wait.....you are not my dad are you?

Son?

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Is there a lack of recorded revelation or is it a lack for a while of published revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants? Because I think there's an important difference.

That is a fair point.
We can only go on the words of our leaders.  They haven't described a revelation that consisted of any actual words coming to the whole Church in many, many years.
Even President Kimball's revelation as described by those present featured no actual words from God.  Just feelings.

Is it possible that the Lord is still speaking to our leaders?  Sure.  And could it be a case of them not making those words from God public?  Maybe.
Except they have claimed to receive revelation, but all descriptions of revelation no longer feature the Lord actually communicating words.

Wouldn't it be as challenging to believe God still speaks to them when they have made no such claim as it is to believe all revelation has ceased when they have claimed to receive it?
Whichever side of "is there continuing revelation to the Church" you land on, it simply has to be based on our faith and understanding.  Because the physical evidence is completely absent.

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So, if I start a thread on the Holy Trinity you promise you won't post?

 

Lol.

No I will be pledged to destroy it.

 

[RevTestament]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We still think like Protestants and are too worried about what they think about for example Eternal progression and the Council of the Gods Etc.

We need to affirm more clearly that God is a glorified Human and we are his children and we look forward to glorifying all of humanity.

Our objectives are much like those of humanism but a humanism that has theism as its prime directive, and that itself is based on the Insight that God himself is a glorified human or must be thought of that way. That view glorifies real Humanity not some Cloud floating in space.

Our goal needs to be stated in terms of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity, through the sacrifice and Resurrection of the very human ideal, Jesus Christ.

No more arguments about faith versus works which lead nowhere. No more arguments about our Jesus versus your Jesus. No more arguments about the nature of the trinity. Never again a mention of the word consubstantial . All that is nonsense.

No more worrying about the historicity of any Scripture. That is irrelevant to the concepts found in the scriptures

No more worrying about science being in conflict with the scriptures. They are both true within their given context.

All truth is to be tested in terms of Alma 32 and its pragmatic value in a given context.

We are all part of the family of God. That's all there is to it. We are all brothers and sisters. Our goal is to make the world understand that. We want to grow up and become just like our Heavenly parents. The process is as natural as can be.

And all that can be taken literally or allegorically whichever works for the individual.

In my never humble opinion I think that is the direction we need to go.

IMNHO - a new internet acronym! I like that - ever honest. 

While I largely agree with you, I wonder if failing to discuss "the trinity" at all is really a good thing. I believe most of the Christians in the world are stuck on the concept of the trinity which has come into being after evolving for several hundred years. I believe it helpful to show why I do not believe in the trinity as so taught me. If others at least see faults in the doctrine as taught, I believe it will help them to better understand the Scriptures and why they should alter their views on God as you propose. For me it was a somewhat hard fought and drawn out process. If they do not understand the rationale, why should they change? I believe all people wish to worship the true form of God, but they simply do not know what they don't know. It helps for someone to show what they don't know.

While what you advocate is a good goal - teaching goals alone is not going to convert the world, when much of Christianity views those goals as wicked desires. They have to understand why that is not so.

[Duncan]

If church did go to 2 hours, I wonder how that would look like? one week it's sacrament and P/RS and the next sacrament and SS?

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

IMNHO - a new internet acronym! I like that - ever honest. 

While I largely agree with you, I wonder if failing to discuss "the trinity" at all is really a good thing. I believe most of the Christians in the world are stuck on the concept of the trinity which has come into being after evolving for several hundred years. I believe it helpful to show why I do not believe in the trinity as so taught me. If others at least see faults in the doctrine as taught, I believe it will help them to better understand the Scriptures and why they should alter their views on God as you propose. For me it was a somewhat hard fought and drawn out process. If they do not understand the rationale, why should they change? I believe all people wish to worship the true form of God, but they simply do not know what they don't know. It helps for someone to show what they don't know.

While what you advocate is a good goal - teaching goals alone is not going to convert the world, when much of Christianity views those goals as wicked desires. They have to understand why that is not so.

Oh no I fully agree. I think we need to teach Protestants where their beliefs actually came from. What typical Christians do not understand is that most of their beliefs are pagan  Greek philosophy that really is not Christian in any way.

But mentioning the apostasy is typically alienating to them and therefore non-productive.

So it's kind of a quandary. It is actually a problem we have been trying to solve in a hundred fifty years.

So I guess what I meant to say is that we need to teach exactly what the problem is so that at least our people can understand it.

The immaterial Cloud God made of nothing is Greek philosophy.

Maybe we could just teach it that simply. And those who wanted to understand Plato who thought that ideas about chairs were more real than chairs themselves, therefore ideas about God were more real than concrete human Gods, had nothing to do with the Jewish conception of the God of Abraham could take the advanced course.

I get to teach 14 year olds about the apostasy this Sunday. Maybe I can try out that approach then.

They worship clouds we worship the family. Is that simple enough?

I think the idea of family unity is a little more solid than consubstantiality.

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Atheist Mormon]

On 4/8/2018 at 1:36 AM, The Nehor said:

I can't give my source but I can say that both of these major changes were being considered by the Apostles for a few years under President Monson. This was not rush job by President Nelson.

I can also say that these changes are only the beginning.

And for those who think this is a lesser law I can also say they are wrong.

The good ship Zion sails on.

Sorry for taking some wind of those sails but I could give that free advice 2+ decades ago for free......It wasn't working then.

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

If church did go to 2 hours, I wonder how that would look like? one week it's sacrament and P/RS and the next sacrament and SS?

My thought? Sunday School would be eliminated. I don't think Sunday School affects much. Those who study, study; and those who don't, don't gain much from it (speaking of adults and youth). Primary would be a different story. I think the primary kids gain a lot from primary lessons --- especially where there are deficiencies in their families. 

Priesthood/Relief society would need to stay, if it were between that and SS. We aren't asked about Sunday school in temple recommend interviews . . .  

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh no I fully agree. I think we need to teach Protestants where their beliefs actually came from. What typical Christians do not understand is that most of their beliefs are pagan  Greek philosophy that really is not Christian in any way.

But mentioning the apostasy is typically alienating to them and therefore non-productive.

So it's kind of a quandary. It is actually a problem we have been trying to solve in a hundred fifty years.

So I guess what I meant to say is that we need to teach exactly what the problem is so that at least our people can understand it.

The immaterial Cloud God made of nothing is Greek philosophy.

Maybe we could just teach it that simply. And those who wanted to understand Plato who thought that ideas about chairs were more real than chairs themselves, therefore ideas about God were more real than concrete human Gods, had nothing to do with the Jewish conception of the God of Abraham could take the advanced course.

I get to teach 14 year olds about the apostasy this Sunday. Maybe I can try out that approach then.

They worship clouds we worship the family. Is that simple enough?

I think the idea of family unity is a little more solid than consubstantiality.

 

The immortal soul also comes from Greek philosophy. Christianity itself in inseparable from "pagan" influence. If you take that away it's more or less just the Pharisaical (not in the polemical sense) Judaism of the first century. 

What does it matter if you worship a "cloud" or worship the family, as long as it helps you to be your best self? Mormonism works best for some people. Orthodox Christianity works best for others. I don't know of one religious tradition that works for everyone.

[Gray]

35 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

IMNHO - a new internet acronym! I like that - ever honest. 

While I largely agree with you, I wonder if failing to discuss "the trinity" at all is really a good thing. I believe most of the Christians in the world are stuck on the concept of the trinity which has come into being after evolving for several hundred years. I believe it helpful to show why I do not believe in the trinity as so taught me. If others at least see faults in the doctrine as taught, I believe it will help them to better understand the Scriptures and why they should alter their views on God as you propose. For me it was a somewhat hard fought and drawn out process. If they do not understand the rationale, why should they change? I believe all people wish to worship the true form of God, but they simply do not know what they don't know. It helps for someone to show what they don't know.

While what you advocate is a good goal - teaching goals alone is not going to convert the world, when much of Christianity views those goals as wicked desires. They have to understand why that is not so.

The LDS Godhead is very similar to the Trinity. They're not different enough to be worth arguing about. The biggest difference is not the numerical formulation, but the other attributes of God (timeless/boundless/infinite vs finite exalted human)

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh no I fully agree. I think we need to teach Protestants where their beliefs actually came from. What typical Christians do not understand is that most of their beliefs are pagan  Greek philosophy that really is not Christian in any way.

But mentioning the apostasy is typically alienating to them and therefore non-productive.

So it's kind of a quandary. It is actually a problem we have been solved in a hundred fifty years.

So I guess what I meant to say is that we need to teach exactly what the problem is so that at least our people can understand it.

The immaterial Cloud God made of nothing is Greek philosophy.

Maybe we could just teach it that simply. And those who wanted to understand Plato who thought that ideas about chairs were more real than chairs themselves, therefore ideas about God were more real than concrete human Gods, had nothing to do with the Jewish conception of God as a father, could take the advanced course.

I get to teach 14 year olds about the apostasy this Sunday. Maybe I can try out that approach then.

I would love to teach that! It would take me more than one class though.  I wonder why Protestants fight the idea so much when their founders essentially all declared the evils of the RCC, and refused to follow not only its scriptures but many of its teachings! Yet, they now say there was no apostasy...

I guess they were all in error, and should return to the non-apostate RCC - I probably shouldn't say that - some of them are actually doing that. In some ways I do feel the RCC has kept more truth than many of the Protestant churches. 

Anyways, there are certainly a good number of scriptures on point. Does the lesson include Rev 12, and how the woman is driven out into the wilderness? It is hard to conceive of Rome being "the wilderness." That would probably be my starting point.

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

The LDS Godhead is very similar to the Trinity. They're not different enough to be worth arguing about. The biggest difference is not the numerical formulation, but the other attributes of God (timeless/boundless/infinite vs finite exalted human)

i disagree. I do not believe the Son will be the Son forevermore. That is a major fault of the DOT. Further, as taught, the DOT teaches the Son was never really begotten. It just gives it lip service, but denies the plain meaning of the word begotten.  Was the Son made perfect or not? How is He unique? These are questions with which I disagree with the DOT which I believe adopted an unscriptural viewpoint beginning with the Nicene Creed - I do NOT believe the Son was begotten before all ages or worlds. I believe He was begotten by the oath of the Father who said to Him "Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee." Both Acts and Hebrews make this clear. So although LDS may not have come to understand this yet, it is a major sticking point for me, and will be the downfall of the DOT. The son is my Father. As He sits on His throne beside our Father, He shall be crowned the Father - not a new God, but to rule and reign as the Father with his Fathers forevermore - no more to return to corruption - nor to the the Sonship forevermore as the DOT teaches with its doctrines of immutability. The immutable Son of the DOT cannot inherit the government nor the title of the Father - you see immutability precludes inheritance and glorification.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

i disagree. I do not believe the Son will be the Son forevermore. That is a major fault of the DOT. Further, as taught, the DOT teaches the Son was never really begotten. It just gives it lip service, but denies the plain meaning of the word begotten.  Was the Son made perfect or not? How is He unique? These are questions with which I disagree with the DOT which I believe adopted an unscriptural viewpoint beginning with the Nicene Creed - I do NOT believe the Son was begotten before all ages or worlds. I believe He was begotten by the oath of the Father who said to Him "Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee." Both Acts and Hebrews make this clear. So although LDS may not have come to understand this yet, it is a major sticking point for me, and will be the downfall of the DOT. The son is my Father. As He sits on His throne beside our Father, He shall be crowned the Father - not a new God, but to rule and reign as the Father with his Fathers forevermore - no more to return to corruption - nor to the the Sonship forevermore as the DOT teaches with its doctrines of immutability. The immutable Son of the DOT cannot inherit the government nor the title of the Father - you see immutability precludes inheritance and glorification.

Are you saying someday Jesus won't be his Father's son anymore?

Regarding when Jesus was "begotten" by God, LDS doctrine states he was ALWAYS the son. That's consistent with John.

However, there are different NT teachings about that. According to Paul, Jesus as adopted as Son of God/made a divine being after his resurrection. According to Matthew/Luke, that happened at his birth. According to Mark, that happened at his baptism. Generally Christianity sides with John, that says Jesus was divine from before the earth was made. Mormonism agrees.

The essential difference between the trinity and the godhead is this: three persons in one God vs three persons in one Godhead. Not worth arguing about.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The immortal soul also comes from Greek philosophy. Christianity itself in inseparable from "pagan" influence. If you take that away it's more or less just the Pharisaical (not in the polemical sense) Judaism of the first century. 

What does it matter if you worship a "cloud" or worship the family, as long as it helps you to be your best self? Mormonism works best for some people. Orthodox Christianity works best for others. I don't know of one religious tradition that works for everyone.

Uh, no

Indigenous peoples everywhere believe in an afterlife. To say that the idea of an immortal Soul comes from Greek philosophy is ridiculous.

The New Testament was influenced to a small degree by Greek philosophy.

To me the restoration is a coherent statement of philosophies brought forth by Joseph Smith and others in the early church as we know it, as an interpretation of the Bible, including regarding the canonized scriptures as scripture.

I think very few actually believe that our church exactly reproduces early Christianity, but is to some extent a reinterpretation for our time.

I see it as a structure and a framework for a philosophical interpretation of Christianity that has not been fully filled in. It gives us a foundation with all the plumbing and electrical finished we just need to paint it and put it in the furniture, or finish the cosmetics if you will.

Edited April 9, 2018 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Son?

Dad! We can be a family again!

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Sorry for taking some wind of those sails but I could give that free advice 2+ decades ago for free......It wasn't working then.

Are you suggesting the President Nelson overpaid for this revelation?

[Gray]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Dad! We can be a family again!

I promised myself I wouldn't cry...