Sunslight Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Right there. So if you are not the Arbiter, why do you insist on your interpretation to the exclusion of the others? It's not my interpretation, it's the most well understood doctrine in LDS theology about repentance and forgiveness. Never at anytime has the church taught it was about the glories.
Sunslight Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I have no idea how you got that impression. I am doing no such thing. This is a parable. You are the expert at parables. Jim Jones set himself up as the Arbiter of Truth. You have already admitted you are not an arbiter If that's the case then why do you insist that there is no other interpretation possible? You skating a fine line with the whole Jim Jones thing. Be careful.
mfbukowski Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Sunslight said: It's not my interpretation, it's the most well understood doctrine in LDS theology about repentance and forgiveness. Never at anytime has the church taught it was about the glories. Irrelevant . That has no relevance to the interpretation of a parable and adding other possible meanings. Of course it's important Doctrine. Nobody's disputing that. Edited February 10, 2020 by mfbukowski
Sunslight Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Irrelevant . That has no relevance to the interpretation of a parable and adding other possible meanings. Of course it's important Doctrine. Nobody's disputing that. It is totally relevant. If you have people stretching the parable into the doctrine of glories it changes Christ's doctrine completely. It's like saying that Christ's atonement really has no restorative power. It is like saying that the only way one can have celestial glory is to never ever get lost in the first place. Well, that's impossible then for anyone besides little children who die to ever get celestial glory.
CV75 Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 14 hours ago, Sunslight said: Sounds like quite the stretch. Isn't telestial glory supposed to surpass all understanding? Riotous living isn't glory that surpasseth all understanding. Stretching a parable is different than finding an additional, layered consideration obtained from other revelations (See Alma 12: 9-11). 1
CV75 Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Sunslight said: It is totally relevant. If you have people stretching the parable into the doctrine of glories it changes Christ's doctrine completely. It's like saying that Christ's atonement really has no restorative power. It is like saying that the only way one can have celestial glory is to never ever get lost in the first place. Well, that's impossible then for anyone besides little children who die to ever get celestial glory. Alternative applications of a parable does not change any doctrine. The prodigals are still welcome back, and we find parallels to the post-resurrection kingdoms of glory in the trajectories we take -- and through Christ can repent of -- in this life. Edited February 10, 2020 by CV75 1
Sunslight Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 26 minutes ago, CV75 said: Stretching a parable is different than finding an additional, layered consideration obtained from other revelations (See Alma 12: 9-11). The consideration of differing glories in the parable here is without merit. You actually take away from, or move in the wrong direction from, Christ's doctrine about repentance and forgiveness in suggesting a layered meaning of differing glories with these parables. They were not meant to convey different rewards for the repentant here. The principle being taught here is God's mercy and willingness to forgive and have joy with those who repent and return unto Him.
Sunslight Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 29 minutes ago, CV75 said: Alternative applications of a parable does not change any doctrine. The prodigals are still welcome back, and we find parallels to the post-resurrection kingdoms of glory in the trajectories we take -- and through Christ can repent of -- in this life. It does change the doctrine though. We are all like the prodigal son, the lost coin and lost sheep. Romans 3 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. 1 Nephi 10 6 Wherefore, all mankind were in a lost and in a fallen state, and ever would be save they should rely on this Redeemer. Mosiah 16 4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state. Alma 34 9 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.
CV75 Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Sunslight said: The consideration of differing glories in the parable here is without merit. You actually take away from, or move in the wrong direction from, Christ's doctrine about repentance and forgiveness in suggesting a layered meaning of differing glories with these parables. They were not meant to convey different rewards for the repentant here. The principle being taught here is God's mercy and willingness to forgive and have joy with those who repent and return unto Him. I don't think you're listening or saying anything new. One principle garnered from a parable doesn't take away from another principle garnered from it, neither does a principle garnered from another scriptural source, applied to a parable, take away from either the parable or the principle(s) garnered from it. We do liken all scriptures unto us. 1 hour ago, Sunslight said: It does change the doctrine though. I don't think you're listening or saying anything new. One doctrine doesn't take away from another. 2
Sunslight Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 14 minutes ago, CV75 said: I don't think you're listening or saying anything new. One principle garnered from a parable doesn't take away from another principle garnered from it, neither does a principle garnered from another scriptural source, applied to a parable, take away from either the parable or the principle(s) garnered from it. We do liken all scriptures unto us. I don't think you're listening or saying anything new. One doctrine doesn't take away from another. I'm listening. Christ wasn't giving a sermon on differing rewards for the faithful here. If one is trying to read that into it then they are misunderstanding Christ's teachings on the matter he is giving.
mfbukowski Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Sunslight said: It is totally relevant. If you have people stretching the parable into the doctrine of glories it changes Christ's doctrine completely. It's like saying that Christ's atonement really has no restorative power. It is like saying that the only way one can have celestial glory is to never ever get lost in the first place. Well, that's impossible then for anyone besides little children who die to ever get celestial glory. Back to where we began. No credibility whatsoever. Round and round we go. Answer no questions. Repeat. Might as well go read my shampoo bottle.
Sunslight Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Back to where we began. No credibility whatsoever. Round and round we go. Answer no questions. Repeat. Might as well go read my shampoo bottle. You should self examine brother.
mfbukowski Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 24 minutes ago, CV75 said: I don't think you're listening or saying anything new. One principle garnered from a parable doesn't take away from another principle garnered from it, neither does a principle garnered from another scriptural source, applied to a parable, take away from either the parable or the principle(s) garnered from it. We do liken all scriptures unto us. I don't think you're listening or saying anything new. One doctrine doesn't take away from another. Shampoo. Or maybe not sham.
mfbukowski Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Sunslight said: You should self examine brother. First good thing you said that makes sense, thanks. It must have been the chicken. Edited February 10, 2020 by mfbukowski
Sunslight Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 Instead of delving into the true mysteries here we have relegated the doctrines of Christ and delivered it amongst the swine. Wouldn't we be better to understand some of the greater symbolism here such as what the significance of the "best robe" means or the ring placed on the finger of the prodigal son?
CV75 Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Shampoo. Or maybe not sham. 1
The Nehor Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 12 hours ago, Sunslight said: You skating a fine line with the whole Jim Jones thing. Be careful. Was leaning in to being creepy and threatening intentional there? 1
mfbukowski Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: Was leaning in to being creepy and threatening intentional there? And he's anonymous.
Sunslight Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 Properly understood, Jesus calls out the Pharisees and scribes in the parable and turns the table onto them. The publicans and sinners represent the prodigal son who Christ eats with while the Pharisees and scribes who profess self righteousness remain outside of the feast because of their own pride. The best robe and ring represent in the end who becomes cleansed, saved and ruler over and in God's kingdom and it isnt the Pharisees and scribes but the humble who attain such. The parable really is about the feast and who is eating at the feast. This represents eating of the sacraments of the tree of life in God's kingdom. The Pharisees were accusing Christ of giving mercy to the sinner and eating with them. The parable given is directed at them twofold. First, to show them that God's mercy is extended to both the publican and sinner and the Pharisees and scribes. And Second, to show That it is easier to overcome the world with humility and come to the feast than it is for the prideful man who is self righteous and that to him is not given to be a ruler in his kingdom.
Stargazer Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 On 2/9/2020 at 9:01 PM, Sunslight said: I find it interesting that you say don't do that with how the servants fit in but yet you are doing the same thing. Should I say don't do that back at you? All I was saying was that the servants and the other things were merely window-dressing for the parable. They don't take part in the parable nor its message (they were, in modern parlance, NPCs or non-playble characters). On the other hand, I was commenting upon the meaning of the words uttered by one of the two principals in the story, which bore directly upon the message of the parable. And there is a secondary character in the parable: the faithful son. The third message in the parable comes from him, that we should not complain when God forgives a sinner (in other words, don't hold a grudge against a repentant sinner). Sorry, I was going to let you have the last word on that one, but I had to respond to your question.
Sunslight Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Stargazer said: All I was saying was that the servants and the other things were merely window-dressing for the parable. They don't take part in the parable nor its message (they were, in modern parlance, NPCs or non-playble characters). On the other hand, I was commenting upon the meaning of the words uttered by one of the two principals in the story, which bore directly upon the message of the parable. And there is a secondary character in the parable: the faithful son. The third message in the parable comes from him, that we should not complain when God forgives a sinner (in other words, don't hold a grudge against a repentant sinner). Sorry, I was going to let you have the last word on that one, but I had to respond to your question. Yeah, the more I read it the more I understand the faithful son isn't really that faithful. Edited February 13, 2020 by Sunslight
theplains Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 On 1/26/2020 at 7:32 PM, InCognitus said: What is the difference in your view between those who are led by the Spirit of God and the LDS teaching about those who are exalted beings? From what I have seen in LDS teachings, only the sons of God (joint heirs) are exalted beings. I don't believe the sons of God are Deities.
Recommended Posts