Doctrinal Amendments . What Is the Correct Term?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

It is too bad we don’t have live chat ability. That might help.

That's what telephones are for.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 2/24/2020 at 3:45 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I'm asking the question because this is a discussion board and you posted a claim and I wanted more information on it. I ask this type of question often because I know there are many people here who have their own ideas or speculations and I was wondering if this was one of those time.

If I made a claim about Catholicism and somebody asked me if that was official Catholic view or my own take on it I wouldn't have a problem telling them one way or another and I certainly wouldn't tell them to go look for it themselves since I was the one who brought it up.

You could have answered the question simply enough in the time it took you to write your post telling me to go look it up.

I think the short and official answer would be "yes", so I don't think it has ever been stated that way.

There are indications throughout the Bible which we take as verification that the ordinances and their Essence have not changed. 

The book of Exodus speaks of washing and anointing in the temple. At the time of the Transfiguration Jesus told his disciples to "tell the vision to no man" until he was resurrected. We believe that Moses was given the Melchizedic priesthood by his father-in-law Jethro. We believe that Melchizedic himself and Abraham had what we would call a "sacrament meeting". It is obvious that John the Baptist was baptizing before Christ came. Where did he get the idea for that?

Are belief when Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees discussing marriage is that he was saying that those ordinances had to be done on Earth and not in heaven. Therefore we take that as an affirmation of the need to do Earthly ordinances for those who have passed on.

We believe that the Earth itself was baptized at the time of the flood.

And of course we always have Paul preaching baptism for the Dead.

The bottom line is that there are many references which we believe reflect our Doctrine even in ancient times.

I have heard all of these being taken as Doctrine within Church discussions.

I see no harm in taking these doctrinally and it's kind of fun to think about that sort of thing. Whether or not God takes them doctrinally is up for grabs

But you know me these are all Parables and metaphors as is everything else we speak.

Electronically Dictated. Please excuse errors.

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

On 2/25/2020 at 4:29 PM, Navidad said:

The hierarchy of the LDS Church includes the role of a teacher stemming from Eph 4.

No, not stemming from Ephesians 4.  What Paul said to the Ephesians was directed by the Spirit as he acted in his role as an apostle of Jesus Christ, and that is where what he said stemmed from.  From his authority, given to him by God, and what the Spirit directed him to say.

Do you see how that's a different perspective than the one you conveyed in your words?  Our authority doesn't come from the Bible.  It comes to us from God, by the authority/priesthood he has given to us.  And what we have is the same as what they had, with men called by God to the offices of apostle and teacher and every other officer necessary to perfect the saints as we are directed by God and Jesus through the Spirit.

Quote

I would guess that indicates that you believe that teachers are useful. I agree. I believe that Scriptural exegesis is a discipline that, under the direction of the Holy Spirit can be taught, learned and practiced with differing levels of skill and insight. We may disagree there. I am not sure. Luke 24 teaches us that Christ opened minds to enable them to understand the Scriptures. Therefore, there must be an enabling and an understanding involved in rightly dividing the Word of Truth.  

No, you still don't seem to get it, even though you talk like maybe you're not too far from understanding it correctly.  Luke 24 is a collection of words on some pages.  Maybe you should just try to choose your words more carefully.

On 2/25/2020 at 4:29 PM, Navidad said:

Perhaps all this discussion and dialogue is for naught as the “doctrine” of the LDS Church is firm that absent an LDS baptism and confirmation one cannot have the gift of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, I do not have the gift of the Holy Spirit and therefore neither I nor anyone else on this forum who has not experienced the ordinances by proper authority are those whose thoughts should be taken seriously. At least by my hanging around a bit, I and my misguided belief in La Lucha as the calling, task, and privilege of the believer in Christ has some entertainment value for you all. At least that gives me a role to fill.  

Just try to understand that we are expecting you to have the same understanding of the scriptures that we have when you have the same Spirit we have to guide us into how we should correctly understand the scriptures.  And when you show us that you don't understand us, or that your understanding is different than ours, that shows us that you haven't been led by the same Spirit that gives us our understanding.  Do you see how that makes sense from our perspective?  

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, we need God to appoint some apostles and some prophets and some evangelists and some pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive, but speaking the truth in love may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/eph/4?lang=eng

Some of us have been called by God and ordained by God to be teachers, and some other people on this planet haven't but think they have.  And we can all know by the Spirit who God has appointed to teach what is true.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Ahab

[Sunslight]

It's interesting to study the philosophy of truth. Truth does indeed exist but to acknowledge it for what it really is requires such an absolute sure witness. Doctrine is a word that in a sense conveys a belief in having enough of a witness to regard or believe it is actually true. So, philosophically speaking, we should ask- do we have a sure enough absolute witness on a certain belief that we have correctly identified a truth? There is thus very little indeed that we have correctly identified as the correct truth. Our beliefs will continue to change or be modified. That process is in fact our "doctrine", it is what we believe and teach, and it will and must change or be modified until we actually correctly uncover the absolute truth.

For instance, our doctrine regarding the plan of salvation as taught to the spirits in prison is not absolute truth in my opinion. We have not correctly uncovered the actual truth. God has a doctrine regarding the work for the dead. We too have a doctrine we teach regarding the work for the dead. Do they both perfectly align? Absolutely not. Hence, our belief, or ,"doctrine" must evolve, change, be modified until it does align with truth.

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Sunslight said:

It's interesting to study the philosophy of truth. Truth does indeed exist but to acknowledge it for what it really is requires such an absolute sure witness. Doctrine is a word that in a sense conveys a belief in having enough of a witness to regard or believe it is actually true. So, philosophically speaking, we should ask- do we have a sure enough absolute witness on a certain belief that we have correctly identified a truth? There is thus very little indeed that we have correctly identified as the correct truth. Our beliefs will continue to change or be modified. That process is in fact our "doctrine", it is what we believe and teach, and it will and must change or be modified until we actually correctly uncover the absolute truth.

For instance, our doctrine regarding the plan of salvation as taught to the spirits in prison is not absolute truth in my opinion. We have not correctly uncovered the actual truth. God has a doctrine regarding the work for the dead. We too have a doctrine we teach regarding the work for the dead. Do they both perfectly align? Absolutely not. Hence, our belief, or ,"doctrine" must evolve, change, be modified until it does align with truth.

Huh?

Read my siggy.  Or I will hit you with my favorite video.

How does work for the dead not align with teaching spirits?

And spiritual truth is not "uncovered" it is revealed.

Edited March 1, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Sunslight]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh?

Read my siggy.  Or I will hit you with my favorite video.

How does work for the dead not align with teaching spirits?

And spiritual truth is not "uncovered" it is revealed.

The way we come to the truth comes line upon line. Call it uncovering or revelation, or whatever, the bottom line is that truth can be distorted when it is not fully understood because we lack the revelation. The work for the dead took some time to be revealed. And even now we debate over who the gospel and ordinances are for in the spirit world. I think we do have the truth revealed to us but we have not uncovered it yet.

[MiserereNobis]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Or I will hit you with my favorite video.

Run for the hills!

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

The work for the dead took some time to be revealed. And even now we debate over who the gospel and ordinances are for in the spirit world.

No, there is nothing to debate

All will have the opportunity to accept the ordinances. 

All. 

Clear as a bell. And virtually all will accept them. For all practical purposes we are universalists and believe in Universal "salvation."  It is said that "every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Jesus is the savior."  

When he is standing in front of you and you see his glory not many will deny it. 

I imagine at his second coming as prophesied, it would be pretty impressive.  Can you imagine even atheists denying Christ coming in Glory out of the sky?  THAT would be incontrovertible scientific evidence, with everyone as a witness. Even the dead will see that and many will be resurrected at his coming, it is said.

We have to extend these ideas out to their conclusions to see how they are not even debatable as concepts. The story is coherent and clear. How could anyone deny that seeing it right in front of them?  Of course everything is accepted on faith, but the plan itself still remains crystal clear.

Exaltation is another matter.

Not everyone even wants it, and look for the easy way out. But it is said that even the glory of the Telestial Kingdom surpasses all understanding.

It could be said that sectarian Christians might even regard that level as "heaven."

There is nothing debatable about the Plan of Salvation. It is a Model, A Story, a paradigm.

You either accept it by evidence from the Holy Ghost or you don't, but it is certainly internally coherent.

[Sunslight]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No, there is nothing to debate

All will have the opportunity to accept the ordinances. 

All. 

Clear as a bell. And virtually all will accept them. For all practical purposes we are universalists and believe in Universal "salvation."  It is said that "every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Jesus is the savior."  

When he is standing in front of you and you see his glory not many will deny it. 

I imagine at his second coming as prophesied, it would be pretty impressive.  Can you imagine even atheists denying Christ coming in Glory out of the sky?  THAT would be incontrovertible scientific evidence, with everyone as a witness. Even the dead will see that and many will be resurrected at his coming, it is said.

We have to extend these ideas out to their conclusions to see how they are not even debatable as concepts. The story is coherent and clear. How could anyone deny that seeing it right in front of them?  Of course everything is accepted on faith, but the plan itself still remains crystal clear.

Exaltation is another matter.

Not everyone even wants it, and look for the easy way out. But it is said that even the glory of the Telestial Kingdom surpasses all understanding.

It could be said that sectarian Christians might even regard that level as "heaven."

There is nothing debatable about the Plan of Salvation. It is a Model, A Story, a paradigm.

You either accept it by evidence from the Holy Ghost or you don't, but it is certainly internally coherent.

It's been a topic of debate for over a hundred years in the church on just who the gospel being taught to the spirits in prison is for and what is required for salvation. For a long time in the church it was generally believed and taught (and still is to some degree) that the teaching of the gospel in the spirit world was only for those who hadn't yet had the opportunity to accept it. That's kind of my point. 

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Run for the hills!

Bwaaahhhaaahaahaaa

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Sunslight said:

It's been a topic of debate for over a hundred years in the church on just who the gospel being taught to the spirits in prison is for and what is required for salvation. For a long time in the church it was generally believed and taught (and still is to some degree) that the teaching of the gospel in the spirit world was only for those who hadn't yet had the opportunity to accept it. That's kind of my point. 

"Kind of"?

I would like to see some references of a "debate"- perhaps a few representative talks for one faction and a few talks on the other side which disagree with the first side.  Who are these supposed debaters?   Where do these debates happen? 

Who is the gospel being "taught to spirits FOR"?  Not sure what that means, but it is being taught for the benefit of those who have not already been taught, so that they learn more,  the same reason anybody is taught anything- to learn about the subject at hand. 

What is required for salvation?  I can see some ambiguity on that because we have two definitions of what the word "salvation" covers- the word sometimes seems means "exaltation" and sometimes it is taken to mean simply "going to heaven" and in that sense it is very basic.  All are saved 

But there is certainly no "debate" once one clarifies the context of WHICH "salvation" is being discussed.  ALL are "saved" from physical and spiritual death as a "free gift".  All will be resurrected except the sons of perdition.  Exaltation comes by way of overcoming the world and receiving the proper ordinances.

[Sunslight]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Kind of"?

I would like to see some references of a "debate"- perhaps a few representative talks for one faction and a few talks on the other side which disagree with the first side.  Who are these supposed debaters?   Where do these debates happen? 

Who is the gospel being "taught to spirits FOR"?  Not sure what that means, but it is being taught for the benefit of those who have not already been taught, so that they learn more,  the same reason anybody is taught anything- to learn about the subject at hand. 

What is required for salvation?  I can see some ambiguity on that because we have two definitions of what the word "salvation" covers- the word sometimes seems means "exaltation" and sometimes it is taken to mean simply "going to heaven" and in that sense it is very basic.  All are saved 

But there is certainly no "debate" once one clarifies the context of WHICH "salvation" is being discussed.  ALL are "saved" from physical and spiritual death as a "free gift".  All will be resurrected except the sons of perdition.  Exaltation comes by way of overcoming the world and receiving the proper ordinances.

Your reply sums up nicely why the debate continues. The Book of Mormon only speaks of one salvation.  We do indeed have the truth revealed, we just haven't uncovered it yet.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

Your reply sums up nicely why the debate continues. The Book of Mormon only speaks of one salvation.  We do indeed have the truth revealed, we just haven't uncovered it yet.

You have not given evidence for ANY debate, and I still don't know what you are talking about.

A single word being used in two contexts is not a  debate, nor does it imply there are two salvations.

It is simply an ambiguous word.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Sunslight]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You have not given evidence for ANY debate, and I still don't know what you are talking about.

A single word being used in two contexts is not a  debate, nor does it imply there are two salvations.

It is simply an ambiguous word.

 

 

Salvation has only one general definition. That is my point. It doesn't have a half dozen meanings. Salvation means to be saved from physical and spiritual death. It doesn't mean something else. It is far from ambiguous.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Sunslight said:

Salvation has only one general definition. That is my point. It doesn't have a half dozen meanings. Salvation means to be saved from physical and spiritual death. It doesn't mean something else. It is far from ambiguous.

🙄

You started this whole thing by saying there was a debate about salvation and its meaning. Poof

Edited March 2, 2020 by mfbukowski