The Work of Salvation and Exaltation.

[Sunslight]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Are you saying that one cannot be resurrected without entering into and keeping the baptismal covenant, but otherwise live an honorable life (whether here or in the hereafter)?

I am saying that salvation is to be saved from physical and spiritual death. There are accompanying ordinances of salvation such as baptism and the endowment. A person can be resurrected but remain without salvation.

[Navidad]

On 2/29/2020 at 8:54 AM, CV75 said:

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

I am familiar with this quote from Joseph Smith. Can someone explain to me more about that which is "only appendages?" What confuses me is it seems when I get into a doctrinal discussion with members of the church, every stick or piece of doctrine is essential. That is why in my mind I relate my  LDS friends to my fundamentalist friends within non-LDS Christianity. The doctrine that says I can't possibly have the gift of the Holy Spirit is essential, not an appendage. The anthropomorphism of the Father is essential. The doctrine of spirit children is essential. The doctrine of eternal families is essential. The whole doctrine of exaltation as distinct from salvation is not an appendage, but is essential. The doctrine that only LDS priesthood holders have authority to perform ordinances for all of Christianity is essential. It seems that  individual agency would kick in on the appendages - perhaps an individual member of the church could vary in his or her belief about the appendages. Could someone give me an example of LDS principles that are included in the "all other things" that are "only appendages."

The fundamental principles as stated above are indeed for me, the fundamental principles of Christianity and very few other beliefs qualify as such. Am I more in line with Joseph Smith than today's typical member of the LDS church? Has everything become a fundamental principle?

[Navidad]

On 2/29/2020 at 9:28 AM, Stargazer said:

I think that non-LDS Christian doctrine is also complex and difficult to understand.  Why else do universities have PhD-degree granting programs in theology?  In my opinion, the simplest understanding of the gospel is that which Joseph Smith articulated as follows: "the fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121).  I don't think that any Christian organization would feel it necessary to gainsay this statement.  They would only disagree about the appendages.

You must be aware that there were times that Jesus enjoined the apostles from teaching certain things before the people were ready. He used the phrase "casting pearls before swine", which sounds rude, but goes along with the softer concept of "milk before meat". 

“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12.)

This clearly suggests that things may be more complicated than we want to believe -- Jesus did not say that they couldn't bear what he had to say to neophytes in Christianity, but to men who had been with him for 3 years and who had strong testimonies of his mission and who he was.  Certainly not as strong as they would be, later, but they were his chosen leaders. And still they were not ready.  Because things were not as simple as we would like to believe.

And after Christ's resurrection He spent how many days teaching the apostles about the gospel before the apostles were actually sent forth after His ascension?  He said during the Last Supper, "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father." (John 16:25)  But what happens after this?  The crucifixion and the resurrection.  So whatever He intended to teach them from that point on would be taught by the resurrected Christ. Do we have a record of what he taught them?  Not much of one.  But we know there must have been a lot that was taught, because from what we read in Acts and various letters the apostles seemed to have learned things not mentioned in the gospels.  As John said at the end of his gospel: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."  This confirms that things must have been more complicated than we know.

We are all in different levels of understanding with regard to the gospel of Christ.  I notice myself that my understanding now is far greater than it was 20 years ago.  Or at least different.

Elder Spencer Condie wrote about the Atonement in the Ensign magazine in 1996, and I think what he had to say corresponds with what I have been trying to elucidate in this thread. It might be instructive to read what Elder Condie wrote: The Fall and Infinite Atonement 

You understand that I believe certain things, and I am pretty darned certain that what I believe is pretty darned close to absolutely true. And if I am right, then those who believe differently must be definitely wrong. Facts don't care about feelings, in one sense, but it is hardly my place to condemn anyone who hasn't come up to my expert level of understanding. LOL.  We'll see, later but maybe sooner, just how expert my understanding actually is. Probably not as expert as I think it is.

Nevertheless, there have been some living upon the earth at various times and places who could say, with Peter: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed..."  (2 Peter 1:19)

We will always struggle to understand the truth of all of it.  Until that perfect day when all shall be revealed in its glory.

I agree that non-LDS theology is also complicated and difficult. That is the very reason I term it la lucha. I wasn't singling out LDS folks for the complexity of their doctrine, but for the ease by which they interpret the same. We don't have  earlier languages for the three LDS Scriptures to grapple with, but English is hard enough on its on. Things that are said are important. Things that are not said are important. Meaning of words are important. Context, culture, and social norms are important and change. I believe it involves a lot more than sitting down in an easy chair, pondering, and praying. That is why universities offer PhD's in theology. It is the same reason that BYU offers a very well-known and respected PhD program in Marriage and Family Studies. Understanding families is not easy. Helping dysfunctional families is not easy. Rightly interpreting the Scripture takes skills and even then folks don't always agree, even within specific faith groups. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Navidad
typos

[Sunslight]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I agree that non-LDS theology is also complicated and difficult. That is the very reason I term it la lucha. I wasn't singling out LDS folks for the complexity of their doctrine, but for the ease by which they interpret the same. We don't have  earlier languages for the three LDS Scriptures to grapple with, but English is hard enough on its on. Things that are said are important. Things that are not said are important. Meaning of word are important. Context, culture, and social norms are important and change. I believe it involves a lot more than sitting down in an easy chair, pondering, and praying. That is why universities offer PhD's in theology. It is the same reason that BYU offers a very well-known and respected PhD program in Marriage and Family Studies. Understanding families is not easy. Helping dysfunctional families is not easy. Rightlyi interpreting the Scripture takes skills and even then folks don't always agree, even within specific faith groups. 

I have noticed that semantics is the area that is most debated. Defining words properly and then getting everyone to agree is almost impossible, it takes such a high discipline. I do believe though that because we as LDS do spend so much time discussing the semantics that we have a greater knowledge of theology as compared to other Christian religions.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Sunslight

[Navidad]

On 2/29/2020 at 11:13 AM, Calm said:

I don't believe what we have is that difficult to understand.  The Gospel Principles manual, which provides a great overview of our doctrine imo, is simple and can be read in a short time.

We, however, do not approach theology as a church as something that needs to be reasoned out; doctrine is revealed, not reasoned.  This can leave gaps waiting for future revelation and this is where it can become complicated through people wanting to fill in the gaps with their own reasonings...which don't always match the reasonings of the person sitting next to them on the pew.

Hi Calm, I think a difference, and I don't want to say this wrong, is perhaps when it comes to allowance for the Holy Spirit to speak to different people, even different prophets differently. Or for folks to hear the Spirit's direction through different ears, experiences, biases, etc. It seems that my LDS friends think that can't or doesn't happen or just creates confusion when it does.

I value differences, especially acknowledging the dark glass through which we see things in this mortal life. Our mortal wisdom is limited, that is why I think my LDS friends have a strong doctrine of continued exaltation beyond the veil. We don't and cant' know everything now. We are faced today with all kinds of mortal limitations: biases, prejudices, language, misinterpretations of the Spirit due to our own life experiences, etc.

I believe there is nothing more important for a Christian than to "rightly divide the word of truth" - however that word of truth is defined. Theology provides us the recipe, the instructions for doing that, for living the Christian life. No recipe book is adequate if it says to put a dash, a scoop, a smidgen, a bunch, some, a little ingredients in a particular dish. One person's scoop is bigger or smaller than another. That is why doctrine needs quantified and qualified. That is where theology comes in. It helps us to rightly divide the word of truth. I am trained in it and find myself trying to rightly divide the D&C by the same methods I have learned for the Bible. I enjoy doing that. My LDS friend disagrees and says "just read the text and ponder it a while - it is easy!" Don't make it so complicated! I hope I said this in a  manner that is not offensive. I am sorry if I failed to say it well. Best to you. 

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, Sunslight said:

I'm not sure it's possible to live according to God and yet reject baptism. That's kind of an oxymoron isn't it?

Hi: I have been traveling and speaking all weekend, so I am now back home, trying to catch up on some replies this morning. I honor baptism. I was baptized by immersion by one who had the authority to do so within my faith group. I made covenants at that time that I reflect on every time I take the sacrament. I do everything I possibly can in my imperfect state to live according to my understanding of God's will for me.

I don't reject LDS baptism. I simply am content with the baptismal event I experienced in my life and am confident of everlasting life through my belief in the sufficiency of the atonement of Christ. In fact my baptism by immersion was my testimony to that effect or the leader of my local church (my father, by the way) would never have baptized me.

There are probably more than ten different interpretations of baptism in the gospel doctrine dictionary of the greater Christian community. I have settled, after much study and prayer on the one that has most meaning to me and that I believe is God's direction to me. That doesn't make me right and believers in one of the other nine interpretations wrong.

I have witnessed a number of LDS baptisms, especially of children. I am more struck by the similarity of the mode and method with my own than I am of the difference. So yes, I try and live according to God and I don't reject baptism. If I were going to join the LDS  church as a member, I would understand that they want me to be re-baptized, with that baptism having a different meaning. If a member of the LDS church became Mennonite, he or she would probably have to be re-baptized by one with authority in the Mennonite church as well. I am pretty sure it might be fair to say you reject Mennonite baptism as necessary for you to live according to God (to use your words). In that same way, I see Mormon baptism as unnecessary for me, even while I do all I can to "live according to God" as you do. 

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

Nephi called it, more accurately than the biblical translation allows, living "after the manner of happiness." It is done in degrees, hopefully someday in perfection, but those that refuse baptism aren't living according to the manner of perfection. They are blind (as in rejecting the light of Christ given them) yet honorable (as in living according to the light of Christ they do receive). "For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding," and some willfully limit their language and their understanding.

More simply put, someone can obey God in some things and disobey Him in others.

I am not real sure that disagreeing with some of the tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is disobeying God. To be fair, neither do I think that disagreeing with some of the tenets of the Mennonite Church USA is disobeying God either; especially since I agree with Joseph Smith about all the appendages (non-essential is how I interpret an appendage) involved in each specific faith's interpretation of the gospel! 😃

[Sunslight]

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi: I have been traveling and speaking all weekend, so I am now back home, trying to catch up on some replies this morning. I honor baptism. I was baptized by immersion by one who had the authority to do so within my faith group. I made covenants at that time that I reflect on every time I take the sacrament. I do everything I possibly can in my imperfect state to live according to my understanding of God's will for me.

I don't reject LDS baptism. I simply am content with the baptismal event I experienced in my life and am confident of everlasting life through my belief in the sufficiency of the atonement of Christ. In fact my baptism by immersion was my testimony to that effect or the leader of my local church (my father, by the way) would never have baptized me.

There are probably more than ten different interpretations of baptism in the gospel doctrine dictionary of the greater Christian community. I have settled, after much study and prayer on the one that has most meaning to me and that I believe is God's direction to me. That doesn't make me right and believers in one of the other nine interpretations wrong.

I have witnessed a number of LDS baptisms, especially of children. I am more struck by the similarity of the mode and method with my own than I am of the difference. So yes, I try and live according to God and I don't reject baptism. If I were going to join the LDS  church as a member, I would understand that they want me to be re-baptized, with that baptism having a different meaning. If a member of the LDS church became Mennonite, he or she would probably have to be re-baptized by one with authority in the Mennonite church as well. I am pretty sure it might be fair to say you reject Mennonite baptism as necessary for you to live according to God (to use your words). In that same way, I see Mormon baptism as unnecessary for me, even while I do all I can to "live according to God" as you do. 

The important principle is that it is impossible to live according God while knowingly rejecting what you believe is commanded to you by God.

[Navidad]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem here is one I have cited before, and that is your incomplete understanding of beliefs and doctrine - which is not your fault but because you are studying from OUTSIDE the church, and not as "one of us".

That is the reason people keep telling you to become a member and get baptized, because that opens the door to the temple to you, and most of what we speak about here is taught in the temple and nowhere else, and we never directly quote any of that because of its sacred character.

So there is much of LDS belief one will NEVER know without actually being a member.   All you see is the over-simplified shell of the egg without even knowing there is a huge "yolk" inside.   It is not your fault, but you ask questions and receive insufficient answers because you do not believe the possibility that what we are telling you is correct

Brigham Young sort of answered your question:

Yes, that is as doctrinal as it comes.  

The most important teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ are found in the temple both explicitly and symbolically, and the reason we stress individual revelation so much is that the temple is constructed to teach us symbolically - and for us to discover the meanings symbolically

Without experiencing the temple ordinances, one will never fully grasp the Church of Jesus Christ, and that is why people keep pushing you in that direction.

We don't talk about it.   

They believe they are encouraging you to gain a greater understanding of God now, and for after you pass on.  They and we also want the best for you, and are certain that after you do pass on, you will see enough evidence to accept the ordinances someone will most certainly provide for you!   Your devotion to Christ is obvious, and we just want you to grow in the gospel, and believe that eventually you will see the wisdom in that, either on this side of the veil or the other!   So please my brother, take it in the context in which it is offered! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_(Latter_Day_Saints)

 

 

Ok my friend. Well said. You are absolutely right. I do not and apparently cannot know the teachings that go on in the temple. In that sense, then 70% of members of the church must also be in the dark in that regard since the data I have seen suggest that only 30% of members of the church are temple-worthy. If I were a member of the church, I would surely make certain that I was temple-worthy because I would want to know everything . . . and understand everything! That is my nature! 

[Ahab]

On 2/28/2020 at 5:34 PM, Stargazer said:

I can't answer this right now. @JLHPROF just jammed a stick into my spokes and now I have to rethink some things...

I think that was JAHS rather than JLHPROF but, anywho... I'm looking forward to seeing how you pull that stick out of your spokes.

Quote

Just read the section prayerfully.  

As always, that is good advice.

Quote

But verse 76 refers to the fact that those in the Terrestrial are ministered to by the Son, but not the fullness of the Father, which is reserved for those in the Celestial.

Yeah I can see that but I still don't understand WHY they would not receive the ordinance for their endowment in a temple if they were willing to have faith and repent and be baptized including receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost who would guide them into all truth.

Quote

Keep in mind that this section deals with the ultimate destination of all of Father's children after the resurrection/judgement, when all their memories of the Pre-existence have been restored and they all know exactly why they inherited the glories that they inherited.  No more loose ends.  You're overthinking it, boggling your own mind.  You're thinking process when the section deals with outcomes after all the processes are complete.

No I think it's fairly obvious I'm not thinking enough about something, something I have yet to consider, possibly because nobody has said anything to help explain this to me.  The text in D&C 76 says those who will receive Terrestrial glory will have been taught the gospel in the spirit world if they were not taught it here and also will have been able to receive all of the ordinances offered in a temple of the Lord, and you seem to be saying the reason they will be receiving Terrestrial glory instead of Celestial glory will be because they will not have received or accepted ENOUGH of the ordinances to qualify for Celestial glory.  That they will have received our teachings about why they need faith and how that works, and our teachings on repentance and why that is necessary, and baptism and why that is necessary, including the need to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost so that they can be guided by the Holy Spirit, but for some reason they will not have accepted our teaching that they also need to receive the ordinance for their endowment in a temple of the Lord so that they will have the knowledge and keys and tokens that are necessary for them to be able to pass by  the sentinels who are appointed before being able to go into the presence of our Father in heaven.  How could they possibly get so close to what they needed, having the Holy Ghost to guide them, and still not catch on to what they needed to do to receive the glory of our Father in heaven.  I don't see how me not understanding the answer to this would mean that I am overthinking this issue.  I think it should be fairly obvious that I need some more thoughts to help me understand this.  Do you have any more thoughts for me?  I am looking for more guidance from our Father in heaven and if you can help to point me in that direction, maybe sharing what he has told you about this, I sure would appreciate it.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Ahab

[Ahab]

On 2/28/2020 at 6:15 PM, Sunslight said:

I just think it's good that the church is acknowledging that salvation and exaltation are two separate things and that salvation, by itself, requires ordinances.

There you go ahead saying ordinances are necessary for both Telestial and Terrestrial glory.  Do you know of any scriptures that state that explicitly?  I don't.  Some evidence would be beneficial.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

I have noticed that semantics is the area that is most debated. Defining words properly and then getting everyone to agree is almost impossible, it takes such a high discipline. I do believe though that because we as LDS do spend so much time discussing the semantics that we have a greater knowledge of theology as compared to other Christian religions.

Interesting insight. Mine is almost the opposite (not that it matters). I rarely hear or see the LDS spending time discussing semantics, or any other specifics of doctrinal formation. The sacrament talks are devotionals or testimonies. No semantic discussion there. Elder's Quorum is a review of a conference talk - every Elder's Quorum Sunday - it is a devotional. Gospel doctrine is a mini-review of certain devotional texts selected by the teacher, both when it was about the Bible and now that it is about the BOM. I see and hear no doctrinal discussion, especially on semantics in the regular services of the LDS church. No Wednesday night prayer meetings or Bible Study. No Thursday night verse by verse exposition of scriptures. No men's breakfast scripture study. Virtually no teaching at all. That is one of my greatest disappointments in the LDS church that we attend. As structured as everything is, I would assume it is the same in all wards. The books that do it for me are not published by the church but by Kofford and others. In fact most of the authors of books on the Holy Spirit, the atonement, etc. make a big point of saying that they don't represent the teachings of the church, but their best understanding of it. 

Granted as my friend above indicates, if that happens in the temple I am not aware of it. As 70% of members apparently don't go to the temple either, then I don't know where they get the discussion of the semantics. I do wish there was more instruction in the local ward, or at least opportunities to ask questions. That is why I am on this forum so much. You all supplement the lack of teaching. Thanks for that and for your patience with me. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Navidad

[Sunslight]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

There you go ahead saying ordinances are necessary for both Telestial and Terrestrial glory.  Do you know of any scriptures that state that explicitly?  I don't.  Some evidence would be beneficial.

Is that your own inference? I am only acknowledging that the church seems to be recognizing that salvation, with its correct definition as found in holy Scripture, requires ordinances.

[Sunslight]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Interesting insight. Mine is almost the opposite (not that it matters). I rarely hear or see the LDS spending time discussing semantics, or any other specifics of doctrinal formation. The sacrament talks are devotionals or testimonies. No semantic discussion there. Elder's Quorum is a review of a conference talk - every Elder's Quorum Sunday - it is a devotional. Gospel doctrine is a mini-review of certain devotional texts, when it was about the Bible and now that it is about the BOM. I see and hear no doctrinal discussion, especially on semantics in the regular services of the LDS church. No Wednesday night prayer meetings or Bible Study. No Thursday night verse by verse exposition of scriptures. Virtually no teaching at all. That is one of my greatest disappointments in the LDS church that we attend. As structured as everything is, I would assume it is the same in all wards. The books that do it for me are not published by the church but by Kofford and others. In fact most of the authors of books on the holy spirit, the atonement, etc. make a big point of saying that they don't represent the teachings of the church, but their best understanding of it. 

Granted as my friend above indicates, if that happens in the temple I am not aware of it. As 70% of members apparently don't go to the temple either, then I don't know where they get the discussion of the semantics. I do wish there was more instruction in the local ward, or at least opportunities to ask questions. That is why I am on this forum so much. You all supplement the lack of teaching. Thanks for that and for your patience with me. 

I see things differently. Most LDS who attend church actually study and discuss the gospel and it's meaning. In other Christian religions, the ones who go to church just go to be preached to. Very few of them study and discuss the gospel on a regular basis. Forums like this is a testament of the reality that we are advanced on our theology. You just do not see such dedication in other Christian forums. 

[Ahab]

Just now, Sunslight said:

Is that your own inference? I am only acknowledging that the church seems to be recognizing that salvation, with its correct definition as found in holy Scripture, requires ordinances.

I think any reference to the type of salvation that requires receiving ordinances is referring to the Celestial glory/type of salvation.  Not necessarily exaltation, which would be the highest degree of Celestial glory/salvation, because not all who will receive Celestial glory/salvation will receive that level of glory/salvation, but at least Celestial glory/salvation to some extent.  I know of no scripture or teaching of ours that states receiving ordinances are necessary for Telestial or Terrestrial glory/salvation.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am familiar with this quote from Joseph Smith. Can someone explain to me more about that which is "only appendages?" What confuses me is it seems when I get into a doctrinal discussion with members of the church, every stick or piece of doctrine is essential. That is why in my mind I relate my  LDS friends to my fundamentalist friends within non-LDS Christianity. The doctrine that says I can't possibly have the gift of the Holy Spirit is essential, not an appendage. The anthropomorphism of the Father is essential. The doctrine of spirit children is essential. The doctrine of eternal families is essential. The whole doctrine of exaltation as distinct from salvation is not an appendage, but is essential. The doctrine that only LDS priesthood holders have authority to perform ordinances for all of Christianity is essential. It seems that  individual agency would kick in on the appendages - perhaps an individual member of the church could vary in his or her belief about the appendages. Could someone give me an example of LDS principles that are included in the "all other things" that are "only appendages."

The fundamental principles as stated above are indeed for me, the fundamental principles of Christianity and very few other beliefs qualify as such. Am I more in line with Joseph Smith than today's typical member of the LDS church? Has everything become a fundamental principle?

As essential as any particular point may be, they are still only appendages to the Living Christ.They are made essential because He has appended them to Him. Everything of any eternal worth depends and hinges on Him.

[Sunslight]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think any reference to the type of salvation that requires receiving ordinances is referring to the Celestial glory/type of salvation.  Not necessarily exaltation, which would be the highest degree of Celestial glory/salvation, because not all who will receive Celestial glory/salvation will receive that level of glory/salvation, but at least Celestial glory/salvation to some extent.  I know of no scripture or teaching of ours that states receiving ordinances are necessary for Telestial or Terrestrial glory/salvation.

And I know of no Scripture that doesn't couple salvation with requisite ordinances. Salvation doesn't mean to merely be resurrected. It means more specifically to be saved from hell through ordinances.

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not real sure that disagreeing with some of the tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is disobeying God. To be fair, neither do I think that disagreeing with some of the tenets of the Mennonite Church USA is disobeying God either; especially since I agree with Joseph Smith about all the appendages (non-essential is how I interpret an appendage) involved in each specific faith's interpretation of the gospel! 😃

We do not disobey in matters where God invites us to partake of His eternal life. But once we accept His invitation, we need to obey the attendant commandments in order to obtain His gifts ("unto every kingdom is given a law"). When we disobey, we lose those gifts. When we do not accept His invitation, we simply lose the opportunity to obtain those gifts.

[Navidad]

20 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

The important principle is that it is impossible to live according God while knowingly rejecting what you believe is commanded to you by God.

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe you should not knowingly reject what you believe is commanded to you by God. I would say exactly the same for me. I should not and do not reject what I believe is commanded to me by God. I am not a member of the LDS church. You are not a member of the Mennonite Church. We have equally strong beliefs in what God teaches us through our respective understanding of His word and through our respective church. The difference is I respect and believe your beliefs are indeed your very best understanding of what God wants for you. You also believe that your very best understanding of what God wants for you is also what He wants for me! That is our difference!

I think you are fine (spiritually) just as you are. You don't believe I am fine (spiritually) just as I am. As I have said on here a bunch of times before, I am quite content with my faith and the assurance I have of my salvation and opportunity for sanctification within my faith. I am also fascinated with LDS doctrine and especially its connection to its history, culture, and society. I am an inside-outsider or an outside-insider. That is all I want to be. I cause myself lots of issues in that. To be betwixt and between is not a pleasant place. It is where, however I believe God wants me to be right now.

Two weeks ago after our Elder's Quorum, a man who just returned to our ward from three years as temple president in one of the largest LDS temples in Latin America came up to me. He grew up in our colony and ward.  My wife and I weren't there when he left, but are there now that he has returned. You all would certainly know his last name; he is from LDS royalty. He shook his head and commented that he had never heard or met anyone like me. I wasn't sure what to say. I wasn't sure if it was a compliment or a criticism! Probably a little bit of both! That is the essence of my life right now. I am not sure if I am excavating a canyon or building a bridge! Most of the folks I reach out to are happy on their side of the canyon, occasionally lobbing rocks at those on the other side. I often get hit by the rocks!

[Navidad]

21 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

I see things differently. Most LDS who attend church actually study and discuss the gospel and it's meaning. In other Christian religions, the ones who go to church just go to be preached to. Very few of them study and discuss the gospel on a regular basis. Forums like this is a testament of the reality that we are advanced on our theology. You just do not see such dedication in other Christian forums. 

I don't question that. I am just saying I haven't seen it in the context of the ward. Where do you do it with your local LDS friends and fellow members? Is it in informal gatherings? 

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Ok my friend. Well said. You are absolutely right. I do not and apparently cannot know the teachings that go on in the temple. In that sense, then 70% of members of the church must also be in the dark in that regard since the data I have seen suggest that only 30% of members of the church are temple-worthy. If I were a member of the church, I would surely make certain that I was temple-worthy because I would want to know everything . . . and understand everything! That is my nature! 

And now perhaps you understand why there is variation of belief on this board. I don't know what percentages of people on the board have Temple recommends or not. 

And then there are a large percentage of people with temple recommends who sleeps through it anyway. 

For them it is literally watching the same movie that you have already seen for a couple of hundred times. For them it becomes snore worthy. And then there are some who want to memorize it and hear every nuance and Ponder every shred of symbolism and find all the Mysteries hidden which could not possibly be man-made.  I have had the privilege of hanging out with temple workers for 12 years or so now and I could tell you their understanding of the church is far different than what you see in the wards.

But if you really do want to know everything you will just have to get baptized and start the Journey.  

 

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

And I know of no Scripture that doesn't couple salvation with requisite ordinances. Salvation doesn't mean to merely be resurrected. It means more specifically to be saved from hell through ordinances.

Good stuff to discuss.  I'm glad the manual is raising this issue so we can discuss it some more.

One of the reasons I think the word "salvation" generally refers to Celestial salvation/glory is because we had Celestial glory before we came here and the whole point of the atonement of our Savior was to provide a way back to the presence of our Father after we are done here.

Those who don't quite make it but come close will be receiving either Telestial or Terrestrial glory, which is still pretty good, but not as good or well as they could have done, and not the main purpose of our Father in heaven.

So when we think of what "salvation" is I think we should ask: salvation from what?  Saved from death, sure we'll all be saved from death.  Saved from sin?  What is sin all about?  I would say it is separation from our Father in heaven, to some degree.

What do you want to talk about next?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Sunslight said:

I am saying that salvation is to be saved from physical and spiritual death. There are accompanying ordinances of salvation such as baptism and the endowment. A person can be resurrected but remain without salvation.

Are you saying that a resurrected person remaining without salvation is still delivered (saved) from physical death, but not saved from being forever separated from God once he stands in His presence to be judged?

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe you should not knowingly reject what you believe is commanded to you by God. I would say exactly the same for me. I should not and do not reject what I believe is commanded to me by God. I am not a member of the LDS church. You are not a member of the Mennonite Church. We have equally strong beliefs in what God teaches us through our respective understanding of His word and through our respective church. The difference is I respect and believe your beliefs are indeed your very best understanding of what God wants for you. You also believe that your very best understanding of what God wants for you is also what He wants for me! That is our difference!

I think you are fine (spiritually) just as you are. You don't believe I am fine (spiritually) just as I am. As I have said on here a bunch of times before, I am quite content with my faith and the assurance I have of my salvation and opportunity for sanctification within my faith. I am also fascinated with LDS doctrine and especially its connection to its history, culture, and society. I am an inside-outsider or an outside-insider. That is all I want to be. I cause myself lots of issues in that. To be betwixt and between is not a pleasant place. It is where, however I believe God wants me to be right now.

Two weeks ago after our Elder's Quorum, a man who just returned to our ward from three years as temple president in one of the largest LDS temples in Latin America came up to me. He grew up in our colony and ward.  My wife and I weren't there when he left, but are there now that he has returned. You all would certainly know his last name; he is from LDS royalty. He shook his head and commented that he had never heard or met anyone like me. I wasn't sure what to say. I wasn't sure if it was a compliment or a criticism! Probably a little bit of both! That is the essence of my life right now. I am not sure if I am excavating a canyon or building a bridge! Most of the folks I reach out to are happy on their side of the canyon, occasionally lobbing rocks at those on the other side. I often get hit by the rocks!

I agree that you should do what God commands of you. Just know that there are others who think differently and it's okay to think differently.

In a sense I feel that you do not permit us to think differently than you and think that everyone should believe in the simple gospel.

I want to climb into the Mysteries and wrap myself in them. Please know that that is what I believe God is commanding me to do.

 

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

The important principle is that it is impossible to live according God while knowingly rejecting what you believe is commanded to you by God.

I think it more accurate to say that it is impossible to fully live according God while knowingly rejecting some thing(s) you believe is commanded to you by God.