Jump to content

The Fate of the Unredeemed


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I'm not sure that saying he didn't know helps your case 

I am not trying to make a case. My case for what? That my bishop is a Godly man? That my wife gave a terrific Christmas sacrament talk? Neither of them need me to make a case for them? If anything, I was at one point in a much longer post, trying to say that after you said about "never in forty years" that the area seventy might not have approved of the bishop allowing my wife to give a sacrament talk since it never happens. If so, would he have stopped it? If so, I am so glad he didn't know. She worked so hard on the talk. Being denied the opportunity to minister at the last minute would have been very difficult. But he didn't know so he enjoyed it and gave her a big abrazo afterwards! The roof did not fall down; the church did not fall apart. Nothing terrible came of an "other" giving a sacrament talk even though in forty years you never heard of such a thing! Heaven forbid that a tiny ward in the middle of nowhere in Mexico would set a precedent for the entire LDS church! And all of that with a general authority emeritus in attendance, who did certainly know she wasn't LDS since he has been sitting in front of her for almost three years! 

Edited by Navidad
Link to post
15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Those are the extremes at both sides of the final judgment.   And of course what Joseph Smith mentioned in D&C 29 and 101 about the right hand and left hand of judgment is the same as what Jesus said in Matthew 25 about the sheep and the goats.  Was that your whole point, that Joseph Smith got it right? 

According to what I read, there are sheep and goats.  Only the sheep inherit eternal life.

Link to post
2 hours ago, theplains said:

According to what I read, there are sheep and goats.  Only the sheep inherit eternal life.

I wonder what happens to all the pigs, cows, and chickens, etc.

  • Like 3
Link to post
On 6/17/2020 at 9:36 AM, theplains said:

According to what I read, there are sheep and goats.  Only the sheep inherit eternal life.

According to what you read of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46, what does it take to inherit eternal life?  And how would you know?

Link to post
22 hours ago, pogi said:

I wonder what happens to all the pigs, cows, and chickens, etc.

Pigs, those unclean animals, you know where they go.  Dogs too ("give not that which is holy unto the dogs").  And "holy cow", well that says it all.  And chickens we know they're in heaven ("For, behold, I will gather them as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if they will not harden their hearts").

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Pigs, those unclean animals, you know where they go.  Dogs too ("give not that which is holy unto the dogs").  And "holy cow", well that says it all.  And chickens we know they're in heaven ("For, behold, I will gather them as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if they will not harden their hearts").

Thanks for this. I've been wondering if cats would have to worry about being chased around by dogs. The counsel to not giving holy things to dogs doesn't necessarily mean there won't be any dogs around us, though. 

Now I'm wondering if wolves and foxes count as dogs, too. I think we still might want some animal to help us gather some sheep. Maybe a German Shepherd, and other shepherd type dogs, would still be allowed in heaven.

Link to post
24 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

According to what you read of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46, what does it take to inherit eternal life? 

To be a sheep, rather than a goat. And to be the right kind of sheep. The kind of sheep that knows the voice of the Lord, who leads the right kind of sheep as a shepherd.

24 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

And how would you know?

By knowing the voice of our shepherd, able to distinguish between his voice and the voice of an impostor.

Link to post
On 6/18/2020 at 1:28 PM, InCognitus said:

According to what you read of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46, what does it take to inherit eternal life?  And how would you know?

Salvation = eternal life; a gift of God based on faith. I don't believe in the LDS definition of eternal life (exaltation to godhood).
I don't believe that eternal life is earned based on obedience to commandments and performing temple ordinances.

So, based on Jesus' teaching, I encourage you to accept God's gift of eternal life so you will be counted as one of his sheep.

Link to post
3 hours ago, theplains said:
On 6/18/2020 at 10:28 AM, InCognitus said:

According to what you read of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46, what does it take to inherit eternal life?  And how would you know?

Salvation = eternal life; a gift of God based on faith. I don't believe in the LDS definition of eternal life (exaltation to godhood).
I don't believe that eternal life is earned based on obedience to commandments and performing temple ordinances.

What does anything you said here have anything to do with Matthew 25:31-45 and the sheep and the goats?   What is the only difference between a sheep or a goat in Matthew 25:31-46?   You were trying to limit what Joseph Smith said to the verses you quoted, so can you do the same with your response to this question?

3 hours ago, theplains said:

So, based on Jesus' teaching, I encourage you to accept God's gift of eternal life so you will be counted as one of his sheep.

So, based on Jesus' teaching in Matthew 25:31-46 (which is what we were talking about), I encourage you to give food to the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, provide accommodations to strangers,  provide clothing to the naked, and visits the sick and captives to accept God's gift of eternal life, so that you will be counted as one of his sheep.  Isn't that what Jesus said in his teachings there?  

Edited by InCognitus
  • Like 1
Link to post
On 6/15/2020 at 2:45 AM, Maidservant said:

One of the things to also keep in mind is that Hebrew scriptural writing (includes OT, NT, and Book of Mormon) is highly symbolic and is NOT often the plain or literal meaning, which is meant to be a barrier for those who are not prepared to receive mysteries and thereby also a passcode for those who have learned the scriptural language, memes, and principles.

To paraphrase Maria Guarino and Richard Rohr, "Taking (scriptures) seriously does not require taking them literally." Or I also found a quote the other day which for the life of me I can't recover but that suggested that the OT specifically, i.e. the Hebrew tradition, was written and prepared by those at an extremely 'high' and intricate level; but it is not often read by those at that level, and that to read it at any other level is to not have read it all.

Echoed in the Book of Mormon, by Nephi:

Yea, and my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah, for I came out from Jerusalem, and mine eyes hath beheld the things of the Jews, and I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews. (2 Ne 25:5)

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 6/17/2020 at 1:58 AM, Navidad said:

I am not trying to make a case. My case for what? That my bishop is a Godly man? That my wife gave a terrific Christmas sacrament talk? Neither of them need me to make a case for them? If anything, I was at one point in a much longer post, trying to say that after you said about "never in forty years" that the area seventy might not have approved of the bishop allowing my wife to give a sacrament talk since it never happens. If so, would he have stopped it? If so, I am so glad he didn't know. She worked so hard on the talk. Being denied the opportunity to minister at the last minute would have been very difficult. But he didn't know so he enjoyed it and gave her a big abrazo afterwards! The roof did not fall down; the church did not fall apart. Nothing terrible came of an "other" giving a sacrament talk even though in forty years you never heard of such a thing! Heaven forbid that a tiny ward in the middle of nowhere in Mexico would set a precedent for the entire LDS church! And all of that with a general authority emeritus in attendance, who did certainly know she wasn't LDS since he has been sitting in front of her for almost three years! 

Not trying to speak for @mfbukowski, but I'm in a similar bucket with him: I cannot recall at any time in my 53 years as a member of the CoJCoLDS having heard a non-member giving a talk in Sacrament meeting, or teaching in Priesthood, or Sunday School Meetings (can't speak for Relief Society or Primary).  I'm not saying that it hasn't happened (my memory is imperfect), couldn't happen, or shouldn't have happened. Just that it seems to be rare, and by that token, your wife was perhaps greatly privileged! I should like to have heard her talk!

More to the point, there's nothing wrong with it, in and of itself. The policy as described in the general handbook specifically allows for it.  While describing the general case, which is that members of the ward and stake are the ones who should generally "participate", provision exists for the exceptional case, and note that it does not exclude non-members of the Church:

29.2.2.6

Selecting and Orienting Participants

The bishopric selects members to participate in sacrament meetings. Most opportunities to participate are given to ward members. If the bishopric invites members from outside the ward to speak, the guidelines in 38.8.22 should be followed.

38.8.22

Guest Speakers or Instructors

For most Church meetings, speakers and instructors should belong to the local ward or stake. The bishop’s approval is required before guest speakers or instructors may participate in any ward meeting, including quorum, Relief Society, Sunday School, Young Women, and Primary meetings... The bishop or stake president carefully screens guest speakers or instructors and the subjects of their presentations. This may include contacting the person’s bishop. The bishop or stake president ensures that: Presentations are in harmony with Church doctrine.

Note that the one caveat is that presentations are in harmony with Church doctrine, and that of course applies to everyone "participating," regardless of membership. I think that covers it!

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Not trying to speak for @mfbukowski, but I'm in a similar bucket with him: I cannot recall at any time in my 53 years as a member of the CoJCoLDS having heard a non-member giving a talk in Sacrament meeting, or teaching in Priesthood, or Sunday School Meetings (can't speak for Relief Society or Primary).  I'm not saying that it hasn't happened (my memory is imperfect), couldn't happen, or shouldn't have happened. Just that it seems to be rare, and by that token, your wife was perhaps greatly privileged! I should like to have heard her talk!

More to the point, there's nothing wrong with it, in and of itself. The policy as described in the general handbook specifically allows for it.  While describing the general case, which is that members of the ward and stake are the ones who should generally "participate", provision exists for the exceptional case, and note that it does not exclude non-members of the Church:

29.2.2.6

Selecting and Orienting Participants

The bishopric selects members to participate in sacrament meetings. Most opportunities to participate are given to ward members. If the bishopric invites members from outside the ward to speak, the guidelines in 38.8.22 should be followed.

38.8.22

Guest Speakers or Instructors

For most Church meetings, speakers and instructors should belong to the local ward or stake. The bishop’s approval is required before guest speakers or instructors may participate in any ward meeting, including quorum, Relief Society, Sunday School, Young Women, and Primary meetings... The bishop or stake president carefully screens guest speakers or instructors and the subjects of their presentations. This may include contacting the person’s bishop. The bishop or stake president ensures that: Presentations are in harmony with Church doctrine.

Note that the one caveat is that presentations are in harmony with Church doctrine, and that of course applies to everyone "participating," regardless of membership. I think that covers it!

Thanks!

The way I read that it is talking about members from outside the stake. Notice in every instance it is specifically talking about "members" and not investigators.

Investigators speaking at sacrament meeting?  Teaching gospel Doctrine? 

Notice it never says anything about non-members speaking. But I will give you the fact that the language is ambiguous.

I was thinking about starting a poll asking the question of how many have ever heard anyone who is a non-member speaking in sacrament or teaching gospel Doctrine. How can the doctrines of the Gospel be taught by somebody who doesn't know them? 

Our doctrines are tricky enough for members!!

Suppose someone asked a non-member whether or not women could go to Perdition? ;)  Or if we were saved by grace or faith?

Anyway there doesn't seem to be much reason in carrying out of the discussion.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Not trying to speak for @mfbukowski, but I'm in a similar bucket with him: I cannot recall at any time in my 53 years as a member of the CoJCoLDS having heard a non-member giving a talk in Sacrament meeting, or teaching in Priesthood, or Sunday School Meetings (can't speak for Relief Society or Primary).  I'm not saying that it hasn't happened (my memory is imperfect), couldn't happen, or shouldn't have happened. Just that it seems to be rare, and by that token, your wife was perhaps greatly privileged! I should like to have heard her talk!

More to the point, there's nothing wrong with it, in and of itself. The policy as described in the general handbook specifically allows for it.  While describing the general case, which is that members of the ward and stake are the ones who should generally "participate", provision exists for the exceptional case, and note that it does not exclude non-members of the Church:

29.2.2.6

Selecting and Orienting Participants

The bishopric selects members to participate in sacrament meetings. Most opportunities to participate are given to ward members. If the bishopric invites members from outside the ward to speak, the guidelines in 38.8.22 should be followed.

38.8.22

Guest Speakers or Instructors

For most Church meetings, speakers and instructors should belong to the local ward or stake. The bishop’s approval is required before guest speakers or instructors may participate in any ward meeting, including quorum, Relief Society, Sunday School, Young Women, and Primary meetings... The bishop or stake president carefully screens guest speakers or instructors and the subjects of their presentations. This may include contacting the person’s bishop. The bishop or stake president ensures that: Presentations are in harmony with Church doctrine.

Note that the one caveat is that presentations are in harmony with Church doctrine, and that of course applies to everyone "participating," regardless of membership. I think that covers it!

Greetings. I am attaching my wife’s Christmas sacrament talk and my sacrament talk from a Father’s Day Sunday a year ago today. You all can decide if you think there is something in either of them that is not in harmony with Church doctrine. I framed my Sacrament talk as a combination of my background and "testimony" and as an inspirational historical overview of the colonies. As I have indicated when I spoke the bishopric and a member of the high council as well as the stake president were all on the stand. When Jeanne spoke the same were there plus an Area Seventy from Ciudad Juarez was there. On both occasions a general authority emeritus was in his regular pew - fourth from the front on the right side facing the congregation. You indicated you would have liked to have heard her talk. Thanks for that. Here it is for you to read, along with mine.

Both my wife and I have substitute taught doctrine gospel class when we were studying the Bible. I don’t have copies of those lessons, but I can assure you the roof is still on the Relief Society room where we hold Sunday School.

I hope I can figure out how to attach these files! Oh, and the word "early" in her talk should have been typed as the word "earthly" when speaking of Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus.

Sacrament Talk Jeanne Dec22,2019.docx Phil Sacrament Talk.docx

Edited by Navidad
  • Like 1
Link to post
9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Anyway there doesn't seem to be much reason in carrying out of the discussion.

I am sorry I have been away from the forum for a few days. I would like to, and will start a new thread related to our discussion about hermeneutics, history and faith. I can't do it tonight, but I will tomorrow.

Link to post
9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks!

The way I read that it is talking about members from outside the stake. Notice in every instance it is specifically talking about "members" and not investigators.

Investigators speaking at sacrament meeting?  Teaching gospel Doctrine? 

Notice it never says anything about non-members speaking. But I will give you the fact that the language is ambiguous.

I was thinking about starting a poll asking the question of how many have ever heard anyone who is a non-member speaking in sacrament or teaching gospel Doctrine. How can the doctrines of the Gospel be taught by somebody who doesn't know them? 

Our doctrines are tricky enough for members!!

Suppose someone asked a non-member whether or not women could go to Perdition? ;)  Or if we were saved by grace or faith?

Anyway there doesn't seem to be much reason in carrying out of the discussion.

Just  a quick note you will probably roll your eyes about! Please remember we are not investigators, nor are we alligators, or instigators. We are faithful non-member brothers and sisters in Christ seeking a church home in which to fellowship and worship for a time. It has now been almost three years. We have no idea how much longer we will be fellowshipping in the chapel. Perhaps until the Lord comes or until he takes us home to be with him.

Link to post
4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Greetings. I am attaching my wife’s Christmas sacrament talk and my sacrament talk from a Father’s Day Sunday a year ago today. You all can decide if you think there is something in either of them that is not in harmony with Church doctrine.

I am truly sorry you do not understand our ways, and the same issues continue to bother you and apparently cause you to take offense.

I am sure your wife is a wonderful righteous person who is an exemplary Christian, and I honestly believe that she taught no "false doctrines" - it is not even necessary to read texts of her talks to know that.

That is not and never was the issue- the issue is simply that it was always my impression that people who are not baptized members of our church were not permitted to speak in Sacrament meeting or teach lessons, and the way I read the manual, I still think that.  I have been in leadership positions for 40 years in our stake and ward, and have had every single calling available to men in the church except being a member of a stake presidency.   In all that time, I have never seen it done.

It was more astonishment than anything that motivated my even mentioning it and now I regret ever even have commented on  giving you yet another reason to be offended by our doctrine.

Again, I apologize.

Link to post
4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Just  a quick note you will probably roll your eyes about! Please remember we are not investigators, nor are we alligators, or instigators. We are faithful non-member brothers and sisters in Christ seeking a church home in which to fellowship and worship for a time. It has now been almost three years. We have no idea how much longer we will be fellowshipping in the chapel. Perhaps until the Lord comes or until he takes us home to be with him.

I apologize that our cultural terminology for those studying our faith offends you,  I must admit I find it rather peculiar that the word "investigator" is used, but it is.

Link to post
4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Greetings. I am attaching my wife’s Christmas sacrament talk and my sacrament talk from a Father’s Day Sunday a year ago today. You all can decide if you think there is something in either of them that is not in harmony with Church doctrine. I framed my Sacrament talk as a combination of my background and "testimony" and as an inspirational historical overview of the colonies. As I have indicated when I spoke the bishopric and a member of the high council as well as the stake president were all on the stand. When Jeanne spoke the same were there plus an Area Seventy from Ciudad Juarez was there. On both occasions a general authority emeritus was in his regular pew - fourth from the front on the right side facing the congregation. You indicated you would have liked to have heard her talk. Thanks for that. Here it is for you to read, along with mine.

Both my wife and I have substitute taught doctrine gospel class when we were studying the Bible. I don’t have copies of those lessons, but I can assure you the roof is still on the Relief Society room where we hold Sunday School.

I hope I can figure out how to attach these files! Oh, and the word "early" in her talk should have been typed as the word "earthly" when speaking of Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus.

Sacrament Talk Jeanne Dec22,2019.docx 19.32 kB · 0 downloads Phil Sacrament Talk.docx 24.35 kB · 1 download

I enjoyed your testimonies. But Phil, the Church is not a branch, it is a daughter of Zion.... see D&C 124:11. People are the branches. 

  • Like 1
Link to post

error

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I apologize that our cultural terminology for those studying our faith offends you,  I must admit I find it rather peculiar that the word "investigator" is used, but it is.

Hi - I am not offended. I just think that deeming every person an investigator who sits in a pew who isn't a member is too limiting and implies something that isn't true. Then folks don't understand why we don't join after "Investigating" for years. I only posted the talks because the other person indicated he would like to have heard her talk. We attend the ward to enjoy the fellowship, grow, and worship. Ever since we found out several years ago that we couldn't join without being re-baptized and in a sense renouncing our Mennonite ties,  we have not had any intent or interest in considering joining the LDS Church. We have, however placed ourselves under the authority of our bishop and stake president.

In turn, I am sorry that our position about joining seems to offend folks on this forum. It is hard for me to understand that. I would hope that you all would feel good about folks wanting to come worship and fellowship in the LDS church, not as candidates for "conversion" but simply as fellow Christians. I think the vast majority of folks in our ward feel that way and accept us as such. I guess that is what counts. I don't get offended so much by this forum any more because a few months ago I realized and accepted that this forum is not about fellowship or spiritual growth. It is about winning.

Link to post
15 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I enjoyed your testimonies. But Phil, the Church is not a branch, it is a daughter of Zion.... see D&C 124:11. People are the branches. 

Hi Rev. I appreciate your comments and you; always have and always will. I have no issue with identifying the "branches" of John 15 as either individual Christians or as denominations of the greater Christian community which is rooted and planted in Christ. I think either one fits the text and the idea of bearing fruit as part of the vine - Christ. I deliberately used the word branch in my talk because I understood from this forum that LDS Christians don't like their church referred to as a denomination. I was trying to voice my support for the LDS church as a member of the body of Christian churches, without saying something offensive to them or untrue to my own beliefs. Perhaps it would have been better had I said nothing in that regard. Just as my LDS friends consider Colonia Guadalupe, a small now extinct LDS community about three miles from my house to have been a branch of the LDS Church under the direction of Colonia Dublan - so I consider the LDS church to be a branch of the greater Christian community. It is not the vine, but one branch of many branches on the vine. "Ye are the branches" and the rest of the text could equally apply to churches or individuals. If it helps any, I get grief from my non-LDS Christian friends when I insist that the LDS Church is a branch of the greater Christian community. I use the same term with them and they love to debate that. I guess not making either group happy is part of the joy of living "on the edge of inside."

I appreciate your reference to D&C 124. I find that section very confusing. It applauds several men who were later excommunicated and who did not serve the church well in the end. Since I believe Christ is omniscient, I have really problems with Him revealing to Joseph Smith his pleasure with several of them as late as 1841. The Joseph Smith Papers indicate that one of them was cashiered, excommunicated and expelled! Wow! There are some other parts of that section that I believe are problematic, but no point in voicing those. We simply won't agree.

I will only add that in the 16th century the Anabaptists had a very clear identity of themselves as Zion and as Muenster, Germany as the gathering place of Zion. They also had and used a militia. Three Anabaptist leaders were tortured, killed, and their bodies kept in open cages hanging from the tower at St Lambert's Church in Muenster for all to see for 50 years as a warning to others! The cages still hang in their original places to this day. Why, I have no idea! Anabaptists lost the concept of a single gathering place in this dispensation in the later 16th century as my LDS friends have over the course of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

So, you all believe my wife and I are investigators, and I believe the LDS Church is one branch of the vine that is the Christian community rooted and sustained by Christ. I guess we will simply have to disagree on those two points.  You have no other term to call us; and I know of no other term to use to reference you all that is also true to my beliefs about the LDS Church.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Rev. I appreciate your comments and you; always have and always will. I have no issue with identifying the "branches" of John 15 as either individual Christians or as denominations of the greater Christian community which is rooted and planted in Christ. I think either one fits the text and the idea of bearing fruit as part of the vine - Christ. I deliberately used the word branch in my talk because I understood from this forum that LDS Christians don't like their church referred to as a denomination. I was trying to voice my support for the LDS church as a member of the body of Christian churches, without saying something offensive to them or untrue to my own beliefs. Perhaps it would have been better had I said nothing in that regard. Just as my LDS friends consider Colonia Guadalupe, a small now extinct LDS community about three miles from my house to have been a branch of the LDS Church under the direction of Colonia Dublan - so I consider the LDS church to be a branch of the greater Christian community. It is not the vine, but one branch of many branches on the vine. "Ye are the branches" and the rest of the text could equally apply to churches or individuals. If it helps any, I get grief from my non-LDS Christian friends when I insist that the LDS Church is a branch of the greater Christian community. I use the same term with them and they love to debate that. I guess not making either group happy is part of the joy of living "on the edge of inside."

I appreciate your reference to D&C 124. I find that section very confusing. It applauds several men who were later excommunicated and who did not serve the church well in the end. Since I believe Christ is omniscient, I have really problems with Him revealing to Joseph Smith his pleasure with several of them as late as 1841. The Joseph Smith Papers indicate that one of them was cashiered, excommunicated and expelled! Wow! There are some other parts of that section that I believe are problematic, but no point in voicing those. We simply won't agree.

You are right. We will not agree. Yeshua was not omniscient. This is shown in several places. He did not know when He was returning, but said only the Father knew. Isaiah says: 

1 Behold my aservant, whom I uphold; mine belect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have cput my dspirit upon him: he shall bring forth ejudgment to the Gentiles.

2 He shall not cry, nor alift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.

3 aA bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the aisles shall wait for his law.

5  Thus saith God the Lord, he that acreated the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth bbreath unto the people upon it, and cspirit to them that dwalk therein:

6 I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a acovenant of the people, for a blight of the cGentiles;

7 To aopen the bblind eyes, to bring out the cprisoners from the dprison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

8 I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

9 Behold, the aformer things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell byou of them.

Who is this speaking of? Who is being told what shall come to pass before it does? If someone needs to be told what is going to happen, are they omniscient?  

The Father gives us agency in the matter of choosing right and wrong. Not even He knows exactly what we are going to do every time. Else this whole creation is a farce in which we cannot be tested. The Lord praises us when we do right, like Yeshua did in D&C, but He hopes we will continue to choose right, and doesn't know for sure if we will. Those sections in D&C are examples of that. 

Quote

I will only add that in the 16th century the Anabaptists had a very clear identity of themselves as Zion and as Muenster, Germany as the gathering place of Zion. They also had and used a militia. Three Anabaptist leaders were tortured, killed, and their bodies kept in open cages hanging from the tower at St Lambert's Church in Muenster for all to see for 50 years as a warning to others! The cages still hang in their original places to this day. Why, I have no idea! Anabaptists lost the concept of a single gathering place in this dispensation in the later 16th century as my LDS friends have over the course of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I think you know I have great respect for the anabaptist sects or branches, if you will. :) I am somewhat familiar with their history of being rather intensely persecuted. The Latter Day Saints do have a central gathering place. It has been revealed, and gathering will commence there shortly after the next resurrection event. Right now the Church is spread thinly throughout to world. This too has been foreseen and prophesied. 

 

1 Nephi 14:12

12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were afew, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon ball the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.
Quote

So, you all believe my wife and I are investigators, and I believe the LDS Church is one branch of the vine that is the Christian community rooted and sustained by Christ. I guess we will simply have to disagree on those two points.  You have no other term to call us; and I know of no other term to use to reference you all that is also true to my beliefs about the LDS Church.

Whether you choose to call us a branch or a daughter of Zion doesn't really matter to me. I think you understand the scriptural point. The Church has steered away from the term investigators. I'm not sure of the preferred term - I think it's visitors. If I were to introduce you, I would introduce you as my friends. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Who is this speaking of? Who is being told what shall come to pass before it does? If someone needs to be told what is going to happen, are they omniscient?  

Sorry, I am not sure I am following your point. I believe this is God the Father, speaking to the Israelites via Isaiah by the means of the Holy Spirit. He is speaking about the Servant, Christ - Jesus. I am not sure how you take from the passage that Christ was not omniscient. I am tired and don't feel real well; but I am simply not getting your point. Also when I spoke about a gathering place, I was referring to in this dispensation. I don't know if that helps or not. Perhaps you consider the time after the first resurrection to be the same dispensation as we are in now?

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Whether you choose to call us a branch or a daughter of Zion doesn't really matter to me. I think you understand the scriptural point. The Church has steered away from the term investigators. I'm not sure of the preferred term - I think it's visitors. If I were to introduce you, I would introduce you as my friends. 

Do you remember the great line from one of the last scenes in the last Lord of the Rings movie? The dwarf (I am blanking on his name) looks up at the elf (ditto) and says something like "I never thought I would be dying next to an elf!" The elf replies "Yes, but would you die next to a friend?" "Aye laddie, I could do that!" So I say the same to you. "Aye laddie, I could do that!"

Edited by Navidad
  • Like 1
Link to post
15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Sorry, I am not sure I am following your point. I believe this is God the Father, speaking to the Israelites via Isaiah by the means of the Holy Spirit. He is speaking about the Servant, Christ - Jesus. I am not sure how you take from the passage that Christ was not omniscient. I am tired and don't feel real well; but I am simply not getting your point. Also when I spoke about a gathering place, I was referring to in this dispensation. I don't know if that helps or not. Perhaps you consider the time after the first resurrection to be the same dispensation as we are in now?

I hope you get to feeling better. I am keying in on the last verse I quoted from Ch 42. Yes, the passage is definitely speaking of Christ because the isles shall wait for His law. The last verse says: "9 Behold, the aformer things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell byou of them." The Father is telling Yeshua that new things are to come to pass, but that He will tell Yeshua of them before they transpire. He told Yeshua everything He wanted Yeshua to say. Indeed, Yeshua tells us that He only spoke what the Father told HIm. My point remains that the world is following the plan of the Father. Yeshua did not know all this plan in advance, but was being told things before they came to pass. He says this Himself again in Rev 1. This does not indicate Yeshua was omniscient, but that He was not. That is my point. Contrary to the doctrine of the trinity, Yeshua was not omniscient, and was not equal in power to the Most High El, The Father. But instead deferred to Him, and said "the Father is greater than I," yet they rule together as one word, and one YHWH Elohim in a way the world has never quite seemed to grasp. It is their great secret... they show us, and tell us, but man tends to say what he will. 

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Do you remember the great line from one of the last scenes in the last Lord of the Rings movie? The elf (I am blanking on his name) looks up at the elf (ditto) and says something like "I never thought I would be dying next to an elf!" The elf replies "Yes, but would you die next to a friend?" "Aye laddie, I could do that!" So I say the same to you. "Aye laddie, I could do that!"

:) 

Link to post
Quote

Also when I spoke about a gathering place, I was referring to in this dispensation. I don't know if that helps or not. Perhaps you consider the time after the first resurrection to be the same dispensation as we are in now?

There are seven dispensations of covenants. When you say "this dispensation" I think differently than my compatriots because Joseph Smith did not introduce the last dispensation. The Church routinely says so, but our scriptures do not. They say things like "which is about to come to pass." Navidad, I am a creature of scripture. If I were not I would be a mere follower of men. I am not. So has the last dispensation began? Of that I am not sure, because I believe the covenant of the last dispensation cannot come to pass until the death of the testator. I am not speaking of Christ here. Christ was in the fifth dispensation, and the covenant was indicated by the rite of baptism, which I believe is necessary for a resurrection before the last resurrection. But, I have to say this last point is an educated guess.... Nevertheless, i digress a bit. There will be a gathering place in the last dispensation - the New Jerusalem. The Church will gather there because, we are told the rest of the world will be fighting. And if you do not care to fight, you will come to the New Jerusalem. 

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...