Nonnegotiable

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Like how Ammon told King Lamoni that God was the Great Spirit, even though that wasn't exactly true and the Nephite concept of God was probably not the same as the Lamanite concept, but it was the bridge that was needed to get the king from where he was to where he needed to go.

I'm sure that God is "king Lamoni-ing" us in some ways, but I'm not sure exactly how or the extent.

GREAT analogy!

edit:  I have a vague recollection of Paul doing something similar, claiming to represent the "unknown God" the Greeks included in their pantheon, covering their hineys in case they had left one out.  

Edited January 27, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

“Do not try to locate the line where God will not go. That is impossible. Instead….try to realize the truth.”

”What truth?”

”There is no line.”

 

And that is terrifying.

It sure can be terrifying.

Do you think God is good, and/or fair, and/or no respecter of persons?

Do you think God has our - and most specifically, your - best interest at heart?  

(I spent decades fearing a God who "would seek after my very heartstrings, and would grab them and wrench them, and if I couldn't stand it, I was unfit for the Kingdom of God", to paraphrase a vaguely remembered quote by Ezra Taft Benson.  So I get it.)

Edited January 27, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[Rivers]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Why would those three proclamations be considered to be nonnegotiable but not the previous proclamations?

I know not of any other proclamations.  

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I know not of any other proclamations.  

There have been six total.  From the church news:

• “Proclamation of the First Presidency to the Saints Scattered Abroad,” issued on January 15, 1841, in Nauvoo, Illinois—Signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Hyrum Smith, the proclamation details the progress of the Church despite hardships and persecutions.

• “Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” issued on April 6, 1845, in New York City, New York, and on October 22, 1845, in Liverpool, England—Issued by the Twelve, since the martyrdom dissolved the First Presidency, the proclamation was printed and distributed on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. It proclaimed that God had spoken from the heavens and restored the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth and included a voice of warning as well as an invitation.

• “Proclamation of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles,” issued on October 21, 1865, in Salt Lake City—This proclamation was sent to Church members to correct certain theories about the nature of God and established the order that new doctrine is to be announced only by the First Presidency.

• “Proclamation from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” issued on April 6, 1980, from Fayette, New York—President Spencer W. Kimball announced the proclamation during the Sunday morning session of the April 1980 general conference and the 150th anniversary of the organization of the Church. He and then-Elder Gordon B. Hinckley joined conference proceedings from the restored Peter Whitmer Sr. farmhouse, with Elder Hinckley reading the proclamation, which detailed the Church’s Restoration, progress, doctrine, mission, and message.

• “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” issued September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City—The proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley at the general Relief Society meeting leading into October 1995 general conference, with the proclamation’s purpose to “warn and forewarn” the world and offering an official Church statement on family, marriage, gender roles, and human sexuality.

• “The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: A Bicentennial Proclamation to the World.”

Edited January 27, 2022 by bluebell

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

It sure can be terrifying.

Do you think God is good, and/or fair, and/or no respecter of persons?

Yes, no, yes.

10 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

Do you think God has our - and most specifically, your - best interest at heart?  

Yes, but that is not that comforting. I don’t know my best interest. I have an inkling of how far I am from perfection and I am pretty sure if there is an error in that inkling it is probably underestimation. I have learned that virtually every improvement in myself is bought with pain. Quite a bit of it. So how long will it take? I have no promise that death will end it so there is no timetable.

There are a substantial number of my deeper desires I will never have and probably should never have. What will the process required to cleanse myself of them cost? How much surgery with anesthesia? There are others I crave that will likely have to wait for another world and their lack hurts. My brain’s reward system is so messed up that the drives most people use to motivate themselves to some virtues are weak or almost nonexistent. Whatever premortal me did to require this fun course of treatment I do not recommend. I kind of want to go punch that smug disembodied git in the face.

Quote

I find a good many people have been bothered by...Our Lord’s words, ‘Be ye perfect’. Some people seem to think this means ‘Unless you are perfect, I will not help you’; and as we cannot be perfect, then, if He meant that, our position is hopeless. But I do not think He did mean that. I think He meant ‘The only help I will give is help to become perfect. You may want something less: but I will give you nothing less.’

Let me explain. When I was a child I often had toothache, and I knew that if I went to my mother she would give me something which would deaden the pain for that night and let me get to sleep. But I did not go to my mother—at least, not till the pain became very bad. And the reason I did not go was this. I did not doubt she would give me the aspirin; but I knew she would also do something else. I knew she would take me to the dentist next morning. I could not get what I wanted out of her without getting something more, which I did not want. I wanted immediate relief from pain: but I could not get it without having my teeth set permanently right. And I knew those dentists: I knew they started fiddling about with all sorts of other teeth which had not yet begun to ache. They would not let sleeping dogs lie, if you gave them an inch they took an ell.

Now, if I may put it that way, Our Lord is like the dentists. If you give Him an inch, He will take an ell. Dozens of people go to Him to be cured of some one particular sin which they are ashamed of (like masturbation or physical cowardice) or which is obviously spoiling daily life (like bad temper or drunkenness). Well, He will cure it all right: but He will not stop there. That may be all you asked; but if once you call Him in, He will give you the full treatment.

I think C.S. Lewis is overly generous in saying that God will give you the aspirin to deaden the pain beforehand.

I am a bit of a downer. Sorry.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Rivers said:

With all the current discussion on the early Genesis stories, I have to ask this question: What teachings of the church are nonnegotiable?  What do we absolutely have to believe in to be a Lattet-day Saint?

1. The existence of God and His "character, perfections, and attributes."

2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior and Redeemer of mankind.

3. The Priesthood as the power of God.

4. The scriptures as the word of God.

5. Living prophets and apostles.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rivers]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There have been six total.  From the church news:

• “Proclamation of the First Presidency to the Saints Scattered Abroad,” issued on January 15, 1841, in Nauvoo, Illinois—Signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Hyrum Smith, the proclamation details the progress of the Church despite hardships and persecutions.

• “Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” issued on April 6, 1845, in New York City, New York, and on October 22, 1845, in Liverpool, England—Issued by the Twelve, since the martyrdom dissolved the First Presidency, the proclamation was printed and distributed on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. It proclaimed that God had spoken from the heavens and restored the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth and included a voice of warning as well as an invitation.

• “Proclamation of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles,” issued on October 21, 1865, in Salt Lake City—This proclamation was sent to Church members to correct certain theories about the nature of God and established the order that new doctrine is to be announced only by the First Presidency.

• “Proclamation from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” issued on April 6, 1980, from Fayette, New York—President Spencer W. Kimball announced the proclamation during the Sunday morning session of the April 1980 general conference and the 150th anniversary of the organization of the Church. He and then-Elder Gordon B. Hinckley joined conference proceedings from the restored Peter Whitmer Sr. farmhouse, with Elder Hinckley reading the proclamation, which detailed the Church’s Restoration, progress, doctrine, mission, and message.

• “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” issued September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City—The proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley at the general Relief Society meeting leading into October 1995 general conference, with the proclamation’s purpose to “warn and forewarn” the world and offering an official Church statement on family, marriage, gender roles, and human sexuality.

• “The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: A Bicentennial Proclamation to the World.”

Very well.  Every single one of those are nonnegotiable.

This list doesn’t include the Living Christ.  So we don’t have to believe that one.  

Edited January 27, 2022 by Rivers

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Very well.  Every single one of those are nonnegotiable.

This list doesn’t include the Living Christ.  So we don’t have to believe that one.  

Yeah, the Living Christ is not a proclamation.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/how-rare-a-proclamation-a-look-at-todays-and-the-5-previous-proclamations-in-church-history?lang=eng

[Olmec Donald]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, no, yes.

Understood

I would have a hard time worshipping a God who is unfair (the "no" in the middle), as then I'd be worshipping him out of fear, and/or kissing up in hopes that his unfairness was in my favor, or at least not against me.   Maybe better to hide my one talent in the ground instead of risking it... my point being, that fear didn't serve me well for those decades.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but that is not that comforting. I don’t know my best interest. I have an inkling of how far I am from perfection and I am pretty sure if there is an error in that inkling it is probably underestimation. I have learned that virtually every improvement in myself is bought with pain. Quite a bit of it. So how long will it take? I have no promise that death will end it so there is no timetable.

There are a substantial number of my deeper desires I will never have and probably should never have. What will the process required to cleanse myself of them cost? How much surgery with anesthesia? There are others I crave that will likely have to wait for another world and their lack hurts. My brain’s reward system is so messed up that the drives most people use to motivate themselves to some virtues are weak or almost nonexistent. Whatever premortal me did to require this fun course of treatment I do not recommend. I kind of want to go punch that smug disembodied git in the face.

I think C.S. Lewis is overly generous in saying that God will give you the aspirin to deaden the pain beforehand.

I am a bit of a downer. Sorry.

Thank you for your openness and sincerity.  I think my inevitably overly-tangential reply is guaranteed to be inadequate, but I wanna give it a shot anyway, so I'll open another thread.

In the meantime I don't know what boulders you carry but if on some level we are one, then imo your carrying them blesses me, no matter how many times you stumble or fall.

"If ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27); BUT "ye are mine" (Isaiah 34:1)... THEREFORE, imo, "ye are one".

Edited January 27, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[rongo]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think that some of the problem is that sometimes we assume that something was revelation when it was actually a well-reasoned opinion taught as if it was truth because it was believed to be true by the person who taught it.

 

I know you're not saying this, but the modern default setting is almost always that what is believed to be true by the leader who teaches it today is capital R revelation, not just a well-reasoned opinion taught as if it were truth. That was for those back then, but God wouldn't do that today. When they say it's revelation today, then it is. 

ETA: sorry JLH, I can't remove your tag below. I hate typing on a phone . . . 

@JLHPROF

Edited January 27, 2022 by rongo

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

I know you're not saying this, but the modern default setting is almost always that what is believed to be true by the leader who teaches it today is capital R revelation, not just a well-reasoned opinion taught as if it were truth. That was for those back then, but God wouldn't do that today. When they say it's revelation today, then it is. 

ETA: sorry JLH, I can't remove your tag below. I hate typing on a phone . . . 

@JLHPROF

I admit that it can be difficult for us to tell the difference between revelation that is meant for us but won't necessarily be meant for those who follow us, revelation that will applicable to everyone moving forward, and opinion.

If it was a struggle for those before us it's going to be a struggle for us too.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I admit that it can be difficult for us to tell the difference between revelation that is meant for us but won't necessarily be meant for those who follow us, revelation that will applicable to everyone moving forward, and opinion.

If it was a struggle for those before us it's going to be a struggle for us too.

 

[JLHPROF]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 

Absolutely one of my favorite scenes with a great character.  

[2BizE]

Polygamy? Wait that changed .

Adam God theory in temple? That changed too.

Blacks not receiving the priesthood until after the resurrection or until after all other men have priesthood? That changed.

These three were all doctrines that changed.

I think the only thing left is that Jesus is the Savior.

 

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

Polygamy? Wait that changed .

The law changed. Polygamy is still in the Doctrine and Covenants, and a man can still (while he is alive) be sealed to multiple women.

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

Adam God theory in temple?

Brigham Young's garden theology was never widely accepted by other church leaders.

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

Blacks not receiving the priesthood until after the resurrection or until after all other men have priesthood? That changed.

It returned to how it was originally. Blacks were ordained under Joseph Smith.

 

You're confusing statements made by church leaders with actual core non-negotiable church doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Rivers said:

With all the current discussion on the early Genesis stories, I have to ask this question: What teachings of the church are nonnegotiable?  What do we absolutely have to believe in to be a Lattet-day Saint?

 

Going off the words of the prophet, use of the proper name of the Church instead of nicknames such as “Mormon Church” or abbreviations such as “LDS Church” is non-negotiable. 
 

And you don’t have to take my word for it. Read his general conference address. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Rivers said:

With all the current discussion on the early Genesis stories, I have to ask this question: What teachings of the church are nonnegotiable?  What do we absolutely have to believe in to be a Lattet-day Saint?

 

You have to be able to honestly pass a temple recommend interview 

That's it. We get the ordinances, and that's it regarding dogma

Follow the spirit.

Orthopraxy, not Orthodoxy 

It's no big mystery to figure out.

Edited January 27, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Polygamy? Wait that changed .

Adam God theory in temple? That changed too.

Blacks not receiving the priesthood until after the resurrection or until after all other men have priesthood? That changed.

These three were all doctrines that changed.

I think the only thing left is that Jesus is the Savior.

 

Unless you want the temple ordinances, and why would anyone NOT want those ordinances for sitting thru sacrament talks every week?

Oh and then there's actually becoming Christlike.

You know, simple stuff like that.

 

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, rchorse 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”

- Joseph Smith

If we all collectively (members, nonmembers, and soft of members) believe this, then why does so much of the discussion on this forum have to do with appendages and not the fundamental principles? We are like Fundamentalists who insist they are bound together by five fundamental principles of the Christian faith and then spend most of the time arguing about when the tribulation period will be in relation to the rapture, or whether the flood was world-wide or local, or whether tongues is an active gift of the Spirit?

[teddyaware]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If we all collectively (members, nonmembers, and soft of members) believe this, then why does so much of the discussion on this forum have to do with appendages and not the fundamental principles? We are like Fundamentalists who insist they are bound together by five fundamental principles of the Christian faith and then spend most of the time arguing about when the tribulation period will be in relation to the rapture, or whether the flood was world-wide or local, or whether tongues is an active gift of the Spirit?

Are baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the ordinances of the temple, and the establishment of Zion non-essential to our salvation because they are appendages?

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If we all collectively (members, nonmembers, and soft of members) believe this, then why does so much of the discussion on this forum have to do with appendages and not the fundamental principles? We are like Fundamentalists who insist they are bound together by five fundamental principles of the Christian faith and then spend most of the time arguing about when the tribulation period will be in relation to the rapture, or whether the flood was world-wide or local, or whether tongues is an active gift of the Spirit?

The fundamental principles don't make for as much discussion fodder as the "side questions." It's the things that there are differences of opinion on, speculation, theories, etc. that are fun and interesting to discuss. 

Can you imagine zillions of threads over years discussing the resurrection, the atonement,* and the ascension? 

---

*Although, there are often threads about the mechanics of the atonement, on which there is a wide variety of opinions. But the fact of the atonement isn't really much of a discussion topic among people who believe that it happened and is real. 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Are baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the ordinances of the temple, and the establishment of Zion non-essential to our salvation because they are appendages?

[Navidad]

According to Preach my Gospel, here is a list of the baptismal interview questions prior to being baptized:

Baptismal Interview Questions

1.     Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior and Redeemer of the world?

2.     Do you believe that the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?

3.     What does it mean to you to repent? Do you feel that you have repented of your past transgressions?

4.     Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have you ever participated in an abortion? Have you ever committed a homosexual transgression?

5.     You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes living gospel standards. What do you understand about the following standards? Are you willing to obey them?

1.     The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal marriage between one man and one woman.

2.     The law of tithing.

3.     The Word of Wisdom.

4.     The Sabbath day, including partaking of the sacrament weekly and rendering service to others.

6.     When you are baptized, you covenant with God that you are willing to take upon yourself the name of Christ and keep His commandments throughout your life. Are you ready to make this covenant and strive to be faithful to it?

Would it not be logical or consistent to believe that these are the essentials or fundamental principles if they are the prerequisites for being baptized? I would not be able to answer five of them in the way the church would like, so I guess I am not a candidate. I find it interesting that abortion and homosexual transgression are the two specific sins singled out for questioning. There must be some rationale or reason for including those two and only those two? And then I think that most of these would be asked of an eight year old child? Zing..........right over their heads. At that age they still are parroting, are they not?

Edited January 27, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

11 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Are baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the ordinances of the temple, and the establishment of Zion non-essential to our salvation because they are appendages?

Is there a difference between non-essential and not a fundamental principle? I think in the answer to that is the answer to your question.

[rchorse]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

If we all collectively (members, nonmembers, and soft of members) believe this, then why does so much of the discussion on this forum have to do with appendages and not the fundamental principles? We are like Fundamentalists who insist they are bound together by five fundamental principles of the Christian faith and then spend most of the time arguing about when the tribulation period will be in relation to the rapture, or whether the flood was world-wide or local, or whether tongues is an active gift of the Spirit?

As rongo mentioned above, it's precisely because we (mostly) all agree about Christ, his divinity, and other fundamental principles that they're not discussed much.

Honestly, I've almost never heard the most common discussion topics from this board discussed at church or even in casual conversations with member friends. The only people I ever get into most of these topics with in real life are my wife and my brother and his wife. The vast majority of my real-life church experience and study does focus on Christ and what I would consider the fundamentals of the gospel. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by rchorse
clarity