Navidad Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 (edited) On 1/30/2023 at 1:32 PM, smac97 said: It's simply not possible to completely follow the Savior without following His church. It's not possible for any human being, member or not of any church, anywhere "to completely follow the Savior." We are each and every one of us part of the "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." All of us, each of us . . . LDS or not are part of the "there is none righteous, no not one." Christ is righteous - we ain't. Thank goodness through His love and grace He declares us righteous when we ain't. Can anyone name me any human, in any era, in any church who has "completely followed the Savior?" Edited January 31, 2023 by Navidad 2 Link to comment
T-Shirt Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 9 minutes ago, Navidad said: It's not possible for any human being, member or not of any church, anywhere "to completely follow the Savior." We are each and every one of us part of the "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." All of us, each of us . . . LDS or not are part of the "there is none righteous, no not one." Christ is righteous - we ain't. Thanks goodness through His love and grace He declares us righteous when we ain't. Can anyone name me any human, in any era, in any church who has "completely followed the Savior?" The context of the talk is that to "completely follow the Savior" is to enter into His Church wherein lies the saving ordinances and the keys and authority to perform these ordinances, and to partake of them, binding us, our families and our ancestors to God and preparing us for exaltation. Anyone can do it, perfection or sinlessness is not required. 2 Link to comment
2BizE Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 4 hours ago, Pyreaux said: What do you know of obedience? I know according to LDS doctrine that Satan’s plan in the pre existence was to make everyone obey. This is what I am seeing here. Link to comment
Navidad Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 2 hours ago, T-Shirt said: The context of the talk is that to "completely follow the Savior" is to enter into His Church wherein lies the saving ordinances and the keys and authority to perform these ordinances, and to partake of them, binding us, our families and our ancestors to God and preparing us for exaltation. Anyone can do it, perfection or sinlessness is not required. That's a mouthful and certainly not what he said. That's your interpretation of what he said to validate it in an LDS context. Are you inferring that by joining the LDS church, performing and partaking of its ordinances, having the keys and authorities to perform the church's ordinances, etc. you are "completely following the Savior?" He did use the word "completely." I didn't. I never mentioned perfection or sinlessness. Righteousness is a whole different concept than either of those. 2 Link to comment
Pyreaux Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 (edited) 21 minutes ago, 2BizE said: I know according to LDS doctrine that Satan’s plan in the pre existence was to make everyone obey. This is what I am seeing here. So, obedience is satanic? Perhaps you don't know LDS doctrine as much as you think. Jesus' plan was to have everyone obey, though abet willingly. Never saw anything concerning forced obedience being discussed here. Edited January 31, 2023 by Pyreaux 3 Link to comment
CV75 Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 1 hour ago, Navidad said: It's not possible for any human being, member or not of any church, anywhere "to completely follow the Savior." We are each and every one of us part of the "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." All of us, each of us . . . LDS or not are part of the "there is none righteous, no not one." Christ is righteous - we ain't. Thank goodness through His love and grace He declares us righteous when we ain't. Can anyone name me any human, in any era, in any church who has "completely followed the Savior?" Jesus could not have followed His Father / Himself without setting up His church (i.e., "that they may be made perfect in one [in the world]") and His authorized servants ("As thou hast sent me... have I also sent them into the world") -- see John 17. Link to comment
CV75 Posted January 31, 2023 Share Posted January 31, 2023 1 hour ago, Navidad said: That's a mouthful and certainly not what he said. That's your interpretation of what he said to validate it in an LDS context. Are you inferring that by joining the LDS church, performing and partaking of its ordinances, having the keys and authorities to perform the church's ordinances, etc. you are "completely following the Savior?" He did use the word "completely." I didn't. I never mentioned perfection or sinlessness. Righteousness is a whole different concept than either of those. I take "completely" to man "someday" when we are perfected; I also take it with a large grain of grace. 1 Link to comment
T-Shirt Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Navidad said: That's a mouthful and certainly not what he said. That's your interpretation of what he said to validate it in an LDS context. I don't think it is a mouthful at all. Did you listen to the talk? I listened to it and that is exactly the context of the talk. Quote Are you inferring that by joining the LDS church, performing and partaking of its ordinances, having the keys and authorities to perform the church's ordinances, etc. you are "completely following the Savior?" He did use the word "completely." I didn't. If we stay true to our covenants, yes. Quote I never mentioned perfection or sinlessness. Righteousness is a whole different concept than either of those. You did mention that we all sin, so that is where my comment comes from. Righteousness does not mean that we never sin, it comes through repentance and keeping covenants. There is no righteousness without grace. Edited February 1, 2023 by T-Shirt 3 Link to comment
Teancum Posted February 1, 2023 Author Share Posted February 1, 2023 4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Creepy melody. OK. Seems to me the issue is more with the text. Did you like the video? Sure the video was nice. It did not sound like the Follow the Prophet song thought. 4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I’m trying to think of times that listening to the prophets has led me astray. Coming up with a blank. One could argue that if you are following them you are being led astray. 😉 Link to comment
Teancum Posted February 1, 2023 Author Share Posted February 1, 2023 3 hours ago, helix said: No, not it does not. This talk is making the rounds in ex-member circles, grossly distorting the talk into something it isn't. This is the Jeffery Holland talk to BYU faculty all over again, where one side starts up and spreads a lie: "He's telling all church members to pointing our guns and shooting gays". The other side responds "No, if you read the talk, he's telling BYU faculty to defend its mission and defend itself from metaphorical attacks from the outside." This talk from Elder Hamilton's talk is not what critics say it is. The talk is describing the church in simple doctrinal terms: faith, baptism, covenants, priesthood, and the atonement. These are core doctrines and will not change. The talk states that disagreeing with these disagrees with Christ. Compare 3 Nephi chapter 11 for similar language: "And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one. And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.... And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil.... Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth." That's it. This talk is just another 3 Nephi 11. Don't overdo it. The ex-member circles are proclaiming that the talk means that the black priesthood ban was correct, the church is inerrant, you shouldn't question the leadership regarding their policy of tithing payments in Australia, etc., and if you do, then you don't follow Christ. That's a complete mischaracterization. Well I will just let his words stand on their own without my spin or yours and see how others understand them. Link to comment
Teancum Posted February 1, 2023 Author Share Posted February 1, 2023 3 hours ago, Navidad said: It's not possible for any human being, member or not of any church, anywhere "to completely follow the Savior." We are each and every one of us part of the "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." All of us, each of us . . . LDS or not are part of the "there is none righteous, no not one." Christ is righteous - we ain't. Thank goodness through His love and grace He declares us righteous when we ain't. Can anyone name me any human, in any era, in any church who has "completely followed the Savior?" But my friend, the point of this talks is you cannot really accept Jesus without accepting those who are the alleged apostles and prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. So all you other Christians are simply out of luck. 1 Link to comment
T-Shirt Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Teancum said: But my friend, the point of this talks is you cannot really accept Jesus without accepting those who are the alleged apostles and prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. So all you other Christians are simply out of luck. He did not say that. Did you listen to the talk or are you just going by a few notes of a BYU reporter? Incidentally, the reporter misquoted the talk in some places. Edited February 1, 2023 by T-Shirt Link to comment
Navidad Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 4 hours ago, CV75 said: Jesus could not have followed His Father / Himself without setting up His church (i.e., "that they may be made perfect in one [in the world]") and His authorized servants ("As thou hast sent me... have I also sent them into the world") -- see John 17. The word perfect there is the Greek word for "complete." 2 Link to comment
Calm Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 4 hours ago, 2BizE said: I know according to LDS doctrine that Satan’s plan in the pre existence was to make everyone obey. This is what I am seeing here. That is one interpretation, the other is the scripture means he would have removed all law. Without law there is no sin. He was pushing the idea that with no sin all would be able to return. 1 Link to comment
Stormin' Mormon Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 3 minutes ago, Calm said: That is one interpretation, the other is the scripture means he would have removed all law. Without law there is no sin. He was pushing the idea that with no sin all would be able to return. That is how I read Moses 3. Seems like Satan is promising a world without consequences, not a world without choice. A lack of consequences would just as surely "destroy the agency of man" as would a regime of forced obedience. 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said: That is how I read Moses 3. Seems like Satan is promising a world without consequences, not a world without choice. A lack of consequences would just as surely "destroy the agency of man" as would a regime of forced obedience. This is closer to his current approach, so it makes so much more sense to me than believing Satan was promising to work hard to turn everyone into goody two shoes. Edited February 1, 2023 by Calm 1 Link to comment
OGHoosier Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 And thus we see that Satan was a deontologist. I knew there was something fishy about Kant. Link to comment
helix Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, Teancum said: Well I will just let his words stand on their own without my spin or yours and see how others understand them. When a rumor spreads like wildfire, how effective is it to just say "How about we give the mob some patience? They'll look carefully for the truth and will arrive at an honest conclusion." We saw this with the Jeffery Holland BYU talk. How many people will actually go through and listen to the entire talk, or read the entire transcript? Or analyze the talk for title, theme, supporting evidence, and conclusion, to see what the talk actually says? Compare that to how many people will just accept a two sentence sound byte and the cynical interpretation prepackaged for them? Rumors and lies need to be called out early and hard. This talk is not what the ex-member circles are portraying it to be. Edited February 1, 2023 by helix 1 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 (edited) I have not read the talk, I am speaking to the questions some have raised, probably they have misinterpreted it BUT Nothing trumps what God tells me. God can tell little old ME if this Authority is right or wrong That is the prime directive on how to find "if the church is true". If God does not affirm it to ME there is no reason to believe any authority who might be taken to say otherwise. Some interpretations might see this as category errors; do you obey the King, or several of His servants? If the King says yes and the servants say no, and if my prime devotion is to the King, it is the King who wins. Obedience to anyone other than God denies the principle of Testimony itself. And that goes for EVERY talk et al. The decision is as easy as pie. Key lime. 🤗 Edited February 1, 2023 by mfbukowski 2 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 11 hours ago, 2BizE said: I know according to LDS doctrine that Satan’s plan in the pre existence was to make everyone obey. This is what I am seeing here. Actually his plan was to save everyone. It is not clear how he intended to implement that plan. We have concocted some scenarios that seem rational but could easily be false. Link to comment
Navidad Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 12 hours ago, T-Shirt said: I don't think it is a mouthful at all. Did you listen to the talk? I listened to it and that is exactly the context of the talk. If we stay true to our covenants, yes. You did mention that we all sin, so that is where my comment comes from. Righteousness does not mean that we never sin, it comes through repentance and keeping covenants. There is no righteousness without grace. "There is no righteousness without grace." We certainly agree on that. Grace is a gift (Eph 2:8,9 - doron). It is something "uncaused." I like that a lot. Another term for it is "unmerited." It is not "through" any act of our own. Nor do I believe it to be gained via any specific church. I believe it to be accessible to the one who has never been inside any church in the institutional use of the word. The word doron is often sometimes translated as "sacrifice." I like that too. It is through Christ's sacrifice of Himself, an act of love - unmerited and uncaused by any action on our part that we receive the gift. We don't cause it, but we do have to accept it. The word doron is used 19 times in the NT. Show me one of those times where in the context it is the result of some merit of the recipient. I think the big question that has divided Christianity is more about how do we retain or maintain the gift, once accepted? Perhaps keeping covenants, like those each of us have made to Christ has something to do with that? I really don't know. If I give a kidney to someone I love, that is a covenant - a commitment. If I later regret it because my sole remaining kidney fails, does that negate what I did or make my gift to that person null and void? No. The Baptists use the metaphor of two people grasping each other's arms. If only one lets go, is the covenant broken? Does Christ hold tight to us when we let go of Him? I don't know; but it is not something I ever anticipate doing, so I would not spend much time debating it. Take care and very best wishes. Link to comment
Navidad Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 (edited) 14 hours ago, CV75 said: Jesus could not have followed His Father / Himself without setting up His church (i.e., "that they may be made perfect in one [in the world]") and His authorized servants ("As thou hast sent me... have I also sent them into the world") -- see John 17. And in this diespensation His only authorized servants those found in the LDS church? Does that correctly complete your thought? 8 hours ago, helix said: We saw this with the Jeffery Holland BYU talk. How many people will actually go through and listen to the entire talk, or read the entire transcript? Or analyze the talk for title, theme, supporting evidence, and conclusion, to see what the talk actually says? Oh my! I like this! How I wish more folks would take the same level of analysis into the Scripture - read the entire transcript - not pick and choose, but actually study hard to "see what the talk actually says," looking for its theme, supporting evidence, and conclusions. That takes years of dedicated commitment and study. Of course, once we have done that we are led back into Holy Spirit-led interpretation. That is why I personally am a bit skeptical about those who study the Scriptures sans the aid of the Holy Spirit in that analysis. The Scriptures are not a work by Tolkien, MacDonald, or Lewis. It isn't a matter of removing faith from the analysis to arrive at a better analysis. It is a matter of correctly incorporating faith into the analysis. That is the really hard part because with faith often comes bias. Therein lies the challenge of "rightly dividing the word of truth." Edited February 1, 2023 by Navidad Link to comment
Nofear Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 10 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said: That is how I read Moses 3. Seems like Satan is promising a world without consequences, not a world without choice. A lack of consequences would just as surely "destroy the agency of man" as would a regime of forced obedience. My personal interpretation is that Satan would simply have our biology adjusted so that we were pliant, obedient, and "good" by nature. Not so much that there wouldn't be consequence for sin, just that we would never sin. In our current situation, there are some things we don't really have agency about (e.g. whether or not to have our heart beat, breathe, close your eyes when you sneeze, etc.). I am continually amazed about the balance between biology and psychology that God gave us so that real, useful agency exists*. Satan wouldn't have to redefine right or wrong so much as simply make our bodies more like not-quite-as-sentient animals (e.g. cattle). We would be nice and kind, submissive, pliant, and quite willing to "obey" God because our biology essentially compelled such. While certainly possible, doing so would not have enabled the real change in character/being that only comes because of the interplay between agency and Atonement. * For the vast majority of humans, there are some where that is messed up and they are "not accountable". Link to comment
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 1, 2023 Share Posted February 1, 2023 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Nofear said: My personal interpretation is that Satan would simply have our biology adjusted so that we were pliant, obedient, and "good" by nature. How is this different than what happens at the resurrection? It’s my understanding that members believe that perfection is unobtainable in this life. That we all sin. That no perfect being in this life existed except for Jesus. Yet in the celestial kingdom, everyone will be sinless. So what changes between here and there? If we pass this test, doesn’t God change is so that we are “good” by nature? Edited February 1, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding Link to comment
Teancum Posted February 1, 2023 Author Share Posted February 1, 2023 12 hours ago, T-Shirt said: He did not say that. Did you listen to the talk or are you just going by a few notes of a BYU reporter? Incidentally, the reporter misquoted the talk in some places. I listened to it. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now