Elder Kevin S. Hamilton emphasizes importance of Christ’s organized church

[Nofear]

22 hours ago, manol said:

 In other words,  "who we are" in this world is NOT "who we really are".  

In some respects I can agree with that, in other respects not-so-much. Children are known to behave better when in the active presence of a parental figure. Consequently, in coming to mortality we were given an opportunity to have memory of and that undeniable parental presence removed. Doing so, we are able to see from a different perspective what kind of person we are. A test of sorts. Not a test in a pass/fail kind of sense but a test to more carefully discern properties. Subject to that test, we have all be found wanting in some manner and in need of assistance (the atonement) to realize our full potential.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Children are known to behave better when in the active presence of a parental figure.

Kids tend to throw temper tantrums when parents are around and are more willing to work for those not their parents in my experience.  I do agree certain types of behavior are improved in the presence of an active parental figure (one who parents/guides, not just protects/coddles).

[manol]

53 minutes ago, Nofear said:

In some respects I can agree with that, in other respects not-so-much. Children are known to behave better when in the active presence of a parental figure. Consequently, in coming to mortality we were given an opportunity to have memory of and that undeniable parental presence removed. Doing so, we are able to see from a different perspective what kind of person we are. A test of sorts. Not a test in a pass/fail kind of sense but a test to more carefully discern properties. Subject to that test, we have all be found wanting in some manner and in need of assistance (the atonement) to realize our full potential.

I don't disagree with what you're saying about the behavior of children, but have yet to encounter a near-death-experience which suggests any of us are "playing with a full deck" as far as the "testing" aspect of mortality.  In other words, it looks to me like mortality is more of a classroom than a courtroom.  Imo our weaknesses clearly may be (and presumably often are) an intentional part of God's plan: 

"I GIVE unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them." (Ether 12:27, emphasis mine)

Joseph Smith said, "Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject."  So in the spirit of those words, if you haven't already, you might watch a couple minutes of the cued-up clips linked in my post, as they offer potentially useful information on the subject at hand from ordinary people who "gazed into heaven five minutes." 

I offer these ideas NOT in hopes of undermining Church teachings which persuade us to improve ourselves!  But rather, in hopes of providing a plausible basis for dialing back our tendency to be judgmental towards others.   

Edited February 2, 2023 by manol

[Navidad]

On 2/1/2023 at 5:52 AM, Nofear said:

My understanding of the doctrine is entirely different than what you suggest. The resurrection doesn't change us in that way. We will still have our agency and our new resurrected body in no way will remove that agency (indeed, I quite suspect that much of what we don't have control over we'll have control over (e.g. whether or not to sneeze)). Those that qualify for the Celestial Kingdom will be there because they have been changed and renewed by the Atonement and voluntarily choose to abide the laws and principles of that Kingdom -- not by persuasion, compulsion, or any other external or biological mechanism but because the individuals choose to do so by the nature -- a nature wrought anew ("born again") by the Atonement.

I am interested in your use of term "qualify." Do you have knowledge of the qualifications one must have to "qualify for the Celestial Kingdom?" If so, would you share them? Who will ultimately deem an individual as qualified or not? At what point in this or the next world will you know you have "qualified?" I am not challenging you. I just will take every opportunity to learn about what the LDS really think about things like our everlasting life with the Father and Son. I find phrases like being "worthy" too ambiguous to grasp. I understand how qualifications work. Thanks.

[rodheadlee]

24 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am interested in your use of term "qualify." Do you have knowledge of the qualifications one must have to "qualify for the Celestial Kingdom?" If so, would you share them? Who will ultimately deem an individual as qualified or not? At what point in this or the next world will you know you have "qualified?" I am not challenging you. I just will take every opportunity to learn about what the LDS really think about things like our everlasting life with the Father and Son. I find phrases like being "worthy" too ambiguous to grasp. I understand how qualifications work. Thanks.

It's layed out in D&C 132.

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi helix. Welcome to the forum. Do you believe I have not fully accepted Christ? In case you don't know, I am not a member of the LDS church, but have attended a ward for going on six years now. I committed my life to Christ as a boy and have committed my life to Christian ministry in a personal, bivocational, and vocational sense. I agree with Peter about the priesthood, which he also deems a holy nation. I believe in the benefit and value of ordinances. I have made my share of covenants (if-then commitments) with Christ. I depend on the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life to guide me. I am committed to the atonement of Christ and his unique role as the only eternal high priest. I am guided by my own group's version of the Word of Wisdom. I served a mission within my own faith group in west Africa. I would dare even suggest that I have served as one of Christ's leaders within my own faith tradition.

So again, have I not fully accepted Christ? If not, in what way am I less than fully committed to and in fact in a relationship with Him? Oh, and every week at the time of the Sacrament, I examine myself, recommit myself to my covenants and repent of the ways I have let Him down that week. Thanks for your response and again welcome to the board.

Do you fully accept His Works?

[Nofear]

47 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am interested in your use of term "qualify." Do you have knowledge of the qualifications one must have to "qualify for the Celestial Kingdom?" If so, would you share them? Who will ultimately deem an individual as qualified or not? At what point in this or the next world will you know you have "qualified?" I am not challenging you. I just will take every opportunity to learn about what the LDS really think about things like our everlasting life with the Father and Son. I find phrases like being "worthy" too ambiguous to grasp. I understand how qualifications work. Thanks.

1) they have been changed and renewed by the Atonement and
2) they voluntarily choose to abide the laws and principles of that Kingdom -- not by persuasion, compulsion, or any other external or biological mechanism but because the individuals choose to do so by their nature

No, we don't know everything about what those two statements mean specifically. The closest we get is "perfected in Christ". We won't be saved in our sins, but from our sins. If the sinful nature persists and we are rewarded despite that, that would be saving in our sins. If, however, our sinful nature is changed/removed/crucified that is being saved from our sins.

[Navidad]

On 2/1/2023 at 10:50 AM, helix said:

I hope I can do this correctly. I thought just for fun, in the spirit of dialogue, I would respond as a non-member to each of his important points as outlined by helix. I will try and bold my responses to differentiate from the speaker's points:

"My remarks today are centered on a fundamental question, why a church?  Why do we need a church, "

I agree. It is a good thing to talk about. I do believe we need the church and a church home.

"We need an organized church, one that can deliver the blessings of the atonement of Jesus Christ"

I am unsure that a church delivers the blessings of the atonement of Jesus Christ because I am not sure what that even means. I do believe a church can teach us about the blessings found in the atonement of Christ. I agree that is important.

"Jesus Christ himself organized a church even his church as we read in Ephesians and he gave some Apostles and some prophets and some evangelists and some..."

Agree completely.

"But the question remains why do we need a church? Why isn't it enough for me to simply worship God directly on a beach or a mountaintop? Why do I need the intermediary of a church?"

I agree with the first part completely. I disagree that we need the "intermediary" of a church . . . an intermediary between who and who or what and what?

"Jesus Christ established His church to enable individuals and families to do the work of salvation and exaltation."

I probably agree, but I don't know about the concept of exaltation. If by that you would accept "sanctification" as a synonym. I then agree.

"the church provides priesthood authority and keys, covenants and ordinances, prophetic direction, scriptures, gospel learning and teaching support service and leadership opportunities, and a community of saints"

There is a lot there. I think some of this mixes what a church does and what Christ does directly for the individual. For example I believe the church provides ministerial priesthood authority and ordinances, probably prophetic (in the sense of forth-telling) direction, gospel learning, teaching support service, leadership opportunities and a community of saints.

"The Church of Jesus Christ is how we come to Christ. It is His church it teaches His doctrine it provides His ordinances and covenants"

I agree the church is often how people come to Christ. It does teach His doctrine, provide ordinances and teaches about Biblical covenants between God and humankind.

This is the theme...it's similar to 3rd Nephi Chapter 11. It's about the atonement, and using priesthood for ordinances and covenants to apply the atonement. At no point is he talking about anything beyond a simple doctrinal level of saving ordinances and covenants.  He's not talking about, say, whether to pay gross or net on tithing, or that prophets are perfect when they agree, or that everything in the church handbook is correct and shouldn't be questioned. He has completely avoided that and defined his talk about how the church has priesthood, and the priesthood performs the few sacred saving ordinances.

I know of no saving ordinances or covenants. In almost every church I know about, the ministerial priesthood performs ordinances, none of which while important, are salvific.

The discussion of covenants and the atonement and love continues, over and over and over.  By minute 10, one-third into his talk, he is still hitting this point "These covenants and ordinances are only found in his church"

I guess I disagree. I believe the ordinances and covenants are found in the Scripture, not in a church. I do agree that some churches add ordinances based on Scripture. For example my church makes foot-washing an ordinance. In the speaker's later context, that particular ordinance is to teach humility, modeled after Christ. For some churches the marriage ceremony is an ordinance, others not.

"His church is led and directed by his Apostles just as it was in New Testament times because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His plan has not changed, His doctrine does not change, His covenants do not change. His church exists so that he can accomplish His objective which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children."

I know of many churches who have Apostles and Bishops, Elders, teachers, etc. I have no problem with that. I also know many who have some, and a few who have none. The latter is rare. When I was a professor, I taught many who were Apostles and Bishops in their own church environment. No problem there.

At 13:30, almost halfway into his talk, he stops defining why we need church, and he moves into corollary issues related to that theme.  Here is where critics start to misread and get cranky.

I really do believe that good folks can disagree with what he said without being either a critic or cranky. Just like many will disagree with what I say - some have a hard time not being cranky, but I won't go there 😀

"I have heard some that would try to decouple or disconnect Jesus Christ from His church and his apostles by saying things like I follow Jesus not the church or I follow the Savior not the Apostles. To those who say this I would simply say it's not possible you cannot accept Jesus Christ and reject His church or His authorized messengers."

I agree you can't spiritually decouple Christ and His church. They are bride and bridegroom. It is certainly possible to follow Jesus and not agree with everything taught in every church. It is certainly possible to follow the Savior and not follow everyone who says he or she is an apostle. I probably believe it is very possible to accept Jesus Christ and reject the institutionalized church, even probably all institutionalized churches. That makes it awfully difficult to serve, learn and grow though. . . possible but difficult.

The critic latches on this. "A ha! Pharisee! He's preaching inerrancy!"  No. Look at the prior 13 minutes. He's talking about ordinances and covenants via priesthood as organized by Christ to reach the atonement.  He said "covenants" 8 times by this point, ordinances 6 times, and priesthood 5 times. His theme is laid out, and he is talking about people who say you don't need Apostles or covenants or priesthood at all.

I don't know anything wrong about preaching inerrancy, properly defined and limited. I do believe we need covenants and Christ's high priesthood as king and priest in one person. I am one, but am not convinced we NEED ministerial priesthood. I do believe one can commune with God alone and in a cave, but that certainly limits human fellowship.

He gives a great example of this simplicity: "You cannot separate Jesus Christ from the Church of Jesus Christ. He taught this to the Nephites of the Book of Mormon.  'Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen to minister unto you and to be your servants.'" In 3 Nephi chapter 11, did Christ get into details? No, Christ kept his doctrine very simple and made a point of that. You can't separate the leaders preaching this gospel from Christ.

I don't how to respond to this. I don't think I understand what this means. How does one separate Christ from His Church? I think one can find Christ without a church, but that isn't separating Him from His church. My wife and I began attending an LDS ward because we wanted fellowship, to worship, and serve. The last one hasn't worked out too well, but that is a topic for another day.

"With all of his Church experience, President Kimball had undoubtedly sat through his share of meetings where the speaker read their talk, or spoke in a monotone, or gave a travelogue. But President Kimball understood that we do not go to sacrament meeting to be entertained but to Worship the Lord renew our covenants and be taught by the Spirit"

OK

Here's another critic issue: "Occasionally I have heard people say that those who serve in the First Presidency in the Quorum of The Twelve are only human and are capable of making mistakes. While it is true that we are all fallible human beings the safety net for all of us is the council system that we use at every level of the church." He states fallibility. Hamilton isn't worried about disagreements about policy, he's worried about covenants and humility.  He gave Kimball's analogy just prior, that Kimball went through his share of boring monotone meetings or travelogues, but that's not the point of church. We need core saving doctrines and ordinances.

OK . . . The only saving doctrine I know of is the soteriology of the atonement in its entirety. I know of no saving ordinances. I assume the adjective saving refers to both doctrines and ordinances. I would disagree with that.

"... in the government of God's kingdom where questions are honored but opposition is not"

Hmmm. Tough one. I was a public school superintendent so I got a close up view of opposition. Some I appreciated; others not so much! I also was a pastor. Ditto for that role. I love questions because I learn from them and enjoy answering them.

Read all of this in the context of the talk given prior. Priesthood, and those saving  doctrines, covenants, and ordinances aren't up for debate. They are part of Christ's church, and you can't separate leaders preaching these saving ordinances from Christ. 

I think that is too broad and simplistic a statement. Not all institutional churches have the same ordinances. Not all believe all or any of them are salvific. I don't think priesthood is up for debate because I believe every believer has the royal priesthood, Christ has the eternal priesthood, and a small percentage of folks hold the ministerial priesthood as granted by Christ via the authority of institutional church leaders.

"Another comment that I hear from time to time especially on social media is and I quote 'Be the change' as in 'I will be the change you know as in I will stay in the church and work for change from within'. But how does this square with the invitation to simply be humble followers of Christ?  Besides true change the kind of change that makes a difference in the eternities comes from within. We change our hearts and minds"

I am all for humility (although it is not always a strength for me) and for change. I support both. I worked in more than 100 public school districts and institutions of higher education to bring about change. I pray for constant change in my own life. So I am a bona fide supporter of change. Now about that humility attribute . . . .

Elder Hamilton says humility is the point of church membership, and focusing on disagreements over humility means you are doing something wrong.

I do not believe humility is the point of church membership. I believe the point of church membership is worship, learning, fellowship, and ministry. I think church membership should be freely offered by church leaders with as few "qualifications" as possible. We must accept the Biblical truth that the Holy Spirit leads folks to churches to make available spiritual gifts (of the Spirit) where they may be lacking in a specific local church or ward.

Thanks . . . I enjoyed reacting to each of his important points. It made me think. That is always a positive.

 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

It's layed out in D&C 132.

Wow, you picked the most challenging to understand and one of the most controversial of all sections in the entire Doctrine & Covenants. Could you be just a teeny tiny bit more specific?

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Do you fully accept His Works?

I am not sure what you are asking? Do I fully accept Christ's works on our behalf? Yes. Do I fully emulate them in my own personal life? No. What am I missing in your question?

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

1) they have been changed and renewed by the Atonement and
2) they voluntarily choose to abide the laws and principles of that Kingdom -- not by persuasion, compulsion, or any other external or biological mechanism but because the individuals choose to do so by their nature

No, we don't know everything about what those two statements mean specifically. The closest we get is "perfected in Christ". We won't be saved in our sins, but from our sins. If the sinful nature persists and we are rewarded despite that, that would be saving in our sins. If, however, our sinful nature is changed/removed/crucified that is being saved from our sins.

Ok. Sounds good to me. I understand how our sinful nature can be changed and possibly crucified. I don't understand how it can be removed. I am not sure where we are taught the "laws and principles" of eternal life with Christ. I have always thought to be above our pay grade in the current dispensation.

[T-Shirt]

On 1/30/2023 at 10:17 AM, Teancum said:

This talk seems to drive the point home that leaders should pretty much be followed without question.

Is it really not possible to accept Jesus without accepting the Church and its leaders? 

This is not an exact quote, but close enough. It is important to remember who his audience is. He is talking to and about members of the Church who have all accepted Christ through baptism and other ordinances. They are all members of Christ’s church from a Latter-day Saint perspective. Many of them, if not most or all, have answered Temple Recommend questions where they have confirmed their faith, belief and sustaining of the Restoration of the Church and the President of the Church as well as the Quorum of the Twelve. Here is the full quote in context:

"My first observation, I have heard some that would try to decouple or disconnect Jesus Christ from His church and His apostles by saying things like, “I follow Jesus, not the Church” or “I follow the Savior, not the apostles.” To those who say this, I would say, it’s not possible. You cannot accept Jesus Christ and reject His church or His authorized messengers. You cannot separate Jesus Christ from the Church of Jesus Christ. He taught this to the Nephites in the Book of Mormon. Quote, “Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants.”"

The quote from the Book of Mormon is very important here. All of his audience, at one time or another have accepted the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and that it is the word of God. The verse he quotes shows, from Jesus’s own words, that members of His church should, “give heed unto the words” of the Twelve He has chosen to lead them. Furthermore, He tells them that if they do give heed to their words, He will bless them.

In this context, what he says is accurate, you cannot accept Jesus Christ and reject His church or His authorized messengers. You cannot separate Jesus Christ from the Church of Jesus Christ any more than you can separate Warren Buffet from Berkshire Hathaway or Martin Luther King Jr. from the civil rights movement or Albert Einstein from the theory of relativity.

Quote

Do other good faithful non LDS Christians not accept Jesus?

This is really a non sequitur. Of course people who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can accept Christ in their own way. From their point of view a Catholic cannot accept Christ and reject the Pope, nor can a Baptist accept Him and reject the Bible nor can a faithful Muslim reject Muhammed.

Later he clarifies even more and states the following:

“It's simply not possible to completely follow the Savior without following His church.”

The word “completely” is rather important here. From the point view that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, in reality, the Savior’s church, then it would follow that He would expect us, after accepting Him, to be baptized into His church and pursue the other saving ordinances and give heed to the words of His chosen leaders. In this context, a person not of our faith can certainly and hopefully follow the Savior, but to completely follow Him one would need to follow his direction and do as stated above.

Quote

And there you have it.  Jesus is the church and the church is Jesus. Follow and obey and don't ask questions. 

This, of course, is just your own interpretation. He did not say this, and, in context, it wasn’t even implied. You tend to impute the most negative meaning possible to things said by leaders of the Church. Jesus is not the Church and the Church is not Jesus. However, the Church is His creation and His authorized organization. If He has chosen people to lead His Church and imbued them with power and authority, then a member of His church would do well to follow them and give heed to their words. It appears you no longer believe this is His Church and that He has called authorized servants to lead it. That is fine, you can accept Jesus Christ in your own way, but if the Church is truly the Church of Jesus Christ, you can’t say Jesus would be pleased if we were to reject those He has chosen to lead.

On 1/30/2023 at 2:55 PM, Teancum said:

So you agree that we need to replace church and leaders with Jesus. 

Here is the full quote in context:

"Could I suggest an alternative approach? Substitute the word, “Savior” or “Lord” or “Jesus Christ” in place of, “The Church”, as in, “I don’t support the Savior’s policy on _____”, you fill in the blank. Or “I don’t agree with the way Jesus Christ does” …  this or that. For me, personally, that seems to put a very different perspective on things."

This is a suggestion; something put forward for consideration. A suggestion is not a statement of orthodoxy or an article of faith, it is nothing more than his personal thought experiment that helps him put things in a different perspective. He is suggesting that his audience try it to see if it helps them. There is nothing sinister or dogmatic here.

Quote

And this is why I argue that the leaders pretty much expect members to do what they say without question. 

He quotes Elder Oaks in the talk where he specifically says that the Church honors questions. I would go even further and say that the Church, over the last couple of decades has very much encouraged questions. What they don’t encourage is opposition or contention. So, when you say that leaders, “expect members to do what they say without question.”, it is not an accurate representation of the talk or the Church’s position.

Quote

Take on faith.  This past and present.

Sometimes we have to trust faith and press forward. What is important to remember, however, is that faith is not blind. True faith is never blind. Faith is a confidence born out of experience as explained in Alma 32. As we gain a testimony of the truthfulness of the Church we learn to trust the Lord and those He has called, not blindly, but because we have had confirming experiences.

On 1/31/2023 at 7:07 AM, Teancum said:

His talk along with numerous others over the years teach that we need to follow the words of prophets seers with fealty. 

I’m not sure how you are using the word, “fealty”. If you just mean being loyal, I don’t really see a problem with being loyal to the Church or its leaders. But I would not really agree that this or other talks claim that we, “need” to be loyal. If you are using a more hyperbolic definition of fealty, such as swearing loyalty to a lord out of fear of the consequences, then I would vehemently disagree with you and would challenge you to provide evidence of such a thing.

Quote

Another question. What happens when someone who is a member openly disagrees and opposes what the church leaders say and teach?

The Church does not honor opposition. There are proper and constructive ways to deal with matters when we have a disagreement, but to stand in open opposition, the Church could possibly take action to consider your continued membership. Overall, though, this does not happen that often.

On 1/31/2023 at 8:24 AM, Teancum said:

As mentioned it is directed at church members. I guess it may be just the faithless border line apostate members who are using their critical thinking skills to ask questions.  Could be someone sitting in the pew next to you.  Could be you someday. Who knows?

It is sometimes difficult to interact with you when you feel the need to be insulting. The Church honors and encourages respectful questions. Anyone can ask them, faithful members, doubting members, apostates, and non-members. Implying that member are not allowed to ask questions or that faithful members of the Church do not have “critical thinking skills” is not helpful in furthering the discussion and is just inaccurate.

Quote

If you want to live your life with total faith and never question I guess his admonition does not apply to you.

Again, this just sounds angry. I am quite sure you are fully aware that all questions, asked respectfully, are allowed and even encouraged. And, regarding faith, you seem to have a habit of misusing the word. You seem to believe that a person acting in faith is acting blindly. Faith is always blind to you, it seems. Faith is not blind. Faith is acquired through experience that leads one to trust just as you trust a close friend who has proven his trustworthiness.

On 1/31/2023 at 8:25 AM, Teancum said:

And how often does the [personal] revelation dispute what the leaders say?

The word “dispute” means argue or debate. Revelation does not argue. I suppose you likely meant more along the lines of contradict. How often does personal revelation contradict what Church leaders say? I don’t know and it is impossible to know. If there are contradicting revelations, then in most cases, one of them is wrong. If you feel that yours is the correct one, then there are constructive and proper ways to deal with it. Getting angry and coming out in open rebellion is never fruitful. I would say, however, that I can think of a few examples of where there can be a contradiction between a leader’s revelation and someone’s personal revelation and both of them be right.

On 1/31/2023 at 5:01 PM, 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.

This was not said nor implied. I’ve already addressed this, but why do you feel a need to insert the word “alleged” in here? To you, they may be alleged, but in this talk, they were never presented as alleged. In fact they were presented as “authorized”.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Jesus Christ’s Church. If it is, one would do well to follow the prophet and give heed to the Savior’s chosen leaders words. One can ask all the questions they want, if asked respectfully and there can be disagreements. If handled properly one can remain a faithful member, which should be the goal if this Church is really the Savior’s church. You will have to decide for yourself, is it, or isn’t it? If it is, trust that the Lord will correct errors that creep into His church and be humble enough to realize and accept the fact that, in some cases, maybe it is you who are wrong.

Edited February 2, 2023 by T-Shirt

[mfbukowski]

On 2/1/2023 at 8:47 AM, Teancum said:

Please listen and opine. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Haven't forgotten, just busy

 

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure what you are asking? Do I fully accept Christ's works on our behalf? Yes. Do I fully emulate them in my own personal life? No. What am I missing in your question?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one of his works. I refer you to Doctrine and Covenants chapter 1.

I would like to refer you to the post by t-shirt on page 5. He lays it out real good.

Edited February 3, 2023 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Wow, you picked the most challenging to understand and one of the most controversial of all sections in the entire Doctrine & Covenants. Could you be just a teeny tiny bit more specific?

Combine that with Doctrine and Covenant 76.

[mfbukowski]

On 2/1/2023 at 8:47 AM, Teancum said:

Please listen and opine. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Ok.  I listened to the talk, or a least what linked to, and I did not see what people here are complaining about.

He is expressing his paradigm and I agree with his paradigm.  The paradigm includes the idea that one must receive all the Covenants to be exalted.

Fine.  The paradigm also says that when we die, we will universally see that the Covenant path is the way to go.

I am hearing something different OR there must be links to more?

Or maybe if you asked questions with references?

Suppose  Buddhist said "to reach Nirvanah, you must follow these practices: 1, 2, 3, 4."

Ok, maybe I want to go to the CK instead.  You do the LDS paradigm then.

Same thing

The idea that we have a scientific knowledge of what's after death is not rational.

HOPE FOR THINGS UNSEEN 

So pick your paradigm and stick with it.

The purpose of religion is to find what is sweet to you: Alma 32.

That's MY paradigm, and I have no problem with what this elder says in the long run, just that I am uncomfortable with his allegedly dogmatic approach.

1. Trust you own testimony is also in Alma, James, Moroni, and all religions. 

The kingdom of heaven is within, not in science, if it was in a scientific realm existing empirically, it would be vulnerable to science; it is not because it is about what the belief does for you

2. Trust you own testimony is also in Alma, James, Moroni, and all religions. 

So do it. 

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am interested in your use of term "qualify." Do you have knowledge of the qualifications one must have to "qualify for the Celestial Kingdom?" If so, would you share them? Who will ultimately deem an individual as qualified or not? At what point in this or the next world will you know you have "qualified?" I am not challenging you. I just will take every opportunity to learn about what the LDS really think about things like our everlasting life with the Father and Son. I find phrases like being "worthy" too ambiguous to grasp. I understand how qualifications work. Thanks.

Your answer is also found in 2 Nephi 31

Quote

14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repent[ed] of your sins, and witness[ed] unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.
15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.
16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.
17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.
18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

Repent, covenant (by being baptized and receiving the baptism and gift of the Holy Ghost) to keep his commandments, endure to the end. Receive the promises.

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one of his works. I refer you to Doctrine and Covenants chapter 1.

I would like to refer you to the post by t-shirt on page 5. He lays it out real good.

Ok. I am not sure why you would ask me if I accept the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as "one of His works." I have maintained that truth for all five years I have been on this forum. I certainly believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one of His works that together form the "church collectively." I guess I will turn the question around. Do you believe the Mennonite, Methodist, and Catholic churches are also each "one of his works" and part of the church collectively? Please read my reply to t-shirt's wonderful post to which you refer. I would like to refer you to that!

Edited February 3, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Jesus Christ’s Church.

I gave you an up vote because I admire how you said what you said. I may be wrong, but I don't think the intent of upvotes is to only be given when I agree with what you said. For me, they are not agreement devices, but are admiration devices. The sentence I quoted here in this response is a case in point. After five years in a ward, I absolutely agree with this sentence of yours. How could I not?

What I think is missing in your sentence is the article prior to the second word Jesus. I find that faithful Saints often insert the definite article "the" or parenthetically the word "thee" there. Or they add the article and an adjective "the only." I would add an article as well. I would add the indefinite article "a". Five years of faithful attendance and participation in every aspect of the ward except the temple has taught me that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indeed a work of God. It is indeed a Jesus Christ's Church.

I am also as certain as I can ever be (I call it provisional certainty) that it is not thee, nor is it the only authorized Jesus Christ's Church on earth in this dispensation.

I haven't read a post, a book, or an article that draws me to that conclusion. I have read the ward, its people, policies, practices, as well as the larger church as I have attended conferences, visited folks in SLC, etc. I also have read the other churches, people, policies, and practices as well as their larger church as I have attended conferences, visited their headquarters, etc. When I was a CFO of a large school district, I encouraged my staff to "read" the numbers as well as to "count" the numbers. Too many bean counters miss what the numbers are telling them. I love to read books, people, numbers, organizations, and conflicts. My reading of the LDS church assures me it is a work of God in progress. Ditto for many other churches as well. My reading of the LDS people assures me they are a work of God in progress as well. Ditto for many others in other churches who name the name of Christ as well. Aren't we all spiritual works in progress?

The "church collectively" is a wonderful, diverse, dedicated place of gathering of those who have both accepted and been accepted by the Savior. Christ has called us each out of the world to proclaim His truth to the world. As Calm reminded me earlier this morning, we all have our biases and blind spots, both you and me included. Perhaps the Savior is the only human without them. He sees us as we are, acknowledges our faith, and grants us His gift of grace equally to each of those who make and live covenants with him as our Savior, Lord, Priest, and King. Thanks for reading this.

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So pick your paradigm and stick with it.

The purpose of religion is to find what is sweet to you: Alma 32.

That's MY paradigm, and I have no problem with what this elder says in the long run, just that I am uncomfortable with his allegedly dogmatic approach.

1. Trust you own testimony is also in Alma, James, Moroni, and all religions. 

The kingdom of heaven is within, not in science, if it was in a scientific realm existing empirically, it would be vulnerable to science; it is not because it is about what the belief does for you

2. Trust you own testimony is also in Alma, James, Moroni, and all religions. 

So do it. 

Wow, I like everything you said! That is terrifying! 🙃  I wonder if you believe the speaker would agree with you? Just one quick question for clarification. If you really believe in "So pick your paradigm and stick with it," are you opposed to conversion attempts or missiological efforts in general? Thanks my friend.

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Your answer is also found in 2 Nephi 31

Repent, covenant (by being baptized and receiving the baptism and gift of the Holy Ghost) to keep his commandments, endure to the end. Receive the promises.

Thanks. I think this is what I really like about the Book of Mormon. Straight-out-simple-basic Arminian gospel. Nothing about plural marriage, sealings, correctly authorized baptisms by correctly authorized priesthood holders, anti-trinitarianism, etc.  The Book of Mormon is the gospel 101.

While I am not personally Arminian in my perspective, I certainly appreciate that point of view as a genuine approach to understanding the gospel. What is found in the passages you mentioned are found across the Christian world. I know most here will not agree with me . . . but I think sometimes the LDS church has gotten a bit lost in its unique add-on qualifications found in later revelations. I can only speak as one who has carefully considered the LDS faith. I value the gospel message as revealed in the Book of Mormon (probably because much of it conforms to the Bible 😀), but I struggle with all the appendages added on in the late 1830s-40s revelations and the various interpretations of the same that came even later.
Anyway, thank you for your straightforward and simple list of qualifications.

[Nofear]

17 hours ago, Navidad said:

...  I don't understand how it can be removed. ...

For what it's worth we Latter-day Saints don't know how the Atonement works. We have analogies this and analogies that, but ultimately they all fall short. What we do know (including myself from personal experience) is that the Atonement is real and it does work. For us, it is an ongoing process and not an all-at-once-everything-everywhere thing. Being "born again" is a process.

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, Nofear said:

For what it's worth we Latter-day Saints don't know how the Atonement works. We have analogies this and analogies that, but ultimately they all fall short. What we do know (including myself from personal experience) is that the Atonement is real and it does work. For us, it is an ongoing process and not an all-at-once-everything-everywhere thing. Being "born again" is a process.

I wonder if you would accept the possibility that being born again is an aorist or point-in-time event, while sanctification is a process that will go on eternally, similar to the Saint's exaltation? For the Christian life to be lived to its fullest, there must be salvation and sanctification. Perhaps two parts of the same process or event. So it that case we probably agree about the process part.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Navidad

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks. I think this is what I really like about the Book of Mormon. Straight-out-simple-basic Arminian gospel. Nothing about plural marriage, sealings, correctly authorized baptisms by correctly authorized priesthood holders, anti-trinitarianism, etc.  The Book of Mormon is the gospel 101.

While I am not personally Arminian in my perspective, I certainly appreciate that point of view as a genuine approach to understanding the gospel. What is found in the passages you mentioned are found across the Christian world. I know most here will not agree with me . . . but I think sometimes the LDS church has gotten a bit lost in its unique add-on qualifications found in later revelations. I can only speak as one who has carefully considered the LDS faith. I value the gospel message as revealed in the Book of Mormon (probably because much of it conforms to the Bible 😀), but I struggle with all the appendages added on in the late 1830s-40s revelations and the various interpretations of the same that came even later.
Anyway, thank you for your straightforward and simple list of qualifications.

 

Some observations.

1. The Book of Mormon writers were authorized prophets of God. Arminius, et al., were not. Since the Book of Mormon is the revealed Word of God, perhaps the principles that Arminianism might have in common with it are correct. I’m cool with that.

2. Perhaps Arminius or one of his compadres was the phantom Early Modern English writer who supposedly authored the book through some circuitous path of translations that can be ferreted out with word studies. Some here would be cool with that.

3. The Book of Mormon was written over 1200 years before Arminian theology appeared. Some here would not be cool with that.

————-

Actually, there is an essential doctrine about polygamy in the BoM that was followed in its practice by 19th century LDS leaders and continues to be our doctrine today…

Quote

Jacob 2: 27, 30 For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife…For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

The doctrine of baptism in the BoM includes implicit instructions given by Jesus in his own words…

Quote

3 Nephi 1119 And Nephi arose and went forth, and bowed himself before the Lord and did kiss his feet.
20 And the Lord commanded him that he should arise. And he arose and stood before him.
21 And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven.
22 And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you.
23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them.
24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:
25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. 
26 And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

Regarding anti-trinitarianism in the BoM, there are many excellent LDS sources that treat this in depth.

Other etceteras?

Pre-mortal existence.  ✔️ 

Foreordination.  ✔️

Authority in the ministry.  ✔️

Need for an authorized and organized church.  ✔️

The necessity of the Fall.  ✔️

Baptism required of all who are accountable.  ✔️

Others you might think of?

Edited February 3, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

On 1/31/2023 at 1:35 PM, 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." 

There are literally hundreds of the LGBT community that are shot every year in this country and even more who are murdered throughout the world.  There have been gun massacres at gay clubs during this same time period.  Yet Elder Holland chose to use the phrase that many perceived as a literally call to arms against the LGBT community.  The use of this violent metaphors was at best a very bad choice of words that caused triggers in a lot of the LGBT community.  The outrage among a wide spectrum of people was understandable.  Violence against the LGBT community should never be encouraged.  Given the past attacks on the LGBT community by the Church, it is not like there was already hostility against the Church for it's actions.

It is impossible for me to believe that Elder Holland never heard about the uproar that his speech caused.  Yet he said NOTHING to clarify his position.  How easy would it have been for Elder Holland to issue a statement of clarification that he meant no physical harm to the LGBT community.  A simple statement would have taken the wind out of the sails of those who believe he was insensitive to what those in the LGBT community deal with in fear on a daily basis.  I mean it is not like he doesn't have a very large pulpit that would easily cover such an apology.   It literally would have taken 10 minutes to clarify his remarks.  

His complete silence on this subject can only be interpreted in a few ways.

1.  Elder Holland was perfectly ok with people taking his metaphor literally as a dog whistle call for arms against the LGBT community.

2. Whatever an apostle say is always correct and never should be apologized for.

3. Apostles never apologize for any errors in judgement.  

4. Elder Holland has so much self pride that he just could not have issued a statement of clarification.

 

Maybe I am missing something.  Can you explain why Elder Holland never made any attempt to clear up his statement and clarify exactly what he meant if in fact some people too offense and misinterpreted his intent of his words?

 

Quote

This talk from Elder Hamilton's 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."

Doesn't Elder Hamilton have the same opportunity to clarify what he meant to say?  Would it not be better for HIM to clarify his remarks rather than you doing it for him?  Why is this so difficult for Church leaders??  Are they trying to perpetuate this infallibility in what they say and do and any kind of clarifying statement is some kind of distorted sign of weakness?  Like Elder Holland, his complete silence causes most people to believe that their understanding of what he said is exactly what he meant.

I predict that such incidents are going to continue to happen.  If the Church really wants these firestorms to stop perhaps they should be more proactive in clarifying their remarks.  Because silence is being understood to mean that how people are responding to these situations was in fact, their intent.