Recent updates to General Handbook

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Oof. I could probably count the times with one hand that Calm has been so forcefully assertive in disagreement. I'm glad I'm not the one to provoke such a response.

The only other time I can remember (there were probably others, but this is the only one I can remember) is Reel’s podcast on Elder Holland as a liar after I and others went into considerable detail showing that Reel was wrong based on the actual video he referred to rather than just looking at still shots of the book (if you watch Elder Holland rotate the Hyrum Smith book in slow motion you can see the book is the same as was claimed and is not the Bathsheba Smith book because Bathsheba is not Hyrum’s wife and therefore Hyrum would not have used her book for his last personal reading with Joseph as he wasn’t at her home, there is no reason why he couldn’t have turned down the corner on her book when discussing the verses with her just as he did with that copy that was passed on through his son, iirc).  Reel didn’t even respect Bathsheba Smith enough to spell her name right (I have doubled checked the JSPP to be sure “Bethsheba” isn’t an alternative spelling, it isn’t and it still stands as an uncorrected error on his website almost 6 years after it was posted) or correct who her husband actually was (laziness or simply wanting the more click baitee “wife of Hyrum Smith” or because it destroys his claim that Hyrum had Bathsheba’s book in his possession and that she got it back later on?) and yet he has the nerve to promote Elder Holland as a liar in the very podcast he so casually makes o ma y misrepresentations.  It makes no sense to me as it destroys his credibility for me.  If he isn’t willing to take the time to get the really simple things correct, why should I ever trust his analysis or even presentation of anything at all?  It has been years since his errors were pointed out (in a thread he participated in), I find it hard to believe no one else ever pointed out the issues as well, so it feels again like he is damaging his vehicle driving into the wall over and over again with no end in sight.  Very unsatisfying.

***the initial mistake was understandable if one only read the section about the Book of Mormon in the original article that got Hyrum reading from it wrong and was clueless and careless about Hyrum’s actual history (Bathsheba not his wife, he never went on a mission to England and how in the world could Hyrum have been 20 when Bathsheba was baptized into the Church when Hyrum was 30 when the Church was organized?) because it first says “Hyrum Smith” and then talks of how “Elder Smith” bought it and later married Bathsheba.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2007/5/5/23233212/fabric-of-history-geo-a-and-bathsheba-smith-artifacts-donated-to-church/

And one could even claim that Hyrum Smith’s son was less likely to have the copy in his possession because he was young at the time, ignoring that his mother likely passed it on to him, and maybe there is proof somewhere that Hyrum was at Bathsheba and George’s before going off to his martyrdom…but at worse one can claim there are competing stories for two Book of Mormon’s, though why one would assume the Bathsheba Smith is the more likely one rather than just assume that Hyrum duplicated the bookmark for a passage he found particularly significant in two Book of Mormons for family members and used his own family’s on his last days is beyond me.

Edited September 8, 2024 by Calm

[InCognitus]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

it isn’t and it still stands as an uncorrected error on his website almost 6 years after it was posted) or correct who her husband actually was (laziness or simply wanting the more click baitee “wife of Hyrum Smith”?), and yet he has the nerve to promote Elder Holland as a liar in the very podcast he so casually makes o ma y misrepresentations.  It makes no sense to me as it destroys his credibility for me.  If he isn’t willing to take the time to get the really simple things correct, why should I ever trust his analysis or even presentation of anything at all?

This is also what drives my persistence in trying to get acknowledgement of possible misrepresentation. If the person is informed of the correct information, and that information is ignored and never acknowledged and the person continues to present it as accurate (on this message board or on a website), then it just proves that the person is not interested in the truth at all and isn't a reliable source of information but has other motives (as in your example, click bait for some other goal).  

[telnetd]

On 9/8/2024 at 10:25 AM, webbles said:

Did you ever read the complete original Ensign article?  It seems you just want to ignore the rest of that article.

Yes. I read it. 

What do you believe qualifies you for exaltation?

[telnetd]

On 9/8/2024 at 11:40 AM, InCognitus said:

If you aren't trying to be honest with our doctrine, then what's the point in having this discussion?

So how do you believe a person qualifies for exaltation?

[telnetd]

On 9/8/2024 at 1:50 PM, Calm said:

I am going to use an analogy to see if I can get my point across that way and so you aren’t avoiding my point by focusing on what you want to prove rather than what I would like to know about your methods.
 

Please answer the question at the bottom of how you would grade a student.Let’s say I am a science textbook writer and in my discussion about the moon I list ideas people used to have (and some still mistaken do) about the moon that are wrong, including this:

 

You are a teacher who has a student who believes the moon has no atmosphere (many believe this as you can see if you google it) and they decide to use my textbook to prove their point because that is what they have on their shelf.  Alas, my textbook disagrees with them, but they see there’s a way around my disagreement.  They decide to quote only part of what I said in this way:  

l bolded the part of the quote used to prove their fictitious point.

As a teacher, would you give them a bad grade for misuse of my textbook or not?  Would you be okay with the paper because the quote used was written identically to the textbook especially if the student points to other references that had scientists debating whether the exosphere qualifies to be labeled as an atmosphere or not or would you tell the student they had misused the quote because it was not what the textbook actually taught?

 

I would give them a bad grade for not enough focus on the other sources of belief
but then I couldn't say they were right or wrong if we don't have the truth of the
matter.

I see the same thing done in a teaching about Adam in the Garden of Eden. Some 
church teaching says he sinned. Other church teachings say he did not sin.  Can 
you really give students an accurate grade when the church throws two conflicting 
teachings at them?  I would say no.

But getting back to my earlier question. Can you explain your belief about exaltation.  
What qualifies you for exaltation?

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Yes. I read it. 

What do you believe qualifies you for exaltation?

Being in a covenant relationship with Christ by having faith in Him, repenting when we mess up, being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and continuing to try/want to follow Him and obey His commandments for the rest of our lives.

[webbles]

23 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Yes. I read it. 

What do you believe qualifies you for exaltation?

So then you read that "exaltation by works" is an incorrect statement of our doctrine.  Yes, it is possible to find lots of statements that look like we believe in "exaltation by works" but it is not what we actually believe.  It is more nuanced than "exaltation by works".  This is kind of similar to how early Christian followers had to deal with various heresies.  People would logically extrapolate ideas into a heresy.  For example, an early heresy was that Christ wasn't God but was just a man adopted by God to become the savior.  You can find scriptures that back up that idea.  And you could find teachings from early church fathers that also back up that idea.  But it isn't correct.

 

[Calm]

On 9/10/2024 at 9:19 AM, telnetd said:

then I couldn't say they were right or wrong if we don't have the truth of the
matter.

But we do have the truth of the actual matter because the question on right and wrong that you the teacher should be focusing on at that point is not about the moon, but about the quote from the textbook. The intent of teaching how to do research is not to teach him about the moon, but to teach him how to do research….which includes proper quoting.

Was it wrong of them to knowingly claim the textbook proved their point when they knew it said the opposite?  Iow, lied?

I don’t know why you keep thinking I am asking about doctrine/science facts when I am discussing writing mistakes.  While this is not plagiarism, taking something out of context knowingly is in the same category, imo, which is taking immoral (because it is lying) shortcuts in one’s arguments. 
 

I will have to ask my sister, the former English professor, as well as my husband the business professor, how much they would dock someone for intentional misrepresentation of facts in writing a research paper or a literature review. I see it equivalent to fraudulent data collection, as in making up data for research or dropping out the datapoints that go against one’s desired conclusions (think removing from a study a patient who died after treatment of a drug you want to bring to market because you think marketing the drug is more important than the possibility of someone dying from it for an extreme example of what I am talking about).

On 9/10/2024 at 9:19 AM, telnetd said:

Can 
you really give students an accurate grade when the church throws two conflicting 
teachings at them?  I would say no.

I can certainly give them a fail for falsifying a quote.

How someone goes about proving their point is essential to determine the value of what they have written. Who cares about their conclusions if they lied about the data?

Edited September 11, 2024 by Calm

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

So how do you believe a person qualifies for exaltation?

Easy answer:  By being honest with their sources and beliefs.

I can't wait to discuss this with you further, but there's no point in having a discussion at all if you can't honestly examine our beliefs.  Can you please at least acknowledge that you quoted from the Ensign article out of context and that it was a misrepresentation of our beliefs?  Then I can at least have some level of trust with the rest of our discussions.

If you take our teaching out of context and misrepresent them, then how can I trust you to have accurate beliefs about what the Bible teaches, or anything else for that matter?

Edited September 10, 2024 by InCognitus

[JAHS]

23 hours ago, telnetd said:

So how do you believe a person qualifies for exaltation?

Our works don't qualify us for exaltation; it is who we become by performing the works that qualifies us. Some can do the works but they never allow that to make the change necessary in their hearts and souls that make them able to abide the celestial kingdom. 
Apostle Dallin H. Oaks said:
"From such teachings we conclude that the Final Judgment is not just an evaluation of a sum total of good and evil acts—what we have done. It is an acknowledgment of the final effect of our acts and thoughts—what we have become. It is not enough for anyone just to go through the motions. The commandments, ordinances, and covenants of the gospel are not a list of deposits required to be made in some heavenly account. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a plan that shows us how to become what our Heavenly Father desires us to become." (Dallin H. Oaks, “The Challenge to Become,” New Era, Aug. 2002, 12)

[telnetd]

23 hours ago, JAHS said:

The commandments, ordinances, and covenants of the gospel are not a list of deposits required to be made in some heavenly account.

Can you be exalted without celestial marriage, the Word of Wisdom, and other temple work in
your heavenly account?

[telnetd]

On 9/10/2024 at 1:39 PM, InCognitus said:

Can you please at least acknowledge that you quoted from the Ensign article out of context and that it was a misrepresentation of our beliefs?

Yes. I will grant you this.

But I see from another Ensign article that there are at least six definitions of 
salvation.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1998/05/have-you-been-saved?lang=eng

Finally, in another usage familiar and unique to Latter-day Saints, the words 
saved and salvation are also used to denote exaltation or eternal life (see Abr. 
2:11). This is sometimes referred to as the “fulness of salvation” (Bruce R. 
McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 4 vols. [1979–81], 1:242). This salvation requires 
more than repentance and baptism by appropriate priesthood authority. It also 
requires the making of sacred covenants, including eternal marriage, in the 
temples of God, and faithfulness to those covenants by enduring to the end. If we 
use the word salvation to mean “exaltation,” it is premature for any of us to say 
that we have been “saved” in mortality. That glorious status can only follow the 
final judgment of Him who is the Great Judge of the living and the dead.

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Can you be exalted without celestial marriage, the Word of Wisdom, and other temple work in
your heavenly account?

Some members can do all that and still not be eligible for the celestial kingdom if they have not been sealed by the holy spirit of promise and have made the necessary change in their hearts. 
God will know their hearts and will judge accordingly. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Yes. I will grant you this.

So you will never use it again for this reason and in this way?

[telnetd]

On 9/10/2024 at 12:01 PM, Calm said:

Was it wrong of them to knowingly claim the textbook proved their point when they knew it said the opposite?  Iow, lied?

I don’t know why you keep thinking I am asking about doctrine/science facts when I am discussing writing mistakes.  While this is not plagiarism, taking something out of context knowingly is in the same category, imo, which is taking immoral (because it is lying) shortcuts in one’s arguments. 

If a text book claims that some believe the moon has an atmosphere while others 
believe the moon does not have an atmosphere and then moves to make a truth claim
based on one group's opinion, then it would not be making an accurate representation 
of the text book.

But if we apply this same logic to the Ensign article in discussion - the article
says, if I word it properly, is that some believe that LDS exaltation is by works 
but then Ensign clarifies that this is not what the LDS believe about exaltation.

But it's not a stretch for me to believe that exaltation by works is accurate when 
I read another Ensign article. It mentions six definitions of salvation.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1998/05/have-you-been-saved?lang=eng

Finally, in another usage familiar and unique to Latter-day Saints, the words 
saved and salvation are also used to denote exaltation or eternal life (see Abr. 
2:11). This is sometimes referred to as the “fulness of salvation” (Bruce R. 
McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 4 vols. [1979–81], 1:242). This salvation requires 
more than repentance and baptism by appropriate priesthood authority. It also 
requires the making of sacred covenants, including eternal marriage, in the 
temples of God, and faithfulness to those covenants by enduring to the end. If we 
use the word salvation to mean “exaltation,” it is premature for any of us to say 
that we have been “saved” in mortality. That glorious status can only follow the 
final judgment of Him who is the Great Judge of the living and the dead.

I get the same idea when I read 2 Nephi 25:23. "... for we know that it is by grace 
that we are saved, after all we can do".

The ones that have reached exaltation has fufilled the requirements, as opposed to 
others who did not do all they could do.

[telnetd]

On 9/10/2024 at 11:42 AM, webbles said:

So then you read that "exaltation by works" is an incorrect statement of our doctrine.  Yes, it is possible to find lots of statements that look like we believe in "exaltation by works" but it is not what we actually believe.

How you understand this Ensign article?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1998/05/have-you-been-saved?lang=eng

Finally, in another usage familiar and unique to Latter-day Saints, the words 
saved and salvation are also used to denote exaltation or eternal life (see Abr. 
2:11). This is sometimes referred to as the “fulness of salvation” (Bruce R. 
McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 4 vols. [1979–81], 1:242). This salvation requires 
more than repentance and baptism by appropriate priesthood authority. It also 
requires the making of sacred covenants, including eternal marriage, in the 
temples of God, and faithfulness to those covenants by enduring to the end. If we 
use the word salvation to mean “exaltation,” it is premature for any of us to say 
that we have been “saved” in mortality. That glorious status can only follow the 
final judgment of Him who is the Great Judge of the living and the dead.

[InCognitus]

20 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Yes. I will grant you this.

Thank you, but I hope that also means you will try to be fair about what we actually believe.  Does that also mean you will remove the quote from your website?

20 minutes ago, telnetd said:

But I see from another Ensign article that there are at least six definitions of 
salvation.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1998/05/have-you-been-saved?lang=eng

Finally, in another usage familiar and unique to Latter-day Saints, the words 
saved and salvation are also used to denote exaltation or eternal life (see Abr. 
2:11). This is sometimes referred to as the “fulness of salvation” (Bruce R. 
McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 4 vols. [1979–81], 1:242). This salvation requires 
more than repentance and baptism by appropriate priesthood authority. It also 
requires the making of sacred covenants, including eternal marriage, in the 
temples of God, and faithfulness to those covenants by enduring to the end. If we 
use the word salvation to mean “exaltation,” it is premature for any of us to say 
that we have been “saved” in mortality. That glorious status can only follow the 
final judgment of Him who is the Great Judge of the living and the dead.

Nobody is denying that there are multiple definitions of salvation.  

As for what Elder Oaks says, "If we use the word salvation to mean 'exaltation,' it is premature for any of us to say that we have been 'saved' in mortality. That glorious status can only follow the final judgment of Him who is the Great Judge of the living and the dead."

Isn't that pretty much the same thing as the apostle Paul writing, "let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap [eternal life], if we faint not" (Galatians 6:9)?

Edited September 12, 2024 by InCognitus

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, telnetd said:

The ones that have reached exaltation has fufilled the requirements, as opposed to 
others who did not do all they could do.

But would they received exaltation simply by doing those things if God did not exist?

[telnetd]

On 9/10/2024 at 11:23 AM, bluebell said:

Being in a covenant relationship with Christ by having faith in Him, repenting when we mess up, being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and continuing to try/want to follow Him and obey His commandments for the rest of our lives.

Does enduring to the end satisfy the requirements for exaltation?

[telnetd]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

But would they received exaltation simply by doing those things if God did not exist?

No.

[telnetd]

4 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Thank you, but I hope that also means you will try to be fair about what we actually believe.  Does that also mean you will remove the quote from your website?

Another conspiracy theory of yours.  As Kamala said, let's turn the page 🙂

4 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Nobody is denying that there are multiple definitions of salvation.  

As for what Elder Oaks says, "If we use the word salvation to mean 'exaltation,' it is premature for any of us to say that we have been 'saved' in mortality. That glorious status can only follow the final judgment of Him who is the Great Judge of the living and the dead."

Isn't that pretty much the same thing as the apostle Paul writing, "let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap [eternal life], if we faint not" (Galatians 6:9)?

Eternal life in the scripture is not becoming a God.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, telnetd said:

No.

Great, we agree there.

Why do you believe such things are required from us by God?

[Calm]

Just now, telnetd said:

Another conspiracy theory of yours.  As Kamala said, let's turn the page 🙂

Would you please ask the person who owns the page to remove it as it is wrong as it will most likely be more successful if someone who believes in the work the person is doing asks than someone who disagrees with them, I believe.

[JAHS]

42 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Does enduring to the end satisfy the requirements for exaltation?

That's part of it as long as we become what God wants us to become as we endure to the end. 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Thank you, but I hope that also means you will try to be fair about what we actually believe.  Does that also mean you will remove the quote from your website?

Another conspiracy theory of yours.

Do you really want me to go there?   The evidence speaks for itself (see post here, here, and here).

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Eternal life in the scripture is not becoming a God.

Yet in pretty much every place that the apostle Paul talks about gaining eternal life in scripture (including his discussion in Romans 6:9-12, where he concludes that "the gift of God is eternal life"), he presents it with the urgency of those seeking it becoming obedient servants of righteousness and "according to [a person's] deeds" (Romans 2:1-11),even in "Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life." (1 Timothy 6:17-19).  It all goes together.

Edited September 12, 2024 by InCognitus