Recent updates to General Handbook

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, telnetd said:

That makes it clearer.  There's access and then there's presence.

But people who have either are not Spiritual dead, per the definition you used.

[ZealouslyStriving]

28 minutes ago, telnetd said:

How do you know if one has kept their second estate?

I don't. One who appears to be receiving all of the covenants and obeying all the commandments could have his hidden sinful lifestyle.

We will know when we see who makes it to the highest degree of Celestial Glory and who doesn't.

[telnetd]

Just now, bluebell said:

But people who have either are not Spiritual dead, per the definition you used.

It depends on if you view those who don't have eternal increase in the resurrection
as being spiritually dead.

[telnetd]

5 minutes ago, webbles said:

He goes on how it is impossible for us to exalt ourselves with any of our works.

It's God who does the exaltation but there are conditions a person must satisfy.

[telnetd]

9 minutes ago, webbles said:

We could have chosen to stay in the pre-mortal state.

How?

[Rain]

32 minutes ago, webbles said:

It is a requirement if we want to progress.  We aren't required to progress.  We could have chosen to stay in the pre-mortal state.  God won't force us to come to Earth.

I've only ever heard of 2 groups. Those who chose to go on to mortal life and those who fought against the way people go through mortal life. Are you saying there is a third possibility of people who didn't fight in the war in heaven, but also didn't choose mortal life?

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, telnetd said:

It depends on if you view those who don't have eternal increase in the resurrection
as being spiritually dead.

But that’s not the definition of spiritually dead that you used, is it? I thought you said earlier that all those who are separated from God are considered spiritually dead. But maybe I missed something.

[webbles]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

I've only ever heard of 2 groups. Those who chose to go on to mortal life and those who fought against the way people go through mortal life. Are you saying there is a third possibility of people who didn't fight in the war in heaven, but also didn't choose mortal life?

I don't believe God would force us to come to Earth.  So if someone decided to stick around in the pre-mortal existence, then I think they would be permitted to do so.  Is there any that did that?  I doubt it.

[webbles]

41 minutes ago, telnetd said:

How?

I don't understand this question.  The person would just choose to stay.  God won't force that person to come to mortality.

[webbles]

42 minutes ago, telnetd said:

It's God who does the exaltation but there are conditions a person must satisfy.

Sure.  The first condition is accepting Christ.  If you don't accept Him, you are a Son of Perdition.  Everything above that is through Christ's grace.  I can go through all of the motions and make it look like I'm a great person but if I don't accept Christ, none of them will save or exalt me.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, telnetd said:

The way I read it was that salvation is grace (free) in the sense that nothing we 
do on earth is required for us to be resurrected. On the other hand, exaltation is 
for those who obey all the laws and perform all the ordinances (the works part of
it).

As @InCognitus pointed out, we reap what we sow.  Reaping and sowing gives
the allusion to works since you cannot reap for the free gift of resurrection.

Hope I understood it correctly.
 

 If you did understand my comment, it’s impossible to tell because you didn’t respond to what I said, but skipped ahead to conclude and it’s hard to tell what part you are making the conclusion about.

I want to see if you understood or not, so please answer the below first. Please ignore what the article’s full purpose is to teach to begin with and focus on the purpose of that one section that you have quoted, what the author intends to teach with those paragraphs, the part labeled “Inadequate Explanations”.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1981/04/salvation-by-grace-or-by-works?lang=eng

Please answer this first:  Do you accept that “salvation is grace and exaltation is works” is a doctrinal error according to the author, Gerald Lund? See my previous post if you don’t understand why I am asking this. 
 

 

Edited August 28, 2024 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

On 8/19/2024 at 8:28 PM, smac97 said:

The Tribune: New LDS Church policies relegate trans members to ‘second-class’ status, scholars warn

"Scholars."

"{A}ssigned at birth."

I think these are reasonable provisions.  The massive amount of equivocation that has been going on for so many years now is, sooner or later, going to run into real logistical and practical concerns.  We need to be kind and compassionate, while at the same time maintaining reasoned boundaries.

These are difficult rules, but they make sense,  Plenty of parents would not feel comfortable with sending their daughter to an overnight FSY or other youth event and end up rooming with a biological male.

Also reasonable.

Also reasonable.  

Hmm.  These are difficult, but seemingly necessary.  

I think the policies have more to do with decorum, propriety, and following delineations based on biological reality rather than utterly subjective inner-held feelings.

The Church, in the end, must be able to define its own policies.

I don't think this is so.  I'm reasonably confident that the Church acknowledges the exceedingly rare instances of people with disorder of sexual development (DSD), and I suspect they work with local leaders and individuals on a case-by-case basis.  I think the Church also acknowledges people with Gender Dysphoria.

I also think the Church is not acquiescing to the unscientific notions surrounding self-declared "nonbinary" identity.  A biological woman may choose to identify as nonbinary, but she cannot foist that onto others and insist they go along with it, particularly private religious organizations.  None of this amounts to denying her existence.

Thanks,

-Smac

I know this is old, but I've been out of country for a bit and this is the first time I've seen this. 

There's stuff that I'm okay with in this. And there's stuff I'm not. 

The stuff I agree with are the areas that are overtly gendered having some boundaries to them. Such as youth overnights. Not only for the example you mentioned, But also for the the safety and comfort of the trans kid. Usually the sleep over part is the least monitored by adults, which could lead to bullying or harassment when people aren't looking. I would be equally concerned for a transboy staying over with a bunch of boys. 

I find the bathroom one extremely uncomfortable. It borders on humiliating when I put myself in the shoes of a person who's transitioned. I get the desire of separation and privacy, particulary when transition is only/mostly social. But I also find it super intrusive to discuss your bathroom usage with a bishop/leader. 

I think some things are a little too over gendered. Younger children callings are not gendered and I can't think of a reason that a transperson couldn't help in those areas. The ordinance of baptism and confirmation seems excessive to me. I've never seen anything to infer that baptism/confirmation are in anyway about gender. I think it would be more appropriate to use one's legal name, than birth name to be more on equal stance with practices for the cisgendered majority. For example if I were baptized or receive a blessing today, my married name would be used, not my birth name. When I married I seriously contemplated switching my first name with my middle, since I go primarily by my middle name. In which case that arbitrary shift would also show up when I received a blessing. I don't see the point in insisting using their birth name, even if their legal name has been changed. If there's concerns about it switching again at some point, it would be simple to make a specific form for other names and have records be changed as needed. Many trans people are particularly uncomfortable with their birth names. I don't think it's really helpful to make them confront their discomfort while committing themselves into a church where discomfort and limitations will be apparent from the get-go. 

I'm struggling to find much of what's being mentioned In the actual handbook, but assume I'm just not searching it well. I am glad that every entry I do find emphasizes being loving and compassionate to transpeople and in their complex concerns. I'm also glad that there's at least 1 acknowledgment about not knowing where these feelings or impressions come from for transpeople. At the same time this seems a little dissonant when there's more of a heavy emphasis on their limitations in our church community than how wards and leadership can work to better integrate them into our faith. I've always understood the tricky matter around endowments and sealings where gender is very much intertwined throughout the whole thing. And I believe in that, even if I don't have all the words to explain why I do. But I think there could have been more give and accommodation in these policies, particularly in the part where gender is not a pre-req or cultural assumption to be further wrestled with/explored as we seek for understanding of how we all fit into one greater family.

 Because of that, I think there is warranted criticism for some of the policies.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 28, 2024 by BlueDreams

[InCognitus]

16 hours ago, telnetd said:

As @InCognitus pointed out, we reap what we sow.  Reaping and sowing gives
the allusion to works since you cannot reap for the free gift of resurrection.

It was actually the apostle Paul that pointed out that we reap what we sow, and we must sow to the spirit to receive eternal life (I simply quoted Paul from the Bible).  The apostle Paul is also the same biblical writer that referred to eternal life as "the gift of God" and the "free gift".  

By the way, I noticed that you totally dodged my questions.  Can you please answer my questions here, or Calm's question above?   

[telnetd]

On 8/29/2024 at 1:45 AM, InCognitus said:

By the way, I noticed that you totally dodged my questions.  Can you please answer my questions here, or Calm's question above? 

As the context shows, the article is teaching that the statement you quoted is part of an "Inadequate Explanation" and is a "doctrinal error". 

Do you now see how you used the statement out of context to claim that the article is teaching something that it is actually teaching against?  

It was unclear. Please rephrase.

[telnetd]

On 8/28/2024 at 10:50 AM, Calm said:

Please answer this first:  Do you accept that “salvation is grace and exaltation is works” is a doctrinal error according to the author, Gerald Lund? See my previous post if you don’t understand why I am asking this. 

@InCognitus

From what I've read, salvation by grace is by resurrection. It is free, unearned, 
like a gift you receive at Christmas or on your birthday. It's unmerited.  On the
other hand, exaltation (becoming a God) requires obedience to laws and all the temple 
ordinances.

LDS President Nelson summed it up in the April 2022 General Conference.

The covenant path is the only path that leads to exaltation and eternal life.

[telnetd]

On 8/28/2024 at 10:30 AM, webbles said:

Sure.  The first condition is accepting Christ.  If you don't accept Him, you are a Son of Perdition

What about those who reject the gospel?

[telnetd]

On 8/28/2024 at 10:22 AM, bluebell said:

But that’s not the definition of spiritually dead that you used, is it? I thought you said earlier that all those who are separated from God are considered spiritually dead. But maybe I missed something.

True.  Spiritual death comes in various forms.  No eternal increase, a separation 
from Heavenly Father, and those harmed by the second death - who are not in the 
first resurrection (Revelation 20:6).

[Calm]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

As the context shows, the article is teaching that the statement you quoted is part of an "Inadequate Explanation" and is a "doctrinal error". 

Do you now see how you used the statement out of context to claim that the article is teaching something that it is actually teaching against?  

It was unclear. Please rephrase.

How was saying “this is a doctrinal error” unclear?  Serious question.  Saying something is an error is saying it is wrong, correct?

Edited August 30, 2024 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

What about those who reject the gospel?

What do you mean?  At the Final Judgment, those few who reject Christ are sons of perdition.  Everyone else will accept Him.  Since He is the gospel (the good news), then everyone will accept the gospel except the sons of perdition.

[InCognitus]

On 8/30/2024 at 8:46 AM, telnetd said:

As the context shows, the article is teaching that the statement you quoted is part of an "Inadequate Explanation" and is a "doctrinal error". 

Do you now see how you used the statement out of context to claim that the article is teaching something that it is actually teaching against?  

It was unclear. Please rephrase.

What is unclear about those questions?

Let's try it this way with more direct questions:

1. Have you read the entire April 1981 Ensign article titled "Salvation", by Gerald N. Lund?
2. If the answer to #1 is "Yes", did you notice that the portion you quoted is under a subheading titled "Inadequate Explanations" and is said to be "doctrinal error"?
3. If the answer to #2 is "Yes", then why did you say "being saved by grace and exaltation by works" is something that is "taught" in the April 1981 Ensign article?
4. If the answer to #2 is "No", then did you actually copy the quote from the Ensign article?  Or did you copy and paste it from the website I posted earlier in the thread?  Or from somewhere else?
5. If the answer to #1 is "No", then where did you copy the quote from, or how did you come upon the quote?

Those are clear and direct questions.  Please answer them.

[california boy]

On 8/28/2024 at 8:25 AM, BlueDreams said:

I know this is old, but I've been out of country for a bit and this is the first time I've seen this. 

There's stuff that I'm okay with in this. And there's stuff I'm not. 

The stuff I agree with are the areas that are overtly gendered having some boundaries to them. Such as youth overnights. Not only for the example you mentioned, But also for the the safety and comfort of the trans kid. Usually the sleep over part is the least monitored by adults, which could lead to bullying or harassment when people aren't looking. I would be equally concerned for a transboy staying over with a bunch of boys. 

I find the bathroom one extremely uncomfortable. It borders on humiliating when I put myself in the shoes of a person who's transitioned. I get the desire of separation and privacy, particulary when transition is only/mostly social. But I also find it super intrusive to discuss your bathroom usage with a bishop/leader. 

I think some things are a little too over gendered. Younger children callings are not gendered and I can't think of a reason that a transperson couldn't help in those areas. The ordinance of baptism and confirmation seems excessive to me. I've never seen anything to infer that baptism/confirmation are in anyway about gender. I think it would be more appropriate to use one's legal name, than birth name to be more on equal stance with practices for the cisgendered majority. For example if I were baptized or receive a blessing today, my married name would be used, not my birth name. When I married I seriously contemplated switching my first name with my middle, since I go primarily by my middle name. In which case that arbitrary shift would also show up when I received a blessing. I don't see the point in insisting using their birth name, even if their legal name has been changed. If there's concerns about it switching again at some point, it would be simple to make a specific form for other names and have records be changed as needed. Many trans people are particularly uncomfortable with their birth names. I don't think it's really helpful to make them confront their discomfort while committing themselves into a church where discomfort and limitations will be apparent from the get-go. 

I'm struggling to find much of what's being mentioned In the actual handbook, but assume I'm just not searching it well. I am glad that every entry I do find emphasizes being loving and compassionate to transpeople and in their complex concerns. I'm also glad that there's at least 1 acknowledgment about not knowing where these feelings or impressions come from for transpeople. At the same time this seems a little dissonant when there's more of a heavy emphasis on their limitations in our church community than how wards and leadership can work to better integrate them into our faith. I've always understood the tricky matter around endowments and sealings where gender is very much intertwined throughout the whole thing. And I believe in that, even if I don't have all the words to explain why I do. But I think there could have been more give and accommodation in these policies, particularly in the part where gender is not a pre-req or cultural assumption to be further wrestled with/explored as we seek for understanding of how we all fit into one greater family.

 Because of that, I think there is warranted criticism for some of the policies.

 

With luv,

BD

You bring up some very valid reasons why this latest policy is not very well thought out even from a doctrinal point of view.  At some point, I expect this to be reconsidered and a new "Answers to Gospel Questions" will not be able to explain this latest round of policies and this this new policy will be explained away as "fallible men of their time".  They will undoubtedly throw in that there seems to be no record of a revelation from God on this issue.  Just how is this latest ban any different than previous bans that were based on personal prejudices and not revelation?  I personally don't see Christ being all that concerned with what gender you feel you need to be labeled while on the earth and more concerned with how you progress towards Him and embrace His teachings in your life.  

I recently had a couple, one of which was transgender apply to rent an apartment that I own.  I couldn't think of any valid reason to make the fact that one was transgender as a reason to not fully consider their application.  And that was just an apartment.  Barring someone from baptism into a Church that is suppose to be leading souls back to Christ seems much more serious than whether they should be considered for an apartment to rent.  

I will be the first to admit that I have no idea what it is like to feel like you are born into the wrong gender.  I don't understand those feelings and beliefs at all.  But I also don't think it is any business of mine to need to understand.  My only job is to treat them with respect, love and the same as anyone else I meet.  I have no right to damn them and do things that would cause them to turn away from Christ.  I know some will find that position appalling.  

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You bring up some very valid reasons why this latest policy is not very well thought out even from a doctrinal point of view.  At some point, I expect this to be reconsidered and a new "Answers to Gospel Questions" will not be able to explain this latest round of policies and this this new policy will be explained away as "fallible men of their time".  They will undoubtedly throw in that there seems to be no record of a revelation from God on this issue.  Just how is this latest ban any different than previous bans that were based on personal prejudices and not revelation?  I personally don't see Christ being all that concerned with what gender you feel you need to be labeled while on the earth and more concerned with how you progress towards Him and embrace His teachings in your life.  

I recently had a couple, one of which was transgender apply to rent an apartment that I own.  I couldn't think of any valid reason to make the fact that one was transgender as a reason to not fully consider their application.  And that was just an apartment.  Barring someone from baptism into a Church that is suppose to be leading souls back to Christ seems much more serious than whether they should be considered for an apartment to rent.  

I will be the first to admit that I have no idea what it is like to feel like you are born into the wrong gender.  I don't understand those feelings and beliefs at all.  But I also don't think it is any business of mine to need to understand.  My only job is to treat them with respect, love and the same as anyone else I meet.  I have no right to damn them and do things that would cause them to turn away from Christ.  I know some will find that position appalling.  

I agree with you. We should be welcoming people in, not pushing them away. 

[telnetd]

On 8/30/2024 at 1:08 PM, webbles said:

What do you mean?  At the Final Judgment, those few who reject Christ are sons of perdition.  Everyone else will accept Him.  Since He is the gospel (the good news), then everyone will accept the gospel except the sons of perdition.

I'm referring to those terrestrials and telestials as defined in the Plan of Salvation.

Terrestrial kingdom. People who refuse to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ but 
who live honorable lives will receive a place in the terrestrial kingdom. 

Telestial kingdom. Those who continue in their sins and do not repent will receive 
a place in the telestial kingdom.

[telnetd]

On 8/30/2024 at 12:42 PM, Calm said:

How was saying “this is a doctrinal error” unclear?  Serious question.  Saying something is an error is saying it is wrong, correct?

Yes.

Let me rephrase the question.  

Do you need to do anything in mortality to receive a resurrection?
What do you need to do in mortality to qualify for exaltation?

[telnetd]

On 8/31/2024 at 9:49 PM, InCognitus said:

What is unclear about those questions?

Let's try it this way with more direct questions:

1. Have you read the entire April 1981 Ensign article titled "Salvation", by Gerald N. Lund?
2. If the answer to #1 is "Yes", did you notice that the portion you quoted is under a subheading titled "Inadequate Explanations" and is said to be "doctrinal error"?
3. If the answer to #2 is "Yes", then why did you say "being saved by grace and exaltation by works" is something that is "taught" in the April 1981 Ensign article?
4. If the answer to #2 is "No", then did you actually copy the quote from the Ensign article?  Or did you copy and paste it from the website I posted earlier in the thread?  Or from somewhere else?
5. If the answer to #1 is "No", then where did you copy the quote from, or how did you come upon the quote?

Those are clear and direct questions.  Please answer them.

1. Yes.
2. Yes. But the word exaltation is swapped with salvation.
3. It says salvation is synonymous with exaltation.  Put in other words, exaltation 
is a conditional salvation. It's mentioned in the April 1972 General Conference.

There is an additional salvation that God has planned for his children. This 
additional salvation is an individual salvation and is conditioned not only upon 
grace, but also upon obedience to gospel law. One of the prophets in the Book of 
Mormon explained why he and his associates were so concerned about teaching more 
about Jesus Christ, as he wrote:

"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, 
to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace 
that we are saved, after all we can do." (2 Ne. 25:23.)

So, exaltation by works (a conditional salvation in this sense) seems to be a valid
statement.

4. n/a
5. n/a