Recent updates to General Handbook

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, telnetd said:

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?

I am not interested in this side of the conversation at this point as I think it’s confusing what I want made clear.  I am only interested right now  in your choice to use the quote as something we actually teach when it is the opposite, it’s seen as a doctrinal error.  You used something that said it was wrong as evidence it was taught.  To me doing that knowingly is lying, even if you think that it works in a different context.  The author said it was wrong.  By quoting him and claiming it was taught in the Ensign, you are saying the author said it was doctrinal truth…which is the opposite of what he said and if you realize this, is this not lying about what the author said?

So next question….

Do you withdraw your claim that “salvation is grace and exaltation is works” according to LDS doctrine as “taught in the Ensign”?

If yes, that’s great, I don’t feel a need to ask anything else.  If you will no longer use that as a quote to prove that is what LDS believe, I am good.

If no, why not?  I can’t understand why you would continue to claim that an LDS author taught this, so please explain your reasoning.
 

 Incognitus says this better, more concisely than me…”Since you knew the statement you quoted was said to be "doctrinal error", then why did you post it as something "taught" in the Ensign article?”

(The article recognized that some people understood it that way, but was clear they were wrong. You therefore shouldn’t use the article to support that belief is LDS doctrine even if you believe that is our actual doctrine because you are changing the meaning of what the author said.)

Edited September 3 by Calm

[InCognitus]

10 minutes ago, telnetd said:

1. Yes.
2. Yes. But the word exaltation is swapped with salvation.

1. "Yes", you read the entire article.

2. "Yes" you noticed that the portion of the article you quoted is under a subheading titled "Inadequate Explanations" and is said to be "doctrinal error".   Since you knew the statement you quoted was said to be "doctrinal error", then why did you post it as something "taught" in the Ensign article? 

10 minutes ago, telnetd said:

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.

Do you think the above justifies you in taking the quote out of context?

Since you read the entire article, why didn't you just post the summary where it teaches "We Are Saved by Grace"?  

I'm trying to establish a baseline for whether or not you actually understand our doctrine.  There's no point in going off into other directions until we know you are actually trying to understand what we believe rather than trying to misrepresent our teachings and side-step legitimate questions to further your agenda.

Edited September 3 by InCognitus

[Stargazer]

On 8/28/2024 at 3:30 PM, webbles said:

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.

No, to become a Son of Perdition you have to reject Christ having knowledge that He is the Son of God. There will be those who refuse to accept Christ's atonement, and will have to suffer what Christ suffered, but even they will inherit a kingdom of glory: the Telestial Kingdom. 

DC 76:31,32 -> "Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power — They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;" [emphasis added]

Lucifer is called Perdition in verses 25 and 26 -> "And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son, And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning."

All of those 1/3 who rebelled with Lucifer in that event are sons of perdition. There will be others who kept their First Estate, but who in mortality rebelled against knowledge, who will join with them. It is said that there will be very few of those.

Edited to add: if one is looking for the qualifications for becoming a SoP, the following might be of value:

Joseph Smith said: “What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (Teachings, p. 358.)

Elder Spencer W. Kimball wrote: “The sin against the Holy Ghost requires such knowledge that it is manifestly impossible for the rank and file to commit such a sin” (Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 123).

Edited September 3 by Stargazer

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

No, to become a Son of Perdition you have to reject Christ having knowledge that He is the Son of God. There will be those who refuse to accept Christ's atonement, and will have to suffer what Christ suffered, but even they will inherit a kingdom of glory: the Telestial Kingdom. 

DC 76:31,32 -> "Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power — They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;" [emphasis added]

Lucifer is called Perdition in verses 25 and 26 -> "And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son, And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning."

All of those 1/3 who rebelled with Lucifer in that event are sons of perdition. There will be others who kept their First Estate, but who in mortality rebelled against knowledge, who will join with them. It is said that there will be very few of those.

Edited to add: if one is looking for the qualifications for becoming a SoP, the following might be of value:

Joseph Smith said: “What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (Teachings, p. 358.)

Elder Spencer W. Kimball wrote: “The sin against the Holy Ghost requires such knowledge that it is manifestly impossible for the rank and file to commit such a sin” (Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 123).

That's basically what I meant but I can see why you didn't see it that way.  But those in the Telestial Kingdom are still redeemed by Christ.  No one can gain a kingdom of glory except through Christ's atonement.

[telnetd]

On 9/3/2024 at 3:21 PM, Calm said:

So next question….

Do you withdraw your claim that “salvation is grace and exaltation is works” according to LDS doctrine as “taught in the Ensign”?

If yes, that’s great, I don’t feel a need to ask anything else.  If you will no longer use that as a quote to prove that is what LDS believe, I am good.

If no, why not?  I can’t understand why you would continue to claim that an LDS author taught this, so please explain your reasoning.

The article says:

"Salvation in its true and full meaning is synonymous with exaltation or eternal 
life and consists in gaining an inheritance in the highest of the three heavens 
within the celestial kingdom. With few exceptions this is the salvation of which 
the scriptures speak. It is the salvation which the saints seek." (Mormon Doctrine, 
2nd ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 670.)

So in that sense, salvation (exaltation) is based on obedience to laws and
ordinances.  That is "works" in short.

Salvation (in its simplest form, resurrection) is free.  You don't have to do
anything to receive it.

Those who don't receive an inheritance in the highest division of the celestial
kingdom are not saved in the true and full meaning of salvation.

[telnetd]

On 9/3/2024 at 3:28 PM, InCognitus said:

1. "Yes", you read the entire article.

2. "Yes" you noticed that the portion of the article you quoted is under a subheading titled "Inadequate Explanations" and is said to be "doctrinal error".   Since you knew the statement you quoted was said to be "doctrinal error", then why did you post it as something "taught" in the Ensign article? 

Do you think the above justifies you in taking the quote out of context?

Since you read the entire article, why didn't you just post the summary where it teaches "We Are Saved by Grace"?  

I'm trying to establish a baseline for whether or not you actually understand our doctrine.  There's no point in going off into other directions until we know you are actually trying to understand what we believe rather than trying to misrepresent our teachings and side-step legitimate questions to further your agenda.

Part of the summary says:

"So it is easy to understand that we must accept the mission of Jesus Christ. We 
must believe that it is through his grace that we are saved, that he performed 
for us that labor which we were unable to perform for ourselves, and did for us 
those things which were essential to our salvation, which were beyond our power; 
and also that we are under the commandment and the necessity of performing the 
labors that are required of us as set forth in the commandments known as the 
gospel of Jesus Christ.” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., 
Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 2:310–11.)

The bolded part is the works, corresponding to 2 Nephi 25:23 where it adds "after
all we can do".  I would reword it as "must do" instead.

Salvation in its true and full meaning being synonymous with exaltation, as the 
Ensign article teaches, is what Christ has done plus what you must do.  That is 
why the people are separated in the various kingdoms taught by your church.  They 
failed to return to live with Heavenly Father because they had not met one or more 
of the requirements.  You could even view spiritual death or damnation as the inability
of having eternal increase.

Let me know if I am out of context.

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

Let me know if I am out of context.

Yes, you are.  You didn't answer my questions.  

Since you knew the statement you quoted previously was said to be "doctrinal error", then why did you post it as something "taught" in the Ensign article? 

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

Edit to add:  I'd really like to get past these questions about your intent and whether or not you are even trying to represent our doctrine accurately, or if you only intend to try to twist or misrepresent it, because I'd really like to ask you a few questions related to this topic.  So can you please address the questions I asked (and Calm asked) so we can get past this?

Edited September 5 by InCognitus

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, telnetd said:

The article says:

That is now irrelevant since you are aware the article says the quote “salvation is Grace and exaltation is works” is seen as a doctrinal error by the author and therefore it is lying to use the quote to claim it is taught in an Ensign.

Please answer:  Are you going to use the quote in the future as an example of LDS belief?

[Malc]

On 6/8/2024 at 8:21 PM, Stargazer said:

Would God deign to discipline anyone making their own ceremonial clothing?  People used to do this with no restrictions. This means that the act of making such clothing is not inherently sinful. 

I was a ward clerk once upon a time. During my tenure a new bishopric was called. In the first few months the new bishop inadvertently violated a policy that members who had been excommunicated had to go through a particular process before being rebaptized. Actually, the sister believed she had resigned her membership -- and that's what the bishop believed. But it turned out that she had been exed. It may have been that she hadn't bothered to open the letter telling her she was exed, and she thought her resignation had gone through. So she was re-baptized, all was thought well, and then the bishop was notified by SLC of his error. In fact, he hadn't been fully aware of how to handle the rebaptism of resigned members, either, so he messed up both ways! But SLC decided that nevermind, it's all good, and let's just drop the matter, and all's well that ends well. If the policy was really all so strict, SLC would have required that she be rebaptized again after going through the proper procedures. But they didn't. So it would appear that policy violations are not on a par with commandments. And aren't per se sinful.

But willful violations of policy might be treated differently. Like, say, ordaining a woman to the priesthood. Or issuing a temple recommend to a transgender for other than their biological sex.

What about ignoring incorrect wording of the "fixed" prayers?

As a witness to a baptism, I asked for the ordinance to be repeated because the elder who performed the baptism said: "... I baptize you ...". He claimed that because the prayer uses the familiar "te" in French, and he was translating as he spoke, it was OK. After a couple of exchanges of "opinion", the Bishop said to let it go.

I wanted to remind the Bishop that he often had priests repeat the sacrament prayers for similar discrepancies, but felt that I was already causing more of a distraction than necessary, and that, in any case, I had fulfilled my responsibility.

This was about 40 years ago, so I'd advise you (and everyone else) to just agree with me 😁- clearly I don't easily forgive and forget.

[Stargazer]

On 9/3/2024 at 11:10 PM, webbles said:

That's basically what I meant but I can see why you didn't see it that way.  But those in the Telestial Kingdom are still redeemed by Christ.  No one can gain a kingdom of glory except through Christ's atonement.

Yes, that is correct, and I believe I did say that. Or I meant to. They are redeemed as to physical death. And they receive immortality, but not eternal life.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Malc said:

What about ignoring incorrect wording of the "fixed" prayers?

As a witness to a baptism, I asked for the ordinance to be repeated because the elder who performed the baptism said: "... I baptize you ...". He claimed that because the prayer uses the familiar "te" in French, and he was translating as he spoke, it was OK. After a couple of exchanges of "opinion", the Bishop said to let it go.

I wanted to remind the Bishop that he often had priests repeat the sacrament prayers for similar discrepancies, but felt that I was already causing more of a distraction than necessary, and that, in any case, I had fulfilled my responsibility.

This was about 40 years ago, so I'd advise you (and everyone else) to just agree with me 😁- clearly I don't easily forgive and forget.

I believe the bishop in your story was wrong. He should have had the ordinance re-performed. If the prayer was spoken incorrectly and no-one noticed, the ordinance is valid. But I have to say that if your bishop sanctioned the ordinance as spoken, then it is also valid. It's not computer programming, after all.

I may have mentioned this in this thread already, but we ordained a recent convert to the office of priest. As a bishopric member I was present in the circle, and since the recipient had no family we three were the only ones there. The elders quorum president was acting as mouth, and he inadvertently ordained him to the office of teacher, not priest. The other brother in the circle didn't notice, but I did. So I asked the quorum president to do it over again, which he did. If none of us had noticed, the ordinance would have been recorded as an ordination to priest, and it would have been valid -- again, because this isn't computer programming.

But we should always strive to do things of this nature correctly.

There's an interesting parallel to this in the matrimony law of Washington state. If a couple get married, and the officiator isn't actually authorized to perform marriages, if the couple believed he or she was authorized, then they are still legally and lawfully married. 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I believe the bishop in your story was wrong. He should have had the ordinance re-performed. If the prayer was spoken incorrectly and no-one noticed, the ordinance is valid. But I have to say that if your bishop sanctioned the ordinance as spoken, then it is also valid. It's not computer programming, after all.

I may have mentioned this in this thread already, but we ordained a recent convert to the office of priest. As a bishopric member I was present in the circle, and since the recipient had no family we three were the only ones there. The elders quorum president was acting as mouth, and he inadvertently ordained him to the office of teacher, not priest. The other brother in the circle didn't notice, but I did. So I asked the quorum president to do it over again, which he did. If none of us had noticed, the ordinance would have been recorded as an ordination to priest, and it would have been valid -- again, because this isn't computer programming.

But we should always strive to do things of this nature correctly.

There's an interesting parallel to this in the matrimony law of Washington state. If a couple get married, and the officiator isn't actually authorized to perform marriages, if the couple believed he or she was authorized, then they are still legally and lawfully married. 

I think such efforts to make it “correct”, the right shape, form, words, ideas even are an indication of respect. But being too obsessive about correctness can actually diminish respect if it creates frustration or worse, contention. 

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think such efforts to make it “correct”, the right shape, form, words, ideas even are an indication of respect. But being too obsessive about correctness can actually diminish respect if it creates frustration or worse, contention. 

Agreed. For an ordinance to be valid it 1) must be done by the correct authority, witnessed*, and recorded* and 2) must be validated by the Holy Spirit. Precise wording is not technically part of the conditions and the Holy Spirit can validate the intent when imprecise language may be present. That said, better to have precise language, but nobody disagrees with that.

 

* Which are witnessed and which are recorded vary a bit. A healing blessing, for example needs neither, but a baptism requires both.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I think such efforts to make it “correct”, the right shape, form, words, ideas even are an indication of respect. But being too obsessive about correctness can actually diminish respect if it creates frustration or worse, contention. 

Yes, I think it can go too far. And if possible repeated out of the public eye. I recall one confirmation in which the person performing the ordinance confirmed the convert a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, leaving off the "of Latter-day Saints" part, and then proceeded to give a very inspirational blessing after telling the person to receive the Holy Ghost. The officiator in the meeting noticed this, but rather than asking the blessing to be repeated right then and there correctly, waiting until sacrament meeting was over to do it over again with the right wording. The confirmation was re-done in the bishop's office with the words of blessing brought over "by proxy" as it were.

ETA: Calm, have you noticed that the relatively new user, Malc, has a screen name which is an anagram of yours?  You guys aren't related or anything, are you?

Edited September 6 by Stargazer

[Amulek]

19 hours ago, Malc said:

What about ignoring incorrect wording of the "fixed" prayers?

As a witness to a baptism, I asked for the ordinance to be repeated because the elder who performed the baptism said: "... I baptize you ...". He claimed that because the prayer uses the familiar "te" in French, and he was translating as he spoke, it was OK. After a couple of exchanges of "opinion", the Bishop said to let it go.

I'm confused. According to D&C 20:73 the person performing the baptism is supposed to call the person by name and say, "[h]aving been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." [emphasis added] What am I missing?

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

ETA: Calm, have you noticed that the relatively new user, Malc, has a screen name which is an anagram of yours?  You guys aren't related or anything, are you?

My mirror image universe alter ego perhaps?   Which one of us has the beard?

Edited September 6 by Calm

[Malc]

12 hours ago, Amulek said:

I'm confused. According to D&C 20:73 the person performing the baptism is supposed to call the person by name and say, "[h]aving been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." [emphasis added] What am I missing?

 

Sorry - I got my "you" and "thee" confused.

He said: "... I baptize thee ..."

[Malc]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

My mirror image universe alter ego perhaps?   Which one of us has the beard?

Twins separated at birth? 🙃

Is everyone examining our avatars for clues?

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, Malc said:

Sorry - I got my "you" and "thee" confused.

He said: "... I baptize thee ..."

Yep, that's what I thought.

[telnetd]

On 9/5/2024 at 1:01 PM, Calm said:

That is now irrelevant since you are aware the article says the quote “salvation is Grace and exaltation is works” is seen as a doctrinal error by the author and therefore it is lying to use the quote to claim it is taught in an Ensign.

Please answer:  Are you going to use the quote in the future as an example of LDS belief?

On 9/5/2024 at 12:41 PM, InCognitus said:

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

I see exaltation (synonymous with salvation) as a reward for works when I also read 
this other 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.

Is there anything doctrinally wrong with what the Ensign says above?

What do you see that I am supposedly misrepresenting?

[webbles]

17 minutes ago, telnetd said:

I see exaltation (synonymous with salvation) as a reward for works when I also read 
this other Ensign article.

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

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

What do you see that I am supposedly misrepresenting?

It's not "supposedly misrepresenting", you are misrepresenting.  You never acknowledged that you were misrepresenting the message of the April 1981 Ensign article "Salvation", by Gerald N. Lund, by presenting the quote you posted from it as something "taught" in that article when in fact your quote was said to be an "inadequate explanation" and "doctrinal error" in the article.

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

I'm trying to establish a baseline for whether or not you actually understand our doctrine.  There's no point in going off into other directions until we know you are actually trying to understand what we believe rather than trying to misrepresent our teachings and side-step legitimate questions to further your agenda.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, telnetd said:

see exaltation (synonymous with salvation) as a reward for works when I also read 
this other Ensign article.

Again you appear to be missing the point.  If you make the effort to go find another quote that shows what you believe our doctrine actually is and you use that quote instead of the Gerald Lund quote you used in the past, I don’t care.  To be blunt after years of reading your posts, I don’t believe anyone here will change your interpretation of our doctrine or your claims of what we teach.  I find it interesting to read others’ challenges to you, but I am unlikely to attempt the effort myself because there aren’t nuances to your interpretation that have yet to be explored that I can see that I am curious about.

I am very curious of how far you are willing to go to prove to us you are right in your interpretation though.  
 

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:

Quote

 

Some people say the moon has no atmosphere because its gravity is too low to maintain one, but there are enough gases at the surface present that it qualifies as a type of atmosphere that is called an exosphere.”***

*** https://www.space.com/18067-moon-atmosphere.html

 

 

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:  

Quote

Scientists say “the moon has no atmosphere because its gravity is too low to maintain one”. (Calm’s textbook, page whatever)

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?

 

Edited September 8 by Calm

[Nofear]

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.

Edited September 8 by Nofear

[Calm]

37 minutes 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.

When something that seems quite straightforward gets avoided over and over, it makes me wonder why plus it feels so unfinished, inconclusive.  What is going on?  The detective in me gets triggered   

Plus I like orderly packaging of ideas even if the ideas are messed up themselves, lol.  Clear beginnings and endings, especially clear expectations….though I am well aware that is not the way of the world.  Not sure that bit makes sense to anyone but me.  Let’s say it as I like to see the direction someone is driving. If all I can see is them driving into a wall over and over getting all dented, it isn’t satisfying, it’s nonsense.  Either straighten out and get back on the road or total the car once and for all.