- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have just finished a read-only visit to another website, focused on discussions mormon apologetics. I then read three sections of LatterDay scripture, where an explicit declaration of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ is laid out: 1.
2 Nephi 31 and 322.
3 Nephi 11:28-403.
Doctrine and Covenants 10:67-69Quote:Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.
Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.
And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
Yet, we have McConkie in the 50s creating an entire book entitled “Mormon Doctrine”. We have some apologists (not all) fighting about doctrine over and over again, and vilifying those who don’t espouse their extreme views. We have anti-mormons trying to define LDS doctrine in ways that most LDS would never recognize.
Yet here is the gem of the Book of Mormon: no other place in scripture do we have as explicit and complete definition of “the Doctrine of Jesus Christ” than in 2NE 31-32 and in 3NE 11.
Question for discussion: Do Jesus Christ’s explicit statements defining core doctrine as being the first principles of the gospel help us define a more moderate path in the Church?
wayfarer wrote:Question for discussion: Do Jesus Christ’s explicit statements defining core doctrine as being the first principles of the gospel help us define a more moderate path in the Church?
No. Jesus was speaking as a man when he said those things … uh … even if he was speaking as a God.
😆 So he must have been mistaken when he was telling us clearly what his gospel and church are all about.We need everything to be really complicated and spelled out in fine details and absolutes, with lots of contradictions and paradox, pleaseThankYouVeryMuch.
[/sarcasm]
Serious: you make an extremely compelling and brilliant point. Brian Johnston wrote:wayfarer wrote:Question for discussion: Do Jesus Christ’s explicit statements defining core doctrine as being the first principles of the gospel help us define a more moderate path in the Church?
No. Jesus was speaking as a man when he said those things … uh … even if he was speaking as a God.
😆 So he must have been mistaken when he was telling us clearly what his gospel and church are all about.We need everything to be really complicated and spelled out in fine details and absolutes, with lots of contradictions and paradox, pleaseThankYouVeryMuch.
[/sarcasm]
The irony here(for me), is that talking with many orthadox Rabis over the years where I live I can see the same talk and behavior talked about in the NT Pharisees by Christ(not ment as knock on my Jewish friends, just a observation). Yet what has bothered me over the last few years is when I biased faded and if you put a blind fold on me now, I can’t tell the differnce between the orthodox rabbis and us. Seriously, without seeing who I’m talking to we sound exactly the same without my bias on anymore. It weirded me out at times. I hope this isn’t a path we go further down I pray. I don’t like things being more complacated then they have to be. Who could even remember 1/4 of the mosaic law on most days? Why can’t I devote this time to the perfection of my talents and charity instead of the mybrid of laws and technicalities which I should adhere to that aren’t part of “love thy god and love thy neighbor”? I wish it could be that simple again. I get overwhelmed with keeping up with all the doctrine or non doctrine or time for everything on the to do list now days.
If you really want to get depressed do a google search on site:lds.org “no middle ground”. you’ll find talks by callister, GBH, BRM, and even TSM, I realize that splitting and all-or-nothing thinking is the rule of the church, and we are not wanted here. There is no middle ground on the book of Mormon in any way shape or form: it is literally god dictated, every sentence in it according to callister; and GBH says that loyalty to the church on political issues is mandatory– there is no middle ground, either you are with the church on that political stand or your are against the church entirely.
When I read these talks, given in three cases by the prophet in role as such in general conference, it is hard to think that there is a middle way in the church without directly opposing something the prophet explicitly said.
Yet the spirit says something else to me. I am loyal, but not so loyal to be stupid or to countenance diseased behavior or “doctrine”.
Then the spirit goes further… Telling me to relax, and realize that the only relevant and true doctrine is the the Way Jesus laid out. The simplicity and purity of the message, “this is my doctrine,” being the first principles only. “This my church”, being those that accept the doctrine of first principles.
Suddenly, the Middle way becomes extraordinarily clear to me.
wayfarer wrote:If you really want to get depressed do a google search on site:lds.org “no middle ground”. you’ll find talks by callister, GBH, BRM, and even TSM, I realize that splitting and all-or-nothing thinking is the rule of the church, and we are not wanted here.
There is no middle ground on the book of Mormon in any way shape or form: it is literally god dictated, every sentence in it according to callister; and GBH says that loyalty to the church on political issues is mandatory– there is no middle ground, either you are with the church on that political stand or your are against the church entirely.
When I read these talks, given in three cases by the prophet in role as such in general conference, it is hard to think that there is a middle way in the church without directly opposing something the prophet explicitly said.
Yet the spirit says something else to me. I am loyal, but not so loyal to be stupid or to countenance diseased behavior or “doctrine”.
Then the spirit goes further… Telling me to relax, and realize that the only relevant and true doctrine is the the Way Jesus laid out. The simplicity and purity of the message, “this is my doctrine,” being the first principles only. “This my church”, being those that accept the doctrine of first principles.
Suddenly, the Middle way becomes extraordinarily clear to me.
I have to(by choice to be content) live by the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have not found happiness within myself then by any other way. I really don’t like severe splitting like this. It is the source of all most my entire pain and depression growing up. Not just splitting but being forced to split so I am not a “child of Satan”. Every time I hear splitting in the church it has causes me pain by validating the splitters and thier judgments on those that don’t splitt like unto them. The prophets are people too, and subject to human errors. We shouldn’t validate negative behavior because we see a revered mans imperfections to justify our own. I hope we can move beyond splitting to a harmonious church. As members I hope we focus on the doctrine of Christ rather then the appendages. I hope we embrace charity and peace over the contention that splitting causes. For our spiritual and mental health. I want to participate and serve without being criticized .
wayfarer wrote:Then the spirit goes further… Telling me to relax, and realize that the only relevant and true doctrine is the the Way Jesus laid out. The simplicity and purity of the message, “this is my doctrine,” being the first principles only. “This my church”, being those that accept the doctrine of first principles.
Suddenly, the Middle way becomes extraordinarily clear to me.
I am very happy for that. Bearing my huge extreme past with this, I am happy indeed the spirit does manifest itself unto me calming me and showing me a clearer way without contention but peace. I wish I could forget my past, but I’m happy I have no forgiveness issues with it thanks to the spirit leading the way.
P.S. when you read this I will need to erase the personal portions of it. I don’t want any judgement to come down on those involved with it should this come out in some way. It’s just a reference as to why I really don’t like splitting and the harm it has caused me and others.
Wayfarer, I again feel a sense of relief when I read what you’ve written here. To think that it ended with the Book of Mormon’s fulness of the gospel, and that there wasn’t a need for additional gospel rules and principles is also liberating…. I believe a lot of people get comfort from the temple, but really, the First Principles and Ordinances of the Gospel really do point us to becoming good people on their own.
Forgotten_Charity wrote:I have to (by choice to be content) live by the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have not found happiness within myself then by any other way.
F_C, i think that is a wonderful story. It really shows how so many in the church have gone astray in their own dogmatic way.
When the psalmist saw the works of nature, the work of god’s fingers, s/he marveled at the handiwork of god. When joseph smith say nature, he saw god himself, moving in his majesty and glory. I saw Yosemite as a youth, and hiked its falls and paths. I shall never forget it’s beauty, it is as perfect of a representation of a temple as anything. No man-made monument to our ego can compare with it.
What the teacher did was wrong. I would have gone to her afterwards privately and told her how deeply offensive it was to make a directed comment like that in a class. Seriously, it’s not benign to ridicule or belittle someone’s answer — it’s poor form, and not good teaching style.
In my impression, the problem we must come to grips with is that the church, from top to bottom, is made up of men and some women who, when they get a little authority, as they suppose, they immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Splitting is unrighteous dominion. Teaching for doctrine the commandments of men is unrighteous dominion. Public harrassment and humiliation is unrighteous dominion.
While we must serve and be charitable in our kindness toward others, I believe we must stand in firm, but polite, opposition — even hostility, against all forms of tyranny over the mind of mankind.
thanks for your comments!
SilentDawning wrote:Wayfarer, I again feel a sense of relief when I read what you’ve written here. To think that it ended with the Book of Mormon’s fulness of the gospel, and that there wasn’t a need for additional gospel rules and principles is also liberating….
I believe a lot of people get comfort from the temple, but really, the First Principles and Ordinances of the Gospel really do point us to becoming good people on their own.
The Temple has its place — a refuge for meditation, for opening up the windows to the soul.Confucius once was extremely inspired after a temple session — granted, it wasn’t the same type of temple, but it was ritualistic and irrationally so, but he took it as his duty to take the temple seriously. There is a purpose in the ritual, but I would not pay much attention to words that say that these signs and keywords are required for salvation or exaltation — but that is another conversation.
I noted that in the “Appendix to the Doctrine and Covenants, JS revealed the following:
D&C 133: 57 wrote:And for this cause, that men might be made partakers of the glories which to be revealed, the Lord sent forth the fulness of his gospel, his everlasting covenant, reasoning in plainness and simplicity
If the “fulness” of the gospel, his everlasting covenant, is contained in the book of mormon, then several things are true:1. There is a host of speculation that is not in the book of mormon. Is this speculation ‘the gospel’? no – it cannot be part of the ‘fulness’.
2. The rules and laws of the church do not seem to be hard and fast: Nephi went by the spirit and violated some of the most stringent of commandments.
3. While the book of mormon ‘contains’ the fulness, everything in the book of mormon is not part of that fulness. ‘contains’ means that the ‘fulness’ is a subset of what is in the book of mormon. For example, I do not need to believe that people become white when they repent and become righteous.
moral of the story — keep it simple.
Quote:She replied back and said “no, that is a incorrect answer and rather foolish. She then sked does anyone know the real answer and what is wrong with that one. Several raised ther hands and said “it’s the temple” and his answer is very worldly”. She turned to me and looked and said “that’s right. “
IMO the temple isn’t even the most beautiful place in the church. The most spiritual experiences I have had on church property have been in the cannery. A bunch of brothers and sisters all getting together to preserve food that will be given to the hungry. Working with sweat dripping and backs aching in plastic aprons and hair nets.
Quote:3. While the book of mormon ‘contains’ the fulness, everything in the book of mormon is not part of that fulness. ‘contains’ means that the ‘fulness’ is a subset of what is in the book of mormon. For example, I do not need to believe that people become white when they repent and become righteous.
moral of the story —
keep it simple. See, for me, to say “it contains the fulness of the gospel” and then say it’s only a subset of the fulness of the gospel is not simple. It’s complicated. You have to qualify, parse, convolute and do mental gymnastics to then justify the D&C and all its new gospel principles and covenants,…which with the BoM, constitute the fulness of the gospel.
There’s a difference between “contains” the fulness of “the Gospel” and “constitutes” the fulness of “the Gospel”. There’s also a difference between “the Gospel” and “the doctrines of the Church at any given time”. Too many people don’t understand that, imo.
President Uchtdorf said that in one of the talks to which I linked in another thread, in which he said that too often rules (“shoulds” and “should nots”) get in the way of the Gospel.
SilentDawning wrote:See, for me, to say “
it contains the fulness of the gospel” and then say it’s only a subset of the fulness of the gospelis not simple. It’s complicated. You have to qualify, parse, convolute and do mental gymnastics to then justify the D&C and all its new gospel principles and covenants,…which with the BoM, constitute the fulness of the gospel.
That’s not exactly what I said. I said that it contains a fulness, and the term ‘contains’, in set theory, means that the there are other things in the Book of Mormon besides the ‘fulness’.The term ‘fulness’, in it’s original definition was not etymologically related to ‘full-ness’. Without going into detail, the OED’s definitions and use from the time of Joseph Smith had more to do with sufficiency — the condition of being satisfied. Obviously, if we define the gospel as “All truth”, then the book of mormon cannot contain all truth, because there is much more to ‘truth’ in terms of science, history, etc., that is not in the book of mormon. Instead, there is a satisfactory presentation of the Doctrine of Christ, in explicit and complete terms in order to satisfy the definition of fulness.
As I said in the original post, there is a core statement that can be called the “Doctrine of Jesus Christ”:
Consider the following:
D&C 10:67-68 wrote:Behold,
this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.
2 NE 31:20-21 wrote:Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.
And now, behold, my beloved brethren,
this is the way; and there is none other waynor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.
3 Ne 11:32,39-40, wrote:And
this is my doctrine…that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. Verily, verily, I say unto you, that
this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And
whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock
So when the Church declares ‘doctrine’ that is more or less than the first principles of the gospel, it must be explicitly noted that it is ‘church doctrine’, or ‘policy’, and cannot be the ‘doctrine of Christ’. For any teaching for doctrine (of Christ) the commandments of men is condemned from First Vision, through the book of mormon and doctrine and covenants. I know this seems quite ironic.So how do we resolve this ironic situation? The “Doctrine and Covenants”, nee “Book of Commandments”, is full of stuff we’re supposed to do…or are we? We go to conference. We hear ten hours of talks telling us what to do. Are these the doctrine of Christ? Are they the Lord’s commandments? No. not at all. they’re counsel. they’re the commandments of inspired men. What they say does not rise to the level of the Doctrine of Christ, nor of the Commandments of God. As counsel, they may help us in our lives, but they could also harm us if followed blindly. No commandment of man should replace the pure and simple principles of the Doctrine of Christ.
Wayfarer, made a good point with the last comment. General Conference and talks are counsel not commandments, although too often it’s hard to tell the difference sometimes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.