City of Enoch--Group Salvation, or Individual Efforts?

[_Fence Sitter]

Didn't J.S. promise salvation (exaltation?) to entire families if their daughters would marry him?

[_Nightlion]

I am interested in the thoughts of TBMs that are vivid Republicans, thinking we're each being tested.

Is it your position that each and every person in the City of Enoch, on his or her own, earned being 'taken up'/'translated'?

Or were the individuals included in an outstanding group effort?

I don't know if I still qualify as a TBM, but I think one of the most interesting aspects of Mormonism is its focus on salvation not as an individual, but as a group.

We can start with the idea that no man or woman standing alone can be exalted.

Then there is the idea that wayward children may be saved through the power of their parents' sealing.

Then there is the idea of a city of Zion, where all are saved together. This would include, I think, even the odd-man out.

(Here I think of the response Brigham Young gave to somebody who came to him reporting to have seen Indian Agent Jacob Hamblin in his cups with the Native Americans: "Well, then you saw a good man drunk!")

On an even larger scope, Joseph Smith taught that one of the primary purposes of the sealing ordinance was to seal everybody from Adam all the way down to the latest generation, with the implication that everybody sealed in this manner will be saved.

Which seems to me to give added weight to God's declaration that his work and his glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

While contemporary Mormonism seems to have bought into the evangelical concept of salvation being an individual affair, I think the earliest doctrines of the LDS Church lean in the opposite direction.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I have to say that group salvation is a tunnel vision fantasy. The Book of Mormon does not allow for it. Each candidate was discerned if they had truly taken upon themselves the name of Christ. If not.....they were forbidden sacrament, to keep the commandments of Christ. Neither were their names taken to be numbered in the Church that they church not be polluted and overcome by the devil. (see 3 Nephi 18 and Moroni 6)

The lack of this discipline in obeying the Lord and seeing to it that his will is done today accounts for LDS spiritual vulgarities. Temple work not withstanding.

[_sock puppet]

I am interested in the thoughts of TBMs that are vivid Republicans, thinking we're each being tested.

Is it your position that each and every person in the City of Enoch, on his or her own, earned being 'taken up'/'translated'?

Or were the individuals included in an outstanding group effort?

I don't know if I still qualify as a TBM, but I think one of the most interesting aspects of Mormonism is its focus on salvation not as an individual, but as a group.

We can start with the idea that no man or woman standing alone can be exalted.

Then there is the idea that wayward children may be saved through the power of their parents' sealing.

Then there is the idea of a city of Zion, where all are saved together. This would include, I think, even the odd-man out.

(Here I think of the response Brigham Young gave to somebody who came to him reporting to have seen Indian Agent Jacob Hamblin in his cups with the Native Americans: "Well, then you saw a good man drunk!")

On an even larger scope, Joseph Smith taught that one of the primary purposes of the sealing ordinance was to seal everybody from Adam all the way down to the latest generation, with the implication that everybody sealed in this manner will be saved.

Which seems to me to give added weight to God's declaration that his work and his glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

While contemporary Mormonism seems to have bought into the evangelical concept of salvation being an individual affair, I think the earliest doctrines of the LDS Church lean in the opposite direction.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I have to say that group salvation is a tunnel vision fantasy. The Book of Mormon does not allow for it. Each candidate was discerned if they had truly taken upon themselves the name of Christ. If not.....they were forbidden sacrament, to keep the commandments of Christ. Neither were their names taken to be numbered in the Church that they church not be polluted and overcome by the devil. (see 3 Nephi 18 and Moroni 6)

The lack of this discipline in obeying the Lord and seeing to it that his will is done today accounts for LDS spiritual vulgarities. Temple work not withstanding.

Hi, Nightlion,

Let me refine the inquiry just a bit. Can one be saved without another? Not that you'd include in a group the unworthy, just the worthy--but if one is worthy, may he be saved, all by himself--or as Hillary Clinton might suggest, it takes a community?

[_son of Ishmael]

The city of Enoch had a really active "strengthening the members" program. Plus they were all 100% at HT/VT

[_consiglieri]

I have to say that group salvation is a tunnel vision fantasy. The Book of Mormon does not allow for it. Each candidate was discerned if they had truly taken upon themselves the name of Christ. If not.....they were forbidden sacrament, to keep the commandments of Christ. Neither were their names taken to be numbered in the Church that they church not be polluted and overcome by the devil. (see 3 Nephi 18 and Moroni 6)

The lack of this discipline in obeying the Lord and seeing to it that his will is done today accounts for LDS spiritual vulgarities. Temple work not withstanding.

I think the Book of Mormon has much of importance to teach us, and I see where you are coming from with your references.

But I think we can all agree that the Book of Mormon was just a foundation for Joseph Smith upon which he erected a much more complicated and nuanced structure.

I think the cites I have provided indicate the structure Joseph built included the idea of absolutely no salvation for the individual, but only in family and societal communities.

I could add to those already cited Joseph Smith's interesting take on the Hebrews (?) passage that "they without us cannot be made perfect."

I have only the faintest idea of where you are coming from NightLion, but do you not accord at least some weight to Joseph Smith's doctrinal pronouncements made after the publication of the Book of Mormon?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Nightlion]

I have to say that group salvation is a tunnel vision fantasy. The Book of Mormon does not allow for it. Each candidate was discerned if they had truly taken upon themselves the name of Christ. If not.....they were forbidden sacrament, to keep the commandments of Christ. Neither were their names taken to be numbered in the Church that they church not be polluted and overcome by the devil. (see 3 Nephi 18 and Moroni 6)

The lack of this discipline in obeying the Lord and seeing to it that his will is done today accounts for LDS spiritual vulgarities. Temple work not withstanding.

I think the Book of Mormon has much of importance to teach us, and I see where you are coming from with your references.

But I think we can all agree that the Book of Mormon was just a foundation for Joseph Smith upon which he erected a much more complicated and nuanced structure.

I think the cites I have provided indicate the structure Joseph built included the idea of absolutely no salvation for the individual, but only in family and societal communities.

I could add to those already cited Joseph Smith's interesting take on the Hebrews (?) passage that "they without us cannot be made perfect."

I have only the faintest idea of where you are coming from NightLion, but do you not accord at least some weight to Joseph Smith's doctrinal pronouncements made after the publication of the Book of Mormon?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

There cannot be two gospels. What people have made out of Joseph Smith's words that do not accord with the core gospel of Jesus Christ is adolescent. These sort of things have not been thought through and have run the LDS tradition amok.

We can NEVER become God or part of a Godhead.
Sealing powers do NOT compensate for failure to receive the gospel and be born of God.
Joseph Smith taught the real gospel in the King Follett discourse with other notions that he never lived long enough to advance to a rounded whole that squares with the core gospel of Jesus Christ. Why LDS members and leaders fail to own up to this is plain stupid.

I saw the need and fulfilled it over thirty years ago. President Benson was impressed and then his capacity was suppressed. The Hinckster was a trickster extraordinaire, to put it mildly.

[_consiglieri]

We can NEVER become God or part of a Godhead.
***

Joseph Smith taught the real gospel in the King Follett discourse with other notions that he never lived long enough to advance to a rounded whole that squares with the core gospel of Jesus Christ.

I understand your position to be one of giving primacy to Book of Mormon teachings. I can appreciate that, even if I do not necessarily agree.

What I don't get is how you can say we can NEVER become God and yet say Joseph Smith taught the real gospel in the King Follett discourse.

Do you see this as being inconsistent?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Tobin]

We can NEVER become God or part of a Godhead.
***

Joseph Smith taught the real gospel in the King Follett discourse with other notions that he never lived long enough to advance to a rounded whole that squares with the core gospel of Jesus Christ.

I understand your position to be one of giving primacy to Book of Mormon teachings. I can appreciate that, even if I do not necessarily agree.

What I don't get is how you can say we can NEVER become God and yet say Joseph Smith taught the real gospel in the King Follett discourse.

Do you see this as being inconsistent?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Because Nightlion is being consistent by saying that. The King Follett discourse is often misrepresented to teach man can become God. It actually teaches no such thing.

[_Nightlion]

We can NEVER become God or part of a Godhead.
***

Joseph Smith taught the real gospel in the King Follett discourse with other notions that he never lived long enough to advance to a rounded whole that squares with the core gospel of Jesus Christ.

I understand your position to be one of giving primacy to Book of Mormon teachings. I can appreciate that, even if I do not necessarily agree.

What I don't get is how you can say we can NEVER become God and yet say Joseph Smith taught the real gospel in the King Follett discourse.

Do you see this as being inconsistent?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Perhaps you missed what I meant. Besides what he said about us learning to become gods by going from a small degree to a greater degree he mentioned the core gospel of Jesus Christ. Meaning that his fringe speculations were not him leaving behind and ditching the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith thought on these things day and night. It was his meat and drink as he once said. Certainly we never got his full mind on exaltation. He might not have himself realized that it needed work to square with all else he knew. He would have got to it. God was not willing, however, so that the STRONG DELUSION left in the wake of an unfinished thought would propel a people caught up in the pride of the modern world to endure until the Lord could do his own work of it.

Compare everything since Joseph Smith graphically against everything since. You will see that the Church has been coasting since in every way except infrastructure which is of itself, meaningless. I am thinking of starting a thread about how BADLY the LDS Church shows in scripture by prophecy, parable and commandments gone wrong. They are ripe for taking the full hit for the end of days. Arrogance wont cover it.

[_bcspace]

I am interested in the thoughts of TBMs that are vivid Republicans, thinking we're each being tested.

Is it your position that each and every person in the City of Enoch, on his or her own, earned being 'taken up'/'translated'?

Or were the individuals included in an outstanding group effort?

Conservatives aren't worried about group efforts unless they begin to infringe on agency and personal responsibility. So the questions to ask are things like did the CoE freely allow people to leave? Looking at the Law of Consecration we see that agency is preserved along with the notion, as taught in the scriptures, that God is a free market capitalist.