I'm Teaching GD Class Next Sunday

[_consiglieri]

Hey Consig!

I think it would totally rock if you pinned up a Dante's Inferno illustration to help describe your concept to the class. Please let me know how it goes if you plan to do it.

Zee.

Though tempting, Zeez, my doing so would cave to the manual's instructions to talk about the correlated plan of salvation including premortal and post-resurrection kingdoms. This is nutso when the four chapters have absolutely nothing to say about any of these subjects (or anyplace else in the Book of Mormon, for that matter).



But if I were to do so, like when teaching section 76 of the D&C or someplace where it was, like, I don't know, relevant to the scriptures being studied, I might throw in your diagram, add to it M&G's idea that all three kingdoms will be here on this earth, and throw in the idea that so is the premortal world on this earth. I believe section 138 actually supports this idea.

I might also add to the mix Hyrum Smith's teaching that the terrestrial kingdom's inhabitants will eventually all graduate to the celestial kingdom or the telestial kingdom; that this is why it's symbol is that of the moon--it waxes and wanes. (I wonder where Hyrum heard that from?)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

When I look at the Bible I see one message. When I read the doctrines of the RCC I see a different animal. The LDS church is no different.

Although I see many different (and sometimes conflicting) messages in the Bible, I wanted to add that one wag once said the only difference between the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church is 2,000 years.

So, how long after Jesus do Mormons say the Catholic (proto-orthodox) Church was in apostasy?

The Mormon Church is now 182-years after its founding.

How was the Christian Church doing 182-years after its founding around A.D. 30? (I.e., around A.D. 222?)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_jo1952]

The Mormon Church is now 182-years after its founding.

How was the Christian Church doing 182-years after its founding around A.D. 30? (I.e., around A.D. 222?)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

In the ancient church, people were straying while the Apostles were still alive. Same thing in the LDS Church. It doesn't take much time at all for any religion to begin teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. sigh....

Blessings!

jo

[_Tobin]

I find the Book of Mormon has a lot to say if we will stop imposing our beliefs on it.
--Consiglieri

The LDS church has gone the way of all churches of man. I let all of that go and use scripture as my guide. And I do use the Book of Mormon and the Bible as my guide. The D and C not so much. I feel the church was already taking a wrong turn from the spirit early on. This happened to the Church established by the original apostles and will happen with any church that man runs. But there is enough framework there for us to see the original message. We must make mistakes or we do not learn. How clear that message is yet many will say the church is perfect. They like their predecessors the Jews under Moses will not see beyond what they want to see. Those of us who see the original message have a duty to discuss that message and ignore all of the added fluff. I do pray that is your goal.

When I look at the Bible I see one message. When I read the doctrines of the RCC I see a different animal. The LDS church is no different. Given the RCC had absolute power it corrupted absolutely. Since the LDS church has been limited in power it has not gone astray as much. But this is no reason to cast it aside. In both the RCC and the LDS church there are many great members. And I have seen the spirit act in all of mankind not just the LDS church. I don't fight the doctrine instead I tell the story of the core message. It is like Peter said about the present truth. He will bring back the present truth even after his death. It is that core Gospel we seek to teach. Love your God and love each other. Can it be that simple?

I absolutely agree with the above Frank. When Mormons stopped having experiences with God (seekings, speaking with, and doing what God asked), carefully studying and understanding the gospel, and started doing what they "felt" was best, what others said including men in the leadership taught, and substituted all that non-sense for the gospel; that is when we started getting many of the pernicious doctrines including policies that prevented women from publicly using the priesthood they hold, the banning of blacks from the priesthood, the adoption of polygamy by the Church itself, the teaching that man can become God, and so on. That notable lack of the gifts of the spirit in the Church is a result of this. Meetings are dead and uninspired. The main Church is corporatized and off on adventures spending the widows mite on malls, monuments to the Church, and other adventures that have nothing to do with the work of God or the gospel.

[_Franktalk]

Although I see many different (and sometimes conflicting) messages in the Bible, I wanted to add that one wag once said the only difference between the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church is 2,000 years.

So, how long after Jesus do Mormons say the Catholic (proto-orthodox) Church was in apostasy?

The Mormon Church is now 182-years after its founding.

How was the Christian Church doing 182-years after its founding around A.D. 30? (I.e., around A.D. 222?)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The early church in part was already in apostasy before the Apostles died. The same is true of the LDS church. The biggest problem was one that was shared with the Nicolaitans. Here the members instead of being led by the Holy Ghost looked to their leaders for the message. Big mistake. That is why those who are led by the Spirit need to take advantage of any opportunity to correct doctrine when they can. We don't need to oppose the leaders we just need to shift the priorities of the members back to the two most important commandments. Everything else will fix itself.

I agree that what separates the LDS from the RCC is 2000 years. Anything of man will become what man will let it become. Had the members resisted all changes and set in concrete the early doctrine the church would be much better off. Each time a GA tries to clarify an issue it gets worse. Why can't they say it is a mystery until it is revealed. Instead they use the logic of man which is a foolish path.

By 222 AD the church was far removed from the message of God. If one reads the Bible and seeks the priority of messages you will find what is important and what is not. But like the Pharisees of old each new bit is placed as important as all the rest. This is the biggest problem in the church. Even in the Old Testament some sections describes errors but some think of those passages as doctrine and truth. The biggest is when Peter killed a man and his wife. Where does it say to kill my sheep? Why must people take an obvious truth and try and reconcile it with an obvious untruth? Let your spirit guide you to those things which are stumbling blocks and then don't stumble on them. I have only been led by the Spirit to talk about a few things. Most things I know are true I don't talk about. For some reason these things are not to be revealed yet. Sometimes it is hard to wait but wait I must. It is after all an exercise in faith.

One time I was called to talk about the second coming of Christ. I began the class with asking what Christ looked like. Then I talked about the Old Testament prophets and the prophecies of the first and second coming of Christ. I asked if the members today loved God more than the Jews in 28 AD. I painted a picture of people who had preconceived ideas of an event and how those ideas would blind them to the actual event. In no uncertain terms I declared that many would make a mistake just like the Jews in Israel 2000 years ago. Only the Spirit will lead you on a correct path. If you use your head you will probably try and kill Christ when He returns. That was my message.

[Guest]

I absolutely agree with the above Frank. When Mormons stopped having experiences with God (seekings, speaking with, and doing what God asked), carefully studying and understanding the gospel, and started doing what they "felt" was best, what others said including men in the leadership taught, and substituted all that non-sense for the gospel; that is when we started getting many of the pernicious doctrines including policies that prevented women from publicly using the priesthood they hold, the banning of blacks from the priesthood, the adoption of polygamy by the Church itself, the teaching that man can become God, and so on. That notable lack of the gifts of the spirit in the Church is a result of this. Meetings are dead and uninspired. The main Church is corporatized and off on adventures spending the widows mite on malls, monuments to the Church, and other adventures that have nothing to do with the work of God or the gospel.

When asked to give the sustaining vote, what do you do?

[_Tobin]

When asked to give the sustaining vote, what do you do?

I do what God tells me to do. If I feel a man is an honest man of God and doing his will, I will be happy to sustain him. Otherwise, I won't raise my hand. I rarely raise my hand.

[_Drifting]

When asked to give the sustaining vote, what do you do?

I do what God tells me to do. If I feel a man is an honest man of God and doing his will, I will be happy to sustain him. Otherwise, I won't raise my hand. I rarely raise my hand.

So you abstain rather than voting against.

How, do you know it is God telling you not to raise your arm in support rather than Satan just messing with you?

[_Tobin]

So you abstain rather than voting against.

How, do you know it is God telling you not to raise your arm in support rather than Satan just messing with you?

I don't view Satan that way. He isn't the boogeyman.

I sustain people I know, who seem reasonable, responsible, capable, kind, good, have the spirit, and the list goes on. If I don't know them, I don't sustain them.

[_consiglieri]

Okay, I finally made time to write some thoughts down regarding this week's class. Here's the first bit:


____________


I. INTRODUCTION
The Apostle Paul wrote several of his epistles to address issues of concern in the churches he established. These are referred to as “occasional letters” because a specific occasion prompts their writing. Paul responds to the issues and corrects perceived errors of belief and practice in these epistles, but frequently does so without spelling out precisely the beliefs and practices he is correcting.
Bible scholars have attempted to reconstruct the church issues that prompted Paul’s letters by looking at what Paul says and how he says it. It is similar to listening to one half of a phone conversation and trying to piece out what the person on the other end of the line is saying by the language of the one person who can be heard.
The ability to succeed in such an analysis is dependent upon the reality of issues being addressed. In other words, there really is a church in Corinth (for example) with real church members with real issues. Paul’s occasional letters take place in a real world setting, and only because there are actual issues taking place in the church can we have any success in deciphering those issues by analyzing the language of Paul’s letters.
Such analysis infrequently presents itself in a study of the Book of Mormon. There is, however, a classic instance of a dialogue in which a Book of Mormon character does respond to issues raised by another in a manner similar to Paul’s occasional letters. This episode is Alma’s discussion with his son Corianton in Alma chapters 39-42. Although Corianton’s issues are referred to at points in Alma’s discourse, they are rarely spelled out with specificity. Like Paul’s occasional letters, all we get is Alma’s response and corrective language. Corianton is not given the opportunity to speak for himself.
This paper suggests that by analyzing Alma’s discourse, it is possible to come up with a relatively good idea as to what Corianton believes and which Alma seeks to correct. It is sometimes thought that Corianton is a wayward youth who simply has questions for his father. A close reading of Alma 39-42 indicates, however, that Corianton has a completely different belief system than his father; a belief system that, though different, is internally consistent; and that Alma is not seeking so much to answer Corianton’s questions as it is to correct his entire belief system and bring it into line with that of Alma.
II. MARVELS, WORRIES, WRESTINGS
At the outset, Alma refers to Corianton having boasted in his “wisdom.” (29:2) What wisdom is it that Corianton has been boasting in? It appears to be the incorrect doctrinal ideas which Alma seeks to subsequently correct.
These issues fall into four categories, which Alma signals by saying that Corianton marvels, worries, wrests, etc.
1. The Atonement of Christ
Alma says he would speak to his son “concerning the coming of Christ,” and that he “shall come to take away the sins of the world.” (39:15) Alma offers to “ease” Corianton’s “mind” concerning the subject, noting that his son “marvel(s) why these things should be known so long beforehand.” (39:17)
Corianton’s doubt that the coming of Christ should be known in advance signals his disbelief in the coming of Christ and the concomitant Atonement. His belief system is likely one that does not include either a Christ or an Atonement.
2. The Resurrection
Alma next addresses the issue of the bodily resurrection, saying, “I perceive that thy mind is worried concerning the resurrection of the dead.” (40:1) It is unlikely that Corianton is worried about the resurrection of the dead in the sense of experiencing anxiety, but rather has a different understanding and definition of the resurrection, a fact that becomes more evident when looking at Alma’s discourse on the subject.

3. The Restoration
Alma continues his address by dealing with the issue of “restoration,” saying “I have somewhat to say concerning the restoration of which has been spoken; for behold, some have wrested the scriptures, and have gone far astray because of this thing. And I perceive that thy mind has been worried also concerning this thing.” (41:1)
Corianton is once again “worried” about the subject of the “restoration” and it seems Alma includes his son among the unidentified “those” who have “wrested the scriptures” on the issue.
4. The Justice of God
The final issue addressed by Alma concerns God’s justice, and he leads in by telling his son, “I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which he cannot understand—which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner.”
Corianton’s idea of God’s justice would result in the sinner not being punished or, put another way, that it is not just for God to punish those who sin. Alma will take some time to address this issue in chapter 42, going into depth regarding the fall of Adam and Eve from their paradisiacal state in Eden.
In conclusion, Corianton believes that there is no Christ and no Atonement, does not appear to believe in a physical resurrection, believes in a different type of “restoration” than Alma, and believes the justice of God is thwarted by punishing sinners.
This paper will not look at the language used by Alma under each of the four issues and see if we can reconstruct what it is that Corianton does believe and how this is internally consistent with Corianton’s belief system, though far afield from what Alma teaches.