Conference tecrus::mormonism

RE: .0

>    
>    >*My* own belief here is that much that Brigham revealed is truth. Now,
>    >it is up to all of us to accept or reject his teachings, just as our modern
>    >prophets teachings. Some of what we teach today may not wash in say, the 
>    >next 150 years. It doesn't mean that the doctrine of today is not true. 
>                                           
>    Here's a red flag for me.  The Church teaches that
>    the prophet is the mouthpiece for God.  I have never
>    understood why, when the prophet has received revelation
>    from God, he has to present it to the Church membership
>    to be accepted or rejected.  What gives *us*, lowly human
>    creatures, the right to accept or reject God's word [assuming
>    that the prophet is presenting God's revealed word]? 
>    If God says it, sobeit.  It would seem more appropriate for
>    the prophet to announce to the membership God's revealed
>    word *without* adhering to the law of common consent.  I mean,
>    does God really need us to 'buy in' to His doctrine?
>

Let me explain how I understand it.  The Revelations of God are true.  When
something is put for as a revelation by the Prophet and it is "voted" upon,
it is not to decide whether it is real, true, a revelation, but rather to
show our support and willingness to live by it.  You are right, God doesn't
need for us to "buy in".  However the "vote" falls doesn't change the 
truthfulness of the subject or invalidate it or make it not a revelation.

>    Second red flag:  God's word will ALWAYS stand the test
>    of time.  If the doctrine is from God, the doctrine will
>    be applicable now as well as in 300 years, etc.  Therefore,
>    if the prophets are revealing God's word, there should
>    be no need to change it - ever.  The Church teaches that
>    God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  Does this
>    principle not apply to the doctrines taught by the prophets
>    - in the early Church as well as today?


However (you knew this was coming -- the big 'however' :-), everything that
falls off the prophets tongue was not revealed to him from God, is not
a revelation, etc.  He is not a robot.  As noted elsewhere, the early brethren
speculated a lot about things that the Lord felt they were not yet ready to hear,
or he didn't want to reveal it at that time for some reason.  Still, the 
brethren talked about these speculations of theirs to people.  Today, many 
people believe (many, many LDS do this) that all of this was direct revelation.
In many of these cases, the Lord did reveal later on about the subject and 
sometimes these revelations contradicted the earlier speculations of the 
brethren.  Some people say this shows they were false prophets and apostles.  It
does no such thing:  it shows that they are humans who have to learn the Gospel
line upon line, precept on precept, and that they were sometimes bad 
speculators :-).  Which is not to say all they sid were speculations.  The Lord
*did* reveal many things through them and these revelations are God's Word,
and they do stand the test of time.  God's Word (= God's Eternal
Principles, read on) doesn't change.

    
>    You state that the gospel is an evolving thing.  What is your 
>    definition of the gospel?  What is your definition of evolving?  
>    The reason I ask is because there seems to be a contradiction 
>    with what Chad has said.  [Read on . . .] 
>    
>    [Taken from 284.15 by Chad]
>    
>    >regards: prophets.  This has probably been discussed before.  The
>    >Gospel is unchanging and eternal (the policies).  The procedures
>    >do change.  Allen had a note about this I believe. 
>    
>    Please clarify what is meant here.
>

I'd say that the Gospel is not an evolving thing.  I would say that our 
understanding of the Gospel is an evolving thing, as well as that the complete
Gospel as God has designed it has not been revealed, therefore our understanding
of it evloves as he reveals more and as he inpires each of us as we study it
(there were to somewhat separate points there, (1)Gospel is still being revealed
and(2) each person understands that which we have differently and therefore each
individual's understanding evolves as one studies and is inspired by the HG).

I do believe there has been a discussion on "policies and procedures" as my dad
calls them.  I'll try to find the note.  In short, there are Eternal Principles
as God has defined them in teh Gospel.  These are the policies and don't change.
The procedures are that which tells how something should be done at any one
time.  Examples from the scriptures and from today are:

1.  In the OT we see that plural marriage was of the Lord, yet in the NT we see
"one wife".  The practice was according to God's word and changed according
to the situation.  I'd say the principle here is that plurality of wives is
a principle of God's but only according to his commandment.  His commanding
to or not to would be the procedure.

2.  The Mosaic Law would be a procedure, the "policies" behind it would be
the Gospel Principles behind it the policies.

3.  The sealing power is a policy while the use of temples as a place to perform
sealing ordinances is a procedure.  The use of temple recommends as entrance
to the temple is also procedure.

4.  The "bureaucratic" organization of the LDS church is a procedure, while the
priesthood heirarchy (in terms of the priesthood existence etc) is policy.  Note
that the "bureaucratic" organization of the priesthood is also procedure.
(note: bureaucratic organization of the church is the division into wards,
stakes, regions, missions, districts, etc. as well as Primary presidencies,
Relief Society organization, Bishops having two counselors, etc. The 
bureaucratic organization of the priesthood is the way the quorums are organized
(how many, presidencies, etc).)

Those are a few examples and my interpretations of them.  There are many others
that could be made, both from scripture and today.

    
>    I realize that I'm asking a lot of questions.  I assume this
>    is the forum to do so.  So that you're clear on where my head's
>    at on this concept, I believe:
>    
>    o  God is the same yesterday, today, and forever - THEREFORE,
>

        AMEN
    
>    o  His Word, His doctrine does not change "to fit the times"
>       - His Word is applicable for all "times" all the time. 
>

Also AMEN.  However :-), God's procedures change, the principles or "policies"
behind them don't.

Chad

The "policies and procedures" note is really "Principles (what I called policies
too) vs. procedures" and is note 88.  Only one response  though.

chad

Chad,

I agree with what you have said. Here is a little different slant on it too.

The Gospel (ie Eternal Principles) does not change. What does change is our
understanding of it and what is the appropriate adaptation of those principles 
for our time.

You mentioned the Law of Moses. Lets take a subset of that as the Laws of Health.
The principle has to do with the operation of our mortal bodies. The proceedure
in anchient Jerusalem involved drinking of wine and not eating pork. The pro-
ceedure in modern day involves not drinking wine and eating meat sparingly 
(pork not singled out either way).  This does not mean that the eternal prin-
ciples have changed but only the appropriate application has changed as the 
customs and technology around preservation and preparation of food have changed.

As to our understanding.  In our (mortal) minds, we can't understand things 
except in relationship to other things that we already know. It is very easy to
find examples of where you can't teach someone a certain concept. (eg "snow"
to someone who's experience is only in a tropical island).  Similarly the
Eternal Principles of the Gospel are in fact Eternal and in their most complete
and perfect representation involve many concepts that we today can not understand.
In recognition of how our minds work the Father does teach us "Line upon Line".
This same thing applies to a prophet. ie he can't understand things he is not
prepared to understand. ( if a person is looking through a blue tinted glass at
a yellow object, how can you convince him that the object is really not green?)
therefore as society evolves he all learn things and as a group become more
able to understand some new things therefore what is taught us changes, in fact
it may seem to conflict with what was taught before, this does not mean that
the gospel has changes but only that our ability to understand the gospel has
changed.

There was a wonderful case in the OT (the place slips my mind for now) where 
the prophet writing describes a scene that clearly defies description, but as
we read it today, it could have been some sort of space ship. Does that mean
that to all the generations that read that description that had never heard of 
space ships it was wrong? does it mean that we really understand what was actually
being described, or will there be future forms of travel that might fit it even
better?  Similarly in terms of scriptures that describe other aspects of the 
gospel, we may not fully understand what was meant because the person saying it 
was better prepared for that principle that we, or we might find that we have
progressed in understanding to where the previous principle seems to almost be
wrong.  As an example Einstein's concepts of relativity make severe restrictions
on the applicability of Newton's laws of motion.  When Albert first proposed his
ideas he was clearly WRONG in the eyes of most people. He was saying that what
had been demonstrated for generations as imutable laws, in some cases did not
apply. Does that mean that Newton was wrong? no, how about Einstein? no of course
not, but how about the people that put down Einstein at first?  Well they were
not wrong in the context that they were working in.  How about the people later
that believed in Einsteinian principles before there was any physical way of
demonstrating them, surely they get credit for working on faith in the 
mathematical principles that it was based on. Lastly what about people that do
not understand "Relativity" today, are they wrong because their concepts of
motion of physical bodies are newtonian? no, they have what they need, just don't
hire one to plan your next rocket trip to the moon.

So Sure there is an unchanging Gospel out there somewhere, but as for me what I
knwo and understand is based on what I have learned and accepted to date, and on
the credibility that I may give to the words of others, but mostly on what
I feel in my heart as answers to my prayers. I know that I don't know the "Only
True Gospel" but I am sure that I am growing nearer to it all the time. I also
know that I have no place telling someone else that they are wrong. (They might
be another Einstein after all). I also accept an organization made of people 
who are imperfect like myself (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
as a very valuable resource of information, experiences and support as I continue
to grow towards an understanding of that true gospel.  I accept that God has 
placed limited mortals as prophets to lead this church and me as a member of it.
I accept their counsel and direction as having great credibility, but real
certainty comes when I pray about it personally and get an answer. But then of
course that certantity only applies to me.

May we all continue working our way down this road together, but respecting that
we are all really in different contexts.
your borther ,

Len

   
>    Second red flag:  God's word will ALWAYS stand the test
>    of time.  If the doctrine is from God, the doctrine will
>    be applicable now as well as in 300 years, etc.  Therefore,
>    if the prophets are revealing God's word, there should
>    be no need to change it - ever.  The Church teaches that
>    God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  Does this
>    principle not apply to the doctrines taught by the prophets
>    - in the early Church as well as today?

     My feeling on this is that indeed the Gospel itself is unchanging.
     It is only our understanding of it, and our spiritual maturity that
     changes. All canonised revelation builds on existing scripture. 
     Speculation is man's attempt to explain what he hasn't had revealed 
     to him through the Holy Spirit.  
     The question everyone should ask themselves is: which of these 
     pronouncements by our leaders are scriptually sound and which are not. 
     Some revelations will be announced, but that isn't always the case.
     We as individuals need to gain a witness of the spirit of the 
     truthfulness of what we are taught. Just because I can drag up a 
     statement of say, Geo. Q. Cannon, that says something in 1880
     that contradicts what Orson Pratt might have said 15 years before
     doesn't make the gospel one iota less true. Just because Bruce R.
     McConkie said God can't increase doesn't mean B. Young was wrong
     or vice versa. We discard beliefs that do not agree with current mode
     and discard that which seems outdated.  
    
    
 >   You state that the gospel is an evolving thing.  What is your 
 >   definition of the gospel?  What is your definition of evolving?  
 >   The reason I ask is because there seems to be a contradiction 
 >   with what Chad has said.  [Read on . . .] 
    
     Evolving, means to me unfolding. Joseph had a greater understanding 
     of the nature of the Godhead in 1844 than in 1831. The teachings show
     it. We don't today have a full understanding of things. We shouldn't
     assume that we know more, or are wiser, or more enlightened today
     then, say 150 years ago. Each one of us needs to determine this
     through the Spirit. I believe doctrines change. Most people don't
     agree with me on this. And I'm not going to get into principles vs
     practice. Example, Blacks were not permitted to hold the Priesthood
     until the late 70's. If that wasn't a doctrinal change, what was?
     But revelation was given, and that revelation was clear. Most of
     what we all discuss here isn't revelation of that form, and hasn't
     been revealed in behalf of the church. Most of all the GA statements
     that we are so fond of quoting are opinions, they may have much truth
     in them, they built on revealed truths most of the time but are they
     revelations? I'll let you answer that. That goes for alot of
     our changing "doctrines", which I'll elaborate on elsewhere.
     I looked into a particular question just yesterday, and got 2
     completely contradictory statements from leaders (Apostles). Now
     take your pick, which one is right. All I did was check out current
     belief that we have and check it's history back and sure enough
     it changed. 
     
     Kevin
     

    re: -1
    
    Quick note.... When I say current beliefs, I refer to commonly
    agreed upon statements of faith in particular areas, accepted by many
    as opposed to canonised scripture, ie. Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great 
    Price, D & C, as opposed to "Mormon Doctrine", or other GA writings. 
    
    
    Kevin

    > Re: .1 NORGE::CHAD 

    >I'd say that the Gospel is not an evolving thing.  
    
    Agreed.
    
    >I would say that our understanding of the Gospel is an evolving
    >thing,
    
    Agreed.
     
    >as well as that the complete Gospel as God has designed it has
    >not been revealed, therefore our understanding of it evloves as
    >he reveals more and as he inpires each of us as we study it
    >(there were to somewhat separate points there, (1)Gospel is 
    >still being revealed and(2) each person understands that which 
    >we have differently and therefore each individual's
    >understanding evolves as one studies and is inspired by the HG).
     
    Before I add my two cents, can you please define the term 'gospel'
    as you understand it.  I want to make sure we have same
    definition.
    
>    2.  The Mosaic Law would be a procedure, the "policies" behind it would be
>	the Gospel Principles behind it the policies.
 
    You lost me here.
    
>    4.  The "bureaucratic" organization of the LDS church is a
>    procedure, while the priesthood heirarchy (in terms of the
>    priesthood existence etc) is policy.  
    
    I question the validity of the priesthood heirarchy being a
    policy.  I will elaborate in a separate note.
     
    
    > Re .4 by Kevin
    
    > The question everyone should ask themselves is: which of these 
    > pronouncements by our leaders are scriptually sound and which are not. 
    
    Bingo!  All revelations, whether they be personal or from-the-pulpit,
    should be 'scripturally sound,' i.e. can be supported by the
    scriptures.  God will not reveal something to us that would contradict
    His written word.
    
    > Some revelations will be announced, but that isn't always the case.
    > We as individuals need to gain a witness of the spirit of the 
    > truthfulness of what we are taught. Just because I can drag up a 
    > statement of say, Geo. Q. Cannon, that says something in 1880
    > that contradicts what Orson Pratt might have said 15 years before
    > doesn't make the gospel one iota less true. Just because Bruce R.
    > McConkie said God can't increase doesn't mean B. Young was wrong
    > or vice versa. We discard beliefs that do not agree with current mode
    > and discard that which seems outdated.  
     
    I must be really missing something here.  This is scary, scary,
    scary . . . Let me get this straight:  [Example only] In 1879, a 
    prophet can state a revelation, and it is identified as such by
    the prophet.  In 1914, another prophet can state another revelation 
    that completely contradicts the revelation of 1879.  How can Mormons 
    say that
    
    	o God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow
    
    	and 
    
    	o The prophet is the mouthpiece for God
    
    when the prophets continue to contradict each other and contradict
    the word of God?  It sure makes God look like He doesn't know what
    He's doing.
    
    > Evolving, means to me unfolding. Joseph had a greater understanding 
    > of the nature of the Godhead in 1844 than in 1831. The teachings show
    > it. We don't today have a full understanding of things. We shouldn't
    > assume that we know more, or are wiser, or more enlightened today
    > then, say 150 years ago. 
    
    I don't understand that last statement.  I think that during
    the last 150 years, God has blessed mankind with much knowledge,
    enlightenment, etc.  The technological advances made during
    this period are the most obvious.
    
    As a Mormon, you don't believe that God has enlightened you
    with the restored Gospel?  [I'm asking this sincerely.]
    
    > I believe doctrines change. Most people don't
    > agree with me on this. 
    
    Doctrines do change a lot in the LDS Church.  Why do *most people*
    have a problem admitting to this?  All you have to do is look
    at the Church's 'track' record.  You've stated a fine example
    below:
    
    > I looked into a particular question just yesterday, and got 2
    > completely contradictory statements from leaders (Apostles). Now
    > take your pick, which one is right. All I did was check out current
    > belief that we have and check it's history back and sure enough
    > it changed. 
    
    Help me understand this . . . You believe that (1) the gospel doesn't 
    change and (2) the doctrine does change.  What's the connection?
    Doesn't this seem a little bit inconsistent?  In your view,
    what is the difference between gospel and doctrine?    
    
    
    Regards,
    Tamara
                
    

I'll say more about this later, now I've got to get some work done that
didn't get done during the week, but I'll say a few simple sentences.

"The Gospel according to Chad Leigh" ;-)

Gospel: The truth and teachings of God as pertains to his Work and Glory, ie,
the Immortality and Eternal Life of Man.

Doctrine: The Gospel as far as it has been revealed to man by God.  That means
that Doctrine can't change either (with my definitions).   

Statements by Church
Leaders that are not direct Revelations by the Prophet or the Apostles, are
therefore in my opinion, not Doctrine.  Neither is the fact that one must hold
a Temple recommencd to visit the Temple, or what Bruce R. McConkie said in
"Mormon Doctrine".  However, much of what the brethren say and write is in
harmony with the Doctrine of the Church and with the Gospel.  If Orson Pratt
or Brother Brigham said things of their own, that was not Doctrine.  Even
some Revelations are not Doctrine -- if they describe a procedure and not a 
principle.

This "principles vs. policies" idea is very important.  (Note 88 has a bit more
on this).  Basically, the Truth behind everything doesn't change, though the
mechanism can.  The "procedures" are very important however, as they are 
often commandments of God for a particular time period.

Chad

more_than_a_few_sentences_along

By the way, _Websters_New_Collegiate_Dictionary_ says:

Gospel: 1. The message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation,

Doctrine: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of
knowledge or a system of belief.

The above Websters definitions are only a snippet of the whole printed and the
ones I thought closest to the topic here (religion, not my own definitions, ie,
we are not talking about "Gospel" Music here).

	RE: Note 286.0 NWD002::DULL_TA

>    Here's a red flag for me.  The Church teaches that
>    the prophet is the mouthpiece for God.  I have never
>    understood why, when the prophet has received revelation
>    from God, he has to present it to the Church membership
>    to be accepted or rejected.  What gives *us*, lowly human
>    creatures, the right to accept or reject God's word [assuming
>    that the prophet is presenting God's revealed word]? 
>    If God says it, sobeit.  It would seem more appropriate for
>    the prophet to announce to the membership God's revealed
>    word *without* adhering to the law of common consent.  I mean,
>    does God really need us to 'buy in' to His doctrine?

	Tamara,
		Yes, God does indeed intend for us to "buy in" to His doctrine!
	The prophet has any revelation of church-wide importance presented to
	the membership because that is the law of God. 

	D&C 41:2	"Hearken, O ye elders of my church whom I have called,
			 behold I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall 
			 assemble yourselves together to agree upon my word."
							 -----

	D&C 26:2	"And all things shall be done by common consent in
			 the church, ..."		 --------------

	D&C 28:13	"For all things must be done in order, and by common 
			 consent in the church, ..."		      ------
			 -------

	(Underlines are mine.)

	Also, the voice of the people has long been used by the Lord in 
	conducting His affairs with His children on this world :

	MOSIAH 29:26	"Now it is not common that the voice of the people
			 desireth anything contrary to that which is right:
			 but it is common for the lesser part of the people
			 to desire that which is not right; therefore this 
			 shall ye observe and make it your law - to do your
			 business by the voice of the people."

	You may also refer to Num. 27:19, 1 Sam. 14:45, Zeph. 3:9, Matt. 18:19,
	Mosiah 29:39, Alma 2:6, and D&C 38:27.  Your red flag is because of a
	misunderstanding of God's law.  Besides, our agency is the greatest gift
	that God can give us in conducting our own personal affairs.  Did not 
	all of God's children have the opportunity to accept or reject His 
	Plan of Salvation?  As I recall, one-third did not.

	Charles

Another note that pertains to this discussion is 211.  That note is
discussing whether all statements made by General Authorities are church
policy or not.

    Re: Note 286.0 by NWD002::DULL_TA

    Hi Tamara,
    
>   o  God is the same yesterday, today, and forever - THEREFORE,
>   
>   o  His Word, His doctrine does not change "to fit the times"
>      - His Word is applicable for all "times" all the time. 

    I think the Holy Bible gives some interesting examples to the contrary.
    For example, the Lord revealed to Moses certain dietary laws that the
    children of Isreal were to observe that were later changed (I know this
    was mentioned previously). The law of circumcision is another example.
    The Lord reveals things that serve a divine purpose in one day and age,
    but may not in another. 
    
    This does not mean that God has changed in the process. It merely means
    that He is using ongoing revelation to teach his children "line upon
    line, precept upon precept" what they need to know *at that time* in
    order progress, until they come unto a fullness in Him.
    
    I think that members of the Church get themselves in a difficult
    position when they begin to speculate. That is why almost every lesson
    manual instructs the teacher to stick to the SCRIPTURES as their source
    of teaching information, and NOT to bring in speculation from the
    thousands of books that have been written by church members. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

>Re:  .8 by BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney" 
>
>	Tamara,
>		Yes, God does indeed intend for us to "buy in" to His doctrine!
>	The prophet has any revelation of church-wide importance presented to
>	the membership because that is the law of God. 

I wasn't clear when I made my statement  - I don't think God intends for us
to 'buy in' to His doctrine.  What I meant (for example) was that if God 
commanded each of us to eat 2 gallons of ice cream every day, it's not our
jobs, as humans, to decide whether or not this is a *good* law or a *bad*
law.  If God says it, sobeit.  It *is* our decision, however, on whether or 
not we are going to obey the law.

>
>	D&C 41:2	"Hearken, O ye elders of my church whom I have called,
>			 behold I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall 
>			 assemble yourselves together to agree upon my word."
>							 -----
>
>	D&C 26:2	"And all things shall be done by common consent in
>			 the church, ..."		 --------------
>
>	D&C 28:13	"For all things must be done in order, and by common 
>			 consent in the church, ..."		      ------
>			 -------

As I said in 'The Law of Common Consent' note, this *law* is based on latter-
day scripture/revelation.  A person's acceptance of this law is based on
the fact of whether or not they accept latter-day scripture/revelation AS
DEFINED BY THE LDS CHURCH.  Since I do not accept the latter-day scriptures
as being the word of God, I have a hard time accepting this *law* as being
a law of God.

>	You may also refer to Num. 27:19, 1 Sam. 14:45, Zeph. 3:9, Matt. 18:19,
>	Mosiah 29:39, Alma 2:6, and D&C 38:27.  Your red flag is because of a
>     	misunderstanding of God's law.  

What am I misunderstanding?

>	Did not 
>	all of God's children have the opportunity to accept or reject His 
>	Plan of Salvation?  As I recall, one-third did not.

Are you assuming that I believe in the LDS version of the plan of salvation
here?  That is not a safe assumption.  So as not to divert from the subject
of this note, I will withhold further comments on this.

Rich, regarding your reply (.10),  I will first have to review the directory
in this conference to find out if my *thoughts* have been previously discussed.
If not, I'll open a new note.  

Regards,
Tamara

	RE: Note 286.11 NWD002::DULL_TA 

>I wasn't clear when I made my statement  - I don't think God intends for us
>to 'buy in' to His doctrine.  What I meant (for example) was that if God 
>commanded each of us to eat 2 gallons of ice cream every day, it's not our
>jobs, as humans, to decide whether or not this is a *good* law or a *bad*
>law.  If God says it, sobeit.  It *is* our decision, however, on whether or 
>not we are going to obey the law.

	You are still missing the point of free agency - that is indeed why
	God wants us to 'buy in'.  Obedience is better than sacrifice, as
	king Saul found out.  (1 Sam. 15:22)  Whether or not a person does 
	'buy in', they are still help accountable to God by His law as given.

>As I said in 'The Law of Common Consent' note, this *law* is based on latter-
>day scripture/revelation.  A person's acceptance of this law is based on
>the fact of whether or not they accept latter-day scripture/revelation AS
>DEFINED BY THE LDS CHURCH.  Since I do not accept the latter-day scriptures
>as being the word of God, I have a hard time accepting this *law* as being
>a law of God.

	I accept "latter-day scripture/revelation" because I have a personal 
	testimony that it is the word of God, and not because the LDS church
	says it is.  You seem to have a problem with that.  I also believe
	that Israel, ala Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, are the covenant people of
	God on this earth.  Just because some doctrine is not spelled out
	in the Bible does not mean it was not there.  That is why the world
	needed the restoration to come about as these doctrines were lost to
	it in their fullness.  Now, if you want to deny the restoration and 
	beat against God, then that is your privilege.  But I will have to 
	disagree with you on this "law of common consent."  The Bible is 
	not clear on a lot of things, but even if it is alluded to, it seems 
	to me that there should be some basis for it.


>>	You may also refer to Num. 27:19, 1 Sam. 14:45, Zeph. 3:9, Matt. 18:19,
>>	Mosiah 29:39, Alma 2:6, and D&C 38:27.  Your red flag is because of a
>>     	misunderstanding of God's law.  
>
>What am I misunderstanding?

	The law of common consent as a result of our God given agency.


>Are you assuming that I believe in the LDS version of the plan of salvation
>here?  That is not a safe assumption.  So as not to divert from the subject
>of this note, I will withhold further comments on this.

	No, I am not assuming that.  However, since this is a conference on
	Mormonism, that is what you will get.  Besides, the so called LDS
	version of the plan of salvation is the same as presented in the Bible,
	but with clearer understandings.


	Charles

Re:  .12 by BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney" 

>>I wasn't clear when I made my statement  - I don't think God intends for us
>>to 'buy in' to His doctrine.  What I meant (for example) was that if God 
>>commanded each of us to eat 2 gallons of ice cream every day, it's not our
>>jobs, as humans, to decide whether or not this is a *good* law or a *bad*
>>law.  If God says it, sobeit.  It *is* our decision, however, on whether or 
>>not we are going to obey the law.
>
>	You are still missing the point of free agency - that is indeed why
>	God wants us to 'buy in'.  Obedience is better than sacrifice, as
>	king Saul found out.  (1 Sam. 15:22)  Whether or not a person does 
>	'buy in', they are still help accountable to God by His law as given.
                     
Geez . . . I am not missing the point.  When God creates a law, he does
not need to check with us human beings to see if it's a good idea or not.
However, after he has created the law and revealed it to man, we are free 
to use our agency in obeying the law.  When I refer to 'buy in', I'm referring
to the initial creation of the law - not the implementation of it.

>	I accept "latter-day scripture/revelation" because I have a personal 
>	testimony that it is the word of God, and not because the LDS church
>	says it is.  You seem to have a problem with that.  

I don't want to appear to be on the defensive, but I'm not clear here on
what problem I'm having with *that*.  If *that* refers to your personal
testimony - then there isn't a problem.  I honestly believe that you
are very sincere about your testimony and that you truly have accepted the
latter-day scripture/revelation as the word of God.  [Please do not forget
that I was a Mormon for nine years.]

>        Now, if you want to deny the restoration and 
>	beat against God, then that is your privilege. 

Deny the restoration as defined by the LDS Church?  That's a possibility
(see note 293).  But beat against God?  Come on - that statement was 
uncalled for. 
                                       

>Re:  .14 by BSS::RONEY  "Charles Roney"
>
>	Mark,
>		I have received a "personal testimony" of the LDS scriptures
>	in exactly the same way Peter received his testimony that Jesus Christ
>	is the Son of the living God.  (I also believe same.)
>
>		I do not attribute it to "supernatural" as I deem that to be
>	something beyond man's understanding, whereas God is not. Also, see 
>	my reply of 10.62.

You understand God?  You comprehend His power, His knowledge, His awesomeness? 

Regards,
Tamara

	RE: Note 286.15 NWD002::DULL_TA 

>Geez . . . I am not missing the point.  When God creates a law, he does
>not need to check with us human beings to see if it's a good idea or not.
>However, after he has created the law and revealed it to man, we are free 
>to use our agency in obeying the law.  When I refer to 'buy in', I'm referring
>to the initial creation of the law - not the implementation of it.

	As mankind, we can do nothing but implement the laws God gives us.
	To 'buy in' to any given law requires our agency of acceptance.
	I have to disagree with your conception of the 'initial creation of 
	the law'.  God, the Father, lives by eternal law.  He is not a law 
	unto Himself.  He does not 'create' the law.  We must live by the 
	law, the same way He does. (D&C 88:34-39)  In any case, this will
	probably be a case of where we'll just have to agree to disagree.


>I don't want to appear to be on the defensive, but I'm not clear here on
>what problem I'm having with *that*.  If *that* refers to your personal
>testimony - then there isn't a problem.  I honestly believe that you
>are very sincere about your testimony and that you truly have accepted the
>latter-day scripture/revelation as the word of God.  [Please do not forget
>that I was a Mormon for nine years.]

	The ideas I have about "doctrine" come from the LDS scriptures. 
	Since you do not believe in them the same way as I do, then there
	is no basis for discussion.  Your statement about the doctrine
	source is what I was referring to.

>Deny the restoration as defined by the LDS Church?  That's a possibility
>(see note 293).  But beat against God?  Come on - that statement was 
>uncalled for. 
                                       
	The restoration is foretold in the Bible, and that has already been
	covered in another section of this notes file.  Perhaps Allen or
	Keven could direct you to the appropriate place.  

>You understand God?  You comprehend His power, His knowledge, His awesomeness? 

	I choose not to go into this particular subject at this time.  I am 
	not too good with words and right now this subject is only an 
	understanding in my mind in concept and I have not yet gone into 
	scriptural detail to solidify it.  Maybe Allen or Keven can expand 
	on this subject as they seem to be able to articulate so well.

	Regards,
	Charles

[Believe it or not, this is the third time I've submitted this reply.
I hope that I get it right this time, Allen and Charles . . .  ;^) ]
    
Re:  .16 by BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney"

>	As mankind, we can do nothing but implement the laws God gives us.
>	To 'buy in' to any given law requires our agency of acceptance.
>	I have to disagree with your conception of the 'initial creation of 
>	the law'.  God, the Father, lives by eternal law.  He is not a law 
>	unto Himself.  He does not 'create' the law.  We must live by the 
>	law, the same way He does. (D&C 88:34-39)  In any case, this will
>	probably be a case of where we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
I agree with your last sentence.

>>You understand God?  You comprehend His power, His knowledge, His awesomeness? 
>
>	I choose not to go into this particular subject at this time.  I am 
>	not too good with words and right now this subject is only an 
>	understanding in my mind in concept and I have not yet gone into 
>	scriptural detail to solidify it.  Maybe Allen or Keven can expand 
>	on this subject as they seem to be able to articulate so well.

That's reasonable.  Perhaps I shouldn't have highlighted this remark - it
could turn into a highly philosophical discussion.  It just struck me as
odd that someone could say that they had an understanding of God.  I do
not have this understanding myself.

Regards,
Tamara
            

This note was defined in .0 as a discussion of change in the Church.  An
interesting topic on personal testimonies and the nature of our spiritual
bodies grew from that discussion, and I have moved this new topic to note
118.