Studying Backwards

I was reading our discussion of last night. You commented “I think Sister Doxey quote it to suit her point. I mean, Alma may mean something different but it does [not mean] that she has missed the point. I don't see why's she's wrong.

This is the problem with many of the Church Doctrines. People come up with ideas and then hit the topical guide and quote scriptures to suit their point. This is exactly opposite of the Holy Order. We should go to the scriptures and see what they say and then come up with ideas we can accept based on the scripture.
1h ago

You won’t agree with the following, but I hope you won’t be offended….
1h ago

Joseph and Sidney were “translating” the Bible. “on the 16th of February, 1832, while translating St. John’s Gospel, myself and Elder Rigdon saw the following vision….
1h ago

““Joseph would, at intervals, say: ‘What do I see?’ as one might say while looking out the window and beholding what all in the room could not see. Then he would relate what he had seen or what he was looking at. Then Sidney replied, ‘I see the same.’ Presently Sidney would say ‘what do I see?’ and would repeat what he had seen or was seeing, and Joseph would reply, ‘I see the same.’
1h ago

Having come up with the three degrees, they went to the Bible to “quote it to suit [their] point. They found 1 Corinthians 15. but just like Sister Doxey, they took 1 Corinthians completely out of context to give some kind of scriptural bases for their idea without understanding the idea Paul was conveying. Paul was answering a question about the resurrection of mankind.

1 Corinthians 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
1h ago

He was teaching that resurected bodies were different from resurected bodies in 1 Corinthians 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
1h ago

There is no mention of Kingdoms of Glory because Paul was not talking about kingdoms, just about bodies. It never occurs to anyone (accept Oaks) that there is no mention of Telestial bodies. That’s because Paul was talking about the difference between the bodies here and the bodies of resurrected beings. That’s it in context.

42. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43. It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1h ago

Two different materials. One corruptible and one incorruptible. That he was talking about the material make up of bodies, he says, “ All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds”, meaning the material makeup is different.
1h ago

Oaks, in the last conference talk “The Apostle Paul describes the three degrees of glory, likening them to the glories of the sun, moon, and stars. He names the highest “celestial” and the second “terrestrial.” He does not name the lowest, but a revelation to Joseph Smith added its name: “telestial.””
1h ago

Why is not the absence of “Telestial” more bothersome?
1h ago

As far as “glory” goes, Looking at the 1829 Websters Dictionary Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Glory

, We see what paul was talking about :

GLO'RY, noun [Latin gloria; planus; hence, bright, shining. glory then, is brightness, splendor.

1. Brightness; luster; splendor. 2. Splendor; magnificence.
1h ago

This is obviously what Paul was talking about. “There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another”. There are bodies on earth (mortal) and their are bodies in heaven (resurrected) . This answers the question, “How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?”.
1h ago

And so, coming up with a concept and then scouring the scriptures to prove the idea always ends up the same way. A hot mess.
1h ago

From the Church Website. Interesting:
59m ago

The view of the afterlife laid out in “the Vision” contrasted starkly with the beliefs of most Christians at the time. A majority believed in a strict heaven-and-hell theology of the world to come: those obedient to the gospel of Jesus Christ would be saved, but the wicked would be consigned to eternal punishment.8 However, there were a growing number who felt that this view was inconsistent with other biblical teachings about God’s mercy, justice, and power to save.

For example, a young Congregationalist named Caleb Rich became troubled when his minister taught that Christ would have a mere few “trophies of his Mission to the world, while his antagonist would have countless millions.” Rich feared that his own spiritual “situation appeared more precarious than a ticket in a lottery.”9 He eventually rejected his minister’s doctrine and embraced what is known as Universalism. Simply put, Universalists believed that God would not eternally punish sinners but that all would eventually be saved in God’s kingdom. Joseph Smith’s father and his grandfather Asael Smith held Universalist views.10

Most Christians felt that Universalism went too far, that its teaching of universal salvation removed all incentive to keep God’s commandments and would lead to an immoral, dissolute life. Many early converts to the Church agreed and may have felt confirmed in their view by certain Book of Mormon passages.11 However, Joseph Smith’s vision of the afterlife appeared to some of these converts to advocate Universalist teachings. Consequently, as people like Lincoln Haskins and Joel and Seth Johnson began to carry word of “the Vision” to the scattered branches of the Church, it created a stir.

Many Stumbled at It

Some outside observers scoffed at the newly revealed doctrine. One Christian newspaper responded to “the Vision” by sarcastically claiming that Joseph Smith sought to “disgrace Universalism by professing … the salvation of all men.”12 But more disconcerting to the Prophet were the reactions of some Church members.

“It was a great trial to many,” Brigham Young remembered. “Some apostatized because God … had a place of salvation, in due time, for all.”13 Young himself had difficulty accepting the idea: “My traditions were such, that when the Vision came first to me, it was directly contrary and opposed to my former education. I said, Wait a little. I did not reject it; but I could not understand it.”14 His brother Joseph Young also confessed, “I could not believe it at first. Why the Lord was going to save every body.”15

Perhaps in a knee-jerk reaction to what seemed to be hints of Universalism, some early members overlooked the subtle beauty of “the Vision.” Avoiding the extremes of Universalism and the orthodox view of heaven and hell, it suggested that the sufferings of the disobedient would indeed ultimately end but that the Lord also held out the promise of unimaginable rewards for those who are “valient in the testamony of Jesus.”16

In May or June 1832, missionary John Murdock encountered resistance to the ideas in “the Vision” while in Orange, Ohio (near Cleveland): “The brethren had just received the Revilation called the vision & were stumbling at it.”

Perhaps some of those who embraced “the Vision” were predisposed by their past beliefs.26 Some, like Joseph Smith’s father, may have had Universalist leanings. But while this new vision shared some similarities with the thought and writings of the Universalists, it departed from and expanded upon these ideas in new and inspired ways.

‘The Vision’
58m ago

“Many early converts to the Church agreed and may have felt confirmed in their view by certain Book of Mormon passages” Such an understatement! The whole message throughout the Book of Mormon is against Univeralism in any form or modification.

33. Wherefore, if they should die in their wickedness they must be cast off also, as to the things which are spiritual, which are pertaining to righteousness; wherefore, they must be brought to stand before God, to be judged of their works; and if their works have been filthiness they must needs be filthy; and if they be filthy it must needs be that they cannot dwell in the kingdom of God; if so, the kingdom of God must be filthy also.
34. But behold, I say unto you, the kingdom of God is not filthy, and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God; wherefore there must needs be a place of filthiness prepared for that which is filthy.
35. And there is a place prepared, yea, even that awful hell of which I have spoken, and the devil is the preparator of it; wherefore the final state of the souls of men is to dwell in the kingdom of God, or to be cast out because of that justice of which I have spoken.
48m ago

Oaks, however stated, "Under that loving plan, there are multiple kingdoms—many mansions—so that all of God’s children will inherit a kingdom of glory whose laws they can comfortably 'abide.'"

And "....the Final Judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ. There, our loving Savior, who, we are taught, “glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands,” will send all the children of God to one of these kingdoms of glory"

That is modified Universalism that the early converts recognized immediately.
43m ago

Hick is honest enough to see that the Gospel delivered to the Nephite prophets conflicted with this Universalism. Says he "Much of what was recorded by those prophets was based on an Old Testament misunderstanding of God and his Son and ancient Israelite views of heaven, hell, and God’s plan of salvation....The ancient Israelite/Jewish/Christian heaven-hell dichotomy still seems to be reflected in the Book of Mormon....Some see these as conflicting teachings, others see them as reflecting a more limited and incomplete view of the gospel in its fulness."
39m ago

Oh boy.
39m ago

Doctrine and Covenants 10 blows this evil theory of Hick out of the water.

46. And, behold, all the remainder of this work [Book of Mormon] does contain all those parts of my gospel which my holy prophets, yea, and also my disciples, desired in their prayers should come forth unto this people.

47. And I said unto them, that it should be granted unto them according to their faith in their prayers;

48. Yea, and this was their faith--that my gospel, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the Lamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions.

49. Now, this is not all--their faith in their prayers was that this gospel should be made known also, if it were possible that other nations should possess this land;

50. And thus they did leave a blessing upon this land in their prayers, that whosoever should believe in this gospel in this land might have eternal life;

52. And now, behold, according to their faith in their prayers will I bring this part of my gospel to the knowledge of my people.
32m ago

Here we see that this “revelation” confirms tha the gospel was given to the guys that wrote the Book of Mormon. We learn that the Lord gave them the word that they wrote down. Why would the Lord give them “an Old Testament misunderstanding of God and his Son and ancient Israelite views of heaven, hell, and God’s plan of salvation”. Instead,

Moroni 10:27 And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust?
27m ago

Sure, I get it. Line upon line. But that does not mean that previous lines are not true. Line upon line means there is adding, not deleting, what was previously revelaed and certainly not contradicting previous teachings.
11m ago

Here this idea is taught: 1 Nephi 14:30 ....if all the things which I saw are not written, the things which I have written are true. And thus it is. Amen.
9m ago

Hick would have loved the apostates of Ammonihah

Alma 21

6. ....We do believe that God will save all men.

Aaron opened the scriptures to show them otherwise.

8. And the man said unto him: ....neither do we believe that thy fathers and also that our fathers did know concerning the things which they spake....

And there it is. One can believe in a modified Universalism but only if one thinks the prophets of the Book of Mormon didn’t know what they were talking about, that they were under a misunderstanding.

Hick and everyone else are warned pretty starkly here.
2m ago

Conclusion: Coming up with an idea and wresting scriptures or using them torn from their context creates terrible and false doctrine.