LDS Atonement

[ἀλήθεια]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Aletheia, I think YOU have already indicated that YOU do NOT have a correct understanding regarding the LDS atonement. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Oh, you are LDS then. Can you tell me what points about it are wrong?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

You refuse to see this.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]I refuse to see what? What noun does the word "this" refer to?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

Part of this is simple obstinance and refusal to see the truth where it lies in it most simple form.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]How can you call me obstinate? You don't even know me. As for truth, do you mean that I don't regard as truth what you regard as truth?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

For example: Consider the interaction when I was trying to apologize for writing your name incorrectly :You responded:

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

Aletheia :

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]I saw your comment regarding the misspelling of your name. I apologize to you Aletheia, since I see that I�ve misspelled it as much as anyone. Importantly, I have made a free will choice and have personally decided to control myself and attempt to do better and not to spell it incorrectly anymore. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]I'm not sure I understand your English, but I thanked you for apologizing and deciding to not spell my name incorrectly anymore. Did I do something wrong by apologizing? [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

Just as you could not understand that my personal "confession" and "forsaking" fit the mold for the "confession" and "forsaking" of the very verse you quoted (but do NOT understand), unless you give up the obstinance and your commitment to find error where there is none,

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Would you please clarify what you are trying to say? I am not trying to find error where there is none.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

you will not be able to see the truth in other most simple principles. If you are unable to see it in the simplest principles, how will the LDS help you see in complex forms what you refuse to see in the simple forms? It is NOT your religion that keeps you from making such mistakes, it is your personality. You can fix this problem.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]I obviously can't get you to speak plainly and that is why I don't understand what you are saying. Why must you post in such a manner as to put other people down? You have no idea what I can see and how much truth I see.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]I do understand that the word forsake means "to give up (something formerly held dear);" and/or "to leave altogether; abandon:"[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]What I do not understand is why you said: "This process of trying to do better is called 'repentance'." Because if repentance means "confessing and forsaking sin," it isn't just "trying to do better." Am I wrong to understand the Doctrine and Covenants principle the way that Spencer W. Kimball did?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Doctrine and Covenants 58[/FONT]
29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.

42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.
43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins�behold, he will confess them and forsake them.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]President Kimball explained this principle:[/FONT]
"Trying is not sufficient. Nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin." (Spencer W. Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 164; italics retained from the original)



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Doctrine and Covenants 82[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]7 And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]8 And again, I say unto you, I give unto you a new commandment, that you may understand my will concerning you; [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]9 Or, in other words, I give unto you directions how you may act before me, that it may turn to you for your salvation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]10 I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no problem. [/FONT]

President Kimball explained:
"Those who feel they can sin...and be forgiven again and again must straighten out their thinking. Each previously forgiven sin is added to the new one and the whole gets to be a heavy load." (Spencer W. Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 170)

Do you agree or disagree with President Kimball? Where was he misinterpreting those scriptures? I understand those verses the way he explained them. Is there another way to understand them?

 

[ἀλήθεια]

I'm starting to think that the LDS must be a heck of a lot smarter than the average Christian. Our doctrine on the atonement is not the slightest bit complicated. It shouldn't take 237 posts for anybody to understand it. Since it couldn't possibly be simple obstinance, it's simply got to be stupidity. What else can we conclude?

Funny. I probably understand it, but no one wants to acknowledge that nor does anyone want to tell me which points I don't understand. The onus is on you.

 

[Orontes]

This thread is about LDS Atonement. If you wish to discuss something else you need to start your own thread.

I haven't posted on anything that isn't directly traceable to yourself. Further you have engaged my posts on several points. To adopt the above tone when you've already engaged is disingenuous and appears simply cowardly. These posts await your reply:

one,

two,

three,

four

Further these posts that directly relate to an LDS atonement have not been dealt with:

five

six

You are not doing very well.

 

[Watchmen]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Oh, you are LDS then. [/FONT]

Hey, edward! Told you she was claiming Clear was LDS!

 

[edward]

I haven't posted on anything that isn't directly traceable to yourself. Further you have engaged my posts on several points. To adopt the above tone when you've already engaged is disingenuous and appears simply cowardly. These posts await your reply:

one,

two,

three,

four

Further these posts that directly relate to an LDS atonement have not been dealt with:

five

six

You are not doing very well.

Looks like she'll pull through, though. I thought that she did rather well in her efforts to avoid the traps that you kept setting and trying to keep the thread on target. In the whole scheme of things, it doesn't really matter though, does it. She asked some questions and you chose to attempt to divert the topic by addressing (or attempting to address) what she believes about the atonement when it was made very clear from the beginning that she was seeking to know what the LDS view of the atonement was. It could have been so simple, but there were those who dicker around about people's character (I'm NOT accusing you of this other than the not so compassionate "coward" label). That's okay. I understand that a good defense is a good offense. However, like I said I believe that she's going to survive (or do rather well) as long as people avoid the subject. Like you pointed out, you listed six posts, but admit that only two of them apply to the OP. Good batting average, but alas, we weren't paying baseball, were we?

Edward

 

[ἀλήθεια]

I haven't posted on anything that isn't directly traceable to yourself. Further you have engaged my posts on several points. To adopt the above tone when you've already engaged is disingenuous and appears simply cowardly. These posts await your reply:

one,

two,

three,

four

Further these posts that directly relate to an LDS atonement have not been dealt with:

five

six

You are not doing very well.

You aren't doing very well either. I answered several of your posts as well as those of other posters. I explained to you that I am easily distracted. I also explained the reason I started this thread and have asked LDS to explain where my understanding of LDS atonement is in error. For some reason, unknown to me, the LDS have no problem stating that I don't understand your views of the atonement, but don't want to correct that understanding. So now you want to resort to personal attacks instead of explaining what you believe. I've been reading your posts and Clear's posts and trying to respond to both of you. I do not feel obligated to respond to every single post especially when LDS are not complying with the OP.

 

[Katzpur]

Why wouldn't you think that your group is "a heck of a lot smarter?" After all, aren't you just a little prejudiced?

I'm sorry you took my sarcasm seriously, Edward.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

The questions which have mostly been avoided:

Are your laws and ordinances not LDS? Are non-LDS permitted to take out their endowments, participate in temple washings and annointings, be sealed for eternity to their spouses by one of your Melchizedek Priesthood holders? Is marriage for time and eternity not required for a person to enter God's glory and receive the fulness of salvation which is referred to as eternal life?

I would question whether LDS believe that a baptized Presbyterian who has faith in Christ can have the Gift of the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands by an LDS priesthood holder. And can a baptized LDS who has received the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost be assured of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, without obedience to seeking out his ancestors and submitting their names for vicarious temple work, without paying a full tithe to the LDS church, without attending his meetings on a regular basis, without keeping the Word of Wisdom(dietary law), and without keeping his covenants that he makes in the LDS temple?

Where was I mistaken?

This thread could have been very short had those questions been answered with some verification.

 

[Watchmen]

This thread could have been very short if you didn't twist answers around.

 

[Clear]

Post one of Two

Aletheia, your question caused me to think about the difference between hypocrisy and heresy. Though the ancient Christians (ca. 70-150 a.d.) labeled as "Heretics", those who misused the doctrine of Grace in the manner that your theory of Grace suggests abusing it. Still, I do not think that ALL of these heretics were "hypocrites". The heresy that "grace renders repentance obsolete" was an attractive doctrine and thus it attracted many who were insincere and simply looking for a reason NOT to repent, a reason NOT to obey (i.e. they were abusing the more pure intention of your theory). Thus your theory attracted many with moral defects. Yet, I believe SOME of these individuals sincerely believed in this new doctrine. I think that some of these individuals SINCERELY believed that they were "regenerated" and "born again" and claimed "sanctification". For example, I do NOT think you are a hypocrite for this specific belief. I believe that you are sincere in this belief and I honor sincerity. The early Christian complaint against individuals holding your belief was, I think, based on the fact that some of the individuals initially felt "saved" for years before becoming less zealous and falling into the bad habits by which Christianity suffered a loss of Credibility (among the Pagans who saw the conduct of the heretics). If you maintain your sincerity and maintain a willingness to do whatever God leads you to do, I believe he will lead you, eventually into the same path of repentance as he led the ancient saints.

"You and I do not necessarily agree on who is a Christian and who is a heretic, but that is not the topic of LDS atonement. If you are LDS, then you may feel a need to debate who is right and who is wrong. But every time we get into a debate about synergism versus monergism, we are off topic. The question is, "Do I have a correct understanding of the LDS beliefs about the atonement?"

Aletheia, I think YOU have already indicated that YOU do NOT have a correct understanding regarding the LDS atonement. You refuse to see this. Part of this is simple obstinance and refusal to see the truth where it lies in it's most simple form. For example: Consider your response when I was trying to apologize for writing your name incorrectly (I honestly NEVER wrote it incorrectly on purpose) :

I saw your comment regarding the misspelling of your name. I apologize to you Aletheia, since I see that I’ve misspelled it as much as anyone. Importantly, I have made a free will choice and have personally decided to control myself and attempt to do better and not to spell it incorrectly anymore. This process of trying to do better is called "repentance".

You responded:

"According to the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 58, trying to do better is not the same as repentance. Repentance is the confessing and forsaking of sin. But maybe the Doctrine and Covenants means nothing to you."

If you look at my sentence you will see that I DID "confess" to you that was making errors and I DID decide to "forsake" my error by attempting to always spell it correctly from now on.

Just as you could not understand that my personal "confession" and "forsaking" fit the mold for the "confession" and "forsaking" of the very verse you quoted (but do NOT understand), unless you give up the obstinance and your commitment to find error where there is none, you will not be able to see the truth in other most simple principles. If you are unable to see it in the simplest principles, how will the LDS help you see in complex forms what you refuse to see in the simple forms? It is NOT your religion that keeps you from making such mistakes, it is your personality. You can fix this problem.

Clear

twvitzneuu8




TO THE LDS :


1) Regarding the Conflicting Claim to both understand, yet not understand.
It was obvious to the LDS and non-LDS alike, that Aletheia did not understand regarding the process of repentance and it’s relationship to trying to do better. (Thus spawning Katzpur’s post). Aletheias response represents heavy application of make-up to cover the bruise. Still, the lesion is visible under the makeup. For example: Aletheias response to my post continues her claims that she again, does not understand something or other. Why cannot the claim that "one does not understand something" become the admission that "one does not understand something"? She says for example:

What noun does the word "this" refer to?
How can you call me obstinate?
...do you mean that I don't regard as truth what you regard as truth?
Did I do something wrong by apologizing?
Would you please clarify .....
.... that is why I don't understand what you are saying
"What I do not understand is why you said: "This process of trying to do better is called 'repentance'."

Is there any one of you do who could not answer these simple questions? Especially her final important question? Do any of the LDS that have children that could not answer this question correctly?

If you take this post seriously, then her claim that she does not Understand why I said ": "This process of trying to do better is called 'repentance'." again confirms that there is something very simple that she does not understand about repentance (which is part of the earliest Christian Atonement as well as the LDS Atonement.

This inconsistent claim to both "not understand", yet also "to understand", would leave most of us scratching our heads unless, we consider other principles at work as to why she claims she cannot understand something simple (a simple thing you teach children). I believe there must be a distinction made and accepted by the LDS or they will continue in an expectation that ultimately Aletheia will come to an understanding of the Atonement. (If it does occur, it cannot be admitted to)



2) WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO "UNDERSTAND" A DOCTRINE ONE DOES NOT BELIEVE
Aletheia claims she wants someone to prove that she does not understand LDS doctrine. Yet, from the very beginning, she has never been able to expound deeply on LDS doctrine yet keep the context correct. She can quote what someone ELSE says and the put a naive and narrow Aletheian interpretation on it, just as she can quote a scripture but will not be able to expound on many scriptures context at any length (to do so would be to reveal the context is mainly Aletheian, rather than historically accurate). She claims to want to confirm she is correct in her understanding, but this is not exactly what is happening. For she has already indicated she does not understand :

"What I do not understand is why you said: "This process of trying to do better is called 'repentance'."

Does ANY of this indicate any significant understanding of the LDS atonement?



3) CAN A PRINCIPLE BE REMOVED FROM IT’S CONTEXT AND STILL RETAIN FULL MEANING?
This lack of contextual understanding of the LDS has significant "side effects" and "symptoms". Since she does not take into account the LDS claim to BE the church of the Early Saint restored, she faults the usage and quoting of the very teachings of the Early Saints such as the Apostolic Fathers and their usage to a latter day discussion. The earliest Christian call her teaching a heresy and warn against them. However, what if early Christians supported her theory? Would she still complain that data from the early Christians should not be used?


Post two of two follows
twfunetzx8x

 

[Clear]

post two of two

4) WHAT IF THE CHURCH ONE BELIEVES IN, DOES NOT ITSELF, HAVE A HISTORICAL CONTEXT?
If Aletheian Churches have no historical context, what position does this place them into? Does this lack of real historical context disadvantage them in understanding authentic historical context? They may imagine what such a context might feel like, or approximate it, like the boy that imagines what it would be like to be a "fighter pilot" in WWII. However, how accurate can the boy’s imagination be? Can the Aletheians create a more accurate imagined historical context than the boy imagines? In regards to the atonement, or authority, or revelation, etc, For the LDS, usage of data from the earliest saints seems comfortable (since they are equivalents latter day usage of the doctrines in this case). Catholics also have an enviable historical context which to draw from.

Aletheias church is not a historic church in this sense, so she cannot use early data such as discussions regarding early doctrine to the same advantage (such as the dialogues between Clement and the early Apostles such as Peter) as the LDS can. Such texts have differing effect on the historical and non-historical churches. Whereas such early texts make Aletheia uncomfortable, they make the LDS more comfortable.

She is left in the exact same position as her thousand competitors and other Christian theories, to simply taking a list of scriptures and applying a personal interpretation to them and then claiming it is THE correct interpretation. From the historians standpoint, it makes perfect sense why the Aletheian Christianities shun ancient descriptions of the Atonement for more modern versions whereas the LDS encourage all to study the most ancient texts. For example, in the famous Charlesworth volumes of Old Testament Pseudographia, the preface thanks the LDS Church specifically for LDS financial contributions in the process of gathering, translating and creating the volumes of ancient teachings (which is actually an extraordinarily well done catholic and protestant accomplishment).

Historical Churches like the Catholics and LDS are able to utilize the historical data to great advantage. The non-historical Churches are left to try to make tenuous connections, but have a difficult time at it. Aletheians may quote scriptures but even these are a difficult way to create a facade of historical respectability over the neighboring Christianity. For example, did any of you really STUDY the list of Scriptures Aletheia offers in some of her posts? Many have little to do with her post and not a few run counter to her claims. It is like name dropping at a party in the hopes of making an impression. One hopes not to be questioned too deeply regarding the names nor the scriptural contexts.



5) OBSTINANCE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE
I do NOT think aletheia is lying when she claims she is not obstinate. I think such individuals see obstinace as a "sign of faith"; a moral "obligation" to "refuse to compromise" in any way, shape or form. However, as I said, obstinance is NOT an authentic religious doctrine nor a religious phenomenon of any sort (it is not a sign of "faith"), but rather ANY obstinance ANYWHERE in the RE forums, from ANY poster of ANY religion for ANY reason is a personal psychological characteristic dressed up in religious clothes.

Just as OP’s are often worded to indicate a desire for information, they are so often simply a "dare" dressed up in the "desire to come to understanding". The O.P.s do not come under the "truth in advertising" law and may be re-worded "Prove to me my usage (or mis-usage" based on disbelief) is incorrect".

If, it is God that "opens" the "eyes and ears" of the faithful, then the adamant and public refusal to "repent" (as the ancient christians were taught to do) represents and reveals the shutting of essential doors to authentic desires for understanding. The resultant symptoms of mocking of true principles, makes trying to improve understanding (against ANYONE’S will) an insensible waste of time. I might also point out that mocking is JUST as harmful when the LDS engage in it... It is a principle that detracts from any good communication and understanding no matter who engages in it.

However, If Aletheia truly cannot understand the simple doctrines that underlie the question in quotes (as she claims), especially since she cannot see outside of her own doctrine where "grace renders repentance obsolete", then how will the LDS ever be able to teach her what she does not really want to understand? It is a psychological barrier she cannot pass. Can understanding BE force-fed?

In psychological treatment of obstinance, a difficult milestone is for the patient is simply to recognize the problem and to admit it in descriptive form. This spoken recognition is equivalent to the religious "confession" and it is important for the same reason in religion as it is in psychological treatment. If one cannot see and admit to themselves the problem within themselves, they rarely develop the inner commitment to gain greater understanding of the true problem. Otherwise, the patient tends to simply list a set of complaints about others. The authentic religious OR medical "confession" is an admission that one is "ready" to learn. Without this readiness in someone claiming to want to understand LDS doctrines, then the LDS are better off starting your own legitimate thread regarding LDS atonement and let others simply read what you discuss among yourselves. However, if you do, I think you should start from the most simple principles and build on them, rather than start anything complex.

Clear
twfunetzx8x

 

[edward]

I'm sorry you took my sarcasm seriously, Edward.

Forgiven, Katz. See what happens when this sarcasm gets out of hand? It is best, IMO, just not to go there. Be genuine in all that we do- agreed?

Edward

 

[Katzpur]

Forgiven, Katz. See what happens when this sarcasm gets out of hand? It is best, IMO, just not to go there. Be genuine in all that we do- agreed?

Edward

I know you're right, Edward. :yes:

 

[ἀλήθεια]

1) Regarding the Conflicting Claim to both understand, yet not understand.
It was obvious to the LDS and non-LDS alike, that Aletheia did not understand regarding the process of repentance and it’s relationship to trying to do better.

LDS beliefs about trying to do better and calling it repentance? That may be what LDS teach in 2009, but that is not what Spencer W. Kimball taught. And yet, you won't come out and say that Spencer W. Kimball was wrong.

President Kimball explained this principle:
"Trying is not sufficient. Nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin." (Spencer W. Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 164; italics retained from the original)

Aletheias response represents heavy application of make-up to cover the bruise. Still, the lesion is visible under the makeup. For example: Aletheias response to my post continues her claims that she again, does not understand something or other.

Not understanding how you try to explain something is not saying that I do not understand LDS teachings. Where have I misrepresented LDS teachings? You are deliberately making accusations that don't even apply. How sad.

Why cannot the claim that "one does not understand something" become the admission that "one does not understand something"? She says for example: Is there any one of you do who could not answer these simple questions? Especially her final important question? Do any of the LDS that have children that could not answer this question correctly?

Perhaps you can't even point out what statements in my first post are in error. Or is it that you don't want to do that?

If you take this post seriously, then her claim that she does not Understand why I said ": "This process of trying to do better is called 'repentance'." again confirms that there is something very simple that she does not understand about repentance (which is part of the earliest Christian Atonement as well as the LDS Atonement.

I understand repentance very well, but that is not the topic of this thread. I don't understand your disagreement with the Doctrine and Covenants and Spencer W. Kimball.

This inconsistent claim to both "not understand", yet also "to understand", would leave most of us scratching our heads unless, we consider other principles at work as to why she claims she cannot understand something simple (a simple thing you teach children).

Oh, no, what I don't understand is your evasion even though Robert Millet taught the missionary prep club to not provide meat when milk will do, to answer the question the person should have asked instead of answering the question asked. You aren't answering my questions at all.

I believe there must be a distinction made and accepted by the LDS or they will continue in an expectation that ultimately Aletheia will come to an understanding of the Atonement.

This thread is not about the Atonement. It is about the LDS Atonement, but you continue to ignore that.

2) WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO "UNDERSTAND" A DOCTRINE ONE DOES NOT BELIEVE
Aletheia claims she wants someone to prove that she does not understand LDS doctrine. Yet, from the very beginning, she has never been able to expound deeply on LDS doctrine yet keep the context correct. She can quote what someone ELSE says and the put a naive and narrow Aletheian interpretation on it, just as she can quote a scripture but will not be able to expound on many scriptures context at any length (to do so would be to reveal the context is mainly Aletheian, rather than historically accurate). She claims to want to confirm she is correct in her understanding, but this is not exactly what is happening. For she has already indicated she does not understand : Does ANY of this indicate any significant understanding of the LDS atonement?

I am convinced that I understand your doctrine quite well given that you have been unable to point to any statement I made in the OP that is false.

3) CAN A PRINCIPLE BE REMOVED FROM IT’S CONTEXT AND STILL RETAIN FULL MEANING?
This lack of contextual understanding of the LDS has significant "side effects" and "symptoms". Since she does not take into account the LDS claim to BE the church of the Early Saint restored, she faults the usage and quoting of the very teachings of the Early Saints such as the Apostolic Fathers and their usage to a latter day discussion. The earliest Christian call her teaching a heresy and warn against them.

The earliest Christians did not believe the heresies that LDS endorse. That is merely an LDS claim. For instance, the earliest Christians did not believe the following:

"Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar that through which we are now passing. He became God - an exalted being - through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey."
Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, p. 104

"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization anyhow. All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster."
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372; History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 476

However, what if early Christians supported her theory? Would she still complain that data from the early Christians should not be used?

The scriptures contain the support of my beliefs. But this thread is NOT about my beliefs at all. It is about LDS Atonement. But it is apparent that you do not understand that the topic of this thread is LDS Atonement.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

5) OBSTINANCE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE
I do NOT think aletheia is lying when she claims she is not obstinate. I think such individuals see obstinace as a "sign of faith"; a moral "obligation" to "refuse to compromise" in any way, shape or form. However, as I said, obstinance is NOT an authentic religious doctrine nor a religious phenomenon of any sort (it is not a sign of "faith"), but rather ANY obstinance ANYWHERE in the RE forums, from ANY poster of ANY religion for ANY reason is a personal psychological characteristic dressed up in religious clothes.

Just as OP’s are often worded to indicate a desire for information, they are so often simply a "dare" dressed up in the "desire to come to understanding". The O.P.s do not come under the "truth in advertising" law and may be re-worded "Prove to me my usage (or mis-usage" based on disbelief) is incorrect".

If, it is God that "opens" the "eyes and ears" of the faithful, then the adamant and public refusal to "repent" (as the ancient christians were taught to do) represents and reveals the shutting of essential doors to authentic desires for understanding.

Repent of what, Clear? I do not refuse to repent.

Can you explain your obstinace when asked to tell me which of my statements about LDS Atonement is incorrect?

I have a family emergency. I will come back if I'm able.

 

[Clear]

Aletheia, You've already demonstrated several mistakes in understanding LDS doctrine. I believe it is partly your obstinance which does not allow you to see clearly the difference between simply cutting and pasting a list of quotes, and a true understanding of how they fit. What you are doing is a version of "monkey see, monkey do". It is the same habit you have with scriptures. The cutting and pasting of scriptures that you have only a superficial understanding of, and less understanding of how they fit together is still an attempt to create the impression that you know how the separate principles work. Your deep desire to find conflict and argument and fault where there is none will keep you from understanding even the simplest of principles you do not agree with.

Here is your claim :

Alethia said " LDS beliefs about trying to do better and calling it repentance? That may be what LDS teach in 2009, but that is not what Spencer W. Kimball taught. And yet, you won't come out and say that Spencer W. Kimball was wrong.

As a SIMPLE example as to how your obsession with finding error where there is none leads you to error and poor judgement; and to point out how little you understand : Lets use quotes regarding "trying" and "repentance" :

Clear said: This process of trying to do better is called "repentance".

Spencer Kimball said : "Trying is not sufficient. Nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin." (Spencer W. Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness)

However, If you REALLY, REALLY DO understand LDS doctrine and it’s context. Then EXPOUND, in your own words the relationship between these VERY, VERY, SIMPLE statements.

Would LDS view them as mutually exclusive as you say they are? Would the LDS view the two statements as complementary? If you really understand LDS doctrines, expound on this VERY SIMPLE DOCTRINE, USING THESE VERY SIMPLE STATEMENTS. Tell us what the LDS would make of them.

This is you chance to finally prove you understand LDS doctrine and their contexts.

Clear
twsevitz9k

 

[edward]

... text omitted for brevity ...​

I have a family emergency. I will come back if I'm able.

Regardless of everyone else ignoring your need to leave because of a family emergency, I pray that all turns out well for you. God be with you and your's and grant healing within your family. I believe that you do an incredible job defending the Christian faith, against incredible odds - even if you must go it alone.

:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap​

Edward

 

[Watchmen]

Regardless of everyone else ignoring your need to leave because of a family emergency, I pray that all turns out well for you. God be with you and your's and grant healing within your family. I believe that you do an incredible job defending the Christian faith, against incredible odds - even if you must go it alone.

:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap​

Edward

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

 

[edward]

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Not to worry, I won't.

 

[Clear]

I do NOT see any reason why the thread should stop and I am wondering about a principle.

I am wondering about Aletheia"s interpretation of the LDS concept of repentance. She has the habit of “cutting” quotes (presumably from a computer search) and then “pasting” them in a post with the accompanying claim to understand the LDS quotes relating to the atonement just as the LDS do. I cannot tell if she believes the claim she makes or not, but I am interested in the effect of “cutting and pasting” and the accompanying interpretation of LDS doctrines by a person who is anagonistic to the belief itself.

For example, Has anyone ever seen an athiest actually interpret the scriptures in the same way as a born-again Christian who is under the influence of the Holy Spirit? CAN an athiest (or anyone without a supporting belief) do this? Do the mustlims interpret Christian Scriptures accurately and if not, ARE THEY ABLE to do so? I do not know if Aletheia herself believes the claim that she is able to do this, but the claim is interesting as it relates to the claim to understand another model of atonement that is both foreign to and antagonistic to one’s own belief. The claim is similar to the Claim that one is absolutely fair and can hold both a bias for AND a bias againt an interpretation (which is what one would have to do to interpret your own PLUS another religions doctrines) I do not believe a single person can do this.


As a tangible example:

Clear said in post #233 : “I saw your comment regarding the misspelling of your name. I apologize to you Aletheia, since I see that I’ve misspelled it as much as anyone. Importantly, I have made a free will choice and have personally decided to control myself and attempt to do better and not to spell it incorrectly anymore. This process of trying to do better is called "repentance”. “
Aletheia Responded with a quote : “According to the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 58, trying to do better is not the same as repentance. Repentance is the confessing and forsaking of sin.”

When I explained that there was a “confessing and a forsaking of ‘sin’ ” in my statement (i.e. I confessed to inadvertently spelling her name wrong and I committed to attempt not to spell it wrong anymore&#8221 she pasted an LDS text and interpreted the LDS text to show I was wrong.

I believe the principle of obstinance combined with disbelief was what kept her from seeing the parallels, and thus she felt used an LDS quote to demonstrate my “repentance” did NOT QUALIFY as an LDS type of repentance. If she DOES understand and interpret the pasted LDS scriptures as the LDS do, I should have LDS agreeing with her usage of the LDS scripture. Do the LDS here, agree that she used this LDS scripture (D&C 58) correctly, or incorrectly? Was I wrong or was Aletheia wrong, (or were we both wrong) in our understanding, interpretation, and usage of this LDS principle? It is especially important since, (I think), repentance is an important principle as it relates to the Atonement.

Clear
twsitwbb