How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

EvenTheLeastSaint · Post by **EvenTheLeastSaint** » April 3rd, 2016, 2:50 pm

How important is the testimony of Jesus, i.e. Calling and Election made sure? (See my post above).

50 And again we bear record -- for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just --
51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus,...

71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.
72 Behold, these are they who died without law;
73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;
74 who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

81 And again, we saw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament.
82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus.

11 As I pondered over these things which are written, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me, and I saw the hosts of the dead, both small and great.
12 And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality;
13 And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemer's name.
14 All these had departed the mortal life, firm in the hope of a glorious resurrection, through the grace of God the Father and his Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

If you accept Joseph Smith's definition of "the testimony of Jesus" (from my previous post) can you see why it is important that current apostles and prophets get it right? Do they have the authority to change the definition of "the testimony of Jesus"? Did those who changed the doctrine have the testimony of Jesus, i.e. the spirit of prophecy, i.e. calling and election made sure when they made the change, or just dropped the topic altogether from current doctrine? If so, if they had their calling and election made sure why would they neglect teaching it to others?

shadow · Post by **shadow** » April 3rd, 2016, 3:33 pm

boo wrote:Shadow and Mark I am reluctant to engage further about this issue and am reluctant to create any further contention about such a beautiful and precious doctrine . However in an attempt to spread peace I will briefly say a more things and then withdraw. The reason that the doctrine of Christ is the "fullness" is because all other principles ,concepts , practices and essential ordinances are subsumed within it. Look again at 2Nephi 32: 5 and 6 .If we actually receive our BoFHG we not only will speak with the tongues of angels but the HG will open our minds to the unspeakable mysteries of Godliness.Look at what happen to Joseph . Prior to receiving his BoFHG he had seen the Father and Son. He had visited with Moroni or Nephi countless times. He had translated large sections of the BofM . But after that day in May he suddenly could understand the scriptures in a manner in which they "never could obtain to previously ,nor even before thought of " JSH 1:74. He could prophesy marvelous things. It was following this gift that he became a true prophet and revelator. All his subsequent spiritual development was predicated on this. Likewise with us. The ordinances of the temple are significant. But if we haven't been baptized with water and the Spirit (John 3:5 ) going to the temple 10,000 times will avail us nothing. This is why the Savior said it doesn't make any difference if we have caste out Devils and worked many miracles in his name if we know him not we will be cast out .Matt7 :21-23. The way we know him is by following the Doctrine of Christ 2 Nephi 32:5. Everything else we spend our time on family history ,temple work , home teaching,, priesthood service and advancement is all for naught unless we have been born again and have the HG directing us daily in how we live and breathe and have our being.In my personal experience most members of the church have never had this happen to them.As Elder Bednar taught the fact someone puts his hand on our head and says "receive the Holy Ghost" is not sufficient .it is an invitation ,an admonition to do so but is not the reality. Like all ordinances it is symbolic of what may be not a present reality of what is. Are you prophesying ? Are you receiving revelations? Are you entertaing Angels? If not you are not availing yourselves of the blessings God pours out on those who truly have received the simple fullness. If you want to know what really receiving the BoFHG is look at Helman 5 and see what happened to those unbaptized Lamanites. Talk to my son who at age 18 received his after fasting and praying about it for months. He described it as his whole body was on fire and he thought initially he was having a heart attack. If you are unsure ask God. He will tell you if you have received of the fullness or not and if not what you must do to receive it. It isn't that the so called higher ordinances aren't important it is if you follow the doctrine of Christ and receive those supernal blessings all the rest will come to you in due time .If you have the "higher blessings" but failed to get the fullness all of those higher blessings will avail you nothing worlds w/o end. I know this is at variance with what is taught in GD .It is precisely however what the revelations of God and the only prophet of this dispensation who bore public witness of being ministered to on multiple occasions by the Savior taught.There is so much that we can enjoy if only we will.

Nice wordy response but you didn't answer the question as to if doing work for the dead is part of the gospel?

Oh, I've had my own personal experiences with heaven, in case you're wondering. Even had a few miraculous Priesthood experiences within the last few months. I have pages of events I could share. These things are not dead in my life.
I wasn't asking about those things. Temples and Temple work. Doctrine or man made teachings?

Contemplator · Post by **Contemplator** » April 3rd, 2016, 4:59 pm

Ok, please help me. This thread has become so confusing. I appreciate that Amonhi, Boo, AI2.0, Shadow, and so many others are people of faith and conviction. But, it feels like everyone is talking past each other. In order to communicate we have to allow that words have meaning and that we accept the meaning. There is no communication when we tell others what their own words must mean. So, let me try something. I want to propose a few things that I think we can all agree on:

1. The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

D&C 20:9 Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;

JS-H 1:34 ... He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants

So, whatever the "fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ" means, it should be found in the Book of Mormon. And, in particular, it is to be found in the things that the Savior personally taught to the Book of Mormon people.

2. The "Gospel of Jesus Christ" (not the fulness of the gospel, just the gospel) is defined several places in scripture. For example:

D&C 39:6 And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom.

We could equally cite 3 Ne 27:13-21 or others, but they are all similar.

3. The "Doctrine of Christ" is most thoroughly defined in 2 Nephi 31-32

So, there are three things that I think the scriptures say fairly clearly and that we should all agree upon.

Amonhi, has made a case for his understanding the the phrase "the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ" here:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=41769&start=120#p699275" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He has used scripture and reasoning. But, I cannot find any scripture that he cited that defines "fulness of the Gospel." Rather, he uses verses that refer to the "gospel of Jesus Christ" or the "doctrine of Christ" and infers something that he believes about what the fulness is.

On the other hand, AI2.0 has defended the church's traditional definition of the "fulness of the gospel" including all of the teachings and ordinance of the church. I understand why one might believe this way. It is presented on the Church's Gospel Topics web site (https://www.lds.org/topics/gospel?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) as:

In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom. The Savior has promised that if we endure to the end, faithfully living the gospel, He will hold us guiltless before the Father at the Final Judgment.

The problem with this view is it is not supported by any reference to the Savior's teachings in the scriptures that would define the "fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ." It is merely an assertion that sounds reasonable but is unsupported.

So, here is my question. Can any of you find, using references from the Savior's words to the Book of Mormon people, a definition of the "fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?" It is there. And, it is consistent with the definitions found in the D&C that were cited here:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=41769&start=120#p699231" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Contemplator · Post by **Contemplator** » April 3rd, 2016, 5:13 pm

So, as mentioned in my previous post, the tradition in the LDS church is to interpret the "fulness of the gospel" to mean all of the doctrines of the church. Our scriptures, though, are more concise. Consider D&C 39:

6 And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom.

This defines the "gospel of Jesus Christ." Continuing speaking to James Covill in D&C 39:

10 But, behold, the days of thy deliverance are come, if thou wilt hearken to my voice, which saith unto thee: Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on my name, and you shall receive my Spirit, and a blessing so great as you never have known.
11 And if thou do this, I have prepared thee for a greater work. Thou shalt preach the fulness of my gospel, which I have sent forth in these last days, the covenant which I have sent forth to recover my people, which are of the house of Israel.

So, James is told that the blessing that arises from the gospel of Jesus Christ as defined in verse 6 is to receive Christ's Spirit (verse 10), "so great a blessing that you have never known." Then, in verse 11, we find that Jesus Christ says that the fulness of the gospel is the covenant to recover His people of the house of Israel. Thus, the fulness is the covenant that Christ will recover all who will exercise faith, repent and be baptized so that they can receive the Holy Ghost and be gathered in by the Spirit of Christ.

In D&C 76: 14, Joseph Smith declares, "the record which we bear is the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ." So, what is the record which they bear? It is:

50 And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—
51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—
52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;
53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.
54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

Once again, the fulness of the gospel is simple and well defined in scripture. The record born by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon is the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That record is that those who receive the gospel of Jesus Christ (again, receiving the testimony of Christ, repenting, being baptized and receiving the Holy Ghost) will receive the Holy Spirit of Promise and be gathered in.

So, what about the idea that the "fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be in the words of Jesus Christ to the Book of Mormon people? Here is an excerpt from 3 Nephi 20:

29 And I will remember the covenant which I have made with my people; and I have covenanted with them that I would gather them together in mine own due time, that I would give unto them again the land of their fathers for their inheritance, which is the land of Jerusalem, which is the promised land unto them forever, saith the Father.
30 And it shall come to pass that the time cometh, when the fulness of my gospel shall be preached unto them;
31 And they shall believe in me, that I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and shall pray unto the Father in my name.
32 Then shall their watchmen lift up their voice, and with the voice together shall they sing; for they shall see eye to eye.
33 Then will the Father gather them together again, and give unto them Jerusalem for the land of their inheritance.
34 Then shall they break forth into joy—Sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the Father hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.
35 The Father hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of the Father; and the Father and I are one.

As with what the Lord said in D&C 39, it is about the covenant relationship between the Lord and His people. He will redeem His people. And, as in D&C 76, it is about the promises of the Father and the Son.

Are there other places that define the "fulness of the Gospel"? It is easy to assert a definition without support from the words of scripture. Are there scriptures that I am missing? These seem to define the fulness regardless of ones preconception of what it might be.

One important caveat is that I fully accept that the ordinances of the temple are given by God to bring us back. I believe that the temple is an important part of accomplishing the work that is defined as the "fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." But, as important as they may be, they are not discussed explicitly by the Savior in 3 Nephi. That is why we get criticized when we expand the definition of the fulness too far. I am content to let it be what the Lord has defined it to be.

boo · Post by **boo** » April 3rd, 2016, 6:40 pm

shadow wrote:
boo wrote:Shadow and Mark I am reluctant to engage further about this issue and am reluctant to create any further contention about such a beautiful and precious doctrine . However in an attempt to spread peace I will briefly say a more things and then withdraw. The reason that the doctrine of Christ is the "fullness" is because all other principles ,concepts , practices and essential ordinances are subsumed within it. Look again at 2Nephi 32: 5 and 6 .If we actually receive our BoFHG we not only will speak with the tongues of angels but the HG will open our minds to the unspeakable mysteries of Godliness.Look at what happen to Joseph . Prior to receiving his BoFHG he had seen the Father and Son. He had visited with Moroni or Nephi countless times. He had translated large sections of the BofM . But after that day in May he suddenly could understand the scriptures in a manner in which they "never could obtain to previously ,nor even before thought of " JSH 1:74. He could prophesy marvelous things. It was following this gift that he became a true prophet and revelator. All his subsequent spiritual development was predicated on this. Likewise with us. The ordinances of the temple are significant. But if we haven't been baptized with water and the Spirit (John 3:5 ) going to the temple 10,000 times will avail us nothing. This is why the Savior said it doesn't make any difference if we have caste out Devils and worked many miracles in his name if we know him not we will be cast out .Matt7 :21-23. The way we know him is by following the Doctrine of Christ 2 Nephi 32:5. Everything else we spend our time on family history ,temple work , home teaching,, priesthood service and advancement is all for naught unless we have been born again and have the HG directing us daily in how we live and breathe and have our being.In my personal experience most members of the church have never had this happen to them.As Elder Bednar taught the fact someone puts his hand on our head and says "receive the Holy Ghost" is not sufficient .it is an invitation ,an admonition to do so but is not the reality. Like all ordinances it is symbolic of what may be not a present reality of what is. Are you prophesying ? Are you receiving revelations? Are you entertaing Angels? If not you are not availing yourselves of the blessings God pours out on those who truly have received the simple fullness. If you want to know what really receiving the BoFHG is look at Helman 5 and see what happened to those unbaptized Lamanites. Talk to my son who at age 18 received his after fasting and praying about it for months. He described it as his whole body was on fire and he thought initially he was having a heart attack. If you are unsure ask God. He will tell you if you have received of the fullness or not and if not what you must do to receive it. It isn't that the so called higher ordinances aren't important it is if you follow the doctrine of Christ and receive those supernal blessings all the rest will come to you in due time .If you have the "higher blessings" but failed to get the fullness all of those higher blessings will avail you nothing worlds w/o end. I know this is at variance with what is taught in GD .It is precisely however what the revelations of God and the only prophet of this dispensation who bore public witness of being ministered to on multiple occasions by the Savior taught.There is so much that we can enjoy if only we will.
Nice wordy response but you didn't answer the question as to if doing work for the dead is part of the gospel?

Oh, I've had my own personal experiences with heaven, in case you're wondering. Even had a few miraculous Priesthood experiences within the last few months. I have pages of events I could share. These things are not dead in my life.
I wasn't asking about those things. Temples and Temple work. Doctrine or man made teachings?

Shadow I had determined not to add to the confusion of this thread beyond what I already had but out of curtesy I will respond to your inquiry . Yes I thinks that the bulk of the vicarious work we do in the temple is not only part of the plan of Salvation but an important part. My next comment will cause you some heart burn but perhaps you can help me understand something more fully . As you know no sealing ordinances for the dead or endowments for the dead were done during Joseph's life time not in the Navuoo Temple ever. Not was done in the Endowment House in SLC . Baptism for the Dead yes and sealings and endowments for the living yes but none for the dead. In fact so far as I can tell it was not taught nor anticipated What did happen was men were sealed into family lines other than their birth parents This practice called the Law of Adoption was very popular and was justified because no one knew if their non member deceased parents or grandparents would accept the gospel. Thus if you were sealed to them you might in up in hell. Thousands were sealed to prominent leaders . John D Lee was sealed to BY This was the authorized practice of the Church from the 1840 to at least 1877. Then suddenly Wilford Woodruff began the practice of sealing the living to the dead and discouraged practice of the law of Adoption. Over the next 20 years the whole focus and doctrine of the Church changed from Adoption to sealing to and for the dead. So far as I am aware there was no divine mandate or canonized revelation authorizing this radical change and the institution of something that was never done prior to Jan 22 1877 and was not generally approved until much later. My question is how can this be . How can one doctrine like Adoption that was accepted for 40 years be dismissed and another novel doctrine be abruptly substituted in its place. Sorry for being prolix but you asked. Your help would be appreciated

Amonhi · Post by **Amonhi** » April 4th, 2016, 12:11 pm

Contemplator wrote:Ok, please help me. This thread has become so confusing. I appreciate that Amonhi, Boo, AI2.0, Shadow, and so many others are people of faith and conviction. But, it feels like everyone is talking past each other. In order to communicate we have to allow that words have meaning and that we accept the meaning. There is no communication when we tell others what their own words must mean. So, let me try something. I want to propose a few things that I think we can all agree on:

Contemplator, your approach is perfect.

1. The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
D&C 20:9 Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;

JS-H 1:34 ... He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants
So, whatever the "fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ" means, it should be found in the Book of Mormon. And, in particular, it is to be found in the things that the Savior personally taught to the Book of Mormon people.

2. The "Gospel of Jesus Christ" (not the fulness of the gospel, just the gospel) is defined several places in scripture. For example:
D&C 39:6 And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom.
We could equally cite 3 Ne 27:13-21 or others, but they are all similar.

3. The "Doctrine of Christ" is most thoroughly defined in 2 Nephi 31-32

So, there are three things that I think the scriptures say fairly clearly and that we should all agree upon.

Amonhi, has made a case for his understanding the the phrase "the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ" here:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=41769&start=120#p699275" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He has used scripture and reasoning. But, I cannot find any scripture that he cited that defines "fulness of the Gospel." Rather, he uses verses that refer to the "gospel of Jesus Christ" or the "doctrine of Christ" and infers something that he believes about what the fulness is.

I want to review another reference that I glazed over in a previous post.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is: Repent, Baptism of Water, Baptism Fire & Receive the Holy Ghost. I think we can all agree that the gospel of Jesus Christ is contained in the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

There are so many things that the Holy Ghost does for us. The Lord calls it the unspeakable gift,

Doctrine and Covenants 121:26
26 God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now;

It becomes the sealing witness of all oaths, covenants, bonds, ordinances, etc. - D&C 132:7
It remits our sins after we repent and are baptized - 2 Nephi 31:17
It sanctifies us - 3 Nephi 27:20, Romans 15:16, Alma 13:12

Lets focus on the Sanctification... Here are the references:

3 Nephi 27:20
20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.

Romans 15:16
16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Alma 13:12
12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.

Each of these verses tells us that we are sanctified by the Holy Ghost. They each also give us an insight into what that means. Here are the insights which are all saying the same thing:

stand spotless before me
acceptable offering
garments made white
being pure and spotless before God

These terms describe an experience. That experience is the Baptism of Fire. We use fire to burn off all impurities. If I want a clean tool, I baptize it in fire for a few seconds. If we want to be clean, I must be baptized in fire and the Holy Ghost.

Why? Because the Holy Ghost or "presence of God" does not dwell in unholy temples.

Helaman 4:24
24 And they saw that they had become weak, like unto their brethren, the Lamanites, and that the Spirit of the Lord did no more preserve them; yea, it had withdrawn from them because the Spirit of the Lord doth not dwell in unholy temples—

Mosiah 2:37
37 I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples.

Alma 34:36
36 And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white (sanctified) through the blood of the Lamb.

Alma 7:21
21 And he doth not dwell in unholy temples; neither can filthiness or anything which is unclean be received into the kingdom of God; therefore I say unto you the time shall come, yea, and it shall be at the last day, that he who is filthy shall remain in his filthiness.

When does this sanctification happen? Christ tells us in 3 Nephi 27:20 (above), that it happens when we receive the Holy Ghost. He tells us "be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost".

We know that repenting is the first part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that receiving the Holy Ghost is the last part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

With that in mind, the following verse seems to tell us the beginning of the Funess which is repentance and the End of the Fulness which is sanctification which happens when we receive the Holy Ghost and middle it explains is "the fulness of my Gospel".

Doctrine and Covenants 39:18
18 And inasmuch as they do repent and receive the fulness of my gospel, and become sanctified, I will stay mine hand in judgment.

And in that last line, we are told that the Lord will stay his judgement against those who are sanctified, which makes sense because being sanctified means they are "pure and spotless before God". What then is the "Good news" of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? It is that we stand spotless before God and have overcome the fall.

On the other hand, AI2.0 has defended the church's traditional definition of the "fulness of the gospel" including all of the teachings and ordinance of the church. I understand why one might believe this way. It is presented on the Church's Gospel Topics web site (https://www.lds.org/topics/gospel?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) as:
In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom. The Savior has promised that if we endure to the end, faithfully living the gospel, He will hold us guiltless before the Father at the Final Judgment.

As much as I know this is going to open a HUGE can of worms... and against my better judgement at the moment... lol, I agree with this statement given by the church in regard to the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

First, it says, "The Savior has promised that if we endure to the end, faithfully living the gospel, He will hold us guiltless before the Father at the Final Judgment."
As explained above, if we receive the Holy Ghost, then we clean because the spirit does not dwell in unholy temples and we are sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost. Sanctified makes us spotless before God. There are two other points made in this line. "Endure to the end" and "the Final Judgement". It is possible to get the Holy Ghost and then lose it and repent to get it back. Keeping it until the final Judgement is the key. We must "endure to the end". The "end" is a reference to the final judgement or the end our our probation. The final judgement for the righteous is when they receive their calling and election made sure and are promised to be resurrected with the just in the first resurrection. For the wicked, (Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms), it comes at the end of the Millennium at the second or final resurrection when they are resurrected to the glory and body they were willing to receive.

What are all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom?
They are given in D&C 76:50-53

50 And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—
51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—
52 That by keeping the commandments (repentance) they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;
53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true. - D&C 76:50-53

Verses 54-70 tell us all the blessings that a person receives when they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise including becoming a God in the Celestial Kingdom. So, the requirements given here are all the requirements for being exalted.

What principles do we see given here?
They are, in this order:

Faith in Christ
Baptism - according to the commandment given
Repentance (keep Commandments)
Receive the Holy Spirit
overcome by faith - A reference that the inheritance does not come by obedience to the law but by faith in the promise, (see below)
sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise - The Holy Ghost seals all blessings on us making them binding to God. This is called the Holy Spirit of Promise because you have received the Promise of God by the Spirit. Without this promise, no blessing is or will be valid/binding/in effect after the resurrection, D&C 132:7-14

That's it. And it is remarkable similar to the gospel of Jesus Christ with the addition that we live the gospel until we are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise. That is known as "enduring to the end" of our probation when we are judged by God and found worthy of the Celestial Kingdom at which time we receive his promise of eternal life which is the final criteria, sealed by the holy Spirit of Promise.

Note regarding "overcoming by faith" (see above):
The following related principles are taught in Galatians 3:

The promise comes to us by faith and not by obedience to the laws:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
...
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. (and the promise comes by faith, not obedience to the law as explained in verse 14 above.)
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, (and it will be taken away because of righteousness), till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. (the promise does not come by keeping the law perfectly, but by faith. We don't overcome by the law, but by faith)
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, (and with it, the promise), we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (We are not justified by the law. Righteousness does not come by the law or obedience to the law because the law NEVER made ANYTHING perfect. But, faith in Christ does make things perfect, and justifies us.)
25 But after that faith is come, (and we receive the promise through that faith), we are no longer under a schoolmaster. - Galatians 3

In D&C 76:50-53, were are given "all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom". They match up perfectly with the gospel of Jesus Christ and do not include tithing, temples, endowments, sealings, etc. So, in this way, I agree with the statement by the church regarding the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

******

What then are we to make of all the ordinances we are given, like the Sacrament, endowments, sealings etc.? Aren't these required for exaltation?
No, they are not.

And here is where the can of worms gets opened.

I know a number of people on this forum are going to flip out because I said that the physical ordinances are not required for exaltation. So, I will now address that.

We tend to be just like the Children of Israel who thought that all of their ordinances were required for salvation. They thought that the animal sacrifices actually remitted their sins, just as we think that baptism actually remits our sins. I am speaking of the physical ordinance performed by the proper authority of the priesthood. The ordinance itself does nothing, (except to teach and remind us of what does make a difference), even when performed by the proper authority. The same was true with all the ordinances of the Aaronic priesthood as performed by the children of Israel as are performed by us using the same priesthood today. The same is also true of all the ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood.

I think that we all agree that ordinances performed by proper authority do not guarantee blessings such that an unworthy person can receive an ordinance and secure a blessing they do not deserve. A guy can't have sex with a girl at his bachelor party the night before he gets sealed in the temple to his bride and hope to having a binding agreement with God even though it was done in the temple by the authority of the sealing power.

What I think we might disagree on is that physical ordinances are not required for spiritual blessings. Here are a few examples...

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the baptism of fire and gift of the Holy Ghost immediately following their baptism. They didn't have authority to give the gift of the Holy Ghost and they didn't have hands laid on their heads, (JSH 1:73). (Similar to Jesus Christ who received it from God.)
The Gentiles whom Peter preached to received the gift of the holy Ghost without the laying on of hands. They weren't even baptized. (Acts 10:44-48)
Jesus Christ said that the Lamanites were baptized with Fire and the Holy Ghost and knew it not. (3Ne. 9:20) He was referencing those who were converted and without baptism received the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost. (Hel. 5) which actually gives us two references...
Nephi receiving the sealing power from "the voice of God" which "came into my mind". (Hel. 10)
Elisha receiving the sealing power in the OT...

I could literally list hundreds of examples from scripture in which blessings were received without physical ordinances. And so, they are not required to be acceptable to God.

So then, why do we have physical ordinances and priesthood authority to perform them?

For the exact same reason the Children of Israel had them and performed them with the required proper authority for hundreds of years even though they didn't save people.

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. - Heb 10

So, if they didn't remit sins, why did they do it? Because it kept them in "rememberance" of something that made the difference... That is the same reason we take the Sacrament each week, "We do it in REMEMBERANCE..."

And here is the magic missing piece of the puzzle, thank you King Benjamin!

11 And again I say unto you as I have said before, that as ye have come to the knowledge of the glory of God, or if ye have known of his goodness and have tasted of his love, and have received a remission of your sins, which causeth such exceedingly great joy in your souls, even so I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures, and humble yourselves even in the depths of humility, calling on the name of the Lord daily, and standing steadfastly in the faith of that which is to come, which was spoken by the mouth of the angel.

12 And behold, I say unto you that if ye do this ye shall always rejoice, and be filled with the love of God, and always retain a remission of your sins; and ye shall grow in the knowledge of the glory of him that created you, or in the knowledge of that which is just and true. - Mosiah 4

Remember, remember, remember...

Why do we repeatedly perform the same ordinances? So that we remember those things that will save us.

What about those ordinances that we only do once? They teach us and show us and stand as points of commitment so that we. They are symbols, and not the real thing. Many people have their endowments and come out more confused than blessed with power from on high. Many people are sealed in the temples only to get divorced a few years later. They are not the actual blessings, but they teach the goals and principles by which we obtain the actual blessings.

One final point, tying all this back to the Fulness of the Gospel. In D&C 76:50-53, (quoted above), it tells us the criteria for having all the blessings of exaltation. It does not include endowments or temple sealings, etc. which I think most members would think were required for exaltation. Yet, in the scriptures, we find a number of examples of people being sealed to their exaltation by the Holy Spirit of promise without having received their endowments or temple sealings, or washing and anointings. Here is one specific example:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you who have assembled yourselves together to receive his will concerning you:
2 Behold, this is pleasing unto your Lord, and the angels rejoice over you; the alms of your prayers have come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, and are recorded in the book of the names of the sanctified, even them of the celestial world.
3 Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John.
4 This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom;
5 Which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his Son— - D&C 88:1-5

This promise was given to a group of Saints, through revelation, without additional physical ordinances. None of those present whom the Lord was speaking to had received their washing and anointings, endowments nor temple sealings. The temple had not even been built, nor had construction been started. This promise was given in 1832. The first temple of the latter-days would not start construction until 5 June 1833 and would not be completed/dedicated until 27 March 1836 by Joseph Smith, Jr. (about 4 years after they received their promise of exaltation.)

So, while they did not have their temple blessings at the time they were sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, they did have the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, (Repentance, Baptism, Fire and the Holy Ghost), which in actual practice "includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom."

So, with that, I agree with the church website in its wording regarding the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Peace,
Amonhi

Contemplator · Post by **Contemplator** » April 4th, 2016, 12:59 pm

Amonhi,

Thank you for organizing and reviewing your thoughts in one (LONG) post. I found it very helpful in trying to understand what you are saying. I think that one verse, in particular, that you cited really made your point. That is:

Doctrine and Covenants 39:18
18 And inasmuch as they do repent and receive the fulness of my gospel, and become sanctified, I will stay mine hand in judgment.

That verse logically places receiving the fulness of the gospel between repentance and sanctification. Thus, whenever we read about the process of repenting and progressing to being sanctified, we are reading about the fulness of the gospel.

I will not try to give an extensive list of scriptures, but an outline from 3 Nephi should be easy to recognize. In Chapter 16 Jesus tell the people that they were the "other sheep" that Jesus spoke of in Jerusalem. The people in Jerusalem did not learn about the people of Lehi because they did not ask. Then, Jesus said that there are still other sheep (hint, hint, ... ). But, the Lehites did not ask. Then, Jesus says, "I see you are not ready" and prepares to leave. But, before leaving he gathers their children, the heavens open, he teaches the disciples to baptize and give the Holy Ghost, and then leaves.

When he returns in chapter 19 the people have been baptized and given the Holy Ghost. Then, there is a sequence of three times where Jesus separated himself and prayed to the Father for them. Each time the people became more purified. The people were truly sanctified. Then, in chapter 20, Jesus says, "ok, now you are ready (see verse 10)." So, Jesus taught them the covenants of the Father, including the fulness of the gospel that the people had just experienced.

So, it seems that the fulness of the gospel was, in fact, in 3 Nephi, as we were told by Moroni (In JS-H) and the Lord (in the D&C).

As for the necessity of the temple ordinances? Here is what I know. The temple ordinances are like instructions in how to receive the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and return to the presence of the Father, consistent with the covenants of God to the Fathers (Elijah's work is turning our hearts to the promises made to the fathers). Whether necessary or not, what an amazing blessing. God gave us instructions on how to return to His presence. It is worth following those instructions.

butterfly · Post by **butterfly** » April 4th, 2016, 2:58 pm

As long as we're clarifying, is it the doctrine of "Jesus" or the doctrine of "Christ"?

Meaning, could a person like Siddhartha Gautama follow the doctrine of Christ and become enlightened/C&E made sure, without knowing about Jesus of Nazareth?

Amonhi · Post by **Amonhi** » April 4th, 2016, 5:04 pm

butterfly wrote:As long as we're clarifying, is it the doctrine of "Jesus" or the doctrine of "Christ"?

Meaning, could a person like Siddhartha Gautama follow the doctrine of Christ and become enlightened/C&E made sure, without knowing about Jesus of Nazareth?

lol, don't you think I kicked the hornets nest enough today?

Sigh, the short answer is yes. But at some point I believe that they will come to know Jesus.

For example, Budda got his C&E and came to know and prophecy of Jesus Christ who would come. HERE

Peace,
Amonhi

Amonhi · Post by **Amonhi** » April 4th, 2016, 5:13 pm

Contemplator wrote:Amonhi,

Thank you for organizing and reviewing your thoughts in one (LONG) post. I found it very helpful in trying to understand what you are saying. I think that one verse, in particular, that you cited really made your point. That is:
Doctrine and Covenants 39:18
18 And inasmuch as they do repent and receive the fulness of my gospel, and become sanctified, I will stay mine hand in judgment.
That verse logically places receiving the fulness of the gospel between repentance and sanctification. Thus, whenever we read about the process of repenting and progressing to being sanctified, we are reading about the fulness of the gospel.

I will not try to give an extensive list of scriptures, but an outline from 3 Nephi should be easy to recognize. In Chapter 16 Jesus tell the people that they were the "other sheep" that Jesus spoke of in Jerusalem. The people in Jerusalem did not learn about the people of Lehi because they did not ask. Then, Jesus said that there are still other sheep (hint, hint, ... ). But, the Lehites did not ask. Then, Jesus says, "I see you are not ready" and prepares to leave. But, before leaving he gathers their children, the heavens open, he teaches the disciples to baptize and give the Holy Ghost, and then leaves.

When he returns in chapter 19 the people have been baptized and given the Holy Ghost. Then, there is a sequence of three times where Jesus separated himself and prayed to the Father for them. Each time the people became more purified. The people were truly sanctified. Then, in chapter 20, Jesus says, "ok, now you are ready (see verse 10)." So, Jesus taught them the covenants of the Father, including the fulness of the gospel that the people had just experienced.

So, it seems that the fulness of the gospel was, in fact, in 3 Nephi, as we were told by Moroni (In JS-H) and the Lord (in the D&C).

I keep thinking of a question to ask that might also be useful here...

If a person has leaned about the gospel of Jesus Christ but has not repented of his sins, would you say he has received the gospel?
I think most of us LDS would say "no".

If a person has leaned about the gospel of Jesus Christ and has repented of his sins and been baptized, and even had the ordinance in which Elders of the church laid hands on him and told him to receive the Holy Ghost, but he hasn't been baptized by Fire and received the Holy Ghost, would you say he has received the gospel?
I think fewer, but still most of us LDS would still say "no".

On the same lines, if a person has not had their calling and election made sure and been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise to their exaltation, have they received the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Peace,
Amonhi

butterfly · Post by **butterfly** » April 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm

Amonhi wrote:

Thank you :ymhug:
And I bet you that no one even noticed ;)

Jesef · Post by **Jesef** » April 4th, 2016, 6:27 pm

That story has been pretty well debunked.
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2009/09/b ... jesus.html

Amonhi, did you have that confirmed by the Holy Ghost to you - that Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) actually prophesied of Christ?

I do not object to the Gospel, as we call it, being taught using many different cultural vocabularies that we might not readily recognize. For example, the concept of Karma is essentially our version of perfect divine Justice, encapsulated by the "law of restoration" and the "law of the harvest". Many other gospel principles and even ordinances can be represented by teachings and practices from Buddhism and Hinduism, for example. The heart of their teachings is following the Christlike/perfect life of the love of God in action.

If we take the stance that the Gospel as taught by the LDS Church is the only true way (no other forms), then presently, nearly half of the world's population does not even have access to it, and the remaining half are being woefully underserved by our missionary outreach efforts. It could be effectively demonstrated that our missionary efforts are not even keeping up with the current worldwide birth rate (150K/day) and death rate (100K/day). In other words, 99.9999% of "the Lord's work" would have be taking place on the other side (i.e. spirit world) and it would seem that it is not terribly important to hear or receive it (as taught by the Church) here in mortality - assuming the Lord is completely fair/just and every human being is equal in His sight as a child of the Creator.

We rarely, as a people, whether LDS/Mormon or any other flavor of Restorationists, confront these statistics. It's hard to make some of the claimed puzzle pieces fit actual reality. Just saying. Not saying I know all the answers.

AI2.0 · Post by **AI2.0** » April 4th, 2016, 7:42 pm

Amonhi wrote: Funny how that is... You know, Christ was very adamant the there be no disputations on the points of his doctrine and so he went to great lengths to stop it. And yet, here we are...disputing his doctrine and his gospel. The thing that I keep coming to is that only one of us is providing reference after reference of Jesus teaching his own gospel and telling us that this is his gospel.Yes, you overwhelm me with your long posts and numerous references and I simply do not have the time to respond to them all. Also, I've observed you don't always use references that are even relevant. But, I just don't have the time to pick apart all the material you include in your posts. The other has found a learned man who apparently knows Christ's gospel better than Christ. As of yet, I am under the impression that the LDS church believes and accepts the scriptures as the word of God, particularly those parts taught by Christ himself. I have not yet seen anything that says that the church accepts and believes D. Daniel Peterson with the same regard. My observation is that Daniel Peterson's response agrees with the Encyclopaedia of Mormonism definition which I share below. Nor have I seen an official church source, doctrine, Below I've given you the LDS definition of 'fulness of the gospel'. that contradicts Christ and tells us that he was confused, unclear, misguided or otherwise incapable of teaching his Gospel and doctrine correctly. I am therefore, naturally inclined to believe that I am LDS and you are not... Do you agree with the definition below? If so, then we agree and we both support the LDS view on this subject.that you are believing and part of a religion that is not the same as mine along with those who read the scriptures for what they say and believe them because they say it without trying to twist and fit them into what I want them to believe to make my paradigm work.

Let me give you an insight into the rules of engagement as I see and use them.

- If someone quotes a scripture reference, that disagrees with my view, it is not enough for me to quote an opposing reference that supports my view because all I would have accomplished it to show that the scriptures contradict and neither one can be trusted. I must also address every scripture presented contrary to my own view and show a different meaning, interpretation or reason for why I am discounting it. Only when I have addressed every reference given to me and presented a way in which that reference is either discounted or fits my view can I be satisfied within myself. For this reason, I considered the meaning and implications of the quote you provided by Daniel Peterson. I discounted it showing that if the Fulness of the Gospel included every doctrine and ordinance God had for his people, then the church today does not have the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ because we do not have all the doctrines and ordinances which will be revealed at some future time, when the church has adequately received what they have already been given. It also leaves the door open to the unknown because there is a big black box created and anyone could pull out any doctrine and claim it was part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ whether or not is actually was and there would be no way to really dispute it. The end result of both of these issues is that such a view of the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ would conclude by saying that it is in fact "not found within the pages" of the Book of Mormon making both Moroni (JSH 1:34) and the Lord (D&C 27:5, 42:12) deceived at best and liars at worst. Either the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is found within its pages or it is not. We have it on good authority that it actually is. And I am happy to disregard your authority who seems to claim, that essential doctrines "not contained within its pages" are also part of the Gospel.

Now, if you were to engage with me under the same rules by which I engage with you, you would not ignore the many, many references I have given you that support my views. You would revisit each one and explain how it adds and supports your own view point or why you discount it as relevant to this discussion or based on bad information. To do anything else would mean by default that it does not support your view and remains unchallenged or uncorrected and therefore ignored, bypassed and thrown out as if it didn't exist. I think people call that "cherry picking" the scriptures. It's pretty obvious that you feel I am not worthy of your level of superior spiritual and mental intellect and of course, how can I measure up when I haven't seen Jesus and I'm not a member of the 144,000--heck, I don't even have the priesthood, being a lowly woman and worse yet, STILL having to worry about keeping commandments and avoiding temptations and all that, so WHAT was I thinking, attempting to question you on your interpretations??

You claim that, and yet I have shown multiple instances in which my definitions are Christ's definitions taken directly from his words as recorded in the scriptures. And again, as of yet, the LDS Church accepts as LAW the teachings of Christ as given in the scriptures. While we agree that we have a different definition for these terms, you have provided no reason to believe that the church accepts your definitions. And, I would remind you that even if you could find an authorized reference to support your view, it would still be incumbent upon you to return to the scriptures and explain how they are being mis-interprited or else you would have only gone to prove that the LDS Church source you find is at odds with the scriptures, and tehn we are left to debate whether your source is able to superseded Christ himself who taught his own gospel multiple times all of which accounts support each other perfectly. Just one problem, I believe. It would seem that when I give the church's accepted definitions or interpretations of doctrine or scripture, I should be the one who's on solid ground, not you. I believe this is still a pro-LDS forum and that means the church is considered correct in its interpretations. If you disagree with the church's interpretation, then you are the one who is out of harmony or missing the mark. If we were on a neutral or anti forum, then this would not be the case.

I might have miss expressed myself somewhere in our discussion. That overwhelming bunch of scriptures and sources that I provided, all said exactly the same thing and they all teach and support my definitions, exactly. Pick any one of them and you will have my definition or an example of my definition in practice, either of which seems to conflict with your definitions.

You cited a number of scriptures that were not referring to the 'fulness of the gospel'. I can only assume it is because you think these things are interchangeable, which I disagree with.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Fulness_of_the_Gospel

From the Encyclopaedia of Mormonism:

Fulness of the Gospel

See this page in the original 1992 publication.

Author: Farnsworth, Dean B.

The phrase "fulness of the gospel" refers to the whole doctrine of redemption demonstrated and taught in the ministry and life of Jesus Christ. It "consists in those laws, doctrines, ordinances, powers, and authorities needed to enable men to gain the fulness of salvation" (MD, p. 333).

Fulness is a term sometimes used in the scriptures to describe Christ himself, regarding both his stature as the Son of God and what he offered mankind. John, in bearing witness of the Savior, said, "And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace" (John 1:16). To receive the fulness the Savior offered is to accept him as the one who made salvation possible for all through the Atonement and to follow his teachings. Thus, to experience a fulness of joy requires one to keep God's commandments (D&C 93:27).

Christ himself declared the fulness of his gospel: "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will…, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:38-40).

Latter-day Saints believe that every prophet, from whatever dispensation, prophesied of Christ. But the phrase fulness of the gospel implies that periods have occurred when the gospel was not on the earth in its fulness, either in doctrine or in ordinance. The Book of Mormon was described by a heavenly messenger to Joseph Smith in 1820 as "giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent," and "the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior" (JS-H 1:34).

President Ezra Taft Benson explains: "The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation" (Benson, pp. 18-19).

Nephi 1, a Book of Mormon prophet living centuries before the coming of Christ, indicated that the fulness of the gospel would not always be on the earth. In a vision of the Lord's future ministry, he saw that parts of the gospel would be altered and tampered with. Nephi wrote, speaking of the Bible, "When it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the Twelve apostles bear record." But men have taken away from the Bible "many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away," which resulted in a loss of the gospel (cf. 1 Ne. 13:24-29).

Latter-day Saints believe that this apostasy and corruption of the scriptures necessitated a later restoration of the fulness of the gospel through prophets called of God. This restoration began with the first vision of 1820 to the Prophet Joseph Smith and continued with subsequent revelations, including modern scripture and priesthood authority, which remain today in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. [See also Restoration of All Things; Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.]

Amonhi · Post by **Amonhi** » April 5th, 2016, 1:48 am

Jesef wrote:That story has been pretty well debunked.
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2009/09/b ... jesus.html

Amonhi, did you have that confirmed by the Holy Ghost to you - that Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) actually prophesied of Christ?

Hey Jesef, Thanks for correcting me. No, I didn't have a witness of the Holy Ghost that he had prophesied of Christ. I do know someone who interacted with Budda in a spiritual sense, not certain if it was a vision or what. It was my understanding based on that interaction that he had his Calling and Election made sure. But that he was not converted to the name Christ but to love, peace and unity which Christ embodies. I figured that Budda would have had to come to know Jesus and did a quick look up to see if there was a connection. I was in a rush so I didn't verify, like I normally do and learned again why verifying my sources is a good idea. ;)

As I thought about it, after reading your post, and applying the law of universal application, I don't know why they would have to come to know the names and terms we use for the true principles. We don't have to learn their names and terms and it is arrogant to think we are the center of the universe in that they have to learn our English/LDS terms. They can learn the principles and call them whatever they want. I knew that they had different words and names for the same things before, but I figured that they would have to also come to know our way of seeing the world and our terms.

That's why I said, "But at some point I believe that they will come to know Jesus."

But I can see that is not the case, just as we do not need to learn theirs. I love challenging my beliefs. Thanks for your help on that!

I do not object to the Gospel, as we call it, being taught using many different cultural vocabularies that we might not readily recognize. For example, the concept of Karma is essentially our version of perfect divine Justice, encapsulated by the "law of restoration" and the "law of the harvest". Many other gospel principles and even ordinances can be represented by teachings and practices from Buddhism and Hinduism, for example. The heart of their teachings is following the Christlike/perfect life of the love of God in action.

If we take the stance that the Gospel as taught by the LDS Church is the only true way (no other forms), then presently, nearly half of the world's population does not even have access to it, and the remaining half are being woefully underserved by our missionary outreach efforts. It could be effectively demonstrated that our missionary efforts are not even keeping up with the current worldwide birth rate (150K/day) and death rate (100K/day). In other words, 99.9999% of "the Lord's work" would have be taking place on the other side (i.e. spirit world) and it would seem that it is not terribly important to hear or receive it (as taught by the Church) here in mortality - assuming the Lord is completely fair/just and every human being is equal in His sight as a child of the Creator.

We rarely, as a people, whether LDS/Mormon or any other flavor of Restorationists, confront these statistics. It's hard to make some of the claimed puzzle pieces fit actual reality. Just saying. Not saying I know all the answers.

I fully agree with you. Great point and post. Thanks!

Peace,
Amonhi

Amonhi · Post by **Amonhi** » April 5th, 2016, 4:06 am

Thanks for taking the time to respond A12.0!

Amonhi wrote: Funny how that is... You know, Christ was very adamant the there be no disputations on the points of his doctrine and so he went to great lengths to stop it. And yet, here we are...disputing his doctrine and his gospel. The thing that I keep coming to is that only one of us is providing reference after reference of Jesus teaching his own gospel and telling us that this is his gospel.
AI2.0 wrote:Yes, you overwhelm me with your long posts and numerous references and I simply do not have the time to respond to them all. Also, I've observed you don't always use references that are even relevant. But, I just don't have the time to pick apart all the material you include in your posts.

Oh, wow! I wasn't aware of that. I must not be connecting the dots well enough if you feel the references aren't relevant...

The other has found a learned man who apparently knows Christ's gospel better than Christ. As of yet, I am under the impression that the LDS church believes and accepts the scriptures as the word of God, particularly those parts taught by Christ himself. I have not yet seen anything that says that the church accepts and believes D. Daniel Peterson with the same regard. My observation is that Daniel Peterson's response agrees with the Encyclopaedia of Mormonism definition which I share below.
...
Below I've given you the LDS definition of 'fulness of the gospel'.
...
Do you agree with the definition below? If so, then we agree and we both support the LDS view on this subject.

Let me give you an insight into the rules of engagement as I see and use them.

- If someone quotes a scripture reference, that disagrees with my view, it is not enough for me to quote an opposing reference that supports my view because all I would have accomplished it to show that the scriptures contradict and neither one can be trusted. I must also address every scripture presented contrary to my own view and show a different meaning, interpretation or reason for why I am discounting it. Only when I have addressed every reference given to me and presented a way in which that reference is either discounted or fits my view can I be satisfied within myself. For this reason, I considered the meaning and implications of the quote you provided by Daniel Peterson. I discounted it showing that if the Fulness of the Gospel included every doctrine and ordinance God had for his people, then the church today does not have the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ because we do not have all the doctrines and ordinances which will be revealed at some future time, when the church has adequately received what they have already been given. It also leaves the door open to the unknown because there is a big black box created and anyone could pull out any doctrine and claim it was part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ whether or not is actually was and there would be no way to really dispute it. The end result of both of these issues is that such a view of the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ would conclude by saying that it is in fact "not found within the pages" of the Book of Mormon making both Moroni (JSH 1:34) and the Lord (D&C 27:5, 42:12) deceived at best and liars at worst. Either the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is found within its pages or it is not. We have it on good authority that it actually is. And I am happy to disregard your authority who seems to claim, that essential doctrines "not contained within its pages" are also part of the Gospel.

Now, if you were to engage with me under the same rules by which I engage with you, you would not ignore the many, many references I have given you that support my views. You would revisit each one and explain how it adds and supports your own view point or why you discount it as relevant to this discussion or based on bad information. To do anything else would mean by default that it does not support your view and remains unchallenged or uncorrected and therefore ignored, bypassed and thrown out as if it didn't exist. I think people call that "cherry picking" the scriptures. It's pretty obvious that you feel I am not worthy of your level of superior spiritual and mental intellect and of course, how can I measure up when I haven't seen Jesus and I'm not a member of the 144,000--heck, I don't even have the priesthood, being a lowly woman and worse yet, STILL having to worry about keeping commandments and avoiding temptations and all that, so WHAT was I thinking, attempting to question you on your interpretations??

I was not intending to tell you I am better than you. I was telling you my strategy for discussion so that you could prepare your response. Because once you provide the LDS Official position on this doctrine, if it doesn't match the scriptures, then we hit an end game...

If the Official Doctrine of the Church regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ does not match up with the scriptures, (and they can't both be right), then I am putting my money on the words of Christ as delivered by Jesus Christ and all the references in the scriptures dictated by the Lord himself. Unless you address those references and show how they match up with the Official Doctrine and stance of the Church regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ and his doctrine, then the only conclusion we can make is that the church is not teaching Christ's doctrine/gospel. Remember the two points Christ gave by which we would know his church? 1) it's called after his name 2) it is built on his gospel.

If it is not built on his gospel or it is teaching a different gospel, then it isn't his church. So, I was saying that in addition to the current church view on what the gospel of Jesus Christ is, you should plan on going back to the scriptures and showing us how the scriptures match up with the church's view or else all you have accomplished is to prove the church to not be Christ's church... I am working really hard to prove that the church is in fact Christ's church and that their teachings regarding the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ is taught by the Savior in the Book of Mormon.

Some things can't be changed by modern revelation through prophets, like the gospel of Jesus Christ and the only doctrine he established as his. The church either lines up with the scriptures on this point, or it is not his church, and we have an end game situation... :-w

You claim that, and yet I have shown multiple instances in which my definitions are Christ's definitions taken directly from his words as recorded in the scriptures. And again, as of yet, the LDS Church accepts as LAW the teachings of Christ as given in the scriptures. While we agree that we have a different definition for these terms, you have provided no reason to believe that the church accepts your definitions. And, I would remind you that even if you could find an authorized reference to support your view, it would still be incumbent upon you to return to the scriptures and explain how they are being mis-interprited or else you would have only gone to prove that the LDS Church source you find is at odds with the scriptures, and tehn we are left to debate whether your source is able to superseded Christ himself who taught his own gospel multiple times all of which accounts support each other perfectly. Just one problem, I believe. It would seem that when I give the church's accepted definitions or interpretations of doctrine or scripture, I should be the one who's on solid ground, not you. I believe this is still a pro-LDS forum and that means the church is considered correct in its interpretations. If you disagree with the church's interpretation, then you are the one who is out of harmony or missing the mark. If we were on a neutral or anti forum, then this would not be the case.

Which is a greater and more reliable source on the subject of the gospel of Jesus Christ: Jesus Christ himself as recorded in the multiple scriptures where he teaches his own doctrine and gospel or the various authors of the Encycopedia of Mormonism which was largely written by biased academic BYU professors?

I might have miss expressed myself somewhere in our discussion. That overwhelming bunch of scriptures and sources that I provided, all said exactly the same thing and they all teach and support my definitions, exactly. Pick any one of them and you will have my definition or an example of my definition in practice, either of which seems to conflict with your definitions.

You cited a number of scriptures that were not referring to the 'fulness of the gospel'. I can only assume it is because you think these things are interchangeable, which I disagree with. [/quote]
Just to be clear, it occurred to me while reading this response that you might believe that the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by Jesus Christ to the people is not actually found within the pages of the Book of Mormon... So, I have to ask, Do you believe it is found in the pages of the Book of Mormon? If you do, Can you point to where?

Before I read their response, I would like to point out that not only is the Encyclopedia of Mormonism not scripture and so we as LDS are not bound to it like we are the scriptures, but it is not an official LDS publication and is not considered official doctrine of the church. ;) Here is what wikipedia says about it the Encyclopedia of Mormonism

The title for the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was chosen by Macmillan, the secular publisher that initiated the project.
...
LDS general authorities (the spiritual leaders of the church) wrote little of the Encyclopedia;
...
For impartiality and perspective, several non-Mormons were asked to write important articles.
...
Although the LDS Church cooperated in the production of the book, particularly by setting aside BYU resources, the Encyclopedia was meant to be independent and unofficial in the church. Ludlow highlights this in his concluding preface remarks:

"Lest the role of the Encyclopedia be given more weight than it deserves, the editors make it clear that those who have written and edited have only tried to explain their understanding of Church history, doctrines, and procedures; their statement and opinions remain their own. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, and its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." – Encyclopedia of Mormonism, p. lxii.

The LDS Church also noted this position in official publications.

So, while I will read it, and evaluate it as possible truth, I do not accept it as Official Church Doctrine and certainly it does not over ride the scriptures. For what its worth, I expect that it will represent the opinion of the general membership of the church...

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Fulness_of_the_Gospel

(Amonhi's comments in Green)

From the Encyclopaedia of Mormonism:

Fulness of the Gospel

See this page in the original 1992 publication.

Author: Farnsworth, Dean B.

The phrase "fulness of the gospel" refers to the whole doctrine of redemption demonstrated and taught in the ministry and life of Jesus Christ. It "consists in those laws, doctrines, ordinances, powers, and authorities needed to enable men to gain the fulness of salvation" (MD, p. 333).The first sentence is vague, and can be used to support your view or my view. The second sentence... the mention laws, doctrines, ordinances, powers and authorities... I think we should look at each one of these aspects of the Fulness of the Gospel to see what they specifically are.

For example, consider what doctrines can be included in the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
- I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that IF the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ includes doctrines, then it would include the doctrines of Jesus Christ. We all agree what those doctrines are and that they are neither more than nor less than what Christ himself taught. That being the case, we have two options to chose from: Either 1) the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ includes Christ's doctrines as taught by Jesus Christ, or 2) it includes more or less than the doctrines of Christ and therefore not it is not his doctrine.

Optin 1 - If the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ includes Christ's doctrines, then we all agree that it includes, Repentance, Baptism, the Father will visit with Fire and the Holy Ghost, no more and no less. (3Ne. 11:28-41)

Option 2 - The fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ includes all the doctrines of the church and not the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

The problem with option 2 is that it is the Fulness of the Gospel OF JESUS CHRIST and not the Fulness of the Gospel of the Latter-day Saints.

We could go through each aspect of statement given, (laws, doctrines, ordinances, powers, and authorities) and detail what they include in like manner, but I need to get to bed. 3:27am for me...

Fulness is a term sometimes used in the scriptures to describe Christ himself, regarding both his stature as the Son of God and what he offered mankind. John, in bearing witness of the Savior, said, "And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace" (John 1:16). To receive the fulness the Savior offered is to accept him as the one who made salvation possible for all through the Atonement and to follow his teachings. I don't think that verse, John 1:16, in context or not, has anything to do with the sentence before or after it. And I don't see where they are coming up with that part highlighted in red. Can anyone explain what I am missing?Thus, to experience a fulness of joy requires one to keep God's commandments (D&C 93:27).

Christ himself declared the fulness of his gospel: "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will…, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:38-40). The only way for this to make sense to me is if the fulness of the Gospel, does not include the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by Jesus Christ HEREand HERE(repentance, baptism of water, baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost)

Latter-day Saints believe that every prophet, from whatever dispensation, prophesied of Christ. But the phrase fulness of the gospel implies that periods have occurred when the gospel was not on the earth in its fulness, either in doctrine or in ordinance. This is correct. The Children of Israel under the law of Moses only had what the Lord calls "the preparatory Gospel" and not "the Fulness of the Gospel". The preparatory gospel is detailed by the Lord HEREand does not include the Baptism of Fire and the Holy Ghost.The Book of Mormon was described by a heavenly messenger to Joseph Smith in 1820 as "giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent," and "the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior" (JS-H 1:34).

President Ezra Taft Benson explains: "The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation" (Benson, pp. 18-19).Thank you President Benson! I fully agree! Now, I have a question based on this quote... If a person decided to be just like Jesus Christ and adopt his doctrine as their own, exactly as Jesus taught it, would they have enough to gain salvation? For example, let's say I read what Jesus taught as his doctrine and that anything more or less than this cometh of evil and is not my doctrine. And I said, "Then that's my doctrine too." And I only accepted for doctrine; repentance, baptism and the Father will visit me with fire and the Holy ghost. Would I have, as President Benson stated, "the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation"? Or, is the doctrine of Christ so limited that it cannot produce salvation?

Additionally, if you accept what President Benson is saying, then anything not taught and included in the Book of Mormon is not required for salvation.

Nephi 1, a Book of Mormon prophet living centuries before the coming of Christ, indicated that the fulness of the gospel would not always be on the earth. In a vision of the Lord's future ministry, he saw that parts of the gospel would be altered and tampered with. Nephi wrote, speaking of the Bible, "When it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the Twelve apostles bear record." But men have taken away from the Bible "many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away," which resulted in a loss of the gospel (cf. 1 Ne. 13:24-29).

Latter-day Saints believe that this apostasy and corruption of the scriptures necessitated a later restoration of the fulness of the gospel through prophets called of God. This restoration began with the first vision of 1820 to the Prophet Joseph Smith and continued with subsequent revelations, including modern scripture and priesthood authority, which remain today in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. [See also Restoration of All Things; Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

All in all, aside from this not being an Official LDS source, I don't think it supports your view on the topic as I understand it. Especially the quote by President Benson. So far, Contemplator has provided the best Official LDS source for this doctrine and it was so vague that it didn't include doctrines of the church like, Adam God doctrine, Blood atonement, Blacks can't receive the priesthood until every white son of Adam has received it first, Blacks were less valiant in the pre-mortal world, Polygamy is an excommunication-able sin, Tithing on interest from surplus, etc. (You are probably thinking that this statement makes no sense, so I will clarify... I am hinting at the fact that the church doctrines change. Current church doctrine is not the same as past church doctrine and so to include all church doctrine as part of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't make sense because we would have to conclude that the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ changes and is therefor different for people who lived under Brigham Young compared with those who lived under President Grant as also compared with us today. Any Church doctrine that changes couldn't be part of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, so you would have to define which of the many church doctrines are actually part of that fulness.)'

Peace,
Amonhi

Jesef · Post by **Jesef** » April 5th, 2016, 10:55 am

Btw, I see almost all the core teaching of Christ found in most religions, Buddhism being a prime example. There may be some "fluff", or stuff that isn't totally necessary or true, but the essence of receiving, developing, and becoming perfect, Godlike, Christlike, and that the essence of that is pure Love, is very apparent. So if being a "true follower" of Christ, actually means becoming a being of divine Love in action, like Christ showed us, than many, many people have access to this truth. And, even in LDS doctrine, we believe that the Light of Christ is given to every man and if they diligently follow that light it will grow brighter and brighter until the perfect day. This failsafe would surpass or compensate for apostasies and oppressive governments and pretty much every possible contingency that would prevent a person from being "taught by the missionaries" or the like. I think it is perfectly possible that Buddha and many other "enlightened" ones achieved and received all that can be, the very highest, through the direct channel with God. I don't know this for sure, but I believe all things are possible with God.

Matthew.B · Post by **Matthew.B** » April 5th, 2016, 11:04 am

Jesef wrote:Btw, I see almost all the core teaching of Christ found in most religions, Buddhism being a prime example. There may be some "fluff", or stuff that isn't totally necessary or true, but the essence of receiving, developing, and becoming perfect, Godlike, Christlike, and that the essence of that is pure Love, is very apparent. So if being a "true follower" of Christ, actually means becoming a being of divine Love in action, like Christ showed us, than many, many people have access to this truth. And, even in LDS doctrine, we believe that the Light of Christ is given to every man and if they diligently follow that light it will grow brighter and brighter until the perfect day. This failsafe would surpass or compensate for apostasies and oppressive governments and pretty much every possible contingency that would prevent a person from being "taught by the missionaries" or the like. I think it is perfectly possible that Buddha and many other "enlightened" ones achieved and received all that can be, the very highest, through the direct channel with God. I don't know this for sure, but I believe all things are possible with God.

I've been studying Hung Ga kung fu for about a year now, and I'm consistently intrigued by some of the similarities between how the traditional Shaolin temple operated and how the Jews' temple did. I wouldn't be surprised if someone way back when was enlightened by the Holy Ghost to a great degree, possibly to the point of being a true prophet, and created a system and ideas that would be preserved in a way that still reflected deep truths.

Jesef · Post by **Jesef** » April 5th, 2016, 11:06 am

And inspired how to totally kick butt too! Just kidding.

Michael Davis · Post by **Michael Davis** » April 5th, 2016, 11:13 am

Dear Brothers and sisters, I have really fought adding to this post, I’m not one that like saying things behind a keyboard. I enjoy person to person communication. The spirit is much stronger in those settings. I have never posted on LDSFF, but the spirit directed me to state the following. I have read some of what Amonhi has posted on LDSFF and some of what he has posted on Elliaison. To be completely honest I agree with most of the things that Amonhi teaches as far a doctrine is concern. The majority of my disagreements comes from his approach concerning the necessary leaders and Prophets of the LDS church. But the majority of what he states pertaining to doctrine is sound.

Brothers and sisters, Amonhi has shown you scriptural evidences that what he has said is correct. Some have rejected it base on the whole encompassing Eternal Plan of Happiness. And what he has shown is but a drop in the bucket of the scriptural evidence that teach these same truths. Please brother and sisters don’t let your dislike for an individual cloud your discernment of truth. I will try a little different approach to teach these truths.

So let’s take a look at this from a logical stance and hopefully this helps. First lets ask these question.

What is the FULL MEASURE of our Saviors mortal purpose?

What must happen to fulfill this purpose?

I tell you that it is to fulfill GODS purpose… “To bring to pass the immortality of mankind”. To provide a way that man may be saved. This is called the Plan of Salvation.

This can only come by the means of the spiritual ordinance of “Baptism of Fire” (The Holy Ghost).

Once you have received this ordinance you are in fact in the Gate to the Celestial Kingdom (the Holy Ghost is the Gate). This is when thee Atonement purifies you, “That you may stand Blameless”. Thus completing Gods purpose stated above “To bring to pass the immortality of mankind”, the Plan of Salvation.

This is why our Saviors Gossip is, Repentance, Baptism by water, Baptism by Fire. Once you have received the “Baptism of Fire” you have in fact fulfilled Our Saviors mission. The Fullness of our Saviors Gospel is in fact the same as the Fullness of his Mortal Purpose. The meaning of Fullness is to FULFILL to make FULL

Now if you want to talk about our “Father’s Eternal Plan of Happiness”, there is much more. But that is not part of this discussion and really has no bearing on it. Because it doesn’t excise until you have opened the Gate, or until We have Fulfilled our Saviors Purpose. We know the Eternal Plan of Happiness is there but until you obtain this promise (Baptism of Fire) you can’t obtain the promises that follow.

The reason this is important is… Our Father’s house is a house of order. If we a looking at the prize after the prize you often miss. I will use a sports analogy. You never look passed your opponent in front of you, planning for your next opponent. This will almost always lead to failure and under achieving.

If we don’t know our Saviors Gospel and His Purpose how are we ever going to receive the blessings It has to offer, and if we miss the mark on It then we miss out on everything that follows.

This is Nephi’s vision of the tree of life!! The Gossip of Jesus Christ…. Remember Lehi/Nephi’s vision of the Tree of Life is the Plan of Salvation. The Purpose, Mission and Gospel of our Savior.

I bear my witness to these Truths and I pray that every soul partakes. May the spirit bless and guide you.

Michael Davis

Matthew.B · Post by **Matthew.B** » April 5th, 2016, 3:22 pm

Jesef wrote:And inspired how to totally kick butt too! Just kidding.

Well, that is a useful side effect... :))

Amonhi · Post by **Amonhi** » August 28th, 2016, 4:27 pm

bump...

Finrock · Post by **Finrock** » August 29th, 2016, 8:47 pm

Michael Davis wrote:Please brother and sisters don’t let your dislike for an individual cloud your discernment of truth.

This is worth repeating and so very important.

-Finrock

seekingtruth · Post by **seekingtruth** » March 24th, 2017, 5:07 pm

Finrock wrote: ↑August 29th, 2016, 8:47 pm
Michael Davis wrote:Please brother and sisters don’t let your dislike for an individual cloud your discernment of truth.
This is worth repeating and so very important.

-Finrock

I wonder why the thread died shortly after Michael Davis's post

It was a good one! I wholeheartedly agree with this statement!

How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Re: How the Lord calls Prophets and Apostles today...

Login • Register