underdog wrote: ↑July 19th, 2017, 10:35 pmBr. Lenox,brlenox wrote: ↑July 19th, 2017, 9:49 pmunderdog wrote: ↑July 19th, 2017, 4:04 pmThank you for sharing that research. I appreciate the time, and the quotes.
In Sept there is an historic meeting taking place.
Details are here: http://www.covenantofchristconference.com
There currently is underway a major review of the Restoration scriptures. In other words, what should be included or excluded from our canon of scripture. I'm not attached to any remnant group or fellowship, but I'm following it from afar and trying to keep up with the scripture review.
My understanding is that the BoM will be received by covenant, among other things.
This will be one of the most historic weekends in the history of the Restoration, indeed in all of recorded sacred history going back to Moses' work where he gave us the initial books of the OT.
Thank you for the Sept 23 information. As for the research, you are welcome but are you going to respond to it? You have said multiple times that you were an honest person who would admit your errors if they could be validated.
I read your post and didn't find anything objectionable. What corrections were there? Nothing big popped out. I felt like I concurred.
Are we debating what we call the LoF? Inspired writings or scripture? The Prophet thought they were important enough that we should have them sustained as part of our canon. Some men reversed that in 1921. I think this is extremely important. The decision of the 1921 apostles was an act of apostasy because it removed such vital doctrine that teaches clearly the path back to God -- the Second Comforter.
I liked the way you described them:Couldn't agree more."Essentially, this serves as an outline and a treatise on the process of coming into the presence of God or receiving the Second Comforter, arguably the primary focal point of the lectures on faith. This process requires those testimonies of the prophets, apostles, and others to assist in the process of bringing individuals along until, as they become less dependent on other testimonies for the progressive possession of the knowledge acquired by their exercise of faith in the words of said apostles and prophets until they gain the knowledge of their Savior."
I didn't understand what you were getting at here:
Could you clarify?In the times of a fullness of the gospel the lectures on faith sustain the church wonderfully - you, not so much.
Yes, I am happy to be corrected and expect to be.
The lectures speak to a process and sustain prophets and apostles as a part of that process. That is not to say that is the only venue as we have clear examples in times when there is no fullness of the gospel and the C&E is achieved. However, these are singular events and not readily duplicated seemingly reserved for those who are the priesthood spokesman for the Lord. The adding to the mix of living prophets and apostles provides for a better distribution of the authority and directional potential that the message can more readily be taught, observed, embraced and acted upon to increase the availability and receipt of the blessings of calling and election. Part of the criteria for C & E is the ability to discern false prophets from true servants of the Lord. When I speak to true servants, as it applies to this dispensation, I am referencing those who occupy the positions of apostles and prophets in these latter-days as a body of priesthood leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While there may be an occasional lone individual who fails while serving in these positions, the body of brethren will always remain intact. In this way the lectures on faith sustain the structure of spiritual advisors and the church that are in part a key element of advancing in true knowledge. Where you have abandoned these spiritual advisors, except for when they say something you agree with, the Lectures on Faith do not sustain you.
The reason I asked for your response is my post made a very clear point. However, and you have done this a couple of times in these discussions, you step over the point acknowledging various tangents. I could do like you do and just claim, "golly gee it looks like you have just said you agree with me that the LOF are not the caliber of scripture and do not pass the test of revelation and thus are not to be considered such." That was my clearly made point to which you assented when you stated, "I read your post and didn't find anything objectionable."
However, I know that is not true and you are not in visible agreement with the points. However, as you have done this a couple of times, where you step over the specific point which was validated with scripture and apostolic commentary, and then drift off to support of the tangential elements, this does not require you to acknowledge your mistaken notions. Thus my request is to have you respond directly to the point to which I provided some compelling evidence to sustain. This is the point of correction that you claim willingness to consider. My request is to have you acknowledge to elephant of the post - its point of focus - that you step over and address it head on instead of dancing around it.