Two more to bring the total doctrines to twelve. What do you think?
Justice
Sacrifice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
22 March 2008
See you there August 23rd
It's all small stuff
LDS Newsroom RSS Feed
LDS News/Around the Church
Old and Busted versus The New Hotness
- November 14, 2008--291--BN 4
- June 19, 2008---296--Belt notch 4
- May 6,2008---290lbs--Belt notch 4
- May 1, 2008---294lbs--Belt notch 4
- April 22, 2008---294.5--Belt notch 3
- April 18, 2008---296lbs--Belt notch 3
- April 11, 2008---300lbs--Belt notch 3
- April 4, 2008---303lbs--Belt notch 2
- March 22, 2008---314lbs--Belt notch 1
Old and Busted
22 March 2008
MyNorthwest.com - Odd News
High Rock Fire Lookout
See you there August 23rd
Okay, so this took me by surprise!
Don't sweat the small stuff
It's all small stuff
About Me
- Pb
- Husband of one wife--- Father of Five Daughters--- A Boutique man in a Costco Body
9 comments:
I meant to comment on your original post. I have thought about this, but not as much as you have. I struggle with making these distinctions. My problem is that I can easily distinguish the difference between practices and (doctrine/principles), but I have a difficult time with distinguishing between doctrine and principles. I think it is the lawyer in me that gets caught up in definitions. The terms doctrine and principles seemed to be used interchangeably all of the time that I don’t have a clear definition of each in my mind. For example, Faith is listed as a doctrine (which I certainly agree with) but we also call Faith in Jesus Christ one of the first principles of the gospel.
When you challenged in your prior post to think of additional doctrines, I also thought of Sacrifice and Justification. I also thought that Sanctification might be a doctrine. I also tried to fit the Atonement in one of the previous listed categories without success. But, then I wondered if the Atonement is really a doctrine, or is it a larger category than a doctrine? I think sacrifice, justification, and sanctification are related to the Atonement.
Elder D. Todd Christofferson penned an article on Justification and Sanctification in the June 2001 Ensign. I wonder how his thoughts might apply to this discussion.
Thank you for reminding me about Elder Christofferson's article. As I understand his article to teach us that justification and sanctification are elements of grace. Is grace a doctrine under your definition? I think the practices and principles I can think of relating to the atonement would probably fall under grace.
I find grace to be an interesting topic. It is not a one that I would have easily thought of. It is certainly a topic that I should spend more time pondering. We don’t talk about grace (at least the term “grace”) in the church that often, probably for a number of understandable reasons.
Although a bit off topic from your original post, whenever I think of grace, I can’t help but remember a quote I saw while serving my mission many years ago that has had quite an impact on me. Hugh Nibley wrote a 4 part series of articles for the Ensign on the Atonement in 1990. In the 3rd part, he wrote in September’s Ensign:
“In Latter-day Saint doctrine, the Atonement of Christ is far from being a merely theological, philosophical, or psychological exercise. At-one-ment fulfills the measure of man’s creation and is the culmination of the plan of salvation. As such, it requires more than our casual attention as we live out our days on earth. No detached intellectualism; no frenzied quick-fixes; no “cheap grace,” as Bonhoffer put it. “Cheap grace is grace without discipleship. … Costly grace is … the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him. … It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life.”
“In Latter-day Saint doctrine, the Atonement of Christ is far from being a merely theological, philosophical, or psychological exercise. At-one-ment fulfills the measure of man’s creation and is the culmination of the plan of salvation". Hugh Nibley
Main Entry: cul·mi·nate
Pronunciation: \ˈkəl-mə-ˌnāt\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): cul·mi·nat·ed; cul·mi·nat·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin culminatus, past participle of culminare, from Late Latin, to crown, from Latin culmin-, culmen top — more at hill
Date: 1647
intransitive verb
1of a celestial body : to reach its highest altitude; also : to be directly overhead
2 a: to rise to or form a summit b: to reach the highest or a climactic or decisive point
transitive verb
: to bring to a head or to the highest point.
Brother Nibley considers the at-one-ment to be the summit of the plan of Salvation. Hmm? Does this suggest that there is a "highest" point in the plan of Salvation and that there is no increase afterward? Does this suggest that unless you achieve the "highest" degree of Celestial Glory you will not be happy but be in misery for eternity?
So much of the Gospel is interpreted within the paradigm of mortality. We neglect the Premortal state and the Ante-PreMortal state. We forget that Heavenly Father is the culmination of love and will not make anyone miserable unless they really want misery(and I mean they actually choose misery by fullfilling all righteousness, having their calling and election made sure and then turning completely therefrom).
Everyone else, and I mean everyone, will be supremely happy. This especially includes the Primary President who neglected to get the round doilies instead of the square doilies for sharing time and now feels condemned to a lesser kingdom where she will be in endless misery forever. How I grieve over the 32 year old mother of "many" who measures herself against others to determine is she is really living the Gospel instead of being able to have peace over her efforts with Heavenly Father until she is overwhelmed and commits spiritual suicide.
Will the people in the terestrial kingdom be happy? Yes. We're here now. I love the trees. I love blue sky. Isn't Mount Rainier beautiful. Without the influence of Satan don't you think this would be paradise?
Bottom line is we can't lose unless we chose to and if we choose to it's so much work that most of us would never choose it. I'm told that as leaders we are supposed to paint a scary mask on anything but the Celestial Kingdom. I think that is an old sectarian tradition that has infiltrated the culture of mormonism and is not doctrinal.
Is there marriage in the terrestrial kingdom? Telestial?
The Atonement: Doctrine or Event? The Earth was created. Certainly an eternal truth. Does that make it a Doctrine or an Event? Or should I say practice? Or, as Elder Parry put it,an application?
Home Teaching: Application
Doctrine: Divine Investiture of Authority
Principle: The Priesthood
Application: Home Teaching
And now me...chiming in with my not so insightful comment. I've written and re-written my comment, but it has to do with the just nature of deity, and I just can't really express it without feeling like I'm using His name in vain, so I won't. Good food for thought though.
Here, here!
Let us not forget mercy: doctrine? practice? principle?
Which ever I hope it is extended to me as I stumble on doctrines, principles and daily on practices.
Post a Comment