Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JLHPROF

  1. Abraham had many kids, just two to whom the birthright question applied. And I am not sure what point you are making about Sarah's death. Many husbands aren't able to be with their wives at the time of death.
  2. Well the question merely asks "Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?" As is evident every time the topic is brought up, not all members see that as having the same meaning. Lying may not be required unless a Bishop starts probing on individual items and interpretations. Some may consider their private actions perfectly in keeping with D&C 89 where others would disagree. Personally I would restrict my answer to the contents of D&C 89, not the policy du jour.
  3. You do realize Isaac was likely in his 30's or older when this happened?
  4. I missed where anyone said that in the article. I am also not sure what you are referencing as the "lie".
  5. They are inseparable, as scripture clearly shows. God himself is both perfectly good and operates from priesthood authority. They go hand in hand as D&C 121 states.
  6. Do we lose our testimonies? Blame the Church, or worse blame God? Throw the baby out with the bathwater? We must be tested in all things, face opposition in all things. We must stand firm.
  7. Not at all. I don't believe God is behind every call. However unlike many I just don't assume because a man turns out to be evil that God had nothing to do with the call. It seems like you refuse to consider the possibility that God would call a man who chooses wicked acts. That is an assumption designed to make us feel better about God but not evident in the facts. Sometimes God calls sinners and evil men for his own purposes. I seek to understand God. Not to pretend he only does things I find acceptable. So I want to understand why.
  8. Don't play the sympathy card. It's becomes impossible to have a reasonable discussion once the breastbeating starts. Child abuse is horrendous. A virtually unforgivable sin. Nobody says otherwise. But the fact that God could call by revelation an individual his forsight tells him could commit a terrible sin or harm others is a different story. It doesn't make the revelation false, so doing our best as foolish mortals to try to understand God's reasoning is the best we can do. Yelling there was no inspiration/revelation behind the call may make us feel better about God and the situation but it simply isn't always the case. Sometimes God really does call potentially great sinners, seemingly intentionally. So the better question is why.
  9. That sometimes God allows or even places wolves in our path to test our faith. There must needs be opposition in ALL things. This includes the occasional wolf called to a leadership calling.
  10. My opinion- God sometimes calls men he knows will do wrong to test our faith and the faith of the one that calls them. I think Joseph giving authority to a man like John C. Bennett perfectly exemplified this principle. It tested a great many people including Joseph. Yet D&C 124 stands as revelation. They also have agency to overcome their nature. The list of men who were called by revelation and later sinned is long. That doesn't make the revelations in error at all.
  11. No. Emphatically no. God's direction for the Church, instruction on how to proceed in a current situation can and should change. But real doctrine, truth, is eternal. Something either is or isn't true. Jesus died on the cross for me. He died and was resurrected. Joseph Smith restored the fulness of the everlasting gospel to earth. The problem comes when we blur the line between doctrinal truths and situational direction. The name of the Church, the updated Word of Wisdom, the "November" policy are all current examples of this blurring causing problems. In my opinion we need to quit blurring the lines.
  12. "Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we stillconsider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline." The wording choice is interesting. Does it say it can no longer be characterized as apostasy at all or only for the purposes of discipline? Kind of like polygamy is a felony but for the purposes of prosecution we don't consider it worth pressing charges.
  13. Pretty much. Obedience above all. First law of heaven.
  14. I'd appreciate it more if the interpretation made any sense. Coffee bad, hot cocoa good. Iced tea bad, soda good. Pure nonsense.
  15. They aren't accountable for your salvation or eternal life. You are.
  16. I'd really love to know where such an idea comes from doctrinally. I can't imagine standing before the judgement bar of Christ and using the "I was just following orders" excuse. We aren't under 8 and they aren't our parents.
  17. Which brings up the opinion vs doctrine vs revelation debate all over again. Like nailing jello to a wall. I get that God wants us to exercise faith. But making us guess his will seems counterproductive.
  18. It doesn't. But it's a bit hypocritical to pick and choose which semi-healthy things we slap with the sin label while embracing truly unhealthy things as morally ok. Last I checked hypocrisy was a sin too.
  19. You know, I want to address this too. I don't think it's anti/apostate to disagree with doctrine. I disagree with many current doctrinal positions of the Church. If I fought against, disobeyed, badmouthed etc maybe. But I follow the rules and keep my differing opinions to myself at Church. It's still God's Church, this is still the last dispensation, and God will put the Church back in order in his own good time. So no Ex-mo here. Not planning on ever being one either.
  20. And Panda Express orange chicken contains quarts of sugar per wok batch...
  21. True. Green tea can be extremely healthy for you AND forbidden as unhealthy by a policy. Soda can be the greatest nutrition crisis on earth and still be acceptable to a gospel standard of health.
  22. The WoW has become an obedience test, not a law of health. That's my only point. That and the ongoing issues with assumption of revelation vs. revelation. And most Starbucks customers don't actually like coffee. You're right, it's all about the sugar and cream. I just dislike using hypocritical standards to push a policy while simultaneously claiming it's God's updated word. Just be honest and admit it's an obedience policy, not a revelatory health law any more.
  23. Apparently it doesn't matter. The WoW is whatever the current Presidency says it is. Revelation is irrelevant.
  24. Nope. What you describe has no resemblance to a future (or present) equality. Instead you seem more interested in treating men today the way women were mistreated historically. You are the modern day gender equivalent of those who shout that all whites are evil and oppressive because of a racist past, not recognizing the racism inherent in such statements. I don't feel oppressed by equality. I don't see equality in a step away from the goal.
  • Create New...