151 replies to this topic

[TruthSeeker24]

Why is the Word of Wisdom a commandment of the Church when it specifically states that it's sent "not by commandment..." (v 2). Thoughts?

[Senator]

TruthSeeker24, on 01 May 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

Why is the Word of Wisdom a commandment of the Church when it specifically states that it's sent "not by commandment..." (v 2). Thoughts?

Cuz they changed it.

[TruthSeeker24]

Is that theologically legal?

[thesometimesaint]

Truthseeker24:

Yes.

[Senator]

TruthSeeker24, on 01 May 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

Is that theologically legal?

Yes

[ERMD]

Peter thought preaching the gospel to the Gentiles was theologically legal.

Same principle.

[TruthSeeker24]

What if President Monson said Baptism was no longer necessary?

[Senator]

TruthSeeker24, on 01 May 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

What if President Monson said Baptism was no longer necessary?

Well if he can get it ratified by the F. Presidency and Q of the 12, then it's good to go.

[Kiviuq]

So this is an example of how a current prophet can override scripture without explicitly recording a revelation.

[TruthSeeker24]

Senator, on 01 May 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

Well if he can get it ratified by the F. Presidency and Q of the 12, then it's good to go.

Seriously? I thought ordinances were eternal, unchanging, and required for a given blessing.

[wenglund]

TruthSeeker24, on 01 May 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

Is that theologically legal?

If you are thinking that it isn't theologically legal for God to direct his chosen leaders to make something a commandment that wasn't a commandment, or vice versa, then you may want to revisit the transition from the old law and covenants and rituals to the new. We are no longer commanded to stone adulterers or to sacrifice animals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kenngo1969]

TruthSeeker24, on 01 May 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Seriously? I thought ordinances were eternal, unchanging, and required for a given blessing.

You're derailing your own thread ... but then, I guess if you're determined to smack the Church of Jesus Christ upside the head, any ol' cudgel will do!

[TruthSeeker24]

Kenngo1969, on 01 May 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

You're derailing your own thread ... but then, I guess if you're determined to smack the Church of Jesus Christ upside the head, any ol' cudgel will do!

I apologize. Though not a member, I do consider myself LDS and I do try and support the Church. I was merely curious is all.

[Senator]

Kiviuq, on 01 May 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

So this is an example of how a current prophet can override scripture without explicitly recording a revelation.

Basically, yes.

[Senator]

TruthSeeker24, on 01 May 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Seriously? I thought ordinances were eternal, unchanging, and required for a given blessing.

I would suggest you thought wrong.

“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the [living] oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’”

Edited by Senator, 01 May 2012 - 11:40 AM.

[TruthSeeker24]

Senator, on 01 May 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

I would suggest you thought wrong.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[Senator]

TruthSeeker24, on 01 May 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Ok

[Buzzard]

TruthSeeker24, on 01 May 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

What if President Monson said Baptism was no longer necessary?

Whole different ball O' wax.  Baptism is a saving ordinance. Christ himself said no man could enter into the kingdom of God unless he was baptised. WOW was given for our day-for the weakest of the saints. Christ drank wine and it wasn't a sin then. Completely apples and oranges.

[Kenngo1969]

TruthSeeker24, on 01 May 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

I apologize. Though not a member, I do consider myself LDS and I do try and support the Church. I was merely curious is all.

Your question has been answered well by others here ... if you're willing to accept that.  What's the point of having prophets, an open canon, and continuing revelation if nothing ever changes?  See 2 Nephi 29:9.

[TruthSeeker24]

Buzzard, on 01 May 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Whole different ball O' wax.  Baptism is a saving ordinance. Christ himself said no man could enter into the kingdom of God unless he was baptised. WOW was given for our day-for the weakest of the saints. Christ drank wine and it wasn't a sin then. Completely apples and oranges.

That makes more sense to me.

Kenngo1969, on 01 May 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

Your question has been answered well by others here ... if you're willing to accept that.  What's the point of having prophets, an open canon, and continuing revelation if nothing ever changes?  See 2 Nephi 29:9.

For many reasons. There's things having to do with temporal affairs. Things having to do with revelation given to specific people. There are also times when people simply aren't ready to live certain laws, so they need to be taken from them, as in the case of Moses and the Israelites when the higher Priesthood was taken from them.