Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JAHS

Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Teancum said:

I have not passed judgement on the prophets just your interpreting who are wheat and tares.

Oh, please. You said " considering the fact that the LDS church is one among thousands of truth claims and one not all that successful."

That's what we call passing judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, california boy said:

Really?  At what point in history did the Jewish church stop being His church?  I thought He was the one revealing His will through His prophets?  

Have you read the Book of Mormon? Its narrative begins with Lehi being called as a prophet to preach repentance to an already errant Jewish population, warning them that they faced enslavement if they did not heed his words and the words of other prophets. These authorised prophets were rejected, however, and many of the apostate Jews were subsequently taken away captive in Babylon. The 'Jewish church', as you call it, came out of exile with the descendants of these captives, a man-made institution lacking divine authority and having corrupted the gospel message. This is precisely why the appearance of John the Baptist caused such a disturbance. Here again was a prophet preaching the correct way. And a short time later the Lord Himself established His Church in direct opposition to the 'Jewish church', providing it with apostles/prophets who held divine authority and could be guided through continual revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/12/2015 at 9:45 AM, Gray said:

Haranguing the church was kind of the job description of Biblical prophets (Samuel the Lamanite too)

 

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Thanks Calm, I think you're right. But the pattern is there for the OT prophets.

The pattern is still there for modern-day prophets. What so far has been your response to their current 'haranguing' on this topic?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, jwhitlock said:

Oh, please. You said " considering the fact that the LDS church is one among thousands of truth claims and one not all that successful."

That's what we call passing judgment.

Oh please.yourself.  Then don't pretend you are not over the top "I have the truth and anyone who challenges me and my religion is despicable."  

You have chastised me in the past for my positing style inhibiting reasonable dialogue.  Go and examining your own narrow world view posting style and tell me how anyone can dialogues with that unless they agree with you and pat you on the back.

Carry on.  I will do by best to resist interaction with you.  

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Oh please.yourself.  Then don't pretend you are not over the top "I have the truth and anyone who challenges me and my religion is despicable."  

You have chastised me in the past for my positing style inhibiting reasonable dialogue.  Go and examining your own narrow world view posting style and tell me how anyone can dialogues with that unless they agree with you and pat you on the back.

Carry on.  I will do by best to resist interaction with you.  

I'll be specific on your misrepresentations since you continue to be unreasonable.

Your "I have the truth and anyone who challenges me and my religion is despicable" characterization of what I said is false. I never said that nor inferred that. That is your over-the-top "demean the messenger" over-hyped response. It's a dishonest rephrase of what I posted.

You claim I have a narrow world view and that I can't dialogue with anyone unless they agree with me and pat me on the back. Again, that is simply false and a misrepresentation on your part. There are plenty of people on this board who I disagree with and despite that, interact quite well with. The people I don't have patience with are those who do what you're doing now.

All of this stems from my simple application of the scriptural parable of the wheat and tares to one Ken Jennings who has decided to denounce the church publicly. It's a common sense observation that no one who thinks clearly should have any problem with conceptually. And yet here you are, misrepresenting what I said (I think other people are despicable) and that I am so narrow that I can't dialogue with anyone unless they agree with me - which is simply false if one wants to look at my overall posts on this board.

So, please do resist interacting with me since you can't do so with any accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Have you read the Book of Mormon? Its narrative begins with Lehi being called as a prophet to preach repentance to an already errant Jewish population, warning them that they faced enslavement if they did not heed his words and the words of other prophets. These authorised prophets were rejected, however, and many of the apostate Jews were subsequently taken away captive in Babylon. The 'Jewish church', as you call it, came out of exile with the descendants of these captives, a man-made institution lacking divine authority and having corrupted the gospel message. This is precisely why the appearance of John the Baptist caused such a disturbance. Here again was a prophet preaching the correct way. And a short time later the Lord Himself established His Church in direct opposition to the 'Jewish church', providing it with apostles/prophets who held divine authority and could be guided through continual revelation.

Interesting perspective.  So do you think the church in Biblical times was not God's church since 600 BC?  Where does that put all the scriptures that follow that time period.  And what are the implications that God would allow His church leaders to introduce man made concepts.  Why wouldn't that happen today as well?  While current church leaders claim to be following the inspiration of God, didn't church leaders during the time of Christ have that same belief?  Should we be looking for people outside the church claiming that they know the will of God?  

Share this post


Link to post

An  astute piece from The Federalist entitled "Why There's No Such Thing as a Same-Sex Mormon Family."

Here's a passage I really like:

Quote

If redefined marriage can be seen as part of a trajectory the sexual revolution initiated, it should surprise no one that Mormons reject it, because they have rejected the entire “revolution.”

Incidentally the clock continues to tick slowly but inexorably toward Dehlin's arbitrary 40-year deadline by which the Church of Jesus Christ is expected to wholly embrace same-sex "marriage." As of now it stands at 39 years, 2 months, 1 day, 18 hours, 59 minutes and 44 seconds.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, california boy said:

Interesting perspective.  So do you think the church in Biblical times was not God's church since 600 BC?

I may be misreading cues, but your statement and question here sound as though you're unfamiliar with these concepts. This is actually entry-level 'Mormonism'. As ward mission leader, I frequently attend lessons with the Elders. In the first lesson they cover clearly the cycle repeated throughout the Old Testament: God calls prophets. The people hearken to the prophets for a time, but eventually pride causes them to reject the prophets. God then removes prophets, and the people fall into apostasy, substituting the teachings of men for divine guidance. When the people are sufficiently humble, God sends prophets again. In teaching these points, the missionaries use examples from throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament.

Quote

Where does that put all the scriptures that follow that time period.

You may not have noticed, but we actually have only a small handful of OT books claiming to have been composed after the early years of the Babylonian Exile, and only some of those are prophetic in nature: Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The intertestamental period is one characterised by the almost complete absence of the voices of prophets.

Quote

And what are the implications that God would allow His church leaders to introduce man made concepts.

You are getting this wrong. It is church members who first reject the prophets and then introduce man-made concepts.

Quote

Why wouldn't that happen today as well?

It is certainly happening today. One needn't look far on this board to find clear evidence that some Church members are following the well-worn path of rejecting the living prophets of God in preference of the philosophies of men.

Quote

While current church leaders claim to be following the inspiration of God, didn't church leaders during the time of Christ have that same belief?

No, the religious leaders of the Jews did not claim to be prophets. Instead of following inspiration, they saw themselves rather as following the law. In one of her books, Margaret Barker has suggested that the central conflict in Jewish religious development in the years leading up to the Exile was the conflict between prophets and law. Prophets and revelation were seen as messy and chaotic while the law was seen as stable and predictable. The people overwhelming chose law over prophecy. This is why there is so much emphasis on the law by the Pharisees in Jesus's day ... and why Paul spent so much time explaining that the law cannot bring men to God.

Quote

Should we be looking for people outside the church claiming that they know the will of God?  

You may do as you wish. Personally, I intend to give heed to the words of the Saviour when He told the Twelve Apostles, 'He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward', and when He said to the newly called Seventy, 'He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me'.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

Well first of all, I am not saying this is my point of view.  I am only asking these questions because I am interested in hearing your point of view.  And I have to say, your point of view is interesting.  

 

If I am understanding your perspective, what you are saying is that God has never guided the leaders of His church in Old Testiament times.  The high priest leaders were just figureheads.  He only called prophets to fix things when the people were wicked.  So when Christ was on the earth, there was no leadership to guide the people on what the will of God was and there never had been.  Do I have that right?

 

Starting a church with leaders that received revelation and could guide the church was a new concept.  That, as we know did not last long either.  Only a handful of new leadership was ever called, and the plan was abandoned.  But now in modern times, He tried this idea again with church leaders telling the members the will of God. So the only time in the entire history of mankind where there has been a church with leaders to tell the people the will of God that lasted more than a generation is since Joseph Smiths day. Is that how you see it?

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

The pattern is still there for modern-day prophets. What so far has been your response to their current 'haranguing' on this topic?

The current leaders of the church haven't been haranguing the members (aka the church). And the OT pattern was for outsider prophets to do the haranguing. 

Share this post


Link to post

I thought about starting a new thread for this but decided it fits here.

There is a lot of discussion on this board about the possibility that the current "policy" on SSM can/will change in time. I think referring to the Church's (the Lord's) stance on this as a policy is deceptive and manipulative. The doctrine of the Eternal Family (to be exclusively defined as a marriage between a man and his wife, sealed by proper authority and the Holy Spirit of Promise, together with their posterity either born into the covenant or sealed to them in like manner) transcends mere "policy." Having a three hour block is policy. Having family night (and restricting chapel use) on Monday is a policy. Aligning with the BSA is a policy.

When we talk about things of an eternal nature, however, we are no longer talking about policy.

There are a few doctrines that are so paramount to what we do and why we do them that are vital to our understanding. The reality of Jesus Christ and his Atonement stands at the forefront of such Doctrines. Yet, we could no sooner deny the need for a Savior then we could deny the nature of the eternal family. 

Sadly, folks are simultaneously denying both, even without knowing. In the name of love, tolerance and fairness, such misguided individuals have manipulated the words and teachings of the Savior in vain attempts to justify SSM and vilify the Lord's Church and anointed. So much so, that they worship a being who never existed; one who accepted all and tolerated sin. I fear that in the last day, they will claim to have been in His service and followed his counsel, but He will tell them that He never knew them and that they never knew Him.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, california boy said:

If I am understanding your perspective, what you are saying is that God has never guided the leaders of His church in Old Testiament times.  The high priest leaders were just figureheads.  He only called prophets to fix things when the people were wicked.  So when Christ was on the earth, there was no leadership to guide the people on what the will of God was and there never had been.  Do I have that right?

I will let Hamba speak for himself, but I have no idea how you could get that from what he has said.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...