Jump to content
rongo

Regional Priesthood Leadership Conference

Recommended Posts

"I believe Joseph followed God's direction and married those God directed him too"

I believe there were at least a few he was directed to give the choice of sealing to.

I don't believe it happened that way in every situation, just as I believe that sometimes a God steps in to direct s couple to seek each other out or to be married, but in most cases, he leaves it to the individuals involved and instead inspires them on how to make their marriage the best it can be once they have made that commitment.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

"Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment. Significant social and cultural changes often include misunderstandings and difficulties."

Yes, that's what I remember reading.  Thanks Calm.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/22/2017 at 4:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

CFR on all these

I have no clue where you are getting this stuff.  Mormon "doctrine" is virtually undefinable in the first place and you are pulling these out of.....where??

God is an exalted black man was doctrinal?  Huh???

Yes, Jesus is most likely married and was when he was alive.  How has this been changed?

Of course exaltation and creating worlds is "doctrinal" and makes sense if God can make worlds and we can become like God- where is creating worlds excluded?

Polygamy is still totally doctrinal- in the question of having one man sealed to multiple deceased spouses.

Where are you getting this stuff??

1)  From the signed first presidency response to lowry nelson the church declared racial inferiority of blacks, the segregation of the races as doctrinal (no miscegenation in marriage), and exaltation is only available to those who are not black.   "From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel."  First Presidency letter 17 July, 1947.
After 1978, blacks could receive priesthood, women could receive endowment, and receive temple marriage.  My intention was to show that this was a doctrinal change to open up the way for blacks to receive exaltation and to become like God.  

2)  Dale Bills when speaking for the church in 2006 declared that Jesus as a married God is not doctrinal, "The belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine".  This overturned how D&Cov 131:2 was viewed, and/or downgraded the exaltation of Jesus from highest degree of Celestial kingdom (C3) to (C2 - singles ward).   I think it is a huge doctrinal move to say that Jesus exaltation did not require eternal marriage (meaning 131:2 does not apply to the Godhead) or to say that exaltation does not require eternal marriage.  

3)  I'm not referring to the second half of the couplet- I meant the first half that God was a man.  I still remember institute class after the Hinckley interview and my Institute director was highly disturbed by this change.  Lorenzo snow said, "I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me, and explains Father Smith’s dark saying to me at a blessing meeting in the Kirtland Temple, prior to my baptism. …“As man now is, God once was:”  “As God now is, man may be.”  This was recorded by Eliza Snow, and his son Leroi says that Joseph Smith confirmed the couplet as doctrine, " ‘Brother Snow, that is a true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you.’” (LeRoi C. Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, p. 656.).  With Pres Hinckley's interview with Time magazine he overthrew this doctrinal couplet and reduced it to a singlet.  Hinckley when asked about the first part of the couplet responded with a series of I don't know's.  1)  I don't know if we teach this, 2) I don't know if we emphasize it, 3) I don't know 4) I don't know the circumstances, 5)  I don't know if others know.  He then declared the couplet as speculative deep doctrine poetry.  this downgrade on the kfd and snow's pre-kfd couplet was then transferred to the new gospel topics essay on becoming like god.  In footnote 35 the first presidency and q12 entirely overturned joseph smith "true gospel doctrine" statement with this statement,  "the surviving sermon text is not canonized and should not be treated as a doctrinal standard".   For Harold B Lee and Brigham Young god was once a man was critical to his obtaining knowledge to enable his work and glory Moses 1:39, "it must be that God knows something about temporal things, and has had a body and been on an earth; were it not so He would not know how to judge men righteously, according to the temptations and sins they have had to contend with" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 271)   See Quinn's treatment of Hinckley interview here: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/are-we-still-gods-in-embryo-the-mormon-doctrine-of-human-deification/  As for creating or inheriting worlds, the new becoming like god essay also downgrades this previously taught doctrine to a cartoonish caricature which entirely changed how latter-day saints view the temple endowment, " few Latter-day Saints would identify with caricatures of having their own planet,"  Corbin Volluz goes through a survey of LDS doctrinal teachings in manuals and conference talks here, http://rationalfaiths.com/lying-lord/

4)  Polygamy not doctrinal began with James Talmage when he entirely shoehorned eternal marriage as monogamy into the polygamy revelation of section 132.  Talmage is highly regarded as the apostle who reworked the revelations to convert the new and everlasting doctrine of marriage into monogamy.  See Bringhurst “Section 132: Contents and Legacy” in The Persistence of Polygamy, (Independence: John Whitmer Books: 2010), 83-84.  Talmage removed 132 from the official church publication as sr apostle from the volume entitled [Latter-day Revelations: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] "Sections and parts of Sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, the sections comprising scriptures of general an enduring value…”.   All new 2013 edition D&Cov added to OD1 that "monogamy is God's standard for marriage", and Hinckley as acting prophet of the church said on larry king live, "I condemn it [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal".  Although, a man can be sealed to more than one wife, Brian Hales (primary scholar who wrote the polygamy essays) says that women will have their choice on who to remain in eternity with.  As Dr. Valerie Hudson has said in an interview, we also seal deceased women to more than one husband.   In a personal conversation with Elder Oaks she asked him about eternal marriage in heaven, about polygamy, and Oaks said "I don't know".  As he is personally sealed to 2 women, I think it shows that polygamy is no longer doctrine when a living apostle does not know himself if he will be married to his two wives or not.  

So that's what I consider as the biggest 4 massive doctrinal changes in the past 100  years. 

 

Edited by blueglass

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, blueglass said:

So that's what I consider as the biggest 4 massive doctrinal changes in the past 100  years. 

So while I don't agree with all your statements above you appear to be saying the 4 biggest doctrinal changes in the last 100 years of Mormonism are:

1. Allowing blacks not only the priesthood but access to exaltation as Gods.

2. Downplaying (although not denying) any idea or doctrine that Christ was married and needed to be for exaltation.

3. Downplaying the King Follett doctrine that God was once a man like us and we can become God like Him.

4. Acknowledgement of polygamy practice but denial of any doctrinal importance or requirement in the practice.

Did I get those right? I mostly agree and would add the changes made to the temple, garments, and ordinances as number 5.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

So while I don't agree with all your statements above you appear to be saying the 4 biggest doctrinal changes in the last 100 years of Mormonism are:

1. Allowing blacks not only the priesthood but access to exaltation as Gods.

2. Downplaying (although not denying) any idea or doctrine that Christ was married and needed to be for exaltation.

3. Downplaying the King Follett doctrine that God was once a man like us and we can become God like Him.

4. Acknowledgement of polygamy practice but denial of any doctrinal importance or requirement in the practice.

Did I get those right? I mostly agree and would add the changes made to the temple, garments, and ordinances as number 5.

Yes, that looks right, except for 3.  "we can become God like Him".  I would say prophets have consistently taught that we can become like God, but apparently this no longer means creating worlds, which for me is a disappointment.  In the references I used I tried to find ones for which prophets used "doctrine" or "doctrinal" in the language of the statement. 

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So while I don't agree with all your statements above you appear to be saying the 4 biggest doctrinal changes in the last 100 years of Mormonism are:

1. Allowing blacks not only the priesthood but access to exaltation as Gods.

2. Downplaying (although not denying) any idea or doctrine that Christ was married and needed to be for exaltation.

3. Downplaying the King Follett doctrine that God was once a man like us and we can become God like Him.

4. Acknowledgement of polygamy practice but denial of any doctrinal importance or requirement in the practice.

Did I get those right? I mostly agree and would add the changes made to the temple, garments, and ordinances as number 5.

I would also add the way they have recently downplayed the doctrine of exalted beings being creators and stewards over their own creations. They dismissed the idea of "getting our own planet" in the church essay, but that was really beating down on a straw man. Still, it downplays the doctrines of being Gods over our own universes and creations. In my mind, that's a HUGE change.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×