Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

How can one trust the Holy Ghost


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Really?

  • “Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 270)
     
  • " the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction's being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!

    "And he said cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem and Canaan shall be his servant."-Gen. 8:25, 26, 27.

    Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfilment [fulfillment] of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say that the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will it be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come  and the people who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him;" 
    (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 436-8)

  • "low indeed must be the mind, that would consent for a moment, to see his fair daughter, his sister, or perhaps, his bosom companion, in the embrace of a NEGRO!"(Messenger & Advocate vol 2 #7 pg 300)

  • "The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W. W. Phelps preached to a western audience...wherein were present specimens of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japheth; … quite a respectable number of negro descendants of Ham ..." (History of the Church, 1:190)

  • In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the Negroes, or sons of Cain. - (History of the Church 4:501)

  • And who translated the Books of Abraham and Moses?  Joseph Smith
    Abraham 1:21 “…king of Egypt [Pharaoh] was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.”
    Abraham 1:27 “…Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood…”
    Moses 7: 8 "...there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan that they were despised among all people."
    Moses 7:22  "...the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them."

 

Sorry, but I don't think it's as night and day as you might pretend.
And Joseph Fielding Smith agreed "“This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith." (The Way to Perfection, p. 110.).  The ban might have originated with Brigham, but the doctrine behind it came from Joseph.

 

 

My understanding is that there were those who believed it originated with Joseph Smith but that no one knew for sure, even those who were convinced Joseph Smith taught such a doctrine. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

I am reasonably sure that JS read Genesis at least once if not several times before he tackled Abraham. There may also have been the odd sermon from other pastors etc. on the topic in his youth. Genesis set the stage for his opinion and Abraham reinforced it. The connection between Cain-blackness- negroes was made long before Joseph. It was an error in interpretation way back. I'm sure someone has already made a study of when that particular interpretation gained a foothold among theologians and the general population , at least in the US. What was the position of the Jews regarding this idea?

So you are saying those verses in Moses and Abraham are not inspired scripture?  Just the influence of society on Joseph?

Or that Joseph just misinterpreted them like Brigham?

Link to comment
11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

You are probably right.  Let's bring this a little closer to home.  Many are convinced that the November policy is very wrong.  As wrong as Adam-God was.  The back lash has been strong, both from members and non-members a like.  It seems it might be easier for some to hold Orson Hyde up as man of principles that did the right thing in opposing church leadership than to acknowledge those who oppose and are speaking out against the November policy today. 

Thoughts?

I do see some that follow in Orson Hyde's example to some extent today.  What I find lacking in most is that they either abandon the faith or become rather lukewarm in their testimony.  What I find remarkable in Hyde's example is that his faith was undiminished.  Do I think it is acceptable for members of the Church to voice opposition to a policy while still remaining stalwart in their faith and testimony?  Yes, I think it possible and acceptable. 

You may remember that I hold a position that polices are not good; said another way, if the Brethren cannot put forth a revelation and state it as such then it is better to keep quiet.  In this context, it is any policy that affects the eternal salvation of the members of the Church.  That is just my opinion.

Of the few that I know in real life that have become opponents of this specific policy they were each and every one long since become recalcitrant and the policy was an excuse. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Or that Joseph just misinterpreted them like Brigham?

God put a mark on Cain. What that mark was and how it affected his posterity became a matter of interpretation. Pharaoh was a descendent of Ham who married Egyptus who was a descendent of Cain. As far as I know the majority of the Pharaohs were not black.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

God put a mark on Cain. What that mark was and how it affected his posterity became a matter of interpretation. Pharaoh was a descendent of Ham who married Egyptus who was a descendent of Cain. As far as I know the majority of the Pharaohs were not black.

Doesn't answer the questions.
Moses says the seed of Cain were black.  He also says the children of Canaan were black.
Abraham says descendants of Canaan, Ham and Egyptus were barred from priesthood by lineage.

So did Joseph and Brigham misinterpret this?  Or did Joseph have it right and Brigham had it wrong, because as far as I can see they believed the same thing.

Look, I get that the Church today disavows any previous theories etc etc.  But it is historically disingenuous to pretend we don't know where Joseph and Brigham got the idea or to blame it on society at their time.  The origin of the ban, right or wrong, started in Joseph's day and it started with the Pearl of Great Price scriptures.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Doesn't answer the questions.
Moses says the seed of Cain were black.  He also says the children of Canaan were black.
Abraham says descendants of Canaan, Ham and Egyptus were barred from priesthood by lineage.

So did Joseph and Brigham misinterpret this?  Or did Joseph have it right and Brigham had it wrong, because as far as I can see they believed the same thing.

Look, I get that the Church today disavows any previous theories etc etc.  But it is historically disingenuous to pretend we don't know where Joseph and Brigham got the idea or to blame it on society at their time.  The origin of the ban, right or wrong, started in Joseph's day and it started with the Pearl of Great Price scriptures.

I like the truth, so whatever needs to be done to get it, and whatever can be done to get rid of whitewashing. In order to right wrongs, truth no matter how hard, needs to be voiced. I respect that you want that too, and respect your opinion as being your own and how brave that you speak your mind.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

http://www.eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

 

well, I have to get a mop and bucket because my mind is blown sixty ways to sunday:o

In what way?  Was that the first time you'd read about Adam-God?  Or is it just Watson's theories that caused the explosion. (Recognizing that Watson has his own take that doesn't exactly match Brigham).

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

In what way?  Was that the first time you'd read about Adam-God?  Or is it just Watson's theories that caused the explosion. (Recognizing that Watson has his own take that doesn't exactly match Brigham).

I like many others have heard about Adam God my whole life but it's nice to see an explanation, or an attempt at it from someone rather than the position of we can't trust the Holy Ghost because Brigham Young taught some odd ideas. If their is a rebuttal to Watson, i'd be interesting to see it and I have read what Stephen Robinson has said about it and I like that

Edited by Duncan
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I like many others have heard about Adam God my whole life but it's nice to see an explanation, or an attempt at it from someone rather than the position of we can't trust the Holy Ghost because Brigham Young taught some odd ideas. If their is a rebuttal to Watson, i'd be interesting to see it and I have read what Stephen Robinson has said about it and I like that

I'd start with reading what Brigham actually taught on Adam-God.  Because everything beyond what he actually taught is a non-prophetic speculation.

A good book on the subject is "Adam-God Maze" by Christensen.  And he includes an appendix addressing Watson's theories specifically.

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Doesn't answer the questions.
Moses says the seed of Cain were black.  He also says the children of Canaan were black.
Abraham says descendants of Canaan, Ham and Egyptus were barred from priesthood by lineage.

So did Joseph and Brigham misinterpret this?  Or did Joseph have it right and Brigham had it wrong, because as far as I can see they believed the same thing.

Look, I get that the Church today disavows any previous theories etc etc.  But it is historically disingenuous to pretend we don't know where Joseph and Brigham got the idea or to blame it on society at their time.  The origin of the ban, right or wrong, started in Joseph's day and it started with the Pearl of Great Price scriptures.

For those inclined to go beyond sound bites:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/curse-ham-race-and-slavery-early-judaism-christianity-and-islam-noahs-curse-biblical

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'd start with reading what Brigham actually taught on Adam-God.  Because everything beyond what he actually taught is a non-prophetic speculation.

A good book on the subject is "Adam-God Maze" by Christensen.  And he includes an appendix addressing Watson's theories specifically.

 

I am not convinced that what Brigham Young taught was false doctrine.  I believe there is a lot we do not understand and there are what appear to be discrepancies and inconsistencies in statements.  

Which of the following is correct and do the following statements contradict each other?

  1. Out of sight, out of mind.
  2. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

Without proper context the statements appear to be inconsistent when both can be accurate and true.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, pogi said:

Because it is a fair comparison, it is totally relevant. 

Bill's argument (or question): "If man got it wrong, how can we trust that thing that man trusted in?"  If science is a fair comparison, then we can show by using the same argument that we should equally not be able to trust in science.  However, if science is trustworthy despite man's fallibility, then perhaps Bill's question is flawed and unfair. 

Bill is giving us reasons to not trust it, so it is our job to give him reasons to trust it.  

Your comparison could be a fair, but it can apply to everything so honestly it is not very useful and won't get us anywhere. 

Edited by SamuelTheLamanite
Link to comment
On 10/30/2017 at 5:00 PM, DBMormon said:

How can we ever trust our ability to discern what is really the Holy Ghost and what are false theories?  

I think there has to be a multipronged approach to keep from being deceived.  

1. Scriptures - what do the scriptures say?
2. Prophets - what do the latter-day prophets say, particularly the living prophet?
3. Holy Ghost - by the Spirit we "may know the truth of all things." (Moro. 10:5.)

There is no doubt, if a person lives according to the revelations given to God’s people, he may have the Spirit of the Lord to signify to him his will, and to guide and to direct him in the discharge of his duties, in his temporal as well as his spiritual exercises. I am satisfied, however, that in this respect, we live far beneath our privileges.” 
(Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young,  p 32)

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I do see some that follow in Orson Hyde's example to some extent today.  What I find lacking in most is that they either abandon the faith or become rather lukewarm in their testimony.  What I find remarkable in Hyde's example is that his faith was undiminished.  Do I think it is acceptable for members of the Church to voice opposition to a policy while still remaining stalwart in their faith and testimony?  Yes, I think it possible and acceptable. 

You may remember that I hold a position that polices are not good; said another way, if the Brethren cannot put forth a revelation and state it as such then it is better to keep quiet.  In this context, it is any policy that affects the eternal salvation of the members of the Church.  That is just my opinion.

Of the few that I know in real life that have become opponents of this specific policy they were each and every one long since become recalcitrant and the policy was an excuse. 

Orson Pratt.  

Hyde was rebellious for other reasons. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Bill is giving us reasons to not trust it, so it is our job to give him reasons to trust it.  

Your comparison could be a fair, but it can apply to everything so honestly it is not very useful and won't get us anywhere. 

You don't seem to be getting that the comparison is the reason to trust it - or at least it is the reason to remove his faulty reason for not trusting it.  If he can trust science despite the fallibility of man, then maybe he can trust the Holy Ghost despite the fallibility of man.  The problem is that he is judging the Holy Ghost based on man's understanding of it.  That is a faulty approach for the same reason that it is a faulty approach to judge science!  The question he should be asking is, "what is my experience with the Holy Ghost?"  "Does it work for me?"  My personal answer to that is a resounding, "yes!"

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Having looked at this link I see another book I am going to have to buy. Also I note that according to this review, My thinking on the subject is NOT TOTALLY off in left field.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, pogi said:

You don't seem to be getting that the comparison is the reason to trust it - or at least it is the reason to remove his faulty reason for not trusting it.  If he can trust science despite the fallibility of man, then maybe he can trust the Holy Ghost despite the fallibility of man.  

I understand pogi. You, Bill, and me trust the scientific method for many reasons. We trust it not because we are imperfect, or because scientists are sometimes wrong, we trust it for positive reasons, not negative. 

It is true that just because something is imperfect doesn't mean it is all wrong, but it is our responsibility to tell him why we should trust it. 

3 hours ago, pogi said:

The question he should be asking is, "what is my experience with the Holy Ghost?"  "Does it work for me?"  My personal answer to that is a resounding, "yes!"

Tell him, he needs to hear. 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I do see some that follow in Orson Hyde's example to some extent today.  What I find lacking in most is that they either abandon the faith or become rather lukewarm in their testimony.  What I find remarkable in Hyde's example is that his faith was undiminished.  Do I think it is acceptable for members of the Church to voice opposition to a policy while still remaining stalwart in their faith and testimony?  Yes, I think it possible and acceptable. 

You may remember that I hold a position that polices are not good; said another way, if the Brethren cannot put forth a revelation and state it as such then it is better to keep quiet.  In this context, it is any policy that affects the eternal salvation of the members of the Church.  That is just my opinion.

Of the few that I know in real life that have become opponents of this specific policy they were each and every one long since become recalcitrant and the policy was an excuse. 

I do see you point that many who have spoken out on the policy are ex-members, or inactive members.  However, I believe there are many (and I know some, including a current mission president) who oppose the policy, but they remain quiet.  They do not speak out because the church has little tolerance for dissent.  Even if it is loyal dissent.  I applaud your commitment follow your heart and speak out should the church introduce a policy/doctrine that you could not support.  But you or any member in good standing who dissents risks censure or worse from the church.  From BY forward, it has been like this.  Rank and file members who would not support Adam-God, and who did not have Orson Hyde's standing were threatened with church discipline.  An example of this is Bishop Edward Bunker (http://www.lds-mormon.com/jehovahasfather.shtml).

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

IFrom BY forward, it has been like this.  Rank and file members who would not support Adam-God, and who did not have Orson Hyde's standing were threatened with church discipline.  An example of this is Bishop Edward Bunker (http://www.lds-mormon.com/jehovahasfather.shtml).

Orson Pratt. :)

And Orson was threatened with Church discipline too (and a good ear boxing too).  He was forced to publicly recant, demoted in seniority, and frequently labored with by other quorum members to see the light.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I do see you point that many who have spoken out on the policy are ex-members, or inactive members.  However, I believe there are many (and I know some, including a current mission president) who oppose the policy, but they remain quiet.  They do not speak out because the church has little tolerance for dissent.  Even if it is loyal dissent.  I applaud your commitment follow your heart and speak out should the church introduce a policy/doctrine that you could not support.  But you or any member in good standing who dissents risks censure or worse from the church.  From BY forward, it has been like this.  Rank and file members who would not support Adam-God, and who did not have Orson Hyde's standing were threatened with church discipline.  An example of this is Bishop Edward Bunker (http://www.lds-mormon.com/jehovahasfather.shtml).

The speaking out I do is with my bishop and stake president in private conversation. I have never and will never speak out in public, etc.  I don't think this causes too much angst within the Church.  However, the minute you go public you do put a target on your back.  We don't do things like that and we should not do things like that.

If my, or anyone else's, speaking out in private creates heartburn (I have not yet read your linked article) that is a personal problem for others.  If it means a stake president is uncomfortable calling me to leadership then I am good with that. I learned on my mission that I did not like leadership and felt that anyone who did want leadership positions in the Church should have them. 

Dissent within the Church is quiet and private.  I like it that way and believe it is the best way within an organization of faith.  We poke the leaders and keep poking them until they respond with clear or better answers.  It may take generations, but that is okay with me.  If I believe Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, which I do, then I am confident he will steer it to better waters or we will learn something new as a body. 

Cheers, mate

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...

One has to become like a little child, only then can revelations and spiritual impulses be true: 3Nephi 11:38. A little child does not worship power, as Zechariah 4:6 says: Not by might nor by power but by my spirit says the lord. The worship of power is the sin, but the spirit of power is not a sin. There are many different ways we are tempted to worship power, and the worship of power in sex is a popular one.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Raymond Ellis said:

One has to become like a little child, only then can revelations and spiritual impulses be true: 3Nephi 11:38. A little child does not worship power, as Zechariah 4:6 says: Not by might nor by power but by my spirit says the lord. The worship of power is the sin, but the spirit of power is not a sin. There are many different ways we are tempted to worship power, and the worship of power in sex is a popular one.

Wait.......what?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...