The First Three Verses of WoW

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I think the ideal is to have revelation for actions. Also, it is a matter of degree of problems. For example, an issue that affects eternal salvation is a major issue. Creating a policy that affects the eternal salvation of individuals is a major problem. Preventing individuals from attending the temple over a teaching that specifically states obedience is not compelled is a problem. This is contrasted with those issues that don't affect eternal salvation, such as women speaking in church. 

Do I think conflicting with scripture on non salvific issues is a problem? Again, the ideal is to have God guide us through revelation in order to demonstrate clear, unarguable guidance on topics that some individuals will think is a big deal. 

Well I'm not sure that works. First off I think your criticism is over worthiness but typically just pretty minor adjustments in ones behaviors is necessary to go to the temple. So I actually think that's much, much more minor than stopping women from speaking at Church. The latter would drive many more people from Church than whether mocha ice cream is verboten or not. And if you drive people from Church you're affecting their salvation. So in practice I'm not sure the difference is as big as you portray.

Second, as I mentioned in the other thread, you have the danger of creating a Mormon talmud trying to make explicit all the implementation details of principles tied to worthiness. What exactly counts as breaking the Word of Wisdom or Law of Chastity. I think at a certain point you have to acknowledge a level of vagueness and recognize individuals and judges are going to have to make determinations. Spelling everything out has its own set of problems.

Edited August 20, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Storm Rider]

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I'm not sure that works. First off I think your criticism is over worthiness but typically just pretty minor adjustments in ones behaviors is necessary to go to the temple. So I actually think that's much, much more minor than stopping women from speaking at Church. The latter would drive many more people from Church than whether mocha ice cream is verboten or not. And if you drive people from Church you're affecting their salvation. So in practice I'm not sure the difference is as big as you portray.

Second, as I mentioned in the other thread, you have the danger of creating a Mormon talmud trying to make explicit all the implementation details of principles tied to worthiness. What exactly counts as breaking the Word of Wisdom or Law of Chastity. I think at a certain point you have to acknowledge a level of vagueness and recognize individuals and judges are going to have to make determinations. Spelling everything out has its own set of problems.

We just disagree. I think participating or receiving temple ordinances is infinitely more important to eternal salvation then having an opportunity to speak in church. Any individual can go a lifetime and never speak in church and still enter into God's presence in the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom. You apparently think that speaking in church is much more important. 

No, again, we disagree. You are discounting what I view as vitally important - to have prophets and act like prophets. I reject the concept of thinking scripture should direct our every action - what I actually have stated is that prophets cannot willy-nilly add to scripture. That prevents what you are accusing I have stated. We don't appear to be communicating well; you don't seem to have a grasp of what I have stated and you are projecting positions that are contrary my beliefs and thoughts.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

We just disagree. I think participating or receiving temple ordinances is infinitely more important to eternal salvation then having an opportunity to speak in church. Any individual can go a lifetime and never speak in church and still enter into God's presence in the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom. You apparently think that speaking in church is much more important. 

I think the question is whether it's a minor thing the person being interviewed can change or a minor issue the church should change. In any case, I think in practice these are relatively minor issues and typically things a Bishop will just clarify and ask them to stop on.

So yeah I think we just disagree. It's not that I think speaking in church is more important than salvation. Far from it. However int he one case it's a relatively minor issue that's being asked that really doesn't in practical terms affect someone's salvation at all. In the other case it's a pretty major issue for many people. 

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

No, again, we disagree. You are discounting what I view as vitally important - to have prophets and act like prophets. I reject the concept of thinking scripture should direct our every action - what I actually have stated is that prophets cannot willy-nilly add to scripture. That prevents what you are accusing I have stated. We don't appear to be communicating well; you don't seem to have a grasp of what I have stated and you are projecting positions that are contrary my beliefs and thoughts.

I think prophets can and do do this. What I reject is whether this entails new scriptural texts. If Pres. Nelson feels prompted to make an explicit statement about vaping though, isn't that him being a prophet?  But maybe I am just missing what you are saying. To me most revelations aren't textual but are promptings. 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I was trying to stop a line of questions about the simple conflicts found in the NT that are commonly known. However, to answer you:  Yes, scripture conflicts with itself in various areas and various levels. 

Thanks, I was having a hard time following you and now I don't  

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the question is whether it's a minor thing the person being interviewed can change or a minor issue the church should change. In any case, I think in practice these are relatively minor issues and typically things a Bishop will just clarify and ask them to stop on.

So yeah I think we just disagree. It's not that I think speaking in church is more important than salvation. Far from it. However int he one case it's a relatively minor issue that's being asked that really doesn't in practical terms affect someone's salvation at all. In the other case it's a pretty major issue for many people. 

I think prophets can and do do this. What I reject is whether this entails new scriptural texts. If Pres. Nelson feels prompted to make an explicit statement about vaping though, isn't that him being a prophet?  But maybe I am just missing what you are saying. To me most revelations aren't textual but are promptings. 

When I think of the topic of problems with policies, I think of two: the priesthood and the WofW. Both were implemented without any obvious revelation and both had consequences that affected individuals from attending the temple. The priesthood issue was the impetus for trying to understand the role of prophets, revelation, and policies. Long story short - I concluded that men called as prophets remained human; that scripture was vitally important to guide both the Church and its members; and the importance of revelation in guiding the Church. 

I have never understood why more scripture has not been added to the D&C. I have always believed in prophets, seers, and revelators, yet their functioning in such capacities appears to be more highly....restricted or limited versus the time of Joseph. I have some ideas on that, but no need to further derail the main thought.

When prophets create polices that conflict with scripture we have problems. The priesthood ban was a poor decision and done without proclaiming any revelation. It not only directly harmed our black saints, but it created a gigantic disconnect for many members.

The W of W was just that and nothing more. Unfortunately, it has been used in direct contradiction to the 89th Section to compel obedience or the temple was closed for those individuals. I have zero qualms with the WofW, what I have a problem with is a prophet, without proclaiming a revelation, creating a policy. Every time that is done, imo, I believe we step away from Christ and create problems unnecessarily. 

If the prophet wants to talk about vaping, I have no problems with it. If vaping is tobacco then the foundation is clearly within the WofW. However, if not, then don't water down the WofW by including it when the context is so easily covered in other areas. The body is the temple of our spirit and should be treated with care. Avoid addictive substances in the same way we avoid poisons. If he wants to create a policy about it, I don't really have a problem....but, I wish he wouldn't. Just counsel the saints and be done with it. No need t create a new law to abide by when counseling the saints would be just as effective.

The women talking thing is a non-starter. In my life, I have talked in church several times and I would be just as happy to never have been asked to speak. I already know the arguments around it. However, fundamentally it is a personal issue outside of gender regardless of how humans like to force things to be about gender, race, etc. If you are prevented from doing something, some folks will fight to get it. Others are capable of looking and saying, "You know, I did want to anyway" and moving forward peacefully and never seeking it.  Church is not my end-all and be-all. My social groups have a lot in common with church membership, but it has never limited them.