What if you want the church to be true,

[rameumptom]

It does happen that the traditions of Northern Israel looked with disfavor upon David and Solomon, which explains the scant discussion of them, and the disfavor by Jacob. That provides a reasonable, rational explanation of the different assessment in the two texts.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I agree that there is an obvious bias in the BoM towards the Northern Kingdom. Friedman notes that there was a battle going on between the priests of Moses and those of Aaron between the kingdoms (Who Wrote the Bible?). The priests of Aaron ruled the temple and gained power in Solomon's court, since he exiled the priests of Moses.

We read nothing of Aaron in the BoM, and only of Moses and a priesthood that is very akin to his. Where a Southern Kingdom belief would have been not only temple-centric, but also Aaronic priest-centric, we see the Nephites concentrating on the nomadic sacrifices in the wilderness, on the patriarchs (including Moses), and a very "E" version.

[Pokatator]

Abulafia, we can pull different verses from here and there and prove almost any point. We say God has a body (Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God) and yet there are passages which seem to say otherwise (John 4: 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.)

So how do we reconcile two differing ideas? Authority vs no authority needed, a church organization vs no church organization?

I think we have to look at how things fit. In the framework that is suggested by what Latter-Day Saints believe, it all fits in. Does Jesus organize a specific Church organization? We believe so. Can you believe that and believe that He said at different times things that were more accepting and tolerant of those who were not aligned with a church organization? Yes. Can you believe that He did not organize a specific organization and reconcile passages of scripture where He indicates an organizationis necessary? No. In our view, the conflicitng passages fit. In the opposite view they do not.

That's my view on it.

With everything said about picking and chosing a few scriptures, let me pick and chose a few scriptures.

About the organization of the church, I think 1 Timothy is a good reference.

Concerning the office of Bishop, Overseer, Elder:

1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

And also in Titus:

*** 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

*** 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

*** 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

*** 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;

Concerning the office of Deacon:

1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

1Ti 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

1Ti 3:14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Above is scripture on these two offices of the church. It has to be concluded that both the Elders/Bishops/Overseers and Deacons were to be the husbands of one wife. How did the Mormon church reconcile that in the days when polygamy was practiced?

From these scriptures it has to be concluded that a Deacon is also a married man, not a 12 year old boy. Hasn't the Mormon church changed the organization from the organization of the original church?

More scripture from 1 Timothy:

1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1Ti 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

This scripture allows paid ministry. Hasn't the Mormon chruch chnaged this part of the organization too?

So if Jesus set up a strict organization, what has allowed the Mormon church to change it?

Regards,

Pokatator

[asbestosman]

I understand that in the early days of the restoration deacons were generally married men.

I also understand that being the husband of one wife fits in perfectly with what Jacob said of polygamy in the Book of Mormon. One is the commandment unless God says otherwise. I think it's safe to assume that monogamy was the commandment in the time of Paul as it is today.

Finally, there are paid positions in the church. In fact in the earlier days Bishops were paid too, but I think back then they were more like the Presiding Bishop is today. Furthermore Paul doesn't say that wages are required, only that they can be justified.

[Abulafia]

Redman, this quote may help you in your quest..

[Abulafia]

I understand that in the early days of the restoration deacons were generally married men.

I also understand that being the husband of one wife fits in perfectly with what Jacob said of polygamy in the Book of Mormon. One is the commandment unless God says otherwise. I think it's safe to assume that monogamy was the commandment in the time of Paul as it is today.

Finally, there are paid positions in the church. In fact in the earlier days Bishops were paid too, but I think back then they were more like the Presiding Bishop is today. Furthermore Paul doesn't say that wages are required, only that they can be justified.

Asbestosman, I thought (when not talking about kings and rulers who seemed to live by different rules altogether) the Judaic Law concerning the taking of more than one wife in Jesus' time was quite specific and related to looking after widows and orphans, and preserving a genealogical line.

Matthew 22:23-32 "23. That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.

24. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.

25. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.

26. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.

27. Finally, the woman died.

(The implication here is that the brother would take the woman, even if he were already married)

I don't know, but perhaps polygamy, as it was practiced culturally, under the Judaic law, was already falling out of favour as the early 'church' became influenced by outside philosophies and was taking on a flavour all of its own away from traditional Jewish practices. The vision of the white sheet would be another example? as would the halting of the practice of circumsision (ikes) and the de-emphasising of the dietary laws specific to Judaism.

Abulafia

[charity]

Pokatator, Thanks for the scriptures that testify that there was a church organization. We have been hearing on the board that all that is necessary is to love God and your fellowman. Here, it clealry says that there is an organization of the church, with leaders chosen and ordained to be so. Thanks.

As to the polygamy issue, what God commands, He commands. The verse in Jacob can be interpreted as saying that there are two conditions. Monogamy and polygamy which may be commanded under different circumstances. There is nothing saying that a deacon cannot be a young man. I don't know when it came about, but in Jewish culture today at least, a 12 year old becomes a man.

Thanks for the searching out the scriptures.

[ave maria]

I understand that in the early days of the restoration deacons were generally married men.

They still are in the Catholic Church.

[randyc]

I don't know why the spirit has eluded you except for maybe the fact that your intellectual egotism won't allow you trivial things such as a still small voice.

That's me. I don't look to trivial thing when I can be intelligent.

The trend in highly intelligent people disclaiming the gospel seems to be extremely high

Amazing! That must mean that intelligent people are wrong more often. Greeeeaaat.

I don't think the gospel was ever made to be proven with any facts.

So let's use fiction!

That would contradict the bible when the Lord asks us to come in faith

You do not understand the Bible. And if the Bible does say not to consider good facts, then the Bible is a stupid book, only believed by the gullible. People do not choose to believe things based on their own personal goodness. Being more moral is irrelevant to belief. Belief is an intellectual process of processing evidence only.

I truly marvel at how one has such a difficult time receiving an answer of the divinity of the BoM.

[1dc]

I understand that in the early days of the restoration deacons were generally married men.

They still are in the Catholic Church.

Same with our LDS ward, also.

[asbestosman]

I don't know, but perhaps polygamy, as it was practiced culturally, under the Judaic law, was already falling out of favour as the early 'church'  became influenced by outside philosophies and was taking on a flavour all of its own away from traditional Jewish practices.  The vision of the white sheet would be another example? as would the halting of the practice of circumsision (ikes) and the de-emphasising of the dietary laws specific to Judaism.

Abulafia

You've got a point about polygamy in the time of Jesus. I'm not sure when the practice stopped for certain. There may have been a revelation not recorded in the Bible. It could also be that God would have allowed it, but didn't require it. Those verses in Matthew make it a bit of a mystery to me. I'm no expert on Judaism or even early Christianity so I'll have to defer to such. If I were to take a guess, it seems that Jesus was already saying polygamy was unnecesary when he answered the question of the Sadducees.

I infer that the commandment was probably given prior to the time that Paul wrote his letter. Also, since I accept the Book of Mormon, I infer that at least the Nephites were commanded to be monogamous even before the time of Christ because of Jacob. I'm not sure what that meant for them if a brother died wihout seed since they also followed the Law of Moses. That's an interesting question. Are you trying to make me think or something?

[Abulafia]

Pokatator,

[alex]

my background.

[charity]

Alex you wrote: "my opinion the L-dS, inc. enterprise is best suited for people who have alot of extra money they want to pay as tithing and who want to be put on guilt trips and mislead on things. Faith without works (including being told the truth) is dead."

That is so far from my experience. I know very few people who have a lot of extra money, and no one who wants guilt trips or to be mislead. It is not the Brethren who have pointed the way to truth.

What is the criteria for "true" that you hold up as the standard? I couldn't find it in your post, or how you felt the Church did not meet it.

[ave maria]

I understand that in the early days of the restoration deacons were generally married men.

They still are in the Catholic Church.

Same with our LDS ward, also.

Your deacons are married?

[rhinomelon]

Your deacons are married?

Yeah, here in Utah we all get married pretty young.

[Stormin' Mormon]

Technically, I'm still a Deacon. And a Teacher. And a Priest. And an Elder. It's just that I'm no longer a member of the Deacon's Quorum. I was ordained to ecah of those offices, and that ordination has never been revoked.

Okay, I told a small fib to make a point. Since I was inactive until I was 14, I was never actually ordained a Deacon. When I received the Aaronic Priesthood, I was ordained a Teacher. But we were talking about Deacons, and I wanted to make a point, so....I fibbed.

[asbestosman]

Okay, I told a small fib to make a point.  Since I was inactive until I was 14,  I was never actually ordained a Deacon.  When I received the Aaronic Priesthood, I was ordained  a Teacher.  But we were talking about Deacons, and I wanted to make a point, so....I fibbed.

Fibbing about being a deacon. Fibbing about 11.1%. I dunno Stormin', but I think a better avatar for you might be Pinocchio.

[Jungle]

If you really want the church to be true...then it will be true for you.

But truth isn't about what you want...so if it's the truth you really seek then your desire for truth will overshadow your desire for something you want to be true and you will begin to see it for what it is. You will realize that it isn't about being in a low spot or being decieved by Satan, it's about critically evaluating the reality of life and seeing that it isn't the nice little compact, answers-for-everything, life you once believed in and hoped for. So, it sound like you don't really want the church to be true as much as you want to know the truth. That's your problem. However, for me, I believe that desiring something to be true more than wanting to know the truth is the real problem.

Of course, the truth is a scary thing for some. People have the tendency to reject truth that makes them feel uncomfortable or challenges their world view. Just try convincing a class of 1st graders that Santa Claus is more of a story than a reality and you'll see what I mean. You'll probably even get responses from them that would sound alot like what you might hear from defenders of the church.

As humans we tend to be more apt to believe something that is comforting, to our benefit, or alleviates natural fears of death, disease, and hardships. It's been difficult for me to understand how so many, having seen the same evidence and historical records that I have, continue to believe in the teachings of the church. It only makes sense to me that it comes down to choosing between what appears to be the most simple explanation and what would give me the most comfort. Sometimes, you can't have both.

For me the decision came in several logical steps. First, I asked myself if it were possible that the church wasn't all that it claimed it was. I had to confess that this was a possibility even though at the time I still believed. Then I thought about how I would be if I discovered that the church were not what it claimed. After much reflection, I realized that my life would continue, I would be okay, and that I could handle it if this were the case.

This is when I discovered that my desire do search for truth was greater than my desire for the church to be true. With my fears that the church might not be true removed I could be as objective as possible in my review of it's claims. There was no reason not to investigate both sides of the question with balanced criticism. This I did for several years and with this background I made up my own mind. However, I have to admit that having a stronger desire to discover truth than keeping the dream alive, the arguments in favor of the church paled next to those against it.

I imagine that there are those whose desire for the church to be true is very strong that will explain my decision in a way that fits within their world view. This will lead them to come up with various explanations which mostly involve me being unsure in my choice and having me eventually return to full belief. I believe, however, that you can't approach the question of truth without first being willing to accept the possibility of any outcome.

As long as there are those who, above all else, want the church to be true, the church will continue on. This is independent of all the "gotchas" and mountains of evidence that keep most people away. There will always be those who will offer up explanations that will be accepted with little critical evaluation regarding their merits by those who just want it to be true.

[Meta]

If you really want the church to be true...then it will be true for you.

...

It's been difficult for me to understand how so many, having seen the same evidence and historical records that I have, continue to believe in the teachings of the church. It only makes sense to me that it comes down to choosing between what appears to be the most simple explanation and what would give me the most comfort. Sometimes, you can't have both.

There's only one thing that trumps fact and evidence, and that is the Holy Ghost. Facts and evidences are man made hypothesis's that we discern as being true. The Holy Ghost, however, is an eternal being that gives us full spiritual knowledge of the truth. How you can compare man's own reason to that of the Godhead, I, likewise, will never understand.

[Pokatator]

Your deacons are married?

Yeah, here in Utah we all get married pretty young.

Thanks true I got a merit badge in biology and put my baby in the science fair.

[Dale]

I have found the claim people can't believe anymore is more of a choosing not to believe anymore.

[randyc]

If you really want the church to be true...then it will be true for you.

...

It's been difficult for me to understand how so many, having seen the same evidence and historical records that I have, continue to believe in the teachings of the church.  It only makes sense to me that it comes down to choosing between what appears to be the most simple explanation and what would give me the most comfort.  Sometimes, you can't have both.

There's only one thing that trumps fact and evidence, and that is the Holy Ghost. Facts and evidences are man made hypothesis's that we discern as being true. The Holy Ghost, however, is an eternal being that gives us full spiritual knowledge of the truth. How you can compare man's own reason to that of the Godhead, I, likewise, will never understand.

How? See, that's just the issue. Mormon's try to make it seem like we're comparing God's reasoning to man's, but we're not. If you claim to believe, it's your reasoning. God's not the one doing the believing. I guess it could be possible that God could take hold of your mind and force you to believe. But then you would have no evidence and could not claim that others should believe. I don't know many Mormons who would claim that this happens, though.

All that said, I think the person to whom you were responding (I don't remember who it was) has a somewhat mistaken view of the nature of belief.

[alex]

Alex you wrote: "my opinion the L-dS, inc. enterprise is best suited for people who have alot of extra money they want to pay as tithing and who want to be put on guilt trips and mislead on things. Faith without works (including being told the truth) is dead."

That is so far from my experience.

[charity]

Alex, There is nothing that you have placed on your "not true" list that is accurate or correct. Your issues have all been dealt with many times. If you do not wish to accept the truth, that is your choice. President Hinckley just told us in conference to be more kind, more tolerant. I will not argue with you.

[1dc]

I understand that in the early days of the restoration deacons were generally married men.

They still are in the Catholic Church.

Same with our LDS ward, also.

Your deacons are married?

Yes! Recently we only had one, but now we have three youth-aged deacons in our ward. We have more married convert and inactive deacons (well, one of them has started attending again recently) than our three youths. I love it when people think in terms of a supposed norm instead of alternatives.