Is it sinful to operate any other way than to assume that everything the 12th says is from God

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Blacks receiving the priesthood was never an original part of God's doctrine.  

K

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Plural marriage was a real part of the original doctrine of God

Why do you believe that?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

All those plural marriage sealings have not been voided.

So if it’s the sealings that are evidence for plural marriage, do you also believe that women will be able to be sealed to multiple men since they also have multiple non voided sealings in place just as the men do?

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

So if it’s the sealings that are evidence for plural marriage, do you also believe that women will be able to be sealed to multiple men since they also have multiple non voided sealings in place just as the men do?

When we are sealed we are sealed into the patriarchal family of God, which in a way means everyone sealed to God and to everyone else. Somehow things will get worked out as to who finally goes with who into the eternity. This of course is mostly my opinion.

 

 

[JAHS]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

8 hours ago, JAHS said:

Plural marriage was a real part of the original doctrine of God

Why do you believe that?

Because God commanded it to be practiced by prophets of the Old Testament to raise up seed.

[Senator]

9 hours ago, JAHS said:

Because God commanded it to be practiced by prophets of the Old Testament to raise up seed.

CFR please

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Uh, that conflates "being wrong" with "losing the keys" or "jeopardizing salvation". The military analogy, that there is a distinction between an error and a war crime, actually helps clarify the Church's position. A General orders to take a hill that turns out to be strategically worthless, is a wrong order, but it is not a war crime. Those who refused to obey the lawful order are wrong. In an LDS context, the most solid example is the attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada, or policies that are later retired. These don't jeopardize the "salvation" of the membership. Even Priesthood ban, the Church continued to provide the "Saving Ordinances" (Baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the Sacrament) to all members. The core mission of the Church remained intact. Church is not the military, but the psychology and emphasis on order is very similar.

I recall Wilford Woodruff said the Lord would "remove" him before he could lead the Church astray, he was speaking specifically about the Manifesto ending Polygamy.

I dunno....comparing the priesthood ban to a bad military order to take a hill that turns out strategically worthless is a stretch. Yes blacks could be baptized but they were restricted from the "blessings" of temple covenants and holding the priesthood. Unless you are arguing that those things really don't mean that  much in mortality (because yes I know that the come back is they would have those "blessings" somehow in the afterlife) that seems to be simply brushing it aside. These really do impact salvation. And then there are all the "wonderful" attempts to explain the ban and justify it. And now it is "well never mind, we got it wrong." Wrong for over a hundred years. It doesn't generate much faith in the ability of the LDS leaders to get things right if they can be so wrong on something that is more than a copywrite issue. 

[JAHS]

39 minutes ago, Senator said:

10 hours ago, JAHS said:

Because God commanded it to be practiced by prophets of the Old Testament to raise up seed.

CFR please

From the Church Topics website:
The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise. In limited, specific cases the Lord has commanded His followers to practice plural marriage. Some of these cases occurred in biblical times.  Doctrine and Covenants 132:1, 29–40
 

[Senator]

12 minutes ago, JAHS said:

From the Church Topics website:
The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise. In limited, specific cases the Lord has commanded His followers to practice plural marriage. Some of these cases occurred in biblical times.  Doctrine and Covenants 132:1, 29–40
 

Thank you.

Am I to understand that the notion of God "commanding" plural marriages in the OT is derived from contemporary LDS revelations?  Do you know where in OT that God commanded the practice?

[Pyreaux]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I dunno....comparing the priesthood ban to a bad military order to take a hill that turns out strategically worthless is a stretch. Yes blacks could be baptized but they were restricted from the "blessings" of temple covenants and holding the priesthood. Unless you are arguing that those things really don't mean that  much in mortality (because yes I know that the come back is they would have those "blessings" somehow in the afterlife) that seems to be simply brushing it aside. These really do impact salvation. And then there are all the "wonderful" attempts to explain the ban and justify it. And now it is "well never mind, we got it wrong." Wrong for over a hundred years. It doesn't generate much faith in the ability of the LDS leaders to get things right if they can be so wrong on something that is more than a copywrite issue. 

Yet most people in history lived and died without the Priesthood. That is not irreparable, "no blessing will be denied the faithful" in the eternal scope. If one believes God is in charge, the argument is that He allowed a flawed human policy to persist, knowing He could rectify the "missed" blessings. It’s the only way to reconcile God's involvement with a flawed, prejudiced leadership.

A Prophet is a student much like we are, he's not omniscient; their important role is to hold the authority for when the revelation finally comes. In massive strategic blunder, a General still holds the legal authority to command until the Commander-in-Chief (God) replaces them or issues a new directive. In any disciplined organization, the ability to course-correct is actually a sign of health, not just failure. A believer might be inclined to see gaps as a "wilderness period" where God waits for the leadership or membership to be ready to receive correction.

[JAHS]

13 minutes ago, Senator said:

Thank you.

Am I to understand that the notion of God "commanding" plural marriages in the OT is derived from contemporary LDS revelations?  Do you know where in OT that God commanded the practice?

The Old Testament scriptures don't actually command polygamy as stated in the D&C, but God allowed it without condemnation. The only situation where it was made mandatory by the existing law was when a married man died without leaving a male heir, his brother was required to marry his widow regardless of whether he already had a wife. (Deut 25:5–6)

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Senator said:

Thank you.

Am I to understand that the notion of God "commanding" plural marriages in the OT is derived from contemporary LDS revelations?  Do you know where in OT that God commanded the practice?

That seems to be a traditionally valid interpretation of the OT, "But when Sarai, at God's command, brought to [Abraham's] bed one of her handmaidens, a woman of Egyptian descent..." (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 1.10.4). Josephus interprets either Sarah's prompting or the legal customs of the time as a mandate from God.

Justin Martyr defended the patriarchs against critics who accused them of immorality. He argued that their actions were not driven by lust but by dispensation (oikonomia). And suggests that these marriages were part of a "mystery" or a specific divine arrangement to fulfill the promise of a multi-national posterity. He argues that Abraham did nothing without the "counsel" or "will" of God. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 141)

The Midrash's "Sarah as Prophetess" Tradition, she divinely "commands" Abraham. Jewish tradition and Rashi notes that when God told Abraham later to "hearken to her voice" (Gen 21:12), it confirms in their thinking that Sarah's previous directives regarding Hagar were inspired. Though this command was for Abraham to send Hagar away, not to take her. But the Jewish tradition often views Abraham’s initial taking of Hagar as also an act of "hearkening to the voice of his wife".

Alternatively, it's subtextual, the "Law of the Concubine" in Nuzi Tablets and the Code of Hammurabi (Laws 144–146) provides the "legal command" of the era, that a barren wife was legally obligated to provide a handmaid to her husband to provide an heir.

Edited February 24 by Pyreaux

[Senator]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

The Old Testament scriptures don't actually command polygamy as stated in the D&C

That's what I was after.

[MustardSeed]

It seems like the church is the only group of people that presently refer to Black people as “the blacks”. 

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It seems like the church is the only group of people that presently refer to Black people as “the blacks”. 

What do you mean? 

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It seems like the church is the only group of people that presently refer to Black people as “the blacks”. 

I didn’t find any non capitalized “Blacks” after 2018 using google’s site search, oddly most of “the blacks” were found in 2017 and 2018, though at least one went back to 78 iirc.

I haven’t noticed much, if any going back to edit older texts for consistency with current standards of speech, they didn’t edit the use of “Mormon church” even.

The LDS Conference talk corpus shows Brigham Young as the only one to use the phrase “the blacks” (in two conference talks).

Perhaps you mean church membership?

Edited February 24 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

It’s been used here a couple times. I noticed it for the first time and I asked myself, why does it sound odd to me? Then I read it again written by somebody else here and I just thought, that’s strange.  It’s only in the context of discussions amongst church members that I hear black people referred to as “the Blacks”. Or “blacks”. 
 

it’s just an interesting observation. I don’t hear people outside the church using that term presently. But we do.

If you’re interested, you can do a search here and see that the word “blacks” is used often
 

Edited February 24 by MustardSeed

[Rain]

20 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s been used here a couple times. I noticed it for the first time and I asked myself, why does it sound odd to me? Then I read it again written by somebody else here and I just thought, that’s strange.  It’s only in the context of discussions amongst church members that I hear black people referred to as “the Blacks”. Or “blacks”. 
 

it’s just an interesting observation. I don’t hear. people outside the church using that term presently. But we do.

If you’re interested, you can do a search here and see that the word “blacks” is used often
 

Huh.  I'm not sure I would notice "blacks". But when reading this, I felt like I wouldn't notice "whites" either, but when I do a search for "whites,"  it only really comes up in names and not in race, at least not in the first few results.   So now I wonder if I actually would notice "whites" or even "the whites".  However, I was before it's good to read about it now so that I can say "black people" instead.   Thanks for bringing it to my attention. 

[MustardSeed]

Just one of those  quirky traditions, I suppose

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

That seems to be a traditionally valid interpretation of the OT, "But when Sarai, at God's command, brought to [Abraham's] bed one of her handmaidens, a woman of Egyptian descent..." (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 1.10.4). Josephus interprets either Sarah's prompting or the legal customs of the time as a mandate from God.

Justin Martyr defended the patriarchs against critics who accused them of immorality. He argued that their actions were not driven by lust but by dispensation (oikonomia). And suggests that these marriages were part of a "mystery" or a specific divine arrangement to fulfill the promise of a multi-national posterity. He argues that Abraham did nothing without the "counsel" or "will" of God. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 141)

The Midrash's "Sarah as Prophetess" Tradition, she divinely "commands" Abraham. Jewish tradition and Rashi notes that when God told Abraham later to "hearken to her voice" (Gen 21:12), it confirms in their thinking that Sarah's previous directives regarding Hagar were inspired. Though this command was for Abraham to send Hagar away, not to take her. But the Jewish tradition often views Abraham’s initial taking of Hagar as also an act of "hearkening to the voice of his wife".

Alternatively, it's subtextual, the "Law of the Concubine" in Nuzi Tablets and the Code of Hammurabi (Laws 144–146) provides the "legal command" of the era, that a barren wife was legally obligated to provide a handmaid to her husband to provide an heir.

All this is after the fact rationalizations coming from societies that culturally and religiously practiced monogamy. They needed a system where monogamy is the religious norm while having exceptions that made it so you didn’t have to condemn the patrirarchs. It lets them off the hook while allows the reader to assume the patriarchs would have preferred monogamy. It is comically similar to the way current LDS rationalize plural marriage.

[Pyreaux]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

All this is after the fact rationalizations coming from societies that culturally and religiously practiced monogamy. They needed a system where monogamy is the religious norm while having exceptions that made it so you didn’t have to condemn the patrirarchs. It lets them off the hook while allows the reader to assume the patriarchs would have preferred monogamy. It is comically similar to the way current LDS rationalize plural marriage.

The rabbis of the Mishna and Talmudic periods (1st to 6th centuries) show evidence that plural marriage still occurred, although they placed severe restrictions on it. For instance, a man had to prove he could financially and emotionally support multiple wives. Josephus mentions that King Herod the Great had nine or ten wives, illustrating that first century polygamy existed among the Jewish elite (Hasmoneans and Herodians were actively practicing it), even if it was uncommon for the average Jew. "For it is of old among us an allowed custom to have several wives at once." (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 17.1.2)

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Just one of those  quirky traditions, I suppose

Wow, am I out of date according to Chat.  Wonder how I missed that.  Granted I haven’t socialized much and lived in the same neighborhood in Utah for the past 20 years, but I would have thought I would have picked up the change at least in California, Kansas, or Canada sometime before the move here.

I don’t use “the” that I can remember when speaking generally and I capitalize ethnic groups (don’t capitalize “whites because I don’t see that as an actual ethnic group as too much variation, feels more like a political designation to me), but have still been using simply “Blacks” a lot. I should have noticed it on my own….had even thought about it in the past when thinking about how we were instructed to talk about my daughter’s diabetes (don’t make it her primary identity). 

It’s an engrained habit so I may slip at times for a while; thanks for bringing it up and I wouldn’t mind if you say anything to remind me if I forget.   

Edited February 24 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

Wow, am I out of date according to Chat.  Wonder how I missed that.  Granted I haven’t socialized much and lived in the same neighborhood in Utah for the past 20 years, but I would have thought I would have picked up the change at least in California, Kansas, or Canada sometime before the move here.

I don’t use “the” that I can remember when speaking generally and I capitalize ethnic groups (don’t capitalize “whites because I don’t see that as an actual ethnic group as too much variation, feels more like a political designation to me), but have still been using simply “Blacks” a lot. I should have noticed it on my own….had even thought about it in the past when thinking about how we were instructed to talk about my daughter’s diabetes (don’t make it her primary identity). 

It’s an engrained habit so I may slip at times for a while; thanks for bringing it up and I wouldn’t mind if you say anything to remind me if I forget.   

Gosh, I did not mean it as a policing observation. I simply noticed it and thought it was interesting. I think there are a lot of things we do in our church that we don’t question because it’s so habitual. I think we have always used the term ” blacks and the priesthood”  since who knows how long. 
 

I do think it would be smart for us to pay attention to this and start curbing the habit. I don’t assume people who use this term are racist. However, I don’t think it would be acceptable language in today’s climate anywhere else, but amongst each each other. . Maybe it’s time to make the change.

Edited February 24 by MustardSeed

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Gosh, I did not mean it as a policing observation.

I didn’t take it as one.  It made me curious.  I like to see how language changes over time.  My daughter and I have these kinds of conversations all the time.
 

 I prefer to keep up with language changes in my writing as well, less because of others’ reactions and more just because it feels right and that I hadn’t here was a bit disappointing, so you did me a favor.  The longer it was before I discovered it, the more it would have bothered me, probably embarrass me even if no one criticized my use.  Now it’s quite minor, and I will probably forget being disappointed I missed it shortly.

Quote

think we have always used the term ” blacks and the priesthood”  since who knows how long. 

Good observation

Edited February 25 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Gosh, I did not mean it as a policing observation. I simply noticed it and thought it was interesting. I think there are a lot of things we do in our church that we don’t question because it’s so habitual. I think we have always used the term ” blacks and the priesthood”  since who knows how long. 
 

I do think it would be smart for us to pay attention to this and start curbing the habit. I don’t assume people who use this term are racist. However, I don’t think it would be acceptable language in today’s climate anywhere else, but amongst each each other. . Maybe it’s time to make the change.

I bet "blacks and the priesthood" is where it comes from.  I reminds me of when someone says "Jews" rather than Jewish people.  I can't exactly explain why but it just sounds off and cringey.