Journal Of Discourses

[Tsuzuki]

But I've come to one conclusion for myself:

If God is going to choose a prophet to be responsible for His Kingdom on this earth, then God will choose someone worthy of the job. And if I can't trust that is happening, I can't trust the entire premise.

The problem is that your premise is false. God uses the week things of the world to confound the wise.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 1:26-31

[Lachoneus]

Have you tried prayer, wanderer? Have you asked Heavenly Father to intercede on your behalf, or are you merely setting yourself up as an authority on what God would and would not do and how his prophets should think and behave?

I will say a few words in regard to your belief in being led, guided, and directed by one man. Brother Jackman has said that our enemies hate the fact of our being led by one man. Thousands of times my soul has been lifted to God the Father, in the name of Jesus, to make that verily true in every sense of the word, that we may be led by the man Jesus Christ, through Joseph Smith the Prophet. You may inquire how we are to know that we are so led. I refer you to the exhortation you have heard so frequently from me. Do not be deceived, any of you; if you are deceived, it is because you deceive yourselves. You may know whether you are led right or wrong, as well as you know the way home; for every principle God has revealed carries its own convictions of its truth to the human mind, and there is no calling of God to man on earth but what brings with it the evidences of its authenticity. Let us take a course that leads to the perpetuity of the natural life which God has given us, and honour it. Should we pursue this course faithfully, and never bestow one thought for the life that is to come, we are just as sure of that immortal life as we are of the life we now possess. This, in fact, is the only way in which we can be prepared to inherit that more glorious life.

What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.

(Brigham Young, 9 Journal of Discourses 150 (12 January 1862))

[LifeOnaPlate]

My problems are many.

I am questioning my faith.

I am questioning my faith based on the words and actions of our past and present prophets of the church, which this entire religion rests upon. I don't want perfection, but I want it to jive.

Just wondering if you got my PM and if you planned on responding to it, thanks.

And here I though this entire religion rested upon Christ...(?)

If wanderer's faith rests on prophets instead of Christ then it might explain why he is doubting his faith.

Not to mention the inconvenient truth that many of the discourses therein are quite troubling.

Many? I have to doubt that you've read through the JD. And if you have, what troubles you about "many" of the discourses surely wouldn't trouble most run-of-the-mill members of the Church today. I've found very little in regards to "troubling" information, and by and large the majority of what I am finding is quite excellent.

That's what I used to think too...but more and more I see the church teaching about the church, and less about the messages and teachings of Christ.

I've have to disagree.

Hey, I state my feeling and I get called names?

Is that not a legitimate feeling to express on this board or something? I didn't read that in any of the rules/regulations.

I apologize for selek; he's a good guy but online he can be a little confrontational.

[Chronos]

Knock off the personal attacks.

~Chronos

[John Larsen]

Don't worry Wanderer, its not just you. Just about everyone who posts here questioning their beliefs gets called a troll at one time or the other.

John

[gadianton]

I have to doubt that you've read through the JD. And if you have, what troubles you about "many" of the discourses surely wouldn't trouble most run-of-the-mill members of the Church today. I've found very little in regards to "troubling" information, and by and large the majority of what I am finding is quite excellent.

Why do you have to doubt that I have read through the JD? Awfully presumptuous of you.

Most "run-of-the-mill" members don't even know 10% of what leaders in the past have taught. If you think they do, you are fooling yourself.

[structurecop]

Why do you have to doubt that I have read through the JD? Awfully presumptuous of you.

It's playing the odds... 26 volumes of the JoD equals roughly 9,360 pages. They occupy an entire level of my bookshelf. I can't imagine reading through all of them. Are you saying you've done that?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Why do you have to doubt that I have read through the JD? Awfully presumptuous of you.

Most "run-of-the-mill" members don't even know 10% of what leaders in the past have taught. If you think they do, you are fooling yourself.

I mean no disrespect, but I really feel, from your comments, and from the fact that relatively few members have read the entire Journal, that you in fact have read them. Your response to me could have dispelled my understanding by simply saying "yes, I have, in fact, read the 26 volumes of the Journal of discourses." You didn't do that, though, so my assumption must remain.

It's playing the odds... 26 volumes of the JoD equals roughly 9,360 pages. They occupy an entire level of my bookshelf. I can't imagine reading through all of them. Are you saying you've done that?

I figure I'll have them all finished in about a year or two. If I didn't have to stop and blog the stuff I'm reading it would be much sooner.

[structurecop]

I figure I'll have them all finished in about a year or two. If I didn't have to stop and blog the stuff I'm reading it would be much sooner.

Do you take caffeine pills or drink Red Bull before you try to read them? I swear I can't get further than 15 pages in before I fall asleep.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Do you take caffeine pills or drink Red Bull before you try to read them? I swear I can't get further than 15 pages in before I fall asleep.

I've had a really good time with them so far.

Amasa Lyman, Brigham Young and of course, George A., are my fav's thus far.

On the more repetitious side is Heber C. Kimball. He rarely had a discourse that didn't touch on the "clay and the potter's wheel" analogy.

Brigham Young can be downright funny, as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've had a really good time with them so far.

Amasa Lyman, Brigham Young and of course, George A., are my fav's thus far.

On the more repetitious side is Heber C. Kimball. He rarely had a discourse that didn't touch on the "clay and the potter's wheel" analogy.

Brigham Young can be downright funny, as well.

I have been somewhat amused by what seems to be vestiges of a revivalist tone in some of those early meetings. ("Let all Israel shout amen!")

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have been somewhat amused by what seems to be vestiges of a revivalist tone in some of those early meetings. ("Let all Israel shout amen!")

I love the extemporaneous nature of the discourses.

I was trying to create a post for the last sermon in volume 3, by Brigham Young, and I just can't do it. He switches from the gift of tongues, to the harsh treatment of the pioneers, to the condition of the Utah valley, to the importance of obedience, the plan of salvation, then to the importance of individuality, to helping the poor, overcoming selfishness, the sketchy reliability of history, including the bible and Josephus, our contemporary view of Joseph Smith, the location of the spirit world, the work of people on the other side of the veil, the age of the earth (as undetermined!), the nature of eternity, gifts of the spirit, gratitude, increasing and improving talents, the power of the Priesthood, spiritualism, temple work, faith and works, and choosing light over darkness, among other things in the discourse. And it flows amazingly well, it is a great discourse.

[moriancamur]

That's what I used to think too...but more and more I see the church teaching about the church, and less about the messages and teachings of Christ.

I appreciate your feelings on what you have found. It is disturbing. It certainly is not a pleasant experience coming to terms with some aspects of the real history of the church and the teachings of prophets.

Your point here is very important. It leads to difficulty in separating ones testimony of Christ and the testimony of the church. I eventually came to the conclusion that the church is not what it claims to be and that JS was not a true prophet. Many seem to be able to continue with their faith and lay aside those things they may wish JS or BY hadn't done or said. The more I dug, like you, the more obvious to me it became. There are as many reactions to this process of discovery as their are people, however I feel its important to recognize that a testimony of the church and a testimony of God and Christ are not one and the same thing. It has been a common question I have faced..."have you lost your testimony?". Well for me at least I could sift out the difference without losing my testimony. Once I made the decision the whole thing became very much clearer and I feel no doubts in the validity of my conclusion.

As a side issue, BY didn't teach Adam was God the Father. He taught he was the Holy Ghost. The discourses make this clear and he emphasizes the point quite clearly. This is a very mis-understood doctrine and it is this lack of understanding that enables evasive answers and denials to come easily. In fact I would argue the church does continue to teach this doctrine in the temple ceremony and hardly anyone sees it! Quite astounding. Not something for a debate here. It is always important to maintain respect for others beliefs and of course the temple is a focus of deep and profound reverence to mormons. There is much good in the mormon faith and it is far to easy to focus entirely on these issues of falsehood and forget that living the gospel does bring us closer to God. There is no difference in the conditions of salvation for anyone and I don't believe God looks any further than the heart of the recipient of Grace. So although the Church may ask many things of you I don't believe are true or required, and there may be dangers for some in that focus on Church rather than Christ, I feel a true follower of Christ can see the difference and will always seek to do what pleases the Spirit primarily in their lives.

Personally I don't know how anyone reconciles satisfactorily in their minds some of the points you have mentioned. I don't understand why different criteria for judgement are given to JS over any other human before or since. There is a lack of common sense here borne of a mind that refuses to contemplate anything that doesn't confirm the church is true. Common sense leads to initially painful decisions.

[wanderer]

You don't get stomped on for expressing legitimate feelings, you get stomped on for making baseless accusations so ludicrous as to endanger recent hernia patients.

I have a hard time with this, selek. That is in and of itself a matter of opinion. Religious issues are by their very nature often based on feelings rather than hard and fast facts.

On the other hand, your entire premise in this thread is based on a false assumption and backed up with accusations that there's something wrong with the Church instead of yourself.

False because you say so. I'm happy for you and anyone else who is confident and comfortable in spiritual matters. But to say that there's something wrong with me? I don't understand what you hope to accomplish with a remark like that. It doesn't help. It hurts. It makes me think that there is no place for someone in the LDS church who asks questions.

That, and the unfounded and unrealistic allegations you keep making are causing me to be skeptical and suspicious, to say the very least.

Sorry. I don't mean to make myself look bad.

You forgot a critical one that no Latter-day Saint would discount. Have you tried prayer, wanderer? Have you asked Heavenly Father to intercede on your behalf, or are you merely setting yourself up as an authority on what God would and would not do and how his prophets should think and behave?

I wish you could know how fervently and sincerely I've prayed. That was the first thing I did, and I have continued to do so. My relationship with Heavenly Father is there. I have a strong testimony of a loving Father in Heaven. But I am not being spiritually fed at church anymore. I suppose most people will say that it's my fault and that I'm not doing enough. I don't know how to do any more than I'm doing.

[wanderer]

Just wondering if you got my PM and if you planned on responding to it, thanks.

Yes, I did. I tried to pm you back but don't have enough posts yet. I'll respond via email soon. I'm trying to wrap up a project at work and it's kicking my behind.

If wanderer's faith rests on prophets instead of Christ then it might explain why he is doubting his faith.

Sorry, I'm a she. And my faith in Christ has not wavered on time. But one can have faith in Christ and doubt the prophets. They are not one and the same.

[LifeOnaPlate]

.

As a side issue, BY didn't teach Adam was God the Father. He taught he was the Holy Ghost.

I disagree.

The discourses make this clear and he emphasizes the point quite clearly.

Again, disagree.

This is a very mis-understood doctrine and it is this lack of understanding that enables evasive answers and denials to come easily.

How sneaky of me!

In fact I would argue the church does continue to teach this doctrine in the temple ceremony and hardly anyone sees it! Quite astounding.

Completely disagree. Joseph Smith was pretty plain on the Holy Ghost not being Adam, and what he did clarify about the Holy Ghost (that He is yet a personage of spirit; and that Adam received the gift of the Holy Ghost [presumably himself?] after baptism.) and Brigham Young never suggested it.

Not something for a debate here.

It's something for a discussion here, rather than a false assertion.

So although the Church may ask many things of you I don't believe are true or required, and there may be dangers for some in that focus on Church rather than Christ, I feel a true follower of Christ can see the difference and will always seek to do what pleases the Spirit primarily in their lives.

Christ should be the focus, yes. That's why I belong to the Church.

Personally I don't know how anyone reconciles satisfactorily in their minds some of the points you have mentioned. I don't understand why different criteria for judgement are given to JS over any other human before or since.

This is too vague to discuss further.

There is a lack of common sense here borne of a mind that refuses to contemplate anything that doesn't confirm the church is true. Common sense leads to initially painful decisions.

So anyone who believes in the Church lacks common sense, then?

Wanderer: Please check your private message inbox. You might not be aware of it due to your newness on the board. There is al ink at the top of the page that says "messages." Thanks.

[moriancamur]

I disagree.

Again, disagree.

Completely disagree. Joseph Smith was pretty plain on the Holy Ghost not being Adam, and what he did clarify about the Holy Ghost (that He is yet a personage of spirit; and that Adam received the gift of the Holy Ghost [presumably himself?] after baptism.) and Brigham Young never suggested it.

It's something for a discussion here, rather than a false assertion.

Christ should be the focus, yes. That's why I belong to the Church.

This is too vague to discuss further.

So anyone who believes in the Church lacks common sense, then?

Wanderer: Please check your private message inbox. You might not be aware of it due to your newness on the board. There is al ink at the top of the page that says "messages." Thanks.

Hello. I am sure you will disagree. There are many contradictory statements in the sermon by BY. That is why it is easy to dismiss. He did however say this;

"It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

There are many ways of interpreting this. It is even possible to get the trinity out of this! Is the Father, Eloheim? Is the Son, Yahovah? So who is Michael? If not the Holy Ghost as is indeed taught elsewhere then does this representation make consistent sense? Rather than making a "false assertion" I believe I am pointing out the inconsistency of these doctrines. In this discourse BY said our salvation would depend on accepting it. That would include the doctrine that if Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost then there is a danger women receiving the gift would get pregnant! That Adam was the father of Christ. etc. etc. There are so many contradictions to logic it does require some considerable exercising of faith to get past it.

Do I think being a member means you lack common sense? No, that is not what I meant. You can have common sense and choose not to apply it. You will only consider applying it when you get information to apply it to. Once you have the information and apply your common sense, then its is difficult to remain black and white over the infallibility of the church and its claims to be the ONE.

Is Joseph Smiths behaviour too vague to discuss? He convinced men and women to accept the promise of exaltation for giving themselves/ wife/ daughter to him. e.g. Zina H... Angels with swords threatening death if she didn't become his wife whilst she was married to someone else! If anyone else was discovered in this manner they would be judged as an evil adulterer. Not so JS. It is considered a commandment from God. How is this consistent with anything God has ever taught? Common sense answer please!

I do not question your belief in Christ or your association of Christ with the Church. I question if that association is correct. I wonder if you could separate your conviction that the church is true from knowing God lives.

[Lachoneus]

I believe I am pointing out the inconsistency of these doctrines.

No, you are pointing out the inconsistency of false interpretations of these doctrines. Properly understood, there is no inconsistency. The idea that Michael is the Holy Ghost is even more ridiculous (if that is possible) than thinking he is Our Heavenly Father.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hello. I am sure you will disagree. There are many contradictory statements in the sermon by BY. That is why it is easy to dismiss. He did however say this;

"It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

There are many ways of interpreting this. [emphasis mine] It is even possible to get the trinity out of this! Is the Father, Eloheim? Is the Son, Yahovah? So who is Michael? If not the Holy Ghost as is indeed taught elsewhere then does this representation make consistent sense? Rather than making a "false assertion" I believe I am pointing out the inconsistency of these doctrines.

You believe you are pointing out the inconsistencies, but that isn't what you did at all. You affirmed that Brigham taught that Adam is the Holy Ghost. Now you seem to be retreating and saying it is merely one possible explanation of what Brigham taught. This is a better approach.

In this discourse BY said our salvation would depend on accepting it. That would include the doctrine that if Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost then there is a danger women receiving the gift would get pregnant! That Adam was the father of Christ. etc. etc. There are so many contradictions to logic it does require some considerable exercising of faith to get past it.

Or we can just admit we don't understand what he was trying to say. Making leaps of logic (the gift of the Holy Ghost is going to make people pregnant?) is not a good route to take, in my opinion.

Do I think being a member means you lack common sense? No, that is not what I meant.

It is good to see you say this, because you stated the opposite in your former post.

You can have common sense and choose not to apply it.

Oh, I spoke too soon. Apparently you were saying all believing members "choose not to apply" common sense. Why are you spending your time reasoning with someone like me who apparently suspends all common sense on the topic you are addressing? Seems like a waste of time.

You will only consider applying it when you get information to apply it to.

So before I ever get information I don't have common sense regarding the information I have never heard?

Once you have the information and apply your common sense, then its is difficult to remain black and white over the infallibility of the church and its claims to be the ONE.

Is it ok if I respond with an apparently equally valid counter-assertion? I disagree with you.

Is Joseph Smiths behaviour too vague to discuss? He convinced men and women to accept the promise of exaltation for giving themselves/ wife/ daughter to him. e.g. Zina H... Angels with swords threatening death if she didn't become his wife whilst she was married to someone else! If anyone else was discovered in this manner they would be judged as an evil adulterer. Not so JS. It is considered a commandment from God. How is this consistent with anything God has ever taught? Common sense answer please!

Would a common sense answer be acceptable if I simply point out your obvious red herring?

I do not question your belief in Christ or your association of Christ with the Church. I question if that association is correct. I wonder if you could separate your conviction that the church is true from knowing God lives.

Absolutely.

[moriancamur]

No, you are pointing out the inconsistency of false interpretations of these doctrines. Properly understood, there is no inconsistency. The idea that Michael is the Holy Ghost is even more ridiculous (if that is possible) than thinking he is Our Heavenly Father.

I am excited to hear your enlightened view on this. I am especially looking forward to your corrections in my understanding on how the "presidency" that created the world consisted of Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, yet the Godhead appears to drop Michael and replace him with the Holy Ghost. Since Michael is not the Holy Ghost, is Elohim not the Father and Jehovah not the Son?

[moriancamur]

You believe you are pointing out the inconsistencies, but that isn't what you did at all. You affirmed that Brigham taught that Adam is the Holy Ghost. Now you seem to be retreating and saying it is merely one possible explanation of what Brigham taught. This is a better approach.

Thankyou. We will see how this pans out

Or we can just admit we don't understand what he was trying to say. Making leaps of logic (the gift of the Holy Ghost is going to make people pregnant?) is not a good route to take, in my opinion.

Glad you agree. Remember it was BY who suggested this problem. A point being that he stated understanding this was very important and the truth. In fact acceptance is associated with salvation. If so important surely we need clarification?

Oh, I spoke too soon. Apparently you were saying all believing members "choose not to apply" common sense. Why are you spending your time reasoning with someone like me who apparently suspends all common sense on the topic you are addressing? Seems like a waste of time.

I am sure you are not a waste of time, however I do believe members often throw good reasoning away in order to support their belief in the Church when more detailed facts come to light that are inconsistent with the gospel.

So before I ever get information I don't have common sense regarding the information I have never heard?

Is it ok if I respond with an apparently equally valid counter-assertion? I disagree with you.

I didn't say that so you are welcome to disagree.

Would a common sense answer be acceptable if I simply point out your obvious red herring?

Absolutely.

Why waste time answering without an answer to anything. I think you can do better than this!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thankyou. We will see how this pans out

Glad you agree. Remember it was BY who suggested this problem. A point being that he stated understanding this was very important and the truth. In fact acceptance is associated with salvation. If so important surely we need clarification?

I am sure you are not a waste of time, however I do believe members often throw good reasoning away in order to support their belief in the Church when more detailed facts come to light that are inconsistent with the gospel.

I didn't say that so you are welcome to disagree.

Why waste time answering without an answer to anything. I think you can do better than this!

You've gone from asserting BY taught that Adam is the Holy Ghost to saying that is only one possible explanation. That's good enough for me.

[moriancamur]

You've gone from asserting BY taught that Adam is the Holy Ghost to saying that is only one possible explanation. That's good enough for me.

I have simply decided to use a different approach and hoped through drawing you into considered discussion you would eventually see my assertion is actually the only credible and logical conclusion even though BY contradicts himself in so many ways just about any position could be adopted. I assume you have come to the same conclusion but fear to go there! So be it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have simply decided to use a different approach and hoped through drawing you into considered discussion you would eventually see my assertion is actually the only credible and logical conclusion even though BY contradicts himself in so many ways just about any position could be adopted. I assume you have come to the same conclusion but fear to go there! So be it.

Your assumption is incorrect.