K-2 Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) The writer of this note [b. H. Roberts] distinctly remembers to have heard the late President Wilford Woodruff, who reported the above sermon, say, that the Prophet corrected the impression that had been made by his King Follett sermon, that children and infants would remain fixed in the stature of their infancy and childhood in and after the resurrection. President Woodruff very emphatically said on the occasion of the subject being agitated about 1888-9, that the Prophet taught subsequently to his King Follett sermon that children while resurrected in the stature at which they died would develop to the full stature of men and women after the resurrection; and that the contrary impression created by the report of the Prophet's King Follett sermon was due to a misunderstanding of his remarks and erroneous reporting.--History of the Church 4:556. Edited October 24, 2011 by K-2 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Cobalt-70:http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrineNot every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.The KFD has NEVER been accepted by the Church as doctrine of the Church. Albeit that it does have some doctrines within it.
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) The ideas in the King Follett sermon were most certainly doctrine. Even false doctrine is doctrine. False doctrine may be doctrine or may not be depending on what you mean by the qualifier "false". You'll need to define how you're using is before anyone can decide if the statement you've made it truth or nonsense. False can be defined as bogus or counterfeit, not genuine, iow non doctrine as opposed to untrue doctrine. It would be simpler to use the term inaccurate or untrue rather than the more ambiguous false.As for the KFS....Not so unless you are choosing to use a definition contrary to the Church's as pointed out by sts. If you are using a definition of "that which is taught" you have rendered the term useless for discussion and determination except in the most general way that equates your comments here with anything uttered at GQ or written in the scriptures, something inappropriate for anything beyond a random collection of sayings by LDS. I see no reason to use a different definition when determining what is LDS doctrine than the one that LDS are instructed to use by their leaders tonavoid confusion and contention. Edited October 24, 2011 by calmoriah
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Was polygamy once a commandment?Only for those that God commands.
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) Cobalt-70:http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrineAnother article from LDS.org that explains what LDS mean when they use the term doctrine and thus the definition that should be used in all sincere and honest attempts of accurate description and discussion: What is Our Doctrine? (prepared for CES)http://lds.org/institutes/attachment/display/1,18728,91079,00.pdfNot official but an interesting look at how most LDS would discuss the issue: http://broadcast.lds.org/ldsradio/pdf/mormon-identity/mormon-identity-ep-09.pdf Edited October 24, 2011 by calmoriah
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) If one truly wants to know what is a commandments for LDS, then it should be very easy to figure out since we teach our five year olds how to tell: http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=07a50f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD"What are commandments?". "Things Heavenly Father had told us to do"As far as what is taught on temple marriage: http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=true&locale=0&sourceId=0e0a7befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD#1It states at the very beginning that in order to return to our Father, we must do all that he commands us to do, including receiving baptism and temple ordinances (which of course includes sealings as clearly indicated a little later.)We are taught to fulfill the commandments to the best of our ability, if we are not able to fulfill them through no fault of our own (best judged by the person IMO, though we need to guard against self-deception) but do fulfill them as much as we are able instead of choosing to completely disregard them, the Lord will accept our efforts as a full account and so judge and reward us.Downplaying the significance of not doing our best to fulfill will not help someone achieve exaltation if that is what they desire. We need to be careful that we don't cause people longterm pain and suffering by our attempts to limit pain and suffering in the short term. We don't increase the value of a civil marriage by devaluing a temple marriage.Pretty simple concept. Edited October 24, 2011 by calmoriah
oremites Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) But then again, the most essential elements Mormon theology and practice are not canonized either, such as the idea that God was once a man, that the President of the Church is selected and set apart by he Twelve, that the Endowment is necessary for exaltation, that children must be sealed to parents, that there is sex in the eternities, that Jesus is the "god of the Old Testament," and that we have a heavenly Mother.Maybe it's just my opinion, but I wouldn't categorize any of those things as among "the most essential elements [of] Mormon theology and practice." Maybe the Endowment one. I'll have to think about it. Edited October 24, 2011 by oremites
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 On obedience to the commandments: http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=58a97befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRDOn eternal marriage as a commandment: http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=c2c97befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRDEternal marriage is a law of the gospel.Downplaying the fact that something is a commandment is a dangerous road to take, IMO. If we choose to downplay temple marriage so that people don't feel uncomfortable if they do not have one, then why not downplay baptism? While we may not be able to take full advantage of the gospel as nonmembers, we have already chosen to give up living the fullness of the gospel if we do not participate in the temple ordinances, which are just as much a part of the gospel as baptism and the sacrament. Isn't this what is going to happen in the next life where those who have decided that they like many of the principle of the gospel in their lives but don't want to make the sacrifices for some of them? Is it wisdom for us to help people feel it's perfectly okay to lead what amounts to a less valiant life or would it be kinder to encourage them in the ways they can understand to work on their lives and their marriage so that if they are not worthy now, that they live to the best of their ability now while working on those aspects that at the moment are keeping them from the temple. And there is no reason that a believing spouse should feel uncomfortable about preparing him or herself to be worthy of a temple marriage even if the other is not interested, blessings will come even in this situation. 1
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) From my take on it: being married in the chapel is not breaking any commandments and the lds member should not feel that he or she is breaking a commandment by marrying in the chapel. What good would such guilt serve?That guilt (if there is a good reason for that guilt to exist such as past actions rendering a person currently unworthy to enter the temple) can lead the person to work on preparing to be worthy of a temple marriage for when the opportunity comes along. I am not suggesting preaching hellfire and damnation, only that temple marriage is a higher commandment that those who desire to live with the Father again must fulfill and for whatever reasons they were led to a civil marriage, this does not stop them as a couple or as individuals from pursuing a course that leads them to eternal life. Why teach them instead by downplaying temple marriage as a commandment that they should be content with what they have now when they can have much much more and have it together. Edited October 24, 2011 by calmoriah
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) Addon: if a person has chosen to marry a nonmember, then I believe in a loving relationship where they do not abuse each other for their differences in faith, that the overall relationship will be improved if the LDS spouse prepares him or herself to be worthy of a temple marriage and to act as if the marriage had taken place in a temple as much as possible (in regards to living the personal commitments and covenants. Not only should this bring the highest qualities of the Saint to the relationship, but they will be blessed by such faith and commitment to the Lord, whether or not it also leads eventually to a temple marriage. There are reasons why temple marriages are among the most enduring and there is nothing stopping someone from treating their marriage like a temple marriage if they want that same endurance in theirvrelationship. Edited October 24, 2011 by calmoriah
jo1952 Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Temple marriage is NOT a commandment. However, it IS a requirement if one desires to attain the highest level in the Celestial Kingdom. I would offer that ALL ordinances are "requirements"; NOT commandments. Ordinances which are performed for the dead are OFFERED to the dead; it is their free choice to accept them or not. Now, those who have broken actual commandments need to repent or are punished for breaking them. Look at an ordinance as a contract. A commandment is NOT a contract. God is not going to take away your free agency in order to force you to enter into a contract with Him. He would be breaking His own rules He has set up for us if He were to take away our agency in order to enter a contract with Him.As one poster has already alluded to, Exaltation is NOT a commandment; therefore, Temple marriage could NOT equate into a commandment. Rather Temple marriage can only be relegated to a "requirement" in order to obtain Exaltation since the two are unavoidably linked to each other. God does NOT command us to attain Exaltation; He DOES layout the requirements for attaining it. This is an argument over semantics. We should not confuse an ordinance with a commandment. Regards,jo
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) That's not what the manuals state. We have just as much agency in regards to a commandment as we do a requirement, in either one if we desire to do God's will, we will do them, if we wish the attendant blessings, we do them. Commandments do not decrease freedom, they increase them by expanding our world, allowing God to give us options we wouldn't have otherwise. If we don't want them we don't do them. For some commandments and requirements, if you don't do them there is a downside, for others you simply don't receive the attendant blessings.If you only associate commandments with punishment for breaking them, you miss the point of commandments.Read the links I put up from the Church site. That is how commandments are described in LDS doctrine and it includes the ordinances as commandments. If you disagree with them, I suggest you write church curriculum and suggest that it should be changed. Edited October 24, 2011 by calmoriah 1
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 The first great commandment is to love God, the second is to love our neighbour. If we break these commandments, the greatest of all commandments, we are not punished, we simply stay in the state of separation from God and do not progress. If Christ did not attach a punishment to the greatest of the commandments, then there is no reason to assume that all commandments must be so structured. Just like every good parent, God varies the rules in order to not only give the widest experience available, but to allow us to participate and make choices for a variety of reasons. First, most of our choices are immature, based on fear or reward. Then as we spiritually mature and come to understand God better, our relationship changes and we begin to obey out of awe and a desire to grow. Finally we come to know and trust the Lord so well that our actions are driven by love and a desire to be one. At that stage we still need commandments to know what the Lord desires of us, but we hardly need a punishment attached to drive us out of fear.Anyone who is approaching a temple marriage where they are entering into a deeply personal relationship with the Lord should not need a threat to motivate him in that choice.I can't remember, why me and Jo...have you had a chance to participate in a temple marriage yet, either your own or someone else's? I am thinking if you have not gone through them yet, that may be a reason for your different perspectives...not that you are trying to justify anything, just the flavour of the experience itself might affect your POV. It certainly did mine.
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Read the chapter on Baptism. Its first line states that there are principles and ordinances that we must learn and obey.What is a commandment but something we must learn and obey?http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=84aa7befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRDIn this Primary lesson it specifically states we are commanded to be baptized. See the section titled Jesus Christ Obeyed the Commandment to be Baptized.http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=b0870f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=637e1b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRDBaptism is both an ordinance and a commandment, just like all the salvific ordinances including the ones in the temple.
jo1952 Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 That's not what the manuals state.We have just as much agency in regards to a commandment as we do a requirement, in either one if we desire to do God's will, we will do them, if we wish the attendant blessings, we do them. Commandments do not decrease freedom, they increase them by expanding our world, allowing God to give us options we wouldn't have otherwise. If we don't want them we don't do them. For some commandments and requirements, if you don't do them there is a downside, for others you simply don't receive the attendant blessings.If you only associate commandments with punishment for breaking them, you miss the point of commandments.Read the links I put up from the Church site. That is how commandments are described in LDS doctrine and it includes the ordinances as commandments. If you disagree with them, I suggest you write church curriculum and suggest that it should be changed.I did read your links. You are interpreting what you are reading into your forced conclusion.There are blessings for both keeping commandments as well as for entering into contracts. If we are supposed to be following the perfect example, Jesus, then why was Jesus not married while He was in the flesh in order to set the example for us? If He WAS married while in the flesh, why wasn't this very important ordinance made apparent in the scriptures so that we could be sure to follow it? In fact, we still have received no revelation that tells us specifically that Jesus IS married. We may surmise that He is; but there is no evidence of it. Yes, He sits at the right hand of Father in the Celestial kingdom (since that is where Father IS), while He waits to return to the earth. However, this is not proof that He has already entered into a "Temple marriage" as there has been no revelation indicating that He is involved in procreation at this time, which would indicate He has attained the highest level of the Celestial kingdom other wise known as Exaltation.Jesus NEVER commanded people to be baptized. He DID teach that baptism is a requirement to enter the Kingdom of God. In fact Jesus NEVER commanded people to be saved. He DID teach the requirements of salvation.Also, you are not addressing what your belief looks like in that your belief unavoidably turns "Exaltation" into a commandment. Where, in scripture, has God EVER forced man into entering a contract with Him?? Thus I see an ordinance as a requirement---where there is no contract, the blessings of entering into that contract are withheld. A commandment, OTOH has immediate consequences of either punishment or the blessing of avoidance of punishment, which has it own benefits. Also, commandments are to help us learn the consequences of both good and evil choices; which is why we are here.A commandment is NOT an ordinance. A commandment is NOT a contract; but it DOES have consequences. If we are not forgiven for breaking a commandment while in the flesh, we are punished until Justice has been served. If we do not enter into an ordinance, Justice does not need to be served. If we break a contract, the punishment received is not a punishment of Justice. The punishment for breaking a contract is that we lose the blessing attached to it. There is a difference; Justice, as far as I understand it, is not attached to ordinances. Justice IS, however, attached to commandments.Jesus taught that the demands of Justice must be served. If we do not repent and receive forgiveness in the flesh, we will need to pay the price to every last farthing after we die because Mercy cannot rob Justice. Since even baptism is not a commandment, the Gospel is taught to the dead so that they may enter into that covenant through the ordinance of baptism. There is no punishment meted out for NOT having been baptized in the flesh. It is taught and OFFERED to the dead completely apart from Justice which is being paid for unforgiven sins.There is a difference between a commandment and an ordinance!!Regards,jo
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Apostle Russell M Nelson states that not only is marriage an exalting principle, but a divine command.http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=c487a0ad4843d110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRDSince he already made the connection between eternal/temple marriage and exaltation, he is not referring to civil marriage, but temple marriage when he speaks of it exalting AND being a divine command.He said this at the October 2008 Conference. I highly doubt there has been any change in doctrine on this matter since then, but if you wish to continue the debate I think you should start providing some sources that demonstrate your point. Personally I think I've provided enough to prove what is the Church's view, with which I agree.
thesometimesaint Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 jo1952:The Scriptures are silent as to whether Jesus was married or not. A good case can be made for either position.Liklewise the scriptures are silent as to whether he had children of his own.Jesus taught his Apostles that baptism is a commandment, and they sure did baptize others.
Garden Girl Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 I believe it at least limits it for men in that they can't be called to certain positions. I don't know if it is true for women, but I have strong doubts that a woman married to a nonmember will be called to hold any of the higher female offices, even if those are more support positions than 'line' simply due to the recognition of the stress on the marriage if for no other reason. .I don't know about today's practice, but when I reactivated 16 years ago, it was mostly due to the Relief Soc president of my mom's ward who helped me when my mom passed away... she was married to a non-member, as was I, and that's the first time I learned that a woman could go to the temple for her endowment in spite of being married to non-LDS.GG
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Jesus NEVER commanded people to be baptized. He DID teach that baptism is a requirement to enter the Kingdom of God. Just to be clear, when the church manual states "Jesus obeyed the commandment to be baptized" you are declaring this is false doctrine?And when Elder Russell M Nelson states that not only is [celestial] marriage an exalting principle, but a divine command, he is teaching false doctrine across the conference pulpit?
jo1952 Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Read the chapter on Baptism. Its first line states that there are principles and ordinances that we must learn and obey.What is a commandment but something we must learn and obey?http://classic.lds.o...0003a94610aRCRDIn this Primary lesson it specifically states we are commanded to be baptized. See the section titled Jesus Christ Obeyed the Commandment to be Baptized.http://classic.lds.o...0004d82620aRCRDBaptism is both an ordinance and a commandment, just like all the salvific ordinances including the ones in the temple.These lessons are geared to children who are unable to discern differences between concepts such as a commandment and an ordinance. Baptism is an ordinance. These lessons are also NOT doctrine; they a teaching tool. They are akin to the difference between milk and meat understanding. Baptism cannot even be performed legitimately without the proper Priesthood authority. Does God punish a person for not having access to this ordinance??? NO!!! Then how can it be a commandment since breaking it does not bring punishment??? Ordinances are REQUIRED CONTRACTS -- NOT commandments. Justice is NOT associated with the requirements of ordinances. Justice is associated with the breaking of commandments.Commandments and Ordinances are two different things.Regards,jo
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 I don't know about today's practice, but when I reactivated 16 years ago, it was mostly due to the Relief Soc president of my mom's ward who helped me when my mom passed away... she was married to a non-member, as was I, and that's the first time I learned that a woman could go to the temple for her endowment in spite of being married to non-LDS.GGI've known quite a few RS pres. that were single, unendowed, or married to a nonmember. I assumed it would be the same at the stake level. My understanding is that it is only the Bishop...and I assume Stake Pres. that are required to have temple marriages.I am talking about 'higher up' such as a mission pres. and his wife, temple pres. and the matron, the members of the General Relief Society Board can be single, but surely they must be temple endowed? Aren't General Authorities who are married or have been married, temple married?
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 These lessons are geared to children who are unable to discern differences between concepts such as a commandment and an ordinance.That still leaves the conference talk with the "divine command".
jo1952 Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Apostle Russell M Nelson states that not only is marriage an exalting principle, but a divine command.http://classic.lds.o...0004d82620aRCRDSince he already made the connection between eternal/temple marriage and exaltation, he is not referring to civil marriage, but temple marriage when he speaks of it exalting AND being a divine command.He said this at the October 2008 Conference. I highly doubt there has been any change in doctrine on this matter since then, but if you wish to continue the debate I think you should start providing some sources that demonstrate your point. Personally I think I've provided enough to prove what is the Church's view, with which I agree.I would offer that you are seeing this as you want to see it. Even those who enter into this contract are not guaranteed Exaltation!!! Unless a Temple marriage is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, there will be no Exaltation. Therefore, even if you were to consider Temple marriage a commandment, your argument fails because there is no guaranty that by obeying this "commandment"; i.e., going through the process of getting sealed in the Temple, does not automatically result in Exaltation. Elder Nelson ALSO proclaims that Exaltation is our GOAL. It is NOT a commandment. If you were to speak with Elder Nelson personally within the context of this thread, I doubt seriously he would agree with your view point.Regards,jo
Garden Girl Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 I am talking about 'higher up' such as a mission pres. and his wife, temple pres. and the matron, the members of the General Relief Society Board can be single, but surely they must be temple endowed? Aren't General Authorities who are married or have been married, temple married?I believe this is correct for this level of position...GG
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 I don't think you understand what I mean by commandment. It also appears to me you are defining commandment in a much more complicated way then either the scriptures or the Church does. If I were to accept your assumptions about what commandments are, I would agree with you. But my 50plus years in the Church leads me to disagree. A commandment is very simple. It is what the Lord tells us to do. Whether its a requirement, covenant, punishment attached, etc. Is just a variation on a theme as Lehi pointed out way back at the beginning of the thread. Commandment is a category label with a lot of sub categories under it.Until you can show me where the apostles state that baptism is not a commandment and celestial marriage is not a divine command, I will continue to believe what the manuals and conference talks say.There are some concepts that are complicated, but this isn't one of them.
Recommended Posts