I Know Not, Save The Lord Commanded Me.

[Grundelwalken]

Recent topics (priesthood ban, love/anger of God, ark steadying, etc.) have got me to thinking about that scripture in Moses where the angel appears to Adam:

And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? and Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me

. (Moses 5:6)

Is the principle of accepting the word of the Lord, without complete knowledge of His purposes, becoming outmoded to some?

I suspect that if the Prophet were to make an announcement of a new revelation (whatever it might entail) there would be a group (small or large, I don't know) who would want to have all the details of the purpose before they would be ready to live that principle.

Have we lost the ability to just say "I know not save the Lord commanded me?"

Part of the problem, in my view, is that so many of us want to be "wise" and to just accept on faith alone would not be considered wise by the learned. Let's see, how did Isaiah say that:

"...for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." Isaiah 29:14

How does the principle of acting on faith affect your life? MW

[The Nehor]

The other extreme is those who don't care why they were commanded. Both are probably damned.

Go for the middle ground where you trust and obey but still seek understanding so when the angel comes down you are interested in what s/he says.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Don't forget, however, that Adam did know that the Lord had commanded him to do it. Adam wasn't blindly following. Nor are we supposed to blindly follow.

Don't confuse the what with the why. Adam had a testimony of the what and that's why he obeyed.

Edited February 17, 2012 by DispensatorMysteriorum

[zelder]

The two comments so far are are excellent. One of my issues with the church recently is that it's not perfect. Nobody in it is perfect, not even the prophet and consequently we have a number of controversial teachings from past prophets that cast doubt on my responsibility to believe and obey. Adam had the luxury of speaking to God and angels face to face. He had no doubt he was doing what God commanded. I don't have that luxury and I'm not sure if modern prophets have that luxury. If the prophet claims revelation I'll strongly consider it becasue I think I've had a few myself so I'm a believer but I'm also a sinner and make lots of mistakes. I figure the prophet might not be much different than me.

[cinepro]

Recent topics (priesthood ban, love/anger of God, ark steadying, etc.) have got me to thinking about that scripture in Moses where the angel appears to Adam:

And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? and Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me

. (Moses 5:6)

Is the principle of accepting the word of the Lord, without complete knowledge of His purposes, becoming outmoded to some?

I suspect that if the Prophet were to make an announcement of a new revelation (whatever it might entail) there would be a group (small or large, I don't know) who would want to have all the details of the purpose before they would be ready to live that principle.

If Adam's commandment to offer sacrifices had the same murky and indeterminate origin as the priesthood ban, Adam's answer to the angel might not be a good thing. Especially if the practice were started generations earlier by a prophet who coincidentally hated young animals.

Edited February 18, 2012 by cinepro

[Arkholt]

And there's, you know, a statement from a prophet himself on the matter:

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.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/9/27#150

[BlueDreams]

How does the principle of acting on faith affect your life? MW

I take the story of Adam as a lesson to expect answers and the means by which we receive those answers. They come from active obedience and trust in the Lord's commands. As we do so, we receive revelation that helps us to better understand and grow in the commandments and they become far more significant for us. We are know longer following because we ultimately trust in God, but because what we obeying has become symbolically significant to our relationship with God.

So the principle of acting on faith affects my life, because it is the means for me to unlock knowledge and have it ingrained into my being.

We cannot have all the answers before hand. it doesn't work. even if we had a legitimate answer it'll mean nothing to us because knowledge, to me, is experiential. But at the same time, we should EXPECT, meaning. I feel that was an underlying lesson for Adam, to seek for meaning to the things we are asked to do as we do it.

With luv,

BD

[zerinus]

If Adam's commandment to offer sacrifices had the same murky and indeterminate origin as the priesthood ban, Adam's answer to the angel might not be a good thing. Especially if the practice were started generations earlier by a prophet who coincidentally hated young animals.

However "murky" the origin of the priesthood ban might be, I have enough confidence in the system to believe that it could not have been adopted as an official policy of the Church if it did not have the Lord's approval at that time. Revelation and commandment would have been given to end the policy, or not adopt it in the first place. While I adhere to the view that the leadership of the Church (individually) are not immune from making doctrinal errors, adopting an erroneous Church-wide policy that could have a negative impact on the salvation of individuals, with the approval of the presiding councils of the Church, is not something God would have countenanced in His only true and living Church. We may not know all the reasons why the Lord approved of the policy at that time; but His approval must be assumed if the integrity of the Church is to be preserved.

Edited February 18, 2012 by zerinus

[Grundelwalken]

If Adam's commandment to offer sacrifices had the same murky and indeterminate origin as the priesthood ban, Adam's answer to the angel might not be a good thing. Especially if the practice were started generations earlier by a prophet who coincidentally hated young animals.

Murky to whom? You or the prophet? I don't expect revelation to a prophet would have the same quality as my own. Not saying his is better but the experience factor would probably ” brighten” the message for him . MW

[Maestrophil]

If Adam's commandment to offer sacrifices had the same murky and indeterminate origin as the priesthood ban, Adam's answer to the angel might not be a good thing. Especially if the practice were started generations earlier by a prophet who coincidentally hated young animals.

I agree... But then he might have said something like "I know not save for the fact that everyone else is doing it based on what may or may not be interpreted as a revelation OR some racist tenancies manifesting themselves in the church culture via imperfect servants of God for which I can find no clear first-hang origins"

As stated above, Adam KNEW the Lord commanded it. The Lord told him to his face what was to be done. If the Lord came and told me to do something, no matter how distasteful, I think I would do it understanding or not.

The big questions is determining for one's self when the Lord has spoken through his servants or not. To that end, I love the quote from brother Brigham above.

[cinepro]

We may not know all the reasons why the Lord approved of the policy at that time; but His approval must be assumed if the integrity of the Church is to be preserved.

Doctrine and policy for the Church are not made on assumption. After all, other churches have been assuming God's endorsement for centuries and look how wrong they are.

Edited February 20, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

Murky to whom? You or the prophet? I don't expect revelation to a prophet would have the same quality as my own. Not saying his is better but the experience factor would probably ” brighten” the message for him . MW

If Brigham Young didn't claim a "bright" revelation on the subject (and present it as such to the Quorum of the 12 and body of the Church), then I don't feel compelled to invent one for him. Hence, the murkiness.

Edited February 20, 2012 by cinepro

[zerinus]

Doctrine and policy for the Church are not made on assumption. After all, other churches have been assuming God's endorsement for centuries and look how wrong they are.

You missed the point. Assuming that the Church is true, that would place a limit on the kind of errors that the presiding councils of the Church could make without compromising the integrity of the Church. Having determined that the Church is true, that limit becomes an inescapable reality.

[cinepro]

You missed the point. Assuming that the Church is true, that would place a limit on the kind of errors that the presiding councils of the Church could make without compromising the integrity of the Church. Having determined that the Church is true, that limit becomes an inescapable reality.

That's an interesting concept, and probably pretty important too. Do you have any references to Church publications that address it, so each Church member can know what the limits are?

Because my understanding has always been that even though the Church is true, mistaken policies can be implemented and maintained by fallible leaders and the Priesthood Ban falls within these limits.

I also can't figure out why God instituting the ban would be any better than Brigham Young instituting it (without God's direction). It's the same thing, so if it's wrong for one of them to do it, it isn't any better for the other, even if He's a deity.

As I've said before, I don't believe the priesthood ban came from God not because of any sense of fairness or racial equality, but because a ban based on supposed genealogy wouldn't work after more than a few generations (if it even worked that long). If President Monson stood in conference and said God had told him that people with red hair and freckles couldn't have the priesthood or get their Temple blessings, we would laugh at the absurdity of it all. But for some reason, we nodded our heads and had faith that somehow, God really didn't want people with dark skin and supposed African ancestry to have the priesthood, when it makes just as little sense.

Edited February 20, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

And here's a comment from Armand Mauss on his view of the "limits" alluded to by Zerinus:

In the absence of a formal and public announcement of a divine revelation, how are the devout supposed to know the difference between doctrines originating from heaven and those originating in folklore? There is no clear revelatory origin for either the policy or the associated "doctrines" on the denial of the Priesthood to people of black African origin. Yet some of the "doctrines" now repudiated were once promulgated not only in authoritative books and statements by apostles, but even in a 1949 letter signed by the entire First Presidency.

I suspect it's a more complicated problem than can be solved by simply knowing "The Church is true."

Edited February 20, 2012 by cinepro

[zerinus]

That's an interesting concept, and probably pretty important too. Do you have any references to Church publications that address it, so each Church member can know what the limits are?

Because my understanding has always been that even though the Church is true, mistaken policies can be implemented and maintained by fallible leaders and the Priesthood Ban falls within these limits.

D&C 107:

22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.

23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

25 The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

26 And they form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.

27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—

28 A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise—

29 Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men.

I also can't figure out why God instituting the ban would be any better than Brigham Young instituting it (without God's direction). It's the same thing, so if it's wrong for one of them to do it, it isn't any better for the other, even if He's a deity.

Sorry, that didn't make sense.

As I've said before, I don't believe the priesthood ban came from God not because of any sense of fairness or racial equality, but because a ban based on supposed genealogy wouldn't work after more than a few generations (if it even worked that long). If President Monson stood in conference and said God had told him that people with red hair and freckles couldn't have the priesthood or get their Temple blessings, we would laugh at the absurdity of it all. But for some reason, we nodded our heads and had faith that somehow, God really didn't want people with dark skin and supposed African ancestry to have the priesthood, when it makes just as little sense.

That is neither here nor there. Your personal opinions and preferences are of no consequence as far as God's choices and decisions are concerned.

[cinepro]

That is neither here nor there. Your personal opinions and preferences are of no consequence as far as God's choices and decisions are concerned.

Agreed. I guess I can only say that I agree with Armand Mauss's observation/conclusion and hope he isn't too far off base:

There is no clear revelatory origin for either the policy or the associated "doctrines" on the denial of the Priesthood to people of black African origin.

Edited February 21, 2012 by cinepro

[zerinus]

Agreed. I guess I can only say that I agree with Armand Mauss's observation/conclusion and hope he isn't too far off base:

There is no clear revelatory origin for either the policy or the associated "doctrines" on the denial of the Priesthood to people of black African origin.

Actually there is:

Abraham 1:

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

The Egyptians were actually fair skinned; so it has nothing to do with skin color. It has to do with lineage.

[Arkholt]

I have a question: If Spencer W. Kimball had, as he did, not understood the reasons for the priesthood ban, but even then simply said "I know not save the Lord commanded me," and not asked God about it, do you think it ever would have been lifted? We know it wasn't just an angel who came to him and said "Hey, time to lift the priesthood ban." He was troubled by it, and asked about it. What if he hadn't done that, as is being suggested that we not do?

[bluebell]

I have a question: If Spencer W. Kimball had, as he did, not understood the reasons for the priesthood ban, but even then simply said "I know not save the Lord commanded me," and not asked God about it, do you think it ever would have been lifted? We know it wasn't just an angel who came to him and said "Hey, time to lift the priesthood ban." He was troubled by it, and asked about it. What if he hadn't done that, as is being suggested that we not do?

Has someone seriously suggested not asking the Lord when we are given commandments we don't understand?

I haven't read the whole thread but the few i have read seemed to have said the opposite-that we should expect the answer to come eventually and that we should counsel with the Lord for that knowledge but that we shouldn't wait until we understand everything perfectly before we are obedient.

If someone thinks that not knowing the answer means not bothering to go to the Lord to try to learn it then they are missing out, in my opinion.

[zerinus]

I have a question: If Spencer W. Kimball had, as he did, not understood the reasons for the priesthood ban, but even then simply said "I know not save the Lord commanded me," and not asked God about it, do you think it ever would have been lifted? We know it wasn't just an angel who came to him and said "Hey, time to lift the priesthood ban." He was troubled by it, and asked about it. What if he hadn't done that, as is being suggested that we not do?

The "questioning" itself was a sign of a prompting of the spirit: "for it was given unto us of the Spirit" (D&C 76:18).

Edited February 21, 2012 by zerinus

[JDave]

The "questioning" itself was a sign of a prompting of the spirit: "for it was given unto us of the Spirit" (D&C 76:18).

So if I question some doctrinal point, that very questioning is a sign that I was prompted of the spirit? Or does that only count if I am a prophet, or if I receive a revelation that you agree with? I am pretty sure there is a lot of "questioning" that people, including apostles, do that you would disapprove of and say that such "questioning" was not prompted by the spirit.

Unless you think all sincere questioning is prompted by the Spirit, in which case I totally misread you and you can discount my concern about your statement.

[zerinus]

So if I question some doctrinal point, that very questioning is a sign that I was prompted of the spirit? Or does that only count if I am a prophet, or if I receive a revelation that you agree with? I am pretty sure there is a lot of "questioning" that people, including apostles, do that you would disapprove of and say that such "questioning" was not prompted by the spirit.

Unless you think all sincere questioning is prompted by the Spirit, in which case I totally misread you and you can discount my concern about your statement.

Did you look up the reference in the D&C?

[JDave]

Did you look up the reference in the D&C?

Yep. They read the scriptures, and then started pondering and questioning. You are stating that their questioning was indicative that they were prompted by the spirit. My question to you is whether all questioning is similarly indicative. If you want to preface it with reading the scriptures, that works for me. If there is something else you want to include in the equation then spell it out.

If someone questions a doctrine after reading the scriptures, is that questioning indicative that they were prompted by the spirit?

[zerinus]

Yep. They read the scriptures, and then started pondering and questioning.

It says more than that. It ways that the "questioning" itself was given to them by the Holy Ghost. In other words, they were prompted or inspired to "question," which questioning then led to the great revelation that they received.

You are stating that their questioning was indicative that they were prompted by the spirit.

No. By their own words, they were prompted by the Spirit to question, which questioning then led to the revelation.

My question to you is whether all questioning is similarly indicative.

Obviously not.

If you want to preface it with reading the scriptures, that works for me. If there is something else you want to include in the equation then spell it out.

You are very generous, thank you very much.

If someone questions a doctrine after reading the scriptures, is that questioning indicative that they were prompted by the spirit?

Not necessarily. The discussion arose when I was asked what would have happened if Spencer W. Kimball had not inquired at that time regarding the lifting of the priesthood ban? The implication of that question is that if he had not, then the ban would have continued longer, therefore the timing of the lifting of the ban was dependent on the time of his questioning, therefore if that questioning had been carried out sooner, or by an earlier prophet, the ban might have been lifted sooner. That was the implication of the question. The answer is that if it had been the will of the Lord to lift the ban sooner, the prophet would have been inspired to question sooner; or a commandment would have been given sooner without the need for such a questioning. God works in many different ways to reveal His will to His servants.

Edited February 21, 2012 by zerinus