Episcopalians Flounder..Will Lds Follow?

[SamIam]

I think you need to look at this from the perspective of a new convert. I read the Book of Mormon, before I was baptized...that was it. Between that and the missionary lessons (which are pretty basic) that was all I knew about the church, before I joined. I have known converts who hadn't even read the Book of Mormon (let alone D & C, etc) before they joined. I didn't read Doctrine and Covenants all the way through, until I had been in the church for about four years (or more?). The point is, if you are a convert, unless you're very diligent about study, you probably only going to know what is being taught in Gospel Principles and later Gospel Doctrine. There is a lot to know and absorb, so it takes time...plus, many of these issues that cause members to stumble are not really talked about, much, or at all, in Sunday School. So, to simply say that the information is out there, is fine, but that doesn't mean your average member has actually been exposed to it. I really think it would be beneficial to talk about some of these more difficult issues (like polygamy) in church, where people (who are reasonably active) are going to definitely be exposed to the information.

I agree that looking at this from the perspective of a new convert helps us understand you. However, it is also incumbant upon the new convert to look at themselves from the perspective of being a new convert. The nature of the experience that gave you cause to believe in the first place, the Holy Ghost speaking to you, also knew you were a new convert and it also knew all of the history and doctrine of the church. Knowing what you would encounter, I am positive the Holy Ghost gave you just enough confirmation that if you commit to that spiritual event to trust its first inclinations that it brought to your heart and mind and follow its further inclinations you will weather these storms. The Holy Ghost did not lie to you in the first instance and if the future things you were to encounter were going to be unacceptable to Christ, who established this church, it could not have confirmed anything to you at all. It would have been a lie to do so and we both know that is not the case.

[Damien the Leper]

This is a tough thread to address.

I have heard posters assert the authority and position of the church 'because God says so'.

This phrase is difficult because it fails to act as evidence of anything.

Lets rephrase the statement 'because [insert prophet] says God says so'. It is illogical and presumptuous to claim that the statements are the same. We can merely try to trust that the messenger has the message correct.

[cwald]

I don't think that he said that. I know that many members were expecting the blacks to get the priesthood. It was just a matter of when. I think that this was the official position of the church. Also, Bruce R. was very much aware what the conversations were about when it came to the priesthood issue. It was openly discussed by the GAs for years.

Well. Maybe not. This is what he said.

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, "Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things." There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past...

All Are Alike Unto God

by Elder Bruce R. McConkie

But the point is...the church believes in modern revelation...and if god decides to allow females to exercise priesthood, the people should be prepared to follow...even if they view that change as a "liberalization" of the doctrine. Just as I don't think god cares much what the "liberals" want, I also doubt he cares much what the "conservatives" want either. We should be careful about putting our traditions and cultural norms in higher regard than God's commandments...which we get from the prophets.

Edited July 16, 2012 by cwald

[cwald]

CWALD, for you consideration...First this quote:

"The gospel's principles do require synchronization. When pulled apart from each other or isolated, men's interpretations of these doctrines may be wild." (Neal A Maxwell, Ensign, May 1993)

The issue with Blacks and the priesthood is not at all like women receiving the priesthood.

As Neal A. Maxwell is stating if you put the gospel message together as a whole then it becomes supportive of better understanding. As one half of a whole, Husband and Wife each has distinct abilities, talents , and duties that create a better whole. Overlaping in the areas of holding the priesthood is like begging that God give men a womb so that he can bear children when his wife gets tired of having children. We cannot afford to look at the marriage union as two seperate individuals. We have to understand that it is the process of becoming one and the state of being such that defines the conditions that are divided between two halves of a whole.

And? Why would that preclude women from exercising their priesthood? I'm just saying, I don't like getting in the habit of saying "God will never..." Members have made that mistake in the past ie polygamy would never be removed, blacks would never get the priesthood in this life....

[SamIam]

Thanks for both your replies. If this church is true, you both are to be rewarded in heaven for your patience in trying to get people like me to see the light.

I understand that position, I've been there. I had two of my 5 children go inactive. Now here I sit. Either deceived by Satan, or maybe just getting a fuller picture and the test is for me to see if I want to believe it or not. I've never received the burning in my bosom of the truthfulness of the BOM. So I guess that's how shallow my testimony started out.

I really appreciate the missionary efforts by both of you, but I have to say, that the church neglected in teaching me the meat earlier in my life unless I didn't listen somewhere along the line. I feel I had to find out through anti sites and get the wrong picture somewhat. Just like when we are told to teach our children the birds & the bees while young, however tough it might be, we are to do that so that they won't get taught it by their friends and get a distorted view of it. That's what I feel happened to me concerning learning about the way polygamy was taught etc. or other doctrines I was unaware of. And SamIam, I believe that the church shouldn't take the approach or stance to be careful as to not scare some new converts away or people that are starting out in the faith. What happens to them when they find out what they contracted themselves to do and they didn't have it first in writing? So to speak.

But thanks again, and really you guys don't bother with me. I'm learning lots on here. And am better for it.

Not to bother I hope...but I think you misread yourself. Consider this quote:

“In the economy of Heaven, God does not send thunder if a still, small voice is enough, or a prophet of a priest can do the job.”

― Neal A. Maxwell

Therefore in the economy of heaven the Lord has determined that a little nudge here and a little nudge there will be just enough to move you forward. Or it will be just enough for someone of your caliber if they do not choose to require the spirit to speak in a voice of thunder to get their attention. It is a testimony to who the Lord thinks you are. Any way if thunder is required by then it is too late as the thunder proceeds the destruction.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And the blood atonement one I think has been practiced several times in church history. Some men were castrated or put to death on different occasions. And the MMM is one where it was carried out.

http://www.truthandg...7castration.htm (Yes, I know it is probably an anti mormon site. But is all anti stuff false?)

Why do you constantly turn to that rot gut? Most of the Anti stuff is false or blown way out of proportion. USU has demonstrated such.

If I wanted to learn about the Baptist church would I ever go to a "free the baptists" web site or "whythebaptistarewrong.com"? If you want to learn about the LDS church I suggest a different website. I am just confused on why you keep turning to the spiritual pornography for help?

Edited July 16, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[SamIam]

And? Why would that preclude women from exercising their priesthood? I'm just saying, I don't like getting in the habit of saying "God will never..." Members have made that mistake in the past ie polygamy would never be removed, blacks would never get the priesthood in this life....

A am only saying that if you take the time to genuninely understand the doctrines and not pre-judge them, in time the things I would try to explain will eventually distill upon your own understanding. Then you will see there is a pattern to how things flow in the eternities and it is brilliantly consistent so that the doctrines meld into a very reasonable and comprehendable form. Which they are not to you at this time...

[why me]

Thanks for both your replies. If this church is true, you both are to be rewarded in heaven for your patience in trying to get people like me to see the light.

I understand that position, I've been there. I had two of my 5 children go inactive. Now here I sit. Either deceived by Satan, or maybe just getting a fuller picture and the test is for me to see if I want to believe it or not. I've never received the burning in my bosom of the truthfulness of the BOM. So I guess that's how shallow my testimony started out.

You haven't been deceived by satan. That is another antimormon site trick having people think that mormons will say such things to you. You are just questioning the faith which is normal. Unfortunately, you found information on anti sites with their particular spin to these issues. And if it helps some, I do agree with you about the lds church needs to be more upfront these days. It can be a problem that I have too. But I also see the big picture found in the 11 witnesses and the early foundation of the lds church. It is quite a story.

Many members have children go inactive. It is not easy to be a church member. And inactivity is not the worse thing to happen. It is normal. Heck, I am also inactive and look at me, defending the church for years now. You seem to be a good person and you will be fine.

Testimonies are different for many people. Mine was a strong confirmation that I cannot forget or deny. But for others it is something more quiet, something less emotional. One thing that I know is that the lds church has not been wrong in how people should live their lives. I have seen no mistakes in that. And if one was a member in the 1970's as I was and all the temptations that existed then when I was a young man in NYC, I can honestly say that keeping the law of chasity prevented me from catching HIV ( I am hetero but still...) or herpes, which was running rampant in NYC without anyone's knowledge of it. And yet, it was quite common to mess around at that time. For me that is the bigger picture.

[why me]

Well. Maybe not. This is what he said.

Notice he said 'interpreted'. Others have made different interpretations, that the blacks would get the priesthood eventually.

[cwald]

Notice he said 'interpreted'. Others have made different interpretations, that the blacks would get the priesthood eventually.

Fine. I'm not trying to argue...just making a point about "liberalizing the doctrine and continued revelation." Do you disagree with my statement...or just looking to mince words

Edited July 16, 2012 by cwald

[Tacenda]

Not to bother I hope...but I think you misread yourself. Consider this quote:

“In the economy of Heaven, God does not send thunder if a still, small voice is enough, or a prophet of a priest can do the job.”

― Neal A. Maxwell

Therefore in the economy of heaven the Lord has determined that a little nudge here and a little nudge there will be just enough to move you forward. Or it will be just enough for someone of your caliber if they do not choose to require the spirit to speak in a voice of thunder to get their attention. It is a testimony to who the Lord thinks you are. Any way if thunder is required by then it is too late as the thunder proceeds the destruction.

I said not to bother with me, not bother me!

What do you mean I "misread" myself? I guess my foggy brain can't comprehend.

[Tacenda]

You haven't been deceived by satan. That is another antimormon site trick having people think that mormons will say such things to you. You are just questioning the faith which is normal. Unfortunately, you found information on anti sites with their particular spin to these issues. And if it helps some, I do agree with you about the lds church needs to be more upfront these days. It can be a problem that I have too. But I also see the big picture found in the 11 witnesses and the early foundation of the lds church. It is quite a story.

Many members have children go inactive. It is not easy to be a church member. And inactivity is not the worse thing to happen. It is normal. Heck, I am also inactive and look at me, defending the church for years now. You seem to be a good person and you will be fine.

Testimonies are different for many people. Mine was a strong confirmation that I cannot forget or deny. But for others it is something more quiet, something less emotional. One thing that I know is that the lds church has not been wrong in how people should live their lives. I have seen no mistakes in that. And if one was a member in the 1970's as I was and all the temptations that existed then when I was a young man in NYC, I can honestly say that keeping the law of chasity prevented me from catching HIV ( I am hetero but still...) or herpes, which was running rampant in NYC without anyone's knowledge of it. And yet, it was quite common to mess around at that time. For me that is the bigger picture.

I so agree with you here, why me!

Edited July 16, 2012 by Tacenda

[cwald]

A am only saying that if you take the time to genuninely understand the doctrines and not pre-judge them, in time the things I would try to explain will eventually distill upon your own understanding. Then you will see there is a pattern to how things flow in the eternities and it is brilliantly consistent so that the doctrines meld into a very reasonable and comprehendable form. Which they are not to you at this time...

Fine. If god decides to "liberalize" the doctrine, and say, allow women to exercise their priesthood....I will follow them. Will you?

[why me]

There are some who believe in each of those cases, the LDS Church went astray. I disagree with them though.

Yes, that is right. And some of the witnesses believed that Joseph went astray with polygamy. Now that must have been something to have the witness fall away because of polygamy or because of disagreements with joseph. Being an early member then must have been a trying experience. And yet, I am sure that some members must have had their testimonies strengthened when a witness would fall away and yet, not deny what they saw or saw and felt with the plates.

[why me]

Fine. If god decides to "liberalize" the doctrine, and say, allow women to exercise their priesthood....I will follow them. Will you?

You are right. We should never say never. Life is much more interesting with a blank blackboard, waiting for new ideas or information that may come our way.

[SamIam]

I said not to bother with me, not bother me!

What do you mean I "misread" myself? I guess my foggy brain can't comprehend.

I think you are a better person and a more capable person than you give yourself credit for is what I am trying to say.

[SamIam]

Fine. If god decides to "liberalize" the doctrine, and say, allow women to exercise their priesthood....I will follow them. Will you?

I guess we have talked ourselves into a circle. What you posit as required for your allegiance to Christ cannot happen...so a yes or no answer is a moot point.

Edited July 16, 2012 by SamIam

[Tacenda]

I think you are a better person and a more capable person than you give yourself credit for is what I am trying to say.

Thanks for saying that, I needed it . I do feel guilty that I keep bringing the bad stuff up from those anti sites, and people here might think I have alterior motives. Maybe I do and shouldn't be trusted, that's the bummer of becoming a middle wayer. It's a tricky situation that I hope no-one has to go through. I think for some there is a need to feel vindicated for having these feelings, if that makes any sense.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Tacenda

[why me]

I so agree with you here, why me!

This is something that we need to stress more. That the church has not led anyone away from how life should be lived. My advice to any parent who has inactive children is: remind the child that the church has not been wrong in how to do life and try to attempt to follow as many of the serious commandments as possible.

[cwald]

I guess we have talked ourselves into a circle. What you posit as required for your allegiance to Christ cannot happen...

Okay. Personally, I don't like to put my own restrictions on God, or the prophets. But whatever. You've made your point, and I hope for your sake that god never decides to allow women to exercise their priesthood, or command the people to do something you consider "liberalizing of the doctrine" again, so you don't have a personal crisis of faith.

Knock it off.

[cwald]

...We should never say never. Life is much more interesting with a blank blackboard, waiting for new ideas or information that may come our way.

Fair enough.

[SamIam]

Thanks for saying that, I needed it . I do feel guilty that I keep bringing the bad stuff up from those anti sites, and people here might think I have alterior motives. Maybe I do and shouldn't be trusted, that's the bummer of becoming a middle wayer. It's a tricky situation that I hope no-one has to go through. I think for some there is a need to feel vindicated for having these feelings, if that makes any sense.

It is amazing the small things that we do that can serve as subtler reinforcements that keep us from advancing as we would like. For me, were I in your shoes, I would remove the term middle wayer from my vocabulary, which reinforces a state that you believe you have fallen to and find some other thought that reinforces moving upward to a state in which you would like to be; A goal of where you would like to be and not a declaration of where you are at.

[mrmandias]

There was a branch in our mission that got exed--but what actually happened was the branch leadership got in a high profile fight with the mission leadership about tithing funds (the branch wanted to keep them to use at the branch level), got exed, and the branch members followed them out either formally or informally, and the branch got dissolved.

[Zakuska]

And the blood atonement one I think has been practiced several times in church history. Some men were castrated or put to death on different occasions. And the MMM is one where it was carried out.

http://www.truthandg...7castration.htm (Yes, I know it is probably an anti mormon site. But is all anti stuff false?)

You ask, "But is all anti stuff false? The answer would be a resounding Yes.

I would dare guess that 99.9% of the time I have investigated Anti-Mormon tripe that is has been false. Anti-Mormons are notorius with being as subtle as serpents, mixing just enough truth with their venom to ensnare even the very ellect.

Take the MMM in your example... since none of the travelers were LDS how could "blood Atonement" be carried out against them since the so-called Blood Atonement "doctrine", even in the documents the Anti's cherry-pick was for Apostatizing Mormons, who were breaking their covenants.

Critics try and have this one both ways, which makes absolutley no sense what so ever. But who ever accusated Anti-Mormons of making sense?

Edited July 16, 2012 by Zakuska

[cwald]

... But who ever accusated Anti-Mormons of making sense?

Is it possible they same the same thing, and believe the same thing, in regards to apologists?