Prophets Saw Our Day

[Calm]

The instruction to wear garments when it was reasonable to do so was again too ambiguous....

And yet with this and other commandments ambiguous exceptions are constantly made, such as for the gentleman whose doctors told him he couldn't quit smoking (he was using it as part of his pain management program) who was still given permission to be baptized and the medical and sports exceptions that are given out for garments....

[california boy]

You have still not demonstrated that he was eating with unrepentant sinners as opposed to those who were listening to him and trying to change.

There is a difference though some of the Pharisees of that time and now may not see one.

Where did this idea come that Christ first decided whether a "sinner" was worthy of His presence come from? There is no indication in the scriptures that Christ only ate with sinners that were "good sinners" There is no indication that the woman committing adultery was in the process or even willing to repent before Christ stood up for her. Did Christ indicate that He was only going to love her or talk to her, or associate with her only if she wanted to repent? Did Christ tell us to cross the street in order to avoid a sinner that might not be repenting? Should we shun sinners until they fit what we feel is their worthiness of our company? And just how is that idea different than what the Pharisees were practicing, a practice that Christ continually condemned. Maybe you could give some examples of the sinners in the New Testimate that Christ shunned.

Sometimes I am amazed at how some are willing to distort the teachings and actions of Christ and His clear message of unconditional love for everyone. Why would anyone choose to follow the example of the Pharisees shunning sinners over the example of Christ mingling with sinners His whole ministry, a practice that was one of the main criticisms of the Pharacies against Christ. Do you see no contrast between how Christ treated sinners and how the Pharacies treated sinners?

[Calm]

You are the one insisting that Christ was there for a certain reason and purpose and insisting he places no conditions on association with him. I am merely pointing out that we have no knowledge why Christ chose that particular group of people to eat with or perhaps it was more allowing them to eat with him.

Thus to use this example as a way to put pressure on QB that he should eat with his child with no conditions attached because that is what Christ did...when we have no idea whether or not there were conditions....is inappropriate.

Christ kind of shunned the Pharisees and condemned them for sinning...at least the unrepentant ones, did he not?

I've already cited where Christ refused to go out to his brethren and instead stayed with those he was teaching while saying that his father and mother, his brothers were those who did God's commandments.

There are a variety of experiences where Christ either rejects or accepts someone based on their state repentance or acknowledgement of their sinfulness and stated desire to change. I don't think we should assume that Christ would never refuse to eat or associate with someone who was secure in their sinfulness...nor should we assume that he would.

Best instead to seek God's input for how he wants us to act now in our situations.

[canard78]

And yet with this and other commandments ambiguous exceptions are constantly made, such as for the gentleman whose doctors told him he couldn't quit smoking (he was using it as part of his pain management program) who was still given permission to be baptized and the medical and sports exceptions that are given out for garments....

Interesting, I'd not heard of the smoking one.

"With permission" and "exceptions... given out" would be key here. It's still removing ambiguity for the individual.

I'm not saying the church removes choice. We always have a choice. But often life options are offered as choosing the Lord's way or the world's way.

[Calm]

Interesting, I'd not heard of the smoking one.

It happened in my Canadian ward. The man was in very bad health, trying to quit smoking probably would have killed him according to his doctors and definitely would have required heavier drugs that would have affected the quality of his life and in fact he died three months or so after baptism though that was unexpected sort of. It meant a great deal to him to be able to be baptized and I am glad my local leaders were open to the exception.

And I agree that for a member who doesn't want ambiguity in their life, they can probably dismiss any ambiguity they find pretty easily. But I would also say that a member who craves ambiguity can find it as well by looking into details.

Edited July 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[ERMD]

That's a great reference. I also see it fitting my perspective if what ordinances are 'for'

That's exactly why, as Mormons, we are given the gift of ordinances. The opportunity to make commitment that build character that leads to godliness. It's not simply a life for testing how compliant we are, it's a life for becoming more like God.

However, I consider the D&C to apply to me as a Mormon. It's not something that has global application. Many other religions and philosophies have practices or principles where the "power of godliness is manifest."

Mormonism is clearly a religion for people who need little to no ambiguity. The word of wisdom, for example, is designed for the weakest of the saints and has very little ambiguity. Where it exists it has either been further clarified ('hot drinks') or ignored ('meat sparingly'). The whole question of tithing as gross/net is too ambiguous for some people and they clamour for a clarifying announcement. The instruction to wear garments when it was reasonable to do so was again too ambiguous so 'yard work' was added in (in UK the only yards are 'builders yards' - so I guess we can continue going topless when weeding our garden grown for food-storage).

D&C 19:6-7 is a favourite scripture of mine where God briefly lets down his 'absolutist' guard around us Mormons. "Yes, I know I said endless torment... It was just more express that way. It had the desired effect and so it was fit for purpose."

So yes, the priesthood ordinances are very much in place to help us discover the power of godliness in us. But we do that because in the ordinance we are making and keeping covenants of sacrifice and service (to God and fellow-man). The ordinances are not some arbitrary card-carrying, tick-boxing exercise in obedience.

You're putting the cart before the horse and misunderstand the importance and power of the ordinances of the temple.

[ERMD]

And yet, if we recognised gay marriage, they wouldn't be outside of that covenant.

If is a big word in that sentence. The Proclamation removes that possibility.

[Stone holm]

Have never understood the milk before meat to refer to controversial historical issues or possible scandalous behaviour, but rather to deeper doctrine. In other words, I do not see it as pertaining to whether Joseph Smith was looking at the plates through the Urim and thumim or had his head in a hat, but rather as to whether we have a heavenly grandfather, and actually how the Atonement works, and how many Heavenly Mothers we have and what is their role in the eternal worlds, etc.

[california boy]

You are the one insisting that Christ was there for a certain reason and purpose and insisting he places no conditions on association with him. I am merely pointing out that we have no knowledge why Christ chose that particular group of people to eat with or perhaps it was more allowing them to eat with him.

Thus to use this example as a way to put pressure on QB that he should eat with his child with no conditions attached because that is what Christ did...when we have no idea whether or not there were conditions....is inappropriate.

Christ kind of shunned the Pharisees and condemned them for sinning...at least the unrepentant ones, did he not?

I've already cited where Christ refused to go out to his brethren and instead stayed with those he was teaching while saying that his father and mother, his brothers were those who did God's commandments.

There are a variety of experiences where Christ either rejects or accepts someone based on their state repentance or acknowledgement of their sinfulness and stated desire to change. I don't think we should assume that Christ would never refuse to eat or associate with someone who was secure in their sinfulness...nor should we assume that he would.

Best instead to seek God's input for how he wants us to act now in our situations.

You don't think it is a good idea to look towards Christ's example in helping Quest decide what is best for him and his family?

I never advised that he not seek God's imput. Where did you did that from?

I have never read an account where Christ refused to eat with a sinner. Maybe you could provide a scripture??

[canard78]

If is a big word in that sentence. The Proclamation removes that possibility.

So you believe that's the end of revelation? "all that he may yet reveal" can be removed from the article of faith?

Are we still keeping women silent in church? There's plenty of prophetic doctrine that applied to one era and not another. The Nephites made wine.

[canard78]

You're putting the cart before the horse and misunderstand the importance and power of the ordinances of the temple.

Why has God always taught in symbols and parables? It's because they are far easier to adapt to a personalised curriculum. Not personalised by me. By Him, for me.

[ERMD]

So you believe that's the end of revelation? "all that he may yet reveal" can be removed from the article of faith?

Are we still keeping women silent in church? There's plenty of prophetic doctrine that applied to one era and not another. The Nephites made wine.

I believe 100% of what has been revealed and put all my eggs in that basket. Until the Lord chooses to grant further light and knowledge, then that is how I will continue.

I won't hedge my bets or give part of my support or dedication. The Lord asks for my all, and that is what I give; not partial support or hesitating tolerance hoping that what I may want will eventually win out. I am to conform my will to His, not the other way around, and as far as the Church is concerned, His will is communicated through His designated representatives on the earth.

The concept of gay marriage is an abomination. The purpose of God's plan is eternal increase, and gay marriage frustrates that for those two individuals. Lucifer's purpose is to frustrate the plan as well. This concept is merely another arrow in his quiver that will serve only to make them miserable, like unto himself.

Edited July 31, 2013 by ERMD

[ERMD]

Why has God always taught in symbols and parables? It's because they are far easier to adapt to a personalised curriculum. Not personalised by me. By Him, for me.

That is correct; nonetheless, I think you misunderstand the importance and power of the ordinances of the temple.

[Stone holm]

It happened in my Canadian ward. The man was in very bad health, trying to quit smoking probably would have killed him according to his doctors and definitely would have required heavier drugs that would have affected the quality of his life and in fact he died three months or so after baptism though that was unexpected sort of. It meant a great deal to him to be able to be baptized and I am glad my local leaders were open to the exception.

And I agree that for a member who doesn't want ambiguity in their life, they can probably dismiss any ambiguity they find pretty easily. But I would also say that a member who craves ambiguity can find it as well by looking into details.

Not sure I understand the use of the word "ambiguity", are you using that to mean "not black and white?"

[Calm]

Not sure I understand the use of the word "ambiguity", are you using that to mean "not black and white?"

More in this context, acceptable variations.

[Stone holm]

More in this context, acceptable variations.

Shades of gray.

[sweetpotatoh]

In light of the recent discussions spurred by Hans Mattsson's "coming out" as a doubter, I decided to re-read some letters sent by LDS historians to Elder Boyd K. Packer in 1981 in response to his now-famous address, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect."

Reading these letters, it is difficult to escape the impression that some of these historians truly saw our day. One letter, by James L. Clayton, struck me as being especially prescient:

Another respondent to Elder Packer's talk wrote:

So here we are, 30 plus years later, with the Church now reaping the whirlwind from its policy of withholding uncomfortable truths and presenting a selective, sanitized history to its members (apparently not having anticipated the reach of Google and YouTube and the blogosphere).

The Church now appears to be in damage control mode (a belated but welcome development in my view), sending flying columns of historians and church functionaries out to stanch the bleeding. I think we can safely say that a major shift has taken place when we hear Elder Jensen telling the Swedish Saints that Elder Packer (!) has directed the Church History department to "put together a committee to create answers to difficult gospel questions."

Packer may have advocated for a sanitized version of our religion. But it was an institute class at Utah State that introduced me to Joseph Smith's treasure hunting. My Mother taught me about polygamy and the various estimates on how many wives JS had at an early age.

What responsibility do parents have in teaching about the churches history? Was there a shift in what was taught after the talk by BKP? I don't see the church scrambling to put out fires. I see them responding to a new need that the members have.

[canard78]

That is correct; nonetheless, I think you misunderstand the importance and power of the ordinances of the temple.

You think... You think wrong.

I love the ordinances of the temple. They are among the highlight of my LDS worship. During the most painful parts of my faith transition last year, the knowledge that leaving Mormonism for another approach to life would mean I'd lose the right to worship in the temple was among the top 2 or 3 reasons I held on to what testimony I had left.

I understand the importance and power of the ordinances of the temple very well. The fact that my understanding of it and your understanding of it seem different doesn't bother me. Personalised curriculum. God doesn't want me to see life and the world through your eyes. He wants me to see it through my eyes.

[canard78]

I believe 100% of what has been revealed and put all my eggs in that basket. Until the Lord chooses to grant further light and knowledge, then that is how I will continue.

Most revelation throughout history has come in response to a question. Not simply by sitting with mind closed and palms open waiting for the "light and knowledge" to be poured into it.

I won't hedge my bets or give part of my support or dedication. The Lord asks for my all, and that is what I give; not partial support or hesitating tolerance hoping that what I may want will eventually win out. I am to conform my will to His, not the other way around, and as far as the Church is concerned, His will is communicated through His designated representatives on the earth.

The concept of gay marriage is an abomination. The purpose of God's plan is eternal increase, and gay marriage frustrates that for those two individuals. Lucifer's purpose is to frustrate the plan as well. This concept is merely another arrow in his quiver that will serve only to make them miserable, like unto himself.

100 years ago a prophet was saying that inter-race relationships was an abomination. How did that turn out?

[ERMD]

You think... You think wrong.

I love the ordinances of the temple. They are among the highlight of my LDS worship. During the most painful parts of my faith transition last year, the knowledge that leaving Mormonism for another approach to life would mean I'd lose the right to worship in the temple was among the top 2 or 3 reasons I held on to what testimony I had left.

I understand the importance and power of the ordinances of the temple very well. The fact that my understanding of it and your understanding of it seem different doesn't bother me. Personalised curriculum. God doesn't want me to see life and the world through your eyes. He wants me to see it through my eyes.

Your summary of temple covenants--"Besides, the purpose of making and keeping covenants is to create commitments and principles for living. These create actions, leading to habits, building character," demonstrates otherwise. This relegates them to a superficial code of conduct.

[ERMD]

Most revelation throughout history has come in response to a question. Not simply by sitting with mind closed and palms open waiting for the "light and knowledge" to be poured into it.

100 years ago a prophet was saying that inter-race relationships was an abomination. How did that turn out?

Your brought up gay marriage. I illustrated why it cannot work as part of God's plan. You now jump to another subject.

Nice try.

Adam prayed to God for his needs and was instructed to wait to receive further light and knowledge. This is not a passive effort, hardly one that involves closed minds and expecting to be filled without any effort. When one prays through the influence of the Spirit, it is given to him what he should pray, to wit, the First Vision, and President Kimball's supplications regarding priesthood blessings. From thence come the questions. Setting one's own agenda and expecting God or His Church to comply with it is a different exercise altogether.

Edited August 2, 2013 by ERMD

[Calm]

Your summary of temple covenants--"Besides, the purpose of making and keeping covenants is to create commitments and principles for living. These create actions, leading to habits, building character," demonstrates otherwise. This relegates them to a superficial code of conduct.

Only if that is all he sees them as instead of seeing this as just one aspect of what they involve. From other things he has said elsewhere, I highly doubt that is the limit of his understanding of them. Edited August 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Adam prayed to God for his needs and was instructed to wait to receive further light and knowledge. This is not a passive effort, hardly one that involves closed minds and expecting to be filled without any effort. When one prays through the influence of the Spirit, it is given to him what he should pray, to wit, the First Vision, and President Kimball's supplications regarding priesthood blessings. From thence come the questions. Setting one's own agenda and expecting God or His Church to comply with it is a different exercise altogether.

Not seeing anything in what he says that would disagree with you...have I missed your point?

[canard78]

Your summary of temple covenants--"Besides, the purpose of making and keeping covenants is to create commitments and principles for living. These create actions, leading to habits, building character," demonstrates otherwise. This relegates them to a superficial code of conduct.

Then I could say that your misrepresentation of what I said suggests that you have missed the point of life itself.

But I won't suggest that because I accept that what God uses to get the best out of you and what he uses to get the best out of me are different. But apparently you don't. You seem to presume that the lens through which you see through darkly should be the one we all see through.

It's one of the most negative side effects of absolutist faith positions. The belief that just because you are unequivocally convinced that you are standing in the right place and that all other places would be wrong for you makes you assume that where I am standing is wrong.

I'm learning to shrug that off though. There are lots of absolutists in Mormonism and given I like Mormonism I accept absolutism as one of the warts on an otherwise beautiful face.

[canard78]

Your brought up gay marriage. I illustrated why it cannot work as part of God's plan. You now jump to another subject.

Nice try.

Adam prayed to God for his needs and was instructed to wait to receive further light and knowledge. This is not a passive effort, hardly one that involves closed minds and expecting to be filled without any effort. When one prays through the influence of the Spirit, it is given to him what he should pray, to wit, the First Vision, and President Kimball's supplications regarding priesthood blessings. From thence come the questions. Setting one's own agenda and expecting God or His Church to comply with it is a different exercise altogether.

I'm not trying to change the subject. Merely illustrating how times and attitudes and even application of doctrine changes.

You haven't demonstrated how gay marriage doesn't work as part of the plan. There is usually at least one or two gay marriage threads running in the forum and my perspectives are in them. I'm not sure this needs to turn into another one.