Mormons "getting Their Own Planet" (Merged)

[VideoGameJunkie]

Why don't the modern prophets see that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and reintroduce polygamy? If it was of God it never would have been taken away from practice. I mean Joseph Smith pretty much died for this commandment and now we excommunicate those who practice what he died for. That doesn't seem like understanding that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. The saints went through a lot to endure what Joseph taught even moving out west, only to give it up with the manifesto. That's like a slap in the face to Joseph's martyrdom.

[Bobbieaware]

Why don't the modern prophets see that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and reintroduce polygamy? If it was of God it never would have been taken away from practice. I mean Joseph Smith pretty much died for this commandment and now we excommunicate those who practice what he died for. That doesn't seem like understanding that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. The saints went through a lot to endure what Joseph taught even moving out west, only to give it up with the manifesto. That's like a slap in the face to Joseph's martyrdom.

If you were more familiar with the scriptures, you could satisfactorily answer your own question. But since you'd rather paint the Church and its leaders in a negative light on a discussion board, rather than actually study the Gospel, I'll allow you to reap what you've sown.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm never good with understanding scriptures so feel free to explain it. And saying I reap what I've sown sounds like an eternal threat to me.

Edited November 26, 2015 by VideoGameJunkie

[Teancum]

The historical record may or may not be accurate, but either way, it is not relevant to my salvation. It is not relevant to anyone's salvation. Jesus Christ restored His gospel through the prophet Joseph Smith, and Jesus Christ has always led His only true and living Church through His chosen prophet. People need to focus on their own salvation, living temple worthy, and being valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ.

FYI, Moses once killed a guy, but obsessing about that would be a mistake, just like obsessing about Joseph Smith's wives is a mistake.

Well at least for me the history reflects on the charecter of the person making the supernatural truth claim. Since the one claiming to be a prophets, have visions, Etc. is typically alone (or in a few cases for Joseph one or a few others) in their claimed experience we have to first trust them before we can be convinced about the truth of their message.

The LDS church uses its historical narrative to solidify its claims as the only true church and that it holds restored priesthood. Thus historical facts are critical to its truth claims.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

I'm never good with understanding scriptures so feel free to explain it. And saying I reap what I've sown sounds like an eternal threat to me.

VGJ

Have you ever listened to a street preacher? They stand on a corner loudly proclaiming their message to those passing by. If you try to talk to them or reason with them they ignore you and even can be condescending. They are right....everyone else is bound for hell. Bobbieaware is like that. Her comment to you was extremely rude. I would simply ignore it if I were you. You cannot have a reasonable interchange with such mind sets.

[Ahab]

Well at last for me the history reflects on the charecter of the person making the supernatural truth claim. Since the one claiming to be a prophets, have visions, Etc. is typically alone (or in a few cases for Joseph one or a few others) in their claimed experience we have to first trust them before we can be convinced about the truth of their message.

The LDS church uses its historical narrative to solidify its claims as the only true church and that it holds restored priesthood. Thus historical facts are critical to its truth claims.

The beauty in the gospel as proclaimed by the Church is in how any person can become a witness of any truth claim whether or not present on a specific occasion. Faith is the first principle of the gospel and the faith that we speak of is a faith that is given to us from God when God gives us faith to assure us of some specific truth. So it is by faith that we become a witness of something that happened in history, or what will happen in the future. So rather than rely on what some Church says is true, or some specific member of a Church, God is the one we should rely on to help us know what the truth is.

[Teancum]

The beauty in the gospel as proclaimed by the Church is in how any person can become a witness of any truth claim whether or not present on a specific occasion. Faith is the first principle of the gospel and the faith that we speak of is a faith that is given to us from God when God gives us faith to assure us of some specific truth. So it is by faith that we become a witness of something that happened in history, or what will happen in the future. So rather than rely on what some Church says is true, or some specific member of a Church, God is the one we should rely on to help us know what the truth is.

I understand this quite well but again, at least for me, evidence is critical before I can make a leap of faith. For years as a child I believed in Santa Clause. But there came a point where based on th evidence I could no longer have faith that Santa was real nor would any prayers give me an answer that he was real.

While this may be a simplistic comparison to a more complex question the same is true for supernatural truth claims. If th evidence is such that it starts to weigh strongly that so and so's claims are suspect then faith and prayer are not effective.

Mormons don't pray to know if Muhammed was a prophet. Why?

[Randall57]

The beauty in the gospel as proclaimed by the Church is in how any person can become a witness of any truth claim whether or not present on a specific occasion. Faith is the first principle of the gospel and the faith that we speak of is a faith that is given to us from God when God gives us faith to assure us of some specific truth. So it is by faith that we become a witness of something that happened in history, or what will happen in the future. So rather than rely on what some Church says is true, or some specific member of a Church, God is the one we should rely on to help us know what the truth is.

Faith is the first principle, but based on obedience to eternal laws and ordinances. The laws of the gospel are absolute. Faith is not a force that can alter these laws. Your opinion is a prescription to confusion and self grander that you are gnostic and have a special power or understanding that contradicts the prophets and laws and ordinances of the gospel.

 

You are not a God yet, and should wait until you are one to make such claims against our leaders.

[ERayR]

If it's the rule it wouldn't have been abandoned in 1890 and cause of excommunication in the church today.

 

Perhaps it is as President Woodruff said the work of spreading the gospel and temple work would have been stopped and the purpose of the restoration would have been thwarted.  Satan would have won.  Instead once it had been restored polygamy was not as important, at this time, was the preaching of the gospel to all the world and the saving ordinances administered in the temples.

[Robert F. Smith]

I understand this quite well but again, at least for me, evidence is critical before I can make a leap of faith. For years as a child I believed in Santa Clause. But there came a point where based on th evidence I could no longer have faith that Santa was real nor would any prayers give me an answer that he was real.

While this may be a simplistic comparison to a more complex question the same is true for supernatural truth claims. If th evidence is such that it starts to weigh strongly that so and so's claims are suspect then faith and prayer are not effective.

Mormons don't pray to know if Muhammed was a prophet. Why?

You don't understand the fundamentals of Mormon theology:  The LDS faith eschews "supernaturalism."  It makes only naturalistic claims about the nature of reality, and asserts that God is part of that natural reality.  Normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith is basically supernatural, and puts God outside of time and space.  For them, all of creation and the universe is contingent on God.  For the LDS faith, all of creation and humans are coeternal with God.

 

How can one know this? -- by both reason and faith-belief, but also by either reason or faith-belief.  What is a primary way of knowing? -- the experimental method in Alma 32 is a good place to start.  Test the claims.  That is the acid test, and it applies as much to one's personal perceptions, as to objective, scientific tests, which include reason and math.  There is no one path to the truth, which is what physicist Fritjof Capra told us explicitly decades ago in his Tao of Physics.

 

One is certainly free to pray about the truth claims of Mohammed and the Quran, of Siddhartha (the Buddha), of Vedanta, of  Guru Nanak (Sikhism), etc., but one is also free to apply reason to such claims -- or not to consider such claims at all.  It is finally a matter of free personal preference.  One is not obligated to take any claims of any kind seriously.  Free choice and free will obtain herewith.

[ERayR]

I understand this quite well but again, at least for me, evidence is critical before I can make a leap of faith. For years as a child I believed in Santa Clause. But there came a point where based on th evidence I could no longer have faith that Santa was real nor would any prayers give me an answer that he was real.

While this may be a simplistic comparison to a more complex question the same is true for supernatural truth claims. If th evidence is such that it starts to weigh strongly that so and so's claims are suspect then faith and prayer are not effective.

Mormons don't pray to know if Muhammed was a prophet. Why?

 

If you have the evidence it is not a leap of faith. 

 

Some may but Muhammed was/is not s prophet to the Mormon people so it is really not needed.  An interesting exercise for those who really want to know.

[ERayR]

Faith is the first principle, but based on obedience to eternal laws and ordinances. The laws of the gospel are absolute. Faith is not a force that can alter these laws. Your opinion is a prescription to confusion and self grander that you are gnostic and have a special power or understanding that contradicts the prophets and laws and ordinances of the gospel.

 

You are not a God yet, and should wait until you are one to make such claims against our leaders.

 

My such harsh judgement.  To judge is good but be careful it is a two edged sword.  . . . by what judgement ye judge (criteria) so shall ye be judged. 

[Randall57]

My such harsh judgement.  To judge is good but be careful it is a two edged sword.  . . . by what judgement ye judge (criteria) so shall ye be judged. 

personal revelation.

[Teancum]

You don't understand the fundamentals of Mormon theology: The LDS faith eschews "supernaturalism." It makes only naturalistic claims about the nature of reality, and asserts that God is part of that natural reality. Normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith is basically supernatural, and puts God outside of time and space. For them, all of creation and the universe is contingent on God. For the LDS faith, all of creation and humans are coeternal with God.

How can one know this? -- by both reason and faith-belief, but also by either reason or faith-belief. What is a primary way of knowing? -- the experimental method in Alma 32 is a good place to start. Test the claims. That is the acid test, and it applies as much to one's personal perceptions, as to objective, scientific tests, which include reason and math. There is no one path to the truth, which is what physicist Fritjof Capra told us explicitly decades ago in his Tao of Physics.

One is certainly free to pray about the truth claims of Mohammed and the Quran, of Siddhartha (the Buddha), of Vedanta, of Guru Nanak (Sikhism), etc., but one is also free to apply reason to such claims -- or not to consider such claims at all. It is finally a matter of free personal preference. One is not obligated to take any claims of any kind seriously. Free choice and free will obtain herewith.

Yes Robert I do understand the fundamentals of Mormon theology. But if it helps your argument to say that more power to you .

Joseph Smith's FV, the coming forth of the BoM, th BOA, the priesthood restoration all involved visions and revelations that were outside the norm and thus superntural claims.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Teancum

[Bobbieaware]

Perhaps it is as President Woodruff said the work of spreading the gospel and temple work would have been stopped and the purpose of the restoration would have been thwarted.  Satan would have won.  Instead once it had been restored polygamy was not as important, at this time, was the preaching of the gospel to all the world and the saving ordinances administered in the temples.

Bullseye!

[VideoGameJunkie]

So if polygamy is made legal in the United States will the church reintroduce it again? It seems the law is the only thing stopping it. But with gay marriage being made legal nationwide anything is possible and D&C 132 is still canonized and Brigham Young claimed it is necessary for exaltation.

[Randall57]

So if polygamy is made legal in the United States will the church reintroduce it again? It seems the law is the only thing stopping it. But with gay marriage being made legal nationwide anything is possible and D&C 132 is still canonized and Brigham Young claimed it is necessary for exaltation.

I think it would really be a mess, the church is not strong enough to survive it.

[Ahab]

I understand this quite well but again, at least for me, evidence is critical before I can make a leap of faith. For years as a child I believed in Santa Clause. But there came a point where based on th evidence I could no longer have faith that Santa was real nor would any prayers give me an answer that he was real.

While this may be a simplistic comparison to a more complex question the same is true for supernatural truth claims. If th evidence is such that it starts to weigh strongly that so and so's claims are suspect then faith and prayer are not effective.

Prayer for me consists of me talking with my/our Father in heaven to find out what he thinks/knows about something and how he feels about it, with him telling me what he thinks/knows and feels. I can still think/know my own thoughts and feel however I want to feel about whatever he tells me but it usually still helps me to know what he thinks and knows and feels. The faith he gives me is mainly just to help me to feel sure about what he tells me by experiencing his own thoughts and feelings.

Mormons don't pray to know if Muhammed was a prophet. Why?

Some do. I talk with our Father pretty much about everything and he has told me that even Muhammad learned some things from him/God. Pretty much everyone does at some level or another. All good thoughts we get are God's thoughts and come to us as he helps us to learn what is good and evil.

[ERayR]

personal revelation.

Your personal revelation is for you and not for others.  Your snideness is unnecessary.

[ERayR]

So if polygamy is made legal in the United States will the church reintroduce it again? It seems the law is the only thing stopping it. But with gay marriage being made legal nationwide anything is possible and D&C 132 is still canonized and Brigham Young claimed it is necessary for exaltation.

 

I think it would really be a mess, the church is not strong enough to survive it.

 

It was first instituted by revelation, it was suspended by revelation, if it is resumed it will be by revelation and I do not know the mind of God. 

 

Someone has clearly spiked your punch if you think the Church would not survive the reinstatement of polygamous marriage.

 

However, there would be some problems that would detract from the central purpose of preaching the gospel, administering the saving ordinance and preparing for the glorious coming of Jesus Christ so I doubt it.  Not because of a position of weakness but because of priorities.

[VideoGameJunkie]

It wasn't so much stopped from revelation as it was stopped for legal reasons so Utah could achieve statehood. If it wasn't for legal troubles Woodruff wouldn't have gotten that revelation.

[ERayR]

It wasn't so much stopped from revelation as it was stopped for legal reasons so Utah could achieve statehood. If it wasn't for legal troubles Woodruff wouldn't have gotten that revelation.

 

If it were not for opposition revelation would not be needed but is it the opposition that causes the revelation?

 

President Woodruff received a revelation about what would happen if polygamy was continued.

 

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. …

 I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. …

 The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

 The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

 The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

 … I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

 I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

 Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. … All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

Edited November 26, 2015 by ERayR

[VideoGameJunkie]

That's all nice and good but Brigham Young said plural marriage is necessary to our exaltation. Either the church is preventing modern members from their exaltation or Brigham Young was a liar or we will all practice polygamy at a later date such as the Millennium. Which is it?

[ERayR]

That's all nice and good but Brigham Young said plural marriage is necessary to our exaltation. Either the church is preventing modern members from their exaltation or Brigham Young was a liar or we will all practice polygamy at a later date such as the Millennium. Which is it?

 

Well first I reject your characterization of Brigham Young as a liar.  Second, you took that quote out of context but I am not going to look it up today.   Third, the modern members are not being deprived of anything essential.  Fourth, nobody will be forced to practice polygamy so there must be other alternatives you have not considered.

Edited November 26, 2015 by ERayR

[VideoGameJunkie]

It's hard to take the quote out of context when Brigham said the only people who will become gods are those who enter into polygamy. How is it even possible to take that out of context?