Mormons "getting Their Own Planet" (Merged)

[ERayR]

Perhaps our modern idea that prophets can't be guilty of major sins and still be prophets is misguided. 

 

Finally one thing we can agree on.

[Gray]

Sounds like a perfect dish for cafeteria Mormonism. 

 

There is no Mormonism other than cafeteria Mormonism. 

[JLHPROF]

The same way it did when Moses and David murdered, when Noah did what he did, and the other OT prophets that sinned deeply and held the priesthood. The priesthood is a eternal law, and in itself is eternal it is impossible for it not to exist.

 

JFS, and other modern prophets claim that BY and other were wrong on many issues, including on the nature of God? Did the PH in your opinion leave them when they taught that?

 

Do you understand that the priesthood is eternal?

 

Why is it we accept and learn from the sins of Biblical prophets and apostles, and we chastise ourselves, and others if we/they dare admit Joseph and Brigham sinned.

 

We can teach and learn from David's sin of murder and adultery, yet more or less hold up as a model of perfection.

 

Wow.  I think I'd rather bow out of this "discussion" than bang my head against this particular wall.

There is clearly a lack of understanding of both priesthood and polygamy on your part that I don't seem to be able to get across to you.

 

Priesthood being eternal is not the issue.  The blessings of the priesthood are predicated upon the laws attached.  If the first 7 prophets of the Church violated the law of chastity they would not have been allowed by God to exercise any priesthood keys.

 

Anyway, I've posted this point 3+ times now, and you have failed to/refused to address it in your responses.  I see little point in continuing.

 

Polygamy was from God.  That is my testimony.  Joseph committed absolutely no sin in his practice of polygamy.  That is also my testimony.  God revoked polygamy for various reasons and the blessings of that ordinance went with it.  But it is an eternal law and anyone that thinks it's gone for good is deluding themselves.

[Zakuska]

Something doesn't make sense here:

 

Leviticus 18:22 - SSM Abomination

Jacob 2:24 - Polygamy Abomination

 

Polygamy = "revealed from heaven"?

[KevinG]

But you repeat yourself...  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66517-handbook-update-gay-marriage-apostasy-resignations-merged-thread/?p=1209565982 responseto the other post identical to this one.

Edited November 30, 2015 by KevinG

[Randall57]

Wow.  I think I'd rather bow out of this "discussion" than bang my head against this particular wall.

There is clearly a lack of understanding of both priesthood and polygamy on your part that I don't seem to be able to get across to you.

 

Priesthood being eternal is not the issue.  The blessings of the priesthood are predicated upon the laws attached.  If the first 7 prophets of the Church violated the law of chastity they would not have been allowed by God to exercise any priesthood keys.

 

Anyway, I've posted this point 3+ times now, and you have failed to/refused to address it in your responses.  I see little point in continuing.

 

Polygamy was from God.  That is my testimony.  Joseph committed absolutely no sin in his practice of polygamy.  That is also my testimony.  God revoked polygamy for various reasons and the blessings of that ordinance went with it.  But it is an eternal law and anyone that thinks it's gone for good is deluding themselves.

I answered your your question, and I would hope you would be answering mine.

 

I understand your point, I just believe it is not a valid point. If the OT prophets sinned, and we teach they did, why wasn't the PH removed from them as it was after the original 12 died?

 

Joseph is my prophet as much as he is yours, we differ in that I believe he sinned as David did, and he did not repent and God dealt with that. State law in hi time was clear that he was guilty of bigamy, yet we put that in a closet and ignore it instead of teaching on what mistakes he made and how we can improve ourselves by learning from his mistakes.

 

BY also made mistakes, yet we ignore those also. I don't understand why we cannot accept these wrongs, and learn from them, hiding them only creates confusion and confusion leads to apostasy.

[JLHPROF]

I answered your your question, and I would hope you would be answering mine.

 

I understand your point, I just believe it is not a valid point. If the OT prophets sinned, and we teach they did, why wasn't the PH removed from them as it was after the original 12 died?

 

Joseph is my prophet as much as he is yours, we differ in that I believe he sinned as David did, and he did not repent and God dealt with that. State law in hi time was clear that he was guilty of bigamy, yet we put that in a closet and ignore it instead of teaching on what mistakes he made and how we can improve ourselves by learning from his mistakes.

 

BY also made mistakes, yet we ignore those also. I don't understand why we cannot accept these wrongs, and learn from them, hiding them only creates confusion and confusion leads to apostasy.

 

Because D&C 121 says you are wrong.

 

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

 

Let me make this as simple as I can. 

 

If Joseph, Brigham, and the other prophets etc did the RED by living polygamy continually and repeatedly against God's will, then the BLUE applies and the Church today has no priesthood because they wouldn't have had it to pass it down to our day.

 

Or maybe, just maybe, you are wrong about polygamy being sinful given all of Gods servants that practiced it.

Edited November 30, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Randall57]

On 11/30/2015, 2:35:51, JLHPROF said:

I answered your your question, and I would hope you would be answering mine.

 

I understand your point, I just believe it is not a valid point. If the OT prophets sinned, and we teach they did, why wasn't the PH removed from them as it was after the original 12 died?

 

Joseph is my prophet as much as he is yours, we differ in that I believe he sinned as David did, and he did not repent and God dealt with that. State law in hi time was clear that he was guilty of bigamy, yet we put that in a closet and ignore it instead of teaching on what mistakes he made and how we can improve ourselves by learning from his mistakes.

 

BY also made mistakes, yet we ignore those also. I don't understand why we cannot accept these wrongs, and learn from them, hiding them only creates confusion and confusion leads to apostasy.

 

Because D&C 121 says you are wrong.

 

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

 

Let me make this as simple as I can. 

 

If Joseph, Brigham, and the other prophets etc did the RED by living polygamy continually and repeatedly against God's will, then the BLUE applies and the Church today has no priesthood because they wouldn't have had it to pass it down to our day.

 

Or maybe, just maybe, you are wrong about polygamy being sinful given all of Gods servants that practiced it.

And if JFS and others did red, does that mean there was no PH? When BY was distilling and selling alcohol was there PH? By your logic we are left to pick and choose between our leaders as to which ones had the PH.

We always want the liberty to say our leaders are just me and when they sin it is as a man and their words are opinion only, we seem to be a bit hypocritical on this.

 

[Randall57]

On 11/30/2015, 2:35:51, JLHPROF said:

I answered your your question, and I would hope you would be answering mine.

 

I understand your point, I just believe it is not a valid point. If the OT prophets sinned, and we teach they did, why wasn't the PH removed from them as it was after the original 12 died?

 

Joseph is my prophet as much as he is yours, we differ in that I believe he sinned as David did, and he did not repent and God dealt with that. State law in hi time was clear that he was guilty of bigamy, yet we put that in a closet and ignore it instead of teaching on what mistakes he made and how we can improve ourselves by learning from his mistakes.

 

BY also made mistakes, yet we ignore those also. I don't understand why we cannot accept these wrongs, and learn from them, hiding them only creates confusion and confusion leads to apostasy.

 

Because D&C 121 says you are wrong.

 

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

 

Let me make this as simple as I can. 

 

If Joseph, Brigham, and the other prophets etc did the RED by living polygamy continually and repeatedly against God's will, then the BLUE applies and the Church today has no priesthood because they wouldn't have had it to pass it down to our day.

 

Or maybe, just maybe, you are wrong about polygamy being sinful given all of Gods servants that practiced it.

And if JFS and others did red, does that mean there was no PH? When BY was distilling and selling alcohol was there PH? By your logic we are left to pick and choose between our leaders as to which ones had the PH.

We always want the liberty to say our leaders are just me and when they sin it is as a man and their words are opinion only, we seem to be a bit hypocritical on this.

 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Randall57 said:

And if JFS and others did red, does that mean there was no PH? When BY was distilling and selling alcohol was there PH? By your logic we are left to pick and choose between our leaders as to which ones had the PH.

We always want the liberty to say our leaders are just me and when they sin it is as a man and their words are opinion only, we seem to be a bit hypocritical on this.

D&C 121 establishes the rule, not I.  It is very clear.

And I hardly think distilling and selling alcohol involves handling the priesthood under unrighteous principles (unless he was commanding people to drink it based on his priesthood office), which is what you would claim performing plural marriage ordinances did.

You are the one stating Joseph, Brigham, and the other prophets and apostles violated the rule by living polygamy against God's will and convincing others to do so (thereby exercising unrighteous compulsion).  If so the priesthood would have been taken.  Personally, I don't believe any sin or error was involved in the practice of polygamy.

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Randall57]

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 121 establishes the rule, not I.  It is very clear.

And I hardly think distilling and selling alcohol involves handling the priesthood under unrighteous principles (unless he was commanding people to drink it based on his priesthood office), which is what you would claim performing plural marriage ordinances did.

You are the one stating Joseph, Brigham, and the other prophets and apostles violated the rule by living polygamy against God's will and convincing others to do so (thereby exercising unrighteous compulsion).  If so the priesthood would have been taken.  Personally, I don't believe any sin or error was involved in the practice of polygamy.

 

And what of JFS saying and teaching BY taught falsely on the nature of HF? How can a prophet hold the PH and teach falsely on the nature of God, according to your theory and interpretations. You can't have it both ways.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Randall57 said:

And what of JFS saying and teaching BY taught falsely on the nature of HF? How can a prophet hold the PH and teach falsely on the nature of God, according to your theory and interpretations. You can't have it both ways.

 

 

There is no "sin" in having different doctrinal views.

Joseph Smith said "It don't prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine."
You cannot equate BY and JFS disagreeing on doctrine with your claims that the first 7 prophets of the Church sinned by living polygamy.  According to your claims the "sin" of living polygamy against God's will and teaching others to do so would cost a man his priesthood. 

Find another example where you think a prophet commanded/engaged in major sinful practices that violated the law of Chastity or similar etc. AND kept his priesthood and you may have an argument. (And consider that a CFR under board rules).

Until then, you have no right to claim the Church still has the priesthood AND Joseph and Brigham et al sinned seriously by living polygamy.  If they sinned in that act then the priesthood was taken and was not passed down.

Fortunately, polygamy was no sin since God commanded it, not the prophet.  And the priesthood remains.

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There is no "sin" in having different doctrinal views.

Joseph Smith said "It don't prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine."
You cannot equate BY and JFS disagreeing on doctrine with your claims that the first 7 prophets of the Church sinned by living polygamy.  According to your claims the "sin" of living polygamy against God's will and teaching others to do so would cost a man his priesthood. 

Find another example where you think a prophet commanded/engaged in major sinful practices that violated the law of Chastity or similar etc. AND kept his priesthood and you may have an argument. (And consider that a CFR under board rules).

Until then, you have no right to claim the Church still has the priesthood AND Joseph and Brigham et al sinned seriously by living polygamy.  If they sinned in that act then the priesthood was taken and was not passed down.

Fortunately, polygamy was no sin since God commanded it, not the prophet.  And the priesthood remains.

 

Joseph Smith also taught that we can't be saved in ignorance, yes? That we have to understand the nature of God in order to be saved? I'm going off of memory, tell me if I'm wrong. 

[JLHPROF]

42 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

Joseph Smith also taught that we can't be saved in ignorance, yes? That we have to understand the nature of God in order to be saved? I'm going off of memory, tell me if I'm wrong.

Yes, but we aren't talking about salvation here.  We are talking about worthiness to hold the priesthood vs "Amen to the priesthood of that man".

But yes, Joseph definitely taught that there was a direct connection between our salvation and our knowledge and understanding, especially about the nature of God.  But erring in our understanding is still no sin.  We will never stop learning and our errors can be corrected with more light and knowledge.

My friend Randall57 is under the impression that the prophets who lived polygamy did so as men, not from God.  The problem there is that makes them adulterers and incapable of keeping their priesthood callings, which has direct repercussion on our day.

 

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, but we aren't talking about salvation here.  We are talking about worthiness to hold the priesthood vs "Amen to the priesthood of that man".

But yes, Joseph definitely taught that there was a direct connection between our salvation and our knowledge and understanding, especially about the nature of God.  But erring in our understanding is still no sin.  We will never stop learning and our errors can be corrected with more light and knowledge.

My friend Randall57 is under the impression that the prophets who lived polygamy did so as men, not from God.  The problem there is that makes them adulterers and incapable of keeping their priesthood callings, which has direct repercussion on our day.

 

 

That's assuming the "amen to the priesthood of that man" passage in the D&C is accurate, right? 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

That's assuming the "amen to the priesthood of that man" passage in the D&C is accurate, right?

 - here we go again.

Given your doubt for the written word of God, it still amazes me you follow any religion.  Without the written word of God in scripture how would we know anything?  How would we even know to follow our Savior?  (Assuming you believe he actually exists and actually rose from the dead after paying the price for our sins).

If all scripture was just the words of man, I certainly wouldn't follow it.

 

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 - here we go again.

Given your doubt for the written word of God, it still amazes me you follow any religion.  Without the written word of God in scripture how would we know anything?  How would we even know to follow our Savior?  (Assuming you believe he actually exists and actually rose from the dead after paying the price for our sins).

If all scripture was just the words of man, I certainly wouldn't follow it.

 

That's a feature, not a bug. Anyway,put my approach to scripture to the side for a moment. There is plenty in the D&C that we don't hold to today. Why is that particular passage non-negotiable?  

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's a feature, not a bug. Anyway,put my approach to scripture to the side for a moment. There is plenty in the D&C that we don't hold to today. Why is that particular passage non-negotiable?

What in the D&C don't we hold to today?  (And don't say polygamy - the practice was revoked, in keeping with D&C teachings, but the doctrine is still true).  No doctrine in the D&C that I am aware of has been disavowed as false.

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What in the D&C don't we hold to today?  (And don't say polygamy - the practice was revoked, in keeping with D&C teachings, but the doctrine is still true).  No doctrine in the D&C that I am aware of has been disavowed as false.

 

Well, we don't ask missionaries to go out without purse or scrip, as the D&C says. 

The duties of apostles were once much more pedestrian:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20?lang=eng  (start with v38)

Our idea of who inherits what kingdom is different now. D&C 76 teaches that people who accept the gospel after death inherit the Terrestrial kingdom, not the Celestial Kingdom.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76?lang=eng

 

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

Ya it's weird and depressing how D&C 76 says those who accept in the next life only get the Terrestrial kingdom. Yet its canonized in scripture. When did the teaching change that those who get temple work done after death get the Celestial kingdom because scripture says otherwise.