ksfisher Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 I think we're missing one of the more interesting parts of the quote - " he had perfect knowledge of what marriage, according to the law of the Lord, means; and because he knew the consequences attending the rejection of this covenant in the house of the Lord." I find it hard to believe that any mortal, even a prophet, has a "perfect knowledge" of anything in this life.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 I find it hard to believe that any mortal, even a prophet, has a "perfect knowledge" of anything in this life. One synonym for perfect is complete. I do think it possible in mortality to have perfect (complete) knowledge of some things, including the law of the Lord pertaining to marriage.
ksfisher Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 (edited) One synonym for perfect is complete. I do think it possible in mortality to have perfect (complete) knowledge of some things, including the law of the Lord pertaining to marriage. That would seem to imply that we could have the same perfect (complete) knowledge that God has on a subject. Do you think that is possible? Edited September 25, 2014 by ksfisher
Scott Lloyd Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 That would seem to imply that we could have the same perfect (complete) knowledge that God has on a subject. Do you think that is possible? I don't think that's what Joseph F. Smith meant with his use of the phrase. Perhaps I'm wrong.
ksfisher Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 I don't think that's what Joseph F. Smith meant with his use of the phrase. Perhaps I'm wrong. I guess that's what come to my mind when the word perfect is used in a religious setting. I think that we can do things perfectly. For instance, I could pay my tithing perfectly for a year (or hopefully longer). But having perfect knowledge seems to me to be something beyond us here and now. But that does beg the question...
Scott Lloyd Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 I guess that's what come to my mind when the word perfect is used in a religious setting. I think that we can do things perfectly. For instance, I could pay my tithing perfectly for a year (or hopefully longer). But having perfect knowledge seems to me to be something beyond us here and now. But that does beg the question...Congratulations! You used the phrase "beg the question" properly! It's refreshing to see, as some here have a problem with that, it would seem.
omni Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 It seems to me that President Smith needed to revisit Christ's teachings on repentance and forgiveness.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 It seems to me that President Smith needed to revisit Christ's teachings on repentance and forgiveness.Which are not efficacious for someone who refuses to avail himself of them. That's what I believe President Smith had in mind.
Ahab Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 Congratulations! You used the phrase "beg the question" properly! It's refreshing to see, as some here have a problem with that, it would seem. He wasn't begging for a question, though? Was he?Nah, he was just being silly.
omni Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 Which are not efficacious for someone who refuses to avail himself of them.That's what I believe President Smith had in mind.Then why not mention as much? This wasn't an off-the-cuff comment. It's similar to the thinking of "I'd rather my son come home from his mission in a pine box than unworthily." I didn't understand this line of thinking when I was single and find it reprehensible now that I'm a parent. Isn't this exactly what the atonement is for?
ksfisher Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 Then why not mention as much? This wasn't an off-the-cuff comment. It's similar to the thinking of "I'd rather my son come home from his mission in a pine box than unworthily." I didn't understand this line of thinking when I was single and find it reprehensible now that I'm a parent. Isn't this exactly what the atonement is for? Perhaps President Smith's comment lacks the complete context withing which he made the remark. Perhaps it only reflects his own personal feelings and not anything that he taught as doctrine of the church.
Ahab Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 (edited) deleted duplicate post Edited September 25, 2014 by Ahab
Ahab Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 Then why not mention as much? This wasn't an off-the-cuff comment. It's similar to the thinking of "I'd rather my son come home from his mission in a pine box than unworthily." I didn't understand this line of thinking when I was single and find it reprehensible now that I'm a parent. Isn't this exactly what the atonement is for? Let's break it down to make it easier for you to understand.I'd rather see my son do a good thing than to see him do a bad thing.Got it so far?Now let's use an example of a good thing and an example of a bad thing.I'd rather see my son live an honorable life and die a good death than to see him commit a sin and not repent from it.Are you starting to understand this line of thinking yet?Didn't understand? Reprehensible? Really? 2
omni Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 Looks like you need to do another break down, except for this time it will be for your benefit. Point out to me where exactly in the quote he mentions anything about not repenting?
will227457 Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 In response to the OP, this is one mans opinion. That man happened to be a prophet but he was still a man and fallible, as prone to mistakes and errors as you or I. The Doctrine of Salvation is not scripture nor was it ever meant to be.
3DOP Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) If your fathers in the faith weren't right about what they believe, why do you think they were right about what I believe? I am wondering about how you can think they were right about my apostasy, but wrong about your own beliefs? Earlier in the day, I wrote a post defending President Fielding Smith, and deleted it because really, it isn't my business. But I could very easily see how to defend him. I don't get it. As a Catholic, I defend my fathers against so-called Catholics who don't even understand what popes of less than a hundred years ago were saying. It isn't hard at all to defend them, and they gave us our faith. Do we not have an obligation to give them every benefit of the doubt? If were a believing Mormon...I couldn't dump on my fathers either. Like Ahab, Scott Lloyd, and a few others, I would find a way to defend them. Bravo to you guys. I am always put off by this modern willingness of most Mormons and Catholics to distance themselves from their fathers. Wherever the true Church is to be found, I could never think it started in a 21st Century that craps on everything that came before it. Edited September 26, 2014 by 3DOP 2
katherine the great Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 Maybe all of President Smith's children were faithful members. If so, they most likely would be miserably unhappy in any type of a lifestyle that did not fully embrace the gospel. My oldest son is not the least bit interested in the church or any of its ordinances and I thank the Lord for sending him a companion who loves him and brings him joy. Some of my other children have firm testimonies and departing from that lifestyle would not make them happy, so perhaps those children would be better off going to the grave single than being in a marriage with a companion who does not share their beliefs. As a mother, I just want my children to be happy and productive, and I have learned that what makes me happy is not necessarily the same thing that makes another person happy. Those are my thoughts anyway... 2
Ahab Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 Looks like you need to do another break down, except for this time it will be for your benefit. Point out to me where exactly in the quote he mentions anything about not repenting?If someone eventually gets married for eternity it wouldn't be proper to say he/she never married for eternity. And if someone eventually accepts the ordinances required for eternal marriage in a temple appointed for that purpose it wouldn't be proper to say they rejected those ordinances offered in a temple.He was talking about not wanting to see a child reject eternal marriage.
JLHPROF Posted September 26, 2014 Author Posted September 26, 2014 If your fathers in the faith weren't right about what they believe, why do you think they were right about what I believe? I am wondering about how you can think they were right about my apostasy, but wrong about your own beliefs? Earlier in the day, I wrote a post defending President Fielding Smith, and deleted it because really, it isn't my business. But I could very easily see how to defend him. I don't get it. As a Catholic, I defend my fathers against so-called Catholics who don't even understand what popes of less than a hundred years ago were saying. It isn't hard at all to defend them, and they gave us our faith. Do we not have an obligation to give them every benefit of the doubt? If were a believing Mormon...I couldn't dump on my fathers either. Like Ahab, Scott Lloyd, and a few others, I would find a way to defend them. Bravo to you guys. I am always put off by this modern willingness of most Mormons and Catholics to distance themselves from their fathers. Wherever the true Church is to be found, I could never think it started in a 21st Century that craps on everything that came before it. AMEN! There is a very nasty trend to "dump" on the early prophets and apostles of the Church, especially on their teachings, but also occasionally on their character too. I will always defend Joseph, Brigham and the others, and I personally believe many of their currently disavowed teachings.
Calm Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 I wonder if being in an earlier culture that was much more familiar with the presence of death makes a difference. According to wiki, JFS had 13 of his children die before he died and in his youth, he saw many family and church members die. And life sure wasn't as easy as it is for us these days so dying might have been seen as more of a blessing even when young as it would be a release from the hardships of life. Between that and the hope in the next life that our doctrine teaches, I can see why some parents might see their children's lives as better shortened than filled with the hardships that sin can bring, especially if they saw the hardships as unnecessary rather than ultimately contributing to eternal growth.
The Nehor Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 So is it better to be red then unwed? Or better to be dead then well read?
mfbukowski Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 So given that Pres. Smith was not ignorant and understood all of this, why then would he continue to say of his own children that he would rather see them pass away than marry outside of the temple/church?I already answered that. Yeah, I think you pegged it. He stated it poorly.
Daniel2 Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 I think kids need to make their own decisions. And in the long run you could be happy and even have a great life with a non member.Quoted for truth.Great post, Mola. I'm happy to be responding to something we both agree on.
Recommended Posts