The Nehor Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 If Jesus implemented his "priesthood ban" in the same way that Brigham Young did, there might be a good argument to say he was "wrong and perhaps fooled" too. Maybe when it comes to such things Jesus wasn't perfect...?"Samaritan tosser wouldn't help his own grandmother."Have a semi-guilty love for that clip. 2
JLHPROF Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 If Jesus implemented his "priesthood ban" in the same way that Brigham Young did, there might be a good argument to say he was "wrong and perhaps fooled" too. Maybe when it comes to such things Jesus wasn't perfect...? Now there's a thought? Racially based restrictions/blessings/curses issued by God/Christ?Regardless of THE priesthood ban, why does God favor some races/lineages over others? Scripturally it's hard to make the case against racial division.
KevinG Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Now there's a thought? Racially based restrictions/blessings/curses issued by God/Christ?Regardless of THE priesthood ban, why does God favor some races/lineages over others? Scripturally it's hard to make the case against racial division. Haven discussed this personally with a black church pioneer, part of the confusion was in Brazil there were light skinned people who were identified as "banned" while there were dark skinned people identified as "priesthood available". Not all priesthood restrictions are equal, and the protestant idea of the curse of ham, crept into our practices. I suspect later to be weeded out and clarified in our doctrines, after we were ready to bear and hear the truth as a people. Not because of political pressure. That is why 1978, and that is why no schism over the revelation. If (and only IF) the Lord decided Same Sex marriage will be a part of His plan, I suspect we will have a similar reaction as a people. I wouldn't be surprised if it never happens either, given the doctrines on chastity and marriage are a little more defined than the theories about race and priesthood lineage.
stemelbow Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Now there's a thought? Racially based restrictions/blessings/curses issued by God/Christ? Regardless of THE priesthood ban, why does God favor some races/lineages over others? Scripturally it's hard to make the case against racial division. Easier to bring into question the scriptures themselves. 1
Teancum Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 If she didn't get a spiritual witness of the principle, then yes for turning him down. It would take as much guts to say no as to say yes in that kind of a situation, imo. If she then turned against him and other LDS, I probably would have an issue on that, I can't remember if she did or not, I am tired and braindead and not going to go look like I usually do when I need a refresher. I haven't heard any such testimony so I couldn't say.I think you understand my point so I find your remark a bit disingenuous. And you essentially ignored to substance of my comments in regards to your question. It simply demonstrates that most Mormons when confronted with the plural marriage issues will give Joseph Smith a pass, as well as the women who entered into plural marriages with him when they never ever would or will for anyone else. Nor would they likely do so for Joseph if they were not so invested in the religion he founded.
Glenn101 Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 I don't think claiming that an angel with a sword came to tell JS to do polygamy is a spiritual claim. I think it is nonesenical.All I know is JS claimed he was a prophet. Before I will pray about that anymore I will use rational thought to see if it makes sense to pray about it or something ge claimed.Honestly your post is so full of a priori claims and assumptions it is silly. Do you give equal credence to anyone who claims revelation from God? Do you pray about Muhammend, Islam and the Korqn to know if it is true? I could claim tomorrow God is speaking to me thqt the LDS church from polygamy forward is false and I had an angel with q sword tell me to go out and teach it. Would you pray about it? Do you know who Denver Snuffer is? Did you pray about his claims to a visitation of Jesus being true?Of course as you so bluntly point out I could be wrong. But then again you could be as well. You don't speak for God either though it is clear you believe JS did. That is fine. But it does not make you right. How can you rationally decide if something makes sense that is of a spiritual nature? How can you rationally decide if God exists or does not exist? I do not pray about Mohammed, Islam, the Koran etc. because I have already done my spiritual homework concerning Jesus as the Savior and about the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and Joseph Smith. The claims are mutually exclusive. I do not claim to speak for God. I am only claiming that I have accepted the information I received via the Holy Ghost as being the word of God as to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and Jesus. Glenn
Calm Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 when they never ever would or will for anyone else. Nor would they likely do so for Joseph if they were not so invested in the religion he founded.After all the years of posting, you really haven't been paying attention. 3
KevinG Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 After all the years of posting, you really haven't been paying attention.For a zealous believer to be able to hear others, they must first be open to the possibility they could be in error. The irony is that so many critics of Joseph practice the kind of blind adherence to a position or point of view they accuse the early Saints of. 1
mormonnewb Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Now there's a thought? Racially based restrictions/blessings/curses issued by God/Christ?Regardless of THE priesthood ban, why does God favor some races/lineages over others? Scripturally it's hard to make the case against racial division. Because God didn't base those restrictions/blessings/curses on race but rather on relationship. As you remember, Abraham had EVERYONE in his "household" circumcised, not just his lineal descendant Ishmael. "On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him." Genesis 17:23 If only Abraham and Ishmael were to receive the promises, then why would the rest of the household be required to make the covenants? After all, during our priesthood ban, we didn't require blacks to enter the temple, make the covenants and then not receive any of the blessings. The two go hand in hand. Likewise, Abraham's HOUSEHOLD received the blessings of God, regardless of their race/ethnicity. 1
Calm Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 I believe since race was not a concept back then, what it meant is claimed all those circumcised as his kin, they became his kin if they weren't already by the covenant.
cdowis Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Well, he was unique in being sealed to men too so doesn't that make him more progressive? I assume this is a joke. I was also sealed to a man -- happens all the time in the temple, so I see nothing unique here. 1
cdowis Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 If Jesus implemented his "priesthood ban" in the same way that Brigham Young did, there might be a good argument to say he was "wrong and perhaps fooled" too. A better example would be Moses, where he restricted the priesthood only to certain tribes and lineage. The OT makes a big deal on keeping a record of one's lineage.
JLHPROF Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Because God didn't base those restrictions/blessings/curses on race but rather on relationship. That may be true in your Abraham example, but the scriptures are FULL of God blessing/cursing/destroying etc based on lineage.From making Israel the chosen race to cursing Lamanites and their descendants, from the command to completely destroy the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites to giving blessings to Ephraim's descendants greater than those of his brother or Uncles.Lineal (family/race) blessings and cursings are all through the scriptures.
Tacenda Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) Wasn't sure which thread to put this in, there are so many about this subject. Was listening to another podcast about polygamy and they showed this quote in the JoD Vol. 4 pg. 209. I'd never heard of it before, it's pretty interesting but this is just a snippet of it. In the discourse it mentions what it will be like in the hereafter. And this about doctors...."They do not call upon the doctors to kill their offspring; there are no doctors there, that is, if they are there, their occupation is changed, which proves that they are not there, because they have ceased to be doctors. In this world very many of the doctors are studying to diminish the human family." I mention it because I also read that Brian Hales mentions Dr. Bennett performing abortions in Nauvoo. I'm not saying that he performed them on women that JS married. I'm just wondering why there were abortions. And then this next quote from the same page in the JoD, Heber C. Kimball is talking.... "In the spirit world there is an increase of males and females, there are millions of them, and if I am faithful all the time, and continue right along with brother Brigham, we will go to brother Joseph and say, “Here we are brother Joseph; we are here ourselves are we not, with none of the property we possessed in our probationary state, not even the rings on our fingers?” He will say to us, “Come along, my boys, we will give you a good suit of clothes. Where are your wives?” “They are back yonder; they would not follow us.” “Never mind,” says Joseph, “here are thousands, have all you want.” Perhaps some do not believe that, but I am just simple enough to believe it." I know that Heber is just putting words in his mouth but this statement just doesn't value the individual women, it seems. Makes it feel like we are nothing but chattel, which I believe we were thought of back then, mere property. Isn't Eternal life in Jesus Christ, not polygamy? 1 John 5:10-11King James Version (KJV)10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Another one by Kimball..... JoD Vol. 11 pg. 211 "I speak of plurality of wives as one of the most holy principles that God ever revealed to man, and all those who exercise an influence against it, unto whom it is taught, man or woman, will be damned, and they, and all who will be influenced by them, will suffer the buffetings of Satan in the flesh; for the curse of God will be upon them, and poverty, and distress, and vexation of spirit will be their portion; while those who honor this and every sacred institution of heaven will shine forth as the stars in the firmament of heaven, and of the increase of their kingdom and glory there shall be no end. This will equally apply to Jew, Gentile, and Mormon, male and female, old and young.The words of the Lord to the Church, through Joseph the Prophet, in Sep., 1832, will apply very well to many now—“And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—Which vanity and unbelief hath brought the whole church under condemnation. And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all. And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father's kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and a judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion. For shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy land?” Unless we keep our families in order, and instruct our children to be faithful in keeping the commandments of God, not suffering our wives andchildren to speak lightly of the Priesthood of the Almighty, and of the holy order of marriage which He has revealed for a great purpose—I say, unless we do this, God will visit our families with a scourge, and if they continue in their disobedience they will be removed out of their place, and their names will not be found on the record of the faithful. But, on the contrary, if we are righteous and keep faithfully all the commandments of God, we, with all that portion of our wives and children who also have been faithful, will go into the celestial inheritance prepared for us in the presence of our God. Will the unfaithful, disobedient, and unbelieving of our families enter with us into the celestial kingdom? They will not. The Lord said to Ezekiel, “Son of man, the house of Israel to me has become dross.” So with the unbelieving and disobedient of our families, and of this people; they will be separated from the pure silver, to occupy a place in the mansions of our Father according to their worth.If our wives would remember and keep faithfully the covenant they have made, they would observe the laws of their husbands, and teach their children to honor every law of God, and to love, honor, and obey their earthly father. If I keep my covenants, I shall be saved in the presence of God; if I violate them, I shall be damned; and so it will be with my family; and what applies to me in this respect will apply to all.Let us carry out the great purposes of God, and be separate from the ungodly. “Wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that transgresseth them, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state!” “And wo unto the deaf that will not hear; for they shall perish. Wo unto the blind that will not see; for they shall perish also. Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell. Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die. Wo unto them who commit whoredoms, for they shall be thrust down to hell. And wo unto them who die in their sins; for they shall go to their place, and suffer the wrath of God.”May God bless the righteous; but the men or women who raise their voices or use their influence against that holy order of plural marriage will be cursed, and they will wither away, for they have undertaken to fight against God. “For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, and it shall leave them neither root nor branch.” Why, if this was the mindset in the church at one time, has it become nearly obsolete and not doctrinal? Edited November 13, 2014 by Tacenda
JLHPROF Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Why if this was the mindset in the church at one time, has it become nearly obsolete and not doctrinal? Because society today could never accept such teachings (although Heber, like myself, was VERY prone to hyperbole and exaggeration so I cut him some slack). If it is indeed no longer doctrinal then there are only two real options:1. It once was and God revealed by revelation a better way/further light.2. It is still doctrinal but no longer taught since society rejects the notion completely. Which is true? Up to the individual to determine.
Calm Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) Why, if this was the mindset in the church at one time, has it become nearly obsolete and not doctrinal? For the same reason the Law of Adoption was set aside and people were sealed to their own parents…it was not based on a correct understanding of the family sealing ordinance. Edited November 13, 2014 by calmoriah
JLHPROF Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 For the same reason the Law of Adoption was set aside and people were sealed to their own parents…it was not based on a correct understanding of the family sealing ordinance. Still not sure I agree with that interpretation of Woodruff's revelation. I still think both practices had serious doctrinal merit.
cursor Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 What I have trouble with is Abraham's attempt to sacrifice his son. Religion is full of illogical, and even nasty stuff.
Teancum Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 After all the years of posting, you really haven't been paying attention.Why the word games? I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are referring to some position you have i am supposed to be aware of and are amazed I missed i am sorry. I'm am far less the prolific poster that you. You asked me a question about the woman participants testimonies of Jospeh Smith's polygamy. I think I gave some thoghtful responses. I don't think you have done the same so I assume you are not interested really in discussing it which is quite fine,
Teancum Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 How can you rationally decide if something makes sense that is of a spiritual nature? How can you rationally decide if God exists or does not exist? I do not pray about Mohammed, Islam, the Koran etc. because I have already done my spiritual homework concerning Jesus as the Savior and about the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and Joseph Smith. The claims are mutually exclusive. I do not claim to speak for God. I am only claiming that I have accepted the information I received via the Holy Ghost as being the word of God as to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and Jesus. GlennHow can you rationally decide if something makes sense that is of a spiritual nature? How can you rationally decide if God exists or does not exist? I do not pray about Mohammed, Islam, the Koran etc. because I have already done my spiritual homework concerning Jesus as the Savior and about the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and Joseph Smith. The claims are mutually exclusive. I do not claim to speak for God. I am only claiming that I have accepted the information I received via the Holy Ghost as being the word of God as to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and Jesus. GlennHow can you rationally decide what truth is unless you examine and pray about others truth claims. How can you rationally claim God exists without stronger empirical evidence. Faith is not rational, It is belief i something without evidence and even in spite of it.Believers of other religions have as powerful a testimony of their faiths and think you are wrong, Subjective so called spiritual witnesses thus cannot be relied on with any real confidence other than for the person who beleives they have received it. And you do claim to speak for God against anyone who challenges what you are convinced is true like you have hear towards me. 1
escott3564 Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 It is blatantly true that there would have been more children in the Church had polygamy not existed. The point of polygamy was for children to be born through select lines. For example, the wives of Brigham Young all bore children through his line. This type of polygamy was a true throw-back to the Old Testament where EVERYTHING rested on lineage. The more children you had, the larger your fortune, and the more prestige you were afforded. That is why when the Lord said that Abraham would be the father of many nations, Sarah felt that she had no choice but to give her handmaiden Hagar to Abraham to wife since Hagar was fertile and she was barren. At least Brigham Young's version of polygamy made sense in mirroring Old Testament polygamy. It still reduced women and children to being nothing more than possessions/pawns in a power play. I can't, in good conscience, believe that a loving Heavenly Father would sanction that. Therefore, I think that there are some folks that are going to pay dearly for setting this into motion. As others here have said, the devil is in the details. I do, however, feel that there is good in the Church. Worshiping Christ is something that can be done well in any Church. The LDS Church is as good as any other, particularly when one has grown up in it. I read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover when I was in the 6th grade. That was the first time I read it. There are many beautiful teachings in it, particularly 3rd Nephi and Helaman. I also feel that family is not only forever, but everything. I don't believe that Heavenly Father would purposely separate family by kingdoms, no matter how nice or paved with gold they are. The whole point of entertaining the thought of life after death in my eyes is the hope that we can be reunited with those who we love who have passed before us. However we choose to pay homage to a God who can make that happen is not a bad thing. We take from the gospel what works and makes sense for each of us.
escott3564 Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 I think we need to be very careful here because Jesus during his mortal ministry instituted a Priesthood Ban too. Are you saying that Jesus was wrong and perhaps fooled? CFR, please.
JLHPROF Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 It is blatantly true that there would have been more children in the Church had polygamy not existed. The point of polygamy was for children to be born through select lines. For example, the wives of Brigham Young all bore children through his line. This type of polygamy was a true throw-back to the Old Testament where EVERYTHING rested on lineage. The more children you had, the larger your fortune, and the more prestige you were afforded. That is why when the Lord said that Abraham would be the father of many nations, Sarah felt that she had no choice but to give her handmaiden Hagar to Abraham to wife since Hagar was fertile and she was barren. At least Brigham Young's version of polygamy made sense in mirroring Old Testament polygamy. It still reduced women and children to being nothing more than possessions/pawns in a power play. I can't, in good conscience, believe that a loving Heavenly Father would sanction that. Therefore, I think that there are some folks that are going to pay dearly for setting this into motion. As others here have said, the devil is in the details. I do, however, feel that there is good in the Church. Worshiping Christ is something that can be done well in any Church. The LDS Church is as good as any other, particularly when one has grown up in it. I read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover when I was in the 6th grade. That was the first time I read it. There are many beautiful teachings in it, particularly 3rd Nephi and Helaman. I also feel that family is not only forever, but everything. I don't believe that Heavenly Father would purposely separate family by kingdoms, no matter how nice or paved with gold they are. The whole point of entertaining the thought of life after death in my eyes is the hope that we can be reunited with those who we love who have passed before us. However we choose to pay homage to a God who can make that happen is not a bad thing. We take from the gospel what works and makes sense for each of us. It seems to me that this contains a lot of "I don't believe Heavenly Father would do this" instead of any information as to what Heavenly Father would actually do.Heavenly Father has done a lot of things that we find disturbing. Why should this be any different? I hate the "God wouldn't do that" argument.I don't find the preferences in your post particularly in keeping with the Gospel. 1
escott3564 Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 It seems to me that this contains a lot of "I don't believe Heavenly Father would do this" instead of any information as to what Heavenly Father would actually do.Heavenly Father has done a lot of things that we find disturbing. Why should this be any different? I hate the "God wouldn't do that" argument.I don't find the preferences in your post particularly in keeping with the Gospel. It is certainly your prerogative to feel that way.
JLHPROF Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 CFR, please. Matthew 10:5-6 5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 15:22-28/Or Mark 7:25-29 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.orFor a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.
Recommended Posts