Npr: The Latest From John Dehlin

[rockpond]

This is in error. In the USofA marriage laws are defined by the state.

Yes, but there is a process to that. And in California we used the referendum process to make that definition reflect our religious belief on marriage.

[rodheadlee]

You're a Californian?

[stemelbow]

Twice in the New Testament (1 Corinthians & Hebrews) Paul told the saints of his day he wasn't able to teach them the "meat" of the Gospel because they were only yet "babes" in the faith and not able to ingest and digest the deeper teachings of God. In addition, another reason why Paul was unable to teach the inexperienced 'newbies' of the Church the deeper teachings is because if they were to learn of the "mysteries" before they were sufficiently mature in the faith, and prepared to receive them, they would all blow a gasket, and in angry denunciation proclaim as great evils the deeper knowledge of the kingdom God. 

 

You assume too much when you say Paul would have been totally forthcoming in all he taught because, by his own word, he wisely and deliberately kept back a great deal of truth.

It's really weird to say historical events are treated as meat of the gospel to me. History isn't found in revelation, per se. It's found in research. Any ol' joe and can do that. To try and keep historical matters from people isn't doing any thing near preaching milk before meat.

I think this is part of the problem the Church has found itself in. It decided to treat historical events as meat of the gospel, suggesting things like polygamy is meat. But any member or non member can look into the history and find out what happened, at least to the extent that the historical discipline can explain.

[why me]

You do realize that African AMERICANS have clean drinking water and access to modern medicine, right? These videos mean no more to me as they mean to you. Yes, I'm glad that my Church is following the call to care for "the least of these," but I'd be just as happy if the recipients were Asian, South American, or even white.

Even more, why are YOU bringing race into this discussion?

Unfortunately I am on limited and I had only two posts left. So, I edited my post and put the videos there to save myself a post. If you remember I told you to stay in the church and help the african american community as a member. I thought that the information about lds charities would help you to do this. Of course the videos were in africa but with imagination one can also use such charities for the united states. I am afraid that you are mistaken about the water and the medicines. Many can't afford the medicine and many have no water who live in the detroit area. Did you know this?

 

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/11/06/water-issues-detroit-versus-united-nations/18553431/

 

 

And heath care:

 

http://kff.org/disparities-policy/fact-sheet/health-coverage-for-the-black-population-today-and-under-the-affordable-care-act/

 

Implications

Today, Blacks remain significantly more likely to be uninsured compared to Whites. This disparity, in large part, reflects that many Blacks do not have access to employer-sponsored insurance and cannot afford to purchase private coverage on the individual market due to their low incomes. Given limited access to private coverage and low incomes, Medicaid is an important source of coverage for 9.4 million Blacks, many of whom would otherwise go uninsured. However, Medicaid eligibility levels for adults remain limited in most states today, particularly in the South, where Blacks are more likely to live. As such, over 7 million Blacks remain uninsured, the majority of whom are adults.

The ACA coverage expansions provide an important opportunity to increase health coverage and access to care for uninsured Blacks. Given that most uninsured Blacks are in low-income families, the majority would be in the income range to qualify for the ACA coverage expansions, particularly the Medicaid expansion. As such, state decisions to implement the ACA Medicaid expansion have particularly important implications for Blacks. If a state does not implement the expansion, poor uninsured adults will not gain a new coverage option and will likely remain uninsured. Currently, Blacks are at the highest risk of continuing to face coverage gaps due to state expansion decisions. Even with the coverage expansions, targeted outreach and enrollment assistance will be important for ensuring eligible individuals enroll in coverage. The ACA will help address many historical procedural barriers to enrollment through new streamlined, data-driven enrollment processes that will go in place in 2014. However, targeted outreach and one-on-one application assistance from trusted individuals within the community will remain key for facilitating enrollment of eligible individuals.

 

I meant well, I really did. Unfortunately, you decided to spit on my post where I linked the videos. It is sad really. You seem to be a hostile person who just can't be civil without writing in bold letters etc in agressive mocking tones. I hope that you will find peace someday. I am surprised that you are able to treat people in this way and yet, experience no warning from the moderators. You must have a guardian angel watching over you. And it is sad that you seem to have no idea just what the black community is experiencing as the links show. The videos did mean something to me. Sorry for the derail.

Edited February 5, 2015 by why me

[readstoomuch]

Yes the story was written down and even online to read.

I once checked out one of Leonard Arrington's books at the Library, huge volume, but didn't finish.

I know I'm addicted to this stuff, and it's a vicious circle, but I only feel like it's only partly my fault, the other part the church's.

I listened to a Mormon Matters podcast today, I'm not alone, the most recent one discusses many things about our religion and the issues, not anti though. I'll link later if you need me to, but I'm sure you have the capability to listen or read the intro.

Not to get too personal here, I don't know how active you are in the church to get a feel for the members to know how well they study the books you've presented. For all you know there may be plenty that are in my same boat. I've wanted so bad for the bishop to reach out to me and offer someone like you that knows their stuff to give me guidance face to face. But I'm not about to ask, so don't tell me to.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the John Dehlin case. The other day on another board someone opened a topic and posted that some people are coming back to belief again. People that had issues similar to myself. So whatever is happening, it is working, especially since it probably was too hard to break away from a way of life, which is my situation.

I think you have the tools to get there yourself. The two books I suggested really are good. I don`t think they are going to be as important as the Book of Mormon. If you put away truly controversial writings for six months and give reading the scriptures equal time to whatever else you read, you can get through this. You can get through it and be stronger than you ever were.

[stemelbow]

But none of those stories are conveniently left out of scripture. What kills testimonies is not the "facts" but the perception of being deceived.

Well I don't now how true your last sentence is. People will always see the "facts" and leave, and some may be upset that these "facts" weren't taught to them at Church. But either way, it does seem like it's the "facts" that compels people.

I'd say Scott's response was right on target on this. It seems to me that pointing the finger of scorn is becoming more and more common. I hear things like, "how can you possibly believe that crap?" often. the complication added to this is plenty. For instance the Church discriminated against blacks. That's embarrassing thinking about it. But the pressures of society got to the Church, they had to re-evaluate and realized "that finger of scorn has some merit." Perhaps polygamy is the same. It seems Homosexual issues is similar--years and years ago it was ok to discriminate against gay people and take stands to dney them their basic rights. It was also pretty well established policy to treat gay people as if they can be "cured". I think the reality of the matter has reached the church in recent years and they no longer view it that way. The finger of scorn pointed at the Church had some merit. So however this all ends up, it gets pretty difficult. I maintain God needs people outside the Church to accomplish His designs, and probably needs far more people out of it than in it (since that is what is reality). He may also need people who were once in out, to accomplish His purposes. Anyway, I've said enough I guess. Point made, I hope.

[Kevin Christensen]

Many times when it seems like the facts are compelling people, that is only because of the narrative that those particular purposely selected facts have been dressed in. (I've written about this extensively, in my response to Runnells, for instance. "Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest. I keep quoting Jesus, who seemed to have a pretty good grasp on how the same seeds -- be they words or facts--, can have very different yields, depending on soil and nurture.) And recently, for instance, John Dehlin has recently been claiming that the church has been claiming that the LDS church has been spreading misinformation about the real reasons for the upcoming disciplinary hearing. It may be a fact that John has made that claim. But what are the facts behind that fact?

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/

Is the issue facts when what is at stake is control of the narrative? Which narrative is better, more testable, accurate, comprehensive and coherent, fruitful, simple and sensible, and promising? Or if that kind of analysis is too much trouble and too much risk, which one re-enforces my social ambitions?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 5, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[ERayR]

Yeah.  Forget that whole "angel-with-a-drawn-sword" thingy.

 

A figment of his imagination.

[teddyaware]

It's really weird to say historical events are treated as meat of the gospel to me. History isn't found in revelation, per se. It's found in research. Any ol' joe and can do that. To try and keep historical matters from people isn't doing any thing near preaching milk before meat.

I think this is part of the problem the Church has found itself in. It decided to treat historical events as meat of the gospel, suggesting things like polygamy is meat. But any member or non member can look into the history and find out what happened, at least to the extent that the historical discipline can explain.

 

The historical records that document the practice of LDS polygamy were preceded by the revelation of one of the mysteries of Godliness called the New and Everlasting Covenant of Eternal Marriage, the undergirding principles of which are set forth, codified and canonized in Doctrine & Covenants 132. The deep doctrine (meat) that undergirds polygamy, and God's purposes in instituting the practice in the modern age, is something that can only be known, understood and, finally, embraced by one who willingly obtains confirmatory revelation from heaven that the principle is true, holy and exalting. So while it's true polygamy is a historically documented principle, once practiced by some early members of the LDS church, a true understanding of the principle will forever remain a mystery to those who in ignorance decry its practice as evil. For such, it will remain a mystery until its truthfulness is revealed to them from heaven either in this world or in the world to come.   

 

Similarly, the LDS the temple endowment is also well-documented reality in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. But just because the endowment is a well-know part of the historical record doesn't mean it's no longer a profound mystery to most; for even those who have been fully exposed to it -- either as friend, foe or snoop -- have little idea as to what it's all about because its ordinances, symbols and performances can only be know by revelation. As one who actually knows, in large measure, by revelation, what the endowment is all about (I do not pretend to know it all), I can assure you that although the outward forms of the endowment are part of the historical record, it still largely remains a mystery to most. So, whether they are recorded as historical facts or not, the mysteries of godliness can only be known by revelation; therefore extreme care must be exercise when discussing them so as not to expose the spiritually unprepared to doctrinal meat that can only cause then to choke, gag and finally revile. 

 

As to your saying that the Church has a problem when it come to polygamy, I beg to differ. Rather, I say things are exactly as they should be. The doctrine of plural marriage is a modern Abrahamic test that not only tested the spiritual mettle of the early saints, who were the ones who were actually called upon to practiced the principle, but it is a God-ordained test of faith for the modern Latter-day Saints as well.

 

 It was the prophet Joseph Smith himself who said "polygamy would damn more souls than it would save," and I believe his saying pertains to the modern saints and not just to polygamy's early practitioners. The Lord is testing His people to see who of them will trust in the voice of the Spirit (revelation), and who will lose faith and succumb by hearkening to the voice of the arm of flesh.

 

The worldly-wise are gathered at the windows of the large and spacious building of Lehi's vision, and they are pointing their mocking fingers at those who are partaking of the precious fruit of the tree of life. The mockers are trying with their might to cause the saints to feel shame and embarrassment over the Abrahamic test of polygamy that the Restored Church has been called upon to endure. In perverse hope, they want to see who they can persude to waiver and finally deny that which they already knew by revelation to be true. Those who remain steadfast and valiant in the face of the world's derisive wisdom will be exalted and crowned with eternal life, seated upon the throne of Christ's eternal power. Those who waiver and fail the test of faith will either have to repent and renew their faith in the God of the Restitution of All Things, or ultimately be satisfied with less than they otherwise might have obtained. 

Edited February 5, 2015 by teddyaware

[ERayR]

Yes, but there is a process to that. And in California we used the referendum process to make that definition reflect our religious belief on marriage.

 

And every other part of government.  Any and all legislation reflects the beliefs of its sponsors, religious or not.  That is the way it works.  Get enough people to agree and your version wins.  Opponent gets more to agree with them you loose.  That is what government is/does.  The concept is simple its the implementation that gets complicated.

[stemelbow]

Many times when it seems like the facts are compelling people, that is only because of the narrative that those particular purposely selected facts have been dressed in. (I've written about this extensively, in my response to Runnells, for instance. "Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest. I keep quoting Jesus, who seemed to have a pretty good grasp on how the same seeds (be they words or facts, can have very different yields, depending on soil and nurture.) And recently, for instance, John Dehlin has recently been claiming that the church has been claiming that the LDS church has been spreading misinformation about the real reasons for the upcoming disciplinary hearing. It may be a fact that John has made that claim. But what are the facts behind that fact?

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/

Is the issue facts when what is at stake is control of the narrative? Which narrative is better, more testable, accurate, comprehensive and coherent, fruitful, simple and sensible, and promising? Or if that kind of analysis is too much trouble and too much risk, which one re-enforces my social ambitions?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Did anybody link this yet? http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/the-june-9-2014-anti-mormon-message-of-john-dehlin/

I found it interesting. I don't know why the impression is out there that John is balanced, wants to just present information and be all honest, always. We're all far more complex than that. We all have our personal biases and opinions. I don't think that's a bad thing. But its silly to say he's just putting out facts, or just addressing tough topics. He has more in the game than that. Surely.

I found this little thing someone sent me almost laughable with that said:

http://blog.tomgrover.net/

[Tacenda]

Well I don't now how true your last sentence is. People will always see the "facts" and leave, and some may be upset that these "facts" weren't taught to them at Church. But either way, it does seem like it's the "facts" that compels people.

I'd say Scott's response was right on target on this. It seems to me that pointing the finger of scorn is becoming more and more common. I hear things like, "how can you possibly believe that crap?" often. the complication added to this is plenty. For instance the Church discriminated against blacks. That's embarrassing thinking about it. But the pressures of society got to the Church, they had to re-evaluate and realized "that finger of scorn has some merit." Perhaps polygamy is the same. It seems Homosexual issues is similar--years and years ago it was ok to discriminate against gay people and take stands to dney them their basic rights. It was also pretty well established policy to treat gay people as if they can be "cured". I think the reality of the matter has reached the church in recent years and they no longer view it that way. The finger of scorn pointed at the Church had some merit. So however this all ends up, it gets pretty difficult. I maintain God needs people outside the Church to accomplish His designs, and probably needs far more people out of it than in it (since that is what is reality). He may also need people who were once in out, to accomplish His purposes. Anyway, I've said enough I guess. Point made, I hope.

Excellent point and my favorite quote of the day so far!! I wonder if without the outside influence you mention, if we'd be in the FLDS church camp.

[rockpond]

And every other part of government.  Any and all legislation reflects the beliefs of its sponsors, religious or not.  That is the way it works.  Get enough people to agree and your version wins.  Opponent gets more to agree with them you loose.  That is what government is/does.  The concept is simple its the implementation that gets complicated.

 

Yes, but that doesn't always lead to the best solution for protections of religious freedoms.  Thankfully, our constitution is there to protect the minority (which proponents of gay marriage once were, and we (the LDS church) now are).

[rockpond]

I found this little thing someone sent me almost laughable with that said:

http://blog.tomgrover.net/

 

What did you find laughable about Grover's blog post?

[Tacenda]

The historical records that document the practice of LDS polygamy were preceded by the revelation of one of the mysteries of Godliness called the New and Everlasting Covenant of Eternal Marriage, the undergirding principles of which are set forth, codified and canonized in Doctrine & Covenants 132. The deep doctrine (meat) that undergirds polygamy, and God's purposes in instituting the practice in the modern age, is something that can only be known, understood and, finally, embraced by one who willingly obtains confirmatory revelation from heaven that the principle is true, holy and exalting. So while it's true polygamy is a historically documented principle, once practiced by some early members of the LDS church, a true understanding of the principle will forever remain a mystery to those who in ignorance decry its practice as evil. For such, it will remain a mystery until its truthfulness is revealed to them from heaven either in this world or in the world to come.

Similarly, the LDS the temple endowment is also well-documented reality in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. But just because the endowment is a well-know part of the historical record doesn't mean it's no longer a profound mystery to most; for even those who have been fully exposed to it -- either as friend, foe or snoop -- have little idea as to what it's all about because its ordinances, symbols and performances can only be know by revelation. As one who actually knows, in large measure, by revelation, what the endowment is all about (I do not pretend to know it all), I can assure you that although the outward forms of the endowment are part of the historical record, it still largely remains a mystery to most. So, whether they are recorded as historical facts or not, the mysteries of godliness can only be known by revelation; therefore extreme care must be exercise when discussing them so as not to expose the spiritually unprepared to doctrinal meat that can only cause then to choke, gag and finally revile.

As to your saying that the Church has a problem when it come to polygamy, I beg to differ. Rather, I say things are exactly as they should be. The doctrine of plural marriage is a modern Abrahamic test that not only tested the spiritual mettle of the early saints, who were the ones who were actually called upon to practiced the principle, but it is a God-ordained test of faith for the modern Latter-day Saints as well.

It was the prophet Joseph Smith himself who said "polygamy would damn more souls than it would save," and I believe his saying pertains to the modern saints and not just to polygamy's early practitioners. The Lord is testing His people to see who of them will trust in the voice of the Spirit (revelation), and who will lose faith and succumb by hearkening to the voice of the arm of flesh.

The worldly-wise are gathered at the windows of the large and spacious building of Lehi's vision, and they are pointing their mocking fingers at those who are partaking of the precious fruit of the tree of life. The mockers are trying with their might to cause the saints to feel shame and embarrassment over the Abrahamic test of polygamy that the Restored Church has been called upon to endure. In perverse hope, they want to see who they can persude to waiver and finally deny that which they already knew by revelation to be true. Those who remain steadfast and valiant in the face of the world's derisive wisdom will be exalted and crowned with eternal life, seated upon the throne of Christ's eternal power. Those who waiver and fail the test of faith will either have to repent and renew their faith in the God of the Restitution of All Things, or ultimately be satisfied with less than they otherwise might have obtained.

I don't even see Jesus as an equation anywhere in your test description, and in the words of a shark in the "Shark Tank" show, "I'm Out"!!

[rockpond]

I'm honestly not sure what your point is.

 

Every time a law passes that we don't agree with we are all, each one of us, being forced to live by opinions that were defined by something we don't believe in or agree with.  

 

Whether or not those opinions we disagree with are--according to us--based on a false religion, or someone being stupid, or faulty logic, or whatever else really doesn't make a difference.  

 

It is what it is and we get over it or work to change things legally because agreeing with the reasons behind every law is not something that is guaranteed to us and we know that.  

 

So, no, when an atheist is forced to live under a law that comes from moral beliefs he disagrees with it's not a breach of his religious rights.  

 

You are opposed to gay marriage.  Legal recognition for gay marriages does not impact you as it does not force you to enter into a gay marriage.  Your religious freedoms have not been infringed upon in the least.

 

The act of advocating against and voting in favor of Prop 8 removed legal recognition for gay marriage in the state of California.  This removed the ability for gay couples to have their marriages legally recognized.  It favored religious beliefs of those who believe in OSM over those who also believe in SSM.

[rockpond]

I guess I'm not sure what needs to be justified.  Government sanctioned marriages is not a religious right in America.  It's not a right that is protected under the religious freedoms section of the constitution (for lack of a better way to put it-not that there's a 'religious' section).  If it was, then polygamy would be legal.

 

But being able to vote according to our morals, even if those morals stem from our religious beliefs, is something that is a right guaranteed by the constitution.

 

That's how i justify it.

 

I think that's a good question.  

 

Knowing that Elder Holland doesn't support SSM, how do you think that we can follow His counsel?  

 

Having read the transcript from the news conference where Elder Holland spoke these words it seems clear to me that he's talking about very specific rights.  He's talking about religious rights guaranteed by the constitution, and he's talking about personal rights guaranteed by the constitution.  The right to marriage whoever you want is not the right he's addressing.

 

He says in part-"With understanding and goodwill, including some give and take, none of these rights guaranteed to people of faith will encroach on the rights of gay men and women who wish to live their lives according to their own rights and principles."

 

That especially seems to be a huge clue in understanding what Elder Holland is talking about.  He's specifically talking about constitutional rights, of which marriage is not one.

 

 

Why did all those heterosexuals who didn't want prop. 8 to pass get involved?  

 

I can understand your justification even though I disagree with it.  Can you step into another person's shoes and consider how odd it seems (from an outside perspective) for the LDS church to insist on the freedom to discriminate against those in gay marriages based on their religious beliefs while simultaneously insisting that gay marriage itself is not a matter of religious freedom?

 

As for following Elder Holland's counsel, I take him at his word.  If legal recognition for our own marriages (as heterosexuals) is a right that we want guarded, we should work to guard the legal recognition of gay marriages as well.

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand your last question.  I know it's been a couple days since you posted it but if you care to clarify, I'll try to answer.

[ERayR]

.  It favored religious beliefs of those who believe in OSM over those who also believe in SSM.

 

Again, that is how government works.

[stemelbow]

What did you find laughable about Grover's blog post?

I just said in that post. But I'll be more specific.

" Unlike apologists and polemicists, John’s agenda has never been to convince his audience to view Mormon issues in a certain way, but instead to provide a forum to discuss the issues openly and understand them better. "

I guess it comes down to this sentence as much as any. I think the other link I supplied showed exactly how John's agenda, at least in that instance, was to convince his audience to view Mormon issues in a certain way. He is no more objective than apologists and polemicists (which some might see him as already). And, of course, I don't fault him for that. I just think it's unhealthy, unfair, inaccurate to define him as something that no one con possibly be. He has more than one agenda, and certainly just as anyone else, he would love to convince someone to view Mormon issues his certain way. That is, after all, the people he's trying to find--those who agree with him on these issues.

[USU78]

A figment of his imagination.

 

Yeah.

 

JSJr's a liar.

 

Naturally.

[teddyaware]

I don't even see Jesus as an equation anywhere in your test description, and in the words of a shark in the "Shark Tank" show, "I'm Out"!!

 

In your hasty anger you likely did not see that I said those who remain faithful will sit with Christ on his throne. And in case you don't know it, in the LDS religion God is a synonym for Christ. You know, as in "if there be no Christ, there be no God ... but there is a God, and He is Christ" as recorded in the Book of Mormon?

 

Your argument is utterly ridiculous and the kind of nonsense I've heard anti-Mormons spout over the decades. Your post reminds me of the fellow who once said the first portion of the Book of Mormon doesn't mention Christ, when in reality -- if he hadn't been so eager to find fault -- he would have realized that in the earlier portion of the Book of Mormon Christ is referred to as the Messiah -- the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek name/title Christ. It's no wonder you've found yourself in such a predicament. Emotion is no substitute for reason.

Edited February 5, 2015 by teddyaware

[rockpond]

Again, that is how government works.

 

Agreed.  Do you think that letting the majority's religious beliefs be reflected in laws is consistent with supporting religious freedom?

[JLHPROF]

Agreed.  Do you think that letting the majority's religious beliefs be reflected in laws is consistent with supporting religious freedom?

 

They already are.  It's delusional to think that the religion of the majority of the population has no bearing on the laws that are passed, even with separation of Church and State.

 

As long as conservative Christians are elected, more conservative laws will be passed.  As long as liberal humanists are elected, more liberal laws will be passed.  If the majority of the government are fundamentalist Muslims the laws will reflect it.  If the majority of the government are staunch Catholics the laws will reflect it (just look at Ireland and Italy).

 

They don't have to do it in the name of religion.  They just have to vote the beliefs that are ingrained in them.

[stemelbow]

The historical records that document the practice of LDS polygamy were preceded by the revelation of one of the mysteries of Godliness called the New and Everlasting Covenant of Eternal Marriage, the undergirding principles of which are set forth, codified and canonized in Doctrine & Covenants 132. The deep doctrine (meat) that undergirds polygamy, and God's purposes in instituting the practice in the modern age, is something that can only be known, understood and, finally, embraced by one who willingly obtains confirmatory revelation from heaven that the principle is true, holy and exalting. So while it's true polygamy is a historically documented principle, once practiced by some early members of the LDS church, a true understanding of the principle will forever remain a mystery to those who in ignorance decry its practice as evil. For such, it will remain a mystery until its truthfulness is revealed to them from heaven either in this world or in the world to come.   

 

Similarly, the LDS the temple endowment is also well-documented reality in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. But just because the endowment is a well-know part of the historical record doesn't mean it's no longer a profound mystery to most; for even those who have been fully exposed to it -- either as friend, foe or snoop -- have little idea as to what it's all about because its ordinances, symbols and performances can only be know by revelation. As one who actually knows, in large measure, by revelation, what the endowment is all about (I do not pretend to know it all), I can assure you that although the outward forms of the endowment are part of the historical record, it still largely remains a mystery to most. So, whether they are recorded as historical facts or not, the mysteries of godliness can only be known by revelation; therefore extreme care must be exercise when discussing them so as not to expose the spiritually unprepared to doctrinal meat that can only cause then to choke, gag and finally revile. 

 

As to your saying that the Church has a problem when it come to polygamy, I beg to differ. Rather, I say things are exactly as they should be. The doctrine of plural marriage is a modern Abrahamic test that not only tested the spiritual mettle of the early saints, who were the ones who were actually called upon to practiced the principle, but it is a God-ordained test of faith for the modern Latter-day Saints as well.

 

 It was the prophet Joseph Smith himself who said "polygamy would damn more souls than it would save," and I believe his saying pertains to the modern saints and not just to polygamy's early practitioners. The Lord is testing His people to see who of them will trust in the voice of the Spirit (revelation), and who will lose faith and succumb by hearkening to the voice of the arm of flesh.

 

The worldly-wise are gathered at the windows of the large and spacious building of Lehi's vision, and they are pointing their mocking fingers at those who are partaking of the precious fruit of the tree of life. The mockers are trying with their might to cause the saints to feel shame and embarrassment over the Abrahamic test of polygamy that the Restored Church has been called upon to endure. In perverse hope, they want to see who they can persude to waiver and finally deny that which they already knew by revelation to be true. Those who remain steadfast and valiant in the face of the world's derisive wisdom will be exalted and crowned with eternal life, seated upon the throne of Christ's eternal power. Those who waiver and fail the test of faith will either have to repent and renew their faith in the God of the Restitution of All Things, or ultimately be satisfied with less than they otherwise might have obtained.

The Abrahamic test is one in which a person is commanded to do the near impossible and then doesn't have to go through with it. It doesn't really pertain to polygamy. But as it is, we can pretty much insert anything in place of polygamy in your above.

Edited February 5, 2015 by stemelbow

[Rob Osborn]

Agreed.  Do you think that letting the majority's religious beliefs be reflected in laws is consistent with supporting religious freedom?

Absolutely.