"the Things We've Taught In The Past Are Wrong"

[JLHPROF]

I agree that if most of us would have to answer "yes" to that question if we were honest with ourselves.  It should be known however, that simply because we cannot answer every single question in the affirmative, it does not necessarily mean that we will be found unworthy. 

 

The way I approach that question, and all questions, is to answer honestly and truthfully, as best I understand the teachings and let the bishop perform his appointed role as judge.  I learned this from my dad.  For example, when my dad was asked if he lives the word of wisdom, he answered "no", not as he understands it.  He assured the bishop that he doesn't drink, smoke, etc. but that he does not follow the rest of the word of wisdom as outlined in scripture.  He was still found worthy and granted a recommend.  He thought it better to come completely clean instead of assuming that the bishop would find him worthy.  Are we really allowing the bishop to perform his role as judge if we are pre-judging ourselves on those questions and justifying an affirmative answer based on that judgement?

 

Simply because we don't, or can't answer all of the answers in the affirmative, does not necessarily mean that we will be found unworthy to hold a recommend.  If we withhold any information that may prevent the bishop from making a sound judgement, then we will be the ones held accountable for possibly entering the temple unworthily.  I don't want that on my shoulders, so I make it a point to turn it all over to the bishop and let the burden be upon his shoulder as judge. 

 

Completely agree - but I'm still not telling my Bishop that I completely believe in the Adam-God doctrine or believe the Temple ordinances should not have been altered. 

It's a personal doctrinal belief that's none of his business and it doesn't impact how I live the gospel.  It also doesn't change my testimony or my sustaining of our leaders callings.  Also, unlike your father's WoW answer, neither of these are recommend requirements.

 

I just happen to believe something different theologically than the average member, but I keep mostly quiet about it.

[pogi]

Also, unlike your father's WoW answer, neither of these are recommend requirements.

 

I guess that depends on how you interpret #7.  I'll let you be the judge of that, but I do think it wise to allow your bishop be the judge instead.  Either way, I won't think any less of you.  It's just how I would approach it personally. 

[JLHPROF]

Either way, I won't think any less of you.

 

Is that even possible... :cray: :cray:

[pogi]

Is that even possible... :cray: :cray:

 

Look at it this way, the only way to go from rock bottom is up.  

 

Just kidding!  On the contrary, I hold you in high regard.

[Robert F. Smith]

Completely agree - but I'm still not telling my Bishop that I completely believe in the Adam-God doctrine or believe the Temple ordinances should not have been altered. 

.........................................................................  

Does it matter that the alterations you speak of are surface changes only, i.e., certain features are still implied, and are actually still present in the OT and other ancient sources?  Perhaps modern people are just more queasy and chicken-hearted.

[Glenn101]

I think the Jehovah's Witnesses have the same principle.  In some of their cases, the newer 

light actually corrected the false older light which was leading people astray.  When LDS

Church members were following Talmage's Articles of Faith (where it taught that there were

only two personages in the Godhead), some newer light (can't find the source for the

revelation) came to dispel the older light.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

For your information, Talmage taught the following in Lecture II on the Articles of Faith:

"The Godhead: The Trinity.—Three personages composing the great presiding council of the universe have revealed themselves to man: (1) God the Eternal Father; (2) His Son, Jesus Christ; and (3) the Holy Ghost. That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is very plainly proved by the accepted records of the divine dealings with man. On the occasion of the Savior's baptism before cited, John recognized the sign of the Holy Ghost; he saw before him in a tabernacle of flesh the Christ, upon whom he had performed the holy ordinance; and he heard the voice of the Father. The three personages of the Godhead were present, manifesting themselves each in a different way, and each distinct from the others. The Savior promised His disciples that the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, should be sent unto them by His Father; here again are the three members of the Godhead distinctly referred to. Stephen, at the time of his martyrdom, was blessed with the power of heavenly vision, and he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Joseph Smith, while calling upon the Lord in fervent prayer for wisdom to guide him in his religious professions, saw the Father and the Son, standing in the midst of light which shamed the brightness of the sun; one of these declared of the other, "This is my beloved Son, hear Him." Each of the members of the Trinity is called God, together they constitute the Godhead."

 

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

Does it matter that the alterations you speak of are surface changes only, i.e., certain features are still implied, and are actually still present in the OT and other ancient sources?

 

I have already explained that I consider these alterations to go far beyond surface changes.  But that discussion is on another thread, and I am apparently alone in that belief.  But I stand by it and consider my beliefs to have doctrinal backing.  But it's not worth debating.

[Jeanne]

As for number 7...this one hurts in ways many would not understand.  I left a home, a job, friends, and employment for a father that could not be associated with me.  There lies a truth that really hurts..and makes a loss on  THIS earth that the Savior would not have tolerated.  To lose a family member to a Temple Recommend is a very painful thing.

[JLHPROF]

makes a loss on  THIS earth that the Savior would not have tolerated.

 

I don't want to downplay your pain or challenges, but I have to address this inaccurate statement.

 

Christ said:

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.  - Matthew 19:29

 

and

 

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. - Matthew 10:37

 

and

 

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 - Matthew 10:35

 

Sometimes Christ fully expects us to be estranged from our family temporarily in mortality for the sake of his gospel.  It is painful and hard to bear (believe me, I know) but it is sometimes required.

[Jeanne]

I don't want to downplay your pain or challenges, but I have to address this inaccurate statement.

 

Christ said:

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.  - Matthew 19:29

 

and

 

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. - Matthew 10:37

 

and

 

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 - Matthew 10:35

 

Sometimes Christ fully expects us to be estranged from our family temporarily in mortality for the sake of his gospel.  It is painful and hard to bear (believe me, I know) but it is sometimes required.

i rest my case.  The love of Christ is not extended to those on the other side of the fence?  Love Ye One Another.  Families Forever.  Family First.    Where are the boundaries that divide for  righteousness sake that changes the love of a woman for her father?  I did all this for him and  I am without the blessing ofe my family.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Jeanne

[theplains]

For your information, Talmage taught the following in Lecture II on the Articles of Faith:

"The Godhead: The Trinity.—Three personages composing the great presiding council of the universe have revealed themselves to man: (1) God the Eternal Father; (2) His Son, Jesus Christ; and (3) the Holy Ghost. That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is very plainly proved by the accepted records of the divine dealings with man. On the occasion of the Savior's baptism before cited, John recognized the sign of the Holy Ghost; he saw before him in a tabernacle of flesh the Christ, upon whom he had performed the holy ordinance; and he heard the voice of the Father. The three personages of the Godhead were present, manifesting themselves each in a different way, and each distinct from the others. The Savior promised His disciples that the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, should be sent unto them by His Father; here again are the three members of the Godhead distinctly referred to. Stephen, at the time of his martyrdom, was blessed with the power of heavenly vision, and he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Joseph Smith, while calling upon the Lord in fervent prayer for wisdom to guide him in his religious professions, saw the Father and the Son, standing in the midst of light which shamed the brightness of the sun; one of these declared of the other, "This is my beloved Son, hear Him." Each of the members of the Trinity is called God, together they constitute the Godhead."

 

Glenn

 

Thanks Glenn. I have Talmage's Articles of Faith too. Copyrighted date of 1913/1924.

 

Here is a scanned image of a page from Lectures on Faith (an earlier publication). 

 

According to the Preface, "they were published in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. They

were maintained as an integral portion of that book until the 1921 edition, when they were

removed on the basis that they were never presented to nor accepted by the church as

being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons" ... even though they were added to

official canon I might add.  

 

I could not find any revelation indicating why they (the Lectures on Faith) were added to

and subsequently removed from the Doctrine and Covenants.  Your citation of the Articles

of Faith is a later publication - one where they corrected the earlier false teaching.

 

Regards,

Jim