Tribune Op Ed: Section 132 In Seminary This Week

[Teancum]

So you are leaving murder being ok on the table.  Just as long as it is not mass murder.

 

 

Uh no I did not say that. It was in direct response to the mass murder comment.  No murder is pretty awful too.

Are you always this good at twisting what someone says?

 

[Kenngo1969]

It's only a matter of time unless Elder Packer is wrong and the winding up scene kicks off preventing it.  The Church will be partially out of order and will be set in order before Christ comes.  How far we will get out of order is a matter of how long we have to be influenced.  I only agree with Rockpond and Dehlin IF everything continues as it has to this point.  If something changes to prevent it then I see no SSM in the Church ever. ...

 

I'm still chewing on this and probably will be for awhile.  (I am not now, have never been, and will never be a "PROF" of anything, because I have but a simple mind, and because I certainly lack other necessary credentials; so maybe that's part of the problem. ) I'm having a difficult time understanding what the material difference is between "out of order" and "in apostasy."  And I'm having a difficult time understanding how this Restoration could be a "Restoration of all things" if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now is in apostasy to any degree. 

Edited April 4, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[JLHPROF]

I'm still chewing on this and probably will be for awhile.  (I am not now, have never been, and will never be a "PROF" of anything, because I have but a simple mind, and because I certainly lack other necessary credentials; so maybe that's part of the problem. ) I'm having a difficult time understanding what the material difference is between "out of order" and "in apostasy."  And I'm having a difficult time understanding how this Restoration could be a "Restoration of all things" if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now is in apostasy to any degree. 

 

Out of order and in total apostasy are related but very different.

Joseph was out of order when he pestered the Lord to give Martin Harris the 116 pages.  But he didn't lose his office.

It's the prodigal son scenario...the wandering off course but not losing our inheritance.

 

Likewise there are many ways the Church can be out of order or doing something incorrectly without losing the priesthood from the earth.

God has said that he will never have to restore the priesthood to the earth again.  This doesn't preclude the Church making bad decisions administratively or doctrinally.  It works in reverse too.  Sometimes we start out out of order and the Lord corrects us by revelation.  Sometimes we start out right and make changes that will need to be reversed one day.

 

Isaiah 24:5 says that in the last days we will break the everlasting covenant and change the ordinances.  This has to apply to the Church as they are the only ones who are under the covenant and in possession of the ordinances.  2 Nephi 28:21 says that members will deny it is happening.

 

I have my own views as to how the Church is "out of order", but the priesthood keys were restored to the earth for the last time and so a Great Apostasy as in the early Church where the authority to preach the gospel and act in God's name will never happen.  Another restoration will not be necessary, but God will have to course correct us before Christ can come.  Even to the separation out of faithful members from the general membership.

Edited April 4, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Coreyb]

This leads to the question if we ever were "in order". The Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, Tim Malone and Daymon Smith folks out there argue that the church has been "under condemnation" or "out of order" practically from the very begining.

[ttribe]

I have come to a firm a conclusion to this question (i.e., How do I know if it is commanded by God?). And I think the answer makes people (including myself) a little uncomfortable to be honest. The ONLY answer to this question is simply: 

 

By the Spirit.

 

It is irrelevant if it makes sense to you or me. There is plenty of scriptural for the idea that God will command you and me to do things that don't make sense to our mortal minds. I also find it interesting that there is a whole movement now where people are trying to confuse and destroy other people's confidence in the Spirit and their encounters with the Spirit. How many times have you heard any of the following arguments:

• How can you tell the difference between your emotions and the Spirit?
• People of other faiths think they "know" too.
• It is impossible to know.
• I used to think I know what the Spirit feels like, but now I can make myself feel that way on command.

There are a lot of little arguments that are just like this, whose only intention is to try and destroy people's confidence. I know because my own sister has used them. Her faith, sad to say was weak. As I have spent the last while studying the scripture on this very topic the more sharp the contrast has become for me on this. People do not like the fact that they have to listen to a still, small voice. That that same voice is hard to discern. That it requires a certain kind of heart and certain standard of living (sometimes/always for a prolonged period of time). It makes people uncomfortable that the Spirit is so easily offended and will leave them in a moment. People are like Laman and Lemuel, who complained that the Lord made no such thing known unto them. This was their faults, not the Lord's and certainly not Nephi who did receive such revelation.

 

A few weeks ago I had a phone call with a poster on this board. One of the many things we discussed was usage of the phrase "I know." I said I believe, but I don't think I know. I have had some awesome experiences with the Spirit over the past few weeks that have taught me to listen, trust and obey. I can say with surety now that I know. Listen to the Spirit. Rely on the Spirit. Learn how to recognize it. That is the only answer to your question. There is no other way. Logic and reason don't cut it. They never have and they never will. You are left with the Spirit and only the Spirit. If people don't like that answer they will be kept in the dark.

 

Taking all of this at face value, how do you reconcile when two individuals, both faithful members of the Church, believe they've received revelation on the same matter, but with opposing results?

[JLHPROF]

Taking all of this at face value, how do you reconcile when two individuals, both faithful members of the Church, believe they've received revelation on the same matter, but with opposing results?

 

That's when you compare to scriptural precedent, prophetic teaching, established protocols for revelation, and common sense.

You might also seek for a second witness as God has promised.

Edited April 4, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Coreyb]

Taking all of this at face value, how do you reconcile when two individuals, both faithful members of the Church, believe they've received revelation on the same matter, but with opposing results?

You do what every rational person does and stick with your present position

[The Nehor]

If the prophecies of LDS scripture are true and will ultimately be fulfilled, then the fact that the house of Israel descended from righteous polygamist ancestors will prove to be a very good thing indeed! As promised, those who inherit the highest degree of glory will rule and reign in the exalted House of Israel forever along with the polygamous patriarchs Abraham, Issac and Jacob (aka Israel).

 

Yes, they will. I was being facetious. The truth is that through most of history the House of Israel has been a disappointment. There have been individual successes but in general they have failed their duty. In this dispensation there will be a general success again though sadly it will likely come after a winnowing.

[The Nehor]

1: As noted it is something you should challenge even if the scriptures record it.  It is bad business.

 

2:  Please provide evidence that destroying angels exist.

 

3:  The definition of bad is subjective I guess.   I would suggest that if your ethics, common sense and good judgment it is probably bad.  It someone says God is telling them to tell you do so something against these things, or your think the spirit is I would suggest you not do it.  It is likely the better choice.

 

1. I challenge myself before I challenge the scriptures.

 

2. Will scriptural evidence work or do you need a photo?

 

3. I think allowing a perfect man to suffer the pains of all mankind and die by torture so that others can live sounds bad by my sense of ethics, common sense, and judgement yet it is the central point of my faith.

[Mystery Meat]

Taking all of this at face value, how do you reconcile when two individuals, both faithful members of the Church, believe they've received revelation on the same matter, but with opposing results?

 

Great question with a simple answer:

 

One (at least) of them is wrong.

[ttribe]

That's when you compare to scriptural precedent, prophetic teaching, established protocols for revelation, and common sense.

You might also seek for a second witness as God has promised.

 

This presupposes no mistakes in the scriptures, prophetic teaching, established protocols, etc.  In every case, my common sense says "No" to mass murder and "No" to anything that resembles the practice of polygamy as instituted in Nauvoo and Utah in the 19th century (as the examples we are currently discussing).  Am I damned if I refuse to act against my consience when I can't otherwise reconcile the issues at hand?

 

Great question with a simple answer:

 

One (at least) of them is wrong.

 

Okay, but the most important issue still isn't resolved - Which one?

[JLHPROF]

This presupposes no mistakes in the scriptures, prophetic teaching, established protocols, etc.  In every case, my common sense says "No" to mass murder and "No" to anything that resembles the practice of polygamy as instituted in Nauvoo and Utah in the 19th century (as the examples we are currently discussing).  Am I damned if I refuse to act against my consience when I can't otherwise reconcile the issues at hand?

 

 

Okay, but the most important issue still isn't resolved - Which one?

 

Well, if you doubt the spirit, doubt the scriptures, doubt the prophets, doubt the revealed policies, you basically doubt your religion as being from God.  And that is an issue of faith which nobody can resolve for you.

If you completely doubt your religion I suggest praying as in scripture - "Lord, help thou my unbelief".  Because nothing else is going to override your preconceived notions.

[ttribe]

Well, if you doubt the spirit, doubt the scriptures, doubt the prophets, doubt the revealed policies, you basically doubt your religion as being from God.  And that is an issue of faith which nobody can resolve for you.

If you completely doubt your religion I suggest praying as in scripture - "Lord, help thou my unbelief".  Because nothing else is going to override your preconceived notions.

 

Whoa, there fella.  You might be making a mistake here.  What (alleged) preconceived notions would those be?

 

- Do we not have examples of people with conflicting answers from the spirit?  Yes - hence, a basis for doubt.

 

- Do we not have examples of errors in the scriptures?  Yes - hence, a basis for doubt.

 

- Do we not have examples where policies were changed?  Yes - hence, a basis for doubt.

 

I'm trying to put myself into the shoes of the individual faced with the Abrahamic test; the individual told by his prophet to storm the promised land and kill every living thing; the individual told by his prophet to take another wife, even if he has to do so without telling the first.  Do you not see the inherent paradox in all of this?  And yet a number of people in this thread dogmatically sit in judgment of the author for standing up and saying - "I've seen too much abuse stemming from the teaching of polygamy as doctrinal; I have to say something!"

[Mystery Meat]

This presupposes no mistakes in the scriptures, prophetic teaching, established protocols, etc.  In every case, my common sense says "No" to mass murder and "No" to anything that resembles the practice of polygamy as instituted in Nauvoo and Utah in the 19th century (as the examples we are currently discussing).  Am I damned if I refuse to act against my consience when I can't otherwise reconcile the issues at hand?

 

 

Okay, but the most important issue still isn't resolved - Which one?

 

You will have to rely on the spirit to decide. It is that simple. 

[ttribe]

You will have to rely on the spirit to decide. It is that simple. 

 

Which leads us right back to where we started.

[Kenngo1969]

This presupposes no mistakes in the scriptures, prophetic teaching, established protocols, etc.  In every case, my common sense says "No" to mass murder and "No" to anything that resembles the practice of polygamy as instituted in Nauvoo and Utah in the 19th century (as the examples we are currently discussing).  Am I damned if I refuse to act against my consience when I can't otherwise reconcile the issues at hand?

 

 

Okay, but the most important issue still isn't resolved - Which one?

 

This presupposes no mistakes in the scriptures, prophetic teaching, established protocols, etc.  In every case, my common sense says "No" to mass murder and "No" to anything that resembles the practice of polygamy as instituted in Nauvoo and Utah in the 19th century (as the examples we are currently discussing).  Am I damned if I refuse to act against my consience when I can't otherwise reconcile the issues at hand?

 

 

Okay, but the most important issue still isn't resolved - Which one?

What if some of us wouldn't be here without polygamy?

[ttribe]

What if some of us wouldn't be here without polygamy?

 

Well, what's done is done, right?  So, going forward, what are we to do about this issue?

 

BTW, if we really believe in the pre-earth life in our doctrine, then the notion of "some of us wouldn't be here" is a non-issue.  We would, in fact, be here; just (perhaps) in different circumstances.

[Kenngo1969]

Out of order and in total apostasy are related but very different.

Joseph was out of order when he pestered the Lord to give Martin Harris the 116 pages.  But he didn't lose his office.

It's the prodigal son scenario...the wandering off course but not losing our inheritance.

 

Likewise there are many ways the Church can be out of order or doing something incorrectly without losing the priesthood from the earth.

God has said that he will never have to restore the priesthood to the earth again.  This doesn't preclude the Church making bad decisions administratively or doctrinally.  It works in reverse too.  Sometimes we start out out of order and the Lord corrects us by revelation.  Sometimes we start out right and make changes that will need to be reversed one day.

 

Isaiah 24:5 says that in the last days we will break the everlasting covenant and change the ordinances.  This has to apply to the Church as they are the only ones who are under the covenant and in possession of the ordinances.  2 Nephi 28:21 says that members will deny it is happening.

 

I have my own views as to how the Church is "out of order", but the priesthood keys were restored to the earth for the last time and so a Great Apostasy as in the early Church where the authority to preach the gospel and act in God's name will never happen.  Another restoration will not be necessary, but God will have to course correct us before Christ can come.  Even to the separation out of faithful members from the general membership.

I appreciate the thought you put into this.  (Still chewing. )

[Mystery Meat]

Which leads us right back to where we started.

 

Only if you do not trust the Spirit, and if you do not trust the Spirit there is nothing I can do for you.

[ttribe]

Only if you do not trust the Spirit, and if you do not trust the Spirit there is nothing I can do for you.

 

What is it with you and JHLPROF making this thought experiment about me?  I thought I made it clear that this is about stepping into the shoes of someone struggling through the issues at hand.

 

Nevertheless, how am "I" supposed to "trust the Spirit" in the face of such conflicting answers via "the Spirit"?

[Mystery Meat]

What is it with you and JHLPROF making this thought experiment about me?  I thought I made it clear that this is about stepping into the shoes of someone struggling through the issues at hand.

 

Nevertheless, how am "I" supposed to "trust the Spirit" in the face of such conflicting answers via "the Spirit"?

 

If you trust the Spirit that is great. For the hypothetical person you have created the answer is the same. They will not find peace or the answers they are looking for if they cannot learn to listen and recognize the Spirit. 

 

As to your second part, you have are supposed to trust the Spirit. The Spirit does not give out conflicting answers. Period. The Lord does not tell one person that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and another that he wasn't. He does not tell some that SSM is good and others that it is evil. YOU (or in this case our hypothetical person who is struggling) must find the answers to all of these sorts of questions through the Spirit. Of course prophets, scripture and prayer are there to help us draw near unto the Spirit. But only the Spirit can speak and confirm truth. If anybody (real or hypothetical) won't accept that answer then they are hopeless. No amount of historical date; no application of sound philosophy; no blanket application of moral code established by man; no amount of logic and reasoning; and no book, inspired or otherwise, can make up for a lack of the Spirit. And none of them will lead a person to truth. ONLY THE SPIRIT.  

 

Again, if our hypothetical person who is struggling with the answers refuses that answer, then his mind is already lost. He will try to find truth through some other, less reliable and fallen mode of discovering truth. Such person is in the hands of the devil.

[Kenngo1969]

Well, what's done is done, right?  So, going forward, what are we to do about this issue?

 

BTW, if we really believe in the pre-earth life in our doctrine, then the notion of "some of us wouldn't be here" is a non-issue.  We would, in fact, be here; just (perhaps) in different circumstances.

You're right to the extent that ultimately, God's purposes will not be thwarted even if, e.g., a woman chooses to misuse her agency to have an abortion.  I don't think God ever will tell anyone, "Well, you were supposed to go to earth to that mother and/or in that family, but poor choices were made, so ... Sorry ; it sucks to be you."  On the other hand, the only scriptural justification I've ever seen for polygamy is to "raise up seed" (Jacob 2), so perhaps "some of us wouldn't be here" or at least, "some of us wouldn't be here in the circumstances that we're in" still applies.

 

If I were ever to speak to a child of mine who chose to bring a life into this world under suboptimal circumstances by disobeying the law of chastity, I'm not sure what I would tell him or her or how I would approach the situation, but I'm fairly certain I wouldn't use your first sentence: if (while this is exceedingly doubtful) I were to do so, I certainly wouldn't do it in the hearing of my grandchild. Most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who entered into polygamous unions did not see those unions as illegitimate, and most such spouses loved each other as much as those in monogamous unions, and most of them certainly loved their children.  And if I wouldn't say "what's done is done" even when it's pretty clear that the parties involved made a mistake (at least by not waiting until after they were married to conceive), I'm certainly not going to do that with respect to a polygamous marriage which, although it may not have been "all sweetness and light," was, nonetheless, still legitimate in the eyes of the parties involved. 

 

It seems ill-advised (at best) to dismiss all of that with a wave of your hand and a "What's done is done ..."  just because you're squeamish about polygamy and/or about the way it was implemented.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[ttribe]

Again, if our hypothetical person who is struggling with the answers refuses that answer, then his mind is already lost. He will try to find truth through some other, less reliable and fallen mode of discovering truth. Such person is in the hands of the devil.

 

Okay then, I think we're done here.  Apparently, "trusting the Spirit" is something that is innate to some, but to those who struggle to learn how, they're turned over to the devil.  Lovely.

[Teancum]

1. The scriptures show that God has commanded it in the past.  If I have a testimony of Joseph Smith and what he was called to do, then I have no reason to believe that God did not command him to practice it.  The evidence to me shows that Joseph did not really want to practice it.  He believed that God commanded it.

 

2.  Of course. People can find reason for everything they do.  Even those who are part of ISIS find some justification for what they are doing.  People can also find reasons not to do something. 

 

 

The fact that you are very self assured of your own testimony but doubt the testimony of others such as ISIS participants should give you pause. Why is your self assurance any more correct and accurate than the one they have that you most assuredly dismiss.

 

The answer is clear.  Such methods are unreliable.

[ttribe]

You're right to the extent that ultimately, God's purposes will not be thwarted even if, e.g., a woman chooses to misuse her agency to have an abortion.  I don't think God ever will tell anyone, "Well, you were supposed to go to earth to that mother and/or in that family, but poor choices were made, so ... Sorry ; it sucks to be you."  On the other hand, the only scriptural justification I've ever seen for polygamy is to "raise up seed" (Jacob 2), so perhaps "some of us wouldn't be here" or at least, "some of us wouldn't be here in the circumstances that we're in" still applies.

 

If I were ever to speak to a child of mine who chose to bring a life into this world under suboptimal circumstances by disobeying the law of chastity, I'm not sure what I would tell him or her or how I would approach the situation, but I'm fairly certain I wouldn't use your first sentence: if (while this is exceedingly doubtful) I were to do so, I certainly wouldn't do it in the hearing of my grandchild. Most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who entered into polygamous unions did not see those unions as illegitimate, and most such spouses loved each other as much as those in monogamous unions, and most of them certainly loved their children.  And if I wouldn't say "what's done is done" even when it's pretty clear that the parties involved made a mistake (at least by not waiting until after they were married to conceive), I'm certainly not going to do that with respect to a polygamous marriage which, although it may not have been "all sweetness and light," was, nonetheless, still legitimate in the eyes of the parties involved. 

 

It seems ill-advised (at best) to dismiss all of that with a wave of your hand and a "What's done is done ..."  just because you're squeamish about polygamy and/or about the way it was implemented.

 

 

Oh my...you are focusing on something completely out of the discussion at hand (hence, my glib comment).