Jlhprof

[CCRW]

JLHPROF,

 

I'm getting too personal and off topic in general, so trying to move it to here.

 

There is a Lubavitch synagog in Sugarhouse (SLC) which I attended for awhile when I was about 35.  I was trying to get the Rabbi to teach me Kabbalah.  He adamantly refused on grounds that I was not Jewish and under 45 years old.  It was said that if one was not Jewish, male and 45 years old that they would go crazy.  In my case pursuing G-d left what I describe as a deep and festering wound into my soul.

 

In my time, most who sought their Calling and Election ended up disastrous.  The snuffers/harmston's are examples of those that crave for the old school.  We used to view it as the required trial before the blessing, knowing/expecting it to be a hellish trial.  For seven years of a festering wound, I assumed I had simply failed the trail.  Needed to turn totally away or go crazy from the pain.

 

Its hard to teach an old dog new tricks ... any remaining hope in me would still be along these lines ... but damn is it dangerous waters.

 

 

 

[JLHPROF]

CCRW,

 

What you describe (and what the Snuffers/Harmstons exemplify) is a grasping at straws.  Looking anywhere and everywhere for truth that would lead them to their Calling & Election. 

You said it yourself - pulling elements from early Mormonism, Kaballah, unauthorized "personal" revelation and ordinances, wild new theories and doctrines.

 

This is not my route or path.

 

I am of the firm belief that everything needed for our exaltation was restored perfectly under Joseph Smith and then basically perfectly systematized under Brigham Young, John Taylor, and to a lesser degree, Wilford Woodruff.

I believe that the gospel and ordinances of that time were administered as perfectly and correctly as mortal men can manage.

 

I have no need for the wild notions of the Snuffers or Harmstons.  That is not true Mormonism.  My personal issues lie with the things that were restored and then removed or altered beyond the revealed truth.  I don't consider myself in any danger of heading out into left field seeking my Calling and Election.

I believe the ways the Church has gone off the path will be corrected before the end times.  I sustain my Church and wait for God to steady his own ark and do my personal best to follow the restored gospel without violating Church rules.

[CCRW]

Might I ask ... are you married, have children?  Are you active in Temple attendance?

[JLHPROF]

Might I ask ... are you married, have children?  Are you active in Temple attendance?

 

Yes, yes, and yes.

But I don't particularly want to post detailed personal information on this site.

[CCRW]

Yes, yes, and yes.

But I don't particularly want to post detailed personal information on this site.

 

Understood ... and my interests are in hearing about your spiritual journey ... a feel for age and those three yes's play pretty heavy into the whole thing. 

 

Would you elaborate on contributions from John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff that you mentioned?

Edited April 13, 2015 by CCRW

[JLHPROF]

John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, like Brigham, knew Joseph personally.  A quick doctrinal trip through their administrations show that very little was altered from the days of Joseph and Brigham.

 

If you read a book like "Mysteries of Godliness" or "The Development of LDS Temple Worship" many administrative tweaks are recorded but the doctrines and ceremonies are held inviolate.  This continued up through Joseph F. Smith.

 

Yes, you could argue Wilford ended polygamy and the law of Adoption.  Pretty significant changes right?

Well, not if you study the history and understand the doctrine behind those laws.  Polygamy continued under Woodruff, Snow, and Jos. F. Smith.  The doctrines behind polygamy were never altered either.  The application of the law of Adoption was adjusted but the principle and ceremony never changed - Pres. Woodruff simply felt like if we believed in work for the dead then our ancestors would be given the opportunity to be our eternal fathers and keep their posterity first rather than a living apostle.  He never changed the necessity of being sealed to a priesthood head who had received ordinances.

 

The LDS teachings under Joseph, Brigham, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith are VERY consistent.  No major doctrinal changes are really noticeable.  Yes, there are minor adjustments based on circumstance and administration.  But not much else.

 

Some of Brigham's more controversial doctrines - Adam-God/Blood Atonement/Eternal Progression etc were still alluded to, still accepted quietly.

 

The Church of the 20th Century starting with Heber J. Grant (and a lot under Pres. McKay) and again esp. under Elder McConkie and Pres. Kimball made change after change after change.  Christ became Jehovah.  Adam was no longer God.  The King Follett

was downplayed.  Certain ordinances were adjusted/changed/ or even disappeared from public knowledge.

 

Basically, the restored gospel remained virtually unaltered doctrinally from the days of Joseph through the 2nd manifesto.  Then we started chipping away at bits of restored truth but recording no revelation to do so.

[CCRW]

BHR was one of my heroes.  I feel pretty strongly against JFS whom started to steer the ship towards a Protestant view of the God Head and whom I believe heavily influenced BRM's thinking.

 

When I mentioned that other day about one not agreeing with the Prophet but needing to follow for the keys and an ultimate restoration, I was thinking of Hyrum Andrus.  In the Temple one night, Hyrum told me of a conversation he had with BRM where Elder M got right in his face, yelling with great anger about what Hyrum was teaching.  Of course Hyrum was old school, always teaching that if one truly wanted to know the Restored Gospel then one needs to study the men that knew Joseph personally (like you mentioned).  Hyrum spent years in the archieves before they where totally locked down ... a major authority on JS.

 

He choose to go silent and follow the keys.

 

 

eta:

Here is a really old link that might interest you: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/49663-hyrum-andrus/

Edited April 13, 2015 by CCRW

[strappinglad]

The scriptures have recorded quite a few instances in which the prophet at the time proposed one path and the people chose another. The folks got to live with the consequences. One can speculate on the difference if the Israelites had marched right into the land of the Cananites, or if they had heeded the words of Jeremiah ,or if the Nephites had resisted the desire for a king, or if the saints in Missouri had been more self effacing etc....

This life has always been about discovering the will of God and then matching your will to it. I am reminded of the conversation between Christ and Legion. The devils knew who Christ was and yet wanted nothing to do with Him. For many years I thought that attitude was highly unlikely. Then I began to meet people who had the same attitude.

When we get to that great complaint department in the sky we get to vent about all our anger and mistreatment and bad leaders and righteous indignation about hypocrisy , all of which will be packed into one of those old vacuum tube transport systems and sent to the appropriate place for disposal. One of Satan's names is the Accuser . He is always looking for new material.

Be it known that I also have a good sized vacuum canister. I keep it quite a ways away so as to not fill it too fast. I have another canister labeled " Have I done any good in the world today. " Not as full as it should be. Pitiful in fact.

Edited April 13, 2015 by strappinglad

[CCRW]

When we get to that great complaint department in the sky we get to vent about all our anger and mistreatment and bad leaders and righteous indignation about hypocrisy , all of which will be packed into one of those old vacuum tube transport systems and sent to the appropriate place for disposal. One of Satan's names is the Accuser . He is always looking for new material.

 

 

Yes, I suppose that has been my hell, the vacum of the void.  No, no I do not believe you.  If my God exists he will treat it as such:

 

1. Where can I turn for peace?

Where is my solace

When other sources cease to make me whole?

When with a wounded heart, anger, or malice,

I draw myself apart,

Searching my soul?

 

2. Where, when my aching grows,

Where, when I languish,

Where, in my need to know, where can I run?

Where is the quiet hand to calm my anguish?

Who, who can understand?

He, only One.

 

3. He answers privately,

Reaches my reaching

In my Gethsemane, Savior and Friend.

Gentle the peace he finds for my beseeching.

Constant he is and kind,

Love without end.

[JLHPROF]

This life has always been about discovering the will of God and then matching your will to it

 

SO true!  But it is for each of us to discover for ourselves.

 

 

One of Satan's names is the Accuser . He is always looking for new material.

 

Accuser of the Brethren I believe.

I try very hard NOT to accuse any specific prophet or leader of any wrongdoing.  I truly believe they are all doing their best with what God has taught.

That doesn't mean I can't think they made a mistake or are in error.  They say themselves that they do and are only human.

I don't have to agree with every choice made by the prophet.  But I do have to sustain their authority and allow God to issue corrections.  This I try to do.

I also try to live by revealed truth without coming into conflict with the Church.

[CCRW]

This life has always been about discovering the will of God and then matching your will to it.

 

 

I remember the first time I picked up the Lectures on Faith and read the first paragraph of lecture 6.  Dang I was soooo excited, this is exactly what I was asking and looking for:

 

http://www.lecturesonfaith.com/6.php

 

"1 Having treated, in the preceding lectures, of the ideas of the character, perfections and attributes of God, we next proceed to treat of the knowledge which persons must have, that the course of life which they pursue is according to the will of God, in order that they may be enabled to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation."

 

Yes, please, tell me, show me the answer!

 

I wanted to cry coming across the answer realizing the near imposibility of ever achieving it.

[strappinglad]

May I suggest reading 1 Cor 15:19 in a variety of translations and see if you can come up with an interpretation that will help.

[CCRW]

strappinglad,

 

Please post some information in the who are you thread about yourself so I might know a bit better where you are coming from.

 

May I suggest reading 1 Cor 15:19 in a variety of translations and see if you can come up with an interpretation that will help.

 

I remember the days I longed for a modern day School of the Prophets, wondering why one would not be available in our time.  It was also not until six years or so back that I started to learn answers to my questions as to why the "Doctrine" was removed and why we were left with only the "Covenants". 

 

Why would I want to look back to the NT for clarification on JS teachings to the School of the Prophets?

 

Now it’s been way too many years and miles since I've studied this stuff, but if I remember right Christ appeared to the School Of the Prophets.

 

I always invisioned it like my good friend Wayne Phelps (GGGrandson of WWP) stood up in Fast and Testimony meeting one time and recited from memory:

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/110.2?lang=eng#1

[strappinglad]

And yet, Oliver, having experienced what Joseph did, was unable to let go of his anger against Joseph and others until many years had passed. To my knowledge he never denied this vision or that of the plates. Abraham was willing to submit to all things that the Lord required of him. Some of us rebel when we hear we should only have one set of earrings. Many of us are stubborn, stiff-necked, backsliding and unprofitable .I stand all amazed.

[CCRW]

And yet, Oliver, having experienced what Joseph did, was unable to let go of his anger against Joseph and others until many years had passed. To my knowledge he never denied this vision or that of the plates. Abraham was willing to submit to all things that the Lord required of him. Some of us rebel when we hear we should only have one set of earrings. Many of us are stubborn, stiff-necked, backsliding and unprofitable .I stand all amazed.

Cool, so I assume you agree that Lecture 6 was worth considering in connection with your original statement on knowing the will of God towards us.

 

I only point it out as most have never read it and fewer know that it was originally the first part of the Doctrine and Covenants, with the lectures actually being the Doctrine part of the book.

 

I apologize if this has been redundant information to you, and part of the reason I'd love to learn more about you and where you are coming from.

 

Oh, and it sure must be nice to be among the profitable ones!

Edited April 14, 2015 by CCRW

[rongo]

BHR was one of my heroes.  

You might find this article I wrote years ago to be of interest, CCRW.

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/evasive-ignorance-anti-mormon-claims-that-b-h-roberts-lost-his-testimony

 

On a different note: You can spot a "McConkie-ite Mormon" a mile away: they become apoplectic at the very mention of Hyrum Andrus, Cleon Skousen, or Duane Crowther . . .

[Stargazer]

John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, like Brigham, knew Joseph personally.  A quick doctrinal trip through their administrations show that very little was altered from the days of Joseph and Brigham.

 

If you read a book like "Mysteries of Godliness" or "The Development of LDS Temple Worship" many administrative tweaks are recorded but the doctrines and ceremonies are held inviolate.  This continued up through Joseph F. Smith.

 

Yes, you could argue Wilford ended polygamy and the law of Adoption.  Pretty significant changes right?

Well, not if you study the history and understand the doctrine behind those laws.  Polygamy continued under Woodruff, Snow, and Jos. F. Smith.  The doctrines behind polygamy were never altered either.  The application of the law of Adoption was adjusted but the principle and ceremony never changed - Pres. Woodruff simply felt like if we believed in work for the dead then our ancestors would be given the opportunity to be our eternal fathers and keep their posterity first rather than a living apostle.  He never changed the necessity of being sealed to a priesthood head who had received ordinances.

 

The LDS teachings under Joseph, Brigham, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith are VERY consistent.  No major doctrinal changes are really noticeable.  Yes, there are minor adjustments based on circumstance and administration.  But not much else.

 

Some of Brigham's more controversial doctrines - Adam-God/Blood Atonement/Eternal Progression etc were still alluded to, still accepted quietly.

 

The Church of the 20th Century starting with Heber J. Grant (and a lot under Pres. McKay) and again esp. under Elder McConkie and Pres. Kimball made change after change after change.  Christ became Jehovah.  Adam was no longer God.  The King Follett

was downplayed.  Certain ordinances were adjusted/changed/ or even disappeared from public knowledge.

 

Basically, the restored gospel remained virtually unaltered doctrinally from the days of Joseph through the 2nd manifesto.  Then we started chipping away at bits of restored truth but recording no revelation to do so.

 

Well, that's been my suspicion, that a lot of doctrine and practice has been quietly done away with.  And I don't know why.  Why no more second anointings?

 

Are you talking about the book "The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship" by David J. Buerger?  If so, I found a copy in the shelves of my local Barnes and Noble, and immediately bought it in order to keep it out of Gentile hands. 

 

Is the Social Hall the best place for this discussion?

[Stargazer]

You might find this article I wrote years ago to be of interest, CCRW.

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/evasive-ignorance-anti-mormon-claims-that-b-h-roberts-lost-his-testimony

 

On a different note: You can spot a "McConkie-ite Mormon" a mile away: they become apoplectic at the very mention of Hyrum Andrus, Cleon Skousen, or Duane Crowther . . .

 

I am not a McConkie-ite -- I do have a copy of "McConkie's Doctrine" but I try to avoid it.  But I am also no fan of Duane Crowther.  Not one bit.  I will have to investigate the writings of Hyrum Andrus (he's just a "name" to me), but I really love Cleon Skousen.

[Stargazer]

The scriptures have recorded quite a few instances in which the prophet at the time proposed one path and the people chose another. The folks got to live with the consequences. One can speculate on the difference if the Israelites had marched right into the land of the Cananites, or if they had heeded the words of Jeremiah ,or if the Nephites had resisted the desire for a king, or if the saints in Missouri had been more self effacing etc....

This life has always been about discovering the will of God and then matching your will to it. I am reminded of the conversation between Christ and Legion. The devils knew who Christ was and yet wanted nothing to do with Him. For many years I thought that attitude was highly unlikely. Then I began to meet people who had the same attitude.

When we get to that great complaint department in the sky we get to vent about all our anger and mistreatment and bad leaders and righteous indignation about hypocrisy , all of which will be packed into one of those old vacuum tube transport systems and sent to the appropriate place for disposal. One of Satan's names is the Accuser . He is always looking for new material.

Be it known that I also have a good sized vacuum canister. I keep it quite a ways away so as to not fill it too fast. I have another canister labeled " Have I done any good in the world today. " Not as full as it should be. Pitiful in fact.

 

Everything will be revealed to us eventually, and I am content with that.  I am having a freaking hard enough time making my behavior and my thoughts congruent with God.  Please don't make me try to match wits with Joseph Smith!

[JLHPROF]

Well, that's been my suspicion, that a lot of doctrine and practice has been quietly done away with.  And I don't know why.  Why no more second anointings?

 

Well, Tom Phillips (for all his sin and error) did provide evidence that second anointings are still performed.  But their existence and the doctrine surrounding them is not known by many members.

 

Are you talking about the book "The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship" by David J. Buerger?  If so, I found a copy in the shelves of my local Barnes and Noble, and immediately bought it in order to keep it out of Gentile hands. 

 

Yes.

 

Is the Social Hall the best place for this discussion?

 

Probably not.  I just responded to CCRW's questions to me.

 

[CCRW]

Is the Social Hall the best place for this discussion?

 

If I remember the rules, getting personal about one's experiences, directing comments at/to individuals and bearing testimony type things are not allowed up there in us verses them land.

[Stargazer]

If I remember the rules, getting personal about one's experiences, directing comments at/to individuals and bearing testimony type things are not allowed up there in us verses them land.

 

You're right, I think, but it seemed like we were heading into Discussion territory.  No matter.  It's your thread, do with it what you think best!