DBMormon Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) I have a few free moments so I thought I would expound on the episode referred to in the OP of this thread. The Van Allen's are supposedly being brought before a disciplinary council because they have chosen to disbelieve section 132. They otherwise consider themselves faithful members and it seems that is the case. But I share sources that seemingly gives room for us to possibly set aside section 132. I will present the myths as I see them and the reasons for calling them myths Myth #1 - We can not disbelieve 132 because it is canon canon = scripture. But is all scripture from God? Consider this quote from Brigham Young I have heard some make the broad assertion that every word within the lids of the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them, "You have never read the Bible, have you?" "O, yes, and I believe every word in it is the word of God." Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth. The doctrines contained in the Bible will lift to a superior condition all who observe them; they will impart to them knowledge, wisdom, charity, fill them with compassion and cause them to feel after the wants of those who are in distress, or in painful or degraded circumstances.Journal of Discourses 13:175 (May 29, 1870) Brigham seems comfortable not believing every word of it to be from God. we also should acknowledge that each of us interpret and understand portions of scripture very differently. literal vs figurative, local or global flood, WoW interpretation, skin will become white, sexual sin next to murder, etc... Myth #2 We can not discard 132 because a Prophet believed it was revelation. Consider the quote where Brigham Young claims his Adam God theory was Revelation "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revleaed to me – namely that Adam is our father and God – I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth. Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who cold tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith."- Prophet Brigham Young, Deseret News, v. 22, no. 308, June 8, 1873 And then how the Church discarded it. Now may I say something for your guidance and enlightenment.... As it happens, I am a great admirer of Brigham Young and a great believer in his doctrinal presentations. He was called of God.He was guided by the Holy Spirit in his teachings in general. He was a mighty prophet. He led Israel the way the Lord wanted his people led. He built on the foundation laid by the Prophet Joseph. He completed his work and has come on to eternal exaltation.Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. - Elder Bruce R McConkie We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.—Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976), 77 Brigham claimed his teaching of Adam as God came from God himself and yet we have discarded his revelation as false. Myth #3 we can not discard 132 because it was given by an angel of the Lord D&C 129 gives us room to acknowledge that evil spirits come in the name of God and can fool us if we don't test them properly. Lehi's dream is a possible demonstration of this along with Jesus being tempted, and Adam and eve being tempted as other examples. The question must be asked if Joseph took time to shake hands with an angel that threatened him with a drawn sword... At a minimum it should be acknowledged that we set aside portions of canon (song of solomon, parts of the law of moses, old D&C section 109, lectures on faith) as not binding and in some cases as not divine truth or from God. At a minimum it must be acknowledged that we have on occasion discarded what was believed by our prophets to be revelations. At a minimum it must be acknowledged that we leave room for leaders to think they got info from an angel of God only to have been deceived. On this basis it appears Mormonism itself may possibly give you permission to personally discard portions of its theology and proposed revelations.------------------------------------------------------------In my personal views I have not discarded 132 though I admit i am very uncomfortable with it. The episode this comes from is here http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/04/shaking-hands-and-drawn-sword/ Edited April 25, 2015 by DBMormon 3
Popular Post JLHPROF Posted April 25, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) I think I've made my feelings known.These three excuses (and that's all they are) can be applied to ANY revelation or principle of the gospel. Which means applying them in this manner can only be based on our distaste for a particular doctrine and have no relationship to whether the revelation came from God or not. ETA - additionally, D&C 132 is the revelation that first taught the prophet eternal marriage.Discard it and you would have to admit that your eternal sealing is also wrong. Anybody willing to give up eternal marriage to get rid of polygamy?Wait, never mind, I know the answer to that. Edited April 25, 2015 by JLHPROF 11
Popular Post ERayR Posted April 25, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 25, 2015 I have a few free moments so I thought I would expound on the episode referred to in the OP of this thread. The Van Allen's are supposedly being brought before a disciplinary council because they have chosen to disbelieve section 132. They otherwise consider themselves faithful members and it seems that is the case. But I share sources that seemingly gives room for us to possibly set aside section 132. I will present the myths as I see them and the reasons for calling them myths Myth #1 - We can not disbelieve 132 because it is cannon cannon = scripture. But is all scripture from God? Consider this quote from Brigham Young Brigham seems comfortable not believing every word of it to be from God. we also should acknowledge that each of us interpret and understand portions of scripture very differently. literal vs figurative, local or global flood, WoW interpretation, skin will become white, sexual sin next to murder, etc... Myth #2 We can not discard 132 because a Prophet believed it was revelation. Consider the quote where Brigham Young claims his Adam God theory was Revelation And then how the Church discarded it. Brigham claimed his teaching of Adam as God came from God himself and yet we have discarded his revelation as false. Myth #3 we can not discard 132 because it was given by an angel of the Lord D&C 129 gives us room to acknowledge that evil spirits come in the name of God and can fool us if we don't test them properly. Lehi's dream is a possible demonstration of this along with Jesus being tempted, and Adam and eve being tempted as other examples. The question must be asked if Joseph took time to shake hands with an angel that threatened him with a drawn sword... At a minimum it should be acknowledged that we set aside portions of cannon (song of solomon, parts of the law of moses, old D&C section 109, lectures on faith) as not binding and in some cases as not divine truth or from God. At a minimum it must be acknowledged that we have on occasion discarded what was believed by our prophets to be revelations. At a minimum it must be acknowledged that we leave room for leaders to think they got info from an angel of God only to have been deceived. On this basis it appears Mormonism itself may possibly give you permission to personally discard portions of its theology and proposed revelations.------------------------------------------------------------In my personal views I have not discarded 132 though I admit i am very uncomfortable with it. The episode this comes from is here http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/04/shaking-hands-and-drawn-sword/ Yet another thread seeking justification for your choices. 9
Teancum Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Yet another thread seeking justification for your choices.Doesn't everyone do that? You justify yours in following what you believe is from God by arguing it and having faith in it as such. What's so different about that? 2
DBMormon Posted April 25, 2015 Author Posted April 25, 2015 I think I've made my feelings known.These three excuses (and that's all they are) can be applied to ANY revelation or principle of the gospel. Which means applying them in this manner can only be based on our distaste for a particular doctrine and have no relationship to whether the revelation came from God or not.your not dealing with the actual examples used but rather you seem to not like the repercussions so you simply ignore them. 2
Calm Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 If Joseph was the only one claiming a spiritual witness of those involved, the possibility might be there.Given the other testified to experiences of revelation/inspiration, I do not see Joseph was deceived by a false angel as a viable option. 2
DBMormon Posted April 25, 2015 Author Posted April 25, 2015 I see no reason to disregard section 132Good for you, again you too are not dealing with the examples and principles they put forward.
DBMormon Posted April 25, 2015 Author Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) If Joseph was the only one claiming a spiritual witness of those involved, the possibility might be there.Given the other testified to experiences of revelation/inspiration, I do not see Joseph was deceived by a false angel as a viable option. that has precedent as well for example on Adam God, many had a testimony of it "Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true."- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourseshow could something believed by the prophet to be revelation and also something many others had a testimony of be false? Edited April 25, 2015 by DBMormon
Popular Post JAHS Posted April 25, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 25, 2015 D&C 56:4 "Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord." For now God has revoked the practice of the doctrine of plural marriage. It's still a doctrine of the church, but one we are not commanded to live at this time, therefore no reason to throw out the Section. 5
ERayR Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 Doesn't everyone do that? You justify yours in following what you believe is from God by arguing it and having faith in it as such. What's so different about that? I don't think that in all the time I have participated here that I have started a thread to try justifying my contrary beliefs. 3
JLHPROF Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 your not dealing with the actual examples used but rather you seem to not like the repercussions so you simply ignore them. What "examples"? 1. I agree with Brigham - not every canonized word is from God.2. I believe in Adam-God along with Brigham. It was a revelation, and if some GA's discarded it that's their issue. It has no connection to D&C 132.3. Angels can be from a false source. True. But using that argument we can toss the BoM, the Priesthood, the garments, heck, all of Mormonism. So I say again, who gets to choose which angels were from God in restoring the gospel?Not to mention the ridiculous idea that God would allow a false angel to insert lies into the restoration in between the events in D&C 110 and the revealing of the temple ordinances and he would say nothing or correct nothing. 2
DBMormon Posted April 25, 2015 Author Posted April 25, 2015 I don't think that in all the time I have participated here that I have started a thread to try justifying my contrary beliefs.I don't believe or adhere to this line of thought, simply proposing it as having some strength to the position. This is not my belief just an option I have thought out.
DBMormon Posted April 25, 2015 Author Posted April 25, 2015 What "examples"? 1. I agree with Brigham - not every canonized word is from God.2. I believe in Adam-God along with Brigham. It was a revelation, and if some GA's discarded it that's their issue. It has no connection to D&C 132.3. Angels can be from a false source. True. But using that argument we can toss the BoM, the Priesthood, the garments, heck, all of Mormonism. So I say again, who gets to choose which angels were from God in restoring the gospel?Not to mention the ridiculous idea that God would allow a false angel to insert lies into the restoration in between the events in D&C 110 and the revealing of the temple ordinances and he would say nothing or correct nothing.there is the key to your comments - "who gets to choose"... what they discard and what they hold onto?
DBMormon Posted April 25, 2015 Author Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) D&C 56:4 "Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord." For now God has revoked the practice of the doctrine of plural marriage. It's still a doctrine of the church, but one we are not commanded to live at this time, therefore no reason to throw out the Section. God revoked old section 109 and we threw it out Edited April 25, 2015 by DBMormon
ERayR Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 I don't believe or adhere to this line of thought, simply proposing it as having some strength to the position. This is not my belief just an option I have thought out. To what end? 1
Popular Post Darren10 Posted April 25, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 25, 2015 DB; You have said you are uncomfortable with D&C 132. that does not surprise me. you are very frequently uncomfortable with aspects of the gospel. Before discussing anything else you'll need to clarify something. You cite how prophets can err and so we have scripture, namely the Standard Works, in order to base revelation, if it be authentically correct (from God) for the world to know and learn or if it be something not from God and / or preached to the world. But you use these very citations to justify getting rid of D&C 132, which is scripture and *firmly* part of the Standard Works. Which is it? 6
Teancum Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 I don't think that in all the time I have participated here that I have started a thread to try justifying my contrary beliefs.That is not what I meant but never mind.
ERayR Posted April 25, 2015 Posted April 25, 2015 enough to satisfy my thirst It is becoming apparent your thirst is for sowing discord. 1
Popular Post Rivers Posted April 25, 2015 Popular Post Posted April 25, 2015 For me, 132 has some uncomfortable parts but there is a lot of beautiful teaching in there as well. When I read the section I don't see it has being soley being about polygamy. It uses the singular term "a wife" when describing the eternal marriage covenant. If we get rid of sections 132, we are getting rid of the scriptural foundation for eternal marriage. 5
DBMormon Posted April 25, 2015 Author Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) DB;You have said you are uncomfortable with D&C 132. that does not surprise me. you are very frequently uncomfortable with aspects of the gospel.Before discussing anything else you'll need to clarify something. You cite how prophets can err and so we have scripture, namely the Standard Works, in order to base revelation, if it be authentically correct (from God) for the world to know and learn or if it be something not from God and / or preached to the world. But you use these very citations to justify getting rid of D&C 132, which is scripture and *firmly* part of the Standard Works.Which is it?is the bible less canon than 132? Are we more bound to section 132 than other scripture? what about old section 109 which was canon and then discarded. I am simply discussing that it is messier than we acknowledge and there is more room to possibly discard scripture and proposed revelation than we think. Edited April 25, 2015 by DBMormon
DBMormon Posted April 25, 2015 Author Posted April 25, 2015 It is becoming apparent your thirst is for sowing discord.right when I find facts that don't fit our paradigm, I should just ignore them and move on. I so wish I was more like that... not 1
Recommended Posts