Senator Posted April 25, 2015 Share 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. In the presentation of the endowment, do you think the false angel, who turns and speaks directly to us, was lying or telling the truth? (Not trying to bait you into an argument....simply curious to your answer.) Link to comment
Senator Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 It's no wonder God has all but stopped speaking new revelation for us Have you got any evidence for that? Link to comment
DBMormon Posted April 25, 2015 Author Share Posted April 25, 2015 I appreciate tha passionate responses. again. Not my personal take. simply offering those sliding away another option to allow them to hang on. In my mind better they set one section off to the side and feel permitted to stay the be forced to eat the whole elephant and feel they are left only to to leave. Another question that could be asked is knowing that multiple revelations went together into making 132, could one pull thes apart or even the church one day pull these apart leaving us with the eternal nature of marriage separate from the temporary doctrine of polygamy? Link to comment
Senator Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 I appreciate tha passionate responses. again. Not my personal take. simply offering those sliding away another option to allow them to hang on. I think you might consider the idea that "hanging on at all costs" is not necessarily the best thing. If people simply can not, or will not let go of their grievances, then letting go of the church might actually be a good thing; for them and the church. 2 Link to comment
stemelbow Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 2things:1. I don't know that there is anyone who doesn't "throw out" part of the canon. We all do and many of us might disagree with what to throw out and what not to.2. It seems to me the church by not talking about a very important element of our history (polygamy), advocates that we ignore it and in large measure pretend it never was. I don't know how many members are surprised to learn Joseph practiced polygamy. It's as if they gloss over it in section 132, not realizing what is being said. So in effect, the parts of 132 that mention polygamy are thrown out by most members, it seems to me. Interesting and good op. Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Have you got any evidence for that? Give me a new revelation from the Lord to read that was written/recorded in the past 25 years. Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 1. I don't know that there is anyone who doesn't "throw out" part of the canon. We all do and many of us might disagree with what to throw out and what not to. I don't. I really don't.I think there are things that could be removed, but I have no reason to want them removed. Link to comment
DBMormon Posted April 25, 2015 Author Share Posted April 25, 2015 2things:1. I don't know that there is anyone who doesn't "throw out" part of the canon. We all do and many of us might disagree with what to throw out and what not to.2. It seems to me the church by not talking about a very important element of our history (polygamy), advocates that we ignore it and in large measure pretend it never was. I don't know how many members are surprised to learn Joseph practiced polygamy. It's as if they gloss over it in section 132, not realizing what is being said. So in effect, the parts of 132 that mention polygamy are thrown out by most members, it seems to me.Interesting and good op.thank you for your comment Link to comment
Senator Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Give me a new revelation from the Lord to read that was written/recorded in the past 25 years. Define "revelation from the Lord" Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 I appreciate tha passionate responses. again. Not my personal take. simply offering those sliding away another option to allow them to hang on. In my mind better they set one section off to the side and feel permitted to stay the be forced to eat the whole elephant and feel they are left only to to leave. Another question that could be asked is knowing that multiple revelations went together into making 132, could one pull thes apart or even the church one day pull these apart leaving us with the eternal nature of marriage separate from the temporary doctrine of polygamy? If you are speaking to people individually, it is better that they personally reject D&C 132 than apostatize from the Church.If you are speaking collectively - It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.No person's membership in the Church is worth the Church rejecting a single syllable that proceeded forth from the mouth of God. 3 Link to comment
telnetd Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Canon =/= Cannon. They removed Lectures on Faith from the early version of Doctrine and Covenants.They added to canon and they removed from canon. Gail Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Define "revelation from the Lord" The stuff we put in canon and the stuff people want to discard. You know, like D&C 132.If we start discarding revelation we may not get any more. Link to comment
ERayR Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 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 Perhaps it is your paradigm that is the problem, not the D & C. 4 Link to comment
ERayR Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 . Let them be angels, we're going to be Gods. I think I will be happy if I can even shake their hands. Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Another option would be to revise D&C 132. Keep the good, toss the bad. If it is possible for a prophet to be wrong, which it is, we are left to evaluate each concept. We can keep what is from God, like the eternal nature of families, and get rid of the personal threats against Emma and justification for multiple wives (wives being a very loose term for how this was practiced). Link to comment
Mystery Meat Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Another option would be to revise D&C 132. Keep the good, toss the bad.If it is possible for a prophet to be wrong, which it is, we are left to evaluate each concept. We can keep what is from God, like the eternal nature of families, and get rid of the personal threats against Emma and justification for multiple wives (wives being a very loose term for how this was practiced). I dont think you can remove D&C 132 or portions of it, without a direct revelation from Christ, comparable to the one used to give it. In other words, it is not happening. Link to comment
bluebell Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) I have a habit of leaving detail out. Not the people are bad fruit, then I'd fit the bill also. But how corrupt it can be in hundreds of lives in this day and age. Not directing it to the Cody Browns of the world either. You should listen to the umpteen podcasts that Lindsey Hansen Park (sp?) has made. She's a wonderful historian focusing her work on polygamy. I guess we don't have much to talk about unless you know the information in these podcasts. With this standard though, doesn't it also condemn monogamy? I mean, it would be very very simple to compile examples of really really abusive monogamous marriages. Could that be used to argue that the fruit of monogamy is bad and therefore monogamy is not of God? When I ask where is Jesus, I guess I have a hard time believing Jesus said that. More, where is Jesus as in His ability to give eternal life w/o living polygamy. But I'll move on, I understand it's super important to not leave this section out. And it's the only thing separating us from the other religions. Let them be angels, we're going to be Gods. Does Jesus have the ability to give eternal life to people who won't obey His commandments? Is there any Christian religion that believes that Jesus saves people who refuse to follow Him? Edited April 25, 2015 by bluebell 3 Link to comment
bluebell Posted April 25, 2015 Share 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 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 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/ I read the whole thread but i might have missed something so I'm sorry if this has already been asked. But, if i accept the debunking of each of your myths, what is your argument for why section 132 specifically should be removed? What evidences do you present to support your assertion that it's not a real revelation from God? Edited April 25, 2015 by bluebell 3 Link to comment
Senator Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 The stuff we put in canon and the stuff people want to discard. You know, like D&C 132. So we haven't received a revelation from the Lord in 37 years? Link to comment
ERayR Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 So we haven't received a revelation from the Lord in 37 years? It all depends on what you will accept. Link to comment
Senator Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 It all depends on what you will accept. Yes it does. Evidently, some accept nothing outside of the canon. Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 So we haven't received a revelation from the Lord in 37 years? It all depends on what you will accept. Yes it does. Evidently, some accept nothing outside of the canon. And some don't even accept canon.But I do think there has been inspiration. It's God's Church and he guides it. But we haven't had any new doctrine or teaching revealed in a form that can be studied and attributed as God's word in a very long time.Perhaps we should stop looking to discard his word and expecting to receive more. Pure ingratitude. 2 Link to comment
ERayR Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Yes it does. Evidently, some accept nothing outside of the canon. Or outside of their own paradigm. 1 Link to comment
BookofMormonLuvr Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 I don't believe DB is advocating throwing it out, he is simply suggesting that individual members should have a right to leave it out of their personal belief system without retribution from Stake authorities, as there are examples of the church itself second-guessing previous teachings, some spoken by prophets themselves invoking the name of God. Link to comment
Senator Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 But I do think there has been inspiration. It's God's Church and he guides it. But we haven't had any new doctrine or teaching revealed in a form that can be studied and attributed as God's word in a very long time. So inspired administration is the best we can ascribe to the "we believe in continuing revelation" mantra?......At least for the past 37 years. Link to comment
Recommended Posts