Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident

[ERayR]

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.

 

They are free to believe and practice what they like and unless/until the begin actively  proselytizing their views there will be no "retribution".  Frankly I don't know how "retribution" even entered you mind.

[ERayR]

So inspired administration is the best we can ascribe to the "we believe in continuing revelation" mantra?......At least for the past 37 years.

 

So how are you doing with what you have?

[DragonLancer]

Even if someone threw out D&C 132, it doesn't change eternal truth.  It would only change whether we are bound by that truth.  If it is true that plural marriage is from heaven yet people are offended by it like they always have been, then it only turns to the condemnation of those that would lift their heel against it, like they have always lifted their heel against the prophets.  If there is some key element in plural marriage that is necessary for the "economy of heaven" to operate as God designs, namely eternal increase, as D&C 132 clearly suggests, then people that are offended by it are letting their cultural perceptions and personal dislikes try to dictate to God how he should run his own Celestial Kingdom.  This is why the Lord said in D&C 132 that people that do not "receive" the law would be "destroyed."  Because they allow themselves to be in opposition to a law that is decreed, especially when it is active.  Just because it is not active right now doesn't mean that people have an excuse to be able to set themselves in opposition to the possibility of its return, or the strong likelihood that it was a commandment from God himself.

 

The only thing that would change some people's minds about plural marriage would be for God himself to tell them by HIS OWN MOUTH that he says so in some cases.  I have heard people say "plural marriage is obviously false."  And then someone says something like, "well, what would you do if God himself told you that it was his will?  Would you still oppose it?"  And their response is usually, "well, I guess that means I would accept it."  And then someone says something like, "What if God himself by his own mouth commanded you to live it at some point?  Would you?"  And the response is something like, "Well, of course, because God himself commanded it by his own mouth and there is no doubt."

 

Yet people will not accept it by the mouth of a prophet or an angel like they would anything else proceeding forth from God.  This, of course, does not mean we should live it NOW.  I'm saying, that people REFUSE TO HAVE FAITH in, or comprehend, that something that offends their own perceptions and sensibilities could actually be from God, and that setting themselves up in opposition to it sets themselves up in opposition to God's own purposes for the perpetuation of the race in eternity.  No wonder the enemy of all righteousness would design to have people oppose it, because he himself can have no increase, and seeks that others should not either.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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.

 

So do we have some reason to believe that this revelation fell from Christ's own lips? Or was it a matter of study, prayer, inspiration, and the interpretation of that inspiration? Was it more direct than this?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

They are free to believe and practice what they like and unless/until the begin actively  proselytizing their views there will be no "retribution".  Frankly I don't know how "retribution" even entered you mind.

Expressing your personal views on your personal blog is not actively proselyting- heck, it not even passively proselyting. 

Are you advocating that LDS should not be able to publicly express a view different than the organization they belong to?

[ERayR]

 

 

So do we have some reason to believe that this revelation fell from Christ's own lips? Or was it a matter of study, prayer, inspiration, and the interpretation of that inspiration? Was it more direct than this?

 

Take your pick.  Whatever fits your paradigm.  Revelation can be delivered by more than one method.

[ERayR]

Expressing your personal views on your personal blog is not actively proselyting- heck, it not even passively proselyting. 

Are you advocating that LDS should not be able to publicly express a view different than the organization they belong to?

 

And I have not seen any "retribution" against anyone who kept it private. 

[Senator]

So how are you doing with what you have?

 

Oh I don't know.

 

If you haven't noticed, my comments are in the form of questions to JLHPROF.

[Scott Lloyd]

So do we have some reason to believe that this revelation fell from Christ's own lips? Or was it a matter of study, prayer, inspiration, and the interpretation of that inspiration? Was it more direct than this?

Other than the fact that Christ is speaking in the first person throughout? When did you read it last (really read it, I mean)?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

And I have not seen any "retribution" against anyone who kept it private. 

 

Well, that answered my question.

[Scott Lloyd]

Expressing your personal views on your personal blog is not actively proselyting- heck, it not even passively proselyting. 

Are you advocating that LDS should not be able to publicly express a view different than the organization they belong to?

This strikes me as rationalization.

Putting your views on the Internet open to a global readership potentially numbering in the millions carries an implied intent to persuade. Otherwise, why do it?

It certainly has greater potential for exposure -- by magnitudes -- than going door-to-door or doing face-to-face contacting, if that's what you mean by "actively proselyting."

Edited April 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mystery Meat]

 

 

So do we have some reason to believe that this revelation fell from Christ's own lips? Or was it a matter of study, prayer, inspiration, and the interpretation of that inspiration? Was it more direct than this?

 

Christ speaks in first person through out 132.

[Mystery Meat]

 

Well, that answered my question.

 

I will go as far as anyone who publicly advocates for its removal should be excommunicated. I dont care the forum. It is that big of a deal.

[JLHPROF]

So inspired administration is the best we can ascribe to the "we believe in continuing revelation" mantra?......At least for the past 37 years.

 

So how are you doing with what you have?

 

Oh I don't know.

 

If you haven't noticed, my comments are in the form of questions to JLHPROF.

 

I think ERayR made my point just fine.  How can we expect continuing revelation and additional canon when we spend half our time debating whether we even want the revelation we do have included?

As a kid I was taught that God wouldn't give us any more scripture (sealed portion of the BoM) until we lived up to what we had already been given.  Not sure I still entirely believe that but the principle is sound. 

 

As for the Church today - "inspired administration" is as good a phrase as any for my beliefs.  I think we have a lot of revelation to live up to before we will get more.

[Sleeper Cell]

I will go as far as anyone who publicly advocates for its removal should be excommunicated. I dont care the forum. It is that big of a deal.

 

Personally, I am uncomfortable with advocating anybody’s excommunication.  For starters, I am not a judge in Israel, let alone a judge in Israel with stewardship over any of the individuals who have advocated its removal.

 

But if it is OK for a member to publicly advocate removal of scriptures from the D&C, why would it not be OK for someone to publicly advocate removing him from the Church?  

[BookofMormonLuvr]

This strikes me as rationalization.

Putting your views on the Internet open to a global readership potentially numbering in the millions carries an implied intent to persuade. Otherwise, why do it?

It certainly has greater potential for exposure -- by magnitudes -- than going door-to-door or doing face-to-face contacting, if that's what you mean by "actively proselyting."

So basically everyone need to sit down and shut up? I don't know that Joseph Smith , the Prophet, would be a fan of that attitude...

 

“If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”

  (TEACHINGS OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH, PG 313)

[readstoomuch]

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.

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.

Lindsay is having her year of Polygamy at the Mormon Feminist Housewives website. She is covering the subject thoroughly. She seems to make sure it has the revisionist, feminist, politically correct spin. She sounds like it was all wrong and is in a "dark place" personally. Most of the MFH ladies who do the podcasts are disaffected, especially if they are with Ordain Women also. The comments at the end of her podcasts are telling. For example, being mad at the Church for publishing the Polygamy essays and not disparaging it. The Church was right and made great progress by publishing them. Then they are put down for doing the correct thing.

If someone has to hear about polygamy and go yuck, then they may end up out of the Church. The same with feminism and politically correct agendas. Never mind that the women in polygamy were the earliest feminists or that they stood by their leaders.

So my impression is that Lindsay is spending the year bathing in the wrongs of polygamy. Hopefully, no one spends a year examining the problems of my ward or me for that matter. Sort of like trying to deny or feel ashamed of ancestors who were slave owners instead of understanding the time and history it took place in,

That is my take on Lindsay and the Year of Polygamy.

[ERayR]

And I have not seen any "retribution" against anyone who kept it private. 

 

 

Well, that answered my question.

 

Note that did not say keep it secret.  It said private as in within ones own circle.  As opposed to proselytizing. (see post # 111)

Edited April 25, 2015 by ERayR

[Senator]

I think ERayR made my point just fine.  How can we expect continuing revelation and additional canon when we spend half our time debating whether we even want the revelation we do have included?

As a kid I was taught that God wouldn't give us any more scripture (sealed portion of the BoM) until we lived up to what we had already been given.  Not sure I still entirely believe that but the principle is sound. 

 

As for the Church today - "inspired administration" is as good a phrase as any for my beliefs.  I think we have a lot of revelation to live up to before we will get more.

 

I'm just surprised that no one has taken you to task for saying we are not receiving continuing revelation. Instead they seem to be agreeing with you.

[ERayR]

I think ERayR made my point just fine.  How can we expect continuing revelation and additional canon when we spend half our time debating whether we even want the revelation we do have included?

As a kid I was taught that God wouldn't give us any more scripture (sealed portion of the BoM) until we lived up to what we had already been given.  Not sure I still entirely believe that but the principle is sound. 

 

As for the Church today - "inspired administration" is as good a phrase as any for my beliefs.  I think we have a lot of revelation to live up to before we will get more.

 

I'm just surprised that no one has taken you to task for saying we are not receiving continuing revelation. Instead they seem to be agreeing with you.

 

I guess I didn't read JLHPROF as saying we are not receiving continuing revelation but was wondering how it can be expected by those who do not accept what we have.  As I posted above there are many ways of receiving revelation and any and all of them are currently in play.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Here's the quote I was really looking for:

“I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.” Joseph Smith inThe Words of Joseph Smith, pp. 183-184,

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's the quote I was really looking for:

“I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.” Joseph Smith inThe Words of Joseph Smith, pp. 183-184,

I'm confident any reasonable mind will recognize the difference between "erring in doctrine" (presumably due to simple ignorance) and aggressively, argumentatively and deliberately taking an advocacy position against the settled doctrine and position of the Church of Jesus Christ and its higher leadership. And doing so is not rendered more acceptable just because having a computer and an Internet connection lets you do it more easily these days. If anything, it's many times worse because the potential to wreak damage is so much greater with minimal effort. Edited April 25, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I will go as far as anyone who publicly advocates for its removal should be excommunicated. I dont care the forum. It is that big of a deal.

At the very least, I should think a revocation of a temple recommend would be in order, as one is in effect manifesting hostility and open opposition to the very doctrinal framework that gives meaning to temples and temple ordinances.

[Senator]

I guess I didn't read JLHPROF as saying we are not receiving continuing revelation but was wondering how it can be expected by those who do not accept what we have.  As I posted above there are many ways of receiving revelation and any and all of them are currently in play.

 

Evidently not Revelation with a capitol "R"

[ERayR]

Evidently not Revelation with a capitol "R"

 

What does it matter how it is delivered?