Scott Lloyd Posted September 2, 2015 Author Posted September 2, 2015 My answer depends on whether you count the preserving of life as a "blessing." If so, then consider the saints' decision whether to stay at Winter Quarters in 1856. Levi Savage told the group that it was too late to leave; they would be overtaken by winter if they did so. Apostle (and therefore prophet) Franklin Richards promised the group that they would not be set upon by winter. Specifically he said: Some saints chose to stay in Winter Quarters despite the admonition of Elder Richards. Those who chose to follow him were known as the Willie and Martin handcart companies. We all know the story. The snows did come. His prophecy failed. The saints who listened to Savage instead of the prophet were spared the loss of limb and life. Now, it is true that many who went through that experience counted it as a blessing. We have no standing to dispute their testimony. But it is equally true that many who disobeyed Elder Richards likewise counted their decision as a blessing. We also have no standing to dispute that testimony. So to answer your question, yes, there are examples where people disobey the prophet and lived to testify that their disobedience led to blessings. It is clear in retrospect that Elder Richards erred, and in fact, Brigham Young denounced him publicly for doing so. That is why I specified the united voice of the prophets and apostles.
KevinG Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 I'd say it was rather part of the reason the leaders sought revelation / permission to change the practice. That was worded awkwardly by me. I mean question in the sense of seeking revelation. Pay attention to what I mean not what I write!
Russell C McGregor Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 First of all, it wasn't singling one race out for exclusion. Second of all, my understanding is that outsiders could convert and become Israelites. Presumably that would include the Levite tribe. Someone correct me if I'm wrongNo, it's singling out all races, except for one extended family in one tribe of one nation, for exclusion.I suppose that is somehow less "racist," is it? The more people excluded, the more PC it is? 1
Gray Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 The law of chastity is that no one will have sexual relations except with the person to whom one is legally and lawfully married. Yes, that's it, that's the law of chastity. The Lord and His Church do not recognize homosexual relationships as marriages; ergo, homosexual behavior violates the law of chastity. Actually, the fact that the church doesn't recognize it is an addition or special interpretation of the law of chastity. The law itself is silent on the issue. Your quirky attempt to redefine it holds no validity and is not binding on the Lord, His Church, the Latter-day Saints or me. I just read it as it is, without adding anything to it. If you won't accept that from me, you can check with any of those who hold the apostolic office today and are thus authorized to speak for God on matters such as this. I'm confident they will tell you the same thing. None of them have claimed to have gotten a revelation on the matter. In that case, their opinion is as good as anyone else's, isn't it? Meanwhile, review the quote from Elder Nelson in my sig line. 3
stemelbow Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 But wait! We don't have to wait! "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." And it is possible that not all our so-called "blessings" come from God, depending on what we choose to call good or evil, light or darkness, sweet or bitter. Ok, so we're blessed not by God, some of the time, but someone else? How so? Say I say the F-word and then get a raise, while my neighbor says a prayer about how to get a raise and then somehow, the next day, is told he's getting a raise. We're both supposedly "blessed" if getting more money is a blessing rather than a cursing. But surely I did more than say the f-word and my neighbor did more than say a prayer. This is an interesting analogy, I suppose. Someone who doesn't respect the law of chastity will certainly find blessings in his/her life. But this person is more than just someone who disrespects the law of chastity, no? Was the blessing of this unchaste person predicated upon he/she giving his friend a hug at some point? And if so, what about he who was not so blessed but respects the law of chastity his whole life? This trying to say we're blessed because we're LDS seems problematic to me. God wishes to bless all, at least if there be a God He's only good if He wishes to bless all.
Russell C McGregor Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Well, if we're talking about how the law of chastity has been interpreted, something defined as sacred and right (polygamy) can be redefined as adultery. So if we're defining relations within gay marriage as a kind of fornication now, who is to say that couldn't be redefined in the future? You keep repeating this assertion. Call for references, please. 1
CV75 Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 That was worded awkwardly by me. I mean question in the sense of seeking revelation. Pay attention to what I mean not what I write! LOL that's how i understood it; just wanted to add my two cents!
Buckeye Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 One of the immediate blessings that come from faithfulness is spiritual assurance that eternal blessings will come when the Lord makes up his jewels (meaning his precious followers). That's the difference between those who cling to the iron rod and those who inhabit the great and spacious building. Clinging to the iron rod also means you never get to the tree. 3
Gray Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 So, ultimately, the scriptures are not completely reliable? And neither are the prophets? Do you see the danger here? Can you provide an example from our own history of a group of people that were blessed for not following the prophet? Of course not. Prophets are human, and scriptures are a human product. Both fallible and imperfect. If they were anything other than that, they might be worthy of worship.
ALarson Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) The law of chastity is that no one will have sexual relations except with the person to whom one is legally and lawfully married. Yes, that's it, that's the law of chastity. Was the law of chastity worded differently back when plural marriages/ sealings were taking place? Edited September 2, 2015 by ALarson
stemelbow Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 One of the immediate blessings that come from faithfulness is spiritual assurance that eternal blessings will come when the Lord makes up his jewels (meaning his precious followers). That's the difference between those who cling to the iron rod and those who inhabit the great and spacious building. So about he who holds to the rod but doubts he'll be able to hold it all the time, thus potentially causing a loss of his eternal blessings? Don't know that anyone feels assured of eternal blessings aside from the addition "well if I'm able to remain faithful and endure to the end".
CV75 Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Ok, so we're blessed not by God, some of the time, but someone else? How so?Sometimes what we call blessings are actually deceitful substitutes. We can be deceived (by ourselves or others) into perceiving something as a blessing when it is going to come back and bite us, or condemn us. Such things are not of God.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 2, 2015 Author Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) The law of chastity is that no one will have sexual relations except with the person to whom one is legally and lawfully married. Yes, that's it, that's the law of chastity. The Lord and His Church do not recognize homosexual relationships as marriages; ergo, homosexual behavior violates the law of chastity. Actually, the fact that the church doesn't recognize it is an addition or special interpretation of the law of chastity. The law itself is silent on the issue. Your quirky attempt to redefine it holds no validity and is not binding on the Lord, His Church, the Latter-day Saints or me. I just read it as it is, without adding anything to it. If you won't accept that from me, you can check with any of those who hold the apostolic office today and are thus authorized to speak for God on matters such as this. I'm confident they will tell you the same thing. None of them have claimed to have gotten a revelation on the matter. In that case, their opinion is as good as anyone else's, isn't it? Meanwhile, review the quote from Elder Nelson in my sig line. There is no need for a revelation defining marriage as between a man and a woman when that has been the definition of marriage from the beginning. Again, look at the quote from Elder (now President) Nelson: "Sin, even if legalized by man is still sin in the eyes of God." To put it another way, courts lack the power to adjudicate away divine law. You don't accept that? Fine. But don't kid yourself into believing, or don't think you can talk us into accepting, that your peculiar views trump the authoritative doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ. Edited September 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted September 2, 2015 Author Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) Clinging to the iron rod also means you never get to the tree.Weird. The expression "holding to the rod" contemplates doing so while progressing along the path to the tree. I daresay nobody who ever used that expression ever had in mind that one remain stationary on the path. Edited September 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Russell C McGregor Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) The law of chastity is that no one will have sexual relations except with the person to whom one is legally and lawfully married. Yes, that's it, that's the law of chastity. The Lord and His Church do not recognize homosexual relationships as marriages; ergo, homosexual behavior violates the law of chastity. Actually, the fact that the church doesn't recognize it is an addition or special interpretation of the law of chastity. The law itself is silent on the issue. That's a complete canard. Complete. The Law of Chastity states that the only acceptable sexual relations are between husband and wife, legally and lawfully wedded. Your quirky attempt to redefine it holds no validity and is not binding on the Lord, His Church, the Latter-day Saints or me. I just read it as it is, without adding anything to it. Actually you are making stuff up. If you won't accept that from me, you can check with any of those who hold the apostolic office today and are thus authorized to speak for God on matters such as this. I'm confident they will tell you the same thing. None of them have claimed to have gotten a revelation on the matter. In that case, their opinion is as good as anyone else's, isn't it? I modestly suggest that the unanimous view of all of the Lord's anointed servants is likely to be rather better than the uninspired opinion of someone without authority. Edited September 2, 2015 by Russell C McGregor 2
Gray Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) That is not the case. It was lineage, but it was so confusing in countries like Brazil the Patriarchs were asked to try to determine lineage. You have dark skinned people with the priesthood and light skinned people without it before 1978. My opinion is that was part of the reason we began to question the practice. Race is not the same thing as lineage, nor is it the same as skin color. Anyone with even a bit of black in the family was banned from the priesthood. What they didn't understand is that all of us have black ancestry. There was the mistaken idea that Africans were descended from Cain or Ham, and under a curse. This was once preached in the church, and it was an assumption we inherited from the surrounding 19th century American culture (just as we've inherited our ideas about gay people). It has no historical basis and was repudiated in the Race and the Priesthood essay. Edited September 2, 2015 by Gray
stemelbow Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Sometimes what we call blessings are actually deceitful substitutes. We can be deceived (by ourselves or others) into perceiving something as a blessing when it is going to come back and bite us, or condemn us. Such things are not of God. Fewf! luckily everything becomes explainable in retrospect! "I was blessed by God" a person may say in one instant, then later realize, "actually this supposed "blessing" was nothing but a curse". We'd really never know because our life often keeps on going when some "blessing" is bestowed upon us. We can't go back and retry to see if more were in store if those cursed "blessings" weren't put upon us.
rockpond Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 None of them have claimed to have gotten a revelation on the matter. In that case, their opinion is as good as anyone else's, isn't it? Yes.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 You keep repeating this assertion. Call for references, please.I 2nd the notion.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 2, 2015 Author Posted September 2, 2015 Was the law of chastity worded differently back when plural marriages/ sealings were taking place?Why would it need to be? As Russell has been at pains to point out, the concept of marriage between a man and a woman still was effective under plural marriage. 1
ALarson Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 The Law of Chastity states that the only acceptable sexual relations are between husband and wife, legally and lawfully wedded. Plural marriages were not legal marriages. How do you explain that away? 1
ALarson Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) Why would it need to be? As Russell has been at pains to point out, the concept of marriage between a man and a woman still was effective under plural marriage.Because they were not "legally and lawfully wedded" when entering into plural marriages. I think I'd read where it was worded differently at that time (maybe from JLHPROF???). Edited September 2, 2015 by ALarson 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 The Law of Chastity states that the only acceptable sexual relations are between husband and wife, legally and lawfully wedded.Translation, this does not say that SSM is a sin. I really am not seeing the logic of those that wish for SSM. We don't need a revelation that is plain as day.
Gray Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 You keep repeating this assertion. Call for references, please. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_R._Lyman Excommunication[edit]In 1943, the First Presidency discovered that Lyman had long been cohabiting with a woman other than his legal wife. In 1925, Lyman began his relationship with Anna Jacobsen Hegsted,[4] which he defined as a plural marriage. Unable to trust anyone to officiate at the wedding due to the church's ban on the practice, Lyman and Hegsted exchanged vows secretly. By 1943, both were in their seventies. Lyman was excommunicated on November 12, 1943, at age 73; at the time, his legal wife, Amy B. Lyman, was the general president of the Relief Society. The Quorum of the Twelve provided the newspapers with a one-sentence announcement, stating that the grounds for excommunication was a violation of the law of chastity, which was the standard interpretation of new plural marriages performed since the 1904 Second Manifesto. (Plural marriages performed between the First Manifesto in 1890 and the Second Manifesto were tolerated by the church.) After the excommunication, J. Reuben Clark worried that Lyman might join the Mormon fundamentalist movement.[5]:193Lyman later returned to the LDS Church through rebaptism on October 27, 1954, but he was not reinstated as an apostle. He died at Salt Lake City, Utah. http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/richard_r._lyman Richard Roswell Lyman (November 23, 1870 – December 31, 1963) was an apostle inThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1918 to 1943. He was excommunicated in 1943 for adultery, a result of a polygamous relationship. In 1954 Lyman was rebaptized. His full priesthood blessings were restored posthumously in 1970.[1] Lyman is the most recent LDS Church apostle to have been excommunicated. http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/history-repeats-itself-as-lds-activists-go-public/article_9b9a90af-99b9-516a-9b93-ca6d589875ab.html On Sept. 1, 1989, the Church announced that George P. Lee, a member of the Quorum of the Seventy, had been excommunicated for apostasy and other conduct unbecoming a member of the church. Not since 1943, when Apostle Richard R. Lyman was excommunicated for adultery, had a high-ranking authority been severed from the LDS Church. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 2, 2015 Posted September 2, 2015 Plural marriages were not legal marriages. How do you explain that away?Oh I see if the government approves of it it must be sanctioned. I think I see where the issue is. The only issue is that you are not getting it. God's laws are not mans laws. You seem to think that mans laws should be God's laws. It is irrelevant that plural marriage was not legal. And BTW it was unconstitutional to deny the saints the legality of those marriages. 1
Recommended Posts