Prophets and History

[cinepro]

On 6/4/2016 at 10:59 AM, california boy said:

If you are referring to me, I never married someone else.  And if you are referring to me, I married my wife based on a lie told to me by church leaders that if I only would marry a woman, I would no longer be gay.  Lie Lie Lie.

Now if you still want to compare me to someone who goes around marrying  14 year old girls, marrying other men's wives and deceiving his wife, feel free.  I have plenty to talk about on this subject.

Well to be fair, they simply made a promise but you had to uphold your end of the deal.  It's also possible that their promise would have been fulfilled in the post-mortal realm, so you just didn't give it enough time.

[canard78]

On 4 June 2016 at 5:25 PM, rodheadlee said:

Yeah like divorcing your wife to marry some else.

 

6 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

How can you possibly draw a comparison? You're out of order and also losing the argument. 

In fact, you were never in the argument in the first place. 

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

 

How can you possibly draw a comparison? You're out of order and also losing the argument. 

In fact, you were never in the argument in the first place. 

I am not even arguing. I am pointing out that unless you have lived a perfect life and have done everything God has asked you to do you should probably withold judgement of the prophets. Winning this argument will in no way change eternal laws.

[Jeanne]

On 6/4/2016 at 11:59 AM, california boy said:

If you are referring to me, I never married someone else.  And if you are referring to me, I married my wife based on a lie told to me by church leaders that if I only would marry a woman, I would no longer be gay.  Lie Lie Lie.

Now if you still want to compare me to someone who goes around marrying  14 year old girls, marrying other men's wives and deceiving his wife, feel free.  I have plenty to talk about on this subject.

It amazes me at all the passes Joseph gets when we talk about morality. 

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It amazes me at all the passes Joseph gets when we talk about morality. 

 

Same here!

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

It amazes me at all the passes Joseph gets when we talk about morality. 

 

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Same here!

Joseph gets no passes.
The understanding of both eternal morality AND his position is where the misunderstanding comes from.

[UtahTexan]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Joseph gets no passes.
The understanding of both eternal morality AND his position is where the misunderstanding comes from.

Agreed.  I only wish I were as perfect as those who complain......Matthew 5:48 says, "Be ye therefore perfect".  I have a long way to go...I see others here have already made it

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Joseph gets no passes.
The understanding of both eternal morality AND his position is where the misunderstanding comes from.

I believe Joseph's misunderstanding of eternal morality had nothing to do with being a prophet.

[canard78]

8 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I am not even arguing. I am pointing out that unless you have lived a perfect life and have done everything God has asked you to do you should probably withold judgement of the prophets. Winning this argument will in no way change eternal laws.

I don't think that's true. I think people who put themselves in positions of leadership should be judged and evaluated. 

Everyone should ask of their leaders: Does a leader's actions, principles and teachings merit following?

So if a leader taught californiaboy that marrying a woman would remove is attraction to men... and it then didn't... would it be reasonable for him to then conclude, or make the judgement call, that his leader's advice was wrong?

If a leader, Joseph, was shown to be misleading about some things (e.g. Polygamy), should we make a judgment call about other claims he made?

I would say yes on both counts. 

To say that because we are individually fallible means that we shouldn't make any judgment or evaluation of a leader seems irresponsible. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/21/2016 at 0:36 PM, theplains said:

That's why the LDS Church does not re-circulate any of its old publications like "The Way to 
Perfection", "Doctrines of Salvation", "Gospel Doctrine", and others. Who knows how many more 
members would leave the church if these historical teachings were more well known.

Fortunately some copies are still obtainable.

Thanks,
Jim

Doctrines of Salvation looks to be still available through Deseret Book:

https://deseretbook.com/p/doctrines-salvation-vols-1-3-sermons-writings-joseph-fielding-smith-3501?variant_id=107868-paperback

So does Gospel Doctrine:

https://deseretbook.com/p/gospel-doctrine-joseph-f-smith-49533?variant_id=53394-paperback

The Way to Perfection is still in the Deseret Book catalog but looks to be "currently unavailable." However, new and used copies are obtainable from other sources.

https://deseretbook.com/p/lds-classic-paperback-library-way-perfection-joseph-fielding-smith-3490

It took me less than three minutes of Internet search time to find these titles.

May I recommend Google? Google is your friend.

Edited to add:

Doctrines of Salvation and Gospel Doctrine have been in my personal library for nigh on 40 years. I still have the paperback copies I bought while I was a university student in the 1970s. I used to consult them regularly as reference works when I would prepare lessons for Sunday School or priesthood meeting.

So far, I have not drawn from either work any motivation to apostatize from the Church of Jesus Christ. Am I missing something?

 

 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[gopher]

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 1:59 PM, california boy said:

If you are referring to me, I never married someone else.  And if you are referring to me, I married my wife based on a lie told to me by church leaders that if I only would marry a woman, I would no longer be gay.  Lie Lie Lie.

Now if you still want to compare me to someone who goes around marrying  14 year old girls, marrying other men's wives and deceiving his wife, feel free.  I have plenty to talk about on this subject.

I hope you married your wife because you loved her and wanted to spent eternity with her, not because you thought you would be cured of being gay.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

I hope you married your wife because you loved her and wanted to spent eternity with her, not because you thought you would be cured of being gay.

Of course I didn't marry my wife because I loved her and wanted to spend eternity with her.  I am gay.  I married her based on a false promise that if I married someone of the opposite sex, I would become straight.  It was the promise, the hope, that feelings would come if I just did what God asked me to do.  I trusted the church leaders who said they spoke for God.  They did not. That part was the lie.  They didn't tell me it was their opinion.  They told me it was a promise from God.

My ex-wife is one of the most wonderful and caring people I have ever known.  But as a gay man, I didn't have romantic feelings for her.  That is how it works.  That is what being gay means.  Some may say that I am claiming to be the victim here.  Well that is true. I was a victim of false lies.  I can deal with that.  What I have never been able to fully deal with is that my ex-wife is also a victim of this lie.  She is the one that is deserving to be with someone who could love her and want to spend eternity with her.  Before those church leaders ever think about apologizing to me, they should first apologies to her.  (like that is ever going to happen)  The church never apologies.  We are just collateral damage of another failed policy.

[Kevin Christensen]

There is a very significant difference between a lie and a mistake.  Do you know what it is? 

Here is a hint.  "Pure knowledge greatly enlarges the soul without hypocrisy and without guile."  It follows, of course, that if my knowledge is pure, my soul will enlarge towards another person, and that if my knowledge is impure, my soul will contract."  If I look into another person's actions and heart, and see that they have made a well meaning mistake, I am inclined to empathize and forgive.  If I look into another persons heart and see malicious, intentional lies, willfully and knowingly directed my way in the manner of Shakespeare's Iago, my heart will tend to contract.  Hence, the play ends with a promise of all sorts of bad things for Iago.

Do you honestly think that those who gave the advice deliberately lied with sure knowledge with malicious intent, say, after the manner of a man who knowingly doesn't tell his partner that he has HIV, or, did they make a mistake, say, after the manner of an enthusiastic and attractive and persuasive man who does not know what HIV is, let alone that he has it? 

I've repeatedly pointed out that D&C 1 provides a formal statement of "mine authority and the authority of my servants" and that it bluntly and openly declares that "

these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

 25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

 26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

 27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

 28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

It also happens that one of the characteristics of addicts is a reliance on grievance stories that support a sense of victimhood and entltlement, and the work of recovery involves a searching and fearless moral inventory, removing the beams from one's own eyes in order to see clearly, and a deliberate dismantling of grievance stories, and a subsequent decision to view one's self as a survivor, rather than a victim.

Just saying what should be obvious and taken for granted but which seems to often to be studiously avoided for reasons that become obvious with a little reflection.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

There is a very significant difference between a lie and a mistake.  Do you know what it is? 

Here is a hint.  "Pure knowledge greatly enlarges the soul without hypocrisy and without guile."  It follows, of course, that if my knowledge is pure, my soul will enlarge towards another person, and that if my knowledge is impure, my soul will contract."  If I look into another person's actions and heart, and see that they have made a well meaning mistake, I am inclined to empathize and forgive.  If I look into another persons heart and see malicious, intentional lies, willfully and knowingly directed my way in the manner of Shakespeare's Iago, my heart will tend to contract.  Hence, the play ends with a promise of all sorts of bad things for Iago.

Do you honestly think that those who gave the advice deliberately lied with sure knowledge with malicious intent, say, after the manner of a man who knowingly doesn't tell his partner that he has HIV, or, did they make a mistake, say, after the manner of an enthusiastic and attractive and persuasive man who does not know what HIV is, let alone that he has it? 

I've repeatedly pointed out that D&C 1 provides a formal statement of "mine authority and the authority of my servants" and that it bluntly and openly declares that "

these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

 25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

 26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

 27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

 28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

It also happens that one of the characteristics of addicts is a reliance on grievance stories that support a sense of victimhood and entltlement, and the work of recovery involves a searching and fearless moral inventory, removing the beams from one's own eyes in order to see clearly, and a deliberate dismantling of grievance stories, and a subsequent decision to view one's self as a survivor, rather than a victim.

Just saying what should be obvious and taken for granted but which seems to often to be studiously avoided for reasons that become obvious with a little reflection.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Kevin, men who hold the priesthood in the LDS church are presumed to speak and act for God.  If they don't get it right..so many people are hurt and trust is thrown right the window. 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course I didn't marry my wife because I loved her and wanted to spend eternity with her.  I am gay.  I married her based on a false promise that if I married someone of the opposite sex, I would become straight.  It was the promise, the hope, that feelings would come if I just did what God asked me to do.  I trusted the church leaders who said they spoke for God.  They did not. That part was the lie.  They didn't tell me it was their opinion.  They told me it was a promise from God.

My ex-wife is one of the most wonderful and caring people I have ever known.  But as a gay man, I didn't have romantic feelings for her.  That is how it works.  That is what being gay means.  Some may say that I am claiming to be the victim here.  Well that is true. I was a victim of false lies.  I can deal with that.  What I have never been able to fully deal with is that my ex-wife is also a victim of this lie.  She is the one that is deserving to be with someone who could love her and want to spend eternity with her.  Before those church leaders ever think about apologizing to me, they should first apologies to her.  (like that is ever going to happen)  The church never apologies.  We are just collateral damage of another failed policy.

CB, I have good friends that have been in your situation and it affected so many lives.  The children love both parents and were accepting and wife/husband remain the bes of friends but this was a hurt that remains because of a judgement and it is a ripple affect on some very innocent people all the way around.  The church needs to apologize for the mistakes that they refuse to call lies.  Hugs to you and extended family.

Edited to add:  What is sad..is that you are blamed.  It will always be YOUR fault in the eyes of those who made those promises.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Jeanne

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 5:35 PM, Duncan said:

Let's face it people have left the church over the history of it. My question is do you think the Prophets foresaw this and took measures to prevent it? It just seems like the historical output (which is good I might add) is a reaction to all this. I don't know if people in the 1880's or 1920's were leaving the Church over historical issues or not but if what we see today is a new phenomenon but I wonder if the prophets saw dissension and turmoil and took action so people would be left without excuse.Were they blindsided by this or did they see it in advance? 

People have always left the church. What we call history, they called contemporary. For example, many people left over JS's polygamy. But since it was a current event it wasn't "historical". Many of the same issues that plague the church today, plagued it from the beginning.

If the prophets foresaw the troubles it doesn't appear they were very successful in preventing it. They are reacting to it now but that doesn't reflect any level of foresight.

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Kevin, men who hold the priesthood in the LDS church are presumed to speak and act for God.  If they don't get it right..so many people are hurt and trust is thrown right the window. 

Who presumes?  Use active voice, rather than passive voice.  Use language that does not conceal exactly who presumes.   When a street light changes from red to green, I might presume that it is safe to press the accelerator and move through an intersection, but should I presume that I don't need to look myself, because the law is on my side, and people never ever make mistakes?

The point of my quoting D&C 1 over and over year after year is to point out that what some people presume is not what they should presume.  The text has always been there to read and consider, and there are benefits for doing so, and consequences for not doing so.   Indeed, this sort of close look is part of how a person can dismantle a grievance story, to remove the beams that obscure our own vision, and provide a much clearer, more reliable, soul enlarging, mind expanding understanding.

Back in the 80s, lots of men and women presumed sex couldn't hurt you.  In the fifties, DDT was considered a wonderful tool for agriculture.  In the 19th Century, Melville presumed that the bounty of the sea was inexhaustible. Is it safe to go through life with un-examined presumptions?   Is perpetual childhood and victimhood a productive posture for living life?

 Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited June 6, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[california boy]

On June 6, 2016 at 0:09 AM, rodheadlee said:

I am not even arguing. I am pointing out that unless you have lived a perfect life and have done everything God has asked you to do you should probably withold judgement of the prophets. Winning this argument will in no way change eternal laws.

You are right.  There was a time in my life when I thought church leaders knew the will of God.  It is one of the lies told to all members of the church.  I thought that in order to follow God I should follow those who claimed to be his mouthpiece. This false promise taught me very clearly that these men who claim to know the will of God DO NOT.  They are just men put in power over others by mutual agreement.  We only give them power over us when we believe their unfounded claims.  Throw bricks at me all you want.  It is my fault in believing in church leaders at the young age of 20.  A decision I will always regret, and one I have truly repented of.

[saemo]

15 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Kevin, men who hold the priesthood in the LDS church are presumed to speak and act for God.  If they don't get it right..so many people are hurt and trust is thrown right the window. 

It isn't just a Mormon thing, it's a human thing to raise men up on a pedestal, from which they will inevitably fall. Those who do the pedestal lifting are complicit and there is really no surprise that all placed in that position will fall in some way to someone or someones or everyone.

It isn't just a religious thing either, it happens prominently in politics, education and entertainment and any social circle you can think of. The young don't believe they are susceptible to this phenomena, the old know it as perhaps the thing that holds the universe together.

Edited June 7, 2016 by saemo

[gopher]

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 8:46 AM, california boy said:

Of course I didn't marry my wife because I loved her and wanted to spend eternity with her.  I am gay.  I married her based on a false promise that if I married someone of the opposite sex, I would become straight.  It was the promise, the hope, that feelings would come if I just did what God asked me to do.  I trusted the church leaders who said they spoke for God.  They did not. That part was the lie.  They didn't tell me it was their opinion.  They told me it was a promise from God.

My ex-wife is one of the most wonderful and caring people I have ever known.  But as a gay man, I didn't have romantic feelings for her.  That is how it works.  That is what being gay means.  Some may say that I am claiming to be the victim here.  Well that is true. I was a victim of false lies.  I can deal with that.  What I have never been able to fully deal with is that my ex-wife is also a victim of this lie.  She is the one that is deserving to be with someone who could love her and want to spend eternity with her.  Before those church leaders ever think about apologizing to me, they should first apologies to her.  (like that is ever going to happen)  The church never apologies.  We are just collateral damage of another failed policy.

I'm impressed by the faith of a woman would marry a man who didn't love her, didn't want to spend eternity with her, but believed that would change after marriage, as well as her husband becoming straight.  I guess my faith isn't that strong to go solely on a promise from a Bishop.  I would also need a pretty powerful spiritual experience from God to proceed with such an important decision.  Maybe an angel with a flaming sword.

[rodheadlee]

On 6/5/2016 at 11:51 PM, canard78 said:

I don't think that's true. I think people who put themselves in positions of leadership should be judged and evaluated. 

Everyone should ask of their leaders: Does a leader's actions, principles and teachings merit following?

So if a leader taught californiaboy that marrying a woman would remove is attraction to men... and it then didn't... would it be reasonable for him to then conclude, or make the judgement call, that his leader's advice was wrong?

If a leader, Joseph, was shown to be misleading about some things (e.g. Polygamy), should we make a judgment call about other claims he made?

I would say yes on both counts. 

To say that because we are individually fallible means that we shouldn't make any judgment or evaluation of a leader seems irresponsible. 

Joseph Smith didn't put himself in a leadership position, God did.

[JLHPROF]

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 0:51 AM, canard78 said:

I don't think that's true. I think people who put themselves in positions of leadership should be judged and evaluated. 

Everyone should ask of their leaders: Does a leader's actions, principles and teachings merit following?

So if a leader taught californiaboy that marrying a woman would remove is attraction to men... and it then didn't... would it be reasonable for him to then conclude, or make the judgement call, that his leader's advice was wrong?

If a leader, Joseph, was shown to be misleading about some things (e.g. Polygamy), should we make a judgment call about other claims he made?

I would say yes on both counts. 

To say that because we are individually fallible means that we shouldn't make any judgment or evaluation of a leader seems irresponsible. 

Apples and oranges.

A leader advising a member to do something that didn't work out shows fallibility.
If Joseph was "misleading" about polygamy that created a Church full of adultery and would mean every revelation and successive leader would have lost all authority.  In which case the Church is not true and we should all leave it.

The severity of a Bishop giving bad advice falls under fallibility.  If Joseph's teachings on polygamy were false then the entire Church is worthless and that falls under sin, not fallibility.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Apples and oranges.

A leader advising a member to do something that didn't work out shows fallibility.
If Joseph was "misleading" about polygamy that created a Church full of adultery and would mean every revelation and successive leader would have lost all authority.  In which case the Church is not true and we should all leave it.

The severity of a Bishop giving bad advice falls under fallibility.  If Joseph's teachings on polygamy were false then the entire Church is worthless and that falls under sin, not fallibility.

If Joseph Smith was honestly mistaken about the correctness of polygamy, that's also a case of fallibility. Both teachings in the examples above resulted in many broken families. A serious mistake? Yes. But neither would "invalidate" the church

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Gray said:

If Joseph Smith was honestly mistaken about the correctness of polygamy, that's also a case of fallibility. Both teachings in the examples above resulted in many broken families. A serious mistake? Yes. But neither would "invalidate" the church

Not at all.
Fallibility in teaching leads to misunderstanding and false doctrine.
Fallibility in practice leads to sins and sins have specific results.

If Joseph and the early members were in the second category and living in adultery there would have been a loss of the spirit, a stop to revelation, and possibly even the invalidation of ordinances performed.
I guess it depends on how you understand adultery

D&C 42:23 And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out.
24 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out.
25 But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive;
26 But if he doeth it again, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out.

D&C 121:36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

 

No, if polygamy was "a mistake" then it cost the Church its authority and invalidated any "revelations" received after polygamy was begun.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not at all.
Fallibility in teaching leads to misunderstanding and false doctrine.
Fallibility in practice leads to sins and sins have specific results.

If Joseph and the early members were in the second category and living in adultery there would have been a loss of the spirit, a stop to revelation, and possibly even the invalidation of ordinances performed.
I guess it depends on how you understand adultery

D&C 42:23 And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out.
24 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out.
25 But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive;
26 But if he doeth it again, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out.

D&C 121:36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

 

No, if polygamy was "a mistake" then it cost the Church its authority and invalidated any "revelations" received after polygamy was begun.

That's one interpretation. Of course an accidental and well-meaning sin is a lot different than a deliberate sin. At least I think so. 

We still practice divorce and remarriage, which constitutes adultery according to the Savior. Has that invalidated the priesthood authority of the church?