Prophets and History

[HappyJackWagon]

43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry- formatting is wonky for me right now.

Whether there is a fraud (whether pious or otherwise) in which someone like Joseph claims to represent God's will on polygamy, but does not, or someone like a bishop makes a promise on behalf of God, it is a problem and is taking the name of God in vain.

The common problem is claiming authority one does not have. A bishop (or anyone) promising a person ANYTHING on behalf of God is criminal. And when that promise fails, then that person should be responsible for it. A simple "whoops" doesn't cut it.

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 A bishop (or anyone) promising a person ANYTHING on behalf of God is criminal.

Well that just flies in the face of scripture.

And once we start rejecting scripture I see little point in following any religion based in scripture.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

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.

It was the same faith that was asked of me.  Unfortunately, we both should have asked for the flaming sword.

[Jeanne]

10 hours ago, saemo said:

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.

I agree in many ways.

[california boy]

1 hour 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.

It wasn't just one bishop.  This was what the church routinely counseled gay members to do until the divorce rate got so high that the prophet declared that marriage is not therapy.  The practice was stopped.  Unfortunately countless families were left in the ruin and wreck caused by this false promise.  

I once read an article in Sunstone written by a BYU professor who tracked 500 gay men in "straight" marriages.  After 5 years, all but 10 had ended in divorce.  I wish I could find the article.  If anyone else knows of the article I am referring to, I would love to find it again.  I actually think that his study did a lot to change the brethren's mind about how they approach and what they promise gay members.

[USU78]

On 6/5/2016 at 4:13 PM, Jeanne said:

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

 

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

I think people who put themselves in positions of leadership should be judged and evaluated.

Both of these evince a complete missing of the mark on the fundamentals of prophethood and priesthood:

People don't call themselves; and

People whom G-d calls He calls because of what He sees in them, not what Jeanne or canard78 claim, after 150+ years, to have seen in them had they been there.

[USU78]

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

Some may say that I am claiming to be the victim here.  Well that is true. I was a victim of false lies.

Utter nonsense:  in order for there to be a lie, two things must be true  -->  (a) that the statement is, indeed, false; and (b) that the speaker knew it to be false at the time he made the statement.  cb cannot establish the second, and, therefore, we need not even examine the first to determine whether he was lied to.  Nobody lied to him:  accordingly, he could not possibly have been or be a victim.  Same for his wife, who most likely knew sufficient facts to know what it was that she was getting herself into, regardless what cb himself says about it.

To the extent someone is victimized in this whole sordid business, the true victimizer ought to be identified.  IMNSHO it is the liar who tells people soothing lies about the lack of free will, the utter ineffectiveness of repentance and prayer, and the impossibility of tomorrow ever being different from today.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

It was the same faith that was asked of me.  Unfortunately, we both should have asked for the flaming sword.

Oh please.  Such hyperbolic nonsense.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

 

Both of these evince a complete missing of the mark on the fundamentals of prophethood and priesthood:

People don't call themselves; and

People whom G-d calls He calls because of what He sees in them, not what Jeanne or canard78 claim, after 150+ years, to have seen in them had they been there.

God would call a man to prophethood who marries 14 years olds and lies to his wife.  Because of the fundamentals of Prophethood and priesthood..and yet, a man in the congregation would be called to repentance.  Okaaaay...

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Utter nonsense:  in order for there to be a lie, two things must be true  -->  (a) that the statement is, indeed, false; and (b) that the speaker knew it to be false at the time he made the statement.  cb cannot establish the second, and, therefore, we need not even examine the first to determine whether he was lied to.  Nobody lied to him:  accordingly, he could not possibly have been or be a victim.  Same for his wife, who most likely knew sufficient facts to know what it was that she was getting herself into, regardless what cb himself says about it.

To the extent someone is victimized in this whole sordid business, the true victimizer ought to be identified.  IMNSHO it is the liar who tells people soothing lies about the lack of free will, the utter ineffectiveness of repentance and prayer, and the impossibility of tomorrow ever being different from today.

Utter nonsense is calling utter nonsense on another person's life experience.  When promises are made to many people that don't work..it is a lie.  I am believing that the leaders who make these promises think maybe they are doing the right thing.  But whatever the source..it is wrong..and doesn't work. 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

God would call a man to prophethood who marries 14 years olds and lies to his wife.  Because of the fundamentals of Prophethood and priesthood..and yet, a man in the congregation would be called to repentance.  Okaaaay...

Yep.  Exactly.
 

[USU78]

17 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

God would call a man to prophethood who marries 14 years olds and lies to his wife.  Because of the fundamentals of Prophethood and priesthood..and yet, a man in the congregation would be called to repentance.  Okaaaay...

Isaiah 20:2:

Quote

At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.

Ezekiel 4:9-12:

Quote

Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof.   And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it.   Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink.   And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

Hosea 1: 2-3:

Quote

The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord.   So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son.

So  ...  we have the precedents of prophets marrying prostitutes, eating food cooked on people poop, and running around naked for 3 years  ...  and you doubt the possibility that G-d could possibly command JSJr to be polygynous or to teach polygyny?  Whyever not?  Is polygyny so very much ickier than eating multigrain bread cooked on people poop?  Is polygyny so very much ickier than old men running around naked 3 years straight?  Or prophets marrying prostitutes?

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sorry- formatting is wonky for me right now.

Whether there is a fraud (whether pious or otherwise) in which someone like Joseph claims to represent God's will on polygamy, but does not, or someone like a bishop makes a promise on behalf of God, it is a problem and is taking the name of God in vain.

The common problem is claiming authority one does not have. A bishop (or anyone) promising a person ANYTHING on behalf of God is criminal. And when that promise fails, then that person should be responsible for it. A simple "whoops" doesn't cut it.

 

I like how you mention that someone claiming to represent God's will, can actually be taking the name of God in vain. It feels like a lot of LDS don't understand that concept other than using His name as a cuss word. We don't get a lot of Sunday School lessons on this topic, IMO, or the real meaning.

[USU78]

34 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Utter nonsense is calling utter nonsense on another person's life experience.  When promises are made to many people that don't work..it is a lie.  I am believing that the leaders who make these promises think maybe they are doing the right thing.  But whatever the source..it is wrong..and doesn't work. 

You can't just make up definitions of words and expect others to go along.  In order for something to be a lie, before we even examine whether the statement is accurate, we must look at the state of mind of the speaker.  If the speaker believes it's true, then the statement's accuracy doesn't matter.  Claiming lies where there are merely disagreements is de rigueur amongst anti-Mormons, especially when speaking of priesthood leaders, I understand that.  But it's morally wrong to do so.  You do poorly to repeat as gospel what anti-Mormons say just because you have compassion for them.

[cinepro]

On 6/6/2016 at 0:47 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

 

No, you're probably just choosing to ignore the stuff you don't agree with.

[canard78]

7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

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

 

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

 

Both of these evince a complete missing of the mark on the fundamentals of prophethood and priesthood:

People don't call themselves; and

People whom G-d calls He calls because of what He sees in them, not what Jeanne or canard78 claim, after 150+ years, to have seen in them had they been there.

Correction: you believe God put Joseph and others into a leadership position. 

It really makes no difference though. Even if you believe a prophet or other leader to have been appointed by God, you still have a personal responsibility to make a judgement of the reliability of the advice and guidance that the particular leader makes. 

Even if God did appoint Joseph or your local Bishop still doesn't mean that these people will teach infallible doctrine and guidance. 

Natural human tendencies dictate that sometimes they will give bad advice and teach false principles.  

Brigham Young is a good example of that, even the church itself have disavowed some of his teaching. 

Equally, californiaboy has illustrated how following the bad advice of his bishop, on the premise that his bishop was speaking with inspiration, led to a negative outcome. CF (and his ex-wife) would have probably been better off making a personal judgement of the uninspired advice of their religious leader and ignoring it. 

The same could be said on most of what LDS leaders, from Brigham Young to George Albery Smith in the 1940s, said about race, racial prohibitions and inter-racial marriage. If church members had ignored the bad advice and uninspired statements of doctrine they too would have been better off. 

[rodheadlee]

16 minutes ago, canard78 said:

 

Correction: you believe God put Joseph and others into a leadership position. 

It really makes no difference though. Even if you believe a prophet or other leader to have been appointed by God, you still have a personal responsibility to make a judgement of the reliability of the advice and guidance that the particular leader makes. 

Even if God did appoint Joseph or your local Bishop still doesn't mean that these people will teach infallible doctrine and guidance. 

Natural human tendencies dictate that sometimes they will give bad advice and teach false principles.  

Brigham Young is a good example of that, even the church itself have disavowed some of his teaching. 

Equally, californiaboy has illustrated how following the bad advice of his bishop, on the premise that his bishop was speaking with inspiration, led to a negative outcome. CF (and his ex-wife) would have probably been better off making a personal judgement of the uninspired advice of their religious leader and ignoring it. 

The same could be said on most of what LDS leaders, from Brigham Young to George Albery Smith in the 1940s, said about race, racial prohibitions and inter-racial marriage. If church members had ignored the bad advice and uninspired statements of doctrine they too would have been better off. 

Yes, you are correct, but if I didn't believe God/Jesus Christ didn't appoint Joseph Smith to restart His Church I wouldn't belong to the Church. We have been given the Holy Ghost to determine the truth of a doctrine or the lack thereof. What we do with that truth is personal for our own stewardship. I cannot receive a true or false answer on a point of doctrine for you, only you can. Those that have stewardship over us can receive doctrine for us but it is up to each individual to exercise his or her free will to determine their own course of action, whether it be prayer or to act in faith and accept doctrine we do not like or to determine the Church is not the Church of Jesus Christ . So you say the fruit of Joseph Smith is rotten to you, I say it is fine and tastes good to me, all we can do is live our lives accordingly and God will judge our efforts. 

[consiglieri]

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 3:35 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?

Yes, the prophets did foresee members leaving the church over problems with its history.

And yes, they did take measures to prevent it.

Those measures were primarily hiding the history they thought people would leave over.

Now that the cat is out of the bag and people are finding out about the history, they are also learning that their prophets actively hid it from them.

As a result, members are largely more upset about the prophets hiding the history than they are about the history itself.

And so, the measures the prophets took to prevent people leaving the church over its history have actually caused people to leave the church over its history.

And thus the whirligig of time brings in his revenges.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

Utter nonsense:  in order for there to be a lie, two things must be true  -->  (a) that the statement is, indeed, false; and (b) that the speaker knew it to be false at the time he made the statement.  cb cannot establish the second, and, therefore, we need not even examine the first to determine whether he was lied to.  Nobody lied to him:  accordingly, he could not possibly have been or be a victim.  Same for his wife, who most likely knew sufficient facts to know what it was that she was getting herself into, regardless what cb himself says about it.

To the extent someone is victimized in this whole sordid business, the true victimizer ought to be identified.  IMNSHO it is the liar who tells people soothing lies about the lack of free will, the utter ineffectiveness of repentance and prayer, and the impossibility of tomorrow ever being different from today.

When someone promises you  that God will make you straight if you marry someone of the opposite sex when they KNOW that God has not made such a promise, then that is a lie.  Church leaders made that claim to me knowing FULL WELL that God had never made such a promise.  

Part a is making the statement that if I married someone of the opposite sex I would become straight.  Part B of that statement is telling me it was a promise from God when in fact they knew that God had never made that promise to them or anyone else, including the prophet of God.

As far as your last paragraph, are you now claiming, like those earlier church leaders that being gay is a choice???  And if I just repent and pray enough, I won't be gay any longer?  LOL  LOL LOL.  Fool me one shame on them.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  I will NEVER fall for that lie again.  EVER.  And just like those church leaders that I trusted those many ears ago, YOU are making a claim that is a LIE.  You know you can not back up that statement with truth, yet here you are making such a claim.  You are making a claim that even the prophet and apostles of God are unwilling to make.  

Don't you EVER make a claim that being gay is just a choice.  That if i just repent, If I just pray, I will no longer be gay knowing full well that not a single credible clinical person nor the prophet of God nor the Apostles will make that claim.  

This is my life I am talking about, not some abstract question on a discussion board somewhere.  I made life changing decisions based on the promises of my church leaders.  Just who should be held accountable for those lies told to me?  Sorry but oops, doesn't quite work.

Edited June 7, 2016 by california boy

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sorry- formatting is wonky for me right now.

Whether there is a fraud (whether pious or otherwise) in which someone like Joseph claims to represent God's will on polygamy, but does not, or someone like a bishop makes a promise on behalf of God, it is a problem and is taking the name of God in vain.

The common problem is claiming authority one does not have. A bishop (or anyone) promising a person ANYTHING on behalf of God is criminal. And when that promise fails, then that person should be responsible for it. A simple "whoops" doesn't cut it.

Criminal huh? What do you think the sentencing guidelines should be for this crime?

[rodheadlee]

43 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Yes, the prophets did foresee members leaving the church over problems with its history.

And yes, they did take measures to prevent it.

Those measures were primarily hiding the history they thought people would leave over.

Now that the cat is out of the bag and people are finding out about the history, they are also learning that their prophets actively hid it from them.

As a result, members are largely more upset about the prophets hiding the history than they are about the history itself.

And so, the measures the prophets took to prevent people leaving the church over its history have actually caused people to leave the church over its history.

And thus the whirligig of time brings in his revenges.

The Accuser makes an appearance and their motivation is fame, power, money or they are just stupid? Remind me again exactly what did they hide?

[consiglieri]

13 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

The Accuser makes an appearance and their motivation is fame, power, money or they are just stupid? Remind me again exactly what did they hide?

We can start with the 1832 account that Joseph Fielding Smith cut out and hid in his safe for decades and didn't put back until its existence was leaked to the Tanners.

http://www.nearingkolob.com/joseph-fielding-smith-hide-strange-first-vision-account/

 

[theplains]

On 06/06/2016 at 3:47 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

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

No. There's enough in those books to lead the reader to believe LDS apostles can actually lead 
people astray if some of those teachings are believed. Rejecting false teachings should not
make you an apostate.

Thanks,
Jim

[Scott Lloyd]

On May 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

 

On June 6, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

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?

 

 

 

1 hour ago, theplains said:

No. There's enough in those books to lead the reader to believe LDS apostles can actually lead 
people astray if some of those teachings are believed. Rejecting false teachings should not
make you an apostate.

Thanks,
Jim

Are you abandoning your smug assertion that the Church of Jesus Christ does not "recirculate" the three publications above after I proved you wrong? If you're not going to stand by an assertion, you had best retract it to keep the discussion honest. 

As for your latest post here, you are making brash accusations and assuming they are a given, but you are not forthcoming with substantiation or documentation. Your own rejection doesn't automatically make a thing false. 

Edited June 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

We can start with the 1832 account that Joseph Fielding Smith cut out and hid in his safe for decades and didn't put back until its existence was leaked to the Tanners.

http://www.nearingkolob.com/joseph-fielding-smith-hide-strange-first-vision-account/

 

You're joking, right? That webpage reads like a tabloid. Evidence strongly points to....JFS may have...