Future of the church

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am surprised that you didn't understand that I understand all those distinctions very well, and fully explained them.  Of course you didn't understand it only because that is inconvenient to the false point you were making.  Polygyny is a living lifestyle choice.  Polygyny with dead people hasn't the immediacy which you imagine.  Especially since you don't believe in it anyhow.

What makes you think I don't believe it?  I never said that.  The truth is, I have absolutely no idea if God commanded Joseph Smith to practice polygamy.  I certainly used to believe it.  But now that some of the details on how the polygamy was instituted, I certainly have more doubts.  I very strongly believe that God did not command Joseph Smith to marry a 14 year old girl.  And I do however very strongly believe that God did not command Joseph Smith to marry another man's wife.  I just don't think that God is that kinky.  Maybe some day I will be proven wrong.  I certainly leave that option slightly open.

Quite honestly, it is some of the very same reasons I have serious doubts that Jeffrey Warren was commanded to practice polygamy by God.  I don't know for sure, but I highly doubt it.

Edited June 7, 2016 by california boy

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

 I just don't think that God is that kinky.

Oh, you sweet summer child.  

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

What makes you think I don't believe it?  I never said that.  The truth is, I have absolutely no idea if God commanded Joseph Smith to practice polygamy.  I certainly used to believe it.  But now that some of the details on how the polygamy was instituted, I certainly have more doubts.  I very strongly believe that God did not command Joseph Smith to marry a 14 year old girl.  And I do however very strongly believe that God did not command Joseph Smith to marry another man's wife.  I just don't think that God is that kinky.  Maybe some day I will be proven wrong.  I certainly leave that option slightly open.

Quite honestly, it is some of the very same reasons I have serious doubts that Jeffrey Warren was commanded to practice polygamy by God.  I don't know for sure, but I highly doubt it.

You are likely referring to Warren Jeffs, who was an equal opportunity molester and rapist (of both boys and girls).

As for God, whether you believe in one or not, you might want to familiarize yourself with the Bible before making harsh, judgmental statements.  The Nehor has got your number.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are likely referring to Warren Jeffs, who was an equal opportunity molester and rapist (of both boys and girls).

As for God, whether you believe in one or not, you might want to familiarize yourself with the Bible before making harsh, judgmental statements.  The Nehor has got your number.

No.....I keep asking for it but he keeps telling me he is already in a relationship. 

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Wouldn't be much more awesome if the Church took more of a lead on this stuff?  I mean your friends in Illinois might have ever had to worry about the Church's dogma against inter-racial marriages at all, if the Church was the leader on civil rights.  It's too bad it had to lag so far behind, in that sense. 

What would have been really cool is if back in JS's day and BY's day this stuff was resolved, there was no priesthood ban and no need to be so heavily influenced by the evils and prejudices of their day. 

Wishful thinking becomes easy, though, when you just assume it was the best time.  It could have happened in the 40s and been the best time.  We simply wouldn't know.  But, more confidently I'd say the best would have been if there wasn't such a strong influence to support racism in the Church. 

Were you there?

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are likely referring to Warren Jeffs, who was an equal opportunity molester and rapist (of both boys and girls).

As for God, whether you believe in one or not, you might want to familiarize yourself with the Bible before making harsh, judgmental statements.  The Nehor has got your number.

So you think Warren Jeffs may very well be a prophet of God as he claims, since what he is doing is consistent with what other prophets did in the Bible??  Like I said, I don't know.  But I highly doubt it.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

So you think Warren Jeffs may very well be a prophet of God as he claims, since what he is doing is consistent with what other prophets did in the Bible??  Like I said, I don't know.  But I highly doubt it.

Sounds like you are adopting the Warren Jeffs approach to human relations and mutual respect.  The bloom no longer on the rose?

[california boy]

Obviously I know very little about Warren Jeffs since I didn't even get his name right when I first mentioned him.  So I have no idea how he approaches human relations.  I judge no one.  In fact I specifically stated that I don't know whether Joseph Smith or Warren Jeffs were commanded by God to practice polygamy.  I only stated that given the choices of who they choose to marry makes that claim highly doubtful that God wanted either person to marry 14 year old girls and other men's wives.  Is that such a hard concept for you to understand??

I do know the Bible quite well.  I taught the Old Testament as a seminary teacher 4 times.  I know that there are more than one prophet who thought allowing other men to rape their own daughters were ok.  I know there were prophets who slept with their own daughters while they lay drunk.  I know there were prophets who married teenage girls.  I know prophets who were scolded verbally by their donkey.  (yeah, evidently donkeys can talk after all.  They just choose not to.)  I know prophets who thought murder was ok.  

Were they all real prophets who spoke to God and wrote down what God told them?  I don't know.  But I highly doubt it.

Edited June 8, 2016 by california boy

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Were you there?

none of us were--unless you're saying you were sitting there when BY, supposedly, first came up with ban.  That's the point.  How do we know if they could have handled it?  We have to put that on them because we have to preserve the feeling that the Church could not possibly have been so wrong on it's own.  But such a view twists a notion of God and His ways into a pretzel.  Considering men are fallible, and God's method of conveying messages to us is not foolproof, it's far easier to realize that the mistake was all on the leaders.  My conscious is far more clear thinking God did not orchestrate evil.  But we all have our conclusions to draw, I suppose. 

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Obviously I know very little about Warren Jeffs since I didn't even get his name right when I first mentioned him.  So I have no idea how he approaches human relations.  I judge no one.  In fact I specifically stated that I don't know whether Joseph Smith or Warren Jeffs were commanded by God to practice polygamy.  I only stated that given the choices of who they choose to marry makes that claim highly doubtful that God wanted either person to marry 14 year old girls and other men's wives.  Is that such a hard concept for you to understand??

I do know the Bible quite well.  I taught the Old Testament as a seminary teacher 4 times.  I know that there are more than one prophet who thought allowing other men to rape their own daughters were ok.  I know there were prophets who slept with their own daughters while they lay drunk.  I know there were prophets who married teenage girls.  I know prophets who were scolded verbally by their donkey.  (yeah, evidently donkeys can talk after all.  They just choose not to.)  I know prophets who thought murder was ok.  

Were they all real prophets who spoke to God and wrote down what God told them?  I don't know.  But I highly doubt it.

This is why I can't wholly believe scriptures to be the word of God.  It is men who wrote them.  My struggle will always be that it is men who run churches and think they speak for God.  It is time for mankind and womankind to speak to God for themselves and get inspiration themselves.  The Bible got it wrong so many times, time to put my foot down.  

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

none of us were--unless you're saying you were sitting there when BY, supposedly, first came up with ban.  That's the point.  How do we know if they could have handled it?  We have to put that on them because we have to preserve the feeling that the Church could not possibly have been so wrong on it's own.  But such a view twists a notion of God and His ways into a pretzel.  Considering men are fallible, and God's method of conveying messages to us is not foolproof, it's far easier to realize that the mistake was all on the leaders.  My conscious is far more clear thinking God did not orchestrate evil.  But we all have our conclusions to draw, I suppose. 

I was asking about the 50s, 60s,and 70s when the transformation of American racial attitudes started to come to a head. I witnessed it. I draw my conclusions from my experience, which is all that any of us can do. I don't agree that the ban was a mistake. I believe it was part of the over-all plan to solidify the Restoration and prepare the Church for important moves in the modern world. My conscience is clear.

[california boy]

52 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I was asking about the 50s, 60s,and 70s when the transformation of American racial attitudes started to come to a head. I witnessed it. I draw my conclusions from my experience, which is all that any of us can do. I don't agree that the ban was a mistake. I believe it was part of the over-all plan to solidify the Restoration and prepare the Church for important moves in the modern world. My conscience is clear.

You do realize that there were many people in 1830 who believed it was wrong to discriminate against blacks.  Too bad the church did not have the prophetic insight to identify with that group.

[Avatar4321]

I don't believe you guys are on topic. Neither plural marriage nor the priesthood ban are the future of the church. I would take a page from the prophet 

 

"Brethren, I have been very much edified and instructed in your testimonies here tonight, but I want to say to you before the Lord, that you know no more concerning the destinies of this Church and kingdom than a babe upon its mother’s lap. You don’t comprehend it. It is only a little handful of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America—it will fill the world.’” Joseph Smith Jr

The Lord is coming brethren. Prepare to receive Him

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I don't believe you guys are on topic. Neither plural marriage nor the priesthood ban are the future of the church. I would take a page from the prophet 

 

"Brethren, I have been very much edified and instructed in your testimonies here tonight, but I want to say to you before the Lord, that you know no more concerning the destinies of this Church and kingdom than a babe upon its mother’s lap. You don’t comprehend it. It is only a little handful of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America—it will fill the world.’” Joseph Smith Jr

The Lord is coming brethren. Prepare to receive Him

 

I think you may be taking "fill" too literally.
 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

You do realize that there were many people in 1830 who believed it was wrong to discriminate against blacks.  Too bad the church did not have the prophetic insight to identify with that group. 

1830? Priesthood ban? The Civil War was in the future in 1830. The Church largely avoided that catastrophe. I don't believe the Church would have risen as rapidly as it has during the intervening years

if it had integrated. It just wasn't the right time, but 1978 was. In the eternal scheme, none will lose their blessings because God is good, merciful, and just.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

1830? Priesthood ban? The Civil War was in the future in 1830. The Church largely avoided that catastrophe. I don't believe the Church would have risen as rapidly as it has during the intervening years

if it had integrated. It just wasn't the right time, but 1978 was. In the eternal scheme, none will lose their blessings because God is good, merciful, and just.

You do realize that the northern half of the United States believe that blacks deserved to be treated as any other man.  And you also realize that the Mormons were living in isolated Utah during the time of the civil war.  Do you really think that general Lee would have dispatched a portion of his army to march to Utah in the middle of his battle with the north to take out those crazy Mormons living in Utah?  And even if he did, do you not think that it would be an honor to fight those that believed it was ok to OWN SLAVES????

My statement still stands.  There were plenty of people in 1830 that believed blacks should be treated just like everyone else.  And are you telling me that the church was ready to accept polygamy, but not ready to treat all men with dignity and respect?  

The one thing I have learned from this board is the a part of Mormonism these days is to figure out how to twist and contort facts even to the point of being unrecognizable in order to justify the church's claims.  Good luck with that.  You aren't convincing a single soul.  It will always be a stain on the reputation of the church that it stood for discrimination for 150 years.

The saints were ready to accept polygamy, but not accept the truth that discrimination and exclusion is not part of the gospel Christ taught.  Really?  That is your position??

[Gray]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

You do realize that the northern half of the United States believe that blacks deserved to be treated as any other man.  And you also realize that the Mormons were living in isolated Utah during the time of the civil war.  Do you really think that general Lee would have dispatched a portion of his army to march to Utah in the middle of his battle with the north to take out those crazy Mormons living in Utah?  And even if he did, do you not think that it would be an honor to fight those that believed it was ok to OWN SLAVES????

My statement still stands.  There were plenty of people in 1830 that believed blacks should be treated just like everyone else.  And are you telling me that the church was ready to accept polygamy, but not ready to treat all men with dignity and respect?  

The one thing I have learned from this board is the a part of Mormonism these days is to figure out how to twist and contort facts even to the point of being unrecognizable in order to justify the church's claims.  Good luck with that.  You aren't convincing a single soul.  It will always be a stain on the reputation of the church that it stood for discrimination for 150 years.

The saints were ready to accept polygamy, but not accept the truth that discrimination and exclusion is not part of the gospel Christ taught.  Really?  That is your position??

I would imagine that polygamy was much more difficult to accept in the 19th century than integrated priesthood would have been.

[stemelbow]

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I was asking about the 50s, 60s,and 70s when the transformation of American racial attitudes started to come to a head. I witnessed it. I draw my conclusions from my experience, which is all that any of us can do. I don't agree that the ban was a mistake. I believe it was part of the over-all plan to solidify the Restoration and prepare the Church for important moves in the modern world. My conscience is clear.

But you have no experience for when the priesthood ban started.  It might very well been the best option to have not started it at all.  And if it never was, perhaps your experience in those three decades would have been different and better. 

[california boy]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

I would imagine that polygamy was much more difficult to accept in the 19th century than integrated priesthood would have been.

Of course you are right.  Think about how many people have absolutely no interest in becoming a part of a church where the founder went around marrying 14 year old children and the men's wives.  Now thin about how many people would be interested in a church that back in 1830 condemned the idea that blacks ere inferior and should be treated with the same dignity and respect as the rest of all God's children.  Which religion sounds more like it is the church of Christ?

And now in our day, the church wants to focus all of its political efforts, not to fight abortion, not to fight prostitution, not to fight government corruption, but rather to attack gay couples who want to commit to a lifetime of monogamy.  Yeah that will convince everyone that this is the church of Christ. I  mean didn't Christ make condemning gays a central part of His gospel message?  One thing that Christ did make a part of His central message is, "by their fruits you will know them"

The priesthood ban in BY's day is the anti gay marriage of our day.  And people will be wondering where this policy materialized from just as they now wonder where the priesthood ban originated from.  The law of chastity will not change one bit.  Sex outside of a legal and lawful marriage will still be against the commandments of God.  But where did the church leaders of the year 2008 ever come up with the idea that a gay couple committing to marriage should be branded as apostates.  

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Think about how many people have absolutely no interest in becoming a part of a church where the founder went around marrying 14 year old children and the men's wives.

Yes.
That Christianity is a hard pill to swallow, what with it's founder and God taking the wife of Joseph and impregnating her when she was 14.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Of course you are right.  Think about how many people have absolutely no interest in becoming a part of a church where the founder went around marrying 14 year old children and the men's wives.  Now thin about how many people would be interested in a church that back in 1830 condemned the idea that blacks ere inferior and should be treated with the same dignity and respect as the rest of all God's children.  Which religion sounds more like it is the church of Christ?

And now in our day, the church wants to focus all of its political efforts, not to fight abortion, not to fight prostitution, not to fight government corruption, but rather to attack gay couples who want to commit to a lifetime of monogamy.  Yeah that will convince everyone that this is the church of Christ. I  mean didn't Christ make condemning gays a central part of His gospel message?  One thing that Christ did make a part of His central message is, "by their fruits you will know them"

The priesthood ban in BY's day is the anti gay marriage of our day.  And people will be wondering where this policy materialized from just as they now wonder where the priesthood ban originated from.  The law of chastity will not change one bit.  Sex outside of a legal and lawful marriage will still be against the commandments of God.  But where did the church leaders of the year 2008 ever come up with the idea that a gay couple committing to marriage should be branded as apostates.  

 

Now to be fair, even abolitionists were not exactly enlightened by modern standards in all their attitudes toward black people. But really the best you can expect out of anyone is that they be enlighted by the standards of the culture in which they were raised. 

Unfortunately we've often lagged behind even by those standards. 

[california boy]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

Now to be fair, even abolitionists were not exactly enlightened by modern standards in all their attitudes toward black people. But really the best you can expect out of anyone is that they be enlighted by the standards of the culture in which they were raised. 

Unfortunately we've often lagged behind even by those standards. 

That is absolutely true.  But they were at least headed in the right direction and they also didn't claim to be the church of God lead by a living prophet.

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.  
That Christianity is a hard pill to swallow, what with it's founder and God taking the wife of Joseph and impregnating her when she was 14.

You really think the virgin birth story is the same as a 30 something man claiming to be a prophet of God marrying a 14 year old child and other men's wives in 1830?

 I guess if you make that claim, then to be more Christ-like, we should all be out there looking for 14 year old children to marry.  

[JLHPROF]

Just now, california boy said:

You really think the virgin birth story is the same as a 30 something man claiming to be a prophet of God marrying a 14 year old child and other men's wives in 1830?

 I guess if you make that claim, then to be more Christ-like, we should all be out there looking for 14 year old children to marry.  

Actually, wouldn't that make us more God-like?
If we were more Christ like we'd marry 2 sisters and a woman out of whom we cast devils.

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

You do realize that the northern half of the United States believe that blacks deserved to be treated as any other man.  And you also realize that the Mormons were living in isolated Utah during the time of the civil war.  Do you really think that general Lee would have dispatched a portion of his army to march to Utah in the middle of his battle with the north to take out those crazy Mormons living in Utah?  And even if he did, do you not think that it would be an honor to fight those that believed it was ok to OWN SLAVES????

My statement still stands.  There were plenty of people in 1830 that believed blacks should be treated just like everyone else.  And are you telling me that the church was ready to accept polygamy, but not ready to treat all men with dignity and respect?  

The one thing I have learned from this board is the a part of Mormonism these days is to figure out how to twist and contort facts even to the point of being unrecognizable in order to justify the church's claims.  Good luck with that.  You aren't convincing a single soul.  It will always be a stain on the reputation of the church that it stood for discrimination for 150 years.

The saints were ready to accept polygamy, but not accept the truth that discrimination and exclusion is not part of the gospel Christ taught.  Really?  That is your position??

You need to learn some history before you go spouting off. The northern half of the US was just a prejudiced as the southern half. The largest race related riot in American history was in 1863 in New York; New York.