There is no such thing as a liberal Mormon

[california boy]

6 hours ago, waveslider said:

The thing is, is that Christ holds the body to be a temple, to house the Holy Spirit, so what makes you think that he would tell us all that mutilation of our bodies in the form of piercings is acceptable to do to His temple. He most certainly wouldn't stop people from coming to Him if they had already done so to their bodies, but I hardly see how he would condone such practices when we know that our bodies are to be held sacred:

"19  What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20  For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."
1 Corinthians 6:19-20

It is not a commandment for women to cover their shoulders, or for men to shave off their beards and cut their hair short. I just went through the temple last week with my beard and no one said a word to me about it. On the other hand we are supposed to keep ourselves modest and not looking so rough around the edges that people will mistake us for alcoholic bums and sluts. After all aren't we all supposed to have taken upon ourselves His name, as representatives of Him. Perhaps we should have a little more dignity than to just flow with the whims of the world, instead of being in the world but not a part of it.

If we want to go to a private school that expects it's students to also not look like sluts and bums, but rather reflect the image that the school wants to be known for, then we must comply, but it isn't commandment to do so. We can just as easily go to a different school, look like wind chimes, baring too much skin to keep people from having a hard time in not having lustful thoughts, looking like homeless bums, and still be in good standing as members of the church itself. He certainly wouldn't condemn anyone for looking like that, and would still want them to come to Him, but He usually changes people for the better, by showing them the better way, not condoning behavior unbecoming a representative of Himself. I can see Him reprimanding people within the church, leaders included, who let the traditions of Mormonism affect the way they view people who don't follow those traditions, but I certainly don't think he would condemn all church leaders as hypocrites.

You are wrong when you assert that the church is in the business of expansion on the laws of God. You obviously have Mormon traditions mixed up with it's doctrines. You also obviously underestimate the power of the Holy Ghost, in letting not only the leaders of the church know revelations, but the members as well. I know that your scenario wouldn't happen because I am led by the Holy Ghost on a daily basis, and it speaks contrary to what you have alluded here as being the scenario of what would happen if Jesus attended a church meeting and announced His presence. He does lead this church, contrary to what you obviously believe. You should try to learn how to recognize the Holy Ghost for yourself, instead of just recognizing your own inner voice of flawed logic and reasoning.

Christ didn't break the law of the Sabbath, he broke the uninspired tradition of what the Jewish leaders of the day said was law. There is a huge difference, being that the Holy Ghost does still reside with leaders of His church today, unlike most of the Jewish leaders of His mortal ministry days. I'm sure that those leaders may have claimed that they were led by the Spirit, but obviously they weren't when they failed to recognize their Messiah, God, and instead murdered Him. I think you are asking the wrong questions of how can we be sure that the LDS church isn't further away in apostasy from the Jewish leaders. For one. Do you see any LDS leaders wanting to murder any Mormon splinter groups, or even anti Mormon people? Or even expressing feelings anywhere close to that? Instead you should be asking yourself, how can you, yourself, claim that the church is close to apostasy? Are you Christ? Do you know His sentiments? How can you know His sentiments without His Holy Ghost telling you what those sentiments are?

By the way it wasn't the miracle of Lazarus that set anything off. It was the only act of violence that Christ did in His mortal ministry.... Turning over the money changers tables and rebuking them at the temple, that broke the lasts straw on the camels back.
 

I didn't say or claim that the church was in apostasy or that church wanted to murder anyone. Is all I said is that the church was doing the same kind of adding to the law by imposing traditions and rules that are not part of the commandments such as women not baring their shoulders and tying that to the law of chastity. It is the same thing as telling Jews they could not pick corn on the sabbath and tying that rule to keeping the sabbath day holy. 

If you and others need to believe that Chirst was not the MOST liberal Jew of the day teaching many things that were against what the church leaders of his day then is all I can say is we will have to disagree. 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I am going to use your post to address some of the issues brought up by you as well as others from a different point of view.  Tell me what you would think of a person coming to sacrament meeting, standing in front of everyone and telling them that He was the Messiah that was promised to return.  Then he goes on and preaches directly against church leaders when they teach that things like women being required to cover their shoulders is nonsense.  That whether someone has one earring or ten does not matter to God.  Having a beard and going to a church school is perfectly acceptable to Him. And while you are at it, grow your hair any length you want.  What if he said that all worthy children are eligible for baptism despite any sins their parents might be committing.  I could go on, but I think you see the point of my post.  There is so much in the church today that is directly comparable to the laws of church leaders in the day of Christ.   The church is very much in the business of expansion on the laws of God. Just as Christ was more than willing to break the law of the sabbath by breaking off an ear of corn on the sabbath, he may very well do something like get an earring just to show church leaders that those teachings have nothing to do with the laws of God.

I think there is a key difference between rules we have currently and the rules the Jews innovated. Latter-Day Saints do not view the things prohibited as inherently wrong. I do not believe men having earrings or women having multiple pairs of earrings is inherently against some eternal law. I do not think having a beard or long hair is inherently wrong. I do not seen anything inherently wrong with baptizing the worthy children of active homosexuals and I doubt God does either. These are temporary rules in place for temporary purposes. If Christ returned and repudiated them there would be little in the way of complaint. If President Monson changed them there would be almost no complaint.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I think some are viewing the changes Christ made to the Jewish church from a Christianity perspective and not a Jewish Leader's perspective.  To say Christ fulfilled the law is not at all how church leaders viewed any of Christ's teachings in his day.  They certainly had a great deal of problems with many of the new ideas that Christ was teaching, many of which totally contradicted the very teachings of the church at that time.  The church leaders were gunning for Christ long before Lazarus was raised from the dead.  Christ was not crucified for raising Lazarus from the dead.  It may have been what brought things to a head, but church leaders had a problem with the radical teachings of Christ long before that event.

Oh yeah, they despised/feared Jesus. What pushed them over the edge was the display of Jesus's power in raising Lazarus. The Jews did not lack heretic offshoots at the time. Jesus was especially dangerous to them because of what he did.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

On what basis do you make the claim that you and others can guarantee that the current LDS faith is closer then the apostate Jews of the 1st Century AD.   First, how can you guarantee that statement, and second, how can you possibly  know the current LDS faith is closer than the apostate Jews of the 1st Century AD???  How do you know if church leaders didn't also make the claim that they were guided in their decisions by the Holy Spirit?

I can only give my word. They may have made that claim. They were wrong. I am not. WOOHOO!

9 hours ago, california boy said:

You seem to think that there were no miracles going on in the Jewish church during the time of Christ.  Yet the gospels show that not be be the case.  People knew of Christ being born, Anna was regarded to be a prophet (yeah a woman prophet.  Can you imagine such a thing) and foretold to those that listened that Christ was born.  Simeon was another that testified of miracles during this time period.  All of which happened through the Spirit of the Holy Ghost.

I know a female prophet (complete with prophecy). She would be blushing and shushing me if I said this in a spirit of modesty but it is still true. There were miracles but those were tied to the appearance of Christ. I doubt they were general.

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Well enough of that.  I am not trying to judge current church leaders.  I really don't know what the church leaders were like or how holy they thought their leadership was.  But I do know, those church leaders thought Christ was teaching against the church doctrine.  Christ and the teaching He was injecting to the church members was a problem that had to be stopped at all costs.  We all know how that was accomplished.

I cannot see our apostles wrangling with Christ upon his return over doctrine. Instead I see kneeling and a desire to listen and learn.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, BCSpace said:

I have to categorically disagree with the OP's take here.  The political arena is a perfectly legitimate area, and probably one of the most important, for determining if one believes in or is committed to the application of LDS doctrine.  If it were otherwise, then the Church has no purpose whatsoever and becomes a "Sunday-only" Church.

It must be a tough burden analyzing politics and your fellow church member's political views to determine who is in and who is out of harmony with the gospel. I am impressed you pull off this self-imposed duty with such stoicism.

I would just ask you not to marry my sister.

"or when your opinionated brother-in-law thinks his political view is the gospel view," - Dieter F. Uchtdorf, on dealing with awkwardness in your family

I do not want to have to deal with that stereotype.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I think there is a key difference between rules we have currently and the rules the Jews innovated. Latter-Day Saints do not view the things prohibited as inherently wrong. I do not believe men having earrings or women having multiple pairs of earrings is inherently against some eternal law. I do not think having a beard or long hair is inherently wrong. I do not seen anything inherently wrong with baptizing the worthy children of active homosexuals and I doubt God does either. These are temporary rules in place for temporary purposes. If Christ returned and repudiated them there would be little in the way of complaint. If President Monson changed them there would be almost no complaint.

Well if there is nothing wrong with any of these things, why have church leaders even spoken about them?   

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Oh yeah, they despised/feared Jesus. What pushed them over the edge was the display of Jesus's power in raising Lazarus. The Jews did not lack heretic offshoots at the time. Jesus was especially dangerous to them because of what he did.

Sure, I agree with that. But the reason they feared His power was directly related to the teachings that directly contradicted what they were teaching.  They were loosing control of their followers.

 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I can only give my word. They may have made that claim. They were wrong. I am not. WOOHOO!

ok.  But don't expect me to buy a used car from you.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I know a female prophet (complete with prophecy). She would be blushing and shushing me if I said this in a spirit of modesty but it is still true. There were miracles but those were tied to the appearance of Christ. I doubt they were general.

Since I have provided some examples of the Spirit indeed being present upon Jews at the time, do you have any evidence that the Holy Spirit was missing in action?  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I cannot see our apostles wrangling with Christ upon his return over doctrine. Instead I see kneeling and a desire to listen and learn.

 

Unless of course, they didn't believe it was really Christ.  I am sure the Jewish leaders would have kelt in front of Christ if they thought He was really the Messiah.  

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I didn't say or claim that the church was in apostasy or that church wanted to murder anyone. Is all I said is that the church was doing the same kind of adding to the law by imposing traditions and rules that are not part of the commandments such as women not baring their shoulders and tying that to the law of chastity. It is the same thing as telling Jews they could not pick corn on the sabbath and tying that rule to keeping the sabbath day holy. 

If you and others need to believe that Chirst was not the MOST liberal Jew of the day teaching many things that were against what the church leaders of his day then is all I can say is we will have to disagree. 

I'm sorry that I thought you were claiming the church was in apostasy. I just didn't see how that scenario you brought up would even be thought about if you didn't think it was possible that it was in apostasy, like the Jews of old.

I can agree to disagree as well, but I think the mix up is more in the definition of liberal. Perhaps there is more agreement than meets the eye. Christ was the most conservative because he kept to God's commandments, instead of the liberal definitions of what the Jewish leaders said was law, based upon traditions, instead of God's laws. Christ's actions would only appear liberal if you actually thought that those traditions were in fact God's laws, but if instead you recognized them as being rationalizations, and flawed logic of human beings you would see that those traditions were in what would be termed as liberal beliefs on what God's laws really were . On the other hand Christ was very liberal as to whom he was willing to share the gospel with, and bless, and tell them that their sins were forgiven. I think we need to stop trying to fit Christ, or anyone else for that matter, into a box that is so open to interpretation that people don't always understand what is meant by the label of that box.

As far as making a claim that women baring shoulders are tied to the law of Chastity, perhaps you should listen to Christ's tying of mere thought to the law of chastity:

"27  ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Matthew 5:27-28

I do know one thing, and that is the fact that we can't remain on borrowed light. We must gain our own personal relationship with God and His son. We must learn to recognize, hear and obey the Holy Ghost. If we do this then we will never be led wrongly by any leader. We will see through any misguided attempts at false teachings, we will also see, in spite of our own limited understanding, the wisdom in revelations and new things that we are taught to do through our leaders when they are truly inspired or revealed. There will always be something that just doesn't seem to fit neatly into the picture that the puzzle pieces are supposed to depict, but that is only because we can't yet see the whole picture. One thing for sure, is that you will eventually see how those particular pieces fit, but by then there will be other pieces that seem out of place. It is just part of our learning to have faith and trust in God's guidance, the way that He does things, not the way we think they should be done.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Well if there is nothing wrong with any of these things, why have church leaders even spoken about them?

No, I said there was nothing inherently wrong with them. They are instructions about them now because of current conditions. Some things are inherently wrong like murder, rape, gossip, a lust for vengeance, hatred of others, etc. Then there are things that are wrong for now but it can always change like the Word of Wisdom, no dating until 16, grooming restrictions, etc.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Sure, I agree with that. But the reason they feared His power was directly related to the teachings that directly contradicted what they were teaching.  They were loosing control of their followers.

It was the power behind those teachings they feared. If he raised the dead and healed the sick without saying anything I admit they would probably have just left him alone as a kook.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

ok.  But don't expect me to buy a used car from you.

How about some beachfront property I am trying to get rid of in Arizona?

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Since I have provided some examples of the Spirit indeed being present upon Jews at the time, do you have any evidence that the Holy Spirit was missing in action?  

The state of the people in general.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Unless of course, they didn't believe it was really Christ.  I am sure the Jewish leaders would have kelt in front of Christ if they thought He was really the Messiah.  

Well, since all apostles not newly called have received the special witness they should know him by sight.

 

Now I just sit back and wait for some fireworks (not necessarily from you)  

Edited August 22, 2016 by The Nehor

[why me]

On 19.8.2016 at 10:41 PM, stemelbow said:

Sure.  Thanks to Elder Oaks' position and others it's clear the church in many ways wants to push people out, thus settling more in an exclusive and insular spot.  I question whether I fit, for sure.  If Elder Oaks had his way, I might be out.  But I'm here.  I don't know if I'm welcome.  It's a mixed bag on that.  I guess we'll see. 

Sometimes I get encouraged that we are becoming open, thoughtful and helpful.  Other times I get discouraged as it seems many in the Church want me out, hoping to secure themselves a more comfortable place called Church. 

I'm not sure what to make of this.  Thanks for your thoughts though.

I think that your comment seems to be more United States centered. It is a world wide church and as such, members come from various political backgrounds, including many socialists etc. And since the church is world wide, many are fitting under its tent without much of a problem. And what I have noticed is that members tend to be rather open minded about life and people's circumstances. Maybe a different problem is that people tend to think themselves out of the churchf by seeing shadows where no shadows exist.

[rockpond]

On August 20, 2016 at 5:19 PM, JLHPROF said:

You couldn't have quoted it for me. 

19 ¶Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Well, not being a scholar of Judaism and ancient Hebrew culture I may not understand the full meaning of this verse in their culture.
Clearly the lesson here has to do with not mixing items outside of their own kind.  Can that have a lesson related to any other gospel principle that is still part of Christianity?
Some possible Christian/NT parallels principles could include:

- 2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
- Moses 2:24 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind, and it was so;
- Luke 5:36-38 Parable of the Wine Bottles/Garment
- Matthew 6:24 ¶No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Don't have time to dig through the NT etc right now and I'm sure some scriptural scholar could come up with better ones than these.
But the principle of not mixing that was taught by that old mosaic law may well have a counterpart in Christianity.  We need to determine what it would be.

Heck, maybe the only principle that was being taught in that verse was "Ye shall keep my statutes."
Still applies today.
 

So it's symbolic, not literal. Got it. 

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So it's symbolic, not literal. Got it. 

As was most of the law of Moses.
Paschal lamb?

[stemelbow]

On ‎8‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 1:45 PM, Mystery Meat said:

I don't want you out. I don't even mind disagreement. But I do think, however, that needing a place to try and usurp revelation as the appointed means to effectuate change in the Kingdom is harmful to the Church, its membership and most importantly the individual. My hope is not that people feel compelled to leave, but that such people can learn to trust the Lord in his power, wisdom and ability to direct the Church and those He has called, including their humility and willingness to accept correction and change when the Lord so desires.

I dont' think it works as you imagine. 

[stemelbow]

On ‎8‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 1:52 PM, JLHPROF said:

I don't see why this is seen as a negative though.

Inclusivity that requires a change in correct principle is not a good thing.  There is no gospel principle that allows for a change in our standards so that more people are comfortable.
Sorrow should be felt for every soul that leaves, especially if they choose to follow an incorrect path.  And repentance should be encouraged.
But just as the Father did in pre-mortality, if the rules make you too uncomfortable to follow then leaving is the only option.
 

It's NOT mean, unfeeling, unchristian or any other negative to hold fast to correct principle.  It is a great sin to give up correct principle to please the majority, or even the minority.

Giving up bad principles is a good thing.

[stemelbow]

On ‎8‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 7:12 PM, carbon dioxide said:

The Church does not want to push people out.  The problem might be that some might want to be in the Church while also be of the world.  There is a straight and narrow path to eternal life.  We live in a world that some want to add a few extra lanes on the path. Make it a little broader I guess so that more people can be on the path but broadening the path is not going to work.

I disagree.  The path should be built to accommodate billions not a few thousand. 

[Gray]

On 8/20/2016 at 1:20 PM, california boy said:

Christ was the MOST liberal Jew of His day.  Heck, he threw out the entire law of Moses and replaced it with His own.  Why do you think the conservative Jewish leaders crucified Him.  It certainly wasn't for His conservative, follow along with what the leaders were saying approach to church membership.  They were afraid BECAUSE He was leading huge groups of followers away from traditional Jewish beliefs.  There is no other person in the history of any religion that so radically changed the beliefs and practices of the religion that they claimed membership in.  

Would Christ be thrown out of the church for efforts to change areas He knew were being taught and practiced that were wrong?  Did not the Jewish leaders of His time think they were following the will of God as it had been revealed to them?  Did they not think they were doing the will of God by crucifying Christ?  OOPS.  Guess all of the church leaders made just a little mistake in hanging on to the traditions and beliefs that had been the law of God for centuries.  Without a new liberal approach to the Jewish religion, there would be no Christian church.  

Like many of you, I look forward to the day when Christ Himself returns to earth and changes the beliefs and practices of the church to conform to His will and His vision of how His work should be carried out.  Can anyone guarantee that current church leaders have interpreted the scriptures and beliefs of Christ any better than the ones 2.000 years ago did.  I have  no idea how Christ will change things, and what new principles He will teach.  I don't think anyone else does either.  

Jesus didn't really throw out the law. 

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

We have a habit of mentally replacing "fulfill" with "do away with". Jesus definitely had a more liberal interpretation of the law than the presiding religious authorities, but he did teach people to keep the law of Moses. He was a radical rabbi,  but not as radical as Paul, who took it a step further and advocated for getting rid of the law of Moses entirely (in essence). 

I've heard that Jesus' comment about not destroying the law was actually a dig at Paul, inserted by whoever wrote Matthew. Not sure if that's true. 

Edited August 22, 2016 by Gray

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

As was most of the law of Moses.
Paschal lamb?

Agreed.  Law of Moses was symbolic of gospel principles.

Christ ended our adherence to the Law of Moses.  Yes it was symbolic but the law was changed.  We aren't to follow it anymore.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

I've heard that Jesus' comment about not destroying the law was actually a dig at Paul, inserted by whoever wrote Matthew. Not sure if that's true. 

I've heard the same.  The gospel of matthew was likely written after all of Paul's letters, and also likely after Paul had died.  In some measure Matthew and other gospels and NT writings could be in response to the more liberal, if you will, perspective of Paul.  To me the type of diversity of thought, the type of argument engendered in this thread was alive and well in the days most of what is the New Testament came about.  I'd imagine we might be able to tie it in with what we call now their apostasy.  In a lot of ways what we are today is much like they were in the era after the original apostles, which excluded Paul.  After a strong movement gets on it's way, it tends to try and settle into tradition.  When that happens we get nothing but differing perspectives of how to balance tradition with invigorated ideas, and direction.  The Church for many years, it feels, is swaying towards tradition in nearly all ways.  Someday I'm curious how this will play out when it all comes to a head. 

[thesometimesaint]

On 8/20/2016 at 11:52 PM, BCSpace said:

I have to categorically disagree with the OP's take here.  The political arena is a perfectly legitimate area, and probably one of the most important, for determining if one believes in or is committed to the application of LDS doctrine.  If it were otherwise, then the Church has no purpose whatsoever and becomes a "Sunday-only" Church.

Keep your politics out of my religion and I'll keep my religion out of your politics.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Jesus didn't really throw out the law. 

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

We have a habit of mentally replacing "fulfill" with "do away with". Jesus definitely had a more liberal interpretation of the law than the presiding religious authorities, but he did teach people to keep the law of Moses. He was a radical rabbi,  but not as radical as Paul, who took it a step further and advocated for getting rid of the law of Moses entirely (in essence). 

I've heard that Jesus' comment about not destroying the law was actually a dig at Paul, inserted by whoever wrote Matthew. Not sure if that's true. 

Jesus was already dead long before Paul came along.

[Gray]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

Jesus was already dead long before Paul came along.

Yes, but Matthew was likely written after Paul's death. 

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, but Matthew was likely written after Paul's death. 

Maybe. But even if true that doesn't mean Jesus was referencing Paul.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Agreed.  Law of Moses was symbolic of gospel principles.

Christ ended our adherence to the Law of Moses.  Yes it was symbolic but the law was changed.  We aren't to follow it anymore.

But we are still following the same principles.  All laws are based on principles.  We are still following the same laws, just a different form.

 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But we are still following the same principles.  All laws are based on principles.  We are still following the same laws, just a different form.

 

The principles may be the same in a very loose, generic way.  As you demonstrated with Lev 19:19... The laws described in that verse are not something we follow.  The principle may be something as simple as "be obedient".

You, like so many others, when confronted with aspects of the Law of Moses to which we no longer adhere explain that there is a principle behind it:  like being obedient that really has nothing to do directly with the law.  At the same time, you'll point to perceived Law of Moses prohibitions against homosexual acts and interpret them literally.

It's a double standard to conclude that Lev 18:22 should be applied literally, in our day, while Lev 19:19 should be ignored and interpreted as teaching some more basic gospel principle.

[ttribe]

An entire thread devoted to boundary maintenance.  Lovely.

[rockpond]

Just now, Brother Bundy said:

I see Liberals and the liberal politics as one of the biggest threats to the church today.  Fortunately we have prophets and apostles and don't have to worry about these wicked ideas filtering into our doctrines.  As long as we are careful about the wolf in sheep clothing among us, we will be fine.   

Have you read some of those liberal ideas in the Book of Mormon?  How do we keep those out of the church today?

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Brother Bundy said:

I am not aware of any liberal ideas in the Book of Mormon.

Really?  I guess maybe I'm not understanding which liberal threats/politics you feel are among the biggest threats to the church today.  Would you care to elaborate?

[Gray]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Maybe. But even if true that doesn't mean Jesus was referencing Paul.

No, obviously not. But it's possible the author was referencing Paul, putting the words into Jesus' mouth, as it were.