JLHPROF Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I know, I just find it odd. Look at David. He had a direct commandment from the Lord and eventually got his consequences and another picked up the ball that he dropped. The Lord just called another to carry out the mission. It's interesting that the message in Joseph's case is different , and not the way the Lord usually handles things according to scriptures I have seen. I am trying to see the difference if there is one. In Joseph's case a refusal to fully implement plural marriage would have frustrated the process of the restoration of all things. No different than if he had refused to give the endowment, or refused to perform baptisms for the dead. It had to be done. Had he refused he would have been in open rebellion against God and a new dispensational head would have needed to be called and his covenants would be broken. (And the penalty for broken covenants is usually pretty clear). In David's case his sin was not against the work of God and was entirely personal in nature.
JLHPROF Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 1 minute ago, theplains said: Is this type of testing with the handshake ever depicted in a temple ceremony? Thanks, Jim No comment. 2
bluebell Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: In David's case his sin was not against the work of God and was entirely personal in nature. That's true. I've never thought about it that way. Maybe it's the difference between personally going astray and trying to lead the church of God astray. Edited August 27, 2016 by bluebell 2
JLHPROF Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: That's true. I've never thought about it that way. Maybe it's the difference between personally going astray and trying to lead the church of God astray. Yes. So if you want to compare Joseph to someone it should be Moses, Abraham, Enoch, Adam, Noah etc. Dispensation heads have a heavy load to bear. I don't think they have the option to lead astray without being taken. 1
Tacenda Posted August 27, 2016 Author Posted August 27, 2016 15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Yes. So if you want to compare Joseph to someone it should be Moses, Abraham, Enoch, Adam, Noah etc. Dispensation heads have a heavy load to bear. I don't think they have the option to lead astray without being taken. Well, he was taken.. 1
mfbukowski Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: In Joseph's case a refusal to fully implement plural marriage would have frustrated the process of the restoration of all things. No different than if he had refused to give the endowment, or refused to perform baptisms for the dead. It had to be done. Had he refused he would have been in open rebellion against God and a new dispensational head would have needed to be called and his covenants would be broken. (And the penalty for broken covenants is usually pretty clear). In David's case his sin was not against the work of God and was entirely personal in nature. I think you hit it exactly right. We are the only church which understands Malachi 4 Quote 5 ¶Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to thechildren, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. And these were tweaked by Moroni in the first visions of the opening of this dispensation Quote 39 He also quoted the next verse differently: And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming .Joseph Smith History 1 What's the curse? What's this about turning hearts? Why would the earth be "wasted" without that? Well we know this is about temple work for the dead. No work for the dead- then 99.999999% of the population of the earth could not receive saving ordinances. The entire purpose of the creation of the earth- to have us come here and be tested, get a body and learn the difference between good and evil- would be defeated So without temple work, there is no purpose for the earth and its purpose would be "wasted". So yep, the pressure was on Joseph, for sure 2
JLHPROF Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Well, he was taken.. So was Christ. Even younger. Maybe his polygamous wives were the problem too. Edited August 27, 2016 by JLHPROF
cdowis Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 18 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Well, he was taken.. So was Peter, Thomas and Paul, et al. 2
JLHPROF Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: the pressure was on Joseph, for sure So many members have no idea of Joseph's calling. They think he was no different than his successors. That's like saying Peter was no different than Christ, or Shem was no different than Noah, or that Joshua was no different than Moses. The significance of the last dispensation over the previous ones should also be considered when looking at the calling of Joseph. The restoration of ALL things, the fullness of times, the final dispensation. Joseph was NOT just another prophet. 1
Calm Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 1 hour ago, cdowis said: So was Peter, Thomas and Paul, et al. All apostles but John are reported to have died violent deaths: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/ 1
mfbukowski Posted August 27, 2016 Posted August 27, 2016 42 minutes ago, Calm said: All apostles but John are reported to have died violent deaths: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/ Which is cited as proof for the resurrection. Their knowledge that they would live again left them without fear of death 1
Eek! Posted August 28, 2016 Posted August 28, 2016 (edited) On 8/26/2016 at 1:18 PM, Cold Steel said: If the Keys of the Kingdom really reside with the Papal authority, as I told a Catholic friend, why would instructions from God come through village children instead of to the Pontiff? There has to be a designated chain of command in the world. Any counsel from a supernatural force would have to recognize that chain of command or it is not of God. Yet there are stories of the Pope poring over these supposed messages from children. Good for the Pope, for not "pulling rank" and proclaiming man-made boundaries that presume to delineate who God can and cannot work through. A bit closer to home, we have ready access to accounts of people who have "gazed into heaven for five minutes" before they were resuscitated, and we can learn from those people's first-hand experiences if we choose to. Edited August 28, 2016 by Eek!
Robert F. Smith Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 On 8/26/2016 at 9:31 AM, Tacenda said: In these scriptures it explains what to do if you're visited by an angel. I wonder why Joseph never did it? How do we know the angels are who they say they are? And who told you that Joseph never did it? What is your source, Tacenda? 1
mfbukowski Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: And who told you that Joseph never did it? What is your source, Tacenda? Lack of temple experience 1
Calm Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Lack of temple experience Tacenda has been to the temple. People can go to the temple hundreds of times without making certain connections others may make in one visit. Nothing particularly wrong with that, they may pick up on other things the previously quick are clueless on. 2
UtahTexan Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 14 minutes ago, Calm said: Tacenda has been to the temple. People can go to the temple hundreds of times without making certain connections others may make in one visit. Nothing particularly wrong with that, they may pick up on other things the previously quick are clueless on. I agree. Line upon line..... One of the wonderful things about the Temple is that you learn something each time you go. And, if you have not been in awhile, you forget certain things. Tacenda, you truly are in our thoughts and prayers. Some of us know what you face
CMZ Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 I have a suspicion that Joseph Smith may have learned the underlying principles presented in D&C 129 as early as 1820.
CMZ Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 (edited) D&C 129 isn't a revelation but could more properly be referred to as inspired teaching. In writing D&C 128 Joseph likely thought something like, "Oh, yeah; I should write about this key of knowledge I've known about for a while and that has come in handy on occasion." Edited August 29, 2016 by CMZ
mfbukowski Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: Tacenda has been to the temple. People can go to the temple hundreds of times without making certain connections others may make in one visit. Nothing particularly wrong with that, they may pick up on other things the previously quick are clueless on. I sit corrected
Tacenda Posted August 29, 2016 Author Posted August 29, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: Tacenda has been to the temple. People can go to the temple hundreds of times without making certain connections others may make in one visit. Nothing particularly wrong with that, they may pick up on other things the previously quick are clueless on. Thanks Calm. I guess I didn't connect the two at first but now see how it might work.
Tacenda Posted August 29, 2016 Author Posted August 29, 2016 (edited) BTW, I came up with this question from a call-in Christian show discussing Mormonism. The caller said he wanted to ask this question of the missionaries. I guess he thought it would open their eyes or something. But once again the board has an answer. Or what they think is an answer. Now please don't be shaming me for watching the show, it was one of those days. Edited August 29, 2016 by Tacenda
drums12 Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 7 hours ago, Tacenda said: BTW, I came up with this question from a call-in Christian show discussing Mormonism. The caller said he wanted to ask this question of the missionaries. I guess he thought it would open their eyes or something. But once again the board has an answer. Or what they think is an answer. Now please don't be shaming me for watching the show, it was one of those days. You'd think a call-in Christian show might be discussing Christ. I live about 45 minutes from CARM and our good friend Matt Slick. Naturally, his radio show gets local play. I had the (mis)fortune of listening to is for a few minutes once before I realized who it was. The man straight up lies, twists, and distorts Mormonism. Perhaps he missed the "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" when he read Exodus 20. 1
boblloyd91 Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 5 minutes ago, drums12 said: You'd think a call-in Christian show might be discussing Christ. I live about 45 minutes from CARM and our good friend Matt Slick. Naturally, his radio show gets local play. I had the (mis)fortune of listening to is for a few minutes once before I realized who it was. The man straight up lies, twists, and distorts Mormonism. Perhaps he missed the "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" when he read Exodus 20. You live in the Boise area then? That's where I went to grad school at. Anyways, have you seen Samantha Bee's interview with him? It's pretty funny. She did it with him a few years before she got her own show, it cleverly poked fun at the idea of Evangelical persecution. Also, you should read the experience of his daughter, who is now an atheist I believe.
drums12 Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 (edited) I saw that interview. Pretty funny. Pretty sad about his daughter, whose story I also read. It seems to me she wasn't able to adapt her faith from fundamentalist, literal thinking to allow for ambiguity or other options. My own observation of people who have left our faith - most I know of no longer believe in God at all. I have a good friend who is now Eastern Orthodox, and I have deep respect for that faith. He seems the exception in my experience though. I'm not sure how so many Mormons, myself included, adopted very fundamentalist thinking. I never believed in Biblical inerrancy, but I certainly leaned in my mind toward Prophetic innerancy. If one's worldview is based on black and white, ultra-rigid, dogmatic beliefs, I think it can be devastating when certain beliefs are demonstrated to be incorrect. However, each individual experience is different and I don't like to assume that I know and/or understand anyone's reason for anything they do if I haven't discussed it with them personally. Edited August 29, 2016 by drums12 2
Tacenda Posted August 29, 2016 Author Posted August 29, 2016 2 hours ago, drums12 said: You'd think a call-in Christian show might be discussing Christ. I live about 45 minutes from CARM and our good friend Matt Slick. Naturally, his radio show gets local play. I had the (mis)fortune of listening to is for a few minutes once before I realized who it was. The man straight up lies, twists, and distorts Mormonism. Perhaps he missed the "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" when he read Exodus 20. Yes this show discusses Christ, but it isn't Matt Slick's show. The caller just made a random statement that he wished he had asked the missionaries that question. As if it would open up a can of worms or something.
Recommended Posts