Will the church ever abandon the belief that the Book of Abraham is historical scripture?

[Jeanne]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

God has every prejudice.  He knows us better than we know ourselves.  He knows what choices we are likely to make.  All things past, present, and future are before him.

So if God says "these ones are my chosen" or "here are the noble and great ones I will make my leaders" to some and not to others is that prejudice?
Yes, he is pre-judging his children based on what he knows about them.  That is why his ways are higher.  He has better understanding of us than we do.

But he still gives us agency.

This is where and why I have separated myself from the "mormon God".  So many people may reply and say but there is just one God...but with that said agency, a keen mind and a heart..I can say that there is  a vast difference in my conscience, common sense, and a quest for personal spiritual application of my soul.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Jeanne

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you accept that His ways are higher than man's ways, you have to accept that He may have reasons that aren't immediately clear for not delivering daily briefings to a prophet on this or that thing.

You can either rail against that fact or you can have faith that in due time all things will be made known to those who wait on the Lord.

I don't expect daily briefings from God to the prophet.  But, a 125 year old ban on certain blessings and saving ordinances for an entire race, wherein prophets and apostles are coming up with false justifications, and faith is being damaged... that seems worthy of a briefing.  Still, I acknowledge that God might wish to withhold such information but that also is counterproductive to the concept of a prophet.

So, I am not "railing against that fact".  I'm quite comfortable with my faith and belief that the ban was not of God... precisely because His ways are higher than our ways.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This is where and why I have separated myself from the "mormon God".  

That's JLHPROF's Mormon God.  Not my Mormon God.

But I understand your point, Jeanne.

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

If a church gets their said precepts from God..how is it that His ways were higher?  This doesn't make sense Scott.  I would like to think that God has no prejudices.

The Church obeys whatever God commands, sometimes (as in this case) not knowing the reason for the commandment. That's not the same thing as saying God has prejudices.

I don't know the reason the ban was instituted and sustained for so long. I don't think anyone on earth does, including those who claim they do.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's JLHPROF's Mormon God.  Not my Mormon God.

I'd love to know what I said about the character of God that is not 100% found in the scriptures?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'd love to know what I said about the character of God that is not 100% found in the scriptures?

It's not what is in the scriptures, it is your interpretations that I don't 100% agree with.

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church obeys whatever God commands, sometimes (as in this case) not knowing the reason for the commandment. That's not the same thing as saying God has prejudices.

I don't know the reason the ban was instituted and sustained for so long. I don't think anyone on earth does, including those who claim they do.

I believe we do know.  Men make mistakes...and then try to correct them.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This is where and why I have separated myself from the "mormon God".  So many people may reply and say but there is just one God...but with that said agency, a keen mind and a heart..I can say that there is  a vast difference in my conscience, common sense, and a quest for personal spiritual application of my soul.

 

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's JLHPROF's Mormon God.  Not my Mormon God.

But I understand your point, Jeanne.

There's a scene in the movie "The Ten Commandmnets" in which Pharaoh is obliged at long last to acknowledge, "Moses's god is God."

Similarly, I would declare that "the Mormon God" is God.

And rockpond, I submit that you don't know any more about Him than JLHPROF does.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I believe we do know.  Men make mistakes...and then try to correct them.

No, you don't know.

You are entitled to make a supposition, but that's all it is.

 

[rockpond]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

And rockpond, I submit that you don't know any more about Him than JOHPROF does.

Totally agree.  We each have our own, slightly unique, beliefs about who God is and His nature.  Mine are not superior to anyone else's.

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church obeys whatever God commands, sometimes (as in this case) not knowing the reason for the commandment. 

When you say "The Church", I assume you mean "the Prophets" correct?

In the past, you have stated that you believe Prophets are fallible.  Does this mean you also believe God is fallible?

If not, then are there times when the Prophets don't listen or follow God or when they issue commandments that didn't come from God?

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's JLHPROF's Mormon God.  Not my Mormon God.

But I understand your point, Jeanne.

With great respect...thank you.

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's not what is in the scriptures, it is your interpretations that I don't 100% agree with.

That's fine.
Provide alternate ones for the scriptures in evidence that go beyond "well, that was just some mortal man".

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, JulieM said:

When you say "The Church", I assume you mean "the Prophets" correct?

In the past, you have stated that you believe Prophets are fallible.  Does this mean you also believe God is fallible?

If not, then are there times when the Prophets don't listen or follow God or when they issue commandments that didn't come from God?

As I've indicated in the past, I view the prophets and the apostles as trustworthy when it comes to receiving and acting on the will of God -- much more trustworthy than their detractors and faultfinders.

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And rockpond, I submit that you don't know any more about Him than JLHPROF does.

Always wonder about this claim people like to throw around - "you don't know God".

Christ and Joseph Smith taught that eternal life was dependent upon knowing God.
At some point, shouldn't some of us come to some knowledge of God and his character?  And what else to base it on other than what he has revealed?

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's fine.
Provide alternate ones for the scriptures in evidence that go beyond "well, that was just some mortal man".

I did, earlier in the discussion.  Acts 10.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Always wonder about this claim people like to throw around - "you don't know God".

Just to be clear:  I never said that you did not know God.  Such a thought did not even cross my mind.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I've indicated in the past, I view the prophets and the apostles as trustworthy when it comes to receiving and acting on the will of God -- much more trustworthy than their detractors and faultfinders.

But they are still not infallible.  So, the ban could have been a mistake.  Just as you told Jeanne above that she doesn't "know", that applies to each of us.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I did, earlier in the discussion.  Acts 10.

No, sir.  You provided an alternate scripture for God expanding the missionary reach of the gospel.

You did not provide any explanation for the scriptures where God DOES show favoritism or preferential treatment to certain groups of his children.  And there are many of them.
Instead you choose to ignore those scriptures as being from mortal men, a far too easy cop out.
So I ask again, what is a good explanation for the numerous examples of God having chosen, favored, or preferential treatment to certain of his children?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, sir.  You provided an alternate scripture for God expanding the missionary reach of the gospel.

You did not provide any explanation for the scriptures where God DOES show favoritism or preferential treatment to certain groups of his children.  And there are many of them.
Instead you choose to ignore those scriptures as being from mortal men, a far too easy cop out.
So I ask again, what is a good explanation for the numerous examples of God having chosen, favored, or preferential treatment to certain of his children?

The experience of the apostles in Acts shows where prejudices of mortals were imposed upon God.  Then we learn that God is no respecter of persons and that all are viewed equally by Him.  We see that it was a false interpretation of scripture that caused the apostles to believe that the missionary reach of the gospel was ever "not expanded" in the first place.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, sir.  You provided an alternate scripture for God expanding the missionary reach of the gospel.

You did not provide any explanation for the scriptures where God DOES show favoritism or preferential treatment to certain groups of his children.  And there are many of them.
Instead you choose to ignore those scriptures as being from mortal men, a far too easy cop out.
So I ask again, what is a good explanation for the numerous examples of God having chosen, favored, or preferential treatment to certain of his children?

I think you're not treating Acts 10 with the gravity it deserves. It's revolutionary. That's part of the whole basis for the Christian movement - the rejection of the idea that there is such a thing as "unclean" people. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

I think you're not treating Acts 10 with the gravity it deserves. It's revolutionary. That's part of the whole basis for the Christian movement - the rejection of the idea that there is such a thing as "unclean" people. 

rockpond: 

The experience of the apostles in Acts shows where prejudices of mortals were imposed upon God.  Then we learn that God is no respecter of persons and that all are viewed equally by Him.  We see that it was a false interpretation of scripture that caused the apostles to believe that the missionary reach of the gospel was ever "not expanded" in the first place.

"A man, he hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." --- Simon and Garfunkel

To others, Acts 10 demonstrated just how deep-seated the effects of Christ's command not to take the gospel to the Gentiles was. Only after a remarkable revelation to the head apostle and an angelic command to a Gentile sending him to Peter, was Peter comfortable deviating from what Jesus had commanded. 

It seems clear to me that the lesson of Acts 10 is a corollary to OD 2: in both cases, removing a ban required a direct revelation to the key holder. 

 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

 

"A man, he hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." --- Simon and Garfunkel

To others, Acts 10 demonstrated just how deep-seated the effects of Christ's command not to take the gospel to the Gentiles was. Only after a remarkable revelation to the head apostle and an angelic command to a Gentile sending him to Peter, was Peter comfortable deviating from what Jesus had commanded. 

It seems clear to me that the lesson of Acts 10 is a corollary to OD 2: in both cases, removing a ban required a direct revelation to the key holder. 

 

 

 

But unlike OD 2, Peter and the apostles had already received the commandment from the resurrected Christ.

So your corollary is deficient.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

This is where and why I have separated myself from the "mormon God".  So many people may reply and say but there is just one God...but with that said agency, a keen mind and a heart..I can say that there is  a vast difference in my conscience, common sense, and a quest for personal spiritual application of my soul.

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/biblical-literalism-0

I don't know how you believe for sure Jeanne, but I liked a lot of what this retired Episcopal Bishop, John Shelby Spong, has put forth.

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But unlike OD 2, Peter and the apostles had already received the commandment from the resurrected Christ.

So your corollary is deficient.

Yes, he did tell them to preach the gospel to all the world. But, they didn't do it until the explicit revelation to Peter. 

Marvin Perkins, in his many FAIR presentations, uses this to claim that the lifting of the priesthood ban was similar: it violated scriptures, but the Brethren were only comfortable lifting it with explicit revelation. I have used this myself in helping people, when this approach helps. For me, personally, I believe that the ban's inception, duration, and lifting were God's will. 

Yes, I know that there is no written revelation for it, but Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's contemporaries were on the same page about it, and I think this was because it was revealed --- not because they couldn't culturally shake themselves from Protestant baggage. 

This is an issue that believers and investigators have a wide range of strongly-held views on, and in my ministry to others, I share the range and let them pick what works best for them --- under the assumption that the Church is true.