Jump to content

A Prophet's Reward and Apostasy of the Church


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Agreed.

Agreed.  I'm quite okay with that.  That seems to be what we are supposed to do.  

I think the changes relating to the end of polygamy and the priesthood ban were the result of revelation.  That the revelations stemmed from "the society the Church was in at the time" is quite understandable.

This is actually one of the reasons I am persuaded that the Church's policy changes in November 2015 were revelatory.  They certainly were not designed to placate worldly calls to embrace and endorse homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage.

I agree.  And I am quite okay with such factors, provided that the Church's decision is, in the end, the result of revelation.

And if societal pressures increase concerning the ordination of women or same-sex marriage?

Let's look at it from the opposite side.  Since its founding, what positions that run contrary to things accepted by society has the Church held fast to in the face of major opposition.  What things that society considers right has the the Church refused to accept, especially once a large number of the membership already accepts?
(And I don't think the word of wisdom counts - there are hardly protests for the Church to allow coffee and beer).

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet the LDS Church did place plural marriage in abeyance in order to accommodate the demands of the U.S. Govt and most Americans -- who considered polygamy barbaric.  Is accommodation possible in the future?  If so, what might that entail?

I suspect the accommodation may entail some jurisdictions revoking the civil authority vested in LDS "sealers" (and possibly bishops), such that LDS marriage ceremonies performed by them are no longer recognized at law as a solemnization, and that LDS ceremonies must then be paired with a civil solemnization.

There are already several jurisdictions in which LDS ceremonies don't "count" in civil law, though none of these jurisdictions withhold such recognition as a punitive measure.  However, that may change in the future.  The LDS Church is situated fairly well to accommodate such an eventuality, since sealers and bishops are not paid for their services, and since we already have a track record of being able to accommodate this situation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And if societal pressures increase concerning the ordination of women or same-sex marriage?

I don't understand your question.  Social pressure regarding the ordination of women seems to be dissipating.  Social pressure regarding same-sex marriage does not seem to be dissipating.  And so far the Church has . . . issued the Proclamation on the Family.  And more recently the Church has re-affirmed the revelatory origins of the Proclamation (Elder Oaks' remarks during this last General Conference).  The Church also issued new guidelines regarding same-sex marriage (the November 2015 policy changes).  And the Church thereafter re-affirmed the revelatory origins of those changes (Pres. Nelson's January 2016 remarks).  The Church has also spent the last several years re-working its overall approach to same-gender attraction, which efforts are more compassionate and loving, but which do not give an inch as to proscribing behavior.

So the Church appears to be accommodating calls for change where possible, but otherwise standing firm as to its doctrines.

Quote

Let's look at it from the opposite side.  Since its founding, what positions that run contrary to things accepted by society has the Church held fast to in the face of major opposition.  What things that society considers right has the the Church refused to accept, especially once a large number of the membership already accepts?
(And I don't think the word of wisdom counts - there are hardly protests for the Church to allow coffee and beer).

The Book of Mormon.

Restored priesthood authority.

Modern prophets and apostles.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

The Church's teachings regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

And on and on and on. 

Polygamy and the Priesthood Ban are outliers.  Exceptions.  The Church has "held fast" to lots of things "in the face of major opposition."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, on behalf of everyone who thinks Brigham may have used the PoGP as an excuse to enact a racist policy rather than as a true revelation of instruction to institute a specific policy on ordination to the Priesthood, let me be the first to apologize for bothering you with our tiresome argument.  As I see it, reference to the PoGP is nothing more than a crutch to support a revisionist history of what was going on around Brigham and the Church in those days.  I might also remind you that you are under no obligation to engage in arguments you find tiresome.

ETA: The fact that "BOTH Joseph and Brigham acted in opposition, just as many early leaders ignored other canon like the Word of Wisdom, the original marriage section in the D&C, and others" opens a whole new can of worms I'm not sure you want to open.

Looking ONLY at the origin, not at the post-policy ban period

Who taught that blacks were descendants of Cain, Canaan, and Ham/Egyptus?
1. Joseph Smith
2. Brigham Young
3. Both

Who published a work of scripture that stated these lineages were prohibited from holding priesthood and were black?
1. Joseph Smith
2. Brigham Young
3. Both

Who allowed black men to be ordained to the priesthood during their presidencies?
1. Joseph Smith
2. Brigham Young
3. Both

The revisionist history is the blame Brigham brigade.  The actual history is that Joseph established the doctrines that led to the ban and all Brigham did was institute it as Church policy.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand your question.

The Book of Mormon.

Restored priesthood authority.

Modern prophets and apostles.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

The Church's teachings regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

And on and on and on. 

Polygamy and the Priesthood Ban are outliers.  Exceptions.  The Church has "held fast" to lots of things "in the face of major opposition."

Thanks,

-Smac

No, the Church held fast on doctrines that society opposed only until the pressure from without and within reached a tipping point.
Joseph F. Smith held fast on the garments until members started altering them and refusing to wear them.  Then Heber J. Grant changed them.
The Church held fast on the endowment until enough objection was heard from people to certain elements and then President Benson changed them.
The Church always holds fast until enough members don't want them to and outside threats reach a certain point.

If the Church's membership numbers were to drop fast enough and the government put pressure on them as it did in the polygamy era (disincorporation etc) I will guarantee you that equal ordination of women and possibly same sex marriage would happen in the Church.
You'd have a repeat of what Wilford Woodruff stated:

  • The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage (prohibit same-sex marriage), with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice (allow same-sex marriage) and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

    The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not (allow this practice) stop this practice. If we had not (allowed it) stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice.


Book of Mormon, priesthood, apostles/prophets, etc are theological and while some traditional christians may object, society doesn't care that we believe in them.
The Proclamation on Family, homosexuality teachings etc have only become issues in the past few decades so that doesn't address my point either.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's a matter of perspective, I suppose.  For me, obeying God (such as adhering to OD-1 (plural marriage) and OD-2 (priesthood ordination)) is never a bad thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is very difficult to argue that OD-1 was from God.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Alan said:

It is very difficult to argue that OD-1 was from God.

Yes and no.
The question isn't whether OD-1 was a revelation.  The question is whether it was created as the result of a revelation.
President Woodruff said it was created as the result of revelation.  I would hope anyone who reads can see that it isn't a revelation itself.

Woodruff said the Lord told him what to write as a result of the vision he saw if they did nothing.
So Woodruff and the GA's issued the declaration to stop the vision from coming to pass, and then went right back to living and performing plural marriages.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, the Church held fast on doctrines that society opposed only until the pressure from without and within reached a boiling point.

No, the Church held fast on the doctrine of polygamy, and still does.  

The Church changed its practice of polygamy in the face of public pressure, but only because of revelation from God.  Wilford Woodruff made that very clear (emphases added):

Quote

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

We can't really speak of the Priesthood Ban as "doctrine."  We don't know where it came from.  But we do know that we ended it because of revelation from God.

OD-1 and OD-2 were revelations, not cover for capitulation.

Quote

If the Church's membership numbers were to drop fast enough and the government put pressure on them as it did in the polygamy era (disincorporation etc) I will guarantee you that equal ordination of women and possibly same sex marriage would happen in the Church.
You'd have a repeat of what Wilford Woodruff stated:

  • The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage (prohibit same-sex marriage), with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice (allow same-sex marriage) and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

    The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not (allow this practice) stop this practice. If we had not (allowed it) stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice.

Strange that you did not proceed to the next paragraph (quoted above).  Here it is again (emphasis added):

Quote

… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

So I'll take your speculative "guarantee" with several grains of salt.

I trust that the Brethren will listed to the World (as they should), but that they will follow the revelatory guidance they receive from God.  By way of evidence, I direct your attention to the 1995 Proclamation on the Family, and subsequent statements about its revelatory provenance, and the 2015 policy changes, and subsequent statements about their revelatory provenance.  If the Brethren were really as susceptible to public "pressure," I do not think they would be doing these things.  They would keep mum.  Go along to get along.  That sort of thing.

Quote

Book of Mormon, priesthood, apostles/prophets, etc are theological and while some traditional christians may object, society doesn't care that we believe in them.
The Proclamation on Family, homosexuality teachings etc have only become issues in the past few decades so that doesn't address my point either.

I think the Church's actions on these controversies are definitely relevant.  

I can see why you would not want to acknowledge that.  The Church's actions have not been popular.  Doing things which are unpopopular but guided by revelation contravenes the premise underlying your "guarantee."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Alan said:

It is very difficult to argue that OD-1 was from God.

Not difficult at all (emphases added):

Quote

{From the Header}: After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. 

...

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

...

… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Looking ONLY at the origin, not at the post-policy ban period

Who taught that blacks were descendants of Cain, Canaan, and Ham/Egyptus?
1. Joseph Smith
2. Brigham Young
3. Both

Who published a work of scripture that stated these lineages were prohibited from holding priesthood and were black?
1. Joseph Smith
2. Brigham Young
3. Both

Who allowed black men to be ordained to the priesthood during their presidencies?
1. Joseph Smith
2. Brigham Young
3. Both

The revisionist history is the blame Brigham brigade.  The actual history is that Joseph established the doctrines that led to the ban and all Brigham did was institute it as Church policy.

Yes, poor Brigham, "all [he] did was institute" those teachings as "policy"; he had no other choice.  He couldn't have petitioned God for some clarification on the subject given the variety of opinions prevalent at the time, not to mention the way Joseph actually conducted himself on this issue. 

Let's look at the treatment of Elijah Abel as an example of the contrast between these two leaders - ordained by Joseph, denied the temple by Brigham.  

Or, Walker Lewis - ordained by William Smith prior to Joseph's death; his son marries a white woman in 1846, the ban is formally enacted in 1848 (no specific revelation, just justification/rationalization); he moves to Utah in 1851, and 2 months later a law legalizing slavery in Utah is passed, along with a prohibition on interracial marriage; he moved back to Massachusetts 6 months after getting to Utah.

BTW, what "work of scripture" did Brigham publish? 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

So the question for discussion is this: why should the Church's abandoning its doctrinal position on conjugal marriage, if such an abandonment were to happen, not be seen as a mere surrender to the shifting fashions of a fallen world?

I think that is just one valid way to look at it (that it is a surrender to shifting fashions of a fallen world). But some may well have been urging it before it came fashionable. Or are urging it because they believe it is what Jesus wants them to do. But I don’t see how OD-1 and OD-2 advance the discussion for an “OD-3” for ssm. These revelations changed only how many and who could participate in the covenant of marriage and the oath and covenant of the priesthood, respectively. The covenants for marriage and priesthood were not changed.

This is why I like to look at these issues holistically. For example, if the abandonment were to happen, what can be described as the new “whole” as comprehended by the various appendages being intimately interconnected. I like to use Joseph Smith’s reliance on the Atonement as a starting point, the hub of a wheel that has many spokes attached to it. Perhaps a simpler way of looking at it is, since all the covenants tie back to the Atonement, how could these change and still have power to save in this world and also be eternally valid?

A covenant of course is a sacred agreement between God and those making it. The sealing power is the means whereby a covenant exists in and after the resurrection of the dead (D&C 132:7), meaning the power exercised in the physical realm applies to the spiritual realm, both before and after the resurrection of the dead, in both mortal and immortal environments.

So, I think proponents of ssm must show that the marriage covenant by nature is alterable in its physical manifestation, while the other covenants are not. For example, baptism and confirmation require the form of immersion in water; sacrament uses drink and meat; priesthood uses the visibly discernible “walk and conversation” of receiving the servants, the Son, and the Father; the endowment uses physical signs, tokens, clothing, locations, etc.

It must be shown that it is right and proper, and in accordance with the sealing power, to use for baptism the immersion from air into air; for sacrament drink for blood and drink for body (or meat and meat); receiving any permutation of servants and / or Son and / or Father in lieu of the prescribed order; and in the endowment to use one sign, token, cloth, vestment and locale (or combine the sign, token, cloth, vestment and locale into one symbol) for all the covenants. Otherwise it really cannot be  argued that ssm can be a bona fide covenant.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

If the goal of the Church to to maximize church membership.  If numbers are what we are focused on, then it would make sense to compromise our views to appease the widest audience possible.  If numbers do not matter that much but being on the right path is what is important, than we should not be concerned about how much the church grows or even shrinks.  Noah is a good example we should follow.  Even though he did not convert really anyone, he was a great missionary.  In the end, he was the winner and those that rejected him were the losers.  Better to be on the winning side with a not many people with you than be with the masses who are on the losing side who all drown together.

We are to have a prepared people for the return of Christ. Of course we'd like to have as many prepared people as possible.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

OD-1 and OD-2 were revelations, not cover for capitulation.

I think they were some of both.  The Lord told the leaders what to do to address the challenges they were facing.
In the case of OD-1 as evidenced by the next decade plus, it was a PR move.  The Lord told Wilford what to write to get rid of the threat.
And it worked for a decade plus.
And in the case of OD-2 we know from LeGrand Richards that it was the situation in Brazil that led to President Kimball receiving the revelation.
A revelation specifically designed to solve that public issue.

I don't think it's wrong to realize that sometimes God's revelations ARE capitulation.
We have scriptural and historical precedence for that.
 

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think they were some of both.  

I can agree with that.  Let me clarify: OD-1 and OD-2 were revelations, not cover for capitulation by the Brethren, which they did in the absence of revelatory guidance from God.

I am willing to capitulate to "The World" as long as God authorizes/commands it

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The Lord told the leaders what to do to address the challenges they were facing.
In the case of OD-1 as evidenced by the next decade plus, it was a PR move.  The Lord told Wilford what to write to get rid of the threat.
And it worked for a decade plus.
And in the case of OD-2 we know from LeGrand Richards that it was the situation in Brazil that led to President Kimball receiving the revelation.
A revelation specifically designed to solve that public issue.

I don't think it's wrong to realize that sometimes God's revelations ARE capitulation.
We have scriptural and historical precedence for that.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can agree with that.  Let me clarify: OD-1 and OD-2 were revelations, not cover for capitulation by the Brethren, which they did in the absence of revelatory guidance from God.

I am willing to capitulate to "The World" as long as God authorizes/commands it

As long as we remember that sometimes God gives us the revelations we want, not necessarily the ones he wants.
Jacob 4:14, I Samuel 8:4-7, and HC 1:21.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As long as we remember that sometimes God gives us the revelations we want, not necessarily the ones he wants.
Jacob 4:14, I Samuel 8:4-7, and HC 1:21.

Oscar Wilde had it right: "There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it."

As regarding same-sex marriage, I don't think God is going to give us a revelation that substantially departs from the Church's present teachings about the Law of Chastity and marriage.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

Oscar Wilde had it right: "There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it."

As regarding same-sex marriage, I don't think God is going to give us a revelation that substantially departs from the Church's present teachings about the Law of Chastity and marriage.

And I think God will give us the revelation that the majority of members want, right or wrong.  I hold out hope that you are right and that the membership will hold the line.
 

  • He (Joseph) was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.  It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still.  - Brigham Young

Back to the OP - "why should the Church's abandoning its doctrinal position on conjugal marriage, if such an abandonment were to happen, not be seen as a mere surrender to the shifting fashions of a fallen world?".
If Brigham is right, the Church abandoning that doctrinal position would come as a result not of the shifting fashions of the world, but as a result of the members embracing those shifting fashions.  If we want to ensure we are never led astray then the ownership for that stays on us, the members, to not allow the shifting fashions to have sway in our beliefs.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And I think God will give us the revelation that the majority of members want, right or wrong.  

I question that.

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I hold out hope that you are right and that the membership will hold the line.

  • He (Joseph) was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine.

"If He had a mind..."

Sounds like a hypothetical point, not a predicted course of conduct.

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:
  • And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.  

Again "if the Lord was predisposed..."

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:
  • It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray.

"If He should suffer him to lead the people astray..."

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:
  • If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still.  - Brigham Young

 

Both Mormon and Alma made rhetorical statements about conditions under which "{God} would cease to be God."  However, both of them immediately clarify that these are purely rhetorical/hypothetical statements, not predictions or declarations that God might "cease to be God."  See, e.g., Mormons 9:15, 19.

Similarly, Wilford Woodruff went so far as to declare that God showed him an alternate (hypothetical) future:

Quote

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. ..

I wonder if these are better construed as being purely rhetorical "what ifs," rather than "God will give us the revelation that the majority of members want, right or wrong."

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Back to the OP - "why should the Church's abandoning its doctrinal position on conjugal marriage, if such an abandonment were to happen, not be seen as a mere surrender to the shifting fashions of a fallen world?".
If Brigham is right, the Church abandoning that doctrinal position would come as a result not of the shifting fashions of the world, but as a result of the members embracing those shifting fashions.  

I more inclined to read Brigham's statement as conjectural, the same way I read Mormon's/Alma's statements about how God could "cease to be God."  Nevertheless, you and I seem to end up at the same place...

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If we want to ensure we are never led astray then the ownership for that stays on us, the members, to not allow the shifting fashions to have sway in our beliefs.

Well said.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I question that.

"If He had a mind..."

Sounds like a hypothetical point, not a predicted course of conduct.

Again "if the Lord was predisposed..."

"If He should suffer him to lead the people astray..."

Both Mormon and Alma made rhetorical statements about conditions under which "{God} would cease to be God."  However, both of them immediately clarify that these are purely rhetorical/hypothetical statements, not predictions or declarations that God might "cease to be God."  See, e.g., Mormons 9:15, 19.

Similarly, Wilford Woodruff went so far as to declare that God showed him an alternate (hypothetical) future:

I wonder if these are better construed as being purely rhetorical "what ifs," rather than "God will give us the revelation that the majority of members want, right or wrong."

I more inclined to read Brigham's statement as conjectural, the same way I read Mormon's/Alma's statements about how God could "cease to be God."  Nevertheless, you and I seem to end up at the same place...

Well said.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is why I think it is effective to look at this issue from the structure of the actual covenants, which have a physical component just as marriage does.

Does it make any sense for the following covenants to change in their physical manifestation (with corresponding spiritual meaning):

Baptizing by immersion from air above us into air below us. Using a liquid drink to represent both the body and the blood (or a solid foodstuff to do the same) for the sacrament. For the oath and covenant of the priesthood to be manifest by our receiving any permutation of servants and / or Son and / or Father in lieu of the prescribed order set forth in D&C 121. To use the same signs and tokens, or combine them into one, for all the endowment covenants.

It makes as much sense as putting a spirit into his host spirit for the purposes of fulfilling his second estate, or inseparably connecting a body with its host body in the resurrection, but neither ever having possessed a spirit.

What would happen to the covenants supported by the fundamental law of all covenants laid forth in Moses 6:59-60?

“That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the water ye are justified, and by the water ye are sanctified?

Just as we cannot be born or born again by water, and water, and water, we cannot have a marriage where the covenanting parties are of the same sex.

We cannot have an Atonement by marrying, or bringing together as one, justice and justice or mercy and mercy; nor by the Lord condescending and condescending (or ascending up on high and ascending up on high).

These examples, as the physical structure of the covenants, use the complementary relationship between opposing principles as called for by the law of opposition (air and water, fluid and solid, touch and sound, mortal and immortal, Son and Father, etc.). Hence man and woman.

Link to comment

I can only say that I don't look Joseph Smith as a martyr anymore.  Joseph Smith was killed...but not for or because of the church.

No worries...I will not respond anymore to this thread.  :)

Edited by Jeanne
Link to comment
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

It is possible that the Priesthood Ban was borne of racism.  If so, then following the "worldly notion" prevailing in the 19th century was . . . wrong.  As wrong as it would be for the Church to follow "worldly notion{s}" today.

And it may also be possible that the Priesthood Ban was commanded by God.  We simply don't know.  The Priesthood is also restricted by other criteria.  I do not understand why the priesthood is restricted to males.  I also do not understand why the ancient priesthood was restricted to male Levites.  I also do not understand other aspects of the Restored Gospel.

But I'm not about to smear the Gospel with the broad brush of the-Church-was-wrong-on-the-Priesthood-Ban-so-it-must-also-be-wrong-about-its-teachings-about-the-Law-of-Chastity style criticisms.  It's just too pat for me.  Too convenient a cudgel.

The Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity are not based on "tradition."  I can see that you want to reduce the Law of Chastity to mere "tradition" and not doctrine, but it just doesn't work.

Thanks,

-Smac

You bring up an interesting question.  Could a black woman marry a white man in the temple prior to 1978?

Would you say that tying Homosexual behavior to the law of Chastity is based on tradition?  Where did the "doctrine" that homosexual relations inside of marriage is against the law of chastity come from?  What prophet received that revelation?  Or is it just based on Bible  verses?

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I can only say that I don't look Joseph Smith as a martyr anymore.  Joseph Smith was killed...but not for or because of the Church.

Why do you think he was killed?

I think any reason you can come up with still connects right back to his teachings and the gospel he restored.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, california boy said:

You bring up an interesting question.  Could a black woman marry a white man in the temple prior to 1978?

Not sure.  But I think the answer is "no."

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Would you say that tying Homosexual behavior to the law of Chastity is based on tradition?  

No.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Where did the "doctrine" that homosexual relations inside of marriage is against the law of chastity come from?  

Homosexual relations violate the Law of Chastity.  Full stop.  The recent innovation of same-sex marriage does not change that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why do you think he was killed?

I think any reason you can come up with still connects right back to his teachings and the gospel he restored.

I heard it was because his chipped tooth caused a whistling sound when he breathed.  It drove those gentle and unassuming mobbers at Carthage nuts.

-Smac

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...