JLHPROF Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 As everyone here knows, my personal beliefs in Mormonism are that while the Church is true and God's Church I have felt like many of the changes made over the years to beliefs and practices restored by revelation to early prophets may well have been made without revelation (mostly because we have no revelations on these things to reference). So this got me to thinking today. At April Conference, what if President Nelson got up and announced he had received a revelation, had presented it to the Apostles, and XYZ doctrine or practice from the 19th Century Church was being established once again? Would you be willing? Could you live Mormonism as the early saints did? When we say we sustain our leaders, do we mean it or would we object to a revelation? Some possible areas: Polygamy (please, not the primary focus of the thread, but the most obvious one) United Order (deeding all property to the Church) Early temple practices Full length original garments Pre-1990 covenants (for those in the know) Original initiatory ceremonies (again, for those in the know) Law of Adoption sealings Theocratic rule or political power of the Church, a re-establishment of the Council of 50 for instance An additional restriction on priesthood ordination (not necessarily by race or gender, but any exclusivity restriction) More widespread issuance of calling and election ordinances (second anointings) Whatever others come to mind... I don't want this thread to be all about polygamy. I am more interested in the mindset we carry when it comes to prophetic revelation. Yes polygamy is the most glaring difference, but there are others. If we truly sustain our leaders as prophets, would we be able to follow these earlier ideas as our Church forerunners did? Could you be a 19th century Mormon if President Nelson was commanded by the Lord to issue such a revelation? 2
rongo Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 (edited) I absolutely would, if it were commanded. Without hesitation. Edited March 19, 2018 by rongo
2PairsofCletes Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: As everyone here knows, my personal beliefs in Mormonism are that while the Church is true and God's Church I have felt like many of the changes made over the years to beliefs and practices restored by revelation to early prophets may well have been made without revelation (mostly because we have no revelations on these things to reference). So this got me to thinking today. At April Conference, what if President Nelson got up and announced he had received a revelation, had presented it to the Apostles, and XYZ doctrine or practice from the 19th Century Church was being established once again? Would you be willing? Could you live Mormonism as the early saints did? When we say we sustain our leaders, do we mean it or would we object to a revelation? Some possible areas: Polygamy (please, not the primary focus of the thread, but the most obvious one) United Order (deeding all property to the Church) Early temple practices Full length original garments Pre-1990 covenants (for those in the know) Original initiatory ceremonies (again, for those in the know) Law of Adoption sealings Theocratic rule or political power of the Church, a re-establishment of the Council of 50 for instance An additional restriction on priesthood ordination (not necessarily by race or gender, but any exclusivity restriction) More widespread issuance of calling and election ordinances (second anointings) Whatever others come to mind... I don't want this thread to be all about polygamy. I am more interested in the mindset we carry when it comes to prophetic revelation. Yes polygamy is the most glaring difference, but there are others. If we truly sustain our leaders as prophets, would we be able to follow these earlier ideas as our Church forerunners did? Could you be a 19th century Mormon if President Nelson was commanded by the Lord to issue such a revelation? I will say this, I would at least feel like the church would be living once again, what was restored. I can help be see that what is lived now in the 21st century does not resemble 19th century, but more of main stream protestantism, which troubles me
Guest Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 (edited) The role of Prophets have not changed. Their primary function is to lead God's people day by day in this wilderness called earth, with the goal (as did Moses and Joshua) to lead us to the promised land. It is not to have Israel retrace her steps, to wander lost once again in the wilderness. I have no doubt that at some future day some practices may once again be invoked, but most that you listed, have served their purpose, and it, or they are done. The Gospel is all about moving forward, it is not a gospel of regression. To be more specific... Polygamy NO! Preisthood bans . NO! United Order YES Full length Garments...I live in the South, so I would die quickly, which would mean all others would not matter. Edited March 19, 2018 by Bill "Papa" Lee 4
CA Steve Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 Great question. I suspect many will say they would, but I doubt any of us here would last long in such a cultural shock or checkbook shock. Before chiming in to say you would, reflect on this: someone else is now going to have complete control over your finances, and if you are married with a family do you have enough trust in your local leaders to give them that kind of control? So my answer is, no way, at least not the United Order part of it. I'll ask my wife about the polygamy part. I may not be back for a while.
2PairsofCletes Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: The role of Prophets have not changed. Their primary function is to lead God's people day by day in this wilderness called earth, with the goal (as did Moses and Joshua) to lead us to the promised land. It is not to have Israel retrace her steps, to wander lost once again in the wilderness. I have no doubt that at some future day some practices may once again be invoked, but most that you listed, have served their purpose, and it, or they are done. The Gospel is all about moving forward, it is not a gospel of regression. But how do we know that it would a regression in God's eyes? Maybe to you, us, others, etc. Mormon couple are having far less children these days as oppose to mid-20th century. A need could be seen in that respect for the reinstitution of polygamy, which still exists as per DC 132.
The Nehor Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 14 minutes ago, 2PairsofCletes said: But how do we know that it would a regression in God's eyes? Maybe to you, us, others, etc. Mormon couple are having far less children these days as oppose to mid-20th century. A need could be seen in that respect for the reinstitution of polygamy, which still exists as per DC 132. Why stop there? If we just need numbers: Pres. Snow. ‘I have no doubt but concubinage will yet be practiced in this church, but I had not thought of it in this connection. When the nations are troubled good women will come here for safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines.' Pres. Woodruff: ‘If men enter into some practice of this character to raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it.'”
CA Steve Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 (edited) The OP isn't questioning if the church has strayed. The question is would you be able to follow the prophet if he revealed that we were to live the United Order. (For me, that would be the big one.) It's a hypothetical scenario that tests us on two fronts, in my opinion. Our faith in believing that what the prophet tells us is actually what God wants us to do, and our ability to actually do it. For me I know that I could not commit to a UO regardless of where I thought the command came, mostly because I do not trust local leadership to that extent. Edited March 19, 2018 by CA Steve
Calm Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 23 minutes ago, 2PairsofCletes said: But how do we know that it would a regression in God's eyes? Maybe to you, us, others, etc. Mormon couple are having far less children these days as oppose to mid-20th century. A need could be seen in that respect for the reinstitution of polygamy, which still exists as per DC 132. Women had less children per wife at the time, so if the need is to increase children that wouldn't be wise. Seems like counseling people to have more children and providing help financially in some fashion for those who can't afford medical care would be a more effective approach. The only way it might work is if a mass of single sisters were able to get married that hadn't been. Otoh, the number of women and families that would leave would likely be a higher number (and we might get instead more predators joining), so if it was just numbers worried about, bad move most likely. 3
Calm Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 7 minutes ago, CA Steve said: For me I know that I could not commit to a UO regardless of where I thought the command came, mostly because I do not trust local leadership to that extent. There would have to be a number of safe guards given the financial demands of these days so that there would be no chance of failure unless the whole world's economic systems broke down. I definitely would not see a bishop that only lasts 5 years and doing ward work in his spare time being able to handle it.
Guest Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 33 minutes ago, 2PairsofCletes said: But how do we know that it would a regression in God's eyes? Maybe to you, us, others, etc. Mormon couple are having far less children these days as oppose to mid-20th century. A need could be seen in that respect for the reinstitution of polygamy, which still exists as per DC 132. Polygamy does not mean more children, that seems like a false assumption. It just means more children by one man.
JLHPROF Posted March 19, 2018 Author Posted March 19, 2018 49 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: I have no doubt that at some future day some practices may once again be invoked, but most that you listed, have served their purpose, and it, or they are done. The Gospel is all about moving forward, it is not a gospel of regression. So how does one identify the eternal parts and the temporal parts? And last I checked the gospel was one eternal round, not a strict linear progression. 1
CV75 Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: As everyone here knows, my personal beliefs in Mormonism are that while the Church is true and God's Church I have felt like many of the changes made over the years to beliefs and practices restored by revelation to early prophets may well have been made without revelation (mostly because we have no revelations on these things to reference). Could you be a 19th century Mormon if President Nelson was commanded by the Lord to issue such a revelation? 21st century less 19th century = 2nd century… 😊 Joseph Smith’s statement still holds true: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these [appendages], we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.” I take the items on your list to be appendages, and in some cases even appendages of appendages. None of the appendages, then and now, merits the status of stumbling block. We’ve lost nothing by living according to the covenants and teachings currently in place any more than the saints of the 19th century lost anything by living according to those in place in their time, or even those Christians living in the apostasy. The light shone in darkness all along, and they cannot be saved without us nor us without them. 3
JLHPROF Posted March 19, 2018 Author Posted March 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, CV75 said: 21st century less 19th century = 2nd century… 😊 Joseph Smith’s statement still holds true: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these [appendages], we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.” I take the items on your list to be appendages, and in some cases even appendages of appendages. None of the appendages, then and now, merits the status of stumbling block. We’ve lost nothing by living according to the covenants and teachings currently in place any more than the saints of the 19th century lost anything by living according to those in place in their time, or even those Christians living in the apostasy. The light shone in darkness all along, and they cannot be saved without us nor us without them. Doesn't answer the question. The OP isn't to debate whether anything is lost. The topic at hand is whether our current membership have the faith to follow the same practices as our predecessors. See, we have members leaving today over church policies and practices. We have members who stay and are faithful, and those who stay despite their doubts. My point is that there have always been practices and commands from the Lord through his prophets that have caused people to question and leave. Sometimes we look down on those who leave due to the current Church as unfaithful, but many of us at the same time would not have been able to stand the early Church. And nobody knows for certain if they will be able to stand in the future Church. The question isn't whether these things are appendages. It's about our willingness to follow God's prophet if the command makes us uncomfortable.
CV75 Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: So how does one identify the eternal parts and the temporal parts? And last I checked the gospel was one eternal round, not a strict linear progression. All of God’s commands are spiritual, they only appear temporal because that is the nature of the sphere we currently occupy. The eternal round is progressive, not cyclically repetitive for those who walk it. Note that “continuation” -- as in “continued from grace to grace,” “continue …until ye are perfected,” “continuation of the seeds,” “continuation of the lives,” “herein is the work of my Father continued [note what is said is being continued: His children's progress!],” etc. -- is synonymous with “progress.” 2
stemelbow Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: As everyone here knows, my personal beliefs in Mormonism are that while the Church is true and God's Church I have felt like many of the changes made over the years to beliefs and practices restored by revelation to early prophets may well have been made without revelation (mostly because we have no revelations on these things to reference). So this got me to thinking today. At April Conference, what if President Nelson got up and announced he had received a revelation, had presented it to the Apostles, and XYZ doctrine or practice from the 19th Century Church was being established once again? Would you be willing? Could you live Mormonism as the early saints did? When we say we sustain our leaders, do we mean it or would we object to a revelation? Some possible areas: Polygamy (please, not the primary focus of the thread, but the most obvious one) United Order (deeding all property to the Church) Early temple practices Full length original garments Pre-1990 covenants (for those in the know) Original initiatory ceremonies (again, for those in the know) Law of Adoption sealings Theocratic rule or political power of the Church, a re-establishment of the Council of 50 for instance An additional restriction on priesthood ordination (not necessarily by race or gender, but any exclusivity restriction) More widespread issuance of calling and election ordinances (second anointings) Whatever others come to mind... I don't want this thread to be all about polygamy. I am more interested in the mindset we carry when it comes to prophetic revelation. Yes polygamy is the most glaring difference, but there are others. If we truly sustain our leaders as prophets, would we be able to follow these earlier ideas as our Church forerunners did? Could you be a 19th century Mormon if President Nelson was commanded by the Lord to issue such a revelation? There'd be one less name counted in the 16 million member Church as quickly as I could get it out. It's weird though, sometimes I read what Joseph or other early leaders have said in various circumstances and want something like it. I know they are essentially different religions--today's Mormonism and early Mormonism.
Guest Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: So how does one identify the eternal parts and the temporal parts? And last I checked the gospel was one eternal round, not a strict linear progression. Eternal rounds are linear progression, as the direction is always one way, leading to God.
Gray Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 21st century me would not, honestly. I'd have to bow out at that point.
CV75 Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 Just now, JLHPROF said: Doesn't answer the question. The OP isn't to debate whether anything is lost. The topic at hand is whether our current membership have the faith to follow the same practices as our predecessors. See, we have members leaving today over church policies and practices. We have members who stay and are faithful, and those who stay despite their doubts. My point is that there have always been practices and commands from the Lord through his prophets that have caused people to question and leave. Sometimes we look down on those who leave due to the current Church as unfaithful, but many of us at the same time would not have been able to stand the early Church. And nobody knows for certain if they will be able to stand in the future Church. The question isn't whether these things are appendages. It's about our willingness to follow God's prophet if the command makes us uncomfortable. But they are appendages, and these are often why people leave. They don't accept their connection to the fundamental principles. Where policies and procedures are "appendages of appendages," the same holds, at least for me. I thought my answer conveyed a "yes", that I would live by President Nelson's announcement, trusting that the Spirit would confirm the rightness of my choice to do so. It's not about confirmation about what is right or wrong, it is about confirmation of my choices. I am perfectly comfortable with that. I think this is why people get distracted. They focus on what is right or wrong with someone or something else, and the resulting discomfort, not about what God would have them know and do with "the truth of all things." "These things" in Moroni's Promise are the covenants and teachings referred to in the Title Page (“…the covenants of the Lord …[and] that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations…”). I am perfectly comfortable with knowing the truth and whether and how to proceed. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Doesn't answer the question. The OP isn't to debate whether anything is lost. The topic at hand is whether our current membership have the faith to follow the same practices as our predecessors. For those who don't know LDS history, that may seem like a cake-walk. In fact adopting polygyny or the United Order was extremely difficult and contentious. A heavy shock, and not everyone in the Church practiced them. Nor would they now. Yet they would still be members in good standing. UO -- isolated groups of Mormons could certainly practice the full UO, just as the Hutterites or Mondragon do today. They are viable and prosperous (and modern). Polygyny -- LDS Church lawyers would first want to establish it as a fundamental right by a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Most Mormons would not practice it, even if pressured. However, that would not be seen as apostasy. 13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: See, we have members leaving today over church policies and practices. We have members who stay and are faithful, and those who stay despite their doubts. My point is that there have always been practices and commands from the Lord through his prophets that have caused people to question and leave. Sometimes we look down on those who leave due to the current Church as unfaithful, but many of us at the same time would not have been able to stand the early Church. And nobody knows for certain if they will be able to stand in the future Church. Well said. 13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The question isn't whether these things are appendages. It's about our willingness to follow God's prophet if the command makes us uncomfortable. A false choice. It would be difficult even at best, but people would be able to pick and choose, just as they did in the past. One would not be required to practice polygyny or UO, and they weren't in the 19th century. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 11 minutes ago, Gray said: 21st century me would not, honestly. I'd have to bow out at that point. So you wouldn't personally practice those things. But would you leave the Church, even if not required to practice them? Free agency respected.
JLHPROF Posted March 19, 2018 Author Posted March 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: A false choice. It would be difficult even at best, but people would be able to pick and choose, just as they did in the past. One would not be required to practice polygyny or UO, and they weren't in the 19th century. An overstatement I think. The Church has always allowed its members a degree of agency, so no, they weren't "required". But in many ways these early principles were taught as required, socially encouraged expectations, and in some cases set as requirements for Church callings. I don't want to debate whether polygamy was required for exaltation or membership in good standing. But it was at the very least taught as a law of God and that it should be obeyed.
JLHPROF Posted March 19, 2018 Author Posted March 19, 2018 16 minutes ago, Gray said: 21st century me would not, honestly. I'd have to bow out at that point. I appreciate the straightforward honesty. It's a pretty straightforward question. Members today choose to leave or stay in the Church based on a variety of things, and that includes the practices and teachings of the Church. It's an interesting question to ask ourselves as those who choose to stay today whether we would choose to stay if the Church looked like it did in the past. We can't do the same for the future, but we can ask ourselves if we would have been faithful members under Joseph or Brigham. 1
Gray Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: I appreciate the straightforward honesty. It's a pretty straightforward question. Members today choose to leave or stay in the Church based on a variety of things, and that includes the practices and teachings of the Church. It's an interesting question to ask ourselves as those who choose to stay today whether we would choose to stay if the Church looked like it did in the past. We can't do the same for the future, but we can ask ourselves if we would have been faithful members under Joseph or Brigham. Yup. Now I can't say what I would do if I were a 19th century version of myself - I have no idea! We're shaped by our experiences.
Recommended Posts