CV75 Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 14 hours ago, california boy said: People never leave because of "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". They always leave over the appendages. This is true of every religion. Few people that gain a testamony of Christ rarely leave religion because that testimony disappears. But they often loose that testimony of Christ because of the appendages of organized religion. Yes, as I said likewise here Posted 18 hours ago , I have observed that people can retain a testimony of Christ even after they leave the Church. I don't agree that they "always" leave over their issues with the appendages, but they often do. But, if as you point out, if their feelings are such that they loose that testimony of Christ because of the appendages, they have given ourselves over to the offense and not to Christ. Joseph Smith considered the following to be appendages: the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of spiritual gifts, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth. Some of these require ordinances, covenants and commandments to practice.
Teancum Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 17 hours ago, JLHPROF said: It's a legitimate question. OT times present a similar option for self reflection. As do the days of Christ. Who among us hasn't wondered if we had lived in Christ's day whether we would have followed him or cried for his crucifixion? There is no reason to suppose that Jesus may have been as much a believer in and further creator of myths, as well as those who followed him. There is plenty of scholarship that argues that much of what the NT teaches and what Jesus's followers said about him he may have not said about himself.
Jeanne Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 7 minutes ago, Teancum said: There is no reason to suppose that Jesus may have been as much a believer in and further creator of myths, as well as those who followed him. There is plenty of scholarship that argues that much of what the NT teaches and what Jesus's followers said about him he may have not said about himself. Would he have corrected them? This is a concept I have never thought of. 1
Jeanne Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 19 hours ago, mrmarklin said: Thursday night Sacrament meetings would kill it for me.
theplains Posted March 20, 2018 Posted March 20, 2018 On 19/03/2018 at 1:33 PM, The Nehor said: 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.'” I think you would see many departures if concubinage was instituted. Jim
The Nehor Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 1 hour ago, theplains said: I think you would see many departures if concubinage was instituted. Jim Gotta clean out the dead wood somehow. But yes.
snowflake Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 On 3/19/2018 at 12:48 PM, 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 would love to see the Church go back to the "original restoration", the prophet could claim that the previous prophets were teaching erroneous doctrine and that he needed to "restore the current church back to the original restoration" which resembled the church around the 1840's. The great thing about Mormonism is that all of it is subject to dramatic changes as we have seen in the past.
JLHPROF Posted March 21, 2018 Author Posted March 21, 2018 3 hours ago, snowflake said: I would love to see the Church go back to the "original restoration", the prophet could claim that the previous prophets were teaching erroneous doctrine and that he needed to "restore the current church back to the original restoration" which resembled the church around the 1840's. The great thing about Mormonism is that all of it is subject to dramatic changes as we have seen in the past. According to some breakoff groups that's exactly what will happen. But that's not the question here. The question is would those faithful, completely converted members of the Church today be as willing to be members if the Church was as it was in the days of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or even some of the later prophets. Which changes within the Church would we be unwilling to give up, and which long ago teachings and practices would we be unwilling to live as our predecessors in the Church did?
snowflake Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: According to some breakoff groups that's exactly what will happen. But that's not the question here. The question is would those faithful, completely converted members of the Church today be as willing to be members if the Church was as it was in the days of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or even some of the later prophets. Which changes within the Church would we be unwilling to give up, and which long ago teachings and practices would we be unwilling to live as our predecessors in the Church did? I'm surprised more of the fellas out there aren't saying they would be into polygamy......of course only if the Lord commanded it and only if the purpose was to replenish the ranks...wink wink.
The Nehor Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 5 hours ago, snowflake said: I would love to see the Church go back to the "original restoration", the prophet could claim that the previous prophets were teaching erroneous doctrine and that he needed to "restore the current church back to the original restoration" which resembled the church around the 1840's. The great thing about Mormonism is that all of it is subject to dramatic changes as we have seen in the past. I would remove my own name from the church records.
The Nehor Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 12 minutes ago, snowflake said: I'm surprised more of the fellas out there aren't saying they would be into polygamy......of course only if the Lord commanded it and only if the purpose was to replenish the ranks...wink wink. (Insert hyper sexual hyper masculine joke of your choice here if that is what you are looking for)
Jeremiah820 Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 8 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I would remove my own name from the church records. Out of curiosity would you be more likely to remove your name from the church if it went back to the 1840s than if it implemented what current people are clamoring for, i.e. Ordain Women, Same Sex Marriage in the Temple, etc.?
The Nehor Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Jeremiah820 said: Out of curiosity would you be more likely to remove your name from the church if it went back to the 1840s than if it implemented what current people are clamoring for, i.e. Ordain Women, Same Sex Marriage in the Temple, etc.? You misunderstand my objection. No, I would remove it because the scenario presented involved a current apostasy that I do not accept exists. We do not need a restoration reboot. They could bring back polygamy, ordain women, take the Priesthood from men, expand marriage to same sex relationships, ban hetero marriages, and reorganize the Council of Fifty and would stay if it was done through proper authority. I do not see most of that happening though. Edited March 21, 2018 by The Nehor
JLHPROF Posted March 21, 2018 Author Posted March 21, 2018 45 minutes ago, The Nehor said: You misunderstand my objection. No, I would remove it because the scenario presented involved a current apostasy that I do not accept exists. We do not need a restoration reboot. I don't believe my OP presented such a scenario. 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? Quote They could bring back polygamy, ordain women, take the Priesthood from men, expand marriage to same sex relationships, ban hetero marriages, and reorganize the Council of Fifty and would stay if it was done through proper authority. That was the OP scenario.
The Nehor Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 4 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I don't believe my OP presented such a scenario. 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? That was the OP scenario. Yes, but I was responding to another scenario which I quoted.
Recommended Posts