The gospel a generation away from extinction?

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I just made the same point above.  Today's Saints are yesterday's heretics.  And today's heretics are tomorrow's Saints.  At least organizationally.  God's opinion may differ.

That's debatable.

The ability to reduce the gospel doctrine down whenever something gets eliminated or replaced will never cease to amaze me.  That said, the gospel is limited according to Joseph to the atonement and resurrection.  Although if that's all the gospel consists of there would have been nothing to restore.

Thanks sir.  I apologize for not reading and then acknowledging your points before I posted.  I worry about what was debatable about the point I raised that you consider debatable, but I'm happy enough to back off of that, fearing an explanation might just disappoint me.  

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Humility, imo, includes not inflating issues beyond realistic levels...similar to someone refusing to accept God can forgive even their sins.

So feeling like God has rejected you is a sign of pride?
I suppose that thinking God can't forgive our sins is a prideful thing.  But what about thinking God won't forgive our sins?

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I just made the same point above.  Today's Saints are yesterday's heretics.  And today's heretics are tomorrow's Saints.  At least organizationally.  God's opinion may differ.

I can't think of any meaningful examples of this today's-Saints-are-yesterday's-heretics-and-today's-heretics'-are-tomorrow's-Saints idea.

It's a fun turn of phrase.  It just has the drawback of not being accurate or meaningful.

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The ability to reduce the gospel doctrine down whenever something gets eliminated or replaced will never cease to amaze me. 

Not sure what you mean by things that have been "eliminated or replaced."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

 

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But what about thinking God won't forgive our sins?

It's basically just a failure to recognize that God can forgiven all sins, and all kinds, even the worst that any of us can commit.   The only requirement on our part is that we sincerely strive to repent as much as we can from ever acting that way again.

People like Satan don't really want to be forgiven and don't really care to change their ways.  They would rather be as they are instead of what someone else might say is a "better" way to live.  They  think they are fine as they are and don't need to be "better".

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks sir.  I apologize for not reading and then acknowledging your points before I posted.  I worry about what was debatable about the point I raised that you consider debatable, but I'm happy enough to back off of that, fearing an explanation might just disappoint me.  

 - you are one of my favorite skeptics, you know that right.

You said "I will add though, certainly there is much more good today than there used to be in their day, in what we term the gospel (or the teachings of the Church).  I mean I detest the concept of polygamy and racism, to them that stuff was just part of what we call gospel."

I don't agree that there is more good in our doctrinal teachings today than there was in Joseph and Brigham's day.  I understand your feelings on the polygamy and racism.  But if ANY of their teachings that we now reject are actually true then we have less good, not more.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I can't think of any meaningful examples of this today's-Saints-are-yesterday's-heretics-and-today's-heretics'-are-tomorrow's-Saints idea.

It's a fun turn of phrase.  It just has the drawback of not being accurate or meaningful.

Somehow I knew you'd say that counselor.  
You are very good are reducing the validity of other's beliefs.

Quote

Not sure what you mean by things that have been "eliminated or replaced."

Oh, I'm sure you could come up with a few.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can't think of any meaningful examples of this today's-Saints-are-yesterday's-heretics-and-today's-heretics'-are-tomorrow's-Saints idea.

Uh, the Nehor!  Have you been ignoring his signature line and antics?  I'm not sure which of those 2 things he would say he is but I'm pretty sure he would say he is one of those things.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It's basically just a failure to recognize that God can forgiven all sins, and all kinds, even the worst that any of us can commit.   The only requirement on our part is that we sincerely strive to repent as much as we can from ever acting that way again.
People like Satan don't really want to be forgiven and don't really care to change their ways.  They would rather be as they are instead of what someone else might say is a "better" way to live.  They  think they are fine as they are and don't need to be "better".

Again, you are addressing God's ability to forgive sin.  I was addressing God's choice to forgive sin.  "I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive".

Also, God himself defines some sins as unforgivable.

Edited September 23, 2019 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can't think of any meaningful examples of this today's-Saints-are-yesterday's-heretics-and-today's-heretics'-are-tomorrow's-Saints idea.

It's a fun turn of phrase.  It just has the drawback of not being accurate or meaningful.

I mentioned a good example for at least half of it.  I'm chiming in because without realizing it I was making the same point as JLHPROF.  But I like his phrase.  I think it works nicely.  It used to be that the church not only practiced polygamy but that polygamous marriages were the most divine of them all.  Today polygamous marriages is heretical.  Yesterday we prizing monogamy over the then godly polygamy is heretical.  Or if you prefer, it used to be that not only were black people denied the priesthood and temple ordinances because they were said to be unfaithful previous to this earth, but it was obscene to intermarry.  Today such views are heretical.  as we all might remember teaching what used to be prized by the church as true, in terms of race might get someone dismissed from teaching assignments at BYU, well, because those old teachings are heretical.  But again, yesterday, it was unthinkable to think inter-racial marriages were ok.  Or that the priesthood would be given to black people before the blessings of the priesthood was granted to all else.  

 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what you mean by things that have been "eliminated or replaced."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Again, you are addressing God's ability to forgive sin.  I was addressing God's choice to forgive sin. 

He's already told us his policy.  He forgives all who accept him as their Savior as long as they confess their sins to him (acknowledge their weakness) and sincerely strive to repent.  He isn't going to be changing his mind about that.

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

"I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive".

He said that basically as a way of saying:  "You don't need to worry or concern yourself with who I choose to forgive.  That is my business.  You are required to forgive everybody. That is your job.  I will take care of my job."

[Nacho2dope]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

All it takes is one set of parents to decide they want nothing to do with the church and the gospel can become extinct for the whole family and all generations to follow.

That is so true!

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 - you are one of my favorite skeptics, you know that right.

You said "I will add though, certainly there is much more good today than there used to be in their day, in what we term the gospel (or the teachings of the Church).  I mean I detest the concept of polygamy and racism, to them that stuff was just part of what we call gospel."

I don't agree that there is more good in our doctrinal teachings today than there was in Joseph and Brigham's day.  I understand your feelings on the polygamy and racism.  But if ANY of their teachings that we now reject are actually true then we have less good, not more.

Alright...that explanation didn't hit so hard.  I hear ya. And thanks.  Reciprocating: there is no doubt in my mind, when I see your posts, I feel confident I"m getting straight honesty each and every time.  That is no small feat, and should be acknowledged more often.  Thanks.  

Edited September 23, 2019 by stemelbow

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

I can't think of any meaningful examples of this today's-Saints-are-yesterday's-heretics-and-today's-heretics'-are-tomorrow's-Saints idea.

It's a fun turn of phrase.  It just has the drawback of not being accurate or meaningful.

Somehow I knew you'd say that counselor.  
You are very good are reducing the validity of other's beliefs.

If you are right and I am wrong, then please substantiate your turn of phrase.  How many examples of this today's-Saints-are-yesterday's-heretics-and-today's-heretics'-are-tomorrow's-Saints idea can you point to as having actually occurred?  

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

Not sure what you mean by things that have been "eliminated or replaced."

Oh, I'm sure you could come up with a few.

Nope.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

I can't think of any meaningful examples of this today's-Saints-are-yesterday's-heretics-and-today's-heretics'-are-tomorrow's-Saints idea.

It's a fun turn of phrase.  It just has the drawback of not being accurate or meaningful.

I mentioned a good example for at least half of it. 

Where?

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm chiming in because without realizing it I was making the same point as JLHPROF.  But I like his phrase.  I think it works nicely.  It used to be that the church not only practiced polygamy but that polygamous marriages were the most divine of them all.  Today polygamous marriages is heretical. 

Polygamy was implemented, then withdrawn, by God.  Similarly, the Law of Moses was implemented, then fulfilled, by God.  

Still just a turn of phrase.  Still not accurate or meaningful.

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yesterday we prizing monogamy over the then godly polygamy is heretical. 

I don't know what this means.

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Or if you prefer, it used to be that not only were black people denied the priesthood and temple ordinances because they were said to be unfaithful previous to this earth, but it was obscene to intermarry. 

So who is the "heretic" in this?

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Today such views are heretical. 

The number of times "heretical" and its variants is used in the Church in any given year is . . . approaching zero.

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

as we all might remember teaching what used to be prized by the church as true, in terms of race might get someone dismissed from teaching assignments at BYU, well, because those old teachings are heretical. 

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can't think of any meaningful examples of this today's-Saints-are-yesterday's-heretics-and-today's-heretics'-are-tomorrow's-Saints idea.

smac, I love you, but the key phrase in what you are saying above is "I (meaning you) can't think of...")

Maybe we should first understand what is meant by the word "heretic", though.  How about a person who believes and teaches something that isn't true as if it is true?  Is that a workable definition for you?

If so then thinking of such an example is simply a matter of thinking of someone who is a saint today but who in the past was someone who believed and taught something that wasn't true as if it was true. And the latter would be someone who believes and teaches something that isn't true as if it is true but who will become a saint sometime later in the future, perhaps even tomorrow

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Where?

Polygamy was implemented, then withdrawn, by God.  Similarly, the Law of Moses was implemented, then fulfilled, by God.  

That doesn't really address my point.  It used to be that polygamous marriages were the most divine, monogamy was not.  Today, if the Church used the term heretic, polygamous marriage is heretical.  It'll get one the label of apostate in our day.  Of course after the fact we can try and phrase it as if it was a fulfilled law...but back then, that was not how it was seen.  It was clear--polygamous marriages were the most divine...and monogamous were not.  

 

 

Quote

Still just a turn of phrase.  Still not accurate or meaningful.

I don't know what this means.

So who is the "heretic" in this?

The number of times "heretical" and its variants is used in the Church in any given year is . . . approaching zero.

Well we know what is meant by heretic....so.. let's get back to it.  It was opposed to the laws of God to think racism was bad.  Then it was good and godly to discriminate based on race in terms of pristhood and temple marriages.  Today, at least since Pres HInckley announced it, and certainly before, it is not godly to promote racism and racist teachings.  

Quote

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by stemelbow

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

smac, I love you, but the key phrase in what you are saying above is "I (meaning you) can't think of...")

Maybe we should first understand what is meant by the word "heretic", though.  How about a person who believes and teaches something that isn't true as if it is true?  Is that a workable definition for you?

Okay.  That works.

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

If so then thinking of such an example is simply a matter of thinking of someone who is a saint today but who in the past was someone who believed and taught something that wasn't true as if it was true. And the latter would be someone who believes and teaches something that isn't true as if it is true but who will become a saint sometime later in the future, perhaps even tomorrow

But I still can't think of meaningful applications for this turn of phrase.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

That doesn't really address my point.  It used to be that polygamous marriages were the most divine, monogamy was not. 

Bull pucky.  Most divine?  What does that even mean?  Something is either divine or it isn't, and in the past both were considered divine and authorized by God.  Today a man can't have more than one wife unless the first one has died, but both are still divinely approved of today.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Today, if the Church used the term heretic, polygamy marriage is heretical.  It'll get one the label of apostate in our day. 

I'll assume you are talking about a man being married to more than one woman while both are still living.  As mortals.  So yes as far as that goes you are correct.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Of course after the fact we can try and phrase it as if it was a fulfilled law...but back then, that was not how it was seen.  It was clear--polygamous marriages were the most divine...and monogamous were not.  

Bull pucky, again.  Any marriage sealed by the power of the holy priesthood of God is divine and today men may be married and sealed to more than one woman as well as only one woman, and both are equally divine forms of marriage.

 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  That works.

But I still can't think of meaningful applications for this turn of phrase.

Any application wherein that would be true.  And I think it would apply in a lot of cases.  I suppose there are some people who become saints who never were heretics in their past before joining the Church to become a saint, and also some saints who never become heretics, but in all other cases the term would apply. 

Says me, Ahab, a former heretic who didn't know any better back then.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Ahab

[smac97]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

That doesn't really address my point. 

Well, perhaps you could clarify.  "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9).  In other words, change and progression are part and parcel of the Restored Gospel.  What you are are describing as a "bug" is, in fact, a "feature."

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

It used to be that polygamous marriages were the most divine, monogamy was not. 

Not really.  See, e.g., here.

Pres. Hinckley put the percentage of church members in polygamy at 2-5%.  Tom Alexander posited 20-30%.   FAIR puts the number at "15-20%."

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Today, if the Church used the term heretic, polygamous marriage is heretical.

First, the Church doesn't use the term "heretic."

Second, polygamy is prohibited based on revelation.

Third, as noted above, continuing revelation is a feature of the Restored Gospel, not a bug.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

It'll get one the label of apostate in our day. 

"Heresy" and "apostasy" are two different concepts.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Of course after the fact we can try and phrase it as if it was a fulfilled law...

I don't know what you mean here.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

but back then, that was not how it was seen.  It was clear--polygamous marriages were the most divine...and monogamous were not.  

Again, not really.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Well we know what is meant by heretic....so.. let's get back to it.  It was opposed to the laws of God to think racism was bad. 

What?

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Then it was good and godly to discriminate based on race in terms of pristhood and temple marriages.  Today, at least since Pres HInckley announced it, and certainly before, it is not godly to promote racism and racist teachings.  

The Priesthood Ban, lacking any known revelatory provenance, is very much an outlier.

If that's all you've got...

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If you are right and I am wrong, then please substantiate your turn of phrase.  How many examples of this today's-Saints-are-yesterday's-heretics-and-today's-heretics'-are-tomorrow's-Saints idea can you point to as having actually occurred?  

Well, here is one where I think we are in the better position, but nevertheless Brigham clearly states what condition he would consider today's Church to be in:

• "Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; we will summons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishopric, and all the elders of Israel, suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction, -- we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed."
  Gov. Young in Joint Session of the Legislature,  Feb 5th 1852.

Or this one from Heber C. Kimball:

• First counselor Heber C. Kimball tells Sunday meeting that plural marriage “would end he said when the Church had gone to the Devil or the Priesthood taken from this people – then God would give it to another people.”
  February 1st 1849

You don't think based on these that Brigham and those members who believed him and followed him as prophet would consider us as heretics today, or in apostasy?
Remember, we aren't debating which of us is right or wrong.  We are addressing whether or not yesterday's saints would consider the Church today to have embraced some heretical notions.  Whether they are right or wrong it's impossible to say that members of the Church in the early days wouldn't see the Church today as heretical.

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Bull pucky.  Most divine?  What does that even mean?  Something is either divine or it isn't, and in the past both were considered divine and authorized by God.  Today a man can't have more than one wife unless the first one has died, but both are still divinely approved of today.

Bull pucky, again.  Any marriage sealed by the power of the holy priesthood of God is divine and today men may be married and sealed to more than one woman as well as only one woman, and both are equally divine forms of marriage.

You and I both like to speak in absolutes.  It doesn't mean we don't accept gray areas but we both have the same habit.
And while you are absolutely correct in your statements as far as the Church today is concerned, you are not correct in the point of view of the early members.

So you may be right, but this was not the view of members in the time when polygamy was practiced.  They absolutely viewed plural marriage as higher and "more divine" or more like God than monogamy.

Edited September 23, 2019 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You and I both like to speak in absolutes.  It doesn't mean we don't accept gray areas but we both have the same habit.
And while you are absolutely correct in your statements as far as the Church today is concerned, you are not correct in the point of view of the early members.

So you may be right, but this was not the view of members in the time when polygamy was practiced.  They absolutely viewed plural marriage as higher and "more divine" or more like God than monogamy.

I imagine that if I had been living back then that I would have been telling those members who believed that having more than 1 wife was more divine or more like how God does it that they were wrong, too.  We still don't know how many wives our Father has and however many he has it is not more divine to have more than one wife than it is to have only one.  When something is good having more than one of those things doesn't equate to being more divine.

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Remember, we aren't debating which of us is right or wrong. 

Well then maybe we should be.  I thought we were addressing what heresy is.

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We are addressing whether or not yesterday's saints would consider the Church today to have embraced some heretical notions.  Whether they are right or wrong it's impossible to say that members of the Church in the early days wouldn't see the Church today as heretical.

Some would and some wouldn't, I suppose.   Back then, much like today, everybody is not in agreement.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

So feeling like God has rejected you is a sign of pride?
I suppose that thinking God can't forgive our sins is a prideful thing.  But what about thinking God won't forgive our sins?

The pride of despair.