The gospel a generation away from extinction?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

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]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The pride of despair.

I like that.  I may have to steal it.

[Ahab]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

?

Twisting God's work into my own hellish, slithering, mutatious...thing.

And, well, you know, all of the usual things you say which most "regular" Christians would consider to be heresy. 

[Calm]

2 hours 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?

There is a pride element in thinking unlike the rest of humanity you are so far gone that even God won’t have anything to do with you. Refusing to listen to others including the Spirit who tell you otherwise is also a pride issue. 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

52 minutes ago, Ahab said:

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

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

Kind of like when our Lord and Savior began teaching "heretical ideas" to the Church of his time (Rabbis) yet his followers did replace the faithful members as the new saints.

This thread isn't just discussing what is heretical.  It is also discussing how heresy is viewed, not to mention the changing nature of the idea.
Unless people always believe the same things someone is always going to be a heretic because their belief will differ with other's beliefs.

You could argue that the heretics are the ones who are wrong, but that is a bit juvenile unless we can prove who is right/wrong.

Someone once said "a convert is someone who leaves their side for yours and a heretic (apostate) is someone who leaves your side for theirs".  Only God's opinion actually matters.

Edited September 23, 2019 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is a pride element in thinking unlike the rest of humanity you are so far gone that even God won’t have anything to do with you. Refusing to listen to others including the Spirit who tell you otherwise is also a pride issue. 

Generally people in this situation don't have enough of the Spirit to break through the mental/emotional fog.
I do speak from experience on this issue.  Knowing that God can is relatively easy.  Trusting that God will is much harder.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Generally people in this situation don't have enough of the Spirit to break through the mental/emotional fog.
I do speak from experience on this issue.  Knowing that God can is relatively easy.  Trusting that God will is much harder.

I wouldn’t claim pride is included in every case, but would not be surprised if in a good number of them, especially youth in my experience (when talking about why they don’t repent).

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Kind of like when our Lord and Savior began teaching "heretical ideas" to the Church of his time (Rabbis) yet his followers did replace the faithful members as the new saints.

Now you know that wasn't really what he was doing. You were just trying to be funny, weren't cha.

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This thread isn't just discussing what is heretical.  It is also discussing how heresy is viewed, not to mention the changing nature of the idea.

By definition, heresy is viewed as what is not true, in contrast to what is actually true.  What people believe, subjectively, doesn't really make any difference as far as the truth is concerned.

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Unless people always believe the same things someone is always going to be a heretic because their belief with differ with other's beliefs.

Beliefs being "different" isn't what makes those beliefs heretical.  Beliefs can be "different" and still harmonize with what is true.  Heresy is all about beliefs and statements not being true, even when people might be claiming those false beliefs are true.

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You could argue that the heretics are the ones who are wrong, but that is a bit juvenile unless we can prove who is right/wrong.

Proving who is right/wrong isn't really that difficult.  We do it all the time when we discover someone is saying something which isn't true, based on the truth that we know is true.

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Someone once said "a convert is someone who leaves their side for yours and a heretic (apostate) is someone who leaves your side for theirs". 

Whoever said that was wrong unless they were on the right side.  But I understand what you mean.  My parents thought I was wrong to join the Church because they didn't know that I was still on the Lord's side.  I just know more truth than they do.

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Only God's opinion actually matters.

Well, our opinion matters some too because how we form our opinion determines whether or not we are on the Lord's side.

[blueglass]

"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." Those appendages include the gift of the Holy Ghost, power of faith, enjoyment of the spiritual gifts, restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth."

Edited September 24, 2019 by blueglass

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yesterday, I was reminded of a Ronald Reagan quote. He said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

I pondered that and came up with an adaptation to be applied to the Church of Jesus Christ: “The gospel in its purity is never more than one generation away from extinction.” 

But would God allow it? I don’t think so. He has promised through scripture that priesthood power and keys will never again be taken from the earth. 

I believe He prevents it primarily by guiding and inspiring prophet-leaders to resist external or internal advocacy movements and pressure groups that would corrupt the doctrine. We should bear this in mind when we hear or see grumbling about priesthood correlation or encounter heretical notions such as the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction or revisions to the law of chastity to accommodate worldly trends and ideologies. 

I don't know if it a matter of not allowing it, but the very return, Spirit and keys of Elijah prevents it since the gospel on the other side of the veil is now firmly established without any further dependency on our mortal generations. The keys cannot be taken from the earth because heaven and earth have been brought together on this point and they are equally operative on both sides of the veil. It is our privilege to work with them and translated Zion at this point, no matter how small a remnant (or any) might remain in mortality. I think this is implied by the prophecy that we will see a final post-Millennial war between Gog and Magog before the earth dies and becomes celestialized.

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't know if it a matter of not allowing it, but the very return, Spirit and keys of Elijah prevents it since the gospel on the other side of the veil is now firmly established without any further dependency on our mortal generations. The keys cannot be taken from the earth because heaven and earth have been brought together on this point and they are equally operative on both sides of the veil. It is our privilege to work with them and translated Zion at this point, no matter how small a remnant (or any) might remain in mortality. I think this is implied by the prophecy that we will see a final post-Millennial war between Gog and Magog before the earth dies and becomes celestialized.

Excellent point! We are in the winding up stage prior to the Millennium. It may seem to be taking a long time in our mortal perspective, but time is only measured unto man.

And in the unlikely event that the world grew so wicked that convert baptisms dried up and the Church began to languish, there would still be work to perform on behalf of those on the other side of the veil.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Excellent point! We are in the winding up stage prior to the Millennium. It may seem to be taking a long time in our mortal perspective, but time is only measured unto man.

I believe this and agree...mostly.

Actually they've been saying this for 200 years in the Church.  I happen to agree that we are nearing the end.  But my weak faith makes me wonder if we are talking years, decades, or another century.

Will we actually hit 2050 AD before the second coming?  I don't think so.  But now that's only 30 years.  Imminent sure, but really, how imminent do we actually believe and what makes us more correct than those 100 years ago?

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I agree that rough times are ahead. The Book of Mormon shows how this can happen over a very short time span. It also documents some of the remedies.

I can even happen in the same generation.  The rise of Hitler after WW1 is a case in point.

Off-topic: Been curious for a long time. Is it that you aren't afraid of kimchee, or do you actually like kimchee?  I've never attempted it, but I am sometimes tempted.

[sunstoned]

Religion has been with mankind sense before recorded history.  It is not going away.  Right now there is a down turn in membership numbers in many of the world's religious organizations. However, I don't believe we have enough data points to do a accurate projection out past just a few years. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I can even happen in the same generation.  The rise of Hitler after WW1 is a case in point.

Off-topic: Been curious for a long time. Is it that you aren't afraid of kimchee, or do you actually like kimchee?  I've never attempted it, but I am sometimes tempted.

Many fear kimchee, but not I. I have never met a kimchee that I could not fully embrace. My first exposure was at the Tea Leaf Restaurant in Parkland, WA. It was love at first bite.  There were a lot of Korean students in my school orchestras. We had regular “whose mom makes the best kimchee” contests. Sister Gui and the little Guis insisted I keep the sample bottles out on the back porch. One night at the dinner table, my son Abogadissimo asked, “How can I face my friends when I have a father who loves kimchee?” Ironically, he married the girl whose mother regularly won the contest, and now they make their own delicious kimchee. Even better, we get invited over when Grandma Yi puts on a Korean feast.

If you like sauerkraut, ginger, and spicy stuff, you’ll love kimchee. Go ahead and take the plunge! Fear no kimchee! Just ignore the smell and dive in. You’ll discover why kimchee is one of the great contributions to world cuisine. Plus it’s good for your health. Start with the cabbage kind. Be careful opening the bottle.

Also, there is the popular saying, “You are in some deep kimchee, bro.” I don’t fear that kimchee either.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Stargazer]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Many fear kimchee, but not I. I have never met a kimchee that I could not fully embrace. My first exposure was at the Tea Leaf Restaurant in Parkland, WA. It was love at first bite.  There were a lot of Korean students in my school orchestras. We had regular “whose mom makes the best kimchee” contests. Sister Gui and the little Guis insisted I keep the sample bottles out on the back porch. One night at the dinner table, my son Abogadissimo asked, “How can I face my friends when I have a father who loves kimchee?” Ironically, he married the girl whose mother regularly won the contest, and now they make their own delicious kimchee. Even better, we get invited over when Grandma Yi puts on a Korean feast.

If you like sauerkraut, ginger, and spicy stuff, you’ll love kimchee. Go ahead and take the plunge! Fear no kimchee! Just ignore the smell and dive in. You’ll discover why kimchee is one of the great contributions to world cuisine. Plus it’s good for your health. Start with the cabbage kind. Be careful opening the bottle.

Also, there is the popular saying, “You are in some deep kimchee, bro.” I don’t fear that kimchee either.

Very well! With your encouragement I shall take the plunge, then.  I am, by the way, a lover of sauerkraut, so there we are.

As for being in "deep kimchee" you might be interested to know (if you didn't already) that this saying comes from US servicemen who have served in Korea.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I believe this and agree...mostly.

Actually they've been saying this for 200 years in the Church.  I happen to agree that we are nearing the end.  But my weak faith makes me wonder if we are talking years, decades, or another century.

Will we actually hit 2050 AD before the second coming?  I don't think so.  But now that's only 30 years.  Imminent sure, but really, how imminent do we actually believe and what makes us more correct than those 100 years ago?

The Nephites anticipated the coming of Christ for 600 years. 

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

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."

I'd be happy to, although I don't understand what you're driving at with this quotation and comment, since it only fortifies the point of both JLHPROF and myself.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

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%."

I don't understand how this pertains to what I said.  let me clarify, perhaps this is what you'd like me to clarify.  Yes at one time the Church taught that polygamy was God's chosen, divine law on marriage.  Today she does not.  I have no desire to get stuck talking about how many mormons used to practice polygamy, as that is nowhere near germaine to the point I raised and the point we are discussing (whether the Church has changed in some way, in terms of doctrine or teaching).  To me that question goes without saying.  You even quoted AoF 9 that supports such a position, so Im not sure what you are arguing against.  But let's consider:

Quote

Journal of Discourses 11:239; “We are told that if we would give up polygamy – which we know to be a doctrine revealed from heaven, and it is God and the world for it – but suppose this Church should give up this holy order of marriage, then would the devil, and all who are in league with him against the cause of God, rejoice that they had prevailed upon the Saints to refuse to obey one of the revelations and commandments of God to them.” – Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, June 3, 1866 

There are tons of quotes from Brigham and others that suggest polygamy is the rightful order of heaven, essentially.  Some even suggest, as this one above does, that the church would be sugjecting to the devil if it gave up polygamy.  Today, though, the Church considers people who enter into polygamy as heretics, essentially (even though the Church doesn't use that term).  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

That is precisely what I just suggested in the very quote you are responding to.  I don't know if you caught that.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Second, polygamy is prohibited based on revelation.

Irrelevant... and at least debatable, as many have debated and continue to debate.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Fine, but irrelevant.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

precisely my point.  A person entering a same-sex relationship is not necessarily an apostate (at least in terms of seeing the two as different concepts).  More appropriately such a person should be termed a heretic.  But as we've already suggested the Church doesn't use the term heresy or heretic.  For some reason the Church has chosen to label heretics as apostates, at least that is what came out in the Nov 2015 policy change.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you mean here.

Again, not really.

What?

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

That the church has changed it's position is the very point JLHPROF and myself made separately. That you have helped establish that only helps the point.  Indeed, it used to be that polygamy was a law of God, today if someone is a polygamist they are considered an apostate (yes, let's re-acknowledge the church doesn't use that term correctly in the sense of say Catholics use it, and they simply drop the term heretic and expand the concept of apostate to encompass both terms.  we can continue to play on that point back and forth, but I think we can move right on past that at this point) in the Church.  

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, blueglass said:

"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." Those appendages include the gift of the Holy Ghost, power of faith, enjoyment of the spiritual gifts, restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth."

Not that I agree, but this quote from Elder Bednar's talk makes it clear we are to obey the prophet in all things and at all times, so there's that. 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/david-a-bednar/quick-observe/?fbclid=IwAR1T2ZBfchtpHri5bZONZ3IuucGDofz5EY4m7b9pt9ADn8OR24XYKhBVqmY

Sister Bednar and I are acquainted with a returned missionary who had dated a special young woman for a period of time. This young man cared for the young woman very much, and he was desirous of making his relationship with her more serious. He was considering and hoping for engagement and marriage. Now this relationship was developing during the time that President Hinckley counseled the Relief Society sisters and young women of the Church to wear only one earring in each ear.

The young man waited patiently over a period of time for the young woman to remove her extra earrings, but she did not take them out. This was a valuable piece of information for this young man, and he felt unsettled about her nonresponsiveness to a prophet’s pleading. For this and other reasons, he ultimately stopped dating the young woman, because he was looking for an eternal companion who had the courage to promptly and quietly obey the counsel of the prophet in all things and at all times. The young man was quick to observe that the young woman was not quick to observe.

[stemelbow]

15 hours 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.

I'm not particularly fond of the church's history of polygamy if you can't tell.  I'm alluding to teachings largely beginning with Brigham Young, as Joseph didn't seem to make such grandiose claims as Brigham did regarding polygamy (and that might just be because Joseph kept it secret, for the most part).  Things like:

Quote

Journal of Discourses 11: 269; ” It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at lest in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained…The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God are those who enter into polygamy.”

If the church still holds a position as Brigham did, then it suggests that even to today, those who will become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter polygamy, and I suppose we should add, with the church's current twist on this concept, even if they only become polygamists, officially, after this life.  That is to say that men in the church today will have to take on additional wives in the hereafter.  It used to be said in the Church, at least unofficially, such a thing suggests that there will be more women than men who are exalted, and many women would otherwise be single which is anathema and contrary to the laws of eternity...  Or some such thing.

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

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.

Well of course that's what I'm saying. It really was an elite level in the Church, it seemed, to be a polygamist...now not only is it not elite, but it is terms for ex-communication.  

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

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.

 

Fine.  If you want to say that President Nelson is a polygamist on the grounds that he was married once and after his first wife died he married again, be my guest.  But that's stretching the point to an area I don't really care to travel to.  

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yes at one time the Church taught that polygamy was God's chosen, divine law on marriage.  Today she does not. 

Yes.  Polygamy was authorized for a time in the Church, and practiced for a time (by a minority of members/households).  Now it does not.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I have no desire to get stuck talking about how many mormons used to practice polygamy, as that is nowhere near germaine to the point I raised and the point we are discussing (whether the Church has changed in some way, in terms of doctrine or teaching).  To me that question goes without saying.  You even quoted AoF 9 that supports such a position, so Im not sure what you are arguing against.  But let's consider:

Quote

Journal of Discourses 11:239; “We are told that if we would give up polygamy – which we know to be a doctrine revealed from heaven, and it is God and the world for it – but suppose this Church should give up this holy order of marriage, then would the devil, and all who are in league with him against the cause of God, rejoice that they had prevailed upon the Saints to refuse to obey one of the revelations and commandments of God to them.” – Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, June 3, 1866 

There are tons of quotes from Brigham and others that suggest polygamy is the rightful order of heaven, essentially. 

Many of these treat polygamy interchangeably with the sealing ordinance.  

And polygamy was a predominant issue in the lives of the Saints for many years.  For those commanded to live it, it was an important issue (much like the Law of Moses).  But then the Lord rescinded the command and forbade polygamy.  And you seem unwilling or unable to accommodate this idea.  That some of the Lord's commands are given and then rescinded.  That some of the Lord's commands are given to some, but not to others.

I don't think that's the way the Gospel works.  Again: "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).  

The issue here, I think, is that you are attempting to characterize further instructions from God as an inherently bad thing.  That each and every commandment, once given, is fixed and immutable.  I think that is an incorrect perception.  

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Some even suggest, as this one above does, that the church would be sugjecting to the devil if it gave up polygamy. 

"If it gave up polygamy" in defiance or disobedience to God, yes.  Otherwise, no.

Wilford Woodruff addressed this point in his addresses about the Manifesto.  See here (emphasis added):

Quote

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

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.

… 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. …

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

The issue, then, is not "heresy," which is a word you are only using for exaggerated rhetorical effect, and not because it has usage in the Church, or even much relevance to this discussion.

Rather, the issue at hand is obedience.  To God.  Obedience to God in what He commands us to do.  Many foundational commandments are essentially fixed and immutable.  The Ten Commandments.  Love God and love your neighbor.  Have faith in Jesus Christ.  Repent and be baptized.  However, there are also many commandments that are in force and effect for a time, and otherwise not in effect.  Polygamy is an example of this.

So the today's-Saints-are-yesterday's-heretics-and-today's-heretics'-are-tomorrow's-Saints idea just doesn't seem to work.  The 19th-century Saints who practiced polygamy were in communion with God, and the 21st-century Saints who do not pratice polygamy are in communion with God.  Both sets of persons were/are in communion with God because both were/are being obedient to God.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Today, though, the Church considers people who enter into polygamy as heretics, essentially (even though the Church doesn't use that term).  

The Church considers people who enter into polygamy as violating the Law of Chastity.  I suppose polygamy could also be construed as a form of apostasy.  It means "revolt, defection," literally "a standing off."

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

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

That is precisely what I just suggested in the very quote you are responding to.  I don't know if you caught that.  

You are misusing the term.  That's my point.  "Heresy" really isn't in play here.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Second, polygamy is prohibited based on revelation.

Irrelevant... and at least debatable, as many have debated and continue to debate.  

It's hugely relevant.  You are juxtaposing polygamy as being allowed or not allowed.  You are attempting to fault the Church for allowing it at some times, and forbidding it at others.  Even the most cursory examination of the issue would reveal that the Church's position on polygamy is based on it being allowed sometimes, and otherwise being forbidden (see, e.g., Jacob 2:30).  The difference between the two circumstances, about which circumstances you are attempting to make hay, is whether polygamy was commanded or forbidden through revelation.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

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

Fine, but irrelevant.  

Again, this is hugely relevant.  If you are going to critique the Church's doctrines, it becomes necessary to understand and contextualize those doctrines.  You aren't doing that.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

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

precisely my point. 

I guess I'm not getting your point, then.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

A person entering a same-sex relationship is not necessarily an apostate (at least in terms of seeing the two as different concepts). 

Yes, they are (if they are a member of the Church, that is).  As used in an LDS context, "apostasy occurs whenever an individual {} rejects the revelations and ordinances of God, changes the gospel of Jesus Christ, or rebels against the commandments of God, thereby losing the blessings of the Holy Ghost and of divine authority."

The Law of Chastity prohibits homosexual behavior.  To enter into a same-sex relationship is to "reject the revelations" and "rebel against the commandments of God."

I appreciate that the Church does not, as you do, throw around provocative terms in a willy-nilly fashion.  The Church hardly uses "heretic" at all, and uses "apostate" very sparingly.  This makes sense, since the term is a powerful and extreme one.  

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

More appropriately such a person should be termed a heretic. 

Oh, brother.  For your idea to work, you have to impute terminology that is not used in the Church.  

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But as we've already suggested the Church doesn't use the term heresy or heretic. 

Yes.  Why is that?

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

For some reason the Church has chosen to label heretics as apostates, at least that is what came out in the Nov 2015 policy change.  

Yes, the Church has moderated this policy.  And you fault the Church for it.

Meanwhile, you are throwing around provocative terms like "heretic," which the Church doesn't use, and are doing so to find fault with the Church.

The really pernicious thing about faultfinding is that you can always succeed at it.  

Always.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That the church has changed it's position is the very point JLHPROF and myself made separately.

Still not seeing the point, though.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Indeed, it used to be that polygamy was a law of God,

No.  Polygamy is "a law of God."  It is in force at some times and in some circumstances, and is otherwise not in force.

To the extent you are trying to make hay here, you are failing.  The Church has never taught a contradiction about polygamy.  The Church's position is that God commands it at times, and otherwise prohibits it.  

Is it your position that God cannot do this?  That all commandments, once given, are 100% immutable and 100% applicable to everyone, everywhere?  Is that the "very point" you are attempting to make?  If so, it doesn't work.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

today if someone is a polygamist they are considered an apostate (yes, let's re-acknowledge the church doesn't use that term correctly in the sense of say Catholics use it,

That the Church doesn't use it the same way the Catholics do doesn't mean our usage is incorrect.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

and they simply drop the term heretic

No.  You have attempted to import the term into an LDS context.  And now you're apparently trying to use it to somehow find fault with the Church.  It's weird.  And it's not working.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

and expand the concept of apostate to encompass both terms. 

What?  All this rigmarole is nothing more than an issue of semantics?  Seriously?

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

we can continue to play on that point back and forth, but I think we can move right on past that at this point) in the Church.  

I don't know what that means.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 9/24/2019 at 7:34 AM, stemelbow said:

I'm not particularly fond of the church's history of polygamy if you can't tell. 

I can understand and respect that.  

I have a lot of compassion and empathy for people who are not comfortable with the concept of polygamy.  I'm not particularly comfortable with it.  I do not understand it.  So much of the Restored Gospel comports with my general, gut-level sense of "right" and "wrong," but polygamy . . . doesn't.

However, neither does animal sacrifice.  Neither does Nephi slaying Laban.  Neither does the slaying of Nehor.  Neither do the deaths described in 2 Kings 2 ("Go up, thou bald head...").  And so on.

There are all sorts of things in play here.  Context matters.  A lot.  Historical context.  Social/cultural context.  Scriptural context.  Gospel context.  So does accuracy in conveyed information.  So do my personal life experiences, as well as the importance of properly characterizing those experiences as finite, blinkered, and not altogether accurate (rather than definitive, perfected and utterly, pristinely correct).

In other words, my sense of unease is not the most reliable moral barometer in the world.  So objectivity helps.  So does research.  Lots of research.  And patience.  And humility (at the prospect that my "ick factor" may be more about me than about the thing I find to be "icky").  And a willingness to re-assess previous assumptions.  And frequent reminders to myself to heed Mormon 9:31 ("Condemn me not...") and Matthew 7:2 ("For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged...") and D&C 64:10 ("...but of you it is required to forgive all men").

But most of all . . . faith.  Lots and lots of faith.

Quote

I'm alluding to teachings largely beginning with Brigham Young, as Joseph didn't seem to make such grandiose claims as Brigham did regarding polygamy (and that might just be because Joseph kept it secret, for the most part).  Things like:

Quote

Journal of Discourses 11: 269; ” It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained…The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God are those who enter into polygamy.”

 

First, "at least in your faith" seems like a pretty important caveat here.  

Second, when it comes to nuance, I tend to leave plenty of wiggle room for the JoD.

Third, FAIR has previously called out the convenient use of ellipses by folks who quote this portion of the JoD as a means of criticizing the Church:

Quote

This quotation is often used in anti-Mormon sources. They do not include the surrounding text which explains what Brigham Young had in mind on this occasion (italics show text generally not cited by those trying to worry modern-day readers):

Brigham Young also said "if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith"

We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.^[2]

Brigham was stating that the command to practice plural marriage was from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God

It is clear that Brigham was making several points which the critics ignore:

• The command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
• To obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage in practice, but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
• It was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
• Faithful Saints cannot expect to receive "all that the Father has" if they willfully disobey God. When the people have "had blessings offered unto them," and if they refuse to obey, God will withhold blessings later because of that disobedience now.

Finally, it must be remembered that Brigham Young is speaking to a group who had been commanded to live the law of polygamy. There is no basis for speculating about what he would have said to a group who did not have that commandment given to them, as present-day members do not.

Context helps quite a bit in discussions like these.

Quote

If the church still holds a position as Brigham did,

"If."

Quote

then it suggests that even to today, those who will become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter polygamy, and I suppose we should add, with the church's current twist on this concept, even if they only become polygamists, officially, after this life. 

And if your extrapolation was valid, then you would be able to substantiate the Church's purported "position" on this point by citing to something more substantive than a decontextualized snippet of an unofficial transcript of a talk from 150+ years ago.

But you haven't, so it's not.

Quote

That is to say that men in the church today will have to take on additional wives in the hereafter. 

That is to say, that is what you are saying.  Not the Church.

Quote

It used to be said in the Church, at least unofficially, such a thing suggests that there will be more women than men who are exalted, and many women would otherwise be single which is anathema and contrary to the laws of eternity...  Or some such thing.

"At lease unofficially..."

"Such a thing suggests..."

"Or some such thing..."

Is Amazon having a sale on Equivocation products today?  😁

Quote

Well of course that's what I'm saying. It really was an elite level in the Church, it seemed, to be a polygamist...

"Elite?"  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%."

Polygamy was socioculturally difficult to accept for many devout 19th-century Latter-day Saints. 

It was also very difficult to put into practice.  Economically, sociologically, etc.

It was also susceptible to misuse/abuse (that certainly seemed to be the concern of many first/older wives).

Given these realities, the Church put some real constraints on who would be authorized to enter into polygamous marriages.

And your reaction to those constraints is . . . to fault the Church.

Funny how that works.

Quote

now not only is it not elite, but it is terms for ex-communication.  

Yes.  Because the Manifesto has prohibited polygamy since ~1890.

It is weird that I actually have to point this out.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 8, 2019 by smac97

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I like that.  I may have to steal it.

Pretty sure it is not original but go nuts.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The Nephites anticipated the coming of Christ for 600 years. 

Some also made it clear they were not sure when and Alma talked about hoping it would be in his day. It was not.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

Twisting God's work into my own hellish, slithering, mutatious...thing.

And, well, you know, all of the usual things you say which most "regular" Christians would consider to be heresy. 

I keep to myself most of the things I believe that people of my church would consider heresy.