Are past sermons still in force from Prophets past, no matter our current Prophet?

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I seem to recall some survey data -- I think it was around the question of women's ordination -- where the vast majority of LDS respondents seemed to be in a "if the prophet decrees it, we will happily follow" group. It seems that we are good at going along with something as long as we believe it is God's will.

Is the inverse/converse/whatever-it's-called also true? Do we readily reject anything that is not God's revealed will. As Dr. Eyring put it, do we believe that, "In this Church, you don't have to believe anything that is not true."

From there, it seems to me that many of the most difficult issues that we face in the Church are around discerning God's will. Was polygamy God's will? Was the temple and priesthood ban God's will? And so on.

IMO, no and no..

[JLHPROF]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

IMO, no and no..

Opinion doesn't enter it.  Either God did something or he didn't.  It's a matter of determining which.

[mrmarklin]

Sec 132 confirms polygamy was God’s will. The PH ban was informed opinion. It was never canonized, and all rationale for the ban has been disavowed. 
 

That is not to say there could have been good reasons for the ban. We just don’t know what they were. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by mrmarklin

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Opinion doesn't enter it.  Either God did something or he didn't.  It's a matter of determining which.

In my determination I believe it's a no and a no.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

12 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Sec 132 confirms polygamy was God’s will. The PH ban was informed opinion. It was never canonized, and all rationale for the ban has been disavowed. 
 

That is not to say there could have been good reasons for the ban. We just don’t know what they were. 

Question is, “disavowed for convenience”, or “outright”? 

[MrShorty]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Opinion doesn't enter it.  Either God did something or he didn't.  It's a matter of determining which.

At some level, I would agree. The challenge is that it doesn't always seem self-evident whether or not God did/commanded something. It seems that determining which it is often boils down to personal opinion and testimony.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

In my determination I believe it's a no and a no.

Based on what?
What research and evidence that Joseph falsified his revelation on polygamy did you manage to locate?
Genuinely curious what method provided your determination of falsehood?

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

At some level, I would agree. The challenge is that it doesn't always seem self-evident whether or not God did/commanded something. It seems that determining which it is often boils down to personal opinion and testimony.

Seems like a fancy way of saying it's a matter of faith. 

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Based on what?
What research and evidence that Joseph falsified his revelation on polygamy did you manage to locate?
Genuinely curious what method provided your determination of falsehood?

Maybe we don't always get a revelation when we think we do? My inner compass.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe we don't always get a revelation when we think we do? My inner compass.

I recognize that accepting Joseph's revelation is a matter of faith.  I also recognize that denying it based on feeling is also a matter of faith.

I don't think whether it came from God is an issue of opinion OR fact because we simply don't have sufficient evidence to form either.
I think we can look at the historical record and determine whether those involved with its implementation believed it came from God.
I have no reason to doubt Joseph believed it was from God and I believe he was God's prophet so therefore I have faith sufficient to accept D&C 132.  That's neither opinion or fact, but an issue of faith.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I recognize that accepting Joseph's revelation is a matter of faith.  I also recognize that denying it based on feeling is also a matter of faith.

I don't think whether it came from God is an issue of opinion OR fact because we simply don't have sufficient evidence to form either.
I think we can look at the historical record and determine whether those involved with its implementation believed it came from God.
I have no reason to doubt Joseph believed it was from God and I believe he was God's prophet so therefore I have faith sufficient to accept D&C 132.  That's neither opinion or fact, but an issue of faith.

Thanks JL! I think you're right, that it's neither opinion or fact, but an issue of faith. I guess I'm dry on that one, because I choose not to believe that it's a commandment by an angel with a drawn sword, because that would take away the gift of choice, which BTW is a huge part of the Lord's plan, Satan can attest to that!

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks JL! I think you're right, that it's neither opinion or fact, but an issue of faith. I guess I'm dry on that one, because I choose not to believe that it's a commandment by an angel with a drawn sword, because that would take away the gift of choice, which BTW is a huge part of the Lord's plan, Satan can attest to that!

There are very interesting principles when you start talking agency.
I don't believe your statement that it would take away the gift of choice.  Applying a consequence doesn't remove choice.  It just requires you to accept the consequence.
I don't see that this is any different than any other gospel principle.

You have the choice to drive 65 in a school zone.  There are numerous consequences possible if you do that.  Setting a speed limit rule doesn't remove your choice.  Having consequences for ignoring the limit doesn't remove your choice.
According to Joseph God stated in D&C 132 that plural marriage was the law at that time and those who accepted the revelation would be required to live it.  That's no different than Christ saying that Baptism would be required.
And the fact that penalties exist for disobedience is NOT an issue of agency.

[MrShorty]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Seems like a fancy way of saying it's a matter of faith. 

 

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I recognize that accepting Joseph's revelation is a matter of faith.  I also recognize that denying it based on feeling is also a matter of faith.

Part of the challenge, I think, is figuring out what we should do when our private faith runs counter to the teachings of the Church. Tacenda and polygamy, where, as has been noted, the Church believes that polygamy was commanded by God, and Tacenda and many others don't. I find it rather interesting how many otherwise good LDS are/were willing to say that they did not believe (some invoking spiritual experiences to the effect) some of the Church's beliefs and practices regarding LGBT issues. Pres. Oaks even talked about his experience not receiving a testimony of the reasons given for the priesthood and temple ban (and I wish he had talked more about it).

In a Church that often presents itself as an all or nothing package deal, I often think there would be value in discussing how to approach contradictions between private faith and the Church's beliefs.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 1/27/2021 at 12:34 AM, mrmarklin said:

The PH ban was informed opinion. It was never canonized, and all rationale for the ban has been disavowed. 
 

That is not to say there could have been good reasons for the ban. We just don’t know what they were. 

There is some historical issues (occurrences) that caused this ban to happen, and not great history. Sadly the idea, of African descent were “somehow inferior” existed in other Christian denominations. Some loosely based on stories in the OT, and others based on untrue teachings of “superiority“, and “fear”. When we speak of the Restoration of the fullness of the Gospel, we must also remember that some teachings (incorrect one’s) did carry over into our modern-day Faith. When the 13th Amendment was being debated in Congress, Lincoln wanted bi-partisan support for the freedom of slaves. As a result, many on the floor of Congress used and quoted scripture to oppose the measure. Of course those in the South used the Bible to support slavery. Many of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, were used by the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Lord Jesus Christ, to reinforce some teachings, and to jettison other teachings. Thankfully, a system was put into place for the Lord to help aide his “Church and People” to (over time) embrace all truth, and to reject all falsehood. This is why we have Prophets and Apostles, and as spelled out in all our Standard Works, the very reason for which they are still called today. Just like Scripture is a living and open Canon, so is HIS Church. 

[MrShorty]

@Bill “Papa” Lee That explanation for the priesthood and temple ban makes some sense, and seems to be the overall tone the gospel topics essay takes. The main problem I have with it is that it makes me wonder if there are other things we currently believe in the Church (even to the point of defending them to our death as Pres. Kimball said about the ban) that are mere accommodations of incorrect cultural beliefs.

In another thread, there is discussion of women's ordination. Are we certain that a male only priesthood originates with God? Could it be possible that our male only priesthood is merely rooted in Christian and Judaic patriarchal traditions that only allowed men to enter the priesthood?

homosexuality, for example. We defend our proscription against same sex marriages rather staunchly, but are we certain our discomfort with homosexuality comes from God and not culture? Wikipedia notes that the APA included homosexuality as a mental illness in its DSM until 1973. Other groups followed suit into the 1990s. Are we certain that our beliefs around homosexuality are rooted in revelation and not in cultural currents that did not accept homosexuals until late in the 20th century?

IMO, this is why historical issues like we are discussing here (Pres. Hinckley's discomfort with earrings and tatoos, polygamy, a racially segregated priesthood) are so important. If these issues were an outgrowth of outside, non-revelatory, non-"true" influences, are there other issues among our beliefs that could also be so influenced?