Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Women recieving the priesthood


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I find nothing wrong with gut feelings and bias that open the door for discussion, evaluation, and the ineffectual piling up of evidence and rationale retroactively justifying the bias – the Udall correspondence a case in point. Sometimes gut feelings and bias change, not because of the evidence but because of far more fundamental things.

But my question was not on Church social dynamics large and small. It was: What do you offer as some examples of the role of divine revelation in our doctrine, whether not ordaining women in the present per your thread topic, or ordaining Blacks, per your comparison?

Also, please clarify your last statement – what are you saying Christianity is taking a second look at, and whose desperation is growing?

Ok, thanks cv75, your going to get me in alot of trouble with what I'm about to say😁😁. Just kidding.  Ok here goes nothing. Our Doctrine is malleable, it has to be in the last days if we want to survive till that time. That's why we have continuing revelation. I personally think there's just a handful of doctrines that make up the mormon church, the rest of what we live is policy. If women receive the priesthood equally with men, we won't be able to look back through history to justify it. And there's nothing wrong with that in my eyes. 

      As far as my statements on Christianity, I think in the last days we will be the church that influences Christians around the world. We are more organized and most importantly have more money, which I believe will play a huge role in the last days. You cant mobilize a movement without money in the last days.

   And finally, you know how we dont talk about Heavenly Mother, maybe its because the priesthood women hold is so sacred Heavenly Father won't reveal it till the last days. Using it to straighten up the mess us men made.

Edited by AtlanticMike
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Our Doctrine is malleable, it has to be in the last days if we want to survive till that time.

I hope you are making the distinction between doctrine and programs/policies of the church.  The former are CORE principles of the Gospel and are ETERNAL.  The latter are what is "malleable", things that can be adjusted to changing conditions and priorities.

The Priesthood by itself is NOT a mere handful.  The Plan of Happiness is NOT a mere handful.  Endless Creations (conducted by covenants and Eternal Law of Justice) are NOT a mere handful.  So on and so on.

Edited by longview
Link to comment
On 1/26/2021 at 6:58 AM, AtlanticMike said:

So I've studied more about church history in the past 6 weeks, then my entire life. I'm, shocked at the changes, but in a good way. I never knew a woman had never prayed at a general conference till 2013 and tell you the truth, I cant believe how naive I've been. Also, I've researched the Community of Christ and it seems to me we're usually  30 or so years behind them when it comes to fundamental changes in either our policies or doctrine. In their version of Mormonism,  women received the priesthood in 1998. Personally, I believe in the next 30 years women will receive the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Any thoughts?

Saying we are 30 years behind them I take as a complement. What they have done is a regression rather than a progression. Personally I don't believe women will be ordained to the priesthood; at least not in this mortal probation. However, if you were to ask a general authority the question if it will happen, they are smart enough to know to never make such a prediction based only on their own opinion. They will simply say that the Lord has not revealed it to us. 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Ok, thanks cv75, your going to get me in alot of trouble with what I'm about to say😁😁. Just kidding.  Ok here goes nothing. Our Doctrine is malleable, it has to be in the last days if we want to survive till that time. That's why we have continuing revelation. I personally think there's just a handful of doctrines that make up the mormon church, the rest of what we live is policy. If women receive the priesthood equally with men, we won't be able to look back through history to justify it. And there's nothing wrong with that in my eyes. 

      As far as my statements on Christianity, I think in the last days we will be the church that influences Christians around the world. We are more organized and most importantly have more money, which I believe will play a huge role in the last days. You cant mobilize a movement without money in the last days.

   And finally, you know how we dont talk about Heavenly Mother, maybe its because the priesthood women hold is so sacred Heavenly Father won't reveal it till the last days. Using it to straighten up the mess us men made.

If that is the reason we don't talk about Heavenly Mother and women/priesthood then we probably shouldn't be talking about the atonement either.  

Link to comment
18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Depends on what you consider canon?  Are the "Official Declarations" canon?  Are the "Proclamations" canon?  What makes something canon?
There are numerous revelations from God that aren't canonized.  And then there are canonized scripture that is clearly not God's word on a subject but somehow it made it in.

I put very little stock in what makes it into canon and what doesn't.

 

Interesting statement. There is canonized scripture describing how to canonize scripture. If church leadership desired for a revelation to be canonized wouldn't it be fair to expect them to actually go through the process to canonize it. The process would remove speculation about what is or isn't scripture so when people like Ahab claim to create scripture we know it doesn't apply to us ;) 

Also, if we are free to take any statement or writing from church leadership, past or present, as scripture or reject it based on our own preference, doesn't that make an absolute mess of doctrine/pseudo doctrine? When a writing or statement is officially canonized in the church it indicates that those words are scripture for the entire church and thus the entire church is bound to them.

Frankly, the way the church operates, giving credence to every word uttered or written by a prophet or apostle, unless it happens to be overruled by a later prophet or apostle, is a sloppy mess of pseudo-doctrine mixed with the philosophies of men.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

One can never say “never”, in a Church that acknowledges and seeks modern revelation.  But one of the issues “situational ordination” could create, is that it would be in tension with the way Mormons have traditionally viewed priesthood.  The traditional view is that those who are eligible for priesthood ordination and service, have an affirmative duty to qualify themselves for it and are considered woe-stricken if they fail to obtain their ordination (see, e.g., D&C 84:42).  
 

To the degree that Mormon culture has a strong sense of communitarianism and self-sacrifice, I think the universal (within a certain gender group, obviously!) obligation to enter into priesthood service contributes a great deal to that; and it would be interesting to see whether/how our culture changed if we morphed our current perception of priesthood duty to more of an “I’ll serve if/when I feel like it” ethos. 

For an example of this, just look at women serving missions. The church is very careful to say that a mission is completely optional for women. But culturally, it has been slowly evolving into a must. My wife has felt judgment from some in the church for choosing not to serve a mission. There's not even close to the same level of stigma that not serving a mission carries for men, but it's not completely stigma-free, either. Even though it should be.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, teddyaware said:

For those who have the Spirit of personal revelation, it’s like putting the Urim and Thumimm on your eyes and suddenly coming to see the Church is absolutely awash in revelation. Just because the revelations the general authorities and members receive are not added to the standard works doesn’t mean revelation from God isn’t being poured out upon the saints continually.

I receive personal revelation every day, something President Russell is warning the members they all have to learn to make happen because we’ll otherwise be deceived and led down forbidden paths without it. President Russell’s meaning is obvious, we each have to learn, in a manner of speaking, how to become prophets in our own right because, for various reasons, the Church leaders won’t always be able to warn the Church at large about every coming difficulty, hazard and exigency. In other words, the time to take off the revelatory training wheels is now.

In my opinion it is very reasonable to expect that doctrines of the church should be found in the scriptures canonized by the church. There is a purpose in canonizing scripture because not all revelations are of equal value (especially to the entire body of the church). Canonization requires common consent. Members have to vote to accept and agree to be governed by canonized scripture. This structure of canonization of scripture adds order to the church and reduces chaos. There seems to be a lot of chaos going on right now, partly due to the fact that as a church we can't even agree upon the definition of scripture or doctrine.

"It's dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria" :) 

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Rain said:

If that is the reason we don't talk about Heavenly Mother and women/priesthood then we probably shouldn't be talking about the atonement either.  

As you can tell I'm not a traditionalist. But I've often thought of why we dont talk about Heavenly Mother. Personally I think women have the priesthood in heaven and I also think in the last days God will reveal that to us because we will actually need women to have it here on earth. It's not that far fetched. But it will take alot of faith for traditionalist to accept, so the brethren are taking baby steps right now, to soften members up. 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, longview said:

I hope you are making the distinction between doctrine and programs/policies of the church.  The former are CORE principles of the Gospel and are ETERNAL.  The latter are what is "malleable", things that can be adjusted to changing conditions and priorities.

The Priesthood by itself is NOT a mere handful.  The Plan of Happiness is NOT a mere handful.  Endless Creations (conducted by covenants and Eternal Law of Justice) are NOT a mere handful.  So on and so on.

I agree they are core principles, but that doesn't mean they cant be added to so we have further knowledge to help us in the last days.

     Have you ever read the king follett discourse? That is one of the most radical speeches you could let a Christian read. That's what I believe we're heading for, a moment when the prophet stands up and says this is what God revealed and this is the path we are going down. And I'm fine with that. Either we're Latter Day Saints or we're not. Either we were reserved for the last days or we weren't. I think we are, and we were chosen because we'll be able to handle the changes the prophet will make in the last days. There will be major changes, they're coming.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rchorse said:

For an example of this, just look at women serving missions. The church is very careful to say that a mission is completely optional for women. But culturally, it has been slowly evolving into a must. My wife has felt judgment from some in the church for choosing not to serve a mission. There's not even close to the same level of stigma that not serving a mission carries for men, but it's not completely stigma-free, either. Even though it should be.

My daughter is 22 and has had a lot of people question her about why she wasn't going.  It's been quite stressful on her.  She even prayed for a long time and fasted about it, but felt it wasn't for her. She still hates the questions from most because of what she infers it to mean.

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

As you can tell I'm not a traditionalist. But I've often thought of why we dont talk about Heavenly Mother. Personally I think women have the priesthood in heaven and I also think in the last days God will reveal that to us because we will actually need women to have it here on earth. It's not that far fetched. But it will take alot of faith for traditionalist to accept, so the brethren are taking baby steps right now, to soften members up. 

The too sacred thing was a reason a lot of people thought was the reason for a long time till some started questioning it.  I thought it was the reason as well.  Now I think that most didn't have a reason so someone came up with the too sacred thing and it kept going from there.  Personally I think we don't talk about it because the questions weren't being asked for a long time and then now we don't have the answers.  So it's hard to talk about what you don't know about.  

Link to comment
22 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I'm not built to be a bishop. I would have bands playing live music and have a potluck in the cultural hall every week. Flip flops would be optional, and facial hair would be recommended, even for the ladies if they want🤣. I wouldn't last a week. I was made for scouts, sadly😔.

     

That sounds like a great kind of church. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

I really need to learn how to break down people's remarks like you do so I can respond better. But here goes my jumbled paragraph instead. I understand everything your saying except your first response. Who's accusing you of not being honest, me, or are you saying Christians do that?

It was a hypothetical.

You seem to be criticizing the Church and its members for rebutting the accusation that we are not Christian.  You suggest that we are "obsessed" with this.  I don't think that's a fair characterization.  By way of analogy, if someone accused you of not being an honest person, and if that someone went to great lengths to persuade other people that you are not an honest person, wouldn't you speak in defense of your own character and reputation?  And if you did speak in your own defense, would you find a follow-up accusation of "Hey, you're just obsessed with that" to be a bit weird?  

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Because if its Christian's, who cares. This is what's so confusing to me.

If someone substantially mischaracterizes me as to an important aspect of my life, I am going to rebut the falsehood.  If someone says I am not an American, not a husband, not a father, and so on, I am going to respond.  Not because I am, as you put it, "obsessed," but because someone is saying false things about me.

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Joseph prays, god says all are abominations, here Joseph, restore my true gospel instead of joining the Methodist or Presbyterians.

All creeds are "abominations," you mean?

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

And now today, it seems to me we want more than ever to be welcomed into their tent.

I think we want to get along with our neighbors, yes.  Nothing wrong with that.

But if we were really interested in getting "into their tent," don't you think we would

  • A) abandon the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and any claims to continuing revelation and an open canon,
  • B) abandon claims of restored priesthood,
  • C) abandon claims of prophetic authority,
  • D) shut down the missionary program,
  • E) shut down family history work,
  • F) shut down all temple work,
  • G) demolish or re-purpose the temples,
  • H) capitulate on same-sex marriage,
  • I) capitulate on female ordination,
  • J) capitulate on the Law of Chastity, the Word of Wisdom, the Law of Tithing, and other teachings and regulate our daily behaviors,
  • K) repudiate and renounce teachings about eternal families, exaltation, kingdoms of glory, etc.,

And on and on and on?

Have we, collectively or individually, done any of these things?  Have the leaders of the Church given any indication that we are headed toward dismantling and setting aside the fundamental truth claims and doctrines of the Restoration?  So that we can be "welcomed into their tent?"

I think the answer is indisputably "No."  Not by a long shot.

Yes, we want to get along with our neighbors.  Yes, we want to find common ground with our sectarian fellows.  Not to erase differences, but to work on things where we do agree.  

And yes, we want to be acknowledged as believers in Christ, as "Christians."  Because we are.

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

I guess I'm just confused. I dont want to be in their tent, I like our tent, its roomy, the doors open, they can come in, and like I said, I think ultimately they will. They dont have enough money to fight what's coming.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Rain said:

The too sacred thing was a reason a lot of people thought was the reason for a long time till some started questioning it.  I thought it was the reason as well.  Now I think that most didn't have a reason so someone came up with the too sacred thing and it kept going from there.  Personally I think we don't talk about it because the questions weren't being asked for a long time and then now we don't have the answers.  So it's hard to talk about what you don't know about.  

In one of my first post on this board,  I admitted that when I pray, I see Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. I have never understood why she is left out so so much. But the more I think about it, I think she'll play a huge role in the last days, that's why I started this thread. Women have the priesthood in heaven and I honestly think they will in the last days so they can more effectively fight evil.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

"Ain't gonna happen" I would've agreed with you 2 months ago before coming onto this board and also researching mormon history. 2 months ago I didnt realize how much mormons are obsessed with being thought of as Christian's. To me, it's almost become priority #1. Discouraging the use of the word "mormon" was a huge step, personally, I think it was done because to some, the word mormon keeps us from being accepted as "true Christians." Remember though, I'm an east coast mormon, so I dont know if it's different in Utah. 

    Now, women and the priesthood,  I say it's going to happen. It almost has to. First example, on fair mormon you'll find 3 first presidency letters talking about the priesthood ban. The 1st is from 1949 and it states that the attitude toward blacks remains as it always has, IT IS NOT a matter of declaration of a policy but of direct commandment. And yes, it does say, "at the present time", I understand that. But then it states that the reason for the ban. It states blacks are cursed with a skin of blackness  because their fathers rejected the priesthood,  something we totally reject today. The wording in the 1969 letter is softened,  then the letter from 1978 is softened even more to the point of blacks receiving the priesthood. And yes sir, I understand from the beginning of Mormonism, prophets taught eventually blacks would receive the priesthood at some point, but that's not the issue to me, it's that for 140 years blackskin was seen as a curse through doctrine. If an entire race can be seen as cursed and now not seen as cursed, then anything can change, including women recieving the priesthood. I think it's actually been happening for years, people just aren't seeing it for some reason. It's a slow and methodical process because the brethren understand human nature, they know women recieving the priesthood isn't something you can just one day spring on 16 million people and expect them to accept it on faith.

    Lastly, a women president of the United States will most likely speed up the process and give the brethren a soft landing for acceptance of a new priesthood policy. Just my opinion Robert. I've really grown to enjoy your post, your really knowledgeable. Thanks for responding. 

Some people do say that the true church is only found outside Utah, and it is a fact that the vast majority of LDS members live outside of Utah, and most speak a language other than English.  I myself was born and raised in California and fully recognize that the intermountain Mormon culture is very different from bicoastal Mormon culture (in fact Utah Mormons and non-Mormons have more in common with each other than Utah Mormons have with their bicoastal brethren).

Comparisons of LDS priesthood with racial policy doesn't fit well with reality.  First because one is revelatory and fundamental, the other a blatantly racist policy change.  In both LDS tradition and Scripture, priesthood is always male.  This is true within Judaism, and that permanent Jewish priesthood (which is recognized in the D&C) continues unabated (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-oldest-institution-organization-that-exists-today/answer/Bob-Smith-3106).  Second, as to race, Joseph Smith himself adopted twin practices of never having any segregated congregations and of ordaining Black men.  Black men were only barred from priesthood after the death of Joseph.  And when Brigham Young instituted that policy, he was adamantly opposed by senior apostle Orson Pratt (who also vehemently opposed making Utah a slave territory).  No revelation was ever received justifying that racist policy, and both David O. McKay and later Spencer Kimball had professionals scour the LDS Archives looking for such a revelation.  Never found one.  Bear in mind that, despite being a signatory to his President's 1949 letter, McKay himself did not believe in the racial restriction, wanted to open up Black Africa to proselyting, and was only stopped from doing so by his long-time friend and associate Joseph Fielding Smith -- who advised him that he needed a revelation on the subject, which just didn't come in his lifetime.

What is most telling is the complete admission by Bruce R. McConkie in public in 1978 that he and Brigham (and the other Brethren) had spoken on such racial matters without light and knowledge, and that we should disregard what had been stated previously.  The upshot is that those racial restrictions had never been doctrinal.   Today, our doctrine is more in line with that of Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt, than with Brother Brigham, not only on that issue, but also on Adam-God theology (also vehemently opposed by Brother Pratt).

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In my opinion it is very reasonable to expect that doctrines of the church should be found in the scriptures canonized by the church. There is a purpose in canonizing scripture because not all revelations are of equal value (especially to the entire body of the church). Canonization requires common consent. Members have to vote to accept and agree to be governed by canonized scripture. This structure of canonization of scripture adds order to the church and reduces chaos. There seems to be a lot of chaos going on right now, partly due to the fact that as a church we can't even agree upon the definition of scripture or doctrine.

"It's dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria" :) 

 

It’s very dangerous to run the Church that way today because we will instantaneously be branded as dangerous fanatics. It’s wisdom in the Lord that revelation in today’s Church is being, as it were, delivered “under the radar.” Also, the Church is soon going to face enormous persecution, so there’s no sense egging on our persecutors. Additionally, the prophet is telling us the time has come for each of us to become ‘prophets’ in our own right in order to be able to safely navigate the very dangerous and turbulent waters we’re now obviously entering. Remember, in a society that’s fully ripening in iniquity, speaking God’s honest truth openly in public can be a very dangerous thing to do. Aside from God himself, the devil hates nothing more than the truth, and he will do ANYTHING to destroy it.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Ok, thanks cv75, your going to get me in alot of trouble with what I'm about to say😁😁. Just kidding.  Ok here goes nothing. Our Doctrine is malleable, it has to be in the last days if we want to survive till that time. That's why we have continuing revelation. I personally think there's just a handful of doctrines that make up the mormon church, the rest of what we live is policy. If women receive the priesthood equally with men, we won't be able to look back through history to justify it. And there's nothing wrong with that in my eyes. 

      As far as my statements on Christianity, I think in the last days we will be the church that influences Christians around the world. We are more organized and most importantly have more money, which I believe will play a huge role in the last days. You cant mobilize a movement without money in the last days.

   And finally, you know how we dont talk about Heavenly Mother, maybe its because the priesthood women hold is so sacred Heavenly Father won't reveal it till the last days. Using it to straighten up the mess us men made.

No matter how many or few we may number the doctrines and policies we are obliged to sustain for membership, what do you offer as some examples of the role of divine revelation in either – i.e., not ordaining women now, or having lifting the ban on Blacks in 1978? I know I keep asking this…

I’m sure you have seen where others have made the case that ordaining women does indeed have historical precedent, and as you have pointed out, currently enjoys social precedence. You mentioned Heavenly Mother as a justification for female ordination – do you take that idea to be doctrine or policy, revelation or cultural / folk belief?

You refer to the Church’s money and movement as key to her expanding influence over a weakened Christianity, but what can you say about her divine revelations (the question I keep asking -- when you answer it, you’ll get a big THANK YOU!)?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, teddyaware said:

It’s very dangerous to run the Church that way today because we will instantaneously be branded as dangerous fanatics. It’s wisdom in the Lord that revelation in today’s Church is being, as it were, delivered “under the radar.” Also, the Church is soon going to face enormous persecution, so there’s no sense egging on our persecutors. Additionally, the prophet is telling us the time has come for each of us to become ‘prophets’ in our own right in order to be able to safely navigate the very dangerous and turbulent waters we’re now obviously entering. Remember, in a society that’s fully ripening in iniquity, speaking God’s honest truth openly in public can be a very dangerous thing to do. Aside from God himself, the devil hates nothing more than the truth, and he will do ANYTHING to destroy it.

Interestingly, this was an argument for not publishing the Book of Commandments (according to the CFM lesson material).

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, rchorse said:

For an example of this, just look at women serving missions. The church is very careful to say that a mission is completely optional for women. But culturally, it has been slowly evolving into a must. My wife has felt judgment from some in the church for choosing not to serve a mission. There's not even close to the same level of stigma that not serving a mission carries for men, but it's not completely stigma-free, either. Even though it should be.

I never felt judged for not going.  I felt like more people were trying to marry me off when I talked about a mission.  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

I never felt judged for not going.  I felt like more people were trying to marry me off when I talked about a mission.  

When the age for girls to go was 21 I did feel like there was some stigma that a girl only served a mission if she couldn't get married.  It seems like that isn't the case as much since the age is 19 now.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Some people do say that the true church is only found outside Utah, and it is a fact that the vast majority of LDS members live outside of Utah, and most speak a language other than English.  I myself was born and raised in California and fully recognize that the intermountain Mormon culture is very different from bicoastal Mormon culture (in fact Utah Mormons and non-Mormons have more in common with each other than Utah Mormons have with their bicoastal brethren).

Comparisons of LDS priesthood with racial policy doesn't fit well with reality.  First because one is revelatory and fundamental, the other a blatantly racist policy change.  In both LDS tradition and Scripture, priesthood is always male.  This is true within Judaism, and that permanent Jewish priesthood (which is recognized in the D&C) continues unabated.  Second, as to race, Joseph Smith himself adopted twin practices of never having any segregated congregations and of ordaining Black men.  Black men were only barred from priesthood after the death of Joseph.  And when Brigham Young instituted that policy, he was adamantly opposed by senior apostle Orson Pratt (who also vehemently opposed making Utah a slave territory).  No revelation was ever received justifying that racist policy, and both David O. McKay and later Spencer Kimball had professionals scour the LDS Archives looking for such a revelation.  Never found one.  Bear in mind that, despite being a signatory to his President's 1949 letter, McKay himself did not believe in the racial restriction, wanted to open up Black Africa to proselyting, and was only stopped from doing so by his long-time friend and associate Joseph Fielding Smith -- who advised him that he needed a revelation on the subject, which just didn't come in his lifetime.

What is most telling is the complete admission by Bruce R. McConkie in public in 1978 that he and Brigham (and the other Brethren) had spoken on such racial matters without light and knowledge, and that we should disregard what had been stated previously.  The upshot is that those racial restrictions had never been doctrinal.   Today, our doctrine is more in line with that of Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt, than with Brother Brigham, not only on that issue, but also on Adam-God theology (also vehemently opposed by Brother Pratt).

The Lord does seem to allow us to muddle along without, or in our imperfect execution of, revealed doctrine and inspired policy. I think there are good reasons for both, and more good reason, for the purposes of seeking grace, to recognize the Lord's revelation than to ascertain its absence.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It was a hypothetical.

You seem to be criticizing the Church and its members for rebutting the accusation that we are not Christian.  You suggest that we are "obsessed" with this.  I don't think that's a fair characterization.  By way of analogy, if someone accused you of not being an honest person, and if that someone went to great lengths to persuade other people that you are not an honest person, wouldn't you speak in defense of your own character and reputation?  And if you did speak in your own defense, would you find a follow-up accusation of "Hey, you're just obsessed with that" to be a bit weird?  

If someone substantially mischaracterizes me as to an important aspect of my life, I am going to rebut the falsehood.  If someone says I am not an American, not a husband, not a father, and so on, I am going to respond.  Not because I am, as you put it, "obsessed," but because someone is saying false things about me.

All creeds are "abominations," you mean?

I think we want to get along with our neighbors, yes.  Nothing wrong with that.

But if we were really interested in getting "into their tent," don't you think we would

  • A) abandon the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and any claims to continuing revelation and an open canon,
  • B) abandon claims of restored priesthood,
  • C) abandon claims of prophetic authority,
  • D) shut down the missionary program,
  • E) shut down family history work,
  • F) shut down all temple work,
  • G) demolish or re-purpose the temples,
  • H) capitulate on same-sex marriage,
  • I) capitulate on female ordination,
  • J) capitulate on the Law of Chastity, the Word of Wisdom, the Law of Tithing, and other teachings and regulate our daily behaviors,
  • K) repudiate and renounce teachings about eternal families, exaltation, kingdoms of glory, etc.,

And on and on and on?

Have we, collectively or individually, done any of these things?  Have the leaders of the Church given any indication that we are headed toward dismantling and setting aside the fundamental truth claims and doctrines of the Restoration?  So that we can be "welcomed into their tent?"

I think the answer is indisputably "No."  Not by a long shot.

Yes, we want to get along with our neighbors.  Yes, we want to find common ground with our sectarian fellows.  Not to erase differences, but to work on things where we do agree.  

And yes, we want to be acknowledged as believers in Christ, as "Christians."  Because we are.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Thanks,

-Smac

I just feel like we're asking Christians to pretty pretty please accept us as Christians so we can join in under the "big tent" of Christianity. Maybe it's my personality, I dont care to much if people accept me. Plus, if god said their creeds are an abomination and professors are corrupt, then that means we're the Christians not them. How do you explain that to a Christian. I've tried, they dont see it that way, trust me. 

    Never said we're going to give up on core doctrine but I do believe we will add to it. And it's going to be tough for some mormons to handle, that's my personal belief. 

    As far as what I said about money and the fight that's coming,  I believe logistically, we will need a crap ton of money to fight the onslaught of attacks mormons and more broadly Christians will experience in the future. The mormon church with the brethren and its deep pockets is set up to move many pieces around on the board in the last days. Not many other Christian churches are set up to do that. As latter day Saints, in the end, we won't be sitting on the couch watching mayhem, will be fighting it on our feet. What's that mean, I dont know, but it will take lots of money, so be grateful that piece is taken care of.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Interesting statement. There is canonized scripture describing how to canonize scripture. If church leadership desired for a revelation to be canonized wouldn't it be fair to expect them to actually go through the process to canonize it. The process would remove speculation about what is or isn't scripture so when people like Ahab claim to create scripture we know it doesn't apply to us ;) 

Also, if we are free to take any statement or writing from church leadership, past or present, as scripture or reject it based on our own preference, doesn't that make an absolute mess of doctrine/pseudo doctrine? When a writing or statement is officially canonized in the church it indicates that those words are scripture for the entire church and thus the entire church is bound to them.

Frankly, the way the church operates, giving credence to every word uttered or written by a prophet or apostle, unless it happens to be overruled by a later prophet or apostle, is a sloppy mess of pseudo-doctrine mixed with the philosophies of men.

There's a big difference between every word and every revelation.  There are many many revelations that have never even been considered for canonization despite the fact that they were both believed and acted upon.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It’s very dangerous to run the Church that way today because we will instantaneously be branded as dangerous fanatics. It’s wisdom in the Lord that revelation in today’s Church is being, as it were, delivered “under the radar.” Also, the Church is soon going to face enormous persecution, so there’s no sense egging on our persecutors. Additionally, the prophet is telling us the time has come for each of us to become ‘prophets’ in our own right in order to be able to safely navigate the very dangerous and turbulent waters we’re now obviously entering. Remember, in a society that’s fully ripening in iniquity, speaking God’s honest truth openly in public can be a very dangerous thing to do. Aside from God himself, the devil hates nothing more than the truth, and he will do ANYTHING to destroy it.

Wait. What? Are you saying it's dangerous to run the church by common consent as instructed in canonized scripture? If so, it would seem to make sense that the brethren change that and canonize the change. Otherwise people are left to decide for themselves what is legit commandment and what isn't, and then make up rationalizations for their POV.

Explain to me why God would want to instruct his church "under the radar"? Is it to avoid mean people saying mean things? Come on, man.

Regarding the bold. Honestly, I think that was the primary message of the First Vision account. Man can communicate with God directly and doesn't need a middle man, yet the church has established a hierarchy of middle men and is trying to play it both ways.

If God wants the truth known I don't think he'd be afraid of what people may say. Was he afraid of men in generations past? There was a lot of iniquity in antiquity, no?

 

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I agree they are core principles, but that doesn't mean they cant be added to so we have further knowledge to help us in the last days.

     Have you ever read the king follett discourse? That is one of the most radical speeches you could let a Christian read. That's what I believe we're heading for, a moment when the prophet stands up and says this is what God revealed and this is the path we are going down. And I'm fine with that. Either we're Latter Day Saints or we're not. Either we were reserved for the last days or we weren't. I think we are, and we were chosen because we'll be able to handle the changes the prophet will make in the last days. There will be major changes, they're coming.

 

I love the King Follett Discourse.  I consider it the greatest sermon since Christ on the mount.
But I still think you are expecting rewrites instead of new compositions.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...