Is there any external expression of faith that you consider sacred and unchangeable?

[CV75]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, I don't necessarily think that driving to apostasy level is what I'm getting at.

But I do think there are elements of the gospel that if a change was announce you might say this is wrong and I don't think I'll go along.

For example if baptism by immersion were stopped I'd continue to baptize my children myself correctly.  If the garment was done away with I'd continue to wear mine and make my own if I had to.  Some things are from God and I wouldn't give them up.

How would anyone know what you are doing? What would the consequences be if you told your bishop what you are doing?

Given that the keys rest with the Prophet / First Presidency / Twelve and they are the only ones authorized to define and extend the things of God to others, and define their proper administration, the things from God in this respect may be subject to change. See, for example what Brigham Young said in pp 578 and 579 of "Saints, 1815-1846":

"...Under the Lord’s direction, Brigham instructed that men should no longer be baptized for women nor women for men

"...Joseph in his lifetime did not receive everything connected with the doctrine of redemption ...but he has left the key with those who understand how to obtain and teach to this great people all that is necessary for their salvation and exaltation in the celestial kingdom of our God.”

"The change to the ordinance showed how the Lord continued to reveal His will to His people. “The Lord has led this people all the while in this way,” Brigham declared, “by giving them here a little and there a little. Thus He increases their wisdom, and he that receives a little and is thankful for that shall receive more and more and more.”

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Your looking for an equality that's not going to be there in my opinion. Some people are just willing to work harder than others. In your ideal world, you would have to hold those people back so they couldn't out perform the people who aren't willing to put in the time. 

I'm not looking for equality of outcome. The law of consecration or united order is not communism.

The idler is not to reap the fruit of the labourer. All must labor together in Zion. Only a truly righteous people will be able to accomplish this. 

The members of the church collectively aren't truly righteous. The gospel net has gathered all kinds of fish, good and bad. Currently the good and bad are all together. But the time will come when the church is cleansed and the righteous will be called out to establish Zion.

 

[AtlanticMike]

14 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I'm not looking for equality of outcome. The law of consecration or united order is not communism.

The idler is not to reap the fruit of the labourer. All must labor together in Zion. Only a truly righteous people will be able to accomplish this. 

The members of the church collectively aren't truly righteous. The gospel net has gathered all kinds of fish, good and bad. Currently the good and bad are all together. But the time will come when the church is cleansed and the righteous will be called out to establish Zion.

 

Ok. I guess I didnt understand what you were talking about. Reading through your post you seemed upset because some people are poor and some are rich. You talked about TVs, vacations, nice cars, big house, zillion hours a week .

     If you wouldn't mind sharing, do you have a vision of what zion would look like, is it just mormons, are other Christians included, will other abrahamic faiths be involved? 

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, that was a change from Aaronic to Melchizedek and brought with it a change in order of priesthood.

When we are eliminating Melchizedek items what kind of priesthood do we expect to remain?

What I'm saying is that there is a precedent for change in the gospel.  We can argue or disagree or discuss how the changes are or aren't legitimate, but my point is that change, in and of itself, does not mean that God is fickle.  What is required of each generation can/does change, and that doesn't mean that God is fickle either. 

We can believe or accept that God changes some things and still not have to worship a fickle God. 

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What I'm saying is that there is a precedent for change in the gospel.  We can argue or disagree or discuss how the changes are or aren't legitimate, but my point is that change, in and of itself, does not mean that God is fickle.  What is required of each generation can/does change, and that doesn't mean that God is fickle either. 

We can believe or accept that God changes some things and still not have to worship a fickle God. 

I agree.

But I also believe nobody in any generation enters the Celestial Kingdom without accepting Christ and water baptism by immersion (live or vicarious).

Nobody has an eternal family outside the covenant.  Nobody achieves exaltation without the endowment and sealing ceremony.

It doesn't matter what was available during their time period.  That's the whole point of temple work and the Millennium.  Just because God changed immediate requirements they will still be be required to follow the same path.  And that includes our day.

I fully expect much of the ordinance work we do today to have to be redone correctly in the future, probably the Millennium.

Edited January 30, 2021 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Neither.  By living at a time without Melchizedek priesthood they were as unable to reach exaltation through their laws as those in the medieval period.  Endowments for the dead will be required for Moses day in the Millennium too.  Nobody gets exaltation without it.

Could a member of the House of Israel from Moses' time be saved while eschewing the Law of Moses?  Could they ignore it or break it without any eternal significance or consequences?

Yes, they would need the endowment eventually to gain the fullness of God's blessings, but while they were living was keeping the Law of Moses a requirement for them?  

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree.

But I also believe nobody in any generation enters the Celestial Kingdom without accepting Christ and water baptism by immersion (live or vicarious).

Nobody has an eternal family outside the covenant.  Nobody achieves exaltation without the endowment and sealing ceremony.

It doesn't matter what was available during their time period.  That's the whole point of temple work and the Millennium.  Just because God changed immediate requirements they will still be be required to follow the same path.  And that includes our day.

I fully expect much of the ordinance work we do today to have to be redone correctly in the future, probably the Millennium.

I agree.

But could Moses enter the celestial kingdom without keeping the Law of Moses?  I can and you can, but could Moses?  Or were those just hoops that God required of him and his people that had no spiritual or eternal significance for them?

From my perspective it's not just about what is available during our time, it is about how God works with us in our generation, and how that work can and often does look different from how He works with other generations.   It changes, because His children change.  

We are all saved by the same principles (like JS said) but how those principals are presented and what they look like and how we are required to live them, seems to change fairly often, depending on different factors. 

Animal sacrifice for some of us, plural marriage in mortality for others.  Following a prophet across country and out of it for some, staying in your hometown for others.  Spiritual circumcision for some, literal circumcision for others.  Pre-1990 temple covenant wording for some, post 1990 for others.

 

Edited January 30, 2021 by bluebell

[carbon dioxide]

20 hours ago, rongo said:

After the changes in the temple, I think there is literally nothing that couldn't theoretically be done away with and simply done "symbolically only." Even baptism by immersion. We criticize other churches for sprinkling, but changing it from immersion to sprinkling is no different. So, it becomes a matter of authority --- if the authority is there, then the change is authorized. 

Why even sprinkle water. There is water vapor in the air.  Just baptize by the water vapor. 

[LDS Watchman]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I fully expect much of the ordinance work we do today to have to be redone correctly in the future, probably the Millennium.

I expect the same thing.

So why the huge emphasis by the church on performing these ordinances which have become corrupted and will need to be redone?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

I expect the same thing.

So why the huge emphasis by the church on performing these ordinances which have become corrupted and will need to be redone?

Because the records will now already exist. 

[LDS Watchman]

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Reading through your post you seemed upset because some people are poor and some are rich. You talked about TVs, vacations, nice cars, big house, zillion hours a week .

I'm of course saddened by our present situation and our failure to establish Zion, but my goal was not to vent or complain. I was merely pointing out that according to the scriptures there is a connection between the changing of the ordinances and the breaking of the everlasting covenant and worshipping the false gods of Babylon and that I see a fulfillment to these scriptures in the church today. 

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

If you wouldn't mind sharing, do you have a vision of what zion would look like, is it just mormons, are other Christians included, will other abrahamic faiths be involved? 

As for other Abraham faiths taking part, I see nothing that suggests that the Muslims will take part. Perhaps a few who are converted to the Lord, but that would be it. From the Book of Obadiah it would appear that vast majority of Muslims will be destroyed. The Jews will definitely take part, but will be the last tribed gathered to the New Jerusalem (D&C 133). And of course members of the lost 10 tribes will take part, butwho exactly these people are only the Lord knows at this time.

My take on how things will play out is as follows: 

The destruction and burning of the wicked in the last days will begin with the church (D&C 112:24-26). The majority of the church will be destroyed completely. The most righteous group of members will be gathered out just before the destruction happens, or perhaps at the beginning of the destruction. This righteous group are the 5 wise virgins from the parable of the 10 virgins.

The men from the 5 righteous virgins, will make up the 144K who will build the New Jerusalem and gather the rest of the elect to Zion. These are the Ephraimites spoken of in D&C 133, who will be doing the gathering of Israel. They will be working under the direction of the the Lord's last day's servant (referrered to in the scriptures as the Davidic Servant, One Mighty and Strong, the Branch, Elias who will restore all things, etc). Some of the elect they gather will be the hidden lost tribes, wherever they are, and others will be gathered from all nations of the earth. These will not all be members of the church. In fact most probably won't be. 

Another group of members, the 5 foolish  virgins, who are pretty righteous, but allowed themselves to be deceived and lulled into a false sense of security, will also survive the initial destruction of the wicked in the church, but will not be gathered out with the 5 wise virgins. These will endure the tribulation of the saints under the the hands of the anti-Christ spoken of in the book of Revelation, Daniel, Isaiah, etc. Those of the 5 foolish virgins who survive the tribulation and remain faithful will eventually be gathered out to the New Jerusalem.

Once the elect (who are not just the current righteous LDS) are all safely gathered to the New Jerusalem and surrounding stakes, the final destruction of the wicked takes place and the earth is wiped clean of all inhabitants besides those who are gathered to Zion. Then the Lord will appear again in glory and reign upon the earth for a thousand years. 

 

[LDS Watchman]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because the records will now already exist. 

So why not just do genealogy then? Why perform the corrupted ordinances, which will need to be redone?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

So why not just do genealogy then? Why perform the corrupted ordinances, which will need to be redone?

It's not just a record of genealogy but of ordinances that were performed.  Far easier to redo an ordinance where a record exists.

And Church history has precedent for this if you read up on temple work done between Nauvoo and the completion of the St. George temple.  Or of baptism for the dead before the temple.  Many ordinances were repeated and that doesn't even consider rebaptism.

I think Brigham estimated he was baptized 15 times.

Edited January 30, 2021 by JLHPROF

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not just a record of genealogy but of ordinances that were performed.  Far easier to redo an ordinance where a record exists.

And Church history has precedent for this if you read up on temple work done between Nauvoo and the completion of the St. George temple.  Or of baptism for the dead before the temple.  Many ordinances were repeated and that doesn't even consider rebaptism.

I think Brigham estimated he was baptized 15 times.

Rebaptism wasn't done because the previous baptism was no good. Rebaptism was done because the member wanted it as a sign of once again having repented and renewed their commitment to God. Of course this is forbidden and punishable by excommunication (err I a mean having one's membership withdrawn) in the modern church. Why is that? Either rebaptism is okay or it isn't.

As for the repeating of temple ordinances in earlier days in the church, this was because records were not properly verified, not because some need was discovered to redo them. 

Edited January 30, 2021 by LDS Watchman

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

So why the huge emphasis by the church on performing these ordinances which have become corrupted and will need to be redone?

Why is the Lord assisting in the performing of "corrupt" ordinances?  (See:   “As Long as the World Shall Stand”, David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, BYU Speeches,  January 19, 2021).

2 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

The destruction and burning of the wicked in the last days will begin with the church (D&C 112:24-26). The majority of the church will be destroyed completely.

"25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;  26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord."   (Doctrine and Covenants 112:25–26).   This describes the covenant breakers in the church.

2 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

They will be working under the direction of the the Lord's last day's servant (referrered to in the scriptures as the Davidic Servant, One Mighty and Strong, the Branch, Elias who will restore all things, etc).  Some of the elect they gather will be the hidden lost tribes, wherever they are, and others will be gathered from all nations of the earth. These will not all be members of the church. In fact most probably won't be. 

That out of context interpretation of the "one mighty and strong" was clearly put to rest by the First Presidency in their official statement on the One Might and Strong (from our prior discussion).

Joseph Smith also countered that way of thinking in his teachings on the order of authority in the church:

Quote

Order by Which Revelation Comes

"I will inform you that it is contrary to the economy of God for any member of the Church, or any one, to receive instruction for those in authority, higher than themselves; therefore you will see the impropriety of giving heed to them; but if any person have a vision or a visitation from a heavenly messenger, it must be for his own benefit and instruction; for the fundamental principles, government, and doctrine of the Church are vested in the keys of the kingdom. Respecting an apostate, or one who has been cut off from the Church, and who wishes to come in again, the law of our Church expressly says that such shall repent, and be baptized, and be admitted as at the first." (TPJS p. 21–21)

See original Letter to John S. Carter, 13 April 1833:  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-john-s-carter-13-april-1833/2

Also, all things are done by common consent in the Lord's church.

[mfbukowski]

The whole idea that sacred matters ought to be unchangeable comes from pagan Greek metaphysics.

On the other hand we believe  In eternal progression.

 Each of us individually are progressing  one way or another.

 God's Kingdom itself is always going and changing. That is its purpose. Its purpose is to have as many of his children return to him as possible,  in his eternal project of bringing to pass the and mortality and eternal life of his children,  While still organizing worlds upon  worlds 

Even when just one child returns, the Kingdom itself is changed, and a fatted calf has an unusual day

 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Also, all things are done by common consent in the Lord's church.

Yep

You get to sustain your leaders or not.

 God's Kingdom is not a democracy,  Nor should it be.

 In that case he would get to sustain us.

Or not.

 I don't want to think about that possibility

 

[JLHPROF]

59 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Rebaptism wasn't done because the previous baptism was no good. Rebaptism was done because the member wanted it as a sign of once again having repented and renewed their commitment to God. Of course this is forbidden and punishable by excommunication (err I a mean having one's membership withdrawn) in the modern church. Why is that? Either rebaptism is okay or it isn't.

As for the repeating of temple ordinances in earlier days in the church, this was because records were not properly verified, not because some need was discovered to redo them. 

Because you say so?

That's exactly why Brigham had temple work redone.  Yes rebaptism was a separate ordinance but Brigham also had ordinances redone that he had presided over previously.

[Stargazer]

On 1/29/2021 at 8:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

On the other thread there's been a lot of discussion about presentation elements and spiritual superseding the physical or temporal.

So are there any of these elements that you would not be able to accept a continuing revelation to remove?
Some possible candidates:
- the wearing of the garment
- the anointing of the sick with oil
- baptism by immersion in water or raising the arm to the square
- laying on of hands for ordination or confirmation
- eating of food/drinking of liquid to remember Christ
- kneeling
- the sealing ceremony elements

Is there any physical, external expression that you consider key and vital and not easily replaced or removed since the "spiritual" element would remain?  Or is it all just window dressing for the changes inside or something like that?
Is pretty much all of it unimportant compared to the way we feel?

I think that pretty much every single one of these things is incapable of being removed without damage to the doctrine of Christ and His Atonement. In fact, some of them were removed in the Great Apostasy. That demonstrates something, I think.

But consider that after we die and are in the spirit world, we will do none of these things, being cut off from the physical world.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

Rebaptism wasn't done because the previous baptism was no good. Rebaptism was done because the member wanted it as a sign of once again having repented and renewed their commitment to God. Of course this is forbidden and punishable by excommunication (err I a mean having one's membership withdrawn) in the modern church. Why is that? Either rebaptism is okay or it isn't.

As for the repeating of temple ordinances in earlier days in the church, this was because records were not properly verified, not because some need was discovered to redo them. 

 

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because you say so?

That's exactly why Brigham had temple work redone.  Yes rebaptism was a separate ordinance but Brigham also had ordinances redone that he had presided over previously.

All those who were baptized before the organization of the church in 1830 were rebaptized. Not because the record of baptism was lost, and not because the member requested it. It was done because the church had not existed when they were baptized, but now they were baptized into the church. I believe that everyone arriving in Deseret upon the initial settlement was likewise rebaptized. I'm pretty sure nobody ever got re-baptized because they wanted it as a sign of repentance -- unless they had been excommunicated or had their names removed from the records of the church. And in those cases, the rebaptism actually restores the original baptismal date.

Of course there are other reasons for repeating an ordinance, such as when the one performing it lacked authority to do so. As happened in the New Testament, when a man was found to have not been given the Holy Ghost, and even though someone had baptized him, he had not been taught about the Holy Ghost. So the brethren apparently assumed that he had not been baptized by authority, and re-did the ordinance, and then confirmed him.

Back when I was a ward clerk, there was a young sister who was being carried in the membership roll as a child of record, even though she was 12 or so and her family was very active in the ward. The problem cropped up because they wanted to call her to be Beehive class president, but as a CoR it couldn't be done. They said she had been baptized at age 8 as required, but for some reason there was no record of it.  It was either find who had baptized her, or baptize her anew. She had been baptized by her biological father (who, due to divorce lived elsewhere by then), so we got a letter from him attesting to the ordinances (baptism and confirmation), and a family journal entry confirmed the date. So we got that squared away.

[JLHPROF]

42 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

 

All those who were baptized before the organization of the church in 1830 were rebaptized. Not because the record of baptism was lost, and not because the member requested it. It was done because the church had not existed when they were baptized, but now they were baptized into the church. I believe that everyone arriving in Deseret upon the initial settlement was likewise rebaptized. I'm pretty sure nobody ever got re-baptized because they wanted it as a sign of repentance -- unless they had been excommunicated or had their names removed from the records of the church. And in those cases, the rebaptism actually restores the original baptismal date.

Of course there are other reasons for repeating an ordinance, such as when the one performing it lacked authority to do so. As happened in the New Testament, when a man was found to have not been given the Holy Ghost, and even though someone had baptized him, he had not been taught about the Holy Ghost. So the brethren apparently assumed that he had not been baptized by authority, and re-did the ordinance, and then confirmed him.

Back when I was a ward clerk, there was a young sister who was being carried in the membership roll as a child of record, even though she was 12 or so and her family was very active in the ward. The problem cropped up because they wanted to call her to be Beehive class president, but as a CoR it couldn't be done. They said she had been baptized at age 8 as required, but for some reason there was no record of it.  It was either find who had baptized her, or baptize her anew. She had been baptized by her biological father (who, due to divorce lived elsewhere by then), so we got a letter from him attesting to the ordinances (baptism and confirmation), and a family journal entry confirmed the date. So we got that squared away.

Just the handbook instructions on baptism touch on this.

"A baptism must be repeated if the words are not spoken exactly as given in Doctrine and Covenants 20:73. It must also be repeated if part of the person’s body, hair, or clothing is not completely immersed. 18.7.7

Handbook also says out of sequence ordinances must be redone.

I think the Lord will honor any ordinance blessings claimed in good faith.  But I am also convinced that because God's house is a house of order an awful lot of ordinance work will be redone or corrected in the future.  This includes mistakes in genealogical sealings, people who weren't fully immersed at baptism, and those receiving incomplete or changed forms of the endowment.

Everything will be completed as God designed.  Eventually.

Edited January 31, 2021 by JLHPROF

[carbon dioxide]

20 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

You said we have become a very wicked nation and ripe for destruction. Wrong. We are one of the most generous countries in the world. We have beat back socialist dictators around the world,  fought a war to free slaves, we feed other nations, Americans are not just generous with money but also their time. We travel to other countries and supply wells, housing, medical, charities like operation smile and many others. We have almost 100% eradicated slavery from our land while countries like North Korea, China, Pakistan, Russia and a handful of African countries still have modern day slavery. While other countries make women wear certain clothing, head dress, kill them for adultry, kill homosexuals, we on the other hand have worked through those problems and come up with a more humane solution called freedom. I dont know what country you live in, but your not describing the america I know. 

There are good people in the US but the culture is more wicked.  Wicked people do donate money to charity.  Wicked people do good things from time to time.  Overall we are far more wicked in my estimation than 50 years ago.

[carbon dioxide]

19 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Zion will not be established until there are no poor among us and have all things in common. Currently in the church their are multimillionaires and dirt poor. The Lord is not pleased with this.

There is far more dirt poor members than multimillionaires.  Even if every multimillionaire gave all their wealth away not much would be different.  The dirt poor would have just a few more bucks and the multimillionaires will themselves be dirt poor. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

There is far more dirt poor members than multimillionaires.  Even if every multimillionaire gave all their wealth away not much would be different.  The dirt poor would have just a few more bucks and the multimillionaires will themselves be dirt poor. 

I think we’d all be pretty well off, especially considering conversion rates in developing countries (where most poor saints live) and thus the purchasing power of the American dollar. They’d need FAR fewer American dollars to be equivalently wealthy.  You also have to consider that a middle-class life style here would be considered luxuriously rich in many of these countries, so it would likely be done on a more relative scale, pushing the dollar even further.

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by pogi

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, Chum said:

Peoples' realization is influenced by nearly Every. Media. Outlet. reliably amplifying whatever sex trafficking myth is handed to them.

That would seem to indicate we have too much poisoned understanding, instead of not enough.

Currently watching a CNN special called, "Inside the QAnon Conspiracy" the conspiracy theory cult, which has easy over a million followers. I wish the church would come out against this group. It's extremely scary and this is causing home grown terrorists. And who knows the destruction that will come of it, first the US capitol, and then?

So it would be very nice to know the truth about sex trafficking, I know I jumped on the band wagon of Q's "Save the Children" campaign at first because I didn't know where it stemmed from.