Jump to content

Lesson 11 - False Doctrines of the Last Days


Recommended Posts

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Believing as I do in the divinity and authority of the Church of Jesus Christ, I’m confident it would never make such a change, whatever public outcry or pressure might come to bear within or outside of the membership. I used the descriptor “baseless” advisedly to characterize the expectation of such a change. 

That's what people used to say about plural marriage. If I believed in the divinity and authority of the church, I would certainly not presume to tell it or its leaders what it should or would do under any circumstances. 

Link to comment
Just now, jkwilliams said:

That's what people used to say about plural marriage. If I believed in the divinity and authority of the church, I would certainly not presume to tell it or its leaders what it should or would do under any circumstances. 

It’s not a matter of telling them what to do. It’s a matter of what I’ve come to expect from those who have been anointed to the holy apostleship and who act unitedly under authority from Jesus Christ. 

Link to comment
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not a matter of telling them what to do. It’s a matter of what I’ve come to expect from those who have been anointed to the holy apostleship and who act unitedly under authority from Jesus Christ. 

Then your expectations are no different from anyone else's. I know faithful Latter-day Saints who do think there will be such a change, based on what they expect from church leaders. 

https://nateoman.substack.com/p/a-welding-link-of-some-kind

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Then your expectations are no different from anyone else's. I know faithful Latter-day Saints who do think there will be such a change, based on what they expect from church leaders. 

https://nateoman.substack.com/p/a-welding-link-of-some-kind

To the extent that they have such expectation, they are misguided and they ignore repeated teachings from the inspired leadership of the Church. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, that’s what some said about plural marriage. 

That's a really bad analogy given that:

  1. Plural marriage has a biblical and Book of Mormon scriptural precedent for being established during specific periods of time and revoked in other periods of time (i.e Jacob 2:30). 
  2. It was easy for some to confuse the "new and everlasting covenant" of marriage (i.e. celestial marriage) with plural marriage.  They are separate situations, even though both involve the new and everlasting covenant.

What revealed precedent(s) do you have for same-sex marriages that will turn this into a fair comparison to the plural marriage issue?

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
8 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And still do, honestly. 

 

6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Yeah, I've met a few of those. I've even met members who would love to reverse President Kimball's priesthood revelation.

I, on the other hand, have never consciously met a Church member who desired to bring back plural marriage or to reverse the revelation given to President Kimball. This after a lifetime in the Church. 
 

I guess we don’t run with similar crowds. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It would be a huge change, but I suspect they would make that change if they felt digging their heels in was hurting their cause. Who knows? 

You didn’t elaborate on your intended meaning of “hurting their cause,” so I can only guess at it. 
 

If by that you mean the Church suffering a drastic loss in total membership (not just a slackening in growth rate), well, I think the leaders will likely bear in mind that the Savior Himself, during His mortal ministry, suffered an exodus of many of His followers as a result of His speaking the truth to them, to the point that He asked His loyal disciples, “Will ye also go away?” to which they responded, “Where shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” 
 

If what you meant was the Church might one day suffer tyrannical control by government because of its marriage practices, Heaven help us as a nation or a world if we should ever suffer such egregious deprivation of religious liberty. I should think the end of the world and attendant destruction of the wicked would not be far off if that occurs. 
 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If what you meant was the Church might one day suffer tyrannical control of government because of its marriage practices,

I can easily see the Church dropping marrying anyone if any government required same sex marriages being performed by anyone given the legal right to legally marry individuals to each other much as they dropped marrying couples in the temple when a government required a public marriage and instead now only provides the sealing ceremony in those countries.  I personally don’t see a government requiring an organization to provide all their citizens the same legal service if a government is acknowledging any individual or organization as a legal representative for those legal services as tyrannical, merely being consistent in applying the law.

Now if a government got involved in telling a church who they could provide non legal, religious only ceremonies for whatever those might be, whether baptisms, communion, religious marriages (iow a ceremony with only religious significance that provides no effect on legal status), endowments, sealings, confession, holy orders, healings, etc., that I would see as tyrannical as that is interfering in matters solely of belief.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can easily see the Church dropping marrying anyone if any government required same sex marriages being performed by anyone given the legal right to legally marry individuals to each other much as they dropped marrying couples in the temple when a government required a public marriage and instead now only provides the sealing ceremony in those countries.  I personally don’t see a government requiring an organization to provide all their citizens the same legal service if a government is acknowledging any individual or organization as a legal representative for those legal services as tyrannical, merely being consistent in applying the law.

Now if a government got involved in telling a church who they could provide non legal, religious only ceremonies for whatever those might be, whether baptisms, communion, religious marriages (iow a ceremony with only religious significance that provides no effect on legal status), endowments, sealings, confession, holy orders, healings, etc., that I would see as tyrannical as that is interfering in matters solely of belief.

Your latter scenario is more what I was envisioning when I used the word tyrannical. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You didn’t elaborate on your intended meaning of “hurting their cause,” so I can only guess at it. 
 

If by that you mean the Church suffering a drastic loss in total membership (not just a slackening in growth rate), well, I think the leaders will likely bear in mind that the Savior Himself, during His mortal ministry, suffered an exodus of many of His followers as a result of His speaking the truth to them, to the point that He asked His loyal disciples, “Will ye also go away?” to which they responded, “Where shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” 
 

If what you meant was the Church might one day suffer tyrannical control by government because of its marriage practices, Heaven help us as a nation or a world if we should ever suffer such egregious deprivation of religious liberty. I should think the end of the world and attendant destruction of the wicked would not be far off if that occurs. 
 

I doubt the church will suffer tyrannical control by government because of its marriage practices again. It's happened before, and it wasn't the end of the world, metaphorically speaking. No, I just expect the church to act like any other human institution and make changes as needed to ensure its continued growth. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I doubt the church will suffer tyrannical control by government because of its marriage practices again. It's happened before, and it wasn't the end of the world, metaphorically speaking. No, I just expect the church to act like any other human institution and make changes as needed to ensure its continued growth. 

So in other words, you expect the Church will knuckle under to public pressure and abandon long-held and repeatedly emphasized doctrines and principles (think “The Family: a Proclamation to the World”). 
 

Continued growth is good, but it’s not the end-all-and-be-all. It is to be expected from prophecy that the Savior’s Church, in preparation for His coming in glory, will set up a global presence — an infrastructure, as it were — but not achieve numerical dominance, not before the Second Coming. In fact, the prophecy, unfolded through Nephi’s vision, explicitly states that the Church’s numbers would be few as a consequence of the devil’s widespread influence. 
 

Abandoning long-taught beliefs pertaining to the family and the plan of salvation would, in fact, work against, not promote, the preparation that the Church is undertaking for the coming of Christ. 

Link to comment
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

So in other words, you expect the Church will knuckle under to public pressure and abandon long-held and repeatedly emphasized doctrines and principles (think “The Family: a Proclamation to the World”). 
 

Continued growth is good, but it’s not the end-all-and-be-all. It is to be expected from prophecy that the Savior’s Church, in preparation for His coming in glory, will set up a global presence — an infrastructure, as it were — but not achieve numerical dominance, not before the Second Coming. In fact, the prophecy, unfolded through Nephi’s vision, explicitly states that the Church’s numbers would be few as a consequence of the devil’s widespread influence. 
 

Abandoning long-taught beliefs pertaining to the family and the plan of salvation would, in fact, work against, not promote, the preparation that the Church is undertaking for the coming of Christ. 

I don't see it as knuckling under, just an acknowledgement that the world has changed. It's not like the church hasn't done that before. 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't see it as knuckling under, just an acknowledgement that the world has changed. It's not like the church hasn't done that before. 

Not on matters so central and crucial to its doctrinal structure as the family and eternal exaltation. It would be tantamount to the Church conceding that sexual relations outside of marriage are perfectly fine. That hasn’t happened in the 50-some years of the “sexual revolution.” 
 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not on matters so central and crucial to its doctrinal structure as the family and eternal exaltation. It would be tantamount to the Church conceding that sexual relations outside of marriage are perfectly fine. That hasn’t happened in the 50-some years of the “sexual revolution.” 
 

As far as I can tell, it wouldn't concede that sex outside of marriage is fine. We are talking about acceptance of same-sex marriage, are we not? Either way, I am no prophet, so I have no idea what will happen. I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me that much.

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As far as I can tell, it wouldn't concede that sex outside of marriage is fine. We are talking about acceptance of same-sex marriage, are we not? Either way, I am no prophet, so I have no idea what will happen. I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me that much.

You might not concede it, but a lot of people believe it. What we are talking about is speculation that the Church will cave in to societal pressure and abandon core beliefs and standards after they become widely rejected. I’m drawing a comparison to say it didn’t happen with the sexual revolution and there’s no reason to think it would have to happen with the redefinition of marriage. 

Link to comment
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

You might not concede it, but a lot of people believe it. What we are talking about is speculation that the Church will cave in to societal pressure and abandon core beliefs and standards after they become widely rejected. I’m drawing a comparison to say it didn’t happen with the sexual revolution and there’s no reason to think it would have to happen with the redefinition of marriage. 

Again, it probably depends on whether maintaining the teachings affects continued growth and survival for the church. Organizations adapt. 

Link to comment
On 10/24/2022 at 12:39 PM, jkwilliams said:

That's what people used to say about plural marriage. If I believed in the divinity and authority of the church, I would certainly not presume to tell it or its leaders what it should or would do under any circumstances. 

100 years later it's easy to dismiss plural marriage as not central to church doctrine. I mean, it's not like members back then were willing to go to jail over it is it?

Link to comment
10 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, it probably depends on whether maintaining the teachings affects continued growth and survival for the church. Organizations adapt. 

I would submit that survival is a given. John the Baptist told Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey the priesthood and it’s keys will never again be taken from the earth. 

As for “continued growth,” I don’t think you’re getting my point that beyond the Church establishing a global presence, “continued growth” is not essential to the fulfillment of prophecy and to the Church accomplishing its objective to prepare for the Second Coming. It does the Church no good to shed its core identity by “adapting” to shifting worldly whims in a quest for continued growth.  

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
7 hours ago, CA Steve said:

100 years later it's easy to dismiss plural marriage as not central to church doctrine. I mean, it's not like members back then were willing to go to jail over it is it?

It’s still as much a part of the doctrine of Jesus Christ as it ever was. The passage in Jacob that InCognitus cited teaches us that the Lord, for His own purposes, will temporarily institute plural marriage among His people, and when He does, they are expected to obey His commandments pertaining to it. When he does not, they are to have nothing to do with it. 

Link to comment
On 9/11/2022 at 1:04 PM, marineland said:

I'm into lesson 11 of the manual (Religion 275) now and have some questions.

"False prophets and false teachers ... also attempt to redefine the nature of the Godhead,..."

What are some examples of false views of the nature of the Godhead? 

Prior to Jesus and the Holy Ghost being born of heavenly parents, did the Godhead consist solely 
of Heavenly Father?

That is a false doctrine in itself. Nowhere in scripture or revelation talks about "heavenly parents". You don't have to go that far.

Link to comment
On 9/11/2022 at 1:04 PM, marineland said:

I'm into lesson 11 of the manual (Religion 275) now and have some questions.

"False prophets and false teachers ... also attempt to redefine the nature of the Godhead,..."

What are some examples of false views of the nature of the Godhead? 

Prior to Jesus and the Holy Ghost being born of heavenly parents, did the Godhead consist solely 
of Heavenly Father?

Not long ago I posted in relationship to somebody that committed suicide while in the midst of very-very troubling circumstances. Details which I decided not to share due to their nature. I commented on how the service was laced with what can be easily described as heresies and lies. I shared scriptures to support my position. But the number of people that pointed to my insensitivity, lack of empathy and outright "ignorance about the work of God" was a mile long.

My wife while reading your post suggested I try to make the point again. Here it is. If a person dies in sin it remains in sin. There are no second chances to redo and repent. This is the time to meet God (Alma 34). The same truth is articulated in Helaman 13. One that has procrastinated their repentance until "it is everlastingly too late" find themselves cut off from salvation and exaltation. 

"There is no such thing as a second chance to gain salvation. This life is the time and the day of our probation. After this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed." Bruce R. McConkie June 1, 1980 "The Seven Deadly Heresies"

I know, based on prior experience, that we find ourselves in the post-Apostolic era of the LDS Church. Many no longer truly believe (although would not articulate so in public) that they are entitled to their own personal revelation regardless of the teaching of the Church. In part, because we can no longer differentiate between revelation and policy. Given that the Church announces a revelation/policy and based on public blowback and social media pressure it reverses course within days. Whatever the case may be. Here is one of those modern day heresies that are articulated right from our pulpits without correction.

Link to comment
On 10/24/2022 at 12:03 PM, teddyaware said:

A question: If Christ was fully human during his sojourn on earth, complete with male sex organs, do you also believe his body produced seed in the same way every healthy male human body produces seed, or do you believe he was sterile?

I believe Jesus was able but that he was not married nor had intimate relations with a woman.

Can we revisit a question I think I asked you before. 

Do you believe Heavenly Father was once an eternal intelligence who then became a spirit child
of his heavenly parents who then became a man who then became the God of our Earth?

Edited by theplains
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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