Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, I’ve certainly been there. Heck, I still go there from time to time. Let’s see…stuff that convinces me that God exists….
-practical science says that the universe is winding down/fizzing out. However, evolution (physical and spiritual) seems to be going in the opposite direction. That seems in defiance to what we think of as natural laws.
-paradoxes….things that don’t make sense…such as paying tithing to be blessed with financial security…forgetting yourself and serving others results in one having the things they need whereas when one actively seeks the things they need, it doesn’t seem to work out
That’s 2 big ones for me….
I haven’t read this one but, having read 2 of Quinn’s books, I think I’ll pass. He certainly presents himself as an objective historian but, after studying his sources, I’ve found him severely lacking.
This is a link to a letter from F. Collier to “Dr.” Quinn. It certainly opened my eyes.
http://www.zianet.com/collier/quinn.htm Admittedly, he may have produced something more scholarly in M&MWV….
I’ll be interested in hearing the views of someone who reads his stuff and actually follows up on his sources. IMHO he depends on people not doing that.
My opinion only….
“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27). The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that we are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all” (Times and Seasons, Mar. 15, 1842, 732).
I agree with you guys that:
“Pride.
Shame.
Fear
Closed mindedness.
Stagnant in progress/learning.
Getting stuck on law/tradition.
Needing it to define our “goodness”.
Needing it for power or influence or popularity.”
are the result for many but these things aren’t advocated…they seem to stem from human weaknesses and not from what is being taught. In fact, these things are addressed and taught against.
Why, then, do we fall into them?
” The priesthood, baptisms, and other things in the church didn’t just start up as a understood teaching and practice that still is the same today…they were put into practice and then as they understood more from their practice of the principles, things evolved to the church we know today.” Er..uh…
I normally just bite my tongue but I don’t guess I understand that one at all.
With respect…
The priesthood is not/has never been…something “in the church”.
Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdrey, yada/yada all had the priesthood when no “church” existed.
Worlds have been, and continue to be, created by this authority…not the authority of a “church”.
I know…it’s taken me a decade or so to break that mindset…
“A bible, a bible…”
“The church, the church…”
I guess I need to be straightened out as to how baptisms aren’t an “undersood teaching and practice”….
Er..uh.. The priesthood is not a “teaching” or a “practice”.
How is baptism different?
How did “they” understand more from their “practice of the principles”?
Sorry but I really don’t follow this….
However, it wouldn’t be the first/last time I was wrong…
Interesting thread. Certainly we live in a time where values have shifted 180 degrees.
God bestowed on Abraham the most valued blessing possible….lots and lots of posterity.
Of course, for the majority of human history, children have been an economic asset….more kids can do more chores and thus generate a higher standard of living. That is not the case now but I try to remember that “now” may or may not be the correct way of doing things.
Children now tend to be burdens for 18 years and then expect parents to pay their way through an education where they can get married (or not) and raise more burdensome video game players. A large family of burdensome children has become no longer an asset.
I submit that we’re pretty messed up.
I, too, have always had a “Saturday’s Warrior” mentality toward the pre-existance….I’m not sure how doctinal it is however.
“Isn’t forensic discovery how one ultimately finds truth?” Well, it certainly is how one ultimately finds facts. How one looks at those facts discovered can vary wildly in the pursuit of truth IMHO.
I can’t remember not being aware that Joseph had a small pistol that he tried to defend himself and his friends with. I’ve also always felt bad that it misfired. If it had fired properly that might have helped, at least a couple more, of the men involved atone for what they were doing.
I’ve never personallly seen a lamb slaughtered. I will assume that, like any other creature, it will kick and do everything it can to escape it’s assaillant.
That’s speculation on my part but I’ve seen in various anti-Mormon material the idea that Joseph Smith should have been some sort of wimp that would just stand by and see himself and his friends killed and do nothing. I don’t guess I understand that sort of thinking.
My 2 cents….
Another way of looking at it may be that it’s God’s will that the Church members exercise their free agency as to living it and enduring the persecutions or declaring that they weren’t willing to do that. When Charles Penrose wrote the mainfesto, which President Woodruff approved, it was thought by many to be a tool to “beat the devil at his own game”. Only much later did anyone ever consider it any sort of “revelation”. Surely the current day leaders don’t…they are educated men with historical records at their disposal just like the rest of us. (surely?)
God’s stated will is that the principle will be an everlasting law of the priesthood and shall not be taken from the earth again. There”s nothing man can do to stop that.
Just sayin….
Edit:…
After researching that a bit, there is quite a bit of controversy regading the authorship of the manifesto. Penrose writing it alone is one version but I really don’t see any that claim that President Woodruff alone received it as some sort of revelation. I’ve been needing a project to research….this sounds like a good one.
You are so correct. If an individual needs some LDS apologetics-based explanations for disturbing doctrine…fairmormon.org is a wonderful place to look.
Elohim is actually plural but can refer to the “head of an individual group of gods”. It certainly is not an individual’s name.
This is gettin a bit deep….
I’m not sure this is inline with the “mission” of this sight but I guess that’s up to the mods….
“Perhaps Bruce in Montana wants to “work” toward bringing it back.” No, no, no. Sorry if I gave that impression. As far as I’m concerned it is alive and doing well.
It can’t be “brought back” because it’s never gone anywhere. It started out a law of the priesthood, became a law of the Church, and returned to being a law of the priesthood.
It will always be a law of the priesthood whether, or not, the Church gets on board.
You’re probably correct. However, keeping things “hidden” isn’t working out very well IMHO. Just an honest recognition from the Church that they are, well, the Church….not some governing body over the priesthood…not the Kingdom of God (that was set up by the council of 50…not the Church) etc.
Of course it would take a lot of backpeddling but the members would benefit even if the corporation didn’t.
My unsolicited 2 cents only….
Well, I don’t think the Church as a corporation is interested in overturng any laws. There were clear civil laws against polygamy when God commanded that we practice it. The Church has worked hard for a long time to try to explain that a monogamous 1st endowment is somehow “celestial marriage”. How can they turn that around and say “we were mistaken”?
For one thing, it would reduce the number of converts…polygamy would probably be shunned in the 3rd world countries where the most Church growth is happening. However, the biggest thing is IMHO…the Church membership doesn’t want polygamy…it’s not easy to live correctly….it’s much easier just to “fit in”. BY explained that more men would be damned by the principle than saved by it.
It’s very clear from the early prophets that it will always be a law of the priesthood and never be taken from the earth again. When it will become a law of the Church again is anyone’s guess.
I wish more folks understood it as such. It might help those who struggle with Church membership when they find out.
Hey…I’m the one that’s supposed to be spewing all these “apostate splinter-group” doctrines 😆 HiJolly’s buddy Joe makes some good points….I’ve scratched quite a few of my precious remaining hairs out over this stuff.
It really is a beautiful doctrine though….and it makes the temple ceremony (what’s left of it) make so much sense.
Example: (without being too tacky or out-of-line)
“Adam being true and faithfull in all things….yada, yada,…..”
I used to think…”but I’m not Adam”….
Of course you are……..it’s an office…not someone’s name.
That’s medium rare meaty stuff…..
Just sayin…..
With the manifesto, there was no longer any reason to break any civil laws. The “rebel/outsider” mentality started to “fizz out”. (to use the technical terminology 
Taking polygamy away as a requirement was a relief to many. A huge burden was lifted and the people saw statehood and “fitting in” as regular Americans a welcome change.
That’s an understandable reaction from people who perceive themselves as being “good”, but are persecuted for it.
As humans, we want people to like us and think positive things about us. That’s a heck of a conflict when obeying what you consider “God’s law” comes in conflict with the rest of the world thinking that you’re “ok”.
Timpanagos, Just read the “Manti” link…. thanks for posting that.
I can’t help but wonder…for every one person with the guts to come forward like that, how many more silently feel the same way and continue to suffer.
I chose more of the “Fred Collier” path but I totally realize that it’s not for everyone. I’m very much enjoying your posts and sincerely hope you find the path home.
