Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
-a weekly spiritual regimen -the company of others who are trying to find their way home
-a break away from “the world”
-much, much good…even if there are some things a bit uncomfortable
timpanogos, That’s a pretty good summary of the Adam-God doctrine. BY certainly believed and taught it for 20-30 years and claimed (and there is very good evidence in various journals) that Joseph taught it to him as “further light and knowledge”. It goes hand-in-hand with celestial plural marriage so it’s certainly no surprise that the teachings were withdrawn when the majority of the Church chose not to live the “higher laws”.
You are correct…it was absolutely taught at the lecture at the veil in the St. George temple.
The most complete explanation of it IMHO is in a little-known, outside of fundamentalist communities, book by Joseph Musser called “Michael our Father and our God” .
The only thing that you may have left out that helps folks understand is the concept of terms like “God, Christ, Redeemer, Savior, Holy Ghost, etc.” as being offices as opposed to names of individuals. That’s a huge can of worms that has taken me a year or two to understand.
You did a good job of explaining though. Personally, it really helped me to understand parts of the history of the restoration that I was uncomfortable with. Hopefully others can benefit from it as well instead of using it as something else to be uncomfortable with.
I enjoyed your story on the “bullseye”. That’s too bad…and all too common. I don’t pretend to know why the Church discourages thought beyond the manuals but it does seem to cause a lot of folks to leave/question. Hopefully someday things will be put in order. Until then, a lot of folks continue to go and keep their tongues bitten, and others just can’t stand it and stop going. IMHO, the people that keep going and keep quiet are somewhat better off just because they have a standard weekly spiritual regimen…but, I also understand those who choose not to attend at all.
It’s a tough time that we are living in and all is not well in Zion.
I tend to agree with Tom. My going to a restaurant on Sunday is not, in itself, a bad thing but it supports and causes someone else to have to work that day.
Many years ago I worked at a cabinet shop owned by Seventh Day Adventists…great folks by the way. They did everything they could to be home..showered…meals prepared…etc. by Friday night at dark. Their Sabbath, of course lasted until Saturday night at dark. As you can imagine, they lost a lot of money in the building industry by not being available on Friday evenings or Saturdays. It was admirable, IMHO, to see them give that up for their beliefs.
I try to always thing about them when I’m tempted to go fishing, watch “gentile” television programs, etc.
Having said all that…I start a new job on Monday and I’ll probably have to work Sundays for awhile…
We have medical marijuana here in MT also. The problem is, I suppose, that even though marijuana is legal by state law…it is still illegal by federal law as far as I know.
Lots of folks are where you are. The biggest difference is most of them don’t have what it takes to come forward, admit it, and deal with it. Paul said to “prove all things and hold fast to that which is good” (or something like that)
He didn’t admonish us to not question or to ignore our doubts IMHO.
My unsolicited advice for someone is to “root it out”….search the anti-sites, study the apologists’ responses and pray for a knowledge of which, if any, is correct. Of course, there is an adversary that does not want us to do that. This adversary knows the promises that have been made to us regarding lacking knowledge.
Concern over weakening others’ faith is legitimate. Concern over one’s image as a teacher….well….it’s not for me to judge but you probably can answer that one yourself. “Beware of pride” comes to mind.
Good luck on your journey…throw your doubts out there and someone can probably help you with them….sometimes it’s therapeutic just to write things down on paper (or blog screen) instead of mentally tossing them around.
Oh..Oh..Oh…..can I go? 
First of all I need to submit the standard disclaimer….
I describe myself as a Fundamentalist so please consider that while considering my opinion.
To clarify terms, Fundamentalists refer to a sanctified sealing of more than one woman to a man as “celestial plural marriage”. For the same relationship where the sealing is without proper authority OR the participants aren’t living the gospel in other ways, it would be referred to just like the secular world (and the current Church) refers to it….”polygamy”, “bigamy”, etc.
To avoid a bunch of cut & paste, that you may not care to see anyway…I’ll just post a link that explains my beliefs:
http://mormonfundamentalism.org/guides/is-plural-celestial-marriage-essential/ I believe your question is to the original intent of the revelation…..IMHO….yes….it was absolutely a revelation to prepare the Church as a whole for the ushering in of celestial plural marriage as the new and everlasting covenant.
In our opinion, the manifesto took the requirement out of the hands (and off the backs) of the Church and put the practice back in the hands of select people since it is an “everlasting” covenant, and will never be taken from the earth again.
Of course, the current Church opinion is that there will somehow be “monogamous” gods. I think you will find that the teachings of the early prophets of this dispensation never indicate that…to the contrary….many teachings indicate that plural wives are the order of Heaven. However, since the manifesto, monogamous temple sealings have somehow came to represent celestial marriage and the new and everlasting covenant.
With respect to the Church, what else could they do? They just couldn’t pretend that plural marriage was never a requirement. There is only so far that you can twist Sect. 132. The early saints had every right to democraticly (sp?) elect not to live it but that only erases it as a law of the Church….it doesn’t/can’t erase it as a law of the priesthood.
My opinion only….
Opinions will vary wildly….
Disregard at will….
That’s an interesting thought… I would submit that because we don’t have the sealed portion of the BoM, the records of the lost tribes, and no-telling what other records that have not yet come forth….that we’re pretty backward allready.
Would the PoGP help generate a following? There’s not a lot there compared with the Bible or BoM. Also, there is a lot of controversy since we don’t seem to have the papyri that the scriptures came from. (we don’t have the BoM plates either but the papyri still seems to be a real problem for some folks)
Joseph’s sermons on theology may indeed have generated a limited following…many people were converted by him without ever reading the BoM. (in fact, we probably over-estimate the literacy rate of the early converts and falsely assume that they all read the BoM)
Having said all that….the priesthood was restored beginning with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey and there didn’t need to be a BoM around to accomplish that. The priesthood would still be alive and functioning with/without a “church”. Issac, Jacob, etc…all had the priesthood and did just fine and there was, of course, no “church”.
I don’t imagine the results of the restoration, whether it be the mainstream church (if there even would be one) or any of the other groups, would be anything that we would recognize. However, I’m quite sure the Lord could manage to bring His work forth without one of the current works….just as He is doing so without the others.
jmason, I hope you find peace.
The Church does seem to be a bit confused regarding addiction. It’s a disorder that ruins many lives but is should, IMHO, be treated as what it is….a disorder….not a moral or character flaw. I don’t think Joseph Smith Sr. would have been chosen as patriarch if it was that big of a deal, but I could be wrong of course.
I guess, as a fundamentalist-type, I have it a bit easier. Attempting to make the WoW a commandment would be considered contradicting a former revelation due to the fact that Section 89 was given “not by commandment or constraint”. So, living the 4-no’s is not used as a measuring stick although it’s certainly encouraged. However, as a former active Church member, and an alcoholic, I fully understand where you are.
I’m sure you are aware that the Church has their own version of a 12-step program that appears, at first glance, to be a sincere effort on their part to help…instead of just condemn. I really hope you find something that works for you. My sister-in-law is in really bad shape after years of pain-med addiction. It is something that is not being adequately addressed in our society and almost not at all in the Church. Hopefully that will change. Best of luck to you….
So…as Mormons…what should we do to diffuse the hateful tones coming from both sides of the issue? I really haven’t kept up with the Church’s position so I just went to lds.org and did a search on “homosexuality”. There are plenty of talks/comments from various Church leaders…pretty much all saying the same thing…that same-gender attraction isn’t the “sin” but acting on it is….that homosexual acts violate the law of chastity…yada, yada, yada.
(The attitude in the fundamentalist community from the leadership is pretty much the same, if anyone was wondering.)
I really expect this rhetoric to tone down soon. It’s just too much in opposition to societal norms to allow church growth and retention of members IMHO. Until it does, however, there is probably going to continue to be ill feelings on both sides.
We’ll see….hope I’m incorrect.
Gosh borninit…that’s hardcore but understandable. I wish sometimes that the scriptures were a little more vague on the subject.
The only way I can try to empathize with our gay brothers and sisters is to imagine that back in my teens and twenties (with the hormones raging) someone had told me that the gender I’m attracted to (females by the way) is a sin and I should remain celibate and that God considered my participating in any physical contact with them an abomination. Would I have done it anyway?
It’s very uncomfortable to say that “Hey bud…your most powerful inclination is wrong and it’s up to you to suppress it”, when I don’t have that inclination myself.
However, (and there’s always that “however”) God has spoken on the subject for millennia and I don’t think he stuttered.
[So, how do we avoid battle rhetoric no matter what our perspective is?]
My opinion only…
Wish I was wrong but can’t see it…
Thanks for that, Ray. These guys are awesome too. Check out “Emma” and “Candles”.
http://www.nashvilletributeband.com/videos.html I was at a stake conference many years ago and Hartman Rector Jr. was the keynote. He said something about music that i still remember (paraphrasing) “You’ll feel the spirit in this song. You see…all the good music has already been written on the other side. You don’t think Beethoven actually surprised the Lord with anything he wrote, do you? A composer or writer just “taps into” that from time to time. Unfortunately, all the bad music has already been written on the other side as well”
Food for thought.
My views probably differ from most here but that’s really not important. I would say, with respect to MWallace, that it’s really wishful thinking to assume that this issue will not become a political, cultural, and spiritual war. There are embedded feelings (or prejudices if you like) in the Church against homosexuality that will take much longer to purge than it has for mainstream society.
I will agree, however, that the Church will necessarily have to become more and more lax on this issue.
There is much more scriptural condemnation for homosexual behavior than there ever was for, say, blacks in the priesthood. Also, blacks had been integrated and accepted into society for much longer than gays have.
It has to happen for growth to occur, of course, but I certainly expect a bit of a war.
My opinion only….
Quote:And I think about how Christ viewed women, and then how JS and the early sisters seem to differ from our traditions today and couple that with the women’s roles in the temple, and it makes me wonder if we perhaps aren’t living with every single part of the gospel restored. I am off the deep end here?
Careful, Poppyseed….you’re thinking like one of those fundamentalists.I would offer as food-for-thought that one thing that may have contributed to a percieved loss of respect for women in the mainstream Church is the cessation of the second endowment. In fact, I have known Church members who aren’t even aware that the second annointing was ever practiced or is necessary.
The first endowment only seals us up “to become” king/queens…priests/priestesses. The second endowment seals us “AS” kings/queens…priests and priestesses. Even though we haven’t been granted a kingdom yet, we (both man and woman) have our calling and election made sure and are both very much priesthood holders. I would submit that this led to greater respect for women at the beginning of the restoration.
Why the importance of that ordinance is being neglected for now, I’m not exactly sure.
Fundamentalist opinion only…
Mileage will vary…
