Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ray said:
Quote:“My own take on this is that the false traditions of OUR fathers will be removed slowly, bit by bit, bitter fruit by bitter fruit – not any faster than the general church membership can bear it. I believe that is why the Priesthood ban took so long to be lifted – that the Lord waited to give the revelation until the Church as a whole was ready to receive it.”
Wow…what a 180 degree viewpoint from my own. That’s a very interesting way to look at things. I’m glad you said it that way Ray. It really helps to see how many in the mainstream Church think these days. I just read Jacob 5 and can see how one could read it that way.
The fundamentalist viewpoint, of course, is that a stream is always purest at it’s source. The removal of the concessions that have been made to fit in with the Gentiles will constitute the “final pruning”.
How in the world all Mormons are ever going to come to a consensus on things so important, I just don’t know. It’s going to take some sort of major event to set things in order IMHO.
Do you guys that feel this way feel that it is just coincidence that each of these “bitter fruits” being removed cause the mainstream Church to fit in with the secular world just a little more?
I suppose some of us look at things like homosexual behavior being viewed as good in our society as progression toward God-like behavior, and some of us view it as going in the opposite direction. I don’t think there is any middle ground, but I could be wrong of course.
My opinion only….
The Church will ablsolutely have to bend to the “will of the country” regarding homosexuality. The Church is a corporation.
In a capitalist society, the only way a corporation can continue to exist is to grow.
In order to grow among secularism, one must make concessions if your doctine is anti-secular.
We saw it with plural marriage.
We saw it with blacks in the priesthood.
We’re witnessing it with the gays.
I’m not sure what will be the next biggie but I would guess it would be women in the priesthood.
My guess only…..
Interesting discussion. Our early prophets, BY especially, were pretty clear when warning us about “fitting in with the world”. IMHO, if you’re not being persecuted because of your religion…you aint’ doin it right.
I don’t like taking things out of context but, for the sake of brevity, Section 85 speaks of the eventual coming of “one mighty and strong” to “set in order the house of God”. I submit that if the house of God isn’t first “out of order” then there would be no need.
There is, indeed, a division that seems to be widening quickly between conservative mormons and liberal mormons….internet mormons and chapel mormons….TBM’s and NOM’s….etc… not to mention us nutty fundamentalists.
The division probably always existed to an extent but the internet has allowed such a free flow of information that it has increased the speed of the division. I wish the day would hurry up that we come to a “unity of the faith”. I unfortunately doubt that it will happen before there is a fairly significant falling away, however. I sincerely hope I’m incorrect.
I don’t think it’s any secret, or even a taboo subject, to acknowledge that the trend of the Church since the 1st manifesto has been to be more and more accomodating to the world. In a way….if you’re goal is growth…you have to be.
I don’t know what it’s going to take to bring us all together. Someone a heck of a lot more insightful than I am once said something to the effect that ” the Lord will return no sooner than there is a people ready for Him”. That’s pretty spooky to me in that I don’t see a “people ready for Him” on earth. I don’t think that a fragmented church will cut it. A few thousand fundamentalists trying to live watered-down versions of the United Order? … probably not.
It’s tough…of course the fundamentalist view is that the “mother” church and the “father” priesthood will be reunited. It seems to me as that would take someone coming up through the ranks of the GA’s to be a bit more accomodating. I certainly don’t see it happening anytime soon. Once again…I hope I’m full of it.
Fundamentalist ramblings….
Usual disclaimers…
Scientific and historical evidence is indeed important but, I respectfully submit, we should keep that in perspective and not fall into worshipping science instead of diety. It wasn’t long ago that science proved the earth to be flat, etc…. In a hundred years or so, IMHO, our science will be considered primitive, full of errors, and maybe even laughable. Just look at the science from 100 years ago.
Is it wise to throw the gospel out the window if it doesn’t seem to agree with today’s science?
“Why are entire organizations set up by the church to solely refute any new evidence that is deemed faith-damaging?”
Gosh, I don’t thing the organizations are set up to “refute” any evidence…rather they are set up to objectively challenge accusations and provide a balanced viewpoint….although I certainly see how you could view it that way.
“JS saw the BoM history all over New England, every skeleton dug up or arrowhead found had a place in the BoM, the kinderhook plates were an account by a descendant of Ham, Far West had BoM history all over it, the BoA papyri, Kirkland, Independence, Native Americans ect….”
Well, maybe the skeletons/arrowheads do fit into the BoM. Brother Joseph tells us that the BoM is a history of the principle ancestors of the American Indians. “Principle” can simply mean “most important” as opposed to what the critics have accused him of implying.
Some research into the kinderhook thing shows that he really didn’t “sign on” to that as much as the critics would have us believe.
BoA papyri?….not a problem. Another lame attempt by the critics. The critics’ claims really don’t hold water.
I’m not sure where you’re going with “Kirtland, Independence, Native Americans” but I remember a comment from the PBS special “the Mormons”.
“If you insist on empiricism (sp?), you have no business with a religious view” (or something like that)
“We cannot escape the words of the prophet, nor can we escape the evidence that refutes such claims. To me that is the struggle.”
Nor should we. I simply suggest that we be careful with the term “evidence”. We’re Christians for goodness sake. We don’t seem to have a problem with the lack of “evidence” that a person can rise from the dead…why all this obsession over things that are, comparitively, small potatoes?
My opinion only…
Usual disclaimer…
I’ve always wondered about this exact subject. Whan asked what the members of the newly-founded church should refer to him as (president, reverend, etc.) Joseph Smith replied, “Brother Joseph suits me”.
If it was good enough for him, why all this “Bishop this”, or “President that”?
It does seem a bit pompous.
Wow… I was a convert later in life and didn’t experience that at such a young age.
That’s wonderful and I didn’t mean to belittle someone’s spiritual experience.
Thanks for sharing that.
May we all become as little children again.
I think that’s a requirement…
This was one of my ultimate pet peeves when I was an active member of the mainstream church. Little children don’t “know” didly-squat. They’re not old enough to separate fantasy from reality. I have seen mothers stand by their 4-5 year olds and “coach” them on Fast Sunday……”I know the church is true”….”I know Joseph Smith is a prophet”…..
🙄 That’s just messed up and a tradition of mainstream mormonism that I hope is not still going on.
Maybe the term “I know” could evolve to “I believe”….. but still….IMHO kids should not be brainwashed that way.
Holy mackerel….I’m starting to sound like you guys and I’m the resident fundamentalist.
😆 Good points. And if one looks at Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Jehovah, Christ, etc. as office/titles (which they are) instead of the names of individuals (which they are not), the whole thing opens up.
Fundamentalist opinion only…
Mileage varies wildly…
Interesting thread… Without getting overly philosophical, I think humans have a mind that cannot concieve of it’s own non-existance.
Now, do we invent spirituality, religion, afterlifes, etc. to deal with this? ….or does the fact that an afterlife exists cause the mind to have this condition?
Interesting discussion. If I could interject just a few comments in Brother Joseph’s defense… “1) Book of Mormon teaches against polygamy.”
It does indeed, but I submit that it is addressing a people who had fell into wickedness at that time…not everyone.
“2) Angel with sword? Come on, angels do not have bodies. How could an angel be toting a sword?”
We can only assume that this is a resurrected being being referred to. If I could share just a couple of instances of sword-toting angels….
To Balaam and his donkey:
Numbers 22:23 And the ass saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.
v31 Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.
To David:
1 Chronicles 21:16 And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the Lord stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders of Israel, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces.
v27 And the Lord commanded the angel; and he put up his sword again into the sheath thereof.
v30 But David could not go before it to enquire of God: for he was afraid because of the sword of the angel of the Lord
Etc, Etc…
There’s too much to address in blog format but, if I could respectfully submit, Joseph Smith was put in a heck of a situation. He did the best he could under the circumstances IMHO.
I agree that things don’t seem to “add up” using our 21st century monogamous values. The question may be..do we hold God to our values and traditions?
Just sayin….
mileage may vary…
That’s sad…and so typical of the attitude that prevails with those of us who have objectionably studied early Church history. May I offer, as a recently “converted” fundamentalist, the idea that all dispensations of the truth have an almost immediate “falling away” by the people the gospel is offered to? The only difference now is that this is the last one and certain “eternal principles” have been promised to continue.
A monumental war is being fought between truth and “almost truth”.
Did Joseph Smith write (as in “made up”) the BoM?
No.
Did he “fabricate” the PoGP?
No.
How in the heck can I say that? Am I some wacko dime-a-dozen apologetic that hangs on to any plausable excuse to look past historical “facts”?
No, I’m not.
As wacky as it seems….
As boring as it presents itself to us “educated” intellectuals…
As contradictory as it is to “authorities” like Quinn or Bushman….
The “father” priesthood, and the “mother” Church are temporarily separated…
As with any family, such a separation causes tremendous termoil for us children….
Things will be set in order soon….
Hang in there.
My opinion only…
Throw rocks at me at will….
We, of course, disagree on Section 132 which makes further explanation rather fruitless. I could argue most of the above but I’m not sure anyone would benefit. I’ll just defer to answering the questions:
“Does God command men to take slaves as wives? A slave has no option, btw. Is that what God thinks about women?”
Well, I don’t see a lot of records of that although He certainly seems to have with Hagar. I’m going to guess that becoming Abraham’s wife/concubine actually elevated her status instead of degrading her. I don’t know that, of course…just speculation.
“My question is-are both the sealings binding? Does she have 2 husbands in the afterlife? If not, why are the sealings for her not binding like they are for a man?”
As far as I know, neither Church leaders or fundamentalist leaders have ever clarified whether or not a woman sealed to two men would be in a polyandous afterlife. My guess is we just don’t know yet.
Let’s see: “Did BY not teach that the more wives you have the larger your kingdom (dominion) would be? “
Yes he did. He also taught that more would be damned by this principle than saved by it so, I can only assume, that he was refering to those who could manage to live it in a rightous manner.
“Are the wives of a polygamist his equal? I thought that the woman must be obedient to the husband. This puts her in a lesser role. It makes it incredibly easy (and tempting) for him to practice unrighteous dominion.”
I don’t know that any 2 persons are “equal” but I think I understand your meaning. In priesthood matters, women should defer to the man’s judgement, as long as he is a rightous man. In the higher and more difficult callings such as raising children, teaching them proper values, etc., I believe that the man should defer to the woman’s judgement.
You are so right that it is a system that would be easy for an unrightous man to abuse.
” In D&C 132 a man is exempt from the “law of Sarah” if the first wife says no! That means she has no say and is not on equal footing.”
OK..we have a good man who knows that his exaltation depends upon living this principle and a woman who balks. He has a choice…go behind her back (Fannie Alger comes to mind) or lose his exaltation in the eternities by trying to “get along”.
Interesting choice…wanna reach exaltation for the next trillion years or so, or keep the peace for a few?
“Who decided who got more than one wife? The man with authority (power).”
Yep…there is one man one earth at a time that has that authority according to scripture. Yes, he is a man…capable of mistakes…
“The men with the most authority. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young took the wives of other men-righteous members of the church.”
Well, “took the wives” might be a bit strong. I don’t think there was much “Hey baby, come run away with me”. However there were time & eternity sealings to women already civilly (sp?) married to good men. It’s speculated by some fundamentalists that Joseph, at least, recognized individuals from the preexistance that he should offer the chance of being sealed to him. I know that sounds like a cheap apologetic cop-out for those who choose to view it that way.
” I’m sure you are aware that BY taught that women were made to marry and bear children. That is what polygamy is for. Well, where does that leave the infertile woman?”
Well, I suppose that leaves her in a wonderful position of being able to devote her time to blessing others. I don’t think that BY’s ever implied that bearing children was the ONLY reason for celestial plural marriage.
“I also have an ancestor who was a polygamist wife of a sterile man (William Horne Dame who was SP during MMM). What was the purpose of him having 6 or 8 wives?”
Maybe to teach him, and them, selflessness and the order of things in the eternities? I, of course, have no idea.
“Then when he died she got to be a polygamist wife of someone else.”
So she wasn’t left alone and without support?
“I’m not trying to be inflammatory or rude. These are the complexities that people are dealing with.”
Nor are you….These are complexities indeed and deserve to be addressed.
My opinion…..
For the 1 1/2 cents that it’s worth….
