Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well…since you asked … Thomas Aquinas (sp?), St John of the Cross, Mother Teresa, St. Augustine, etc. all expressed doubts of the existence of God. None of them had any personal visitations from resurected beings that I’m aware of.
We are so fortunate, IMHO, to live in the last dispensation where all that is cleared up.
I think there is a profound difference between doubt (which we all have) and disbelief.
I don’t think you’ll find Joseph Smith expressing any doubts.
Just my 2 cents….
Mileage may vary.
Interesting posts all. The way I’ve always thought of it, this is the last dispensation and many spirits have been saved to come forth now.
Plural marriage may not have been a commandment for the whole body of believers in Biblical times, which makes it a “NEW and Everlasting” covenant.
The arguement would be that the new and everlasting covenant was monogamous sealings….either first or second annointings….I don’t read it or understand it that way.
Personally if something doesn’t seem to line up with what’s Biblical, I dismiss the Biblical. I figure a spring is always purest at it’s source and the Bible just doesn’t measure up to the knowledge that we need for these last times….too much left out, changed, and mistranslated IMHO. I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t use the Bible to judge the BoM or revelations given to our early prophets in this dispensation.
That’s just me though.
This is a good thread with some great insights.
My opinion only…
Mileage may vary.
Yep, it doesn’t instill a lot of faith in our children when the most harmful drugs like alcohol are legal, and marijuana is not. How are we supposed to get them to respect the rest of our laws when they see such hypocracy?
I don’t want my kids/grandchildren using any drugs but if I had to make a choice between the two, I’d choose marijuana for them any day.
That’s hard to type.
My opinion only…
Mileage may vary.
Well, the complete revealed version of “the endowment” was recorded at the request of Brigham Young by L. John Nutall in his journals. It’s a bit “meatish” for today’s average Church members and is probably nothing one would want to explore who is having doubts regarding the gospel.
It seems the nature of many of us to want to skip ahead to the “mysteries of the gospel” when we have not build a firm foundation in the essential principles.
At least that has always been my problem
My opinion only…
Mileage may vary.
I’ve just gotta comment… We’re taught throughout the scriptures not to “tempt God”.
This is the one thing where He asks us to “bring it on”.
“Prove me…”
It’s not so convincing if you have a fair amont of disposable income but for those who don’t (I’ve been there) it IS a challenge. I can honestly say that for those I know that have put it to the test….myself included…..God comes through with his part of the bargain and more.
My opinion only …
Mileage may vary…
(but I’m guessing not much)
Have a great weekend everyone.
Oops…I was typing while your were posting Ray…sorry
Well, I’m not sure that women in a celestial plural marriage would need to be temple worthy. Maybe God had plans for the children/grandchildren/great grandchildren that superceded their mothers’ religions? … Especially in a patriarchal society like was the rule back then. As to why concubines aren’t accepted in the LDS church….I would submit that since the beginning of the institution of the New and Everlasting covenant, any wife other than the first wife has been a spiritual sealing (a concubine in ancient times) with no secularly-legal marriage “license”. It’s just terminology…these days we would refer to a non-civily-married spouse as a plural wife….back then when women were regarded just a little bit higher than property, they were called “concubines”.
You are so correct that the scriptures regarding this don’t match the context of the Bible. With respect…that, among many other things, was the reason for the restoration.
Please keep in mind that I have fundamentalist views that differ from the present mainstream church on certain issues.
My opinion only…
Mileage may vary.
heber13, It’s admirable that you are aware of the effects that your own struggle has on those around you. I do think that it’s just part of the deal though.
Paul said to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. (or something close to that)
Proving all things may last for thousand of years. As long as we’re striving to do that, we’ll be OK.
The only 2 cent piece of advice I would offer is to be careful about trying to resolve doubts. I got hung up in that for awhile. I did better when I just strived to seek fearlessly for the truth. The doubts took care of themselves.
Of course that was just me…
My opinion only…
Mileage may vary.
“Certainly Abraham never seems to have claimed that God commanded him to take Hagar–Sarah proposed Abraham take Hagar as a wife. “ (sorry, I can’t figure out the quote thing)
With respect mormonheretic…Section 132 verse 34 reads: “God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife.”
I guess my question would be: What is God commanding Abraham to do here if it’s not to take Hagar as a plural wife? Maybe I’m reading it wrong.
As a fundamentalist, I of course am biting my tongue through this part of the thread. It’s not my objective, nor would it serve any usefull purpose, to engage in any polygamy vs anti-polygamy exchanges. That wouldn’t be in the spirit of helping others who may be having doubts about the gospel. However, I don’t see how anyone can read Section 131 2-4 (which speaks of the conditions of exaltation) and then read Section 132 and not see that the New and Everlasting covenant IS celestial plural marriage. I was a member of the mainstream Church for many years and remember the explanations (I even remember teaching lessons on it as an EQP) but I honestly never read it open-mindedly. It can hit you like a ton of bricks when you read it objectively.
Of course, one is free to believe that Joseph Smith erred and that Section 132 is not a true revelation.
As always..
My opinion only..
Mileage may vary.
Good points guys. Maybe I should rephrase my comments and call the things that should not change “essential principles”. I think Joseph Smith uses the term “ordinances” interchangably and it does cause a bit of confussion.
The “essential principles” of the gospel, we are taught, were introduced or established before this world was formed and should not change, but I agree with you guys that the outward expression of them does change.
Examples of stuff that should not change IMHO:
Baptism by immersion
Laying on of hands to bless others
Knowing the true nature of God
etc
“Endowment” is another term that Joseph used that the meaning has changed a bit. The endowments in the Kirtland Temple were certainly not what Mormons think of as “the endowment”.
Until we’re all speaking the pure Adamic language again, we’re going to continue having these semantic problems
I believe that missionaries do require new converts to live what they call the Word of Wisdom as a prerequisite for baptism. They don’t, of course, require that they live Section 89. Section 89 is mostly dietary. It can be argued that preservation of meat has changed since the revelation and that may be true.
What missionaries commonly refer to as the WoW is the 4 NO’s.
No tea
No alcohol
No coffee
No tobacco
and I believe that recently No illicit drugs has been added.
Yes, it’s true that Joseph Smith enjoyed an occasional beer or glass of wine. Brigham Young even recommended a shot of brandy for medicinal purposes.
You may find that how strict the authorities are on adherence to the 4 NO’s varies with region as well. I would think that it should be based on degree of adherence. In other words, a person who has a glass of wine once a week is by no means the same as a person who drinks a six-pack every day.
It would be nice if the Church would think of it that way but I understand why they don’t. There would be no way to control it and it could seem like an open ticket for members to start indulging in what would, for many, become addictions.
I’m sure that many people have their own interpretation of what compliance with the WoW is and have said that they are complying before baptism when … according to the Church’s interpretation, they weren’t. That would be between the person, their conscience and God, I would think.
I do hope that things work out for you though. You may change your mind about the tithing issue in the future but that wouldn’t keep you from becoming baptised anyway.
My opinion only…
Mileage may vary.
Joseph Smith was pretty clear, IMHO, on ordinances and principles not changing. TPJS 181 A key: Every principle proceeding from God is eternal and any principle which is not eternal if of the devil.
TPJS 264 The Gospel has always been the same; the ordinances to fulfill its requirements the same.
I respectfully submit that the Church can be a bit out of order on a few things and still be fulfulling a devine purpose. One shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and should instead look at the good the Church does.
I think some folks will fall away from the Church over the fact that it’s becoming more and more secular because they are actually looking for a reason to not live the rigid requirements. I’ve seen it for years and was somewhat guilty of it myself at one time. It feels so much better to blame the Church than to admit that you don’t have the intestinal fortitude to endure to the end….or that you’ve just become apathetic.
D&C 85 verse 7 speaks of one coming to set in order the house of God. Well, why would it need setting in order if it wasn’t first out of order? I don’t think Church members should worry too much about it. Everything is going to be set right eventually. It’s a full-time job just trying to live the commandments and do the things we need to be doing.
My opinion only…
Mileage may vary
Regarding the question whether Joseph transcended faith due to his knowledge, I would have to answer….yeah. What I mean is after you have seen resurected beings, it takes a little less faith. At least I think it would for me.
If I had visions, heavenly visitations, had an angel show me the location of ancient records, and had resurected beings lay their hands on me I might feel that I had a few more answers than most people. That’s probably only human. IMHO.
And yes, I might get a little cockey and make some quick assumptions that I might should have considered longer.
He was not an educated man and had no “how to usher in the last dispensation” instructions. I think he did a great job.
I caught myself staring at the title of this thread “Trying to make sense of Joseph Smith”. I respectfully submit that we cannot make sense of him anymore than any other pre-civil war person. We simply don’t live in that world.
I wrestled with it for years and finally came to the conclusion that I was trying to make Joseph Smith fit my world view instead of trying to understand his.
Whether we are liberal Mormon, conservative Mormon, or fundamentalist (like me) we are blessed and fortunate to have such a wonderful man at the head of this dispensation of the gospel.
Letting misunderstandings over early Church doctrines and practices challenge one’s faith is common but unnecessary. There are lots of great folks in the world and here on the internet who have been down the road and come out more convinced than ever of the truthfullness of the gospel. I would recommend to anyone doubting to not take the path of least resistance but search it out. You’ll be forever glad you did.
Of course Joseph was not forthcoming to everyone regading his plural marriages. You could say that it was self-preservation … or it could have been for the preservation of a new and everlasting principle of the gospel that hadn’t been revealed to the Church as a whole yet. I’ve always looked at it as…Joseph had been commanded to live this principle…He knew Emma would not approve…He was simply being obedient.
As for the polyandrous wives, the evidence of those being rampant sexual relations is pretty thin to me. It appears that all DNA testing that has been done has proven that Joseph was, in fact, not the father of the children in question.
Josephine Lyons was probably his daughter however. DNA tests should tell us soon. At any rate, I do feel it was justified at the time.
My 2 cents..mileage may vary.
Good points Ray. I’d respectfully take issue with a couple.
The three wise men thing …. there may have been dozens of wise men or only two…there is no record of three.
No big deal .
As I regard Peter, James, and John in their resurrected form as living people, just as Jesus in his resurrected form is a living person, I would say that Joseph Smith did indeed receive his priesthood through an unbroken line of authority.
If the underlying question here is:
What can an properly ordained priesthood holder do that a person of equal or greater faith can’t do?
That’s a very good question. I would say that preisthood helps trememdously, or it wouldn’t be necessary, but I don’t know if I could back that up with scripture. It seems enormously important in God’s eyes however.
