Close Topic Options

My Mormon Concerns - Page 3

I see a very big difference. Most polygamists consider themselves to be the true followers of the Church originally founded by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. To them, they are not embracing a new belief system. They are choosing to be baptized in the Church with the belief that the Church isn't fully following the doctrine as the Lord wants his Church to follow it. Also, I doubt that a Hindu child of 8 would be getting baptized unless his parents were also converting to the gospel. I think the concern is that a child will be baptized because the parents believe this is the true Church just gone wrong a bit and then be raised by those parents to believe you can be a member in good standing of this Church while embracing polygamy in this day and age.

Special permission by the First Presidency allows for close examination of the motives behind the decision so that the child isn't used inappropriately to make a statement. Remember, once you are baptized you are held accountable for that decision. Now, when that child is an adult and has never practiced polygamy, I doubt they would then need special permission because they wouldn't be considered a child of a polygamist being baptized. No child can be baptized in the Church without parental consent. I think in this case, the investigation is to find out why the parents would consent to such a baptiism and does the child fully understand what it is they are agreeing to abide by and live.

I don't see this as much different than if I win a bunch of money in the lottery. The Church will not accept my tithes on this money. It will not matter how well I am living all the other principals of the gospel. They are still not going to accept the money I gained through a means they don't consider appropriate.

I don't see how this statement can be true. It is contradictory. If we are no longer following the Lord's will, then I do not believe we can be his true Church. In fact, this is what was on the earth when Joseph Smith inquired of the Lord in the sacred grove. He was told none of them were true. It certainly wasn't because all who lead or followed such faiths were bad people. It was because they were not fully living the Gospel and all its principals and ordinances.

I do not believe we rejected the fulness of the Gospel. I am aware that is how you view the manifesto and it is how polygamist groups view it. I truly believe the Manifesto is the Lord telling us not to live this principal any longer. Not simply his agreeing to allow us to make a choice not to follow his will. Yes we have agency, but I don't believe he changes his teachiings or what he considers acceptable behavior from his followers just because they are unwilling to live a certain principal. So, I do not believe he would just allow us to make that choice. It was his decision because he knew it was what was best for his purposes and his Church at that time.

Again, I must disagree. I do not think the changes removed any extremely important eternal principals from the ordinances. I believe much of it was removed because it would allow more sessions to be conducted and because the wording that was removed was not necessary. You can still get the same eternal principals out of the ordinances today that you could then. It may not be stated in the same terms. It may not be as direct and undeniable, but it is still there. In my opinion, of course.

Nighthawk, this Church is headed by a latter day prophet. It has since its inception. Changes are made to the doctrine because the Lord chooses to make changes. If he isn't going to make changes, we don't really need a prophet at all. The fact that we are a living Church and that things do change is what sets us apart from the other Christian churches on the earth today.

Edited: tenaheff on 10th Feb, 2005 - 10:17pm

Concerns Mormon My

I don't see how this statement can be true. It is contradictory. If we are no longer following the Lord's will, then I do not believe we can be his true Church.

Obviously we will disagree on this, as well as other things.

I don't think it is contradictory at all. Just as I love my children, and claim them as my own even when they are rebellious and disobedient, I still think they are good, wonderful children, who I am very pleased to claim as my own.

This is often used, and has been here, to attempt to shut people like me up. After all, if this is true, then we must just sit back and accept whatever changes come along. After all, any program, any policy, any doctrine, any change to any ordinance that comes from the leaders of the Church MUST be acceptable to God, otherwise that leader would be removed BEFORE such an action could be taken. So, the admonitions to seek out for ourselves whether or not a given doctrinal or policy statement is the will of God is just so much window dressing. Since we know that he is the Prophet, and that the Lord will remove him BEFORE he could make a mistake, then any possible errors MUST, by definition, be extremely minor.

However, this completely removes our responsibility to find out for ourselves. It tells us that if we get an answer different than what is commonly accepted, then there are only a few possible reasons - we are deceived, we are unrighteous, we are kooks, we are apostate. This, then, tells us to shut up and soldier, no matter what we believe, what we learn, or what is revealed to us.

What bothers me the absolute most about this statement, even more than the fact that it is in opposition to many, many statements made by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor, as well as several Apostles, is that it is exactly the same logic by which the Catholic church uses tradition and the teaching of the majisterium to justify their doctrines. No difference at all. It is the same logic by which various Protestant sects justify their strict sola scriptura doctrine. It is the same logic by which the RLDS church was formed.

But, that is fine. I do not choose, for myself, to ascribe to that logic. I believe that the Church belongs to the Lord, but that we have rebelled and lost some important things. We, the members, have the leadership that we want. It is very good leadership. The best in the world. The Priesthood still resides in the Church. The Church still has the Lord's authority to perform the ordinances.

I don't, however, believe that these "shortened" or streamlined ordinances will be the ones that are performed during the Millenium. I don't believe that the Celestial principles and laws that were given to us, but that we rejected, will be reserved from us during the Millenium.

This is meant to be the Restoration. The time when principles, laws, and ordinances are restored. When newer, deeper, more wonderful principles are taught. When the gates of Eternity are made clear to mortal man.

Since 1890, just how much has been restored? How much has disappeared?

Let me make a quick, incomplete list:

• plural marriage
• consecration (United Order)
• the Endowment (changed in the 1930s or 40s, again in the 1990s)
• initiatory ordinances (changed several times over the last 115 years, less and less in it each time)
• teaching at the veil
• the True Order of Prayer, as a local, personal, or familial ordinance

I am NOT trying to be critical of President Hinckley. I would be thrilled if he came out and said something to the effect of, "the Lord has required that I change the Temple ordinances, because it will allow us to perform the ordinances more quickly, and bring the ordinances to more people throughout the world." But this doesn't happen. As far as I know, the only time that he has claimed to be making any changes at the behest of the Lord was when he announced the aggressive temple building program. And then he didn't claim revelation. His words were something to the effect of, "I believe that the Lord inspired me in this work."

My Mormon Concerns Studies Doctrine Mormon

I don't think this is a fair statement. I don't think anyone here has used it as an attempt to shut you up. I know I personally don't agree with you on this issue, but that doesn't mean I want to shut you up. I think for me it is a valid explanation of the situation. We don't agree on that, but it doesn't mean it is an attempt to shut you up.

See, to me I don't see this as a matter of love. You can love the gospel, but if the Church isn't following the will of the Lord, then it can't be the Lord's church. It can still be comprised of good people, just like any other church can be, but how can it truly be the Lord's church if it doesn't represent what the Lord wants?

Page 3 Concerns Mormon My

I wasn't aiming the remark about shutting people up to you. It was meant mainly as a general statement, although in other discussions on this forum it has been used to tell me that I need to be quiet and tow the line.

Just because the members have rejected important things doesn't mean that the Lord would reject the Church completely. He said that the Church was restored for the last time. I am sure that the He still claims the Church as His own, even if we are wayward.

Concerns Mormon My

Pres. Joseph F Smith gave this very important statement:

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they don't square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measureevery man's doctrine.
"You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as the standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works
"Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 203-204)

In this powerful statement in my opinion he is giving the Saints the opportunity to listen, to analyze, to search and to obtain a testimony about what a Prophet or leader says. He is not telling them to just to follow, he is telling them to seek..to get an answer for themselves. I am personally struggling with the concept that the leaders will always guide us in the right direction. We are in the last days...we need to be very observant and careful and make sure that ALL and EVERY doctrine we hear is in harmony with the scriptures, if it is not as Joseph F Smith said, then it needs to be reject it. Just my two cents.

Edited: LDS_forever on 11th Feb, 2005 - 2:10am

My Mormon Concerns

Here's my 2 cents, for what it's worth.

I don't know if our leaders are making major mistakes or not, I kind of doubt it. Pres. Hinckley has emphasised recently that this is the Lord's church and he is guiding it. That's enough for me. But lets suppose for a minute that we have changed the pure doctrines, that teachings like polygamy were and are Eternal principles and we were wrong to abandon them, that we had no right to make the changes to the temple ordinances that we have.

Those of us who continue to follow the Prophet, even if the above conditions are true, will be blessed for obeying the Lord's authorized representative, even if he was wrong. The Lord himself said in D&C 1:38:

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

To me, this scripture says that whatever the Prophet says, it is the same as God said it himself and it becomes binding to us. In other words, he has enough faith in the Prophet to allow whatever he decides to be doctrine. If it is wrong, it will be dealt with later but it is not for us to judge what the Prophet has taught. That is what is meant by sustaining the Prophet. We follow him even if our own wisdom might not agree.

And you and I have voted to sustain Pres. Hinckley, not Brigham Young. So if BY taught things contrary to what is taught today, we need to follow the teachings of today's Prophet.

My Mormon Concerns - Page 3

Here is a question for all:

We all know, have been taught, that the Sacrament is a renewal of our baptismal covenants.

Where is this taught in the scriptures?

My Mormon Concerns Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 3

The first question I would ask is, What are the baptismal covenants? From the Gospel Principles manual, Chapter 20, here is the list:

The sacrament in the same manual, Chapter 23, gives the text of the sacrament prayers. Here is the prayer offered to bless the bread:

And here is the follow-up:

Edited: FarSeer on 13th Jun, 2005 - 12:31am