Close Topic Options

My Mormon Concerns - Page 2

They can by special permission of the First Presidency. Just as a rapist or other individual who have committed a very serious sin. I know of a member who sexually abused a minor (he was related to the little girl) and he was granted permission to become a member again after a LONG time and there are restrictions like he cannot hold any calling with children or youth ever more. I know also a guy who committed murder and was also granted a special permission from the First Presidency. It is not an easy process, but they can be obtainable.

So are you saying that the person could remained excommunicated for believing the doctrine of plural marriage but not practising it?.

Edited: LDS_forever on 7th Feb, 2005 - 11:40pm

Concerns Mormon My

I am saying, in my opinion, if the person who practiced polygamy, said, "I am no longer practicing it, but I believe that the prophets were wrong to ever stop this practice, I don't accept the validity of the manifesto, etc.", then to me I don't have any problem with them not being allowed to be rebaptised. This goes along with the whole theory of "if you don't accept our rules and beliefs, why do you want to be a member of our club" theory. I also believe, and apparently the Church leaders do as well, that it is an excommunicatable offense to hold such a belief.

Now, I do not know if this is the Church's official position, or not. It is simply mine. I believe we have been instructed adequately why we are not to practice polygamy at this time. I believe the prophets are correct in their decision regarding this matter. I believe that a prophet of God has told us that the Lord does not want us to practice this at this time. I believe the consequences of not accepting this teaching are well known and include excommunication. I have no problem with this policy. To me, accepting is not just abstaining from the practice. I also think there is a difference between someone who questions a belief or teaching but never crosses the line into disobedience and someone who decides the belief or teaching is wrong, decides to cross the line, then still believes it is wrong, but agrees to become obedient again. I think they need to fully accept the teaching or not be rebaptised. Again, this is all my personal opinion, only.

My Mormon Concerns Studies Doctrine Mormon

Okay, I do not agree but I understand your point. Do you think it is fair for the children of a couple who have been excommunicated for practising plural marriage to have to receive a special permission from the First Presidency in order to be baptised?. This obviously include a child 8 years and over. They must:

1) State that they are in agreement with all Church doctrine.

2) Repudiate the teachings that caused the parents to be excommunicated.

(From the General Handbook).

Edited: LDS_forever on 8th Feb, 2005 - 1:45am

Page 2 Concerns Mormon My

I think it probably makes sense relative to the children. They are being raised in a home with polygamy. It is safe to assume they are being taught it is part of the true Gospel. If they want to be baptized into a church that doesn't accept this practice, it makes sense to me that they need to state they are in agreement with the beliefs of that church.

I think this rule is in place simply to protect the children from being baptized and then being held accountable for teachings which are in direct conflict with what they will be taught in their home. It doesn't benefit them to be baptized if they are not going to be given an adequate opportunity to truly live the Gospel. They can always choose baptism on their own once they are adults if they come to accept fully the teachings of the Church.

Concerns Mormon My

I'll tell you why it does not make sense to me the fact that they need a special permission from the First Presidency.
Here in Trinidad there is a large variety of religions, between them they are lots of muslims and hindues. Most of our Church members have been hindues from generations!, if you are familiar with what the Hindues believe...you would know they are Polytheists (they believe in the existence of more than one God)...now these members as I said before they have been raised "hindues" most of their lives until they find the missionaries and the rest is history. Before that, they have done all the prayers that hindues normally do to their gods and participate actively to their religious customs, etc. Now...they do not need any special permission in order to be baptized. As ANY other person from another religion they just need to go through the normal procedure in order to be baptized.
A person who is a polygamist or a daughter or son of a polygamist is also a member of a particular religion then...what is the difference between them (a person who has been raised a polygamist and wishes now to join the Church) and a person who was a hindue and wishes the same thing?.

My Mormon Concerns

I can tell you this. Most of the people who live Celestial Plural Marriage live the rest of the principles of the gospel much better than the vast majority of the active members of the Church.

So, it all comes down to whether or not the children of those marriages are willing to repudiate what they believe and what their parents believe and what was taught as sound doctrine within the Church for decades, but is now considered one of the most immoral of all possible sins, to the point where children must be rehabilitated from the very hint of the stain of this heresy.

As far as us being instructed sufficiently about not practicing plural marriage, I have noticed that it has ALL come from people who did not practice it, and agreed to the vote to stop the practice.

Since this thread is about my concerns, and how I am trying to deal with them, I would like to point out a few things.

My understanding of apostacy is that it is mainly applied to people who turn completely against their faith, and fight it. Thus we see that the Law brothers in Joseph's time, as well as a lot of other members, became apostates and tried to bring about the downfall of Joseph Smith and the Church.

Now, if someone believes that plural marriage is a God-given practice, and couldn't care less what the law says (you know, civil disobedience), practices it, while sincerely proclaiming the truths of the Gospel and the power and righteousness of the Priesthood, he is apostate. He is shunned. People literally tell their children not to play with his children.

Never mind that he is willing to pay his tithing, fasts and prays, studies the scriptures, obeys the word of wisdom, and lives up to his Temple commitments better than 99.999% of his neighbors. Never mind that he receives spiritual gifts. Never mind that he supports his family, takes care of them, never strays from them. He is apostate, and of the devil.

Speaking of changes in the ordinances. The Lord, through Isaiah, specifically condemns those of his people who change the everlasting ordinances. Who has those ordinances but the Church? The Community of Christ never accepted them and so never had them. Only us. And we simply accept whenever they are changed. After all, it removes all those icky things. You know, what eternal consequences there are for the people who break their covenants. It speeds things up, so we can get more people through the process faster. We don't want the whole thing to last long, since we are so busy. (BTW, theses are excuses that I have seen people give for accepting the changes.) (Well, actually, some of it is sarcasm, but that is the way I feel at the moment.)

---

One question. If I were to pray to know the truths of some of these concerns, and I were to get an answer that was different from the "accepted" norm of the members, would that make me apostate? Hmmm.

We have a thread about sacrificing a child (referring to Abraham). What if we were asked to sacrifice our membership in the church for a fulness of the truth? What if by sacrificing that, our spouse and children turned away from us, claiming that we are apostate? Would it be worth the price?

My Mormon Concerns - Page 2

The way I see it, the Lord condems those who change his ordinances, not those who follow him when he makes changes to them. After all, if we sustain Pres. Hinckley as a Prophet, we are saying that he is speaking the mind and will of the Lord. If we start to question some of the direction from the Bretheren, we lack that firm testimony that this is the Lord's church and he is directing it. Now I don't agree with every little mandate the church has come up with. For example, no facial hair for temple workers. I can't see how that is relevant. But I am willing to accept it on faith, hoping that some day I will understand why and I'm sure that day will come.

My Mormon Concerns Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 2

Well, as is probably obvious, I do lack the testimony that the Church is following the Lord's will. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Church is still the ONLY true and living church of Jesus Christ on the earth. I think it is just very rebellious in many ways. I personally believe that most, if not all, of the condemnations mentioned in Isaiah as pertaining to Israel in the Last Days are talking about us, the members and organization of the Church.

I have no doubt whatsoever that President Hinckley is the man that the Lord wants to be president of the Church at the moment. He has marvelous skills, is an incredible administrator, and is the most marvelous public relations person the Church has ever had.

But the people rejected the fulness of the Gospel. We rejected the Celestial principles that were given to us. We demanded, over time, that the Church present an image to the world that is kinder and gentler. We apologized for straying off into such horrible things as polygamy (extremely immoral, right?), consecration (after all, it is just a "pure" form of communism, right?), proclamations that we are really, really different from the rest of Christianity. Instead of being a "peculiar" people, we are normal, mainstream people with a few "peculiar" and outdated beliefs and practices.

In the early 1990s, we gave up some very, very important items within the temple ordinances. They taught extremely important eternal principles. We changed the ordinances. This despite many, many warnings to NEVER change them.

Which brings me to my next concern.

This particular doctrine is somewhat troubling in many ways. I really don't know what I think about it.

Brigham Young clearly, with no apology, taught the idea that Adam is our God. Careful analysis of what he taught shows that he thought Adam is the Being we now know as Eloheim.

In order for us to see how this could be, let alone understand it, we would need to learn an implied doctrine, currently called Multiple Mortal Probations or MMP. Within this doctrine, we have all fulfilled our "first" estates, within the premortal existence. So, we are in our "second" estates. Well, if there is a "first" and a "second", are there more? Common teaching is that there is only the final judgement, with everyone then moving on to their final rewards, although everyone admits we don't have a clue about how this is done.

There are many people, though, who believe that there are, or can be, several others. This doctrine would say that the "third" estate consists of our "final judgement" as we understand it. Then, there is a "fourth" estate that consists of those who have prevailed in the "third" returning to another mortal probation. However, those people would NOT be subject to failure, to losing their inheritance. My understanding of these beings is that they are the "just men made perfect". They act as possibly mortal angels. Don't ask me what their purposes are at that point, because I just don't know.

Anyway, there are subsequent "estates" where such beings continue to progress in various ways. Eventually, they become saviours/messiahs within other creations. After that, they have another probation wherein they act as Adam for a creation, after which they become an Eloheim.

Of course, this is all somewhat nebulous. Anyone who would have a real knowledge or testimony of this doctrine would not go into great detail about it.

So, what is my concern about this?
Brigham Young, along with several Apostles, publicly taught what has been named the "Adam-God Doctrine". They taught it as clear, undisputable doctrine.

However, we have had, over the last 30 or 40 years, several leaders who have claimed that this is false doctrine. So, either Brigham Young was teaching false doctrine, which makes all of his teachings suspect, or some of these more recent leaders have taught false doctrine, or at least denied true doctrine. If they have denied true doctrine, then it makes their claims of other principles and practices as being forbidden - suspect at least.

Personally, I don't have a testimony about either of these doctrines (Adam-God, MMP). However, when I first read the detailed explanations and expositions of these doctrines, I felt that there was a definite possibility that they are true.

I do know what it is like to read blatantly false doctrine. I have received incredibly strong witnesses of the falsehood of certain anti-Mormon (whether blatant or subtle) documents and doctrines. I also know what it is like to read true doctrine. I have read some documents and ideas outside of the scriptures that I immediately received a strong witness of their truthfulness. I will tell you, these two doctrines definitely lean more towards the good side than the bad.