uniderth

This thread is to discuss the idea that if one element of the restoration such as the Book of Mormon is true, then it follows that everything else is also true. In response to Tyler90AZ I state that: I have to politely disagree with this. There are, in fact, many ways that everything else can be false even if the Book of Mormon is true. The truthfulness of each principle must stand independent and also must be determined independently. Discussion of this topic could be continued further but it would probably be best done in a separate thread. I'll post some more of my thought later.

When King Noah was put into power he replaced all the true priests with false ones. Alma was one of the false priests. Noah and his false priests had many wives and concubines. After Alma converted there is no record of him having to divorce his wives or concubines. Polygamy does not need justification because it is a good principle when not condemned. And as I have pointed out, through out human history, acceptance of polygamy has been the rule and condemnation is the exception. Polygamy is not an ugly thing that is only needed on rare occasions to care for widows or repopulate the earth or whatever. As the verse states in Jacob chapter 2 when the Lord desires that children be raised up unto him he will command polygamy. If the Church is to accept polygamy again in the future it must become more normalized in the minds of the people or else it will be that much harder for people to accept. I am not condoning active members of the Church going out and practicing it. But people should be more educated about it.

I guess I never did address your opening post. Here's my take: Its true that we don't hear much about plural wives in the old testament but nothing changed. According to Israelite law plural marriage is acceptable and in certain cases required. When a man dies without any children his brother must marry his wive. This is called Levirate marriage. From before Abraham until Adam there is no condemnation or requirement of Plural marriage so we just don't know. Some have speculated that since Adam had only one wife them monogamy must be God's approved form of marriage. However it seems more that Humanity was started with the minimum number possible. Alternatively if Adam and Eve are symbolic then ever represents all women then we still have not requirement of monogamy for this time period. We know that Abraham and his descendants were never condemned for Plural Marriage. So from Abraham until before Moses there was not condemnation of Plural Marriage. I already discusses the Mosaic law. So again we see no condemnation of Plural Marriage from Moses until before Christ. Plural Marriage was never condemned until during the great apostasy about 600AD. And it wasn't condemned in Jewish law until about 1000AD. So you have to ask yourself, did God approve that actions of an apostate church when it condemned polygamy? I don't believes so. Therefor I believe that from the time of Christ until Joseph Smith, God still approved plural marriage. So from the time of Adam until Joseph Smith the only clear condemnation of Plural Marriage was given specifically to the Nephites during that limited period of time. But even then we find no evidence of God commanding Alma(who had many wives and concubines) to divorce any of his wives of concubines after he converted to the gospel. Some have also suggested that the ban on plural marriage was lifted when Christ came to the Americas. So then we come to Joseph Smith. Josephs public statements condemned polygamy While many look to statements of witnesses as evidence that Joseph practiced polygamy. If we accept Joseph as having practiced polygamy then we can see his polygamy was truly polygamy rather than Brigham's polygyny only. Meaning that Joseph allowed women to have multiple husbands in addition to men having multiple wives. If we look from Joseph to today the history becomes a bit more complicated. The statements I am about to make are purely historical and are not meant to speak against the Church, its practices, or leaders. I am not making them to oppose the Church, I am simply discussing history. From Brigham(1845) until Wilford Woodruff(1890) we find repeated declarations that the Church would go into apostasy, or would loose priesthood keys, if they ever gave up plural marriage. We find revelations from John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff repeatedly approving of plural marriage. John Taylor ordained a group of people to continue practicing plural marriage no matter what the Church would do. This was his idea of a safety net against the lost of priesthood that he believed would come upon the Church if they gave up polygamy. This group later became the beginnings of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , and the Apostolic United Brethren. In 1890 we find Wilford Woodruff declaring that the Church was to give up Plural Marriage. This statement contradicted a revelation he had received just one year prior. It should be noted that there is no available text to the 1890 revelation Wilford Woodruff claimed to have received(I say "claimed" because there is no written text to verify there was indeed a revelation). It should also be noted that vote to accept the change in policy was not unanimous. There was at least one person who voted "no." All this action, in 1890, did was publicly reject plural marriage. Plural marriage continued, authorized by the first presidency, until Heber J. Grant. But even though it was approved it was always publicly denied. I have to politely disagree with this. There are, in fact, many ways that everything else can be false even if the Book of Mormon is true. The truthfulness of each principle must stand independent and also must be determined independently. Discussion of this topic could be continued further but it would probably be best done in a separate thread.

The word of God is consistent. Joseph Smith warned that a way to tell if a message is from God or not is if it contradicts a previous revelation.

This helps illustrate that the phrase "raise up seed unto me" doesn't mean have lots of children. Rather it means that children should be raised unto the Lord. A Polygamous family would have a higher adult to child ratio thus allowing for better parenting. I believe virgin may have a different meaning here as in a pure woman. IIRC there are other uses of the word virgin that do not strictly mean a woman who has no, "carnal knowledge of man." Joseph Smith also married women who were already married. This is allowed for in section 132 verse 41. The bishop should be the husband of one wife quote can also be interpreted to mean that a bishop must be married. It is not a restriction on the number of wives rather a restriction on the marital status.

Way to go Pocatello!

The condemnation of Nephite polgyny was a rare instance. For most of human history polygyny has been an acceptable practice.

Matthew 5:17-18 17 ¶Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Many early church leaders refused to eat pork and things like that. I think the real answer is just tradition. Christianity originated as a Jewish sect. It wasn't until the conversion of gentiles and the apostasy that the Old Testament elements began to be done away with. That has continued through until today and is largely a tradition.

Theory number 1 is easily proven false. The symbols on the Egyptian papers which give the translation for the various symbols match those on the extant papyri fragments. I haven't really investigated theory number 2 but I don't agree with it. What I believe is correct is related to theory number three. My research started after hearing the "Joseph's translation isn't real Egyptian" argument for the millionth time. I decided to see if Joseph's translation had merit by itself. So instead of trying to compare his translation to the actual Egyptian I wanted to see if it was internally consistent with itself, if Joseph's translation worked in and of itself. What I found surprised me because the translation does work. Joseph's translation is not a correct egyptologically. But his translation of symbols is internally consistent. Meaning the symbol he translates as Abraham is always translated as Abraham. He's not just randomly applying meaning to symbols. This is actually a carefully thought out process. But the actual papyri are clearly not written by Abraham, because they were written much later than Abraham. The thing is that Joseph believed they were written by Abraham. The reason why is because Joseph Smith possessed a book called Antiquities of Freemasonry. This book described the history of Freemasonry as having descended from God through Adam down to the present day. This book provided additional details to Bible stories and many people at the time believed it was actual history. Joseph Smith had this book and read it. This book contained additional information about the Story of Abraham. This same information is much of what is in the Book of Abraham. What happened was Joseph saw the symbols on the Papyri and noticed they seemed to depict elements from the Abraham story in Antiquities of Freemasonry. So this reaffirmed in Joseph's mind the truth of the information in Antiquities. Joseph believed he had the actual book of Abraham written by Abraham. During the translation process Joseph Smith tried to figure out how the symbols were to be interpreted to be the story of Abraham. And he actually got it to work. His translation of the symbols actually worked to translate into the Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham is entirely a revealed work, it is not an historical work. This also relates to the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible. Much of the extra material included in the Bible comes from Antiquities of Freemasonry. Joseph Smith obviously believed there was much truth in that book. It doesn't matter if the Book of Abraham is literal or not. There is a lot of truth within its pages and truth stands by itself, regardless of the vehicle used to convey it. I should also point out that much of this information was researched by George Miller(his internet name). However we both discovered the internal consistency of the translation independently.

Human beings are designed to use animal fats and protein. High vegetable and grain diets came around with the advent of agriculture. But our bodies have not adapted to this type of diet alone. This has been made worse by the ultra-processed foods of today. As mentioned earlier in the thread we are forbidden from condemning non-meat diets. Which I think is a wise thing. Section 89 teaches us to use meat sparingly. But there is some confusion about the following verse: The comma after used mysteriously appeared in the 1980's printing of the scriptures. In the original revelation and subsequent publications the comma is absent. The modern version tells us to only eat meat during winter, cold, of famine. However the original verse read: which actually states the exact opposite that meats may be eaten at all times not only winter, cold, or famine. I know for me personally as I have tried to live by the scriptures this verse cause me some confusion. But I have been able to apply it properly in my life now that I know its correct wording. I state this because there may be others who find it useful.

I agree with JudoMinja's statement in that, "No matter what we ask- we will ultimately find what we seek." The article was ok. But I seemed to get the feeling that any question that results in a answer that does not support the Church is to be deemed Questioning. While any question that results in an answer the supports the Church is deemed as Asking Questions. The article made no mention of asking questions and it being ok to find answers that do not support the Church. But I do think that it is incredibly hard for humans to not ask questions that ultimately lead them to the conclusion they want. Someone who is in the Church and deep down wants it to not be true will ask those questions and find the path that leads them to that conclusion. Those who want the Church to be true will ask those questions that inevitably lead to the Church being true. If somebody has doubts there is usually a good reason for it. It's not enough to simply plaster over doubts with faith. That is a temporary effort that will not last for long. Doubts and fears need to be faced and resolved. And the answer doesn't always come out like we expect. The key is to have an open mind. To accept greater knowledge. The left brain elements of reason, logic, and knowledge must be harmonized with the right brain elements of intuition, emotion, and faith. Neither path alone is enough. They must be brought together to come to a knowledge of the truth.

I guess it must be a bit different for me. I find prayer most effective when I give up my desires and pray what Heavenly Father wants me to pray. I'm not trying to talk down the advice of others, but for me personally prayer is much more than a chance for a buddy chat or to repeat our wishlist(the terms "buddy chat" and "wishlist" are not references to any particular reply on this thread). Rather for me prayer is a time to bring our will inline with God's. It is a time to become one and commune with God. We shouldn't approach with the question, "What should I prayer for?" instead we should ask, "What does God want me to pray for?" We should be vocalizing the Will of God with our prayers. The scriptures teach that what we pray for will come to pass only if we ask not amiss. Asking amiss means asking for something that is not in line with God's will. So we can be as verbose and thankful as we want, but unless the thing we are praying for is inline with His will, it will not come to pass. So again we see that the scriptures demonstrate that those things we pray for must be in harmony with God's will. I know that some people might want to call me on the carpet and say that we need to be having the friendly conversations with God and thing like that. And we get these warm fuzzies. But for me it seems much more sacred and special to have a time of unity with God, where the will of man comes in sync with the will of God and then that will is made manifest in reality through vocalization. Which is more special? A friendly chat or the complete union of two separate beings? Again I hope this doesn't sound like I am belittling anyone else. I'm just trying to relate my own personal experience.

Naps work for me!

Many members of the church have made a covenant to obey the Law of Consecration as given in the Doctrine and Covenants. In order to understand what our duties are in obeying this law we must look to the revelations contained in the Doctrine and Covenants. Here I have cited the main references to consecration in the Doctrine and Covenants. For the sake of brevity I have summarized the references. But do not stop at my summaries. They are only my words and NOT the Word of God. Go to each scriptural reference and read the entire revelation for yourself. Doctrine and Covenants 42:30-35 Consecration is to help the poor. But it must be done after the proper manner. All property is to be given to the bishop. What is needed for the individual is given back to him as a stewardship. The rest of the consecrated property is to be used for: “administer[ing] to the poor and the needy,...for the purpose of purchasing lands...and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem.” Doctrine and Covenants 51:2-14 Unless we are organized according to God's laws we will be cut off. The bishop is to appoint stewardships unto every man equally according to their families, wants, and needs. A writing will be given to the person that secures their portion to them. If a person transgresses and is not counted worthy to belong to the church, then he cannot draw on the properties consecrated to the bishop, but he does retain the property he received. Branches of the church should not take money from each other. But if they do borrow money from another branch of the church it should be payed back as they agree. The bishop should have claim on a portion of that which is consecrated for his own support. Doctrine and Covenants 70:7-14 Anyone who receives more than is needful for their needs and wants is to give that excess to the Bishop. This excess is to be consecrated to the inhabitants of Zion. The Lord requires this of all who have a stewardship. No one who belongs to the church is exempt from this. If we are not all equal in temporal things then Spiritual manifestations will be withheld from us. Doctrine and Covenants 83 Women have claim upon their husband and children have claim upon their father for their support. When children come of age they have claim upon the Lord's strorehouse; along with widows, orphans, and the poor. The storehouse holds those excess properties which were consecrated to the Bishop. Doctrine and Covenants 84:104 Missionaries who receive money from people, if they don't have a family to support, should send that money to Zion so it may be consecrated for bringing forth the revelations and printing them, and for establishing Zion. Doctrine and Covenants 85:1-7 The Lord's clerk will keep a history and record of those who consecrate properties and who receive an inheritance. A record is to be kept of people to become apostate after receiving their inheritances. Those who do not receive an inheritance by consecration should not have their names enrolled with the people of God, neither is their genealogy to be kept. God will send One Mighty and Strong to set the church in order, and arrange by lot the inheritances of the Saints. An inheritance is a plot of land that is given to the member who consecrates their property. It is literally the land of their inheritance. Doctrine and Covenants 105:29 The lands which are to become Zion and the Stakes of Zion are to be possessed according to the laws of consecration. Doctrine and Covenants 124:21 One of the duties of bishop is to receive consecrated property. Another part of consecration involves those lands that the Lord has consecrated for our use. Lands such as Kirtland, Far West, Zion(Interdependence Missouri), etc. There are many scriptures stating that the Lord has consecrated these lands for us. Some posters have brought up the difference between the United Order and the Law of Consecration. They are correct in that there is a difference. But I believe this difference has been largely misrepresented. The Law of Consecration as given in the Doctrine and Covenants deals with individual duties in how properties are to be consecrated to the Lord and from the Lord back to the people. The United Order however is the actual society wherein the Law of Consecration and other covenants relationships are put into practice. The revelation detailing the United Order is contained in section 104, I suggest reading it. Lastly there seems to be some belief that the revelation contained in Section 119 institutes as “lesser” law because people were not able to live the Law of Consecration. I would like to reproduce the revelation contained in Section 119 here and examine it. In verse one we read that the Lord requires all surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop. Surplus property is to be understood in the context of the previous consecration revelations. Meaning everything that is beyond that which is needed for the people who possess the property. In verse two we read the purposes of those properties are to be used for. These purposes are for the building of the Lord's house(the temple), laying the foundation of Zion, for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of the Church. Verse three tell us that this initial consecration of surplus property is the beginning of tithing. Verse four tells us that those who have made this initial consecration should “pay one-tenth of their interest annually.” In the 1828 Webster dictionary one definition of the word interest is; Here we again see the word surplus. Interest, therefor can be understood to mean the surplus that is left over after the need s of the person has been met. In a person needs $10,000 to provide for his family and he makes $15,000. Then $5,000 is his surplus/interest. It is our of this interest that the one-tenth is commanded to be payed. Therefor his tithing would be $500. Tithing is to be collected annually because it is only after one year that many people can truly see what their total expenses vs income is. Verse four continues by stating that this is to be a standing law forever and that the one-tenth of the interest is for use of the Priesthood Verse five states that all those who gather to the land of Zion are to be tithed according to this law or else they will not be found worthy to live there. Verse six tells us that unless we keep this law then the land will not be the land of Zion unto us. Verse seven tell is that this is to be an example to all the stakes of Zion. To understand this we must remember that “stakes of Zion” has a very specific meaning. Stakes of Zion are distinct from Zion, and stakes scattered abroad. This verse is telling us that even though this revelation speaks concerning Zion. It is to be and example to all the stakes of Zion as well. In reading through this I would like to point out that nowhere does it state that consecration or the United Order are done away with. Rather I would like to list these reasons why I personally believe that tithing is not a “lesser law” and can only be lived, as commanded, if we are living the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants: - The revelation never refutes consecration. - Verse 3 states that the initial consecration of surplus is the BEGINNING of tithing. If tithing was a “lesser law” why would a “higher law” be used as a beginning to establish a “lesser law”? - Verse 4 states that only those people who have made the initial consecration are to pay one-tenth of their interest. - Verse 4 also states that this law of tithing is to be a standing law unto us forever. Why would a lesser law be established “forever” as opposed to until the people can get their act together and live consecration? - Verses 5-7 states that this law is top be used to establish Zion. Ultimately what the revelation in section 119 institutes is procedure wherein a small portion of the annually consecrated property is reserved for the use of the priesthood. I have not been able to find a revelation where consecration or the United Order was commanded to be stopped. If there is one someone please send it to me or link to it. Additionally since members still covenant to obey the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants. The only conclusion I can come to is that neither the Law of Consecration nor the United Order were done away by God's command, but rather we simply stopped practicing them. But again that's just my personal opinion. Search the scriptures and come to your own conclusion.

But would it be Christ-like to say, "Oh, well you may have repented of that, but that's not good enough for me."