ehkape
-
Posts
86 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ehkape
-
-
I'd love to have that book. Maybe we should make that book the new Doctrine and Covenants.
Well, it used to be the "old" D&C, or at least the manuscript of the then called book of commandments.
I got it as a christmas gift and and started looking into it. Very well done edition.
To those of you who have the book: I was reading (todays) section 20, (p.75), the Articles and Covenants of the church. It describes the rise of the church, Josephs visitation by an unidentified angel (not the first vision I guess, rather Moroni appearing), the translation of the Book of Mormon etc.
That is followed by a "statement of faith", i.e. we believe in God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, one has to be baptized etc.
Now the different priesthood offices are explained: Elders, Priests, Teachers, Deacons and different duties of the members.
Not a single word distinguishing between the "aaronic" or "melchisedek" priesthood...
Not a single word concerning High Priests, bishops, high councilors etc...
Our modern D&C adds the following verses, which are completely missing in the original text:
66 But the presiding elders, traveling bishops, high councilors, high priests, and elders, may have the privilege of ordaining, where there is no branch of the church that a vote may be called.
67 Every president of the high priesthood (or presiding elder), abishop, high councilor, and bhigh priest, is to be ordained by the direction of a chigh council or general conference.
I was thinking about this for some time. Is there a chance, that the church was organized without the Melchisidek Priesthood? We don't have an exact date for the restoration by Peter James and John.
Could it possibly have been after 1830?
-
Anybody out there who has got this book?
Any comments or thoughts on it?
(other than it's a really big and heavy one
) -
I think "what" the secret is and "why" you're hiding is what you need to consider.
I'm not sure if I want to agree. The "what" and "why" always depends on your very own perspective. A group of suicide bombers might feel that their causes are just and noble... Of course, nobody else would agree.
Where do you draw the line? Keeping things secret is almost next to lying. If not even the same. Espacially if you are forced to lie to keep it secret.
-
Freemasons are no more guilty of 'secret combinations' than LDS temple attending members are.
What do you want to say? "more guilty? So LDS are guilty too, but not as much as others?
Wow, I'm confused!
You're either guilty or not. It's like being pregnant... (or not)
-
Contemporary historical records, at least the believable ones, do not bear out any such description of Joseph Smith.
Which accounts do you consider to be the "believable ones"?
-
The message of the gospel to this world IS NOT its history! The power is in the principles!! This is where we lead people and this is where we anchor ourselves!
Thanks for your post. I agree. I don't want a time machine to go back and change history. I want an open and honest dialogue within our LDS comunity so that we can look back at history and say exactly what you said.
I am glad that the church is now publishing the Joseph Smith papers. I think, they are moving in the right direction to make secondary reading available. I just wish the same spirit continues with the new manuals and lessons in the future.
-
I think a lot of the things in the history of the church have been really shocking to me because they are not really talked about. I also grew up in wards where we were not really encouraged to try and understand the history either. It was very whitewashed.
Exactly. If I would have heard about any of the "darker" history within a church setting, it might have been easier to understand. As a missionary I heard all sorts of accusationas against the church. Never having heard about anything like that before, I firmly denied that such things happend. After my mission I was called as elders quorum president. I had one of my elders become less active because of something called the "Adam-God-Theory" I wanted to help him understand that he had wrong information from the wrong sources and looked up the Journal of Discourses. Well - to my surprise I found that I was mistaken... What a shock! Then I remembered many of the accusations tossed at my on my mission. I studied a little more in detail and - what a shock again! Most of them being true.
Now think of the damage that has been done:
1. as a missionary I told my investigators that they were wrong. So they stopped investigating and probably thaught missionaries are trained to lie. How sad is that!
2. I couldn't help my "sheep" who needed help. He eventually had his name taken off the record. How sad!
3. My own faith (and mainly my trust) in the church is shaken because I had to find out the "other" history on my own and not in an open straightforward and honest way. I am still a member and my wife does the best she can to help me see the good parts about the gospel but it would have never been such a massive shock if at least some of the things would have been included in sunday school, seminary, institute or any other church connected forum.
-
If you want a history lesson on the church, attend BYU and study it. If you want to learn and grow in your faith, attend church.
Thanks. There is no BYU in Europe... So I can't
As to being honest or dishonest: To me it is dishonest if I don't tell the whole story.
When my brother and I were young and picked up a fight one of us usually said "He hit me, so I hit him" That was true. But If the whole truth would have been "I hit him, he hit me, so I hit him again" it changes the whole picture. Honest or dishonest?
Faithpromoting or not - who cares. I was raised LDS and grew up in a sheltered LDS comunity. Its not my intention to compare our church with protestants, catholic or any born again out there. The question was about the biggest stumbling block in OUR faith - to me thats our history:
Polygamie and polyandrie, denying Blacks the Priesthood, the different accounts of the 1st vision, the lectures on faith, early apostles/leaders leaving the church for whatever reason, unfulfilled prophecies given by Joseph, the split in the church after J.S. death, some of Brigham Youngs teachings (i.e. Adam being God), changes to the Doctrine and Covenants, changes to the endowment, the Utah war, church involvement in buisnisses, etc, etc.
Having to find out about all of these events even though being raised LDS and having served a full time mission is a massive stumbling block to me.
"Truth restored" seems to be valid only for some faithpromoting parts of our church.
-
Our own church history and the way it is dealt with today by our leaders.
It seems to be more important to have many short faithpromoting pieces of history in our lesson manuals than to face the whole history with some of its teachings and practices that may be embarassing.
There is no point to pretend some things never happend. They did. So why not be honest about it?
-
Nice thought... What about our own families if we get to the celestial kingdom one day? How are we supposed to be with all of them, if we are to become gods ourselves? Families are forever! OK, but how??? I try to picture my mortal parents become gods, create a world or two and have spirit children. Then my brothers and their families. Now what about me and my wife? If I stay forever with my family, my parents and my parents in law would have to stay together forever in some sort of way also because they don't want to miss their daughter. (Not sure if that will work anyway :) )You can keep on going if you want to. That's not even counting grand parents or my own kids.
By the way - God told Moses "2. I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (2.Moses)
What if he really IS the only God? No one before, no one after - but eternal?
Why should I not believe the words "10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." (Isa 43:10)
-
What would be the purpose of sending those of Celestial realm to minister to the Terrestial Kingdom after this world is glorified?
Could you please give us a scripture to validate your statement. I was always taught that the ministering will be done in the spirit world, not after the final judgement in the different degrees of glory.
As far as I know, there is NO CHANCE to progress from a lower degree (telestial or terrestrial) to a higher one (celestial). Once you are judged, that's it.
-
Perhaps you can either clarify your point or choose some better examples.
The point I tried to make was to show that its really hard to know what is real and what is not - even within our own church and with the guidance of our prophets.
Maybe my examples weren't the best ones.
I tried to show that things change even in our church wich claims to have the fulness of the gospel. A major doctrine (or practice as john likes to call it) can be turned around within days. The churches stand on marriage has proven to be one of these doctrines. When the church was restored, there was no plural marriage. Few years later you HAD to enter into celestial marriage to enter the celestial kingdom. W.Woodruff stopped polygamie and adviced the Saints to live according to the laws of the land.
Now, imagine you lived during that time. What would be REAL to you?
Until the death of Joseph Smith, there were at least 2 blacks who held the priesthood. No problem at all. By the way, the church was still growing and not even all white male members held the priesthood. When Brigham became prophet, he introduced the ban as the word of god."What chance is there for the redemption of the Negro? The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood."
In 1852, while addressing the Utah Territorial Legislature, Young stated, "Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the Priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spoke it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."[4] This pronouncement was made by Young as a prophet.
1978 Pres. Kimball finally decides to stop the ban and permit the blacks (back) to their priesthood blessings.
Now, what' REAL to you?
The question was to "rather know what's real than what makes me feel good."
Was it really Gods will back then for a man to have many wives or did it just make the people feel good? Or was it really Gods will to stop polygamie or did it just make the people feel good (because they didn't have to brake the law any more)?
Was it really Gods will to ban blacks from the priesthood or did it just make the people feel good at a time when blacks were denied many things in the US? And was it really Gods will to allow them to receive the priesthood at a time, when racism was no longer "socially acceptable" around the world?
I hope I made my point. I don't want to go too deep into both examples. They would be worth their own discussion in another thread.
ehkape
-
I hate to tell you this, but poolygamy is still recognized as an eternal doctrine in the church, we just don't practice the same way we did 125 years ago. The practice of withholding the priesthood from blacks was also a practice that has changed. The doctrine that a man must receive the Priesthood of God from those who are in authority has not changed.
hi john,
I learned this phrase while serving my mission: "I guess we have to agree to disagree..."
If you want to believe a practice is just a practice, please, feel free.
But as I said, there is no practice without a doctrine behind it.
Its not only a practice to partake of the sacrament, there is a sweet doctrine behind it. Otherwise it would be a foolish and useless practice to eat some bread and drink some water each sunday.
-
They also believed Joseph's son, Joseph Smith III, had been designated by Joseph to be the next prophet. However, he was still a child when Joseph was murdered, so they waited until he was grown to urge him to take on the office...
Elphaba
Did you know that Brigham Young and his apostles believed the same thing? As far as I understand it, that's why there was such a long time between Josephs death and Brigham being accepted as the next prophet. They initially felt that Joseph III should be raised up to be the next in line.
I am still looking for a link, but I read it a few months ago in a BYU study called the succession crisis (or something like that)
To me, that's quite a big one. Why do we blame Emma for staying behind and mixing with the wrong crowd? Maybe she wasn't so wrong after all. Maybe, it's just because we belong to the ones that followed Brigham...
found the link to byustudies
-
Its not only a change in practice, its a change in doctrine as well. Why change a practice, if the doctrine remains the same? There would be no need to change it.The examples you give are changes in practice, not changes in doctrine.
But since the doctrine has changed, the practice had to change as well.
As simple as that. And no other way to get around it.
-
I'm not being argumentative Maxel - I am looking for an answer that I don't have.
What is qualitatively better about our belief that sets it above other faiths - other than we say we are right.
Well Snow, thats THE question. Is there anything "better" in mormonism? Can one even compare it? Is there any religion that is "qualitatively better" than another?
We always claim to be the only ones with "fulness" of the gospel, indicating to others they are limited in their understanding.
What about our own church history?
There are so many doctrinal changes that I wonder what to believe even if our own prophets and apostles said it.
1830s polygamy= sin
1840s polygamy= eternal law, never to be taken away and necessary for salvation
now polygamy = sin, resulting in excomunication
Brigham taught blacks shall never have the priesthood - now they do
Think of all the editing that has been done to the "History of the Church" or our lesson manuals to present more "faith promoting" stories. Is the church going with the flow? Is it all about making sure you feel good in sunday school or is it about the truth?
-
Do you think they saved this (and the other) Sunday PM talks for all those non-stalwart just get in the last session members who only watch the Sunday PM talks?
I think perhaps so.
The "happy happy joy joy Love, love love" talks were Saturday morning - for all those valiant members who devote their Sat to GC... then the "righteous indignation" for all those who just show up at the last minute to watch the last Sunday PM talks
I hope NOT! Sure, you can save the best for last, but that would mean all of Europe would miss the best... Sun PM Mountain Standard time is almost Sunday midnight Central European time. I dodn't know any stake center or ward that shows the sun pm session. Only chance would be to watch it on byu.tv and stay up late. And i bet thats not the ones, who need to hear the message.
As there has been discussion, to whom his talk was directed: I believe it goes straight to the general membership. There are so many leaving the church these days. Taken from our wards home teaching assignments, there are about 2/3 less active. If thats a worldwide figure, that would boil down active members to somwhere around 4 to 5 million. I've seen many who were baptized and left a few weeks or months later. I've seen lifelong members asking their names to be taken off the records. Not all is well in Zion...
So I feel it was about time for an apostle to speak up. And boy, he did well! There is no doubt he believes what he said. He even spoke directly to those about to leave. Something to the effect that if they want to leave they have to crawl around, beneath or across the Book of Mormon.
-
Hey thats unfair! I said in my post
I still feel tghe way you present a message, plays a big role as well.But the message was really good.
I love to eat choclate cake, but I'd rather have it presented to me on a plate than slammed in my face.
The taste will still be the same - the overall impression not.
-
Did I get him wrong or did he say there is "no sin that can not be forgiven". I hope thats what he said and I would love that to be official church doctrine because I feel thats what the Bible teaches - but to my understanding the church always used to teach all sins can be forgiven except at least two: (1) murder and (2) to sin against the Holy Ghost.
What do you think?
-
Yeah, same with me... it seemed a bit strange to smile while talking about deaths and injuries. My wife and a didn't know about her being Pres. Momsons daughter either. Funny thing, my wife said half way through her talk the way she speaks sounds like Pres. Monson.
But the message was really good.
I loved the closing hymn. Just awesome :)
-
Vielleicht schreibe ich dich irgendwann einmal an, da ich in meiner Gemeinde manchmal seltsame Dinge beobachte und die dann falsch einordne, weil ich mit niemandem dort über meine Beobachtungen sprechen kann.
zum beispiel?
-
Most girls don't serve a mission. They are taught that its more important to raise a family. So chances are she will rather stay at home looking for a descent husband - could be you by the way. So don't miss the opportunity to date her if you like her.
As for those who suggest you might leave on a mission yourself to better your chances with the LDS girls - nonsens. You are in the middle of university and our european system is not the same as the american. Even if you left after you graduated, it would be pretty hard to find a job...
If you need a nice scripture to qoute, take this one
1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: 2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; 3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; 7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
-
Hello again.
I talked to this nice girl a lot in the last few weeks during the Sunday meetings.
I got to know that she is single and I like her so much, because she is so sweet and also a little bit shy.
My problem right now is that she doesn´t visit any YSA-activities. So I am only seeing her on Sundays.
I already had dates with girls before I joined the LDS, but I don´t know how to ask her out.
Perhaps she was just so nice and friendly because I am new and if I ask her out she will see how much I like her and if she will say "no" it will be very uncomfortable for me to see her every week.
The worst thing would be if she will talk to other members about me asking her out.
Do you think that I should forget her and find another LDS-girl that does not belong to my home community?
Sometimes I think to much, but it is so difficult for me to know how to react towards people/girls who are members of the LDS.
For example I won´t know how to behave during a date. The only thing I want is that she will feel comfortable and fine.
If you meet a non-LDS girl it would be normal to kiss her on a first date or to hold her hand.
How is that in the LDS-community?
Are there any rules? I for myself will always follow the law of chastity, but I don´t know what kind of actions are against this law:
Of course it means that you should not sleep with a girl before marriage, but what is with kisses, hugs, holding her hand and all this stuff.
I just want to act appropriate if she will go out with me.
She should have a good time and that is the only thing that matters to me.
It would be nice if there is someone out there who can help me.
If you are just reading this post and not the whole thread, I will say again that I am from Austria and not a person who learned the English language for his whole life.
So I am saying sorry for all the grammatical mistakes.
**** only for those who have the gift of tongues - or speak german as I do
****Servus Josh,
für mich hört es sich so an als ob du ordentlich in dieses Mädel verschossen bist. Glückwunsch
Der erste Schritt ist gemacht - ihr sprecht miteinander. Also, dran bleiben, sie scheint nicht zu beissen... Unsere LDS Mädels sind auch nur ganz "normale" Menschen. Auch sie wollen Liebe, Aufmerksamkeit und so weiter. Ein bissl Romantik schadet bestimmt auch nicht. Von der Seite her kannst du sicher so mit ihr umgehen, wie du es mit jedem anderen Mädel sonst auch tun würdest. Gib ihr das Gefühl, was besonderes zu sein.
Du hast gefragt, ob du irgendwelche Regeln beachten sollst und dir die Frage im Prinzip selbst beantwortet. Keusch ist unser Standard. Das Heisst aber nicht, dass man sich nicht küssen darf oder umarmen, Händchen halten und so. Das ist prinzipiell alles OK. Natürlich nur, wenn ihr BEIDE das auch wollt. Aber du scheinst da ja Erfahrung zu haben und wirst dann merken, ob sich das schon fürs erste Date eignet, oder ob du es langsamer angehen solltest. (Ich wollte meine jetztige Frau auch gerne beim ersten Date küssen, hab mich aber nicht getraut... sind trotzdem seit 4 Jahren glücklich verheiratet :) Ach ja, und wir haben im Kino ganz schüchtern die Hände gehalten. HAt ganz schön geknistert)
Es gibt eine Art Programm, mit dem alle Jugendlichen der Kirche aufwachsen, das nennt sich "Für eine starke Jugend" Da sind verschiedene Themenbereiche beschrieben, moralische Werte usw. Unter anderem auch "Verabredungen". Guckst du hier: http://www.lds.org/languages/youthmaterials/strengthyouth/start_here_150.pdf
Zum Thema Keusch leben noch ein kurzes Wort, da es da evtl. Definitionsfragen geben kann. Küssen, umarmen usw. alles OK und "gern gesehen", tabu wäre Sex und alles in die Richtung. Aus dem starke Jugend Heft
Tut vor der Ehe nichts, was die machtvollen Gefühle weckt, die nur in der Ehe zum Ausdruck gebracht werden dürfen. Küsst einander nicht leidenschaftlich, legt euch
nicht auf eine andere Person und berührt nicht die intimen, heiligen Körperteile eines anderen – egal ob ihr angezogen seid oder nicht. Gestattet niemandem, so
etwas mit euch zu tun.
Hoffe ich konnte helfen, wenn du noch Fragen hast und mit jemandem aus deinem eignen Kulturkreis quatschen willst, kannst mir auch gerne ne mail schicken.
Grüße aus Deutschland und viel Glück mit deinem Date
PS: kennst du schon JAEs.ch - Meet Your Friends Online
vielleicht auch interessant um neue Leute kennenzulernen.
-
Hi everybody,
I think it's sad this ended up in a WoW debate. Dance, I've got the feeling, thats' not your real concern. Having read a lot about Joseph Smith, I think I understand how you feel. The more you know about him, the less he seems to have been gods chosen prophet (at least until the end). I've grown up as LDS and served a full time mission, yet my concerns keep growing the more I study about him and early church history. So I can imagine your concerns are even greater coming from a Lutheran background.
I know many won't like to read that - but do you really have to be baptized to attend church together with your husband and son? Do you really have to believe everything thats said in sunday school or sacrament? I don't think so. You can still love the people and respect their faith. I know of people in my own ward, who have not been baptized and played an active part in our church community. There have even been callings - sure not as a teacher or something like that, but for activites etc.
So its possible to be part of it without being a member.
And the worst thing one could do is being baptized without believing in it. I can't imagine it would make you happy. But then - who am I to tell you what to do? I guess in the end it comes down to your own private descision made on your knees before our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
All the best to you and your family :)
)
What do you want to say? 
****
History of the church
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted · Edited by ehkape
Hi folks,
there used to be an online version of the "History of the Church" but I can't find it any more?
Thanks
ehkape
:)
I think it used to be part of byustudies