The Folk Prophet

Joseph Smith's Polygamy Volumes 1-3 by Brian C. Hales

This seems fairly straightforward to me. The ordinances are given to us by God. So if He says something is okay to change, then it's okay to change. He knows what the core of the ordinances are and which parts need remain unchanged. He knows what wording can change and which cannot (Though wording is an interesting subject because words are interpretive and subject to localized understanding, etc... but God understands this all better than any man). Therefore, the answer to your question lies in the principle of revelation, upon which this church is built.

No, I meant what I said. Though I may not have been as clear as I meant to be. I mean that I am defiantly defensive of the church against my own understand (when and if my own understanding conflicts with something the church has said). I am defiant against my own thinking. Deference would work too, but I was referencing the previous sentence.

That's an interesting way to put it. I've had some tactical disagreements with the church's approach to things lately (mormonsandgays website and the latest on race and the priesthood) but generally keep those thoughts to myself. I tend to give the church the benefit of the doubt. Actually that's not accurate. I defiantly give the church the benefit of the doubt. And to me, that defiance is what keeps me safely away from the easy road to apostasy.

Fair enough. It was my impression of the thread I guess. I suppose I just expected more of a "YES!" response rather than the, "it's not doctrine" sort of replies. No worries though.

I think we tend to view "the church" unfairly as some sort of individual. With some issues I think that's valid -- specifically, doctrinal issues -- but generally, "the church" is led by committee. It's the same as the way, say, a bishopric runs a ward. They make calls, see issues, make changes, discuss, debate, fix, etc... They do so with prayer and humility and follow the spirit as they can. With an issue like this, I can very easily see them concluding that it is in their best interest advocate support of a side, then upon seeing the results, determine that perhaps a more neutral approach is better. So they first tell people to explicitly support Prop 8, then in Hawaii they recommend studying the Family Proc and make your own choice. This is not outside the bounds of reasonable reaction to something unforeseen by the church's best-effort choices. And the alteration of approach plays in no way into the doctrinal stand of the church. I agree that it is not conclusive evidence that we can legitimately support a point of view that is clearly in opposition to the church's, but feel that it COULD be viewed that way by some of good conscience, and that we should rightly give them that benefit of the doubt. My intent was not to imply a soul searching 360, as some would, but to accept that there is reasonable evidence that "the church" as we call it, is still finding it's footing in the political side of this issue somewhat. Time will tell where they politically land. My guess is they will land squarely where they began, and at that point opposing the pov will be apostasy. But at current, I don't reasonably see it as so black and white. That being said, apostasy, as we well know, is a slope, and being on it in any regard is dangerous. I do not advocate views that contradict the church's obvious position. I'm only suggesting understanding them. And it is possible that the church could ultimately conclude that, legally speaking, gay marriage is fundamentally fair even if it is immoral, in the same way that we can justly say that allowing alcohol at some level is legally viable in spite of it's use being unquestionably morally wrong in the church's position. I agree. It doesn't take an epiphany to adjust an approach that has been potentially harmful in some ways -- specifically in public relations. The church is clearly highly interested in (and rightly so) maintaining a public image that is generally viewed positively. This makes sense with the mission to gather Israel. The church is very clearly maintaining it's stance on the morality of it, but isn't quite as adamant on the political side of it, which seems a reasonable response. I can easily see them changing tactics again when and if this approach doesn't work, and obviously when the efforts fail, as they are likely to do. The chances of gay marriage becoming universally legal are high, imo. I absolutely agree. To understand how others can view something doesn't mean accepting moral nihilism. I can see their point of view, understand it, and even see some validity to it, without discarding my understanding of the issue. I will maintain that any acceptance of homosexuality is detrimental to society. But I also accept that that is a hard argument to make, even within the church, and that there are good and faithful members who see and understand what is, ultimately, a logical argument. It cannot be proven (yet) that gay marriage is bad for society. I believe it is. But prove it? That's a tough order. To be clear, I'm not saying or advocating on behalf of those who would argue for gay marriage solemnized in the temple and an abandonment of viewing it as a sin. There is no logical argument for that pov within the gospel and those who view it that way are clearly down the path of apostasy. But there are those who believe that, although still a grievous sin, it should be legally recognized as a valid state of marriage as far as the government is concerned, and some of these folk, though perhaps a bit misguided on their overall understanding of the scope of human existence and the varied histories of societies, etc., cannot legitimately be called apostate.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I was reading it and I'm a bit flabbergasted by the general responses. Is the consensus here really that LDS folk do NOT believe in a Heavenly Mother? Really? Come on. We do too. It's in our hymn book, after all. You can argue all day what's doctrinal and what isn't, but when we sing it in our meetings, it's hard to argue that we don't believe it. I believe it. Anyone who doesn't is denying some pretty basic LDS stuff. That's fine I guess. Everyone has their own level of understanding and belief. Everyone justifies what they want to believe with their sense of logic, etc... But as a whole, undoubtedly, the church does believe this and to argue otherwise is silly. We believe in eternal families. We believe in becoming Gods. We believe in eternal progeny. We believe in becoming like our Heavenly Father -- that we will inherit all that he has and is. To extrapolate from this that we have a Heavenly Mother, even setting aside teachings by Joseph Smith and other prophets, even setting aside the hymn book, is not much of a stretch. As to owning our own planet...anti-Mormon garbage. We believe we'll create worlds without number, sure. But owning our own planet is anti, inflammatory rhetoric meant to make Mormons sound like weirdos.

To answer this question we need to be more clear. The power of God delegated to men to do WHAT? There is a pretty great misconception about the point of the priesthood out there. It is not, as seems to be the common pov in Sunday classes, to heal the sick. This is one advantage of the power, but it is not really the point. The power of God could, theoretically, never once in the entire range of human existence, EVER physically heal a single soul, and it would have no bearing whatsoever on the eternities. No mountains moved, no oceans divided, no water into wine, and in the end, it would not really make any difference. What does make a difference? Wherein is the Priesthood actually important? In the saving ordinances. The Priesthood gives us the authority and the power to save souls. That is wherein it is important. That is wherein it matters. The ability and authority to save souls is clearly and directly given to us by God. It is not magically inherent in our own existence or in the nature of the universe. We cannot save ourselves. We cannot be saved without God, and more specifically, without Christ. We cannot be saved through ANY other means or name but His. His priesthood is given to us to that end. Moreover, the priesthood is not magic. It's not some supernatural force bestowed upon beings. God's power is. That's all there is to it. The priesthood is an OATH and a COVENANT. It is a RIGHT. That covenant is not with some universal magic, and the oath is not made to some grand nothingness. Nor is the right unalienable, as we like to think of rights, but is "inseparably connected with the powers of heaven". It is a covenant between God and us. We use the priesthood in fulfillment of that Covenant, and by following His will, we are blessed to serve him and to help bring about his purpose, which purpose is the immortality and eternal life of man. This is the priesthood.

It gets a bit iffy though when dealing with certain political issues. To support the idea of gay marriage as a right doesn't necessarily contradict the organization of the church which clearly teaches that we have the right to our own political views. We should support heterosexual marriage as the valid form. We should view homosexuality as sinful. But to allow something we see as sinful via law doesn't mean we're in apostasy, per se. We can take something like drug legalization as an example. We can uphold the Word of Wisdom in all it's respects and yet still believe that the legalization of certain drugs would help to diminish crime. Many see gay marriage in the same sort of light. They may believe in traditional marriage, but they may politically see value in supporting marriage rights. The church allows for this, and with good reason. They may be right. For the record, I am not a supporter of gay marriage in any way, but I can see that viewing it differently doesn't necessitate excommunication. There is a reason that the church generally stays out of politics. And whereas the church has, in the past, specifically called for action against gay marriage, they changed their approach. We have to ask ourselves why. Unlike those who believe the church merely caves to political pressure, I believe that they examined the issue as it became more volatile, saw that there was a reasonably argument on both sides, and altered their advice accordingly. I am, personally, fairly confident that legalizing gay marriage is the beginning of the end, and accordingly we should do all within our power to stop it. But there are good and faithful members who see it differently. And seeing it differently does not make them less good or less faithful.

Meh. I keep quoting you too. 'sall good. :) I think there are plenty of instances of mistakes in ordinances that does not invalidate them. My point was simply that, in principle, certain ordinances are explicitly defined as "to be repeated exactly" and others are not. The Handbook 2 instruction on the wording of receiving the Holy Ghost falls into a bit of an ambiguous category. Concerning baptism, for example, the handbook says: "the baptism must be repeated if the words are not spoken exactly as given in Doctrine and Covenants 20:73 or if part of the person’s body or clothing is not immersed completely." No such instruction is given for the confirmation.

Interesting. I would guess that in the ancient church, they were tied together in some way. And I would contend that in BOM times they were certainly. But I could be wrong on both counts. In the example Christ set there was no confirmation described prior to the descent of the Holy Ghost...though Christ being confirmed to his own church wouldn't necessarily make sense...but there are no real other examples of confirmation of his disciples either, and yet that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Either way, I agree. It's irrelevant to how we practice today.

I've always seen them as inseparable (confirmation and the ordinances). Baptism is prerequisite for confirmation, The gift of the Holy Ghost follows. But the idea of being baptized and then not becoming a member isn't really a valid idea. One cannot do it. Not in the cards. So whether the gift of the Holy Ghost follows baptism or Confirmation isn't really relevant. They are, all three, tied together. That being said, I had always, sort of, thought technically the same as you, that it was baptism that led to it. The D&C vs I quoted was a learning point for me as well.

That question kind of puts the whole thing into a proper light in a way. The answer is that unless it was really, really, really wrong, nothing would be said and the confirmation would still be valid. It is not like the baptismal prayer or sacramental prayer which must be repeated if not said exactly. If you said something really mistaken, like reference to a spaghetti monster or something, I'm sure they'd ask you to do it again.

Modern day scripture pretty clearly set the doctrinal basis for this in D&C 33:15. “Whoso having faith you shall confirm in my church, by the laying on of the hands, and I will bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost upon them.” I think it's fairly conclusive and we can safely accept that it is, indeed, contingent upon confirmation into the church. However, after thinking about it a bit, I acquiesce to your first response in that it doesn't seem to really matter if it's a "command" or not. The gift of the Holy Ghost is a response to the confirmation. The wording in the prayer seems to be a statement to the confirmed to accept it. My personal take remains, in that I think it should be stated as an explicit directive, but I'm not as adamant as before on this point.

While conforming to the letter of it, I'm not sure this one fills the spirit of the instruction, which is to tell them, in no uncertain terms, to Receive the Holy Ghost. Phrasing it this way makes it ambiguous. Leads to potential questions. Did I really receive it? Was that valid? Etc... Better to be explicit.

The handbook does not say "such words as". It says: 4. Uses the words “Receive the Holy Ghost” (not “receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”). This is clearly defined, unlike a lot of the prayer. The specifics of how you lead into this isn't defined. Typically, you hear "I say unto you..." or something along those lines. But reasonably one could simply say, "Receive the Holy Ghost." as a complete statement with no filler before or after.

Your dilemma is one of the key learning points of life. Don't get discouraged. It is the same for all. Learning to hear and understand the spirit is a life-long process that we all must go through. It is not a simple thing and it takes great faith, patience, long-suffering, sacrifice, and determination to get there, bit by bit, line upon line. Don't give up just because you have been set back in your understanding a bit. That set-back is a learning opportunity. But you will only learn if you respond to it with humility, faith, study, prayer, etc... And it will happen again and again. We, as fallible humans, will be constantly put in our place by these sorts of things. We can respond in pride and move away from the Lord or respond in humility and move closer to Him. Eventually, you and all of us, will get there if we keep true to the faith. We must trust the Lord even when we don't understand.

I guess it depends on what's meant by retaliation. In the context of the statement I think the answer to your question is, absolutely, yes. But if you stretch the meaning of retaliation to include any sort of oppositional response whatsoever, then I don't think so.

Your Peter comparison fails in that, as you point out, the Lord told him it was not so. If Brigham Young was in error, your comparison implies that either the Lord didn't bother to tell Brigham that it was not so, or that Brigham chose to ignore it. In the Peter example, the Lord did not allow a hundred of years of error to proceed against His will. Wouldn't we expect the same, reasonably, from the Brigham Young situation, if it was indeed in error? And the fact that Joseph ordained African Americans is not so telling as you imply. You presume things into it that are not self-evident. We believe in continuing revelation and that policies and practices can change according to the times and needs of the church. The whole "if Joseph didn't say or believe it then it can't be true for the modern church" pov is not congruent with these things. They did all sorts of things in the early church that have been changed over time. The implication of this being indicative of error is highly problematic in numerous ways. I can't say I understand this politically correct, I-know-better-than-a-prophet sort of thinking that seems to be pervading the church.

This is, in my opinion, reading things into what the church has said that the church has not said.

Evil has no power to cause us fear or to creep us out. That is a response to evil that is of our own making. Moreover, to fear evil is to expose a lack of faith. Not that we can be perfect in faith. But with perfect faith, we will fear no evil. Even a devil in the room should cause no concern or fear if we are of perfect faith. Moreover, I don't believe evil can physically threaten our well being without the use of external sources (a.k.a. sending a bad guy after you) unless we actually allow the evil to do so. Turn your back on it and it has no power over you. I wasn't suggesting he ignore the reality of an evil spirit. I was suggesting that it may well be more in their heads, and if so to buck up and get right with reality. I have a firm belief in the reality of evil spirits. And I do think they have great influence in this life. I think that more of what we see in the madness of the world is in reality a direct result of evil spirits than most people probably think. But I don't think being creeped out is usually a sign of evil spirits. That is, in my opinion, more often a state of our own minds and perspective than evidence of reality. Learn to not be creeped out and you won't be creeped out. Simple as that. It's not about the evil spirits. As far as true evil spirits are concerned, that's pretty plain. Keep the commandments and they will have no power over you. Can you feel them sometimes. Sure, but I would contend that it is situational and not random. As in, some crazy guy starts preaching whacko bloody murder at you and you sense evil spirits, rather than, "I just sense there's an evil spirit in my bedroom". I will add again, just to be clear. I'm only giving my thoughts, so if the OP disagrees and feels a legitimate need to continue to seek methods of exorcism, that is certainly his prerogative.

I somewhat agree with you, but that does not mean that they are not true or that there is no truth in them. Everything the church doesn't teach is not automatically false. Whereas I can certainly see your point and you may be right in this, I can also reasonably see that they are saying (as I interpret it) "We don't know, therefore we repudiate these teachings as truth." rather than, as you are inferring from it, "We DO know, therefor we repudiate these teaching as truth and thereby claim them as absolutely false." I think the latter is reading things into it that are not said.

I vote 2. However, this only applies to an omniscient being who understands why He instigated the races, how race ties into our experience and test in life, etc., etc... We must allow that God knows more than us and trust him. Any presumption that we understand better than God or his prophets runs quickly afoul of arrogance and pride. The problem is that we have learned to equate the word racism with prejudice and bias. As in the definition "having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another." But in it's truest sense, anything that discriminates by race is racist. And discrimination by race can be positive, if that discrimination is positive, as in programs or scholarships designed to help those races. Whereas I make no argument as to the effectiveness of these programs, I wouldn't say that every instance of these programs are based on evil or malice intent. Yet they are literally racist, depending I suppose on the exact definition of racism. This generates a problem I think in the church's statement of "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." As has been noted however, what about the Book of Mormon? Clearly, the church is not condemning the Book of Mormon, which says to me that they are using the term racism specifically as defined above (from a Google search, a.k.a. the superiority of a race). Per one definition of racism (racial superiority) the Church is correct and the Book of Mormon is not racist. Per another definition (discrimination because of race) the Church would be in conflict with it's own scripture and the Book of Mormon is clearly racist. God, clearly has given situations or blessings to one race that he denies another. But it is not because of superiority of those races because, as we know, God is no respecter of persons. But it is also blatantly clear that we are not all given equal opportunity in this life as far as the mortal existence is concerned. Some are smart, some stupid, some tall, some short, some bald, some with flowing locks, some disabled, some athletically superior. This does not mean that God has viewed us differently and has given to us unfairly accordingly. Rather, He sees us as we really are and has given us our lot according to His wisdom and omniscience in accordance with the greatest levels of fairness. And all will be judged fairly and according to how we handle our stewardship. The fact that some have more than me in this life is not relevant to God's respect for me. And none of God's choices relevant to race in the past are applicable to how we think of and interact with others now. God makes choices according to His knowledge and understanding and with a perfect fairness. But we have been clearly commanded how to treat others. A realization that God has a higher understanding of our life experience can never justify our mistreatment of others in any regard (with the exception of direct revelation, which of course would mean that we were not "mis"-treating, though it might look so to the world - I believe this to be the case with the Priesthood ban).

I think disown is the best synonym here. The church disowns them as doctrine. There are plenty of unknown truths that are not doctrine though, and we should not speculate on them as if they are doctrinal based on our own mortal understanding of things. My view is similar to modobund's. I think we should not teach these things as true. I also think that we should allow for the possibility that they may be true. It isn't really relevant to mortal life, expect, perhaps, in that we should support our prophets (past and present) as thoroughly as possible. We should give them the benefit of the doubt if things are in questions, and strictly follow what is currently taught. What that means to me is that we do NOT teach these principles. We do not speak of them as viable explanations. The church is clear on that. However, we should also allow in our own sense of understanding the reality that our past prophets and apostles were, actually, led by the spirit, and therefore, what they said, while perhaps beyond our understanding, is probably at some level correct. To explain my thinking I'll share my thoughts on the curse of Cain thing. I think the usage of the specific wordings of "curse" and "Cain" are problematic in our current culture. However, that doesn't mean that similar thinking may not be valid. If we take the idea of a curse as a state set upon us that sets us apart in a negative way, then anything we have in this life that does so can be reasonable called a curse. That does not translate, necessarily to inequality in God's love for us, or our capability or worth as a person. We take the word curse to mean inequality, but it is not necessarily so. The Israelites were cursed when they were in bondage to Pharaoh. Would anyone argue that that defined them as lesser than the Egyptians in God's eyes? Would anyone claim that it was racist to say they were cursed by this state? That the African race was cursed in some regard due to their black skin when racism ran rampant seems fairly clear. We see the same thing in the treatment of the Jewish race (as prophesied) and their treatment over the years. Understanding that these "races" were cursed does not inherently say that they are lesser in the eyes of God or should be viewed as lesser in our own views. But they were, undeniably, cursed. As for the "Cain" part, I see this, perhaps, akin to the horses in the BOM thing. Just because they called something a horse that wasn't literally a horse, or because Joseph Smith translated it as horse (presuming that there weren't actual horses whose bones just simply haven't been discovered yet) doesn't mean the BOM is false. And if Brigham Young and others were wrong on using the name "Cain" due to cultural tradition or misreading the scriptures, it doesn't mean, necessarily, that the principle isn't right. Regardless, as clearly indicated by the church, this is only personal opinion (in this case mine) and no way reflects church doctrine. I believe the church doctrine, for decades now, has been pretty clear. We do not know.

Have you considered that by "casting out" the evil spirits, so to speak, that you may be reinforcing some childish silliness that we've all go through rather than responding by something more akin to, "Knock it off. There's nothing in your room." Honestly, this sounds like a grown-up monsters-under-the-bed thing to me (which you may have fallen a bit victim to yourself). I don't want to be insensitive, so I'm only offing the thought for consideration. But I think there's a correlation between "acceptance" of evil spirits and their actual presence. Evil has no power that we do not give it.