Fether

Not really what I was saying. To me BYU is one TOOL the church has within the secular world. Not that it has a foot in Babylon. I don’t see Holding on to BYU leading to corruption in the church. But I can see the church leaving BYU would lead to a corrupt BYU. But as Vort said above, if the church ever makes a decision, I would follow and change my opinion if I need to.

Keeping in line with the Word of Wisdom in that we should abstain from alcohol consumption.

BYU is a fantastic foot hold the church has in the secular world. I personally think it would be a terrible move to separate the church from BYU.

If it stops, a useless solar power battery is the least of our worries.

I found this incredibly insightful, yet simple. Thank you!

So how are we suppose to see these changes in teachings? To me it seems we only have a few choices. 1) the church today is falling into apostasy 2) the church today is is growing in light and understanding and so somethings past leaders have taught just don’t matter (hence the lack of discussion on certain topics). 3) the saints are becoming less saintly and so the church is teaching (AND BACKING in the case of the seer stone) easier and less strict doctrines for us to live and leaving the “higher law” for the elect to discover on their own. to me #2 seems to coincide with what the prophet is saying. Like how our the youth today are the strongest and have been prepared for this day, and how the lord is expecting more of us so we are changing to home centered church. how else can we take this (and I ask honestly)

I actually agree with you COMPLETELY on your assessment on each of those, but when I read the statements made by the leaders living in those times, I get the strong vibe that they felt more strongly about those doctrines that we now call policy. I may be wrong as I was not there, but to me it seemed that if you were to ask Brigham Young, Joseph F Smith, or Bruce R McConkie if the CHURCH’s stance such topics as spoken above (and I would throw in evolution) would change, they would provide a hard NO. But here we are today. Endowment presentation has changed, evolution is now being taught and accepted in Church run schools, contraception is not talked about at all when compared to the past, teachings of the seer stone and the hat has changed, and blacks are no longer marked has being the ones who were not valiant. I’m not suggesting the church is wrong or that the changes are signs of an apostasy, I’m saying what I did above. We have more light and understanding today. Perhaps there are some opinions spoke by previous church leaders in great emotion that simply don’t matter so they weren’t or haven’t been revealed. I suspect that there are also things that we are taught today that we may find later are not exactly true. But until that happens, I subscribe to the most recent revealed truth established by the CHURCH even if it conflicts with a statement made by a prophet in earlier decades.

You and earlier saints were also taught that blacks were not valiant in pre-earth life and the seed of Cain, birth control is evil, and a significantly different endowment (from what I understand). Were they lying or are the leaders today lying? I argue neither. They were just wrong, making strong statements about things that are if so little concern that it wasn’t revealed, or not ready for the changes that were to come.

And to this, I naturally want to ask "Why would the President of the church and the apostles allow a document with inaccurate information be published under their organization's name?"

Oh you are right, I had it backward. But either way, to me that scripture was not meant to be an all-encompassing description of the translation process. That becomes clear when I read the Gospel Topics Essay on the translation as well as sections from the SAINTS book. Both published by the church.

Yes that is also what they teach... But Oliver Cowdery was not the only scribe. If we pretend there were no other scribes we hide history. If we acknowledge there were other scribes then we should also include their accounts of the events or again we are editing and hiding the facts (aka the historical records). Now we can challenge the accuracy of these records (which is not the same as editing or hiding). But since they all show Joseph Smith translating atypically to a more scholarly method of translation it all works to the larger truth of "By the Gift and Power of God". Therefore there not a lot to be gained to tring to "disprove" these historical records and a lot to lose by ignoring it. By this logic, I can go and read you the first half of Mosiah 27 and declare "Alma the Younger and all the sons of Mosiah are wicked, end of story." ... but it isn't the end of the story. More happened. Same with Joseph Smith and the translation. Oliver Cowdery was the FIRST scribe. It was later scribes that talked about alternate forms of translation.

I guess I am just immensely confused as to what the big deal is. Is there some comprehensive journal entry out there where JSjr explained all the process he used to translate the Book of Mormon? If so I would love to read it. To me, it is pretty clear he used many different tools and forms to translate. And as he got further along in the translation, he began to rely less and less on physically looking at the plates and more on just the revelation. Do you disagree that there were times that the plates were not visible during portions of translation? Is the problem that antis make it sound like this was the ONLY fashion Joseph Smith used to translate?

From my understanding of what is happening, this acceptance by the church is only recent. Previous church leaders rejected this completely.

It is interesting and I find myself pondering this often. So I grew up knowing about plural marriage, seer stone, the hat thing, “polyandry”, blacks and the priesthood, Book of Abraham translation, exaltation (in 8th grade a friend of mine and I would joke about putting our planets next to each other in the celestial kingdom), and countless other topics that I hear causing problems for others. When it comes to the hat and seer stone, I always just assumed it was accepted in the church as a whole. When it comes to the change in teaching/opinion on things but like this, my trump card I play is Bruce R McConkie’s statement after facing BYU following the change in the priesthood policy concerning blacks (which he famously believed would never happen). “disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.” To me, whether it is a seer stone in a hat, black’s premortal standing, word of wisdom, or Book of Abraham Translation. If modern day teaching conflicts with earlier prophet’s teachings, I revert to what Elder McConkie taught and the 9th article of faith “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” I don’t think we should align ourselves with statements by any earlier church leaders regardless of position. We should align ourselves with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Christ’s current representatives. If the current leaders are comfortable publishing a book teaching that JSjr used a hat and seer stone... I believe we should be on with that too (churchofjesuschrist.orgchapter-6-the-gift-and-power-of-god) I don’t think anyone was lying... just that they were wrong or maybe putting too much weight on something that really doesn’t matter.

So just so I got this clear. You do NOT believe he used a seer stone in the hat to translate? But he did use a seer stone... and that this was taught by previous prophets?

I didn't realize there was debate as to whether JSjr used this form of revelation or not. I assumed it was widely accepted? I don't understand why the process of how the translation occurred has created such a stir?

From what I understand, as Joseph Smith jr translated the Book of Mormon, and later the Book of Abraham and the "translation" of the New Testament, Joseph slowly stopped using tools and eventually was translating the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham without even the original source material (Golden Plates and original writings holding the book of Abraham). Having a period where Joseph used a seer stone in a hat doesn't seem too far off base of what to expect. What annoys me is the illogical thought process of those who try to dismantle the Book of Mormon and translation. Did he, Martin Harris and/or Oliver Cowdery all fabricate the whole thing? If so, then we have to assume that either every scribe was in on it or JS jr had an incredible memory as he recited thousands of phrases out of memory as his face was in a blackened hat. But clearly they were all in on it. Everyone that assisted in translation, all the witnesses, everyone that was present for every miracle involving the arrival of an angel or Christ. All the while preventing any journal entry, personal writing, and convincing everyone who disaffected from the church to not spill the beans on their giant con. If this were all true, calling JSjr the greatest con man in history is a GROSS understatement and is an insult to his legacy of conning.

Oh, this policy doesn’t bother me at all. I was just responding to the idea that God will put up a protective shield around every Latter-day Saint that is ever found in a shooter situation.

Ya, but say that to someone who doesn’t have great faith in God and his church.

Not particularly a calming movie to watch when discussing this topic. Additionally, it sets high expectations for God’s hand to be seen in a specific way in every scenario. I do not believe for one second that God will stop every gun man that enters any Latter-day Saint chapel. I get uncomfortable when we talk about miracles like that as being proof that’s God loves us and watches us. It suggests that when he doesn’t prevent tragedy that he isn’t there and he doesn’t love the people that were hurt.

The important distinction is that your first time going through the temple you are going for yourself. Every time after you are going for someone else. So if someone went through over a year ago, the covenants they made them would presumably be different then if they had gone through today.

It’s amazing how incredibly deaf some are... But as I say that I wonder how deaf I am.

This is one of those things that people who get it will get it, and those who don’t never will.

Going to be the best StarWars yet

I know the MCU is not particularly loved in this forum, but you may have heard that SONY took Spider-Man away from Disney (or Disney botched the deal... however you want to look at it). Super frustrating to me. In fact it has been a major stress in my life these last few days. No more Spider-Man in the MCU now