Question About Joseph Smith Iii

[speedomansam]

jenda, you're frustrating. i quit trying to discuss/prove stuff to you because nothing anybody says, even if it's the smartest, most brilliant, genius thing anybody has ever said, will affect you. i'm not saying i, or anybody on this board has said these genius things, but it just seems you always sidestep around whatever's thrown at you. there's been a lot of good points defending the LDS church in this thread, yet i feel that you refuse to acknowledg that any of them might have any merit. i mean, do you consider the possibility that what you learn from history may not be true (you'll find stuff to both credit and discredit BY, credit/discredit JS, etc)?

I suppose, though, these questions are a bit hypocrytical. Though i try to examine what's been said logically, analytically, and spiritually, i know i'm probably biased to make things support what i want them to support (the truthfullness of the LDS church) because i know it to be true (just as you'll probably say you know your church to be true). Ultimately, I'm just frustrated that you, who know so much of the gospel that i love and that feels so true and right, won't accept it, and i wish i knew what to do so that you would! I feel like alma: "oh, that i were an angel!" But i suppose i do sin in my wish.

[ST:DS9]

Jenda, Why are you avoiding my question about the verse in Jacob Chapter 2?

[Amulek]

Originally posted by ST:DS9@Nov 7 2004, 11:19 AM

Jenda, Why are you avoiding my question about the verse in Jacob Chapter 2?

Perhaps for the same reason she has not answered my questions. This is not the only message board she posts on and she does have a life.

Amulek

~

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ST:DS9@Nov 7 2004, 10:19 AM

Jenda, Why are you avoiding my question about the verse in Jacob Chapter 2?

I didn't. I answered. Or did you ask another question?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by srm@Nov 6 2004, 10:25 PM

I have never read JS,III's, biography, but my history book says Zenos Gurley was a seventy.  Is it possible what you might remember reading could have come from a later period of time when it was more than likely he was ordained to a higher office?

Is there a reference in your history book? i'd like to know when and by whom he was ordained a seventy.

No specific reference, it says he was ordained an elder by James Blakeslee in June 1838, they "moved (from Canada) to Far West in late 1838 in time for two important events: Gurley's ordination to the office of seventy and the flight of the church to Illinois.

Gurley went on missions from Nauvoo, sometime leaving his large family in difficult economic straits. He helped establish a branch at LaHarpe, Illinois, in 1840. He was active in raising funds for the Nauvoo Temple and became president of Seventy at Nauvoo."

would have to read some of the personal accounts, but, IMO, Brigham Young, whether at the conference or at the parade, pulled a charade that fooled many innocent people.  From everything I have read, it seems clear that his ultimate goal was to become leader of the church.

OK. This is at odds with the many witnesses...from the conference at least. These people who had spiritual experiences in the past and they recognised this as a spirirtual experience. I think that they knew what they were seeing and what they were talking about

Where I get my information from is the church history text called "Nauvoo: Kingdom on the Mississippi". The author is a historian who used to be a member of the RLDS church a very long time ago, but became disaffected and left the church. His research is very thorough, diaries, letter and other correspondences, minutes of meetings, books written by people who lived in Nauvoo, etc. From some of the things he quotes, it seems fairly obvious that BY, if it wasn't an idea shortly after Joseph's death to become leader of the church, it evolved shortly thereafter.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by speedomansam@Nov 6 2004, 11:40 PM

jenda, you're frustrating. i quit trying to discuss/prove stuff to you because nothing anybody says, even if it's the smartest, most brilliant, genius thing anybody has ever said, will affect you. i'm not saying i, or anybody on this board has said these genius things, but it just seems you always sidestep around whatever's thrown at you. there's been a lot of good points defending the LDS church in this thread, yet i feel that you refuse to acknowledg that any of them might have any merit. i mean, do you consider the possibility that what you learn from history may not be true (you'll find stuff to both credit and discredit BY, credit/discredit JS, etc)?

I suppose, though, these questions are a bit hypocrytical. Though i try to examine what's been said logically, analytically, and spiritually, i know i'm probably biased to make things support what i want them to support (the truthfullness of the LDS church) because i know it to be true (just as you'll probably say you know your church to be true). Ultimately, I'm just frustrated that you, who know so much of the gospel that i love and that feels so true and right, won't accept it, and i wish i knew what to do so that you would!  I feel like alma: "oh, that i were an angel!" But i suppose i do sin in my wish.

Speedomansam, you just said a mouthful! B)

And everything you said, I could say myself. We walk around in the world with the filters we have grown up with and accepted to be true. And I have sat and logically looked at everything everyone else has said and can't see how it fits together. I can't see how you believe that the church at Nauvoo was the same church that was restored in 1830, I can't see why you don't believe polygamy is an abomination when it is stated clear as anything in the BoM, and God even says why. I can't see how secret ordinances became part of the church when that is the whole subject of the book of Ether (in the BoM).

They just don't logically fit together for me, and I have had spiritual confirmation that it was the church that was restored in 1830 that is God's church.

Maybe instead of focusing on the things that we are at odds with, we can focus on the things that are similar. In the grand scheme of things, we have more things in common than we have that separate us. :)

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 7 2004, 10:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 7 2004, 10:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--speedomansam@Nov 6 2004, 11:40 PM

jenda, you're frustrating. i quit trying to discuss/prove stuff to you because nothing anybody says, even if it's the smartest, most brilliant, genius thing anybody has ever said, will affect you. i'm not saying i, or anybody on this board has said these genius things, but it just seems you always sidestep around whatever's thrown at you. there's been a lot of good points defending the LDS church in this thread, yet i feel that you refuse to acknowledg that any of them might have any merit. i mean, do you consider the possibility that what you learn from history may not be true (you'll find stuff to both credit and discredit BY, credit/discredit JS, etc)?

I suppose, though, these questions are a bit hypocrytical. Though i try to examine what's been said logically, analytically, and spiritually, i know i'm probably biased to make things support what i want them to support (the truthfullness of the LDS church) because i know it to be true (just as you'll probably say you know your church to be true). Ultimately, I'm just frustrated that you, who know so much of the gospel that i love and that feels so true and right, won't accept it, and i wish i knew what to do so that you would!  I feel like alma: "oh, that i were an angel!" But i suppose i do sin in my wish.

Speedomansam, you just said a mouthful! B)

And everything you said, I could say myself. We walk around in the world with the filters we have grown up with and accepted to be true. And I have sat and logically looked at everything everyone else has said and can't see how it fits together. I can't see how you believe that the church at Nauvoo was the same church that was restored in 1830, I can't see why you don't believe polygamy is an abomination when it is stated clear as anything in the BoM, and God even says why. I can't see how secret ordinances became part of the church when that is the whole subject of the book of Ether (in the BoM).

They just don't logically fit together for me, and I have had spiritual confirmation that it was the church that was restored in 1830 that is God's church.

Maybe instead of focusing on the things that we are at odds with, we can focus on the things that are similar. In the grand scheme of things, we have more things in common than we have that separate us. :)

Dawn,

Absolutely we have much in common. We have our faith and testimony that Jesus is the Christ, our Savior and Redeemer...our testimony of the truthfulness of the BoM....and those are HUGE!

But...since this thread has been about church history....it has been my personal experience in talking with RLDS/CoC/Remnant/Restored Church and others....as the years go by..that historical commonality is shrinking exponentially.

You keep making comments about the original "1830" church....the "Kirtland era" church...the "Nauvoo era" church etc. The truth of the matter is that they are all one and the same! The LDS people believe in a living church...with realtime revelation from the Prophet to the people. The Church was in its infancy in 1830 as you know....it was growing into its spiritual maturity. You seem to want to believe that those first few years after the organization of the church, that that was it...there wasnt going to be anymore doctrine and truths revealed.

As you know...we do not believe JS to be a "fallen prophet"..or a prophet who had lost his "spiritual edge" etc. He taught what he taught. The historical record is clear on it. People do not have to believe what he taught....but, the record speaks for itself...he taught every doctrinal principle that is found within the LDS church.

No one has to believe in conspiracy theories...or believe that thousands of people were duped by a single man (BY) or were coerced into believing doctrines that they did not have a testimony of etc...etc. If people choose to believe that...to a man...every single Apostle that the Lord had called through his servant JS...eventually apostacized....thats their right to do so. But....I choose to believe that JS called faithful and valiant men....men who were willing to give their lives if need be....men who loved God and exercised great faith in Jesus Christ.

I choose to believe that the saints were faithful in their own right....had individual and powerful testimonies of the truth of the restored gospel....that they were not "weak minded" or "clonelike" willing to just be led around by their noses.

Thousands of saints gave their very lives for the gospel they embraced! They suffered things that we cannot in our wildest dreams begin to fathom or understand.

Dawn...I agree with you...as I think about the histories of the LDS and the RLDS/CoC.....I must admit that I scratch my bald head...and mutter to myself...."why cant they see and understand..why...why...why"??

But we live in the "here and now". The reality is that the Restorationists are longing for a day that will never come. It will not come because it has already come!

I will even go so far as to say this....whatever mistakes the Church or its leaders may have done in the past....they are in the past. Look at the LDS church today versus ANY other restoration faction. There is NO comparison as to the "fruits" of the LDS church today. Whether one wants to talk about unity, or finances....or missionary work.....proclaiming the BoM...or helping the needy and underpriviledged among us....or standing united as a Church against the prevailing "social trends" or I would say "social evils" of the world....the LDS church stands virtually alone among restoration churches in its unyielding position. I honestly am not saying that from a arrogant or boastful position....but, thats the reality. The Lord is blessing his Church abundantly! The Lord expects much more from us though...much, much more!

The LDS church is the ONLY Restoration church that is fulfulling the prophecy given in the scriptures regarding the "stone being cut from the mountain" and "go ye therefore, into all the world...baptizing them in the name of the Father...and of the Son....and of the Holy Ghost"....to the degree that was spoken of by the Prophet. We can and must do more...we must do better.

The other Restoration factions are either dead or dying. I know thats harsh...but dang it...its the truth. NONE of the them are succeeding....use whatever standard you want to..to measure what "success" is...it aint happening.

As we all know...we can debate the doctrinal differences until the cows come home. We have our scriptural foundation for our beliefs....and we preach our message accordingly....and then let the spirit testify to the people as to the truthfulness of the message. Thus far...the answer to message has been perfectly clear. The Holy Ghost is testifying to millions of people of the truthfulness of the Restored gospel as taught by the LDS church....and they are joining with the saints.

Dawn...I guess what I am asking is....why cant you forgive what happened in the past....why cant you forgive and exercise patience in the same manner you seem to be able to forgive and exercise patience with the CoC leadership?

We need you Dawn. The church needs your testimony and passion for the gospel. Let go of these stumbling blocks. Come join with us.

with all sincerity,

randy

[ST:DS9]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 7 2004, 10:49 PM

I can't see why you don't believe polygamy is an abomination when it is stated clear as anything in the BoM, and God even says why.

God also said that he would use Polygamy to raise seed unto him and would command it. Otherwise we are to hearken to the words found in Jacob 2. Refer to Jacob 2:30, this is where you will learn that God would command polygamy when he wants to raise seed unto him. I don't see how you can say that God would never command such when it is clear in the Book of Mormon that he would?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ST:DS9+Nov 8 2004, 07:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ST:DS9 @ Nov 8 2004, 07:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 7 2004, 10:49 PM

I can't see why you don't believe polygamy is an abomination when it is stated clear as anything in the BoM, and God even says why.

God also said that he would use Polygamy to raise seed unto him and would command it. Otherwise we are to hearken to the words found in Jacob 2. Refer to Jacob 2:30, this is where you will learn that God would command polygamy when he wants to raise seed unto him. I don't see how you can say that God would never command such when it is clear in the Book of Mormon that he would?

Now, that is a far stretch, to interpret that scripture that way. The way I interpret it is that God could command anything because He is God. But God has other qualities, too. One of them being that He never changes. He went through a big long shpeal in Jacob where He explains just why He feels polygamy is an abomination, and for him to all of the sudden say "Ah, go ahead, I don't really care about all those things" just doesn't seem like something God would do because GOD DOESN'T CHANGE.

And that ties into Randy's post, too. Randy, thank you for the heart-felt invitation, but the church in 1830 and the church in 1844 were two completely different churches. I understand about maturation, etc., but it wasn't just maturing, it was changing. I don't believe that God would speak against all these things in a book that is said to contain the fullness of the gospel, organize a church under the same principles, and then turn around and change it all.

Sorry. I take God at his word when He says he doesn't change. I will put my faith in that first. Whatever else I believe will fall under that umbrella. You keep saying that I have all this patience with the leaders of the CoC, yet you ignore what I say regarding that statement. I said, and I will repeat, I have absolutely no patience with the leaders of the CoC (why do you think I was banned from the discussion board?), I have patience with God.

[ST:DS9]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 8 2004, 09:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 8 2004, 09:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -ST:DS9@Nov 8 2004, 07:49 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 7 2004, 10:49 PM

I can't see why you don't believe polygamy is an abomination when it is stated clear as anything in the BoM, and God even says why.

God also said that he would use Polygamy to raise seed unto him and would command it. Otherwise we are to hearken to the words found in Jacob 2. Refer to Jacob 2:30, this is where you will learn that God would command polygamy when he wants to raise seed unto him. I don't see how you can say that God would never command such when it is clear in the Book of Mormon that he would?

Now, that is a far stretch, to interpret that scripture that way. The way I interpret it is that God could command anything because He is God. But God has other qualities, too. One of them being that He never changes. He went through a big long shpeal in Jacob where He explains just why He feels polygamy is an abomination, and for him to all of the sudden say "Ah, go ahead, I don't really care about all those things" just doesn't seem like something God would do because GOD DOESN'T CHANGE.

And that ties into Randy's post, too. Randy, thank you for the heart-felt invitation, but the church in 1830 and the church in 1844 were two completely different churches. I understand about maturation, etc., but it wasn't just maturing, it was changing. I don't believe that God would speak against all these things in a book that is said to contain the fullness of the gospel, organize a church under the same principles, and then turn around and change it all.

Sorry. I take God at his word when He says he doesn't change. I will put my faith in that first. Whatever else I believe will fall under that umbrella. You keep saying that I have all this patience with the leaders of the CoC, yet you ignore what I say regarding that statement. I said, and I will repeat, I have absolutely no patience with the leaders of the CoC (why do you think I was banned from the discussion board?), I have patience with God.

So what will he command to raise seed unto him, but not to otherwise?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ST:DS9+Nov 8 2004, 08:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ST:DS9 @ Nov 8 2004, 08:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 8 2004, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by -ST:DS9@Nov 8 2004, 07:49 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 7 2004, 10:49 PM

I can't see why you don't believe polygamy is an abomination when it is stated clear as anything in the BoM, and God even says why.

God also said that he would use Polygamy to raise seed unto him and would command it. Otherwise we are to hearken to the words found in Jacob 2. Refer to Jacob 2:30, this is where you will learn that God would command polygamy when he wants to raise seed unto him. I don't see how you can say that God would never command such when it is clear in the Book of Mormon that he would?

Now, that is a far stretch, to interpret that scripture that way. The way I interpret it is that God could command anything because He is God. But God has other qualities, too. One of them being that He never changes. He went through a big long shpeal in Jacob where He explains just why He feels polygamy is an abomination, and for him to all of the sudden say "Ah, go ahead, I don't really care about all those things" just doesn't seem like something God would do because GOD DOESN'T CHANGE.

And that ties into Randy's post, too. Randy, thank you for the heart-felt invitation, but the church in 1830 and the church in 1844 were two completely different churches. I understand about maturation, etc., but it wasn't just maturing, it was changing. I don't believe that God would speak against all these things in a book that is said to contain the fullness of the gospel, organize a church under the same principles, and then turn around and change it all.

Sorry. I take God at his word when He says he doesn't change. I will put my faith in that first. Whatever else I believe will fall under that umbrella. You keep saying that I have all this patience with the leaders of the CoC, yet you ignore what I say regarding that statement. I said, and I will repeat, I have absolutely no patience with the leaders of the CoC (why do you think I was banned from the discussion board?), I have patience with God.

So what will he command to raise seed unto him, but not to otherwise?

You are ignoring, or leaving out a big word in that scripture, and that word is IF.

And it is not even a complete sentence. I don't understand it because there is no ending statement. "For if I will raise up seed unto me, I will command my people--" is not a sentence. So how can you even interpret the way you do?

Have you even read all of Jacob 2:24-35? (You might also want to check out Jacob 3:5,6) He is talking about raising up a righteous branch (a seed) that does not practice polygamy specifically because it is an abomination to Him. It always was an abomination, it always will be an abomination. You can't take a partial sentence which has no context and use it to say that God will change his mind. You can justify what happened all you want, that doesn't change the truth of what God loves and what God hates.

[Jenda]

I just want to tell everyone that I consider this topic closed. There is nothing new that is being discussed, I have stated the RLDS position, and why I cannot accept any other position. I am not here to convert anyone, neither am I here to be converted. If anyone has a sincere question, I am willing to answer it, but that is all. I will not argue the history of it anymore.

Thanks, there has been some good dialogue in this thread. B)

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 8 2004, 10:57 AM

I just want to tell everyone that I consider this topic closed. There is nothing new that is being discussed, I have stated the RLDS position, and why I cannot accept any other position. I am not here to convert anyone, neither am I here to be converted. If anyone has a sincere question, I am willing to answer it, but that is all. I will not argue the history of it anymore.

Thanks, there has been some good dialogue in this thread. B)

Dawn,

You say you have no patience any longer with the leaders of the CoC church...yet you attend their meetings. Your reasoning is because there is no Restoration branch near you.

The CoC teaches doctrine and espouses many unwritten beliefs that are diametrically opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ...yet you allow yourself to attend their meetings....and I would presume to participate in its social activities..etc. Is that not a double standard....trying to keep one foot is Zion and the other in Babylon?

I cannot remember...did you ask your name to be officially taken off the rolls of the CoC church? If not..is it because you feel that at some point...the Lord is going to cleanse the CoC...and set in order again the "old time" RLDS beliefs within it? If your name is on the rolls of the CoC .....you are STILL a member of a Church that teaches all of these things. If thats true....that is why I say you are exercising great patience with the Leadership of the CoC church.....or you would say the Lord...but, the bottom line is still the same.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Nov 8 2004, 02:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Nov 8 2004, 02:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 8 2004, 10:57 AM

I just want to tell everyone that I consider this topic closed.  There is nothing new that is being discussed, I have stated the RLDS position, and why I cannot accept any other position.  I am not here to convert anyone, neither am I here to be converted.  If anyone has a sincere question, I am willing to answer it, but that is all.  I will not argue the history of it anymore.

Thanks, there has been some good dialogue in this thread.  B)

Dawn,

You say you have no patience any longer with the leaders of the CoC church...yet you attend their meetings. Your reasoning is because there is no Restoration branch near you.

The CoC teaches doctrine and espouses many unwritten beliefs that are diametrically opposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ...yet you allow yourself to attend their meetings....and I would presume to participate in its social activities..etc. Is that not a double standard....trying to keep one foot is Zion and the other in Babylon?

I cannot remember...did you ask your name to be officially taken off the rolls of the CoC church? If not..is it because you feel that at some point...the Lord is going to cleanse the CoC...and set in order again the "old time" RLDS beliefs within it? If your name is on the rolls of the CoC .....you are STILL a member of a Church that teaches all of these things. If thats true....that is why I say you are exercising great patience with the Leadership of the CoC church.....or you would say the Lord...but, the bottom line is still the same.

Randy, I could ask the same question about some of the people who have left the LDS church but have stated that they don't want to sever ties because friends are friends, whether they are in the church or out of the church.

One of the main reasons I attend the CoC is to teach the restored gospel to the kids who aren't going to hear it otherwise. And I continually speak with the pastor regarding the subject so that the liberal faction isn't the only voice that is heard. And when I am in charge of services, I provide a conservative RLDS viewpoint. I do what I can to keep the gospel alive. What would you do, yourself, if faced with this same situation. I bet you can't even imagine a situation like this, let alone put up a fight against the corporation that the LDS has become. You would be out faster than you could blink an eye. At least the RLDS is slightly more forgiving. I may not be able to post on their board anymore, but they can't silence me at home (my home branch).

[Ray]

Heh, I’m amazed that the CoC allows you to teach RLDS doctrine, doctrine opposed to the current doctrine of the CoC. Have I understood you correctly? The CoC no longer accepts the Book of Mormon, or the Doctrine & Covenants, or Joseph Smith Jr. as a prophet of God, and yet they allow you to teach that those things are true? Why would they allow you to do that… to teach a different doctrine, especially to the youth in that church? It sounds like an open invitation for wolves in sheep’s clothing, to me. What message are the leaders of the CoC trying to share… believe anything you like, and teach anything you like, as long as you come to our church? No wonder they're falling apart at the seams.

Btw, I was composing a post to ask you why you count yourself among the CoC instead of LDS, since you would be able to get more out of meeting with LDS. In other words, either way you’re hearing things you don’t want to hear, but if you attended a LDS branch you would at least be able to hear the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants being taught. But now I see that you’re trying to convert the CoC back to RLDS doctrine. And I think you’re right, you wouldn’t get away with that for long in the LDS church. You could attend, but you wouldn't be able to teach a different doctrine without some repercussions.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 8 2004, 03:31 PM

Heh, I’m amazed that the CoC allows you to teach RLDS doctrine, doctrine opposed to the current doctrine of the CoC.  Have I understood you correctly?  The CoC no longer accepts the Book of Mormon, or the Doctrine & Covenants, or Joseph Smith Jr. as a prophet of God, and yet they allow you to teach that those things are true?  Why would they allow you to do that… to teach a different doctrine, especially to the youth in that church?  It sounds like an open invitation for wolves in sheep’s clothing, to me.  What message are the leaders of the CoC trying to share… believe anything you like, and teach anything you like, as long as you come to our church?

Btw, I was composing a post to ask you why you count yourself among the CoC instead of LDS, since you would be able to get more out of meeting with LDS.  In other words, either way you’re hearing things you don’t want to hear, but if you attended a LDS branch you would at least be able to hear the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants being taught.  But now I see that you’re trying to convert the CoC back to RLDS doctrine, and you’re right, you wouldn’t away with that for long in the LDS church.

IMO, and this is my opinion only, the CoC has not outrightly rejected the BoM, D&C, or Joseph Smith, they are just hoping time and minimal exposure will work their magic. There are still BoM, D&C, and Joseph Smith lovers in the church, but they are getting older, and putting up a fight is too stressful, I guess. So most sit quietly and nobody hears anything from them for or against the "liberalization" of the church. With minimal exposure, then, knowledge of the BoM, church history, etc., will dwindle away till the church doesn't have to take any official action.

There are 5 traditional branches in Independence, and several scattered throughout the country. The church has started putting up with these branches because I don't think they could afford to lose many more members, so they allow them to teach and preach the Old Jerusalem Gospel without too much interference. But, if someone who was not for the "traditions" moved in and started attending those branches, say, a woman in the priesthood, those branches would not be able to prevent their participation, the church would stand behind the woman as opposed to the branch.

All of this is, as I said, my opinion.

[Ray]

Well, from what you have said, it is my opinion that you’re only talking about certain members of the CoC who maintain their beliefs in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Joseph Smith Jr. as a prophet of God. From other comments you have made, I have gathered that the CoC itself, as an institution, has formally changed their doctrine and no longer considers those things to be true.

It sounds like a very sad state of affairs to me, and I will pray for your success in sharing the truth with others. Who knows, once they accept those things to be true, they may also accept or at least investigate the other beliefs of the LDS. :)

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 8 2004, 03:59 PM

Well, from what you have said, it is my opinion that you’re only talking about certain members of the CoC who maintain their beliefs in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Joseph Smith Jr. as a prophet of God.  From other comments you have made, I have gathered that the CoC itself, as an institution, has formally changed their doctrine and no longer considers those things to be true. 

It sounds like a very sad state of affairs to me, and I will pray for your success in sharing the truth with others.  Who knows, once they accept those things to be true, they may also accept or at least investigate the other beliefs of the LDS.  :)

25 years ago, when these "liberal" things started, I drew some lines in the sand and said, "Lord, if X, Y, or Z happens, I am outta here and will join the LDS church". (X, Y, and Z being women in the priesthood, the church joining the WCC (World Council of Churches), open communion, etc.) They had already, by that time, changed the church school curriculum (they bought it from the UCC (which is the worship arm of the WCC)) and started a program called "Faith to Grow", and changed the baptismal material to something that only mentioned the name of the church in one place in the whole curriculum, and that place was in the church seal (logo) on the back cover of the book.

But that was before restoration branches. It was also before I realized that there were more people who believed like me than I knew.

Well, they started ordaining women into the priesthood in 1985, they opened communion in 1994, and they became affiliate members of the WCC. But I continued to stay with the church and compromised my beliefs. If I was going to compromise them by joining the LDS, I might as well stay there and compromise them there.

But in 2000, the church started looking into the possibility of accepting baptisms from other churches, that became the straw that broke the camels back, for me. By this time, restoration branches had formed (they started forming in 1987, or so), so I decided that that was where I needed to be. Unfortunately, I can only be there in spirit, but I won't give up on teaching the gospel in the church that at one time proclaimed to be a restored church. Since they haven't officially proclaimed otherwise, they really can't silence me.

[Ray]

By this time, restoration branches had formed (they started forming in 1987, or so), so I decided that that was where I needed to be.

By “restoration branches”, are you referring to CoC branches that allow people to teach some RLDS doctrine unofficially? Or are you referring to what may be considered other distinct organizations?

Since they haven't officially proclaimed otherwise, they really can't silence me.

Who is the "they" who haven’t officially proclaimed “what” otherwise? Are you saying that just because the official CoC organization doesn’t proclaim certain things they once proclaimed, that doesn’t mean they no longer believe those certain things are true? Or in other words, that the CoC leaders might still believe those things are true even though they don't officially teach those things anymore?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 8 2004, 05:15 PM

By this time, restoration branches had formed (they started forming in 1987, or so), so I decided that that was where I needed to be.

By “restoration branches”, are you referring to CoC branches that allow people to teach some RLDS doctrine unofficially? Or are you referring to what may be considered other distinct organizations?

The "restoration branches" are those who are restored gospel believers that have decided to worship separately from the mainstream church so they could continue to believe and practice their faith without having to compromise. Approx. 70,000 members have (informally) left the church to attend restoration branches.

Out of the "restoration branches" movement, several churches have organized. One is called the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, another the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, and a few very much smaller ones. They have declared the mainstream RLDS church out of order and have "reorganized" the church (again). But, compared to the number of those who attend restoration branches, their numbers are quite small.

Since they haven't officially proclaimed otherwise, they really can't silence me.

"They" haven’t officially proclaimed “what” otherwise? Are you saying that just because the official CoC organization doesn’t proclaim certain things they once proclaimed, that doesn’t mean they no longer believe those certain things are true? Or in other words, that the CoC might still believe those things are true even though the CoC doesn't officially teach those things anymore?

What I meant there was since the church hasn't officially proclaimed that they no longer view the BoM being what it says it is, I can teach it. And since they still proclaim to be a restoration church (although they have redefined the word), I can teach the restoration (and I teach my view of it).

The CoC won't go out on the limb to openly proclaim that they no longer believe these things beause there are so many people who still do believe in them who would leave the church if the church took those actions, but by their silence on those issues, the church has shown that they no longer hold them important. They will let the believers believe, but they will not teach it so that new believers are made. (Does that make sense?) But their direction (the path they are taking the church) is towards liberal protestantism. They would sooner have Spong or Borg preached from the pulpit than the BoM.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 8 2004, 08:03 AM

And that ties into Randy's post, too. Randy, thank you for the heart-felt invitation, but the church in 1830 and the church in 1844 were two completely different churches.

You can say that but since you are not the prophet, it is irrelevant. That is, it is not up to you to decide how God ought to manage his Church and follow the prophet so long as he says things you like, but then if he says something you don't like, proclaim apostacy. But then, that is the way of the RLDS church: take a vote, see if something is popular, change the name, change the priesthood, adopt trinitarian inclinations, select a Methodist trained president, etc.

But God has other qualities, too.  One of them being that He never changes.  He went through a big long shpeal in Jacob where He explains just why He feels polygamy is an abomination, and for him to all of the sudden say "Ah, go ahead, I don't really care about all those things" just doesn't seem like something God would do because GOD DOESN'T CHANGE.

I can understand that you personally are opposed to plural marriage but to claim that God is against it is an entirely different thing. The main thing you have working against you is a little something called the Bible. Do you deny that a number of God's elect were polygamists? The difference in those days, I suppose, is that they often didn't marry the second wife, but simply took their wives servants as brood mares.

Sorry.  I take God at his word when He says he doesn't change.

Again, you must have trouble keeping a straight face when you post humor like that. Ever read the OT? Ever notice how God was a violent god... death, bloodshed, murder, kidnapping, vengence, eye for an eye, world wide flood, turning people into salt for looking backwards, killing children for calling Elijah baldhead?

Beside, your whole argument is so completely silly. Think of the ancient Jewish religion. Think of current day Christianity, even your peculiar brand of Christianity. How different are the two? Yet your argument is that the 1830 Church is toooooo different from the 1840 Church. Huh? How's that work?

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 8 2004, 08:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 8 2004, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 8 2004, 08:03 AM

And that ties into Randy's post, too.  Randy, thank you for the heart-felt invitation, but the church in 1830 and the church in 1844 were two completely different churches.

You can say that but since you are not the prophet, it is irrelevant. That is, it is not up to you to decide how God ought to manage his Church and follow the prophet so long as he says things you like, but then if he says something you don't like, proclaim apostacy. But then, that is the way of the RLDS church: take a vote, see if something is popular, change the name, change the priesthood, adopt trinitarian inclinations, select a Methodist trained president, etc.

But God has other qualities, too.  One of them being that He never changes.  He went through a big long shpeal in Jacob where He explains just why He feels polygamy is an abomination, and for him to all of the sudden say "Ah, go ahead, I don't really care about all those things" just doesn't seem like something God would do because GOD DOESN'T CHANGE.

I can understand that you personally are opposed to plural marriage but to claim that God is against it is an entirely different thing. The main thing you have working against you is a little something called the Bible. Do you deny that a number of God's elect were polygamists? The difference in those days, I suppose, is that they often didn't marry the second wife, but simply took their wives servants as brood mares.

Sorry.  I take God at his word when He says he doesn't change.

Again, you must have trouble keeping a straight face when you post humor like that. Ever read the OT? Ever notice how God was a violent god... death, bloodshed, murder, kidnapping, vengence, eye for an eye, world wide flood, turning people into salt for looking backwards, killing children for calling Elijah baldhead?

Beside, your whole argument is so completely silly. Think of the ancient Jewish religion. Think of current day Christianity, even your peculiar brand of Christianity. How different are the two? Yet your argument is that the 1830 Church is toooooo different from the 1840 Church. Huh? How's that work?

People Jenda is doing just as we are doing. Our very best.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Fatboy@Nov 8 2004, 08:51 PM

People Jenda is doing just as we are doing. Our very best.

Think about it for a moment. Jenda's argument is that God doesn't change and since (she says) the 1840 Church is not the same as the 1830 Church, the 1840 Church is false.

Got that?

Following that line of thinking, the gospel of the time of Christ was false because it was different from the gospel of say, Habakkuk which was also not true because it was different than the gospel of Moses which was also not true because it was different that the gospel of Abraham and so on and on.

Obviously she is not making a real argument, she is joking with us and laughing that some of us think she is serious.

Likewise her argument against polygamy which was a part of the lives of many of God's OT chosen.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 8 2004, 07:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 8 2004, 07:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 8 2004, 05:15 PM

By this time, restoration branches had formed (they started forming in 1987, or so), so I decided that that was where I needed to be.

By “restoration branches”, are you referring to CoC branches that allow people to teach some RLDS doctrine unofficially? Or are you referring to what may be considered other distinct organizations?

The "restoration branches" are those who are restored gospel believers that have decided to worship separately from the mainstream church so they could continue to believe and practice their faith without having to compromise. Approx. 70,000 members have (informally) left the church to attend restoration branches.

Out of the "restoration branches" movement, several churches have organized. One is called the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, another the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, and a few very much smaller ones. They have declared the mainstream RLDS church out of order and have "reorganized" the church (again). But, compared to the number of those who attend restoration branches, their numbers are quite small.

Since they haven't officially proclaimed otherwise, they really can't silence me.

"They" haven’t officially proclaimed “what” otherwise? Are you saying that just because the official CoC organization doesn’t proclaim certain things they once proclaimed, that doesn’t mean they no longer believe those certain things are true? Or in other words, that the CoC might still believe those things are true even though the CoC doesn't officially teach those things anymore?

What I meant there was since the church hasn't officially proclaimed that they no longer view the BoM being what it says it is, I can teach it. And since they still proclaim to be a restoration church (although they have redefined the word), I can teach the restoration (and I teach my view of it).

The CoC won't go out on the limb to openly proclaim that they no longer believe these things beause there are so many people who still do believe in them who would leave the church if the church took those actions, but by their silence on those issues, the church has shown that they no longer hold them important. They will let the believers believe, but they will not teach it so that new believers are made. (Does that make sense?) But their direction (the path they are taking the church) is towards liberal protestantism. They would sooner have Spong or Borg preached from the pulpit than the BoM.

Dawn,

I truly believe you are a woman of faith...and loyal to what you believe is true. I admire and honor you for doing so.

I really enjoy your posts and your very thoughtful responses.

I suppose the bottom line is that you will continue on the path you are on....going to the CoC and all that entails....while you wait...hopefully..for a Restoration branch to be formed near you.

The reality is that the Restoration branches are not growing....let me put it this way...they are not growing here in Indep. I doubt they are growing anywhere else for that matter either. Again....thats not being harsh..thats just the hard reality.

Actually...if one were to believe the claims of the Remnant Church...they are gaining more and more Restorationists each year. Who knows if thats true or not.....but, IMO the various Restorationist/Remnant factions will continue to "swap" members...just like what happened after the death of the Prophet. People uniting with one..then another...and then yet another. But...there has been no real measurable growth in the CoC/Restorationist/Remnant churches....and with the level of growing animosity among the Restorationists and the other various factions...it doesnt appear there will be.

Dawn....all I want say is we need you. If you considered joining the LDS church once before...prayerfully reconsider again. I promise you...you will find all that you are longing for. I only offer that in light of the fact you mentioned having considered it once before.

.....you do not need to respond to the "invitation" part! LOL...but I am sincere about it!

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda+Oct 19 2004, 12:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Oct 19 2004, 12:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenifer@Oct 18 2004, 09:36 PM

Jenda, Why do you think the majority followed Brigham Young West?

(let me preface this by saying that this is a harsh post, but it is what I believe)

There were several reasons.

1. Joseph Smith, III, was only 12 years old when his father died, and was too young to lead the church.

2. Because Brigham Young was very charismatic. As a missionary, he brought a lot of people into the church, and they probably felt obligated to follow him.

3. Whistling Whittling Brigade.

4. He excommunicated all those who spoke otherwise.

5. He pulled off an excellent charade when he posed as Joseph Smith. Even going so far as to take JS's horse for the day.

Those are the ones off the top of my head. If more come up, I will add them.

Where is this church today? Is it still true to the restoration? If not where are the oracles and why would God let it fall apart after all that is being done wrong? The LDS church has flourished under the guidance of the Lord. Why can't you see that?