Amillia, A Few Questions.

[Jason]

Since you claim to have the answers to everything, why don't you clear up a few things for the rest of us:

#1. Why did the LDS church baptise people for health?

#2. Why were men sealed to men prior to 1891?

#3. Why did the LDS church teach that the temple garment wasn't to be changed, and then they changed it?

#4. Why does the LDS church allow priests to bless the Sacrament, contrary to the D&C?

#5. Why was the office of "Elder" originally a lesser priesthood office, only to become a Melchizedek priesthood office later?

Let's just start there, okay?

[Jason]

Oh, and what was the name you used to use here at LDSTALK?

Thanks.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 2 2005, 04:32 PM

Since you claim to have the answers to everything, why don't you clear up a few things for the rest of us:

#1. Why did the LDS church baptise people for health?

#2. Why were men sealed to men prior to 1891?

#3. Why did the LDS church teach that the temple garment wasn't to be changed, and then they changed it?

#4. Why does the LDS church allow priests to bless the Sacrament, contrary to the D&C?

#5. Why was the office of "Elder" originally a lesser priesthood office, only to become a Melchizedek priesthood office later?

Let's just start there, okay?

#1. Line upon line, precept upon precept. Only a growing person would understand this concept.

#2. Line upon line, precept upon precept. Only a growing person would understand this concept.

#3. Wickedness of the people, certainly not wicked leadership. (3 Nephi 16:10)

#4. Line upon line, precept upon precept. Only a growing person would understand this concept.

#5. Line upon line, precept upon precept. Only a growing person would understand this concept.

Since you are not considered a growing person in my opinion, I choose not to waste my time explaining any more.

You should pray and search out these questions yourself.

[Dale]

1.The Bible isn't their final authority in faith or practice.

2.It wasn't a marriage.

3.The law of Moses taught priesthood was unchangeable.

4.Do you have a verse for that?

5.Although the office of elder wasn't Aaronic office it was a term that came before the High Priests office was given to the church. After the High Priests office came into being it was a term applied to more than the High Priests office. High Priesthood was applied to lower offices higher than the Aaronic priesthood. It's a case of terminolgy ambeguity that was later corrected.

[Setheus]

Amillia, those replys were sad and weak. If you don't want to waist your time fine, but don't cripple your cause dear.

Dale, good responces.

Ex, lets get some refrences shall we?

Now I have some questions.

1. Why do non/anti mormons always question and attack mormonism?

a. because the LDS faith has found the answers from God and doesn't need to seek and destroy others?

2. Why can't anti-mormon attacks come with spicific and lagitament refrences?

a. because the author is either too dumb / lazy / or just plain wrong.

3. Why have I answered my own questions?

a. because I wanted to put my opinion in here too.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Setheus@May 3 2005, 01:40 AM

Amillia, those replys were sad and weak. If you don't want to waist your time fine, but don't cripple your cause dear.

I don't find responding to "old" and "over used" questions productive when asked by revilers, rather than sincere searching souls.

These people who are asking these questions have received thousands of answers to them and they reject them. I thought everyone was smart enough to see that.

I answer questions to the sincere, not the mocker. My response was neither sad nor weak to the thinking person.

[Jason]

Amillia,

You forgot to answer one of the questions. But at least you answered the BIG question: You don't know squat.

Dale,

Some of your replies don't make any sense. Nevertheless, references will be given below.

Sethus,

At least you're sane enough to recognized BS when you see it. Here's your references:

#1. Why did the LDS church baptise people for health?

"Pres’t. J. Smith spoke upon the subject of . . . . Baptisms for the dead, and for the healing of the body must be in the font, those coming into the church and those rebaptized may be done in the river."  (Ehat,  The Words of Joseph Smith p. 111).  

"Sister E[mma Smith] is worse, many fears are entertained that she will not recover.  She was baptised twice in the river which evidently did her much good." Jessee, The Papers Of Joseph Smith, Vol. 2.  P 486).

"There was a font erected in the basement story of the Temple, for the baptism of the dead,  the healing of the sick and other purposes; this font was made of wood, and was only  intended for the present use; but it is now removed, and as soon as the stone cutters get through with the cutting of the stone for the walls of the Temple, they will immediately proceed to cut the stone for and erect a font of hewn stone." (Messages of the First Presidency 1:247)

#2. Why were men sealed to men prior to 1891?

Known as the "Law of Adoption". John D. Lee was, for example, one of Brigham Young's "adopted" sons by sealing. A common practice. See: Manti Temple Jubilee Book of 1938 (gives the number of male to male adoptions up to that time), also:

"I want to lay before you what there is for us to do at the present time. . . . You have acted up to all the light and knowledge that you have had; but you have now something more to do than you have done.  We have not fully carried out those principles in fulfillment of the revelations of God to us, in sealing the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. . . . we still have more changes to make. . . . I will tell you what some of them are.  One of them is the principle of adoption.  Now, what are the feelings of Israel?  They have felt that they wanted to be adopted to somebody. . . . The duty that I want every man who presides over a Temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers. . . . That is one principle that should be carried out from this time henceforth.  ‘But,’ says one, ‘suppose we come along to a man who perhaps is a murderer.’  Well, if he is a murderer, drop him out and connect with the next man beyond him. . . . Another principle connected with this subject I want to talk about.  A man has married a woman, and they have a family of children.  The man lays down in death without ever hearing the Gospel.  The wife afterwards hears the Gospel and embraces it.  She comes to the temple and she wants to be sealed to her husband, who was a good man.  The feeling has been to deny this and to say, ‘No, he is not in the Church, and you cannot be sealed to your husband.’  Many a woman’s heart has ached because of this, and as a servant of God I have broken that chain a good while ago.  I have laid before every woman this principle and let her have her choice.  Why deprive a woman of being sealed to her husband because he never heard the Gospel?  What do any of us know with regard to him?  Will he not hear the Gospel and embrace it in the spirit world? . . . There will be very few, if any, who will not accept the Gospel."  (Messages of the First Presidency 3:255-256)

#3. Why did the LDS church teach that the temple garment wasn't to be changed, and then they changed it?

TEMPLE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE BISHOPS (1918).   Dear Brother: If you have not already adopted the practice of calling attention to the following regulations, when you issue recommends to individuals going to the Temple, you will please do so hereafter, in every instance.  FIRST: The garments worn by those who receive endowments must be white, and of the approved pattern; they must not be altered or mutilated, and are to be worn as intended, down to the wrist and ankles, and around the neck.  Please inform all to whom you issue recommends that these requirements are imperative, and that admission to the Temple will be refused to those who do not comply therewith.  The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from heaven, and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form, or in the manner of wearing them. . . . Recommends should be issued only to those who are worthy and faithful. . . Recommends should not be given to persons afflicted with any kind of infectious disease, or with serious or offensive skin disease. . . Living boys and girls as young as sixteen years of age may receive endowments if, in each case, the character and condition of the individual is such that the Bishop feels justified in issuing a recommend for that purpose.  Males over twenty-one years of age, and females over eighteen, are not permitted to take part in, or witness, Temple ordinances until they receive their own endowments, except that they may be baptized for the dead; in that event the recommend must show that it is issued FOR BAPTISMS ONLY. . . A living woman can not receive endowments while her husband is alive, if the husband has not been endowed.  Bishops are not to issue recommends for second anointings: that is the province of Presidents of Stakes, under approval of the President of the Church, and the individuals selected must not be informed until after the issuance of such recommend.  As a general rule, such recommends are issued only in behalf of those who have had endowments in lifetime, and have been sealed and lived together faithfully as husband and wife, and who have been valiant in the defense of truth and active in all good works.  (Joseph F. Smith, Messages of the First Presidency, 5:110-112)

#4. Why does the LDS church allow priests to bless the Sacrament, contrary to the D&C?

D&C 20:46-52. A priest is only to bless the Sacrament if occasion requres when no Elders are present. I've never been to an LDS meeting where such an occasion would so require.

#5. Why was the office of "Elder" originally a lesser priesthood office, only to become a Melchizedek priesthood office later?

Joseph Smith said, "It was the privilege of every Elder present to be ordained to the High Priesthood." (Far West Record, 25 Oct. 1831)

"A general conference was called and . . . the Lord made manifest to Joseph that it was necessary that such of the elders as were considered worthy, should be ordained to the high priesthood." (John Whitmer's History, Chapter VII., June 3, 1831)

"The Melchizedek priesthood was then (June 4, 1831) for the first time introduced, and conferred on several of the elders." (John Corrill, Brief History of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1839, Chapter 10)

"...the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders." (History of the Church, Vol. 1, pages 175-176)

Sethus,

You asked:

1. Why do non/anti mormons always question and attack mormonism?

Honestly? Because the religion is as phony as a three dollar bill.

2. Why can't anti-mormon attacks come with spicific and lagitament refrences?

Because I wanted you to do your own homework. But, since you're too lazy...

3. Why have I answered my own questions?

Good question.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 3 2005, 10:44 AM

Amillia,

You forgot to answer one of the questions. But at least you answered the BIG question: You don't know squat.

Dale,

Some of your replies don't make any sense. Nevertheless, references will be given below.

Sethus,

At least you're sane enough to recognized BS when you see it. Here's your references:

#1. Why did the LDS church baptise people for health?

"Pres’t. J. Smith spoke upon the subject of . . . . Baptisms for the dead, and for the healing of the body must be in the font, those coming into the church and those rebaptized may be done in the river."  (Ehat,  The Words of Joseph Smith p. 111).  

"Sister E[mma Smith] is worse, many fears are entertained that she will not recover.  She was baptised twice in the river which evidently did her much good." Jessee, The Papers Of Joseph Smith, Vol. 2.  P 486).

"There was a font erected in the basement story of the Temple, for the baptism of the dead,  the healing of the sick and other purposes; this font was made of wood, and was only  intended for the present use; but it is now removed, and as soon as the stone cutters get through with the cutting of the stone for the walls of the Temple, they will immediately proceed to cut the stone for and erect a font of hewn stone." (Messages of the First Presidency 1:247)

#2. Why were men sealed to men prior to 1891?

Known as the "Law of Adoption". John D. Lee was, for example, one of Brigham Young's "adopted" sons by sealing. A common practice. See: Manti Temple Jubilee Book of 1938 (gives the number of male to male adoptions up to that time), also:

"I want to lay before you what there is for us to do at the present time. . . . You have acted up to all the light and knowledge that you have had; but you have now something more to do than you have done.  We have not fully carried out those principles in fulfillment of the revelations of God to us, in sealing the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. . . . we still have more changes to make. . . . I will tell you what some of them are.  One of them is the principle of adoption.  Now, what are the feelings of Israel?  They have felt that they wanted to be adopted to somebody. . . . The duty that I want every man who presides over a Temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers. . . . That is one principle that should be carried out from this time henceforth.  ‘But,’ says one, ‘suppose we come along to a man who perhaps is a murderer.’  Well, if he is a murderer, drop him out and connect with the next man beyond him. . . . Another principle connected with this subject I want to talk about.  A man has married a woman, and they have a family of children.  The man lays down in death without ever hearing the Gospel.  The wife afterwards hears the Gospel and embraces it.  She comes to the temple and she wants to be sealed to her husband, who was a good man.  The feeling has been to deny this and to say, ‘No, he is not in the Church, and you cannot be sealed to your husband.’  Many a woman’s heart has ached because of this, and as a servant of God I have broken that chain a good while ago.  I have laid before every woman this principle and let her have her choice.  Why deprive a woman of being sealed to her husband because he never heard the Gospel?  What do any of us know with regard to him?  Will he not hear the Gospel and embrace it in the spirit world? . . . There will be very few, if any, who will not accept the Gospel."  (Messages of the First Presidency 3:255-256)

#3. Why did the LDS church teach that the temple garment wasn't to be changed, and then they changed it?

TEMPLE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE BISHOPS (1918).   Dear Brother: If you have not already adopted the practice of calling attention to the following regulations, when you issue recommends to individuals going to the Temple, you will please do so hereafter, in every instance.  FIRST: The garments worn by those who receive endowments must be white, and of the approved pattern; they must not be altered or mutilated, and are to be worn as intended, down to the wrist and ankles, and around the neck.  Please inform all to whom you issue recommends that these requirements are imperative, and that admission to the Temple will be refused to those who do not comply therewith.  The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from heaven, and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form, or in the manner of wearing them. . . . Recommends should be issued only to those who are worthy and faithful. . . Recommends should not be given to persons afflicted with any kind of infectious disease, or with serious or offensive skin disease. . . Living boys and girls as young as sixteen years of age may receive endowments if, in each case, the character and condition of the individual is such that the Bishop feels justified in issuing a recommend for that purpose.  Males over twenty-one years of age, and females over eighteen, are not permitted to take part in, or witness, Temple ordinances until they receive their own endowments, except that they may be baptized for the dead; in that event the recommend must show that it is issued FOR BAPTISMS ONLY. . . A living woman can not receive endowments while her husband is alive, if the husband has not been endowed.  Bishops are not to issue recommends for second anointings: that is the province of Presidents of Stakes, under approval of the President of the Church, and the individuals selected must not be informed until after the issuance of such recommend.  As a general rule, such recommends are issued only in behalf of those who have had endowments in lifetime, and have been sealed and lived together faithfully as husband and wife, and who have been valiant in the defense of truth and active in all good works.  (Joseph F. Smith, Messages of the First Presidency, 5:110-112)

#4. Why does the LDS church allow priests to bless the Sacrament, contrary to the D&C?

D&C 20:46-52. A priest is only to bless the Sacrament if occasion requres when no Elders are present. I've never been to an LDS meeting where such an occasion would so require.

#5. Why was the office of "Elder" originally a lesser priesthood office, only to become a Melchizedek priesthood office later?

Joseph Smith said, "It was the privilege of every Elder present to be ordained to the High Priesthood." (Far West Record, 25 Oct. 1831)

"A general conference was called and . . . the Lord made manifest to Joseph that it was necessary that such of the elders as were considered worthy, should be ordained to the high priesthood." (John Whitmer's History, Chapter VII., June 3, 1831)

"The Melchizedek priesthood was then (June 4, 1831) for the first time introduced, and conferred on several of the elders." (John Corrill, Brief History of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1839, Chapter 10)

"...the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders." (History of the Church, Vol. 1, pages 175-176)

Sethus,

You asked:

1. Why do non/anti mormons always question and attack mormonism?

Honestly? Because

2. Why can't anti-mormon attacks come with spicific and lagitament refrences?

Because I wanted you to do your own homework. But, since you're too lazy...

3. Why have I answered my own questions?

Good question.

I know everything but squat, so you are 100% right there. But the LDS religion isn't as phony as a three dollar bill. It does take spiritual intelligence to get at the truth.

And according to JENDA you are not supposed to be allowed to make personal attacks, which your stating I didn't know squat was ~

<span style=\'font-family:Geneva\'><span style=\'color:red\'>HEY JENDA EXMO is attacking me.</span>

[Jason]

I know everything but squat, so you are 100% right there.

[Amillia]

If you understand 'healing' you would have to read the scriptures:

Matt 9:1 AND he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.

2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

4 And Jesus aknowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?

You need to understand that sin can cause illness. And when one is baptised for the remission of sins or be healed spiritually as as well as physically.

[Amillia]

Men being sealed to men is done all the time when adopted children are sealed to their fathers and mothers. Also, it is still a belief that to be sealed to a specific linage is a good and desirable thing.

[Amillia]

The temple garment, as well as many other things weren't to be changed, but because of the wickedness of the people, they were. Just as the law of consecration was taken away from the people and the people were given the law of tithing (which was a law of the OT or lesser law).

Wickedness is why most things go backwards...even people.

[Jason]

Amillia,

You need to understand that sin can cause illness. And when one is baptised for the remission of sins or be healed spiritually as as well as physically.

That's fine, but your Church leaders then did a 180' on this teaching with the following declaration:

January 18, 1923.  Dear Brethren: The following paragraph is part of a letter dated December 15th, 1922, from the First Presidency to Presidents of Temples: ‘We feel constrained to call your attention to the custom prevailing to some extent in our temples of baptizing for health, and to remind you that baptism for health is no part of our temple work, and therefore to permit it to become a practice would be an innovation detrimental to temple work, and a departure as well from the provision instituted of the Lord for the care and healing of the sick of His Church.  And in this connection we desire to say that the practice of Church members going to temples to be administered to is a departure from the way instituted of the Lord, and we are desirous that these things should be corrected and receive attention of the proper authorities in the branches, Wards, and Stakes of the Church where they belong, and it will be for you to so inform your temple workers and those who may come to you from time to time for baptism for health and to be administered to.’  The Presidency would thank you to convey the information contained in the foregoing paragraph to your Bishops with the request that they issue no more recommends for baptisms for health or administrations to the sick.  (Messages of the First Presidency 5:224-225.) 

Now which is right, to baptise in a font for health, or not? Seems your Church can't make up it's mind. Or are you going to give me the same old "line upon line" excuse?

[Amillia]

Priests, decons, and elders have all have their duties changed. Even their ages have changed. The 70s were in every ward, and now it is only a higher calling for a GA.

There was a time there was Assistance to the Apostles. And a time where there were no such thing. I believe scripture will explain these changes :

ECCLESIASTES

OR, THE PREACHER

CHAPTER 3

To everything there is a season—Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever—God shall judge the righteous and the wicked.

1 TO every thing there is a season, and a btime 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.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 3 2005, 11:21 AM

Amillia,

You need to understand that sin can cause illness. And when one is baptised for the remission of sins or be healed spiritually as as well as physically.

That's fine, but your Church leaders then did a 180' on this teaching with the following declaration:

January 18, 1923.  Dear Brethren: The following paragraph is part of a letter dated December 15th, 1922, from the First Presidency to Presidents of Temples: ‘We feel constrained to call your attention to the custom prevailing to some extent in our temples of baptizing for health, and to remind you that baptism for health is no part of our temple work, and therefore to permit it to become a practice would be an innovation detrimental to temple work, and a departure as well from the provision instituted of the Lord for the care and healing of the sick of His Church.  And in this connection we desire to say that the practice of Church members going to temples to be administered to is a departure from the way instituted of the Lord, and we are desirous that these things should be corrected and receive attention of the proper authorities in the branches, Wards, and Stakes of the Church where they belong, and it will be for you to so inform your temple workers and those who may come to you from time to time for baptism for health and to be administered to.’  The Presidency would thank you to convey the information contained in the foregoing paragraph to your Bishops with the request that they issue no more recommends for baptisms for health or administrations to the sick.  (Messages of the First Presidency 5:224-225.) 

Now which is right, to baptise in a font for health, or not? Seems your Church can't make up it's mind. Or are you going to give me the same old "line upon line" excuse?

This is because they were abusing it and changing it themselves as members. They had huge growth and sometimes very little training of leaders before they took over a huge area... Back then people were scatter from here to NY. It took weeks to travel even the smallest distance.

There were many problems with trying to keep the flock in line with the principles that these ordinances were based upon. Read the NT you will see that Paul was having much the same problems.

[Jason]

Amillia,

Men being sealed to men is done all the time when adopted children are sealed to their fathers and mothers. Also, it is still a belief that to be sealed to a specific linage is a good and desirable thing.

Not the same. It was taught in the LDS church that it was desirable to be sealed to a man of high eccleastical rank, in order to be closer to God when you died. That's why men were sealed to Brigham Young, because he was supposed to have a closer link to the Almighty.

I'd recommend you do some more homework on the Law of Adoption.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 3 2005, 11:10 AM

I know everything but squat, so you are 100% right there.

You stated : "You don't know squat. "

I was just stating that you were right. :)

[Amillia]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 3 2005, 11:26 AM

Amillia,

Men being sealed to men is done all the time when adopted children are sealed to their fathers and mothers. Also, it is still a belief that to be sealed to a specific linage is a good and desirable thing.

Not the same. It was taught in the LDS church that it was desirable to be sealed to a man of high eccleastical rank, in order to be closer to God when you died. That's why men were sealed to Brigham Young, because he was supposed to have a closer link to the Almighty.

I'd recommend you do some more homework on the Law of Adoption.

This is true, and that belief was fostered by what scripture or doctrine? Any quotes? Or do you think it might just possibly been part of the 'pride' some were called to repentence for in the D&C?

[Jason]

Amillia,

Priests, decons, and elders have all have their duties changed. Even their ages have changed. The 70s were in every ward, and now it is only a higher calling for a GA.

There was a time there was Assistance to the Apostles. And a time where there were no such thing. I believe scripture will explain these changes :

So God didn't know what He was talking about when he gave this "revelation" to Joseph Smith? Or did God plan on changing (key word) these things eventually, but gave them these instructions anyways?

Seems like your idea of God is one who kinda flows with the times.

[Jason]

Amillia,

This is because they were abusing it and changing it themselves as members. They had huge growth and sometimes very little training of leaders before they took over a huge area... Back then people were scatter from here to NY. It took weeks to travel even the smallest distance.

There were many problems with trying to keep the flock in line with the principles that these ordinances were based upon. Read the NT you will see that Paul was having much the same problems.

What evidence do you have that the members were abusing the privlege of being baptised for health? Is that even possible?

[Jason]

Amillia,

This is true, and that belief was fostered by what scripture or doctrine? Any quotes? Or do you think it might just possibly been part of the 'pride' some were called to repentence for in the D&C?

Your "prophets, seers, and revelators" taught this. I wasn't aware that Mormonism needed scriptural justification for every practice. If that is the case, then where is your justification for the Mormon Endowment Ceremonies?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 3 2005, 11:28 AM

Amillia,

Priests, decons, and elders have all have their duties changed. Even their ages have changed. The 70s were in every ward, and now it is only a higher calling for a GA.

There was a time there was Assistance to the Apostles. And a time where there were no such thing. I believe scripture will explain these changes :

So God didn't know what He was talking about when he gave this "revelation" to Joseph Smith? Or did God plan on changing (key word) these things eventually, but gave them these instructions anyways?

Seems like your idea of God is one who kinda flows with the times.

Needs change and if you understand that the church is here for the perfecting of the saints, not for perfect saints, you should understand that leaders are left to find answers and try different things to gain experience.

You don't keep your toddler in a walker after he learns to walk, but you do use one to start out with to strengthen his legs. The Lord allows the leaders to have the right to make decisions and make mistakes until they can do a better job.

Could they really be expected to do everything perfectly without flaw and still grow....even the Lord learned obedience by the things he suffered. (NT)

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Amillia+May 3 2005, 11:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ May 3 2005, 11:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@May 3 2005, 11:28 AM

Amillia,

Priests, decons, and elders have all have their duties changed. Even their ages have changed. The 70s were in every ward, and now it is only a higher calling for a GA.

There was a time there was Assistance to the Apostles. And a time where there were no such thing. I believe scripture will explain these changes :

So God didn't know what He was talking about when he gave this "revelation" to Joseph Smith? Or did God plan on changing (key word) these things eventually, but gave them these instructions anyways?

Seems like your idea of God is one who kinda flows with the times.

Needs change and if you understand that the church is here for the perfecting of the saints, not for perfect saints, you should understand that leaders are left to find answers and try different things to gain experience.

You don't keep your toddler in a walker after he learns to walk, but you do use one to start out with to strengthen his legs. The Lord allows the leaders to have the right to make decisions and make mistakes until they can do a better job.

Could they really be expected to do everything perfectly without flaw and still grow....even the Lord learned obedience by the things he suffered. (NT)

One great example of this growing experience of leadership is the story of the son's of Lehi going for the plates. They tried several things which failed, before Nephi was ready to leave it in the Lord's hands and was then guided successfully.

This is the way God raises up great leaders.

[Jason]

Amillia,

Needs change and if you understand that the church is here for the perfecting of the saints, not for perfect saints, you should understand that leaders are left to find answers and try different things to gain experience.

So God isn't in charge of the LDS Church? Apparently God said: "Hey, do your best, and if it doesn't work, change it."

The Gospel, it's ordinances and teachings, never change. Change is foreign to God and Christ. Even the commandments of the Old Testament (minus the sacrificial laws) are still valid. Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill.

The very idea of "line upon line" as understood by Mormonism is a farce in the sight of God. Mormons had to invent this nonsense to justify their own ever continuing alteration of that which they call doctrine.

Mormons accuse non-mormons of being blown about by every wind of doctrine. But you yourselves are blown about by every whim that comes into the mind of your "prophets". Was God once a man or not? Is polygamy necessary for exaltation or not? Are you going to live the law of consecration or not?

Why can't anyone answer these questions definitively? Where is your leadership? Why do your living prophets contradict what your dead prophets taught? Who is right and who is wrong? Do you follow the Standard Works or the teachings of your living prophets? Will you still be exalted without receiving the 2nd anointing or not? Should you ask to be sealed to Joseph Smith or not? Is Wilford Woodruff more correct a teacher than Joseph Smith and Brigham Young?

Did God tell one thing to Smith and another to Hinckley? Is this a restoration or an evolution? What's the point of a revelation if God's going to change it all later? Or has Mormonism renounced the omniscient understanding of God?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 3 2005, 11:53 AM

Amillia,

Needs change and if you understand that the church is here for the perfecting of the saints, not for perfect saints, you should understand that leaders are left to find answers and try different things to gain experience.

So God isn't in charge of the LDS Church? Apparently God said: "Hey, do your best, and if it doesn't work, change it."

The Gospel, it's ordinances and teachings, never change. Change is foreign to God and Christ. Even the commandments of the Old Testament (minus the sacrificial laws) are still valid. Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill.

The very idea of "line upon line" as understood by Mormonism is a farce in the sight of God. Mormons had to invent this nonsense to justify their own ever continuing alteration of that which they call doctrine.

Mormons accuse non-mormons of being blown about by every wind of doctrine. But you yourselves are blown about by every whim that comes into the mind of your "prophets". Was God once a man or not? Is polygamy necessary for exaltation or not? Are you going to live the law of consecration or not?

Why can't anyone answer these questions definitively? Where is your leadership? Why do your living prophets contradict what your dead prophets taught? Who is right and who is wrong? Do you follow the Standard Works or the teachings of your living prophets? Will you still be exalted without receiving the 2nd anointing or not? Should you ask to be sealed to Joseph Smith or not? Is Wilford Woodruff more correct a teacher than Joseph Smith and Brigham Young?

Did God tell one thing to Smith and another to Hinckley? Is this a restoration or an evolution? What's the point of a revelation if God's going to change it all later? Or has Mormonism renounced the omniscient understanding of God?

Actually that is how he raised His own son if you believe the scriptures.

Luke 2: 40

40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

Not even Christ was instant savior.

How do you grow strong? Do you have someone else do everything for you? God sent us here to grow and develop ~ that requires exercising our brains and bodies.

That is what is wrong with people who only look to find fault. They don't see the beauty of how the Lord rules His church and people.