What do you think about WoW?

[estradling75]

If the point is that we should obey the word of wisdom in its entirety I agree, if your point is that the bishop should know what my increase is, or be able to make a fat mans guess and grill me appropriately I disagree.

 

 

Yeah you totally miss it... 

 

My point is...  If you want to have the blessings that come from being a faithful member you need to be able to pass the stewards who are called to determine that.  

 

It doesn't matter what kind of reasoning you have, it doesn't matter how right you might think you are...  If you don't convince them to let you through.

 

So if they have questions about your tithing status, or your word of wisdom keeping or whatever...  Saying that it is none of their business or they can't prove a thing is not going to work out very well

[duffman180]

This concept is entirely irrelevant to the principle. Following the prophet is a principle of right that must be exercised with faith regardless of the imperfections of the prophet. And we will be held accountable for our disregarding of the living prophet's words.

 

Moreover, following the prophet is a different concept entirely than agreeing with everything he says (perhaps also, slightly problematic in other ways, but a different issue.)

 

Ordaining a man of African decent before the 1978 proclamation, whether the ban was inspired or not, meant excommunication, loss of temple blessings, loss of the Holy Ghost, and loss of exaltation without repentance.

 

Likewise, disregarding the word of wisdom, even if one takes the liberal approach that it was never meant to be enforced (I call total baloney on that...but for the sake of argument...), means the same.

 

 

I, on the other hand, am bothered by the ideology that strict obedience is thought of as "obsession".

 

Well so be it. If you call me obsessed for strictly keeping the word of wisdom, I'll own it. I am obsessed with obedience to every principle, law, ordinance, and teaching of the gospel.

 

 

Not sure why that would bother anyone though...unless they were intent on tearing down the kingdom, raising up Satan, allowing for free indulgence of sin with no consequence, or otherwise trying to push related agendas. You say that's not your intent...but if that is the case, then why would it possibly "bother" you that anyone is obsessed with doing right per the prophet's guidance? 

 

 

So your saying that even if the church is wrong, and excommunicates people who oppose, God still denies them their blessings even though they were standing up for what was right?  

 

Yes, strict obedience to the dictates of any man is problematic and disturbing.   I second Stallion when I say my sacrament meetings are often filled more with the wonders of modern prophets and little if any on the life of Jesus.  Last GC was filled with gushing adoration towards President Monson.... and many of the talks were all about following the Brethren no matter what because they can't lead us astray..... which is demonstrably false.  There can be terrible consequences when people are continually told to follow their leaders because "they know the way" and questioning is discouraged.

[duffman180]

How is that problematic if the prophet's are the voice of Christ on the earth? That's like saying we should spend more time delving into personal revelation that into scripture study. We should be doing both. There is no conflict with following our leaders and following Christ. They represent Him.

It's not problematic at all if whenever they speak to the church they speak the words of Christ.

 

Our point is that what if when they speak it ISN'T the voice of Christ?  That certainly has happened (priesthood ban, doctrines surrounding polygamy, Adam/God, Blood Atonement, etc.).  So instead of teaching us to follow the prophet because he speaks for Christ, we should focus on developing our own relationship with God and Jesus in order to be in tune with their will.

[Vort]

 

Our point is that what if when they speak it ISN'T the voice of Christ?  That certainly has happened (priesthood ban,

But this is a lie. The Priesthood ban was indeed the voice of Christ. At the very least, we know it required the voice of Christ to change the way it was done.

 

 

doctrines surrounding polygamy

For shame, duffman. The practices surrounding polygamy changed, but the doctrine of the Church never did.

 

So instead of teaching us to follow the prophet because he speaks for Christ, we should focus on developing our own relationship with God and Jesus in order to be in tune with their will.

Exactly what do you think it means to be a "prophet"?

[The Folk Prophet]

So your saying that even if the church is wrong, and excommunicates people who oppose, God still denies them their blessings even though they were standing up for what was right?  

 

Yes. If they do not humble themselves and willingly submit to God's ordained patterns and authority. Yes. This is a church of humility, obedience, sacrifice, consecration, and long-suffering. Get on board. It is the Lord's way.

 

Yes, strict obedience to the dictates of any man is problematic and disturbing. 

 

And yet the scriptures are replete with examples of just such.

 

There can be terrible consequences...

 

Such as?

[The Folk Prophet]

It's not problematic at all if whenever they speak to the church they speak the words of Christ.

 

Our point is that what if when they speak it ISN'T the voice of Christ?  That certainly has happened (priesthood ban, doctrines surrounding polygamy, Adam/God, Blood Atonement, etc.).  So instead of teaching us to follow the prophet because he speaks for Christ, we should focus on developing our own relationship with God and Jesus in order to be in tune with their will.

 

Who, exactly, are you to proclaim what does and does not count as the word of Christ?

[duffman180]

 

 

But this is a lie. The Priesthood ban was indeed the voice of Christ. At the very least, we know it required the voice of Christ to change the way it was done.

 

 

For shame, duffman. The practices surrounding polygamy changed, but the doctrine of the Church never did.

 

Exactly what do you think it means to be a "prophet"?

 

 

 

Have you read the church's essay on the priesthood ban?  They disavowed all previous teachings regarding the priesthood bad.  "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form"

 

 

The doctrine surrounding polygamy has changed.... All of the early church leaders taught that it was necessary for exaltation.  We do no teach that anymore.  It isn't doctrinal today.

[duffman180]

Yes. If they do not humble themselves and willingly submit to God's ordained patterns and authority. Yes. This is a church of humility, obedience, sacrifice, consecration, and long-suffering. Get on board. It is the Lord's way.

 

 

And yet the scriptures are replete with examples of just such.

 

 

Such as?

 

 

So even if the leaders tell us to do something that is wrong, we are obligated to do it?  And if we don't, we'll lose our eternal blessings?  That is a scary thought.

 

Terrible consequences of the doctrine of Blood Atonement, Priesthood ban and prophet sanctioned methods in which polygamy was practiced..... to name a few.  Those things were awful and the product of misguided Presidents of the church.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm aware that there were a variety of different ways that the WoW was followed in the early days of the church, hence my belief that it ought to be up to the individual to decide how to implement the revelation in their life. 

 

Well, let's apply this line of reasoning elsewhere.  Early LDS teaching and practice on the issue of slavery was somewhat mixed--so, is it therefore up to the individual Mormon to decide whether (s)he wishes to keep slaves?

 

 For as it says, it's not by way of commandment.... so that's how I take it. 

 

You must have missed where I pointed out that verses 1-3 are not part of the revelation.

 

At any rate . . . the 1st Presidency (including Heber Grant) have the keys to the sealing power, which means that it's very much within their prerogative to determine who gets into the temple and who doesn't.  It is not the membership's prerogative to start coming up with phony rationalizations about why it's OK to lie to their priesthood leaders to gain access to the priesthood rites to which they believe themselves entitled.

 

 

Your correct that there is no canonized revelation stating that it ought to be mandatory.  Yes, prophets have changed policies and said that it is the will of God, but why should I take their word for it?  As I've commented many times, and no one has yet to deny it, many prophets have taught lots of things contrary to the current doctrine of the church. They have proclaimed things as the will of God, and now we deny such things.  

 

Can you name one Church policy/doctrine that was universally embraced by the 1st Pres and Q12, acting together, that later turned out to be demonstrably contrary to the Lord's will for the Church at the time the policy/doctrine was promulgated?

 

Adam-God and blood atonement were never uniformly embraced by these governing bodies (Orson Pratt disagreed vociferously with the former and, I believe, the latter as well).  Nor were most of the explanations about the priesthood ban ("fence-sitters-in-the-war-in-heaven", and all that), or fringe notions about polygamy like the idea that it would be a prerequisite for exaltation.  And of course, as Vort points out, the priesthood ban itself and the core teachings of D&C 132 have not been renounced at all.

 

So why shouldn't I trust my relationship with over the leaders of the church? 

 

Because the channels of individual revelation are easily spoofed; and the Lord Himself warned that even some of the "very elect" can, and will, be deceived.  Folks with your worldview are very fond of posing bizarre hypotheticals wherein Tom Monson orders us to rob a bank or Boyd Packer orders us to eat our own children--but they don't talk much about the moonbats who claim God Himself told them to blow up a synagogue, or the libertines who are sure that a loving God would never ask them to stay celibate, or the addicts who assert that God put these marvelous substances on the earth to aid the weary.  Such people wallow endlessly in the hundred-twenty-odd physical murders committed a century and a half ago at Mountain Meadows in the name of blind obedience; but ignore the thousands upon thousands of spiritual murders committed every year globally in the name of "loyal opposition".

 

Prophetic counsel, individually, is not dismissed lightly; though I do agree that individual revelation may occasionally trump it.  But if individual revelation is countermanding the united voice of the Q12 and 1st Pres, I think the odds are 10:1 or better that my channel of personal revelation has been hijacked; and I'm going to do some very critical self-evaluation before I start publicly claiming that it is the leading councils of the Church that are in error.

 

I'm not claiming the Givens had contempt for modern prophets, they carefully peeled back the falsehood that prophets can never lead the people astray doctrinally.

 

If you mean "the prophets" as a collection of individuals--I agree with you, within limits.  If you mean "the prophets" as the united voice of the 1st Pres/Q12:  I strongly disagree. 

 

The Church's current policy regarding the WoW is either part of the Lord's appointed course for the Church, or it isn't.  In the same talk wherein he acknowledged that Church members, and even leaders, have occasionally erred, Dieter Uchtdorf affirmed that "God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny." 

 

"Ah, yes . . . the old "only people who think like I do have really reasoned about it--the rest of you are unthinking sheeple!" routine." I wasn't saying this at all, I'm sorry if that's how it came across. I'm saying that it's okay for us reason for ourselves and come to our own conclusions, even if those conclusions differ....

 

It is not, however, okay for us to try to undermine the united teaching of the 1st Pres/Q12 from a position wherein we purport to be "faithful" Latter-day Saints.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[omegaseamaster75]

So even if the leaders tell us to do something that is wrong, we are obligated to do it?  And if we don't, we'll lose our eternal blessings?  That is a scary thought.

 

Terrible consequences of the doctrine of Blood Atonement, Priesthood ban and prophet sanctioned methods in which polygamy was practiced..... to name a few.  Those things were awful and the product of misguided Presidents of the church.

I mentioned this before, your barking up the wrong tree here.

 

In Duffs defense I haven't seen one instance were he said that we shouldn't follow the prophets counsel. He is saying that we need to know for ourselves if it is right or wrong. I do not think that he is undermining the teachings of the first presidency. They teach good things more so now than ever. He and I may disagree on how we follow those teachings, but that is beside the point.

 

He is saying as I have often said...they are not infallible.

 

Let's have some perspective guys. The church has had to effect policy changes to past teachings these are changes that have occurred in our lifetime. Things that were once considered inspired words are no longer considered such. For crying out loud Brigham Young taught that people lived on the moon among many other things. Why if someone tries to have some perspective on the hows and whys of what we teach is he piled up on?

[Guest]

^{YOU'RE. You are. You're you're you're.} 

 

^{Your = possessive. Belongs to you.} 

 

</ranty digression>

[duffman180]

Well, let's apply this line of reasoning elsewhere.  Early LDS teaching and practice on the issue of slavery was somewhat mixed--so, is it therefore up to the individual Mormon to decide whether (s)he wishes to keep slaves?

 

 

You must have missed where I pointed out that verses 1-3 are not part of the revelation.

 

At any rate . . . the 1st Presidency (including Heber Grant) have the keys to the sealing power, which means that it's very much within their prerogative to determine who gets into the temple and who doesn't.  It is not the membership's prerogative to start coming up with phony rationalizations about why it's OK to lie to their priesthood leaders to gain access to the priesthood rites to which they believe themselves entitled.

 

 

Can you name one Church policy/doctrine that was universally embraced by the 1st Pres and Q12, acting together, that later turned out to be demonstrably contrary to the Lord's will for the Church at the time the policy/doctrine was promulgated?

 

Adam-God and blood atonement were never uniformly embraced by these governing bodies (Orson Pratt disagreed vociferously with the former and, I believe, the latter as well).  Nor were most of the explanations about the priesthood ban ("fence-sitters-in-the-war-in-heaven", and all that), or fringe notions about polygamy like the idea that it would be a prerequisite for exaltation.  And of course, as Vort points out, the priesthood ban itself and the core teachings of D&C 132 have not been renounced at all.

 

 

Because the channels of individual revelation are easily spoofed; and the Lord Himself warned that even some of the "very elect" can, and will, be deceived.  Folks with your worldview are very fond of posing bizarre hypotheticals wherein Tom Monson orders us to rob a bank or Boyd Packer orders us to eat our own children--but they don't talk much about the moonbats who claim God Himself told them to blow up a synagogue, or the libertines who are sure that a loving God would never ask them to stay celibate, or the addicts who assert that God put these marvelous substances on the earth to aid the weary.  Such people wallow endlessly in the hundred-twenty-odd physical murders committed a century and a half ago at Mountain Meadows in the name of blind obedience; but ignore the thousands upon thousands of spiritual murders committed every year globally in the name of "loyal opposition".

 

Prophetic counsel, individually, is not dismissed lightly; though I do agree that individual revelation may occasionally trump it.  But if individual revelation is countermanding the united voice of the Q12 and 1st Pres, I think the odds are 10:1 or better that my channel of personal revelation has been hijacked; and I'm going to do some very critical self-evaluation before I start publicly claiming that it is the leading councils of the Church that are in error.

 

 

If you mean "the prophets" as a collection of individuals--I agree with you, within limits.  If you mean "the prophets" as the united voice of the 1st Pres/Q12:  I strongly disagree. 

 

The Church's current policy regarding the WoW is either part of the Lord's appointed course for the Church, or it isn't.  In the same talk wherein he acknowledged that Church members, and even leaders, have occasionally erred, Dieter Uchtdorf affirmed that "God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny." 

 

 

It is not, however, okay for us to try to undermine the united teaching of the 1st Pres/Q12 from a position wherein we purport to be "faithful" Latter-day Saints.

 

Yes, I suppose it was up to the individual to keep slaves? I'm not sure I'm grasping your point.  

 

 

http://bycommonconsent.com/2004/04/21/a-statement-from-the-first-presidency/

 

This is a first presidency statement.  It doesn't get more official than that.  There are more examples of Brigham Young (and others) saying things in the name of the Lord that we now don't accept, albeit I don't know if the 12 were all in agreement.  The church used to be strongly against birth control, saying that anyone who uses it would endure great sorrow.  Also the church used to ask people if they engaged in certain sexual practices, and were denied entrance into the temple based on that.... now they don't do that and don't condemn any act between spouses.  Those are changes that have occurred even though the leadership at one time, supported it.  So, there's no reason to think that things can't, or shouldn't change with current church policy.  

 

I didn't miss the point where you pointed that the first 3 verses aren't part of the revelation, because if they're canonized they're scripture, aren't they?  Either way, there's no additional revelation received that makes it a binding commandment.  The people ought to have a revelation placed before us if were to accept it as coming from God... thats not asking for a sign, it's asking for the fruits of a prophet.

 

I'm not trying to undermine the 1st Presidency/12.  I just feel it okay to have differing views than the official church stance, because it has oft changed in times past.

[duffman180]

I mentioned this before, your barking up the wrong tree here.

 

In Duffs defense I haven't seen one instance were he said that we shouldn't follow the prophets counsel. He is saying that we need to know for ourselves if it is right or wrong. I do not think that he is undermining the teachings of the first presidency. They teach good things more so now than ever. He and I may disagree on how we follow those teachings, but that is beside the point.

 

He is saying as I have often said...they are not infallible.

 

Let's have some perspective guys. The church has had to effect policy changes to past teachings these are changes that have occurred in our lifetime. Things that were once considered inspired words are no longer considered such. For crying out loud Brigham Young taught that people lived on the moon among many other things. Why if someone tries to have some perspective on the hows and whys of what we teach is he piled up on?

 

Thanks Omega, I think that most of what the Brethren teach is uplifting, spiritually nourishing and good.  I believe that we ought to follow Jesus, forgive each other and love our neighbor.  Do I believe that God is concerned with how many earrings women have in their ears?  Or if men wear earrings?  No, I don't think so.  

[The Folk Prophet]

So even if the leaders tell us to do something that is wrong, we are obligated to do it?  And if we don't, we'll lose our eternal blessings?  That is a scary thought.

 

When speaking as the prophet from the pulpit and giving direction to the church, yes.

 

Terrible consequences of the doctrine of Blood Atonement, Priesthood ban and prophet sanctioned methods in which polygamy was practiced..... to name a few. 

 

Which terrible consequences would those be? If you're referring to the extremists who, in disregard to prophetic counsel, went out and murdered people based on some such proposed theory, or those who tried to justify straight up adultery, also disregarding the prophet, then you need to look back at the "disregarded the prophet" part of these examples.

 

There have never been terrible consequences to obeying a prophet. Ever.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm not trying to undermine the 1st Presidency/12.

 

He says as he discredits their authority, inspiration, power, and right to lead the church.

[Guest]

Well, you are talking to a beer mascot.

 

[duffman180]

When speaking as the prophet from the pulpit and giving direction to the church, yes.

 

 

Which terrible consequences would those be? If you're referring to the extremists who, in disregard to prophetic counsel, went out and murdered people based on some such proposed theory, or those who tried to justify straight up adultery, also disregarding the prophet, then you need to look back at the "disregarded the prophet" part of these examples.

 

There have never been terrible consequences to obeying a prophet. Ever.

 

You don't consider the priesthood ban terrible?  Or that people were killed to atone for their own sins?  Or horrible that some of the early prophets took other mens wives?  You think it was their duty to hand over their wives, and that was the right decision?  You don't think it would have been better not to follow that prophetic call?

[notquiteperfect]

Duff (and whomever it applies) - Have you ever considered that things we're asked to do is for our *benefit*?!  Despite what you may have heard, coffee really isn't good for you (nor are pierced ears - since you brought it up).

 

Also, sometimes I wonder if some of the things we're asked to do are Heavenly Father's way of letting us prove how much of a disciple we're actually going to be - regardless of history, changes, etc.

[estradling75]

You don't consider the priesthood ban terrible?

 

No more then I consider that the entire time before and during Christ's life the gospel was limited to one small group and the priesthood to one tribe of that small group...  I figure that God knows what he is doing.

 

 

 Or that people were killed to atone for their own sins? 

 

Ok... I am calling you out.   Cite your source for claiming murder.  I want solid irrefutable evidence that the leadership of the church murdered someone to atone for their own sins (Not just talked about it).  If you do not supply such evidence in your very next post or supply an apology for making an unwarranted attack on the leadership of the church.  I will personally take that as evidence your dishonesty and willingness to to go to any extreme to be right rather then truthful

[Vort]

 

Have you read the church's essay on the priesthood ban?  They disavowed all previous teachings regarding the priesthood bad.

Indeed I have. The disavowal applies only to the various theories floating around about the genesis of the ban, saying nothing of the ban itself. In fact, the Church's announcement does not even say that those teachings are false, only that they are not a part of the Church's doctrine.

 

Why are you seeking to establish falsehoods as if they were truth?

 

The doctrine surrounding polygamy has changed.... All of the early church leaders taught that it was necessary for exaltation.  We do no teach that anymore.  It isn't doctrinal today.

How do you know it was not necessary for exaltation at the time it was taught?

 

Exactly what makes you believe you are so much smarter than everyone else, or at least than the prophets of earlier times? Because I feel pretty sure that you are not.

[The Folk Prophet]

You don't consider the priesthood ban terrible?  Or that people were killed to atone for their own sins?  Or horrible that some of the early prophets took other mens wives?  You think it was their duty to hand over their wives, and that was the right decision?  You don't think it would have been better not to follow that prophetic call?

 

You've exposed your hand and shown yourself to be nothing more than a run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon with this one.

[StallionMcBeastly]

You've exposed your hand and shown yourself to be nothing more than a run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon with this one.

Why don't you answer the question rather than name call?

[The Folk Prophet]

Why don't you answer the question rather than name call?

 

Because the question is based on lies.

[StallionMcBeastly]

Anyone who has a differing ideas than the mainstream church is anti-mormon. ... nice. Or is it anyone who brings up unfavorable church history?

[StallionMcBeastly]

Anyone who has a differing ideas than the mainstream church is anti-mormon. ... nice. Or is it anyone who brings up unfavorable church history?