What do you think about WoW?


Lapalabrasinfin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Your position seems to be that the Mormon leadership is prohibited from enforcing any doctrine that was not enforced (not just taught, but enforced) in the early days of the Church.

 

The early Church did not enforce a ban on its members owning slaves.  Therefore, your position must be that the modern Church has no business prohibiting its members from owning slaves.

 

 

Now, parse it out.  What, specifically, is in that statement that has later been disavowed by another statement from the 1st Pres/Q12?

 

The question isn't whether things have changed.  The question is whether the earlier practice was in contravention to the will of the Lord.  A change in policy doesn't mean that an earlier policy was inappropriate to the circumstances in which it was applied.  For example, in 2015, I don't let my son (aged two) use matches.  In 2025, I probably will.  Does that mean my current policy is wrong?  Of course not.

 

So, let's try this again.  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?  None of the examples you have given up to now, meet that criteria.

 

 

This proves too much.  Given that it's canonized scripture, where's the justification for not following it?   Can you name any other revelation that the Lord gave but then acknowledged that the revelation was in fact (your words) a "little, unimportant thing"?

 

Is it more likely that God gives us an instruction without caring three straws--nor or in the future--about whether we actually follow it?  Or is it more likely that God gives us an instruction and then, in His mercy, gives us a reasonable amount of time to adapt to the higher standard He is trying to teach us? 

 

 

Like we had a revelation placed before us regarding the end of the priesthood ban in 1978? 

 

Now, I confess, that's a bit of a trick question.  The announcement of the revelation came out on June 8, 1978.  The first black man ordained pursuant to that ordination was Joseph Freeman, on June 11, 1978.  The Church didn't accept the revelation by vote until September 30 of that year.  The text of the revelation has never been released; and public accounts of the circumstances under which it was received are extremely general.

 

So, in the case of Freeman and every other black man ordained between June 11 and September 30, 1978, we see the violation of two of your supposed precepts of Church government:  Acting on a revelation without the Church's consent, and acting on a revelation whose text has not been released to the membership.

 

 

You do seem to be trying to convince the broader Church membership that adherence to the WoW is optional and that living the WoW as a precondition for temple rites, at the current time, is an abuse of the GAs' stewardship.

 

That may not be what you set out to do; but it does seem to be the net effect; and in my book that does qualify as "undermining".

 

 

 

I've demonstrated several items that have been taught from the pulpit, by Presidents and Apostles of the church, that we now disavow.  Even though the Priesthood essay refers to these things as "theories", it's not considered a theory by the church when it is taught by those sustained as "prophets, seers and revelators".  I disagree, I think all my examples have met the criteria.  You choose to see it differently, and thats okay.  Sure the church can ban having slaves because it's illegal and we obey the law of the land.  

 

I'm not trying to undermine anyone, I'm sorry if that's how it's coming across. The entire reason I made my initial post was to say I think it's okay to have differing opinions than the official churches position.  I now see that rubs a lot of you the wrong way, but it was never my intention to have this get so contentious. I realize I have unorthodox views, and am liberal compared to most of you.  I have a different understanding of prophets.  Thats okay, we should still be able to respect each others thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really off in your own little world now aren't you?

 

So let me reflect back to you what you have done and make it personal for you.

 

"Did you know that Duffman180 was racist?  Did you know he was a murder?  Did you know he was a sex fiend?"

 

"What?!? Why don't you answer my questions, instead of asking me to prove my accusations?  All you have to do is agree with me on a strongly debated events in Duffman history to know this.  You do know after all some people were murdered in the same state Duffman180 was in?  So that should be all you need to know to link him personally responsible for the murders."

 

So tell me Duffman180 do you like having people claim those things about you?  Do you enjoy having people tarnish your name and reputation in front of everyone?  Do you think it fair that I have done this to you based solely on the absence of any hard facts to support my claim?  Do you wish that your friends would stand up and defend you?  Or do you want them to say, "Well geeze Duffman180 does have some debatable history...So I should throw out everything I know about the guy and acknowledge that yeah he everything he accused of.... After Duffman180 is a flawed human and it is possible"

 

Again, I don't understand why your being so antagonistic and condescending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Really duffman180 ?!? 

 
Your response for hard solid evidence is from John D. Lee and  D. Michael Quinn?????!?
 
Thank you for the very rare opportunity to say I agree with Omegaseamaster75

 

 

 

The account of Rasmos Anderson is given by John D. Lee after he was convicted for his role in the Mountain Meadow Massacre.  He got excommunicated from the Church and hung by the government for that.  His account is full of stuff that is not collaborated anywhere else.  Name one source that collaborates Lee's account.  After all if the church of the time had accepted this as doctrine then you should have multiple cases to pull evidence from.  All you have are the writings of a man that Church of the time invoked the maximum penalty it could, to distance the Church from his actions and beliefs.  That is the total opposite of the Church supporting or condoning his actions.
 
As for Quinn... Read this Farms review of the work you cited http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1442&index=16
His axe grind, his bias, against the church is clearly laid out.
 
Your evidence would be dismantled by any half wake defense attorney.

 

 

I think they are credible.  John Lee is a relative of mine, and one of my cousins is and expert on his life and testimony.  I know that means nothing, but I think John Lee is credible... and he was made to take the fall for the Massacre.  Anyways, thats another discussion.

 

Your ignoring the fact that BY and many other taught this violent rhetoric repeatedly.  That's problematic to me, because it lead (unsurprisingly) to violence.  

 

I think we'll all just have to agree to disagree.  I think this thread has gotten long enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the shoe doesn't fit then why are you wearing it?

 

 

I do not doubt your sincerity. I doubt your motivation, you goal, and your intent.

 

But for the sake of argument, I will answer:

 

-You don't consider the priesthood ban terrible?  

 

This was already addressed by several others and I let their answers stand. But no, I do not.

 

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

 

This question is based on a false premise and so is hard to answer legitimately. You are implying within it (at least) two things that are false. 1. That the church is responsible for said killings. And, 2. The principle of blood atonement is known, understood, and based on that understanding, is wrong. Both of these premises are false, which means I cannot legitimately answer yes or no.

 

What I can say is that I do not believe that the church supported any murder in the early days of the church. But what I can also say is that IF (all caps for emphasis) the church DID happen to support any such murders, and such actions were taken because the church leaders directed said action, then I would take it in the same vein as Nephi being commanded to kill Laban. However, all that IF is meaningless, because the church did not support or condone any murders or other illegal killings in its early days.

 

-Or horrible that some of the early prophets took other mens wives?  

 

If you think this is horrible it only shows that you do not have the historical education to understand the situations.

 

-You think it was their duty to hand over their wives, and that was the right decision?  

 

The only example I know of where a man was commanded to hand over his wife was Heber C. Kimball, and upon agreeing to do so, he was told it had only been a test, and he was then sealed to his wife. The other instances of polyandry were never forced and were likely eternal sealings only (there is no evidence of concurrent sexual relations with different husbands in mortality to whom said wives were jointly "married".)

 

-You don't think it would have been better not to follow that prophetic call?

 

I do not, and have plainly stated my view. It is never the wrong choice to follow the prophet.

 

 

I think it's time we just agree to disagree.  I think we view the world (and history) to differently to carry the conversation on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I don't understand why your being so antagonistic and condescending.

 

 

Because you accuse the church of racism... Murder, and sexual sins....  And when you are asked for your proof of such crimes you provide material from clearly biased sources.  When you arguments and sources are shown to be nothing but hit pieces.  Instead of finding better sources (which if your claims are true you should be able to do)  you then claim that we are being antagonistic and condescending. (That is a classic dodge)

 

You claim that you have a testimony and sustain the prophets yet your repeatedly show that you give more weight to the opinions of those with clear hostility to self same prophets and church leaders.  Such actions speak very, very, loudly about where your true loyalties are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've demonstrated several items that have been taught from the pulpit, by Presidents and Apostles of the church, that we now disavow.

 

I've allowed for the possibility of individual error, within limits, and some of your examples may have shown that.  But you have not shown collective error on the part of an entire presiding quorum, which is what I have been requesting.  Blindly repeating "yes, I have!" will do little to advance your cause.

 

Sure the church can ban having slaves because it's illegal and we obey the law of the land.  

 

I don't think you've thought this one through.  In 1921, when WoW compliance was made a condition of temple admission, Prohibition was the law of the land and and anti-tobacco legislation on a state-law basis was also in the works in Utah.  But even then, from what I can gather, you don't agree with President Grant's policy decision.  Moreover, with this argument you seem to infer that (at least in the absence of canonized revelation) LDS leadership is within its rights to proscribe a behavior when, and only when, the broader secular society has already criminalized that behavior.  I think that argument is colossally, stupendously wrong.

 

 

I'm not trying to undermine anyone, I'm sorry if that's how it's coming across. The entire reason I made my initial post was to say I think it's okay to have differing opinions than the official churches position.  I now see that rubs a lot of you the wrong way, but it was never my intention to have this get so contentious. I realize I have unorthodox views, and am liberal compared to most of you.  I have a different understanding of prophets.  Thats okay, we should still be able to respect each others thoughts.

 

Theological disagreement isn't necessarily a problem unless/until it provides intellectual cover for outright disobedience; and in my opinion (and I say this as an individual forum member, not a mod) I think you're flirting with that line.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've demonstrated several items that have been taught from the pulpit, by Presidents and Apostles of the church, that we now disavow.  Even though the Priesthood essay refers to these things as "theories", it's not considered a theory by the church when it is taught by those sustained as "prophets, seers and revelators".  I disagree, I think all my examples have met the criteria.  You choose to see it differently, and thats okay.  Sure the church can ban having slaves because it's illegal and we obey the law of the land.

Duffman, the difference between LDS and most of Christianity is the continuing revelation aspect of our faith. In Catholicism, for example, the canon is closed. Therefore, any major changes has to go through a lot of going against existing canon to see if it is still consistent.

In LDS faith, though, continuing revelation is essential. Therefore, "follow the prophet" is essential. How does one know if any of the stuff in D&C is true revelation or not? It can't be just ala carte - like, you believe sections 1-88 but not 89... each of those sections serve their purposes at the time it was given until the time it is lifted. Continuing revelation changes the application (policy, if you will) of those sections to the modern time. Therefore, modern prophets can have a different requirement for worthiness than the prophets before him.

This is a foundational aspect of the LDS faith. This is not inconsistent with biblical history either. The commandments in the time of Moses were different from the commandments of today even as they work under the same Gospel. This is even illustrated clearly in the Stripling Warriors - they made a commandment not to take up arms against their enemies, but their children were not under the same commandment.

The Priesthood being only limited to the Levites in the OT times, then to those of non-African descent in the early days of the LDS Church, then to every worthy male today is consistent with our faith.

The law of consecration being fully taught in the early days but changed to tithes today is still consistent with our faith of modern prophets. Each era required their own gospel applications.

The law of obedience to the WOW is the same thing.

In each of these, the fixed point is the faith in the revelations of the Prophet as the mouthpiece of Christ in the time it is given for the Saints to follow.

Follow the prophet is, therefore, a mark of our faith in Christ. If, somehow, for whatever reason, the prophet deceived us, the sin is not on us, the sin is on the prophet. But, regardless of whether the prophet is right or wrong, not following the prophet is always on us. This is a house of order - if you receive personal revelation that the prophet is wrong, there is a process by which you can notify church leaders of such if you feel you are the instrument God has chosen to change the direction of the church. Otherwise, personal revelation only applies to you and your priesthood dominion and should not be taught to anybody else.

I'm not trying to undermine anyone, I'm sorry if that's how it's coming across. The entire reason I made my initial post was to say I think it's okay to have differing opinions than the official churches position.  I now see that rubs a lot of you the wrong way, but it was never my intention to have this get so contentious. I realize I have unorthodox views, and am liberal compared to most of you.  I have a different understanding of prophets.  Thats okay, we should still be able to respect each others thoughts.

This is not a matter of unorthodox views, liberalism, and differing opinions. This is a matter of what is right. The commandments such as the WOW is not something we can chose to ignore and remain temple-worthy simply because of differing opinions unless you have talked it over with your bishop and through his power of discernment and authority as bishop determined that you are exempted from this commandment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too do not understand the condescension against you. It's strange.

There's nothing strange about this. Duff's statements were incendiary. Passive-aggressiveness is not going to work here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law of consecration being fully taught in the early days but changed to tithes today is still consistent with our faith of modern prophets. Each era required their own gospel applications.

 

Quick correction. The law of tithing and the law of consecration are separate laws. One is not a subset of the other.

 

But your point remains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a house of order - if you receive personal revelation that the prophet is wrong, there is a process by which you can notify church leaders of such if you feel you are the instrument God has chosen to change the direction of the church. Otherwise, personal revelation only applies to you and your priesthood dominion and should not be taught to anybody else.

 

There's something mistaken in this sort of thinking. The very idea that God leads the church but then would inspire a member that the church is wrong...there's a problem in that. I'd suggest that if someone is receiving "revelation" that the church is in the wrong that they ought to reconsider the source of that revelation.

 

unless you have talked it over with your bishop and through his power of discernment and authority as bishop determined that you are exempted from this commandment.

 

A bishop does not have any right to exempt someone from commandments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick correction. The law of tithing and the law of consecration are separate laws. One is not a subset of the other.

 

But your point remains.

In addition, the law of consecration is in full effect today, just as important and just as binding on us as the law of chastity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's something mistaken in this sort of thinking. The very idea that God leads the church but then would inspire a member that the church is wrong...there's a problem in that. I'd suggest that if someone is receiving "revelation" that the church is in the wrong that they ought to reconsider the source of that revelation.

There's no problem in that. It is not for us to put limits on God's ways. If a church leader goes astray and it is God's will that He uses a member to go through the house of order of the Priesthood to bring to pass correction in such leadership, He will do so. It is not against our faith that it happens. Basically, it is not only through the death of such church leadership that change can be brought about. It is against our faith to bring contention, therefore, such a calling would be brought about in a peaceful, orderly manner - not through the methods currently employed by those in dissent of Church teachings.

A bishop does not have any right to exempt someone from commandments.

Yet somebody just mentioned in the earlier pages that some apostle was instructed to smoke...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no problem in that. It is not for us to put limits on God's ways. If a church leader goes astray and it is God's will that He uses a member to go through the house of order of the Priesthood to bring to pass correction in such leadership, He will do so. It is not against our faith that it happens. Basically, it is not only through the death of such church leadership that change can be brought about. It is against our faith to bring contention, therefore, such a calling would be brought about in a peaceful, orderly manner - not through the methods currently employed by those in dissent of Church teachings.Yet somebody just mentioned in the earlier pages that some apostle was instructed to smoke...

We aren't putting limits on God's ways. But God has made promises, decrees, and has established orders, and has declared himself an unchanging God. He has clearly specified in multiple upon multiple ways how his church is established in the latter days, and a lay-member coming in and correcting the presidency and quorum of the twelve is not it. He has also established his pattern for revelation based on stewardship, and we have no right to revelation outside our stewardships. That is God's word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing strange about this. Duff's statements were incendiary. Passive-aggressiveness is not going to work here.

Condescension doesn't belong in a reasonable discussion. He made comments that many disagree with. That should be met with polite discussion instead of antagonism and condescension. Duff has been polite in his comments. His intentions aren't malicious, but he's being treated as such.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Condescension doesn't belong in a reasonable discussion. He made comments that many disagree with. That should be met with polite discussion instead of antagonism and condescension. Duff has been polite in his comments. His intentions aren't malicious, but he's being treated as such.

 

Polite...  Tell me StallionMcBeastly... if I were to ask you "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"  Would you say that I am being polite to you and that my intentions were not malicious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duffman, the difference between LDS and most of Christianity is the continuing revelation aspect of our faith. In Catholicism, for example, the canon is closed. Therefore, any major changes has to go through a lot of going against existing canon to see if it is still consistent.

In LDS faith, though, continuing revelation is essential. Therefore, "follow the prophet" is essential. How does one know if any of the stuff in D&C is true revelation or not? It can't be just ala carte - like, you believe sections 1-88 but not 89... each of those sections serve their purposes at the time it was given until the time it is lifted. Continuing revelation changes the application (policy, if you will) of those sections to the modern time. Therefore, modern prophets can have a different requirement for worthiness than the prophets before him.

This is a foundational aspect of the LDS faith. This is not inconsistent with biblical history either. The commandments in the time of Moses were different from the commandments of today even as they work under the same Gospel. This is even illustrated clearly in the Stripling Warriors - they made a commandment not to take up arms against their enemies, but their children were not under the same commandment.

The Priesthood being only limited to the Levites in the OT times, then to those of non-African descent in the early days of the LDS Church, then to every worthy male today is consistent with our faith.

The law of consecration being fully taught in the early days but changed to tithes today is still consistent with our faith of modern prophets. Each era required their own gospel applications.

The law of obedience to the WOW is the same thing.

In each of these, the fixed point is the faith in the revelations of the Prophet as the mouthpiece of Christ in the time it is given for the Saints to follow.

Follow the prophet is, therefore, a mark of our faith in Christ. If, somehow, for whatever reason, the prophet deceived us, the sin is not on us, the sin is on the prophet. But, regardless of whether the prophet is right or wrong, not following the prophet is always on us. This is a house of order - if you receive personal revelation that the prophet is wrong, there is a process by which you can notify church leaders of such if you feel you are the instrument God has chosen to change the direction of the church. Otherwise, personal revelation only applies to you and your priesthood dominion and should not be taught to anybody else.

This is not a matter of unorthodox views, liberalism, and differing opinions. This is a matter of what is right. The commandments such as the WOW is not something we can chose to ignore and remain temple-worthy simply because of differing opinions unless you have talked it over with your bishop and through his power of discernment and authority as bishop determined that you are exempted from this commandment.

 

I don't believe following the prophet is a mark of our faith in Christ whatsoever.  In my view, the prophets have repeatedly demonstrated that they can get it wrong, even when it comes to doctrine.  That's why I cherish my own relationship with God and Christ above any man.  

 

Again, I don't see the WoW as a commandment, but a policy.

 

Anyways, we're just going to go round and round.  Let's agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polite...  Tell me StallionMcBeastly... if I were to ask you "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"  Would you say that I am being polite to you and that my intentions were not malicious?

 

 

I haven't said anything untrue.  BY did teach the blood atonement, people were killed (though not by BY), but the doctrine itself is horrid enough.  The Adam/God doctrine was taught, and incorporated into the endowment ceremony. We no removed it, because it's false doctrine even though taught by prophets.

 

In my opinion, the church certainly was racist and prophets,seers and revelators taught awful things about Africans.

 

In my opinion, polygamy was abused and there was sexual misconduct by Joseph Smith and other subsequent Prophets and apostles.  You can interpret it how you will, and I interpret it how I choose.

 

Even with these facts as unsavory as they are, I still remain a believer.  I have a more nuanced view of the messiness of the restoration, but nevertheless I believe it.  I take the Givens approach.  I feel truth when I read the book of mormon.  I feel inspired by the words of Joseph Smith.  I love Christ and strive to follow Him.  I am sorry that I have offended people, but it wasn't my intent.  Perhaps I shouldn't have brought up the messy parts of our past, but I was doing so to try and defend my view point, not to incite hostility.

Edited by Eowyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Condescension is in the eye of the beholder.

Of course, I find nothing reasonable about your and duff's discussion, approach, tactics, or accusations. So....

And I find your hardcore approach to the Gospel unreasonable, but I'm not going to demean you for it, I accept that we view things differently and that's ok. We're both trying to live the Gospel the way we think God wants.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That situation doesn't compare. Duff shared his opinion and provided statements from JoD to support his conclusion.

 

 

He said our leaders are guilty of murder.....  It a big claim that he totally failed to support with anything more then that it was his opinion and the opinion of a few other people with clear issues with the church. Don't you think the accusation of murder is quite inflammatory?  Would you not feel offended if someone accused you (or your friends or your family) of murder? (Or wife beatings?) Would you consider such statements to be polite?

 

He didn't say just "oh there is some questionable stuff in the JoD "  (No one here would have had a problem with that statement) He used the stuff in the JoD to try to support his claim of Church sponsored murder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I find your hardcore approach to the Gospel unreasonable, but I'm not going to demean you for it, I accept that we view things differently and that's ok. We're both trying to live the Gospel the way we think God wants.

 

Ah...the, "You're offensive so I win the argument," tactic. A classic. Kind of the go-to for the liberal crowd though. So no originality points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share