What do you think about WoW?

[Guest]

Certainly anyone who brings up false 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?

[StallionMcBeastly]

Certainly anyone who brings up false church history.

It's not false.

[estradling75]

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

 

 

Anyone that calls someone a murder better have strong evidence to back up that claim.    Not just a different understanding of history

[duffman180]

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

 

I'm not anti-mormon.... I asked you sincere questions and you won't answer.

[duffman180]

 

 

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?

 

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.

 

 

I really don't understand why your being condescending.  I've done my best to be polite and respectful, but so many here are becoming so antagonistic.

 

I'm not seeking to establish falsehoods.

[duffman180]

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

I wasn't saying Brigham Young murdered anyone, but it's absolutely true that people had their throats cut if found committing certain sins.  You can easily look it up.  I find this practice horrid, yet it came from the prophet.  I still believe in the gospel and the restoration, I'm just advocating a more open narrative and room for different lines of thought.

[duffman180]

Certainly anyone who brings up false church history.

 

Which part is false?

[pam]

As to whether or not the Word of Wisdom is a commandment, here is what Boyd K. Packer says:

 

While the revelation came first as a “greeting; not by commandment or constraint” (D&C 89:2), when members of the Church had had time to be taught the import of the revelation, succeeding Presidents of the Church declared it to be a commandment. And it was accepted by the Church as such.

 

The Word of Wisdom:  The Principle and the Promises

[The Folk Prophet]

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

 

If said ideas are intended to criticize or otherwise impair the church, then yes. If said ideas are half-truths at best and presented with a clearly hostile intent, then yes.

[estradling75]

It's not false.

 

 

Ok...  provide the evidence that the Blood atonement was practice by the church... Clearly if this is not a false accusation you should be able to provide the names of the murder victims and their murderers...

 

I await your irrefutable evidence or your acknowledgment that yes there was falsehoods in his statement

[Vort]

As to whether or not the Word of Wisdom is a commandment, here is what Boyd K. Packer says:

 

While the revelation came first as a “greeting; not by commandment or constraint” (D&C 89:2), when members of the Church had had time to be taught the import of the revelation, succeeding Presidents of the Church declared it to be a commandment. And it was accepted by the Church as such.

 

The Word of Wisdom:  The Principle and the Promises

That doesn't count, because it doesn't support their thesis.

[The Folk Prophet]

That doesn't count, because it doesn't support their thesis.

 

Any comment they disagree with is easy enough to write off as "just their opinion" with their thesis. Plus, you know, not canonized, so not doctrinal, etc.

 

It's really quite a clever tactic. Only one problem. See my signature line about prophets. The word "inconcievable" gets used wrong. The improbability drive gets set to max. Brains explode. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!

[pam]

I wasn't saying Brigham Young murdered anyone, but it's absolutely true that people had their throats cut if found committing certain sins.  You can easily look it up.  I find this practice horrid, yet it came from the prophet.  I still believe in the gospel and the restoration, I'm just advocating a more open narrative and room for different lines of thought.

 

When one states something as fact, they bear the burden of proof.  Please provide legitimate sources for your claims here.

[estradling75]

I wasn't saying Brigham Young murdered anyone, but it's absolutely true that people had their throats cut if found committing certain sins.  You can easily look it up.  I find this practice horrid, yet it came from the prophet.  I still believe in the gospel and the restoration, I'm just advocating a more open narrative and room for different lines of thought.

 

 

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"

[duffman180]

I'm sorry I didn't supply sources, these things are easily looked up in the journal of discourses. Here is one qoute of many: "This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it.... if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind." (Sermon by President Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, February 8, 1857; printed in the Deseret News, February 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 219-220)

Here's one account of a man being killed:

"Rasmos Anderson was a Danish man who came to Utah... He had married a widow lady somewhat older than himself... At one of the meetings during the reformation Anderson and his step-daughter confessed that they had committed adultery... they were rebaptized and received into full membership. They were then placed under covenant that if they again committed adultery, Anderson should suffer death. Soon after this a charge was laid against Anderson before the Council, accusing him of adultery with his step-daughter. This Council was composed of Klingensmith and his two counselors; it was the Bishop's Council. Without giving Anderson any chance to defend himself or make a statement, the Council voted that Anderson must die for violating his covenants. Klingensmith went to Anderson and notified him that the orders were that he must die by having his throat cut, so that the running of his blood would atone for his sins. Anderson, being a firm believer in the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church, made no objections... His wife was ordered to prepare a suit of clean clothing, in which to have her husband buried... she being directed to tell those who should inquire after her husband that he had gone to California.

"Klingensmith, James Haslem, Daniel McFarland and John M. Higbee dug a grave in the field near Cedar City, and that night, about 12 o'clock, went to Anderson's house and ordered him to make ready to obey Council. Anderson got up... and without a word of remonstrance accompanied those that he believed were carrying out the will of the "Almighty God." They went to the place where the grave was prepared; Anderson knelt upon the side of the grave and prayed. Klingensmith and his company then cut Anderson's throat from ear to ear and held him so that his blood ran into the grave.

"As soon as he was dead they dressed him in his clean clothes, threw him into the grave and buried him. They then carried his bloody clothing back to his family, and gave them to his wife to wash... She obeyed their orders.... Anderson was killed just before the Mountain Meadows massacre. The killing of Anderson was then considered a religious duty and a just act. It was justified by all the people, for they were bound by the same covenants, and the least word of objection to thus treating the man who had broken his covenant would have brought the same fate upon the person who was so foolish as to raise his voce against any act committed by order of the Church authorities."( Confessions of John D. Lee, Photo-reprint of 1877 edition, pages 282-283

Lest anyone is confused, I believe in the gospel. I believe in the restoration. I believe the BoM. I have unorthodox and nuances views about prophets, but it doesn't affect mu belief in God and Christ. I would appreciate it if we could all be less hostile and demeaning in our comments. I'm not trying to tear down anyone's testimony.

[omegaseamaster75]

As to whether or not the Word of Wisdom is a commandment, here is what Boyd K. Packer says:

 

While the revelation came first as a “greeting; not by commandment or constraint” (D&C 89:2), when members of the Church had had time to be taught the import of the revelation, succeeding Presidents of the Church declared it to be a commandment. And it was accepted by the Church as such.

 

The Word of Wisdom:  The Principle and the Promises

Yeah I don't remember there being a sustaining vote by the general body of the church on this one, therefore not doctrine. It's policy and subject to change

[omegaseamaster75]

When one states something as fact, they bear the burden of proof.  Please provide legitimate sources for your claims here.

You stepped in it with this one Duff, Discussion of blood atonement in the abstract theory of a perfect theocracy, and the actual practice of it are 2 different things.......

 

There may have been some crazy wackos who took things to far, but no evidence of church involvement.

[duffman180]

You stepped in it with this one Duff, Discussion of blood atonement in the abstract theory of a perfect theocracy, and the actual practice of it are 2 different things.......

 

There may have been some crazy wackos who took things to far, but no evidence of church involvement.

Hmm I really don't think I have. Although BY didn't personally carry out a blood atonement, he and others taught the doctrine repeatedly... Although not the ones carrying out the act, in my view they certainly hold some of the responsibility for teaching the doctrine. When people carried it out, BY still sustained them. This can be found in Quinns book, extension of power.

[Vort]

I really don't understand why your being condescending.  I've done my best to be polite and respectful, but so many here are becoming so antagonistic.

 

I'm not seeking to establish falsehoods.

This is what is known in the industry as a "dodge".

 

 

I wasn't saying Brigham Young murdered anyone, but it's absolutely true that people had their throats cut if found committing certain sins.  You can easily look it up.  I find this practice horrid, yet it came from the prophet.  I still believe in the gospel and the restoration, I'm just advocating a more open narrative and room for different lines of thought.

No, actually, the way it works is that you "easily look it up", then provide us the reference, and we decide if your reference is credible or if you're just full of beans.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Vort

[Just_A_Guy]

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.  

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.

 

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? 

 

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? 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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".

Edited March 10, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

Yeah I don't remember there being a sustaining vote by the general body of the church on this one, therefore not doctrine. It's policy and subject to change

I don't think Pam posted what she did to resolve the issue of whether enforced adherence to the WoW is "doctrine" or "policy".  I think her point was that--whatever we choose to call it--it is binding; and that the LDS leadership is within the scope of their stewardship to make it so.

[estradling75]

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

 

You stepped in it with this one Duff, Discussion of blood atonement in the abstract theory of a perfect theocracy, and the actual practice of it are 2 different things.......

 

There may have been some crazy wackos who took things to far, but no evidence of church involvement.

 

 

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.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm not anti-mormon....

 

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

 

I asked you sincere questions and you won't answer.

 

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.

Edited March 10, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[duffman180]

This is what is known in the industry as a "dodge".

 

 

No, actually, the way it works is that you "easily look it up", then provide us the reference, and we decide if your reference is credible or if you're just full of beans.

 

 

I'm not trying to Dodge anything, you've consistently been antagonist and condescending and I don't understand why.