What If...? OD #3

[The Folk Prophet]

#2: Meh.  I guess I'm a little more open to this than some.  I don't see this as an impossibility or even one where I'd need a strong personal revelation.  It is the way it is now.  It can change.  And it will be what it will be.

 

I always find it interesting when people respond to this issue this way. The cards it shows, it seems to me, is a pretty severe deficiency of consideration of what I consider fairly basic ideas on the matter.

 

There are way too many factors stacked up one upon another that lend to the idea that this is, while perhaps not an impossibility, extremely unlikely, and realistically, cannot change and will not be anything other than what it is and has always been.

[Guest]

...a pretty severe deficiency of consideration of what I consider fairly basic ideas on the matter...

 

I'd really be interested in hearing more about this.  I really considered myself fairly well informed on the topic.  But I still hear voices like yours say statements like this without ever going into details.  So, I'm still left wondering "am I missing something?"

[The Folk Prophet]

I'd really be interested in hearing more about this.  I really considered myself fairly well informed on the topic.  But I still hear voices like yours say statements like this without ever going into details.  So, I'm still left wondering "am I missing something?"

 

It's not about being informed. It's about obvious correlation...like, for example, the consideration of plural marriage as it relates to the idea, the work being done for the dead, the history of it all, etc., etc... Like I said...fairly basic ideas in the matter that need to either be ignored or somehow wrested to open up such a possibility as reasonably viable. 

Edited December 20, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[askandanswer]

As far as I'm concerned, President Monson, speaking as the mouth-piece of the Lord, can say the opposite today to what he said yesterday, thereby falsifying what he said yesterday, and making true what he says today. And then tomorrow, he can say that what he said the day before yesterday was actually the truth, and what he said yesterday was untrue, and that would also be true. It would be puzzling and surprising if this actually happened, but I see no point in trying to reconcile former or current positions with new positions if I know that he is speaking as the Lord's mouth-piece. I think there are some risks in having one's testimony dependant on the unchangeability of various, individual little bits of doctrine and practices. 

[LeSellers]

As far as I'm concerned, President Monson, speaking as the mouth-piece of the Lord, can say the opposite today to what he said yesterday, thereby falsifying what he said yesterday, and making true what he says today. And then tomorrow, he can say that what he said the day before yesterday was actually the truth, and what he said yesterday was untrue, and that would also be true.

It has happened:

President Young once gave a fiery sermon in the morning session of conference. In the afternoon session, he completely reversed himself, saying, in essence, "This morning you heard what Brother Brigham thinks on the matter. This afternoon, you'll hear The Lord's thoughts."

(No, I have not read either talk. This anecdote is in Brother Brigham by Eugene England.)

Lehi

[The Folk Prophet]

As far as I'm concerned, President Monson, speaking as the mouth-piece of the Lord, can say the opposite today to what he said yesterday, thereby falsifying what he said yesterday, and making true what he says today. And then tomorrow, he can say that what he said the day before yesterday was actually the truth, and what he said yesterday was untrue, and that would also be true. It would be puzzling and surprising if this actually happened, but I see no point in trying to reconcile former or current positions with new positions if I know that he is speaking as the Lord's mouth-piece. I think there are some risks in having one's testimony dependant on the unchangeability of various, individual little bits of doctrine and practices. 

 

If you follow this to it's end however, it is extremely dangerous as a concept. There are no eternal, unchangeable truths that we can depend on? Anything can be reversed by the words of a man?

[LeSellers]

There are no eternal, unchangeable truths that we can depend on? Anything can be reversed by the words of a man?

It depends on who the "man" is.

If it is "the Man of Holiness", then yes, "[a]nything can be reversed by the words of a Man"!

Lehi

Edited December 20, 2015 by LeSellers

[Backroads]

If you follow this to it's end however, it is extremely dangerous as a concept. There are no eternal, unchangeable truths that we can depend on? Anything can be reversed by the words of a man?

I'd just argue there are Eternal Truths and our weak mortal perceptions of them.

[The Folk Prophet]

It depends on who the "man" is.

If it is "the Man of Holiness", then yes, "[a]nything can be reversed by the words of a Man"!

Lehi

 

No. Absolutely not. God Himself has declared exactly the opposite. His words cannot and will not change.

[LeSellers]

No. Absolutely not. God Himself has declared exactly the opposite. His words cannot and will not change.

When He promised the Levites and the Aaronites the Priesthood as an eternal heritage, but now gives it to many who are not of those lines (and not to those who are), has He changed comething that will not change according to His word?

 

And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

Lehi

Edited December 20, 2015 by LeSellers

[The Folk Prophet]

When He promised the Levites and the Aaronites the Priesthood as an eternal heritage, but now gives it to many who are not of those lines (and not to those who are), has He changed comething that will not change according to His word?

 

Lehi

 

All this comment shows is that you don't really understand the oath and covenant of the priesthood.

[Guest]

OK, I just deleted a post that was just plain wrong.

 

If the prophet were to declare something contrary to a FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE, that would destroy the Church.  It would essentially say the Church was never true in the first place.  Thus he cannot be the prophet.

 

But there are some prinicples/doctrines/beliefs that are not foundational/fundamental that can be changed.  I don't consider the principle of women and the priesthood as fundamental to the gospel.

[Guest]

All this comment shows is that you don't really understand the oath and covenant of the priesthood.

 

I wish you'd explain it to me.  No one has been able to apart from do what the Lord says and you'll inherit all he has.  Yeah, I got that.  How does the O&CP work with that?  What really is the O&C?  New thread?

[LeSellers]

All this comment shows is that you don't really understand the oath and covenant of the priesthood.

Irrespective of my ignorance, God said it would be an eternal Priesthood, yet they don't have it any more. His words in Torah were "X", His words in The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say "not-X".

Lehi

[Vort]

But there are some prinicples/doctrines/beliefs that are not foundational/fundamental that can be changed.  I don't consider the principle of women and the priesthood as fundamental to the gospel.

Oh, I think it absolutely is fundamental. It is the very meaning of the patriarchal Priesthood.

[The Folk Prophet]

I wish you'd explain it to me.  No one has been able to apart from do what the Lord says and you'll inherit all he has.  Yeah, I got that.  How does the O&CP work with that?  What really is the O&C?  New thread?

 

The short of it, as related to this discussion, is that "the priesthood" is not only some mortal appointment that was/is given to some people for the sake of their ability to exercise God's power on the earth. That is part of it, of course, but it is not, by a long stretch, what "the priesthood" is. The priesthood is the organization of God as headed by His son and is the order of exaltation. It is the order of rule. It is eternal with God. When LeSellers narrows it down to nothing more than an earthly promise (which the scriptures he states are, actually, a conditional promise and directly related to the oath and covenant of the priesthood, which should be well understood to be conditional upon obedience -- and that the sons of Aaron lost the privilege has nothing to do with the Lord's change, but with the failure of men to obey) then it shows a shortsightedness. When we talk about the eternal nature of the priesthood as promised to anyone, we are talking about the eternities, not about mortality. The sons of Aaron who do, and did, keep their covenants, will receive the promise of the eternal priesthood, as will their progeny forever, just as the Lord has promised. His word is sure. His word is unchanging.

[Guest]

I'll have to spend some time thinking about this.  Most of what you said is not news to me.  But some phrasing is not what I'm used to hearing and it puts a slightly different perspective.  I'll have to ponder if that makes any difference.

[Anddenex]

I always find it interesting when people respond to this issue this way. The cards it shows, it seems to me, is a pretty severe deficiency of consideration of what I consider fairly basic ideas on the matter.

 

There are way too many factors stacked up one upon another that lend to the idea that this is, while perhaps not an impossibility, extremely unlikely, and realistically, cannot change and will not be anything other than what it is and has always been.

 

The two key words are bolded, "I consider."  We understand it is what you consider, but I don't think anyone on this forum has come to the same mind God has.

 

I find it a nonissue (or meh) due to Joseph Fielding Smith who referred to women being Queen's and Priestesses, which denotes power is given (at least in the afterlife), what that power provided is unknown.  The reality is we don't know.  God has never said "Women will not obtain the priesthood."  Unless you can find a scripture that specifies such.  

 

As of now, we accept the same line of understanding as the prophets and apostles that since Adam we know of no woman who held the priesthood, this doesn't mean, nor negate, any basic principle (unknown to us now) that would specify they could otherwise. Also, women already perform priesthood acts in the temple, unless you have seen a man perform everyday in the women's locker room a specific ordinance (priesthood saving ordinance)? 

 

It is a nonissue either way for me.  If they do, in God's wisdom, then they do.  If they don't then they don't.  As for me, I don't see that they will, yet I do ponder what Joseph Field Smith taught.

[askandanswer]

If you follow this to it's end however, it is extremely dangerous as a concept. There are no eternal, unchangeable truths that we can depend on? Anything can be reversed by the words of a man?

 

Yes, when that man is speaking as the mouthpiece of God, and saying what God has told him to say, because then it is God, and not the man, who is doing the reversing, and I don't see anything wrong with that. 

[askandanswer]

No. Absolutely not. God Himself has declared exactly the opposite. His words cannot and will not change.

 

I've sometimes thought that the anecdote in 2 Kings 20: 1-6 goes against the idea that God's words do not change.

 

1  IN those days was Hezekiah sick unto death.  And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.

2  Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed unto the LORD, saying,

3  I beseech thee, O LORD, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight.  And Hezekiah wept sore.

4  And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the LORD came to him, saying,

5  Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD.

6  And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake.

[Blackmarch]

I’ve seen this brought up in other LDS forums.  A quick search on this forum revealed nothing.  So I believe I’m not repeating an old thread.

 

I want to stay away from the likelihood or validity of these “what ifs”.  This is just hypothetical anyway. 

 

Please weigh in on any or all of the following ideas.  What would be YOUR REACTION if OD#3 were announced as:

 

Possibility #1: Repeal of OD#1.

Possibility #2: Women will now receive the priesthood and may be given any priesthood office such as Bishop, Seventy, or Apostle.

Possibliity #3: Gay marriage is now ordained of God.

Possibility #4: (within the current social & political environment) The Lord has authorized the Prophet to exercise earthly political power and to ignore earthly governments as we now know them.  All members are to take up arms in defense of the new Kingdom of God, or the Nation of Deseret.  Policies and procedures for the political arm of the Church will be distributed soon.

Pray pray pray pray pray and pray some more.

[The Folk Prophet]

Yes, when that man is speaking as the mouthpiece of God, and saying what God has told him to say, because then it is God, and not the man, who is doing the reversing, and I don't see anything wrong with that. 

 

God will not reverse, and there is, very, very much, something wrong with that as an idea. If God can change then we can have no trust in him. If He can reverse His thinking on any given thing then at any given moment He could suddenly decide to turn evil. The idea makes a potential liar of God.

 

God is not a liar, will never be a liar, and we can have complete and utter confidence in His words precisely because He is unchanging from beginning to end.

 

It's not like this is some obscure deep doctrine.

 

Mormon 9:9-10

For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

 

And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.

[zil]

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (I contend each of us are as well, but that's another story).  But God also does the appropriate thing for the given situation (as in "Thou shalt not kill" vs. (paraphrasing) "slaughter them all, even the babies and the animals", vs "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill... But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment...").  Did God change?  Those don't all sound compatible.

 

How about "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." (D&C 64:10) vs "But if he trespass against thee the fourth time thou shalt not forgive him" (D&C 98:44)?  Change?

 

The notion that we understand more than a fraction of a fraction (of a fraction?) is arrogance and ignorance in the extreme.  While God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; and His course is one eternal round, the same cannot be said of us.  He is giving us line upon line, precept upon precept, and as we learn, the old is often "changed" into something better.  ("Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - in other words, we cannot even begin to imagine what's coming, so it shouldn't be hard to believe that some changes between here and there will be ones we now cannot imagine.)

 

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

 

IMO, hypotheticals like this are a waste of time, but if you're gonna ponder possibilities, ponder whether the hypothetical change would alter what exists, restrict it, expand it, eliminate it, replace it, invalidate it - and don't settle for just one of those, or the easy answer, expand the answer as far as you can.  Take the Law of Moses - done away? discontinued? replaced? elevated? expanded? restricted?  The whole thing? Most of it?  None of it?  It is not a simple "all gone forever" scenario.  How about the ten commandments vs the sermon on the mount?  What changed?  How did it change?

 

The better thing is to bag the hypothetical, learn and live the gospel, and follow the prophet - here and now.  Then, when He reveals another great and important thing, you'll be as prepared for it as you can be.

 

Just because you can't understand how a law might be expanded without breaking the law, doesn't mean it can't be.

[Guest]

Gee and here I was just trying to stir things up a little.  Then you come and spoil my fun.