Apostasy and prophets

[Veritas]

As some of you may have noticed from my other post, I've been investigating for 8-9 years, despite being gay and agnostic. Not sure if my interest is academic or spiritual, but I don't seem to be getting much in the way of divine inspiration despite my pleas. I'm generally a skeptic and (overly) analytical.

 

For every pro-LDS thing I find, I find something negative (sometimes from former members). I'm not looking into getting into the issues about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or litigate polygamy (personally, I don't really care so long as it's consenting adults who aren't leaching off the state), or bring up blood atonement or massacres or whatever sketchiness there may be.

 

What I'm curious about is the seemingly blind adherence to central authorities. I don't mean that to sound judgmental, but I don't understand how a church that advocates patriotism and thinks the Constitution and other founding documents were divinely inspired can demand such obedience and allegiance from members. It just doesn't seem like there's room for diversity of thought (like when it comes to feminism or homosexuality), and that bothers me. I remember having this discussion with a friend who is a member about the childhood baptism of married gays and despite knowing she is more liberal on homosexuality than many members, she was in lockstep. Her opposition didn't bother me so much as her stated reasons. The only response I could get was "Well, the general authorities say this, I'm a good Mormon, and I don't question it." I just don't understand such circular logic.

 

So here's my point:

 

The church is founded on the notion of apostasy, by men. It's restored through Joseph Smith, a man. The church teaches that neither Joseph nor any prophet are worshipped. They aren't God (exaltation aside, but that's another discussion). If they're men, aren't they weak, sinful, and fallible? Isn't possible that any prophet, including Joseph, made mistakes and were not or are not always divinely inspired?

 

There are things the church has evolved on that were deeply held beliefs but not widely socially accepted, like polygamy (desire for statehood) and barring blacks from the priesthood (because it was inherently racist). My understanding is even that in the early church, there were black members of the priesthood, so that didn't come from the Restoration. No current members rationalize or want to go back to those policies, but weren't those once believed to be from God? Does God really change his mind about that sort of thing after a few decades? I'm not trying to be flip or disrespect anyone's faith, I just don't understand.

 

I guess my general point is, is it possible that there has been apostasy since the Restoration and that any man, even a prophet or apostle, could be corrupted (or at least misinterpret or mistake signs)? Isn't that an inherent risk when relying on continued revelation from a living prophet?

 

Also, as a bit of an aside but as someone who is struggling with it, can someone explain why the missionaries advocate for listening to the Holy Ghost when investigating the church, and praying on things for understanding, but the Holy Ghost isn't conferred upon someone until they're confirmed and had the hands laid on them by a member of the priesthood, after they've been baptized? How can I listen to something I haven't been given? Or is it to degrees?

[Sunday21]

All people have access to the light of Christ. The light of Christ is like lightning which from time to time gives you information from God.

The Holy Ghost can be with you always, if you keep the commandments, once you have been confirmed a member of the church.

Have you considered going to mormon.org and posting some questions?

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/04/the-light-of-christ?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/06/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

Edited July 14, 2016 by Sunday21

[estradling75]

5 hours ago, Veritas said:

As some of you may have noticed from my other post, I've been investigating for 8-9 years, despite being gay and agnostic. Not sure if my interest is academic or spiritual, but I don't seem to be getting much in the way of divine inspiration despite my pleas. I'm generally a skeptic and (overly) analytical.

 

For every pro-LDS thing I find, I find something negative (sometimes from former members). I'm not looking into getting into the issues about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or litigate polygamy (personally, I don't really care so long as it's consenting adults who aren't leaching off the state), or bring up blood atonement or massacres or whatever sketchiness there may be.

 

What I'm curious about is the seemingly blind adherence to central authorities. I don't mean that to sound judgmental, but I don't understand how a church that advocates patriotism and thinks the Constitution and other founding documents were divinely inspired can demand such obedience and allegiance from members. It just doesn't seem like there's room for diversity of thought (like when it comes to feminism or homosexuality), and that bothers me. I remember having this discussion with a friend who is a member about the childhood baptism of married gays and despite knowing she is more liberal on homosexuality than many members, she was in lockstep. Her opposition didn't bother me so much as her stated reasons. The only response I could get was "Well, the general authorities say this, I'm a good Mormon, and I don't question it." I just don't understand such circular logic.

 

So here's my point:

 

The church is founded on the notion of apostasy, by men. It's restored through Joseph Smith, a man. The church teaches that neither Joseph nor any prophet are worshipped. They aren't God (exaltation aside, but that's another discussion). If they're men, aren't they weak, sinful, and fallible? Isn't possible that any prophet, including Joseph, made mistakes and were not or are not always divinely inspired?

 

There are things the church has evolved on that were deeply held beliefs but not widely socially accepted, like polygamy (desire for statehood) and barring blacks from the priesthood (because it was inherently racist). My understanding is even that in the early church, there were black members of the priesthood, so that didn't come from the Restoration. No current members rationalize or want to go back to those policies, but weren't those once believed to be from God? Does God really change his mind about that sort of thing after a few decades? I'm not trying to be flip or disrespect anyone's faith, I just don't understand.

 

I guess my general point is, is it possible that there has been apostasy since the Restoration and that any man, even a prophet or apostle, could be corrupted (or at least misinterpret or mistake signs)? Isn't that an inherent risk when relying on continued revelation from a living prophet?

 

Also, as a bit of an aside but as someone who is struggling with it, can someone explain why the missionaries advocate for listening to the Holy Ghost when investigating the church, and praying on things for understanding, but the Holy Ghost isn't conferred upon someone until they're confirmed and had the hands laid on them by a member of the priesthood, after they've been baptized? How can I listen to something I haven't been given? Or is it to degrees?

I am going to start with your last question first because it feeds into the the other questions.

Part of the confusion stems from us not being clear on our terminology.  We have the "Influence" of the Holy Ghost (or Light of Christ) and the "Gift of" the Holy Ghost.  Everyone is entitled to feel the Influence of the Holy Ghost.  It comes and goes based on a variety of factors... including faithfulness... willingness to obey... and the will of God.  It was through the Influence of the Holy Ghost that Joseph Smith was prompted to pray and receive the First Vision...  It it through the Influence of the Holy Ghost that everyone who has ever converted started on the path and gained a testimony...  I would say that it is the Influence of the Holy Ghost that kept you circling about Mormonism... while other factors are what are pulling you away.

Now for the Gift of the Holy Ghost...   The goal of the Gift of the Holy Ghost is the constant companionship of it...  That it stops coming and going but stays.  However this only happens when we aren't acting contrary to the commandments and will of God.  Thus when hands are placed on our head and the priesthood holder pronounces  "We say unto you Receive the Holy Ghost"  It is in many ways a command for us to get and keep our lives in order so that we can enjoy the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost which God in returns, promises us if we do.

Of course each individual member can then be at a different state of getting that promised blessing.

Now lets talk about church authority...  In many ways our Salvation and Exaltation is a intensely personal thing between us and God.  Our faith in God, our willingness to obey, our sacrifices. etc...    But at the same time God commandments require us to interact with other people... Love your neighbor as yourself, forgive persecutors, help the poor and needy,  Receive ordinances form Gods authorized servants, and gather together support and strength each other.

Once you start involving others for ordinances and gathering... Well that effort needs to be organized, and since the Lord's house is a house of order he has organized it.  He organizes through his priesthood.   

Now these priesthood holders are mortal men with weakness and agency like all the rest of is, but they are also Gods anointed... So how do we balance this?  The Doctrine and Covenants teaches us this...  From the instance of Hyrum Page God teaches us that he will have only one man appointed to receive revelation for the whole Church, at the time it was Joseph Smith.  And that if Joseph Smith should fall that God would have Joseph Smith appoint another to replace himself and then God would deal with him.  We see this repeated in the Manifesto that stopped polygamy and we can see it play out in a few stories in the Old Testament.

Now to connect the dots...The Holy Ghost can teach you that the Book of Mormon is true...  The Holy Ghost can teach you that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God...  The Holy Ghost can teach you that we have modern day prophets and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is lead by them...  What you do with that is up to you.

But don't confuse the idea of authority and priesthood with requirement for always flawless and perfect actions... because that has never been the way God works.

 

 

 

[tesuji]

I would summarize Mormonism as consisting of both of the following:

1. Use your brain, and

2. Follow the prophet.

Both are important.

God want us to think, learn and grow, to become more than we are now.

However, we can learn, think, ponder and develop our opinions (all good things) - but in the end it comes down to faith, by which I mean trusting in God and submitting to his teachings. For Mormons this means that we begin by feeling by the Holy Spirit that the church is true, and then we continue on in faith, trusting that it is God's church and he will not let his prophet lead us astray.

Submitting to and obeying God's will is fundamental to being a disciple of Christ. This is the opposite of what the world teaches - which is do your own thing, resist authority, etc. So it's almost counter intuitive that we should be humble, seek to know God's will, and then follow it.

This is not blind obedience. I disagree with the statement, "Well, the general authorities say this, I'm a good Mormon, and I don't question it." Nope. That is not Mormonism. Mormonism is using your brain, learning, analyzing, and praying about things - and then voluntarily, knowingly, willingly choosing to submit to God's will. It is recognizing that we don't know everything. Recognizing that God, not us, knows the path back to him, and we need to trust him when he points in a certain direction, even as we continue thinking and learning.

Jesus Christ is our prime example in this. He was the most intelligent, informed, powerful, awesome person you can imagine. And what did he do? In all cases, he said to God, "Thy will not mine be done."
 

The Holy Ghost can be felt by anyone, but it won't stay with you continually until it's given to you by the priesthood after baptism. In both cases, before and after baptism, the Holy Spirit will not be with you if you are not calm in mind and trying to follow God's commandments.

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by tesuji

[NeedleinA]

@Veritas

Q: If they're men, aren't they weak, sinful, and fallible?
A: All of mankind is susceptible to sin and fallibility. We do not believe leaders are infallible. Weakness has been demonstrated various times throughout scripture. God still works with his leaders despite weaknesses. Here is a more in-depth link, enjoy: Mormonism and doctrine/Prophets are not infallible

Q: Isn't possible that any prophet, including Joseph, made mistakes and were not or are not always divinely inspired?
A: Prophets are not "always" divinely inspired. Choosing strawberry jelly vs. grape on toast in the morning is not a divinely inspired choice, therefore they are divinely inspired on certain subjects only. Not all words they utter are divinely inspired either. Again, please reference the link above for a better understanding.

[zil]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

Choosing strawberry jelly vs. grape on toast in the morning is not a divinely inspired choice

Speak for yourself, heathen!

[Sunday21]

Divine taste

http://www.divinetaste.com/archives/jam-biscuits/

[mirkwood]

16 minutes ago, zil said:

Speak for yourself, heathen!

@MormonGator she's acting up again...take care of it.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

@MormonGator she's acting up again...take care of it.

We have a demerit system here at the compound. You have no idea how close Zil is to getting kicked out! 

[zil]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

We have a demerit system here at the compound. You have no idea how close Zil is to getting kicked out! 

Of course, the technical problem is that I'm in charge of paperwork, so my eviction notice may never actually get delivered...

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

Of course, the technical problem is that I'm in charge of paperwork, so my eviction notice may never actually get delivered...

LOL! The problem is when we upgrade our systems the older version usually becomes obsolete.

;-)  

[Guest MormonGator]

@mirkwood is such a killjoy. See what I have to go home to now? Thanks pal. 

Edited July 14, 2016 by MormonGator

[zil]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

LOL! The problem is when we upgrade our systems the older version usually becomes obsolete.

;-)  

And then we have to start all over again. </sigh>  But we're currently investigating MSPMS (MS Polygamy Management Suite) to see if, as MS promises, it will solve all our problems.  (The name seems a little unfortunate, but Gator seems to find it amusing.)

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

Gator seems to find it amusing.)

Unlike Queen Victoria, Gator IS amused. 

[NeedleinA]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

Divine taste

http://www.divinetaste.com/archives/jam-biscuits/

The queen of "links" has struck again!

[Blackmarch]

20 hours ago, Veritas said:

...

I guess my general point is, is it possible that there has been apostasy since the Restoration and that any man, even a prophet or apostle, could be corrupted (or at least misinterpret or mistake signs)? Isn't that an inherent risk when relying on continued revelation from a living prophet?

 

Also, as a bit of an aside but as someone who is struggling with it, can someone explain why the missionaries advocate for listening to the Holy Ghost when investigating the church, and praying on things for understanding, but the Holy Ghost isn't conferred upon someone until they're confirmed and had the hands laid on them by a member of the priesthood, after they've been baptized? How can I listen to something I haven't been given? Or is it to degrees?

A) Of course. Which provides plenty of ammunition for critics. - And also the reason for why the church is so insistant on people turning to the Holy Spirit. Apostasy happens all the time on small scale. we havent had one to the scale of what happened to the early church (but given enough time it would eventually happen, but the general expectation is that the second coming is going to happen before such apostasy can get to 100%)

The holy ghost can speak to anyone he wants to. However for someone who has the gift of the holy ghost, if that person is being true to their covenants (easier said than done) the holy ghost is bound by law to be with them... for someone who does not have that, they have no promise, the holy ghost may or may not speak to them, however if a person is honestly and dilligently seeking God, at some point somewhere along the line they will get some sort of witness from the Spirit.... whether or not they get more after that will depend on what they do with their witness.

 

[Anddenex]

On 7/14/2016 at 1:40 AM, Veritas said:

As some of you may have noticed from my other post, I've been investigating for 8-9 years, despite being gay and agnostic. Not sure if my interest is academic or spiritual, but I don't seem to be getting much in the way of divine inspiration despite my pleas. I'm generally a skeptic and (overly) analytical.

Investigating for 8-9 years, that is a good time investigating the Church. Once you determine your level of interest (academic or spiritual) then an answer will eventually come. If purely academic, don't expect the Lord to reveal anything, as the interest in knowing isn't with real intent. The interest may be sincere, but doesn't have real intent. God will not provide us with further knowledge if we have no desire to live the knowledge he gives. This scripture I have come to love because of the truth on how our Father will reveal truth, or communicate with us (Abraham 1: 2). Abraham desired knowledge, but in order to gain knowledge he recognize obedience was necessary. He desired further knowledge and recognized he wanted to follow righteousness even more. The concept of being skeptical isn't a bad thing, as long as our desire to know truth, when revealed is sincere and with real intent. Many are skeptics and when truth is revealed they remain skeptical.

 

On 7/14/2016 at 1:40 AM, Veritas said:

What I'm curious about is the seemingly blind adherence to central authorities. I don't mean that to sound judgmental, but I don't understand how a church that advocates patriotism and thinks the Constitution and other founding documents were divinely inspired can demand such obedience and allegiance from members. It just doesn't seem like there's room for diversity of thought (like when it comes to feminism or homosexuality), and that bothers me. I remember having this discussion with a friend who is a member about the childhood baptism of married gays and despite knowing she is more liberal on homosexuality than many members, she was in lockstep. Her opposition didn't bother me so much as her stated reasons. The only response I could get was "Well, the general authorities say this, I'm a good Mormon, and I don't question it." I just don't understand such circular logic.

The notion of blind obedience is intriguing in and of itself. At some point in time, we all practiced "blind" obedience; however, the notion is better said, "It is not that we are blind, no indeed, we trust." Trust is offered through experience, or recognizing an individual knows more than you. A child offers this blind obedience, "trust," when parents say do not run out into the street and the child obeys solely out of -- "Well, mom and dad said so." It is not until they are older that they recognize the "why" in the counsel/command.

My obedience isn't blind, as my obedience stems from personal experience and personal witness (multiple witnesses) that their is a God. He is our Father. He has servants, and reveals truth through his servants such that there is wisdom and order. As a Father I will tell one of my children to tell their sibling something I said to do. The sibling receiving the order (who did not hear it from me), has a choice: 1) Accept the command giving by the sibling who received it from their father 2) Ignore/reject the command thinking they know of themsevles. Thus obedience is interwoven heavily with the attribute of "trust." The child receiving the command from the father through the sibling obeys because they trust that the counsel did indeed come from the father, which incorporates the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood (Doctrine and Covenants 84: 33-40).

Some members are not studied, but they have received witness, while others are studied and have received witness. The irony, even the studied will have to say at times, "The Prophet has spoken, and that is enough for me." Why is it enough, because of the multiple witnesses that God is leading his children through his prophets. I accept this just as I accept when my own children say, "I don't know, save it be my dad said not to," to their friends. And that is OK. If you think this is circular logic, no one will convince you otherwise.

 

On 7/14/2016 at 1:40 AM, Veritas said:

The church is founded on the notion of apostasy, by men. It's restored through Joseph Smith, a man. The church teaches that neither Joseph nor any prophet are worshipped. They aren't God (exaltation aside, but that's another discussion). If they're men, aren't they weak, sinful, and fallible? Isn't possible that any prophet, including Joseph, made mistakes and were not or are not always divinely inspired?

 

There are things the church has evolved on that were deeply held beliefs but not widely socially accepted, like polygamy (desire for statehood) and barring blacks from the priesthood (because it was inherently racist). My understanding is even that in the early church, there were black members of the priesthood, so that didn't come from the Restoration. No current members rationalize or want to go back to those policies, but weren't those once believed to be from God? Does God really change his mind about that sort of thing after a few decades? I'm not trying to be flip or disrespect anyone's faith, I just don't understand.

 

I guess my general point is, is it possible that there has been apostasy since the Restoration and that any man, even a prophet or apostle, could be corrupted (or at least misinterpret or mistake signs)? Isn't that an inherent risk when relying on continued revelation from a living prophet?

 

Also, as a bit of an aside but as someone who is struggling with it, can someone explain why the missionaries advocate for listening to the Holy Ghost when investigating the church, and praying on things for understanding, but the Holy Ghost isn't conferred upon someone until they're confirmed and had the hands laid on them by a member of the priesthood, after they've been baptized? How can I listen to something I haven't been given? Or is it to degrees?

Although, possibly splitting hairs, The Church wasn't founded upon the principle of apostasy. The Church was founded upon principles of righteousness through patriarchs/prophets as given authority from God (as with Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Peter, etc...). The Church, as it stands now, was restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. We accept the idea that the founding Church experienced a full apostasy, the keys of the priesthood were removed from men, and once again God used divine authority to restore his Church and restore principles which have been lost.

The Church, even Joseph Smith, has never considered (nor taught) that they are anything else than man. We already know Joseph made a mistake by which he was chastened for (116 pages of lost manuscript). When a prophet is speaking as a prophet, they are always inspired from God, otherwise it would not be inspiration. When a prophet is speaking as a man, he can have his own thoughts, his own ideas, he can share those ideas, etc... To be honest, I don't understand why this is difficult to understand, but it appears to be difficult for some.

To be Edited....as don't have time now to complete.

 

[spamlds]

Here is an analogy that applies to several of the questions the OP posed.  The Church was given the keys of the kingdom during the Restoration.  This is like the quarterback receiving the ball in the football game.  No matter who has the ball, the QB, a running back, or a wide receiver, the opposition is going to try to tackle him and take him down.

The opposition the Church receives from apostates, secularists, and false religions comes from the Adversary of truth.  If we did not have the "football" nobody would be trying to tackle us.  Nobody goes after Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh-Day Adventists with the same fervor that that anti-Mormons attack the Church.  When the Church abandoned Nauvoo, the properties in the city went to the Icarians, a communal religious movement that had much in common with the saints.  The people in Nauvoo tolerated Etienne Cabet and his followers, but they sought to murder Joseph Smith and the saints. Why?  The Icarians didn't have the keys.  Satan always persecutes and attacks those who hold the keys.  

That's why you'll always find sources that oppose everything about the Church.  Satan can't let the work go unopposed.  Elder Sitati once quoted an African aphorism that says, if everyone's throwing rocks at the mango tree, the fruit of it must be good.  

We follow prophets and apostles because they have the keys.  There have been apostles who have fallen away in our early history.  There may yet be apostles who will fall away.  If we stay with the majority of the Twelve and the President of the Church, we will be in a position to get inspired revelation to guide and protect us.

That said, the Holy Ghost will give us personal guidance to help us interpret the instructions we receive from scripture and the leaders of the Church for our own situations.  Think of the leaders of the Church and the scriptures as a big map that give us a broad picture and the Holy Ghost as a GPS that gives us turn-by-turn instructions. They work together for our good and safety.  

On the difference between a person who feels the Spirit when he is taught the gospel and one who receives the Gift of the Holy Ghost after confirmation:  the first is a temporary manifestation to guide a person to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  The temporary manifestation leaves the person in time, if he does not act upon the Spirit's guidance.

After repentance and baptism, a person's sins are remitted.  (They are not prior to that time.)  After the remission of sins, the member is worthy to be admitted into the presence of the Holy Ghost on a permanent basis, conditional upon obedience.  It is a partial redemption of sorts.

The Gift of the Holy Ghost works in the member to bring him into the presence of the Father and Christ, which is the Second Comforter, the full measure of redemption.  

[Veritas]

43 minutes ago, spamlds said:

Here is an analogy that applies to several of the questions the OP posed.  The Church was given the keys of the kingdom during the Restoration.  This is like the quarterback receiving the ball in the football game.  No matter who has the ball, the QB, a running back, or a wide receiver, the opposition is going to try to tackle him and take him down.

The opposition the Church receives from apostates, secularists, and false religions comes from the Adversary of truth.  If we did not have the "football" nobody would be trying to tackle us.  Nobody goes after Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh-Day Adventists with the same fervor that that anti-Mormons attack the Church.  When the Church abandoned Nauvoo, the properties in the city went to the Icarians, a communal religious movement that had much in common with the saints.  The people in Nauvoo tolerated Etienne Cabet and his followers, but they sought to murder Joseph Smith and the saints. Why?  The Icarians didn't have the keys.  Satan always persecutes and attacks those who hold the keys.  

That's why you'll always find sources that oppose everything about the Church.  Satan can't let the work go unopposed.  Elder Sitati once quoted an African aphorism that says, if everyone's throwing rocks at the mango tree, the fruit of it must be good.  

We follow prophets and apostles because they have the keys.  There have been apostles who have fallen away in our early history.  There may yet be apostles who will fall away.  If we stay with the majority of the Twelve and the President of the Church, we will be in a position to get inspired revelation to guide and protect us.

I appreciate that you took the time to respond so thoughtfully. 

 

I I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate the analogy, but it seems flawed to me. Religious persecution isn't new, or unique to Mormons. Even today, it happens to non-Mormons. Christians are unsafe in many parts of the world. Even radical Islamists could say they're the one true path and are persecuted by the west and apostates. I'm not in any way saying that LDS is like radical Islam, because that would be absurd, I'm just pointing out that the same arguments could exist.

 

Obviously the Saints were persecuted, but I'm not sure if modern criticism or even heckling  (harsh and rude as it may be) is akin to persecution, particularly when looking through a historical lens. I also think it's kind of dangerous to assume that critical thoughts or questions about historical facts or incongruencies should simply be dismissed as the work of Satan  

 

[Veritas]

10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Investigating for 8-9 years, that is a good time investigating the Church. Once you determine your level of interest (academic or spiritual) then an answer will eventually come. If purely academic, don't expect the Lord to reveal anything, as the interest in knowing isn't with real intent. The interest may be sincere, but doesn't have real intent. God will not provide us with further knowledge if we have no desire to live the knowledge he gives. This scripture I have come to love because of the truth on how our Father will reveal truth, or communicate with us (Abraham 1: 2). Abraham desired knowledge, but in order to gain knowledge he recognize obedience was necessary. He desired further knowledge and recognized he wanted to follow righteousness even more. The concept of being skeptical isn't a bad thing, as long as our desire to know truth, when revealed is sincere and with real intent. Many are skeptics and when truth is revealed they remain skeptical.

 

The notion of blind obedience is intriguing in and of itself. At some point in time, we all practiced "blind" obedience; however, the notion is better said, "It is not that we are blind, no indeed, we trust." Trust is offered through experience, or recognizing an individual knows more than you. A child offers this blind obedience, "trust," when parents say do not run out into the street and the child obeys solely out of -- "Well, mom and dad said so." It is not until they are older that they recognize the "why" in the counsel/command.

My obedience isn't blind, as my obedience stems from personal experience and personal witness (multiple witnesses) that their is a God. He is our Father. He has servants, and reveals truth through his servants such that there is wisdom and order. As a Father I will tell one of my children to tell their sibling something I said to do. The sibling receiving the order (who did not hear it from me), has a choice: 1) Accept the command giving by the sibling who received it from their father 2) Ignore/reject the command thinking they know of themsevles. Thus obedience is interwoven heavily with the attribute of "trust." The child receiving the command from the father through the sibling obeys because they trust that the counsel did indeed come from the father, which incorporates the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood (Doctrine and Covenants 84: 33-40).

Some members are not studied, but they have received witness, while others are studied and have received witness. The irony, even the studied will have to say at times, "The Prophet has spoken, and that is enough for me." Why is it enough, because of the multiple witnesses that God is leading his children through his prophets. I accept this just as I accept when my own children say, "I don't know, save it be my dad said not to," to their friends. And that is OK. If you think this is circular logic, no one will convince you otherwise.

 

Although, possibly splitting hairs, The Church wasn't founded upon the principle of apostasy. The Church was founded upon principles of righteousness through patriarchs/prophets as given authority from God (as with Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Peter, etc...). The Church, as it stands now, was restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. We accept the idea that the founding Church experienced a full apostasy, the keys of the priesthood were removed from men, and once again God used divine authority to restore his Church and restore principles which have been lost.

The Church, even Joseph Smith, has never considered (nor taught) that they are anything else than man. We already know Joseph made a mistake by which he was chastened for (116 pages of lost manuscript). When a prophet is speaking as a prophet, they are always inspired from God, otherwise it would not be inspiration. When a prophet is speaking as a man, he can have his own thoughts, his own ideas, he can share those ideas, etc... To be honest, I don't understand why this is difficult to understand, but it appears to be difficult for some.

To be Edited....as don't have time now to complete.

 

I Very much appreciate that you took so much time to offer a conserved reply. A few points:

 

Whil I understand your distinction about academic versus spiritual interest, I'm not sure I agree with the premise. I'm not taking it personally or anything, but I am steadfastly praying and trying to make changes and reading scripture (even though I hav a hard time following it). I'm trying to submit and be obedient, as far as I know how, and I still am failing to receive the spirit. it seems a little presumptuous and very convenient to say that the reason someone doesn't receive insights or feelings of the church being true or the BoM authentic is because they don't have "real intent" in seeking God. 

I guess one issue I've had with any religion is the idea that a supposedly caring, loving God would expect obedience and punish those who aren't, when the same God puts so much trauma in the world and allows free will. It seems awfully spiteful, and why would God need approval from such lesser creatures? Shouldn't the truth and joys be universal? Anyway, I know that goes far deeper than LDS specifically, it's just one issue I've grappled with. 

As you point out, we are all blindly obedient from time to time. Most of us are inherently obedient to moral principles, like not killing, stealing, lying, etc. 

 

i understand and your point about speaking as a man versus speaking in an official capacity for the church. But that doesn't answer my questions or concerns about oscillating reservation. Polygamy was god's plan for years before it wasn't and is now dealt with very harshly. Ditto with blacks in the priesthood. There are other examples, to various degrees.  I'm not looking to litigate history, but I'm confused how such obedience can be expected of men delivering god's message when that message seems to waver when social circumstances require it. I don't think God is ambivalent or making mistakes, so isn't it possible that those interpreting the message are making mistakes? I guess that goes back to the fundamental concerns of my post. 

[tesuji]

This is a church of continuing revelation. Trust God, follow the current prophet and you will be fine.

The prophet will not tell you to do things that are against the core teachings in the Scriptures, so you can also use the Scriptures as your guide.

 Don't get hung up on extraneous things like polygamy and the other Internet controversies. They aren't what the gospel is about at the core. .

Edited July 16, 2016 by tesuji

[Anddenex]

On July 14, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Veritas said:

The church is founded on the notion of apostasy, by men. It's restored through Joseph Smith, a man. The church teaches that neither Joseph nor any prophet are worshipped. They aren't God (exaltation aside, but that's another discussion). If they're men, aren't they weak, sinful, and fallible? Isn't possible that any prophet, including Joseph, made mistakes and were not or are not always divinely inspired?

Continued...Joseph Smith made other mistakes by which he was commanded to repent; however, as pertaining to things which are inspired, actions which stem from revelation from God, no, these are not mistakes. The world, from their frame of reference, may entice others to believe they are/were mistakes; however, even a just God will give unto his children what they desire even if it is wrong, or not the best way. In light of this, the mistake is not with God, nor with his prophets, but with the sons and daughters of God who desired things they should not have (e.g. The children of Israel desiring a king although the prophet tried very hard to dissuade them from such a choice). In light of this, I am more concerned with the sons and daughters of God desiring things they should not, and the Lord (through his servants the prophets) saying, "Have according to your desire," -- than the prophets and their inspiration and moving the Church according to God's will.

On July 14, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Veritas said:

There are things the church has evolved on that were deeply held beliefs but not widely socially accepted, like polygamy (desire for statehood) and barring blacks from the priesthood (because it was inherently racist). My understanding is even that in the early church, there were black members of the priesthood, so that didn't come from the Restoration. No current members rationalize or want to go back to those policies, but weren't those once believed to be from God? Does God really change his mind about that sort of thing after a few decades? I'm not trying to be flip or disrespect anyone's faith, I just don't understand.

I guess my general point is, is it possible that there has been apostasy since the Restoration and that any man, even a prophet or apostle, could be corrupted (or at least misinterpret or mistake signs)? Isn't that an inherent risk when relying on continued revelation from a living prophet?

The words we use to describe historic/modern circumstances the Church endured will help in understanding the gospel a bit better (and my words are not as good as others who write here on LDS.net). The word "evolved" is probably not the best way to describe the changes the Church made, and will change today, and what the Church will change tomorrow. Polygamy for example, has been practiced throughout the history of men, and was practiced by the patriarchs of old, and by other members who followed the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The desire for statehood is not the main reason for the Church denouncing polygamy. Wilford Woodruff was shown exactly what the US would do, the government, if the Church did not stop. Statehood, was a minor reason. 

As to polygamy seen as socially acceptable, "In many parts of the world, polygamy was socially acceptable and legally permissible. But in the United States, most people thought that the practice was morally wrong. These objections led to legislative efforts to end polygamy. Beginning in 1862, the U.S. government passed a series of laws designed to force Latter-day Saints to relinquish plural marriage...."

"President Woodruff saw that the Church’s temples and its ordinances were now at risk. Burdened by this threat, he prayed intensely over the matter. “The Lord showed me by vision and revelation,” he later said, “exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice,” referring to plural marriage. “All the temples [would] go out of our hands.” God “has told me exactly what to do, and what the result would be if we did not do it.”

Under this type of social pressure, corrupt (our nation, our government is all about not discriminating -- unless it is LDS) government legislation, in the face of religious freedom (which is often ignored by critics) through revelation the Church moved forward. The same with black's and the priesthood. Yes, Joseph Smith ordained black members, and for some reason this practiced was halted during Brigham Young. The Church has provided more information here. 

NOT CHURCH DOCTRINE OR EVEN TAUGHT -- My personal thoughts, I whole heartedly believe that this would not have been the case if Joseph Smith was not murdered. As to my knowledge, it appears, some prophets were able to move policies forward where others did not -- my personal thoughts though (yes, we as members can have our personal thoughts while remaining faithful members  ). 

No current members rationalize or want to go back to those policies -- Not true. There are many members who anticipate the Church reinstating the practice of polygamy (excluding 99.99999% of women). Black and the priesthood, yes I don't think any faithful member would like this returned; however, I would not be surprised if there are some members who still believe this revelation was a mistake.

We know polygamy has been practiced and accepted by the Church, and by God. Polygamy was instituted by God and as provided was removed, via revelation, by God. As pertaining to Black's and the priesthood, from what we have in record, we do not have the revelation which proceeded such; highlighting, why the Lord has told the Church and members to keep good record/journals, otherwise through word of mouth important aspects are lost. We don't know. 

In each case, though it wasn't until God revealed it should be done. From a world view, sure this is seen as "racist"; however, is God racist? No. Does God, the Father of all of us (by which we owe our existence) have the right to punish/discipline his children, or a nation?  Yes, he does. If God were to say, due to the nations wickedness (or even some order that God is able to see that we cannot (Levites were the only ones with certain priesthood privileges), that a certain continent of his sons would not be able to hold the priesthood until further notice? Yes, he does. Is his action racist? No, it is not. Yet, the world will decry discrimination. Sure, we live in a world when privileges (as with the Levites) are given to some, and not to another the world decries "discrimination" and that is not good. The Church, God, is wrong!!!!!

As for me, this is Christ's gospel. This is his Church that holds all the necessary ordinances and teachings for us to be exalted and to inherit all the Father hath. The Church is moving forward, people can say what they want to say, when I stand before God a decision that was made before I was born, which ended when I was 2 years old, isn't going to be something I will be judged for. God will judge my personal actions now, and how I respond to his servants, and the oath and covenant I have made in obtaining his priesthood.

I guess my general point is, is it possible that there has been apostasy since the Restoration -- Yes, the Church has, but it is better to say, the Church has not but we as a people have and thus have not received the greater blessings. The Church instituted the United Order, an aspect of Zion. The members (collectively) rejected it. Anytime we reject "truth" -- reject the greater path (so to speak) -- we experience a state of apostasy. What are other evidences? Polygamy? Could be, but not in the practice as detailed by the Church, but in the practice by those who practiced such, or simply the fact that we did not have the faith collectively that polygamy eventually was removed. Blacks and the priesthood? No, this wouldn't be a state of apostasy in the least. Some may have a different opinion on the matter though. Apostasy is when we reject truth. If the Church rejects the will of God, then the Church is indeed in apostasy. The Church since the restoration has never been such, the people of the Church -- yes indeed we have -- unfortunately.

As to the Holy Ghost, refer back to this post. This is as good of an answer as I would give.

19 hours ago, Veritas said:

I Very much appreciate that you took so much time to offer a conserved reply. A few points:Whil I understand your distinction about academic versus spiritual interest, I'm not sure I agree with the premise. I'm not taking it personally or anything, but I am steadfastly praying and trying to make changes and reading scripture (even though I hav a hard time following it). I'm trying to submit and be obedient, as far as I know how, and I still am failing to receive the spirit. it seems a little presumptuous and very convenient to say that the reason someone doesn't receive insights or feelings of the church being true or the BoM authentic is because they don't have "real intent" in seeking God. 

Thank you and I appreciate your method of communication also, and I haven't found you judgmental, but soul searching. In light of the last statement, we then disagree; although, I am fine with individuals believing it is presumptuous. My experience has taught me, often it is our "real intent" that inhibits God's answer. Is this yours, in light of that, yes, my statement could appear (or be) presumptuous as I am making a judgement (so to speak) according to a short few paragraphs of your 8-9 years of soul searching, and I understand that.

19 hours ago, Veritas said:

I guess one issue I've had with any religion is the idea that a supposedly caring, loving God would expect obedience and punish those who aren't, when the same God puts so much trauma in the world and allows free will. It seems awfully spiteful, and why would God need approval from such lesser creatures? Shouldn't the truth and joys be universal? Anyway, I know that goes far deeper than LDS specifically, it's just one issue I've grappled with. 

Elder David A. Bednar has three excellent books in reference to our search to become like our Father in heaven. If you like reading, I would recommend this books (three books: "Increase in Learning", "Act in Doctrine", "Power to Become"). One aspect he highlights is that often our struggles is not with God, but our misunderstanding of truths taught. God does expect obedience because he knows the path which leads to eternal life and paths which lead to damnation (a lack of progression). Not much different than a man standing at the edge of a precipice saying, "The Bridge is this way," while watching those ignoring his counsel and who then end up going over the precipice. The more I learn the more I understand the purpose behind his commandments. 

God did not put any trauma in the world, through Adam and Eve (human decision) trauma entered into existence. God indeed does allow free will, how else would we become like a perfect intelligent being if we could not act for ourselves? The reason trauma exists (excluding nature, as God honors the laws of nature of this fallen world) is because man chooses to disobey rather than obey, which causes the Lord to weep. Remove our intelligence and what are we? The world would be perfect if all of God's children, sons and daughters, honored his commandments since Adam. There would be no murder. There would be no rape. There would be no adultery. There would be no fornication. There would be no theft. There would be no envy. All these things exist because humans have decided, according to their own free will, to have them exist. Yes, if only we as God's children honored his expectation. Am I wrong to expect my children to go to school, receive a higher education, and hopefully succeed more in this life? Yet, despite my expectation, my call for obedience as their father, my children will still have their moral agency to honor or reject my will. God knows the path. He stands at the helm and bids we follow. It is our choice, and it isn't God's fault if one of his children decides to tie up his brother to a pole. No, it is the individual's fault who thought in his heart to do such, and then act upon it. 

God doesn't need our approval, not in the least, those of us who come to recognize his truth will continually seek his approval, not spiteful in the least. The truths are universal and the joys of these truths are for everyone. As we are able to accept truth, God gives us more, as we reject truth, God refrains from giving more. That isn't deeper for LDS, that is LDS doctrine. The joys are universal, and are received through honoring predicated laws, and is given line upon line. The only people we have to blame, is ourselves if we do not receive all the Father hath. What it would have been to live among the people of Enoch? What it would have been to be among sons and daughters who rejected the ideologies of man, and received only the knowledge from God? What would it have been like to live among a people where rape, murder, theft, class, and many other aspects of this world did not exist due to the personal decisions of the people of that city? The same can be for us, sadly, collectively we are not choosing such, and only in God's light will this be achieved.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Anddenex