Johnson's miscellaneous thoughts on LDS culture, tradition and ideas thread

JohnsonJones · December 8, 2017

4 hours ago, Vort said:

JJ, I know you're excited that you think you've discovered an important point. I, too, thought up the "Nephi to China" theory when I was in my 20s, as I am sure thousands have done before us. I was convinced, as you are now, that my idea was correct. But it's not. Read the Book of Mormon account carefully.

As we find out more about the Saba Empire, I think we may find more and more that show it very unlikely Lehi spent any large amount of time dwelling or even travelling in the Arabian Peninsula, but we all have various ideas. I've thought it was this way ever since I found out something that basically meant Lehi probably would have been killed outright if he had stayed very long in the Arabian Peninsula as someone who was not a tribal member or a citizen of that area. It could have been better if he were a spice trader, but that leaves a whole lot of other questionable ideas (far more than if he simply went South East in a more easterly direction than southerly) in regards to his actions. As a Historian, I probably tend to side more with the secular historians in this instance of traveling rather than the Utah Mormon ideas which don't normally correlate with the secular understanding of the area. Of course, Lehi could have been a particularly rich spice trader, but then how he found time to be in Jerusalem or was even concerned about it, would be questionable. We don't know, not enough information is given. The better route would have been away towards the East, away from Jerusalem if they were trying to flee after slaying Laban though, because it is thought that there were enough connections between the areas that a wanted man up north, would be a wanted man eventually down south (not that there weren't those that probably fled, but they probably didn't flee with their families on that route for various reasons, very similar to why a wanted man in Canada would probably do better to flee to China or somewhere in Asia like Turkmenistan or elsewhere than to the US capital of Washington DC). My opinion just differs from some of the ideas presented by some Mormon Scholars in this regards.

Of course, kudos to those that think that those scholars ideas are spot on also.

Vort · December 8, 2017

11 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

but that leaves a whole lot of other questionable ideas (far more than if he simply went South East in a more easterly direction than southerly)

Does the fact that Nephi specified "south-southeast" influence your opinion? To me, that statement mandates a sojourn through the Arabian peninsula.

I do appreciate your cordial tone.

JohnsonJones · December 9, 2017

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The main point here is that Asherah was the wife of Baal. Now this is problematic on a couple fronts. First of all, Baal is known as being an idolatrous god that Ancient Israel worshiped when they wandered from the worship of the Jehovah. However, the word 'baal' really means "Lord". And it is correct that in some histories Jehovah was actually addressed as "Baal." There was a point, however, where the Name Baal was used to separate those who worshipped Jehovah and those who worshipped the idolatrous god. It was that Baal with whom Ashtaroth was associated. To my knowledge Israel never associated her with Jehovah while they properly worshiped Jehovah.

AS I said, what I stated is NOT doctrine. However, it IS my way of talking about things that might come up in the Temple, without actually talking about the temple. It's a very round about way of discussing it, because what is in the temple, I don't discuss outside of the temple. Instead I try to find a very round about way of discussing it.

HOWEVER, that said, as it is presented, it is definitely NOT doctrine. Hopefully I made that obviously clear. However, those who may be able to make the connection might see what I was focusing on.

I brought it up both to discuss this disturbing trend of Liberal Feminism in Mormondom which bears a very strinking similarity to the Asherah worship of old (which repeatedly is talked about in the Old Testament as Kings and Leaders try to stomp it out, or Israel gets condemned for practicing it), but also to discuss where similar ideas have been talked about in the past. However, this is presented directly in conjunction with the ideas Brigham Young talked about at various times, but which we normally don't discuss, and those who are against the church absolutely avoid (normally because they don't really support their narrative) OR present in such a changed manner that they bear no resemblance to what was being taught in the first place.

Now, off topic and onto a side historical topic regarding ancient Semitic religion...

Asherah was the wife of another, otherwise known by other honorifics (one which basically is a root so holy that I personally don't mention it normally if avoidable because it is a name we hear it in the Temple in regards to the Father). Anciently she was actually identified as the spouse of the Father in Israelite religion. This is not secret, nor hidden.

[Editing this down to make it easier to understand, as reading through my original post here - think it probably was confusing to those not familiar with the subject]. I'll make it simpler and less confusing, but less accurate to the historical studies most likely due to that.

She was originally known as Atirat, and spouse of the ruler of the Pantheon, where as Ba'al Hadid was different and known as that who rules over thunder, or the Storm god (little g here). In the earlier Ba'al Cycles, these are separate entities, and though Atirat is Asherah, she is not the same is Astarte at this point.

There is conflict between the sons of the Ruler of the Pantheon of which some feel is the origins of the Israelite religion(they seeing the story of Ba'al as similar to that of a Messiah figure by some historians). In later Semitic religions you see the melding of Ba'al and others, but originally this was not so.

My personal idea is that the Urgartic myths are probably more towards the origin (but not the origin stories itself), and it is here that the Israelite and the other religions diverge with the Hebrews keeping the true religion and the others changing it (hence the change of Ba'als significance in later religions compared to the ruling deity of the pantheon previously).

IMO.

Edited December 9, 2017 by JohnsonJones

JohnsonJones · December 9, 2017

46 minutes ago, Vort said:

Does the fact that Nephi specified "south-southeast" influence your opinion? To me, that statement mandates a sojourn through the Arabian peninsula.

I do appreciate your cordial tone.

Absolutely. My course I figure they traveled in highly corresponds with the ideas most Mormon Scholars map out prior to their eight year sojourn to be honest. They don't have to travel that far to get into hills or mountains from Israel and yet not be in the heart of the Arabian Peninsula.

However, in Chapter 17 of Nephi he specifies that they travel Eastward. Not northeast, nor Southeast, but as he states in verse 1

Quote

And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth. And we did travel and wade through much affliction in the wilderness; and our women did bear children in the wilderness.

And then adding after this is the verse where it states...

Quote

And we did sojourn for the space of many years, yea, even eight years in the wilderness.

If they did this on the Southern edge of the Arabian peninsula, if you count traveling down the coast in an South-South Eastward direction, then you would need to say they traveled in a North-Eastern direction after that. If they traveled where the Utah Mormons say they did, they are saying it took them a short while to traverse the length of the peninsula, and 8 years to travel a quarter of that distance. It's mysterious if they did this, as they would have travelled at an incredibly furious and fast pace up until this point...and then suddenly slowed down so slowly as if they were not walking at all comparative to how much ground they covered (even today, that distance is a HUGE distance from the Northern end to the Southern end), far more than what many think). What's worse, is that Lehi thus spends 8 years in the heart of the Saba Empire perhaps even towards the capital for an extended period...even for a spice trader...probably not a wise idea...made even worse if people are hunting them down from Jerusalem.

If they went more towards the middle of the peninsula, that is suicide. Considered suicidal by some even today without the proper guides and approvals by the right people (so you don't get killed).

On the otherhand, if they traveled at a reasonable pace, however, covering a LOT of distance still, that doesn't put them in the Arabian peninsula when they head eastward, and there are continuous trade routes at least to the mountains around the Indian peninsula during that time period that could keep them moving if and when they needed to without overstaying a welcome. Even then, eight years is a LONG time to traverse that distance, but not unreasonable. Once on the Eastern arena of Asia, the distance to travel by sea is not as far, there is actually a current that leads to the Americas from there if they take it (and they used currents even in the age of Sail, over two thousand years later), and a lot more materials to actually build a ship rather than grasping at straws in regards to an oasis or site by the sea as the Arabian Peninsula theory does.

There are also markers in that direction that could also indicate a party such as Lehi's passing, and religious things that could be notated in regards to various religions and religious ideas that were born around 600 BC. If Utah Mormon scholars would look that way, they actually might find MORE evidence in support of Lehi's travels than they do scouring the Arabian Peninsula. Many don't even think to look though.

It doesn't mean the Arabian peninsula theory is wrong...it may well be correct. I have problems with it from a geographical and historical viewpoint. Historically, that route should mean Lehi and his family were slaughtered unless Lehi took a small army with him, in which case we should find elements of some rather major battles from him in the future. I don't know why they were so scared of Laban in that case, as he would have been a lesser threat then the tribes of the Peninsula. Lehi could have been a trader, but that doesn't necessarily mean the tribes and empires would grant him any great amount of time to actually dwell (rather than trade with) with them unless he had some larger contingent to settle. Finally, the sea routes are not conducive to a trip from the South of the Arabian Peninsula to the Americas. You have to jump currents and sea ways VERY often, sometimes counter to winds that are flowing against you. Even with a pointer showing the exact direction to go, it would be very hard. Even with modern equipment and modern built sailing ships it is still a challenge for those who try it, and you still see people die even with GPS and modern ship sturdiness.

That said, this is the secular historian in me saying this. We still know very little about the Saba empire and much of it is still guesswork. This could be a reason Utah Mormon Scholars have latched on so strongly to the Arabian peninsula idea. In addition, there are so many things that secular history and archaeology have that seemingly contradict what we learn in religion, especially Christian religion. The entire book of Genesis is discounted in Archaeology and history does not back the Genesis account. History portrays a very different picture of King David (if they even say he existed) than the one in the Bible, one that is a ruthless dictatorial king greedy to expand his empire and wealth. History also seems to disagree with the Book of Mormon. In this, we cannot base things off of secular history, because if we know that the Bible and Book of Mormon are the word of God, than we know that secular history obviously has some things wrong and we still have a LOT to learn.

In that light, it could be very well that I'm mistaken, and that the Arabian Peninsula theory was right all along. Secular history is rife with being re-written at various times as either a new conqueror comes with a new perspective, or new information is found and revealed in the field of history or Archaeology that makes all of us realize what we thought was wrong, and what the Bible at times stated is actually right..

Edited December 9, 2017 by JohnsonJones

JohnsonJones · December 13, 2017

I was thinking on some more speculation (not doctrine, not my opinion not really even what my thoughts or what I think, but wild complete speculation, but that relates to the temple ideas, but doing it sort of like parables...aka...using something that is completely out there and different, but if one can catch on they may understand it)...and then, instead ran into something revolutionary today in my reading.

So, I've been reading various accounts of Joseph Smith's life and Joseph Smith by those who knew him. Some of the stories are exactly what you'd expect. They had a great deal of love and trust in him, and he seemed willing to visit and interact with any who were willing to converse with him, from the littlest child to the oldest man, from the richest and most powerful to the most poor and humble.

However, I ran across something new and unexpected in my reading today.

Now the following is me thinking, and in some ways more a stream of thought than actual stabilized solidified thoughts on the topic. This is something new and I'm thinking about it.

Joseph Smith relayed in part how he translated the Book of Genesis (if I understood the story correctly)...and it wasn't what I was expecting. He utilized the stones and opened the book as if to read it, but he didn't read it. Instead, he saw the events as they happened and how they happened. He saw it and understood it.

Thus, the difference between our reading and understanding or the worlds, and his, could be different, for he actually saw and knew what happened...no guesses.

However, this is VERY different in the idea of translating than what I have ever imagined. Hence, you could say his Joseph Smith Translation (what we have of it) is actually his clarifications on the translations. As he knows what the intent was and how they were writing it...he was thus instead clarifying what actually happened???

It's something I'm still trying to go over in my mind to figure out just what it was I just read. I'm pondering it in some ways trying to make sense of it.

This was ONLY in regards to Genesis, but it makes me wonder if this also can be the exact way he also did translation of other things, or at least in part.

In this way, even as he was seeing words or how words and things were supposed to sound, if he did something similar with the Book of Mormon, he would actually have seen the book (or the events in the book) rather than just a straight up translation of the words.

This actually coincides with another account I went through a few days ago (but more commonly had among members) by his mother where she said that he would tell them all about the inhabitants of the land and how they existed and dwelled back in those days (of the Nephites and Lamanites). One would wonder how he would know such things beyond what is said in the Book of Mormon itself, or what can be gotten via words, but if he actually SAW it as revealed before him...that's a HUGE difference.

It changes the perspective of what we might consider a translation. Is it a translation, or a revelation, or a vision? If he saw the words written, but even more if he saw the events and how they happened and understood the why's and what's...that would imply that he may have actually seen Lehi's vision and was intimately aware of what it was and how it was seen.

It may mean something else as well. It may mean what we have written down, may not be exactly what was written on the plates. If he was seeing the events, rather than a direct wording, it may be that what he was to write or say was revealed to him, but may not have been exactly what was on the plates themselves? I know this seems odd, but I'd refer to a set of scriptures that have disturbed some Mormons previously. There are parts of the Book of Mormon that seem ripped directly from the King James version of the Bible. People wonder at this wording, and some have explained it in the past that as he was very familiar with this already, he used this wording. What if that's EXACTLY what happened. That he saw these things and though he was inspired of what to say or write for the Book of Mormon, in this instance, what would have been said was so close to what was already stated in the King James Version of the Bible, that it was just easier to have that written down then fishing for words or trying to find the words for every word that was said.

In otherwords, it's a divinely inspired book, given directly by revelation more than a simple translation as some may think. Thus it is directly from the Lord by the Spirit and the instruments (urim and thummim) utilized in doing so.

Which leads to another interesting book many have pondered about. The Book of Abraham.

As per many Egyptologists who have studied what is claimed to be the remains of the scrolls which Joseph had (we have about 15% of them, but no confirmation they are actually the same scrolls. We think they are because the facsimile's damage correspond to that which seem to be in the Pearl of Great Price's facsimile's in regards to differences, and that they were attached to a piece of paper that stated/notarized that they were from this document), they will say that it does not appear to be the Book of Abraham. Instead it appears to be the Book of Breathings. Various ideas have been posted in various areas for and against this, as well as, if this is true, how the Book of Abraham came about from something well known to be the common funerary text.

I have thought that it had something more...perhaps something on that other 85%, or even more likely, something derived from the scroll, but not evident (much as some of the wild speculation above, or what I may put later). Joseph Smith had put letters and such on the side of the scroll which really didn't correspond to anything. Some crazy individuals who dislike the church try to say this was Joseph's interpretation, but that makes less sense than any other theory out there. Those translations do NOT correspond to what we find in the Book of Abraham, so anyone claiming that was his translation has no idea what they are talking about...In MY OPINION. (and lest anyone think this is a NEW form of attack having been developed since the scrolls were rediscovered, this is not true. The initial attack that the facsimile's meant something completely different and were funerary texts derived in the 1850s and 60s...so it's been going on a LOOONG time and this view backed by Egyptologist who bothered to study it starting in 1856). My thoughts were that there were deeper meanings within the Book itself...that though some parts book itself was commonly understood, it was more similar to the parables, or even moreso as the Jews would put them, the Types and Shadows in the Bible where though the story may be one thing, it is representative of something so completely different that one who is not familiar with the story would never understand nor catch what was actually being discussed as well.

I think the idea that Joseph Smith saw, rather than read, some things, can have large implications in regards to how the Book of Abraham may have been revealed. For starters, if someone says they know how ancient Egyptian was supposed to sound, they are probably lying. We have NO idea. In fact, most of our translations come via transliteration where we learned the language in relation to another language's usage (aka...the rosetta stone), and hence our inflection would in fact come from ANOTHER language than Egyptian. It MAY be that Joseph Smith heard the actual words and was trying to sound them out in regards to spelling? or how they should appear if written in English?

What's more though, is that it could be that this scroll was actually written by Abraham...and then laid upon this individual as a funerary script. We don't know who actually did the writing. However, it may be that Joseph Smith tried to make sense of what he was seeing in regards to what he saw in the scroll (and hence his efforts in the margins, I believe this is available at the Joseph Smith papers). If Joseph Smith was actually seeing the events of the Book of Abraham, or what was happening, it is possible that he would have seen the true events of what was happening, rather than the mere rote (or the words written for ceremony and exercise of it in burial) of the words. Hence, if it was something deeper, hidden from those who did not understand that culture or the individuals involved, then it may be he saw the deeper meaning, the true meaning rather than the outward appearances. In this idea, it may be he never even knew what the outward words said, and hence his efforts (which make no real sense in relation to his translation) to try to correspond what he saw via revelation to what he saw in the scroll itself.

If what I read was in relation to how Joseph Translated though, it may be that the Book of Abraham is directly revealed by the Lord in the same Manner as other translation of Joseph Smith via seeing the actual events with a deeper understanding of what and why it was happening as by the spirit. It makes me wonder if we actually saw the gold plates and could do a literal translation of them, if it would directly correspond with what Joseph Smith wrote down, or if there were times where one thing was written, but a deeper meaning left inside that was then what Joseph Smith actually saw and understood (for example, when Nephi asks to see the same things his father saw...that's not exactly what seems to happen in the book. Instead he actually has the angel reveal what things mean...it could be that Nephi wrote down he saw what his father saw...but Joseph in revelation saw that there was far more to this and what Nephi actually saw and thus wrote down what the Angel told Nephi).

Or it could have been just a straight translation also. However, if he had books revealed more by seeing them (as in the events, actions, and what was actually occurring and understanding the why's and whats via the spirit)....it leads to a far more interesting type of speculation on the books themselves, and how things such as the Joseph Smith Translation and other such things may actually be MORE accurate in regards to what he was trying to state and say than just a mere translation may be. They already are revealed by the power of the Lord, but in someways, if this is how he translated, it makes it not just a translation, but almost a pure and divine revelation and direction from the Lord. Who knows...just a thought of the moment.

As I said, this is just stream of thought right now...nothing solid...just pondering it. But it's leading to some interesting thoughts.

I think the official stance of the church and what we hold to be the truth is that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham is also a direct translation. The book of Moses is from his translation of the Bible, and he was also working on a translation of the Bible.

Edited December 13, 2017 by JohnsonJones

JohnsonJones · January 8, 2018

This came up in another thread, and I found the idea so fascinating that I wanted to keep track of it (no idea how to keep track of something on these forums overall for the long term, they seem to disappear off my page at some point...but I do keep track of this thread...sooooo....

That other thread discussed the Garden story of the Creation and other aspects and brought some interesting ideas to mind that I wanted to keep around just so I could think about it and perhaps reference...but NOT because I actually think there's actually merit to what I'm stating below.

Okay, some of what was written in that other thread is a little confusing, but I am wondering about some items which seem to have been brought up. People have mentioned science in the context of the Creation story, or the idea that the Creation story is symbolic, or that scientific ideas of the creation of the universe and the earth co-exist in confliction at times with the Creation story which makes me wonder if people are suggesting the following?

If we believe in the scientific Theories (I bolded that to stress that evolution IS actually just a theory, not a law), would that mean that there were men already on the earth when Adam and Eve were created? If that is so, what does that mean. Does it mean that Adam and Eve and their children were the children of God (as Adam was the Son of God) and that there were other men on the Earth?

In that light, would that mean that Adam's children, when it says they went off with the children of men, it is talking about his children marrying, instead of those related to the descendants of Adam, those who were from the evolutionary scale on this planet?

Is that what people are stating?

That could have some interesting ramifications in regards to what we think and understand. It paints things in an entirely different context. I think I'll post this in my personal thread. I'm not sure I'd believe something like this, but it could have some fascinating ideas stemming from it. Things like the spiritual man descended from Adam verses the animalistic man that comes from evolution. It would explain one scientific difficulty with the creation story. We generally think that in order for a species to actually continue to propogate, you need at least 50 individuals so that you have enough genetic variation. That is a minimum, and without that, your species stands a high chance of dying without some extraordinary measures. Less than that and you stand an even greater chance of genetics simply causing the entire species to die off.

If you have only TWO of a species, in theory it would be impossible to resurrect the species on it's own (If I recall the biology from many decades ago). Adam and Eve being only two, would in theory mean the entire species should have died off rather quickly. If there were other men around for their children to marry, it could explain many things. For starters, genetic variation that is needed to continue a species. Perhaps that is also where we get our animalistic tendencies which we have to suppress and overcome...that while the Adamic man was enlightened in those temptations, those who have mixed with the evolutionary man have those animal tendencies in their genetics.

In that same light, one could extrapolate a similar story to the Book of Mormon. We typically think of Lehi's family, and we do not know the exact numbers. By extrapolation we could postulate that there were Four Brothers and their wives, Zoram and his wife, and then two Daughters and the Sons of Ishamael for a genetic pool of 14, not including Joseph and Jacob. Of course that pool is lessened because it is almost strictly from 3 families, with a majority from two of the families.

What if there was a large population here in the Americas to a degree already which they met and married into? We know that Nephi states that they had already had wars before the end of his life...however with the numbers that appeared to be in the Book of Mormon at first, those would be more like skirmishes than wars. War indicates a LARGE number of individuals, or at least larger than a dozen on each side. Could it be that they also intermarried?

In regards to Genetics and temptation by our animal instincts, it could also explain why the Lord could be perfect. He still inherited the downfall of the evolved man, but since he had a father that did NOT have those genetic defects, he inherited the perfected genes of man before that interbreeding? Hence he had more of a perfect man than the fallen man we had become.

As I said, I don't really believe any of this, but when it came up, it brought some very interesting thoughts to mind. It's pure nonsense, sure, but an interesting exercise to think about. What puzzles me though, are those who profess the belief in science and faith who also say evolution is something they adhere to. How exactly does that work when related to the Creation story. A LOT of biology these days is based upon the principles of evolution (which, though just a theory had a huge revolution in regards to biology and it's theorums), as I understand it from a colleague who also is a professor in Biology. If we are bringing in the ideas of science in regards to the Creationist story...how does that play out. Is it like what I describe above? How does one correlate evolution with the Creation story?

I for one do NOT adhere that the idea of macro evolution (is that the term for it, where man descended from Apes) is something that actually occurred, being more of a Bible literalist and thus I suppose a Creationist...though I do accept the ideas of micro evolution (I think biologist have shown that beyond any doubt at this point), but how does someone who is a Biologist and accepts the current ideas of biology correlate that with the Creation story.

I hardly think one could say it was purely symbolic, for if it were, a LOT of the scriptures get tossed out along with that idea if we accept that take. What exactly are people saying when they say science should be accepted in how we view things and the Bible is more symbolic. Like something above? I find this idea puzzling, though intriguing.

Traveler · January 8, 2018

On ‎12‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 5:30 PM, JohnsonJones said:

Absolutely. My course I figure they traveled in highly corresponds with the ideas most Mormon Scholars map out prior to their eight year sojourn to be honest. They don't have to travel that far to get into hills or mountains from Israel and yet not be in the heart of the Arabian Peninsula.

However, in Chapter 17 of Nephi he specifies that they travel Eastward. Not northeast, nor Southeast, but as he states in verse 1

And then adding after this is the verse where it states...

If they did this on the Southern edge of the Arabian peninsula, if you count traveling down the coast in an South-South Eastward direction, then you would need to say they traveled in a North-Eastern direction after that. If they traveled where the Utah Mormons say they did, they are saying it took them a short while to traverse the length of the peninsula, and 8 years to travel a quarter of that distance. It's mysterious if they did this, as they would have travelled at an incredibly furious and fast pace up until this point...and then suddenly slowed down so slowly as if they were not walking at all comparative to how much ground they covered (even today, that distance is a HUGE distance from the Northern end to the Southern end), far more than what many think). What's worse, is that Lehi thus spends 8 years in the heart of the Saba Empire perhaps even towards the capital for an extended period...even for a spice trader...probably not a wise idea...made even worse if people are hunting them down from Jerusalem.

If they went more towards the middle of the peninsula, that is suicide. Considered suicidal by some even today without the proper guides and approvals by the right people (so you don't get killed).

......

I would refer you to the book "Lehi in the Wilderness" by George Potter (and your fellow Brit) Richard Wellington. These two (with interest in archaeology) while living and working on the Arabian Peninsula decided to attempt to retrace the steps of Lehi with the Book of Mormon in hand. Specifically, they identify and document 81 historical and archaeologically verified and still existing evidences that are expressly mentioned in the Book of Mormon – that were not and could not have been known when Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon.

I like their work because they were themselves on location rather than projecting ideas and thinking from afar.

The Traveler

JohnsonJones · April 2, 2018

I had an interesting experience recently, and in it had the questions of why we suffer in this life. I recently fell extremely ill and I had to get treated for it. My roommate in suffering (or being treated, however one wants to see it) was an Atheist. We discussed some items about religion when they proclaimed they had evidence that the Lord did not exist. He stated that with him in his atheism, and I in my belief, that we could put this to a contest. If I got better before he did, he would believe my belief (though I highly doubt it would have made a difference), but if he got better before me, he stated it would be evidence that there was no deity.

He invariably got better before me, and pointed out that he did not believe a supreme being that loved us all would allow such suffering in the world. It was not just I who suffered, but many who suffered far more than any of us. I obviously failed to convert the fellow.

However, I have come to a different conclusion. The question then is why do we have suffering and why does the Lord allow it.

In Matthew 5:45 the Lord states

Quote

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Why is this?

My thoughts are that suffering are the expression of LOVE. We suffer NOT because there is no Lord, or that he hates us, but BECAUSE of HIS GREAT LOVE FOR ALL OF US.

This may confuse many...why would a loving Father allow suffering?

I am not the most adroit with words at times, so I'm not sure how this will come out, but I hope it will come out appropriately so that people can understand why I think this.

If you are a parent, you have hopefully been blessed with children. As a parent, I would hope you love ALL your children. When your children argued and fought, did you instantly decide that you must punish one child by death while dictating that if they did not do as you told them the others would suffer the same punishment? When they became adults did you try to rule over them by dictate or did you allow them to make their choices as adults? Did you suddenly love any of your children less than others because they were not what you wanted them to be?

AS Mormons, this has a special place with us. Even that part of the host of heaven that were cast out, we believe were the children of our Father. He loves them a great deal. He also loves all of us who chose the Lord and came to this earth with physical bodies. WE are all his children. He gave us ALL our Agency to choose in the pre-existence and this continues in this life as well.

AS his children we had the power of creation and helped to create this world. It goes that those who rebelled and are spirits may also still have this power and I have postulated at times that many of the diseases and ailments that come upon us in this world are weapons derived and created from that fell host. In like manner, we see MANY of the ills and terrible things that are done to us and our fellow members of the human race committed upon one another by our own brothers and sisters.

The LORD LOVES ALL of these people just as much as us and RESPECTS their ability to choose just as much as us. At times punishments may come, but overall he does not instill an instant punishment. He allows us all to make choices and to suffer those consequences. He also allows others to make choices and at times, we also suffer the consequences from those as well. In Alma 34:32 he states

Quote

32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.

This is the time granted us to prepare our selves, but it is not just us, but also our brothers and sisters. Some make bad choices and some make good choices. The good at times are persecuted even too death, but in the end, all things are evened out as Alma told Amulek when the believers were cast into the fire.

Quote

And it came to pass that they took Alma and Amulek, and carried them forth to the place of martyrdom, that they might witness the destruction of those who were consumed by fire.

10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

I think (so, obviously not doctrine) that this also applies to those who were cast out of heaven for rebellion but whose spirits reside here on this earth today to tempt us and try to convince us to rebel ourselves. They have not received their final punishment of outer darkness and completely being cast out as of yet, they still have their agency and use that and their power to do evil, and this further cements the judgments which will be exercised against them in the end. For now, they are also his children though, and as such, just as we might love a wayward child, they are also still loved.

Because evil and good are allowed upon all, even the saints can suffer and even the elect. Sometimes it may even be for our good (though it definitely may not feel that way, for example, with me being sick I can't exactly say I was enthusiastic about it) as we find in Doctrine and Covenants 122 where the Lord talks to Joseph Smith while Joseph is in Liberty Jail suffering illness, ailments, and accusations.

Indeed, we may view that there is suffering in this life as an example of the Great Love our Father has for ALL of his children (and not just some of us, aka...those of us who are LDS, or are Christian, or otherwise favored...but that ALL his children both in the body and out are his children and as such are LOVED by our Lord enough to allow them their agency and their freedom to do with as they wish in the time granted).

Suffering can be hard for us, and it may be one of the hardest things for us to understand. Even Joseph Smith who was the great prophet of our dispensation, Job who was perfect in all other things, and other prophets dealt with a great deal of suffering and condemnation. However, as the Lord also points out in D&C 122...

Quote

8 The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?

And thus, as this young man took the lesson of suffering to his own conclusions, I came to a very different realization of why there is suffering in the world and why it is allowed. To me, I think it is NOT evidence of the lack of care of the Lord or the non-existence there of. I think the order of the world speaks that there MUST be a God and that he the organizer of something so complex. A watch does not simply organize itself and shows up, and the same applies to the complicated ecosystems and systems of this world. It must have a great creator. As such, the suffering we experience are not showing that he does not care for us, but it is actually the opposite. It shows the GREAT LOVE he has for ALL, rather than simply loving only a some or a few of his children.

The lord loves all his children, and has compassion on all of us (though, even I admit to having dark times and feeling despair at times) and this is why he allows us to choose as we do and behave as we act without the immediate payment for our sins and transgression.

Just some thoughts that I have had recently while I recovered from an illness.

JohnsonJones · June 1, 2018

While I get ready for a Family reunion this weekend, and after that onto my research travels this summer, there is an idea I've expressed previously on this forum recently and is something I think I'm going to ponder a little while I travel. It is the idea that what we have faith in to a degree on this earth, results in what we attain as a reward in the life hereafter.

The majority of Christians are good people that do not believe that they will receive exaltation as we believe in it, but that they will dwell in heaven and be with the Lord. Their understanding of the Lord is that the Messiah is also the Father. They are correct in LDS theology, but to the point that he is called the Father because he is the creator of the world (but he is not the Father of our spirits, which is his and our Father which the LDS believe is a separate being). All things that they believe in regards to heaven could be seen as aptly applying to what we call the Terrestrial Kingdom. In that light, as they strive for that reward, it is the reward that they shall receive. The Terrestrial Kingdom seems very much like the heaven that many Christian Religions teach about.

There are others that do not necessarily believe in a heaven like that, but think that if there is an afterlife it will be a place of joy and peace. A place much more wondrous than our Earth today. In this way, we could see that they also could get a reward in the Telestial Kingdom. No, they won't live or see the Lord, but they will be in a place much greater than what we have on this earth.

We, in the LDS faith believe in a Celestial Kingdom. Hence, in our faith we believe that we can receive and are heirs to our Father and shall be joint heirs with the Lord.

Still postulating on these items, I then think on the Lectures on Faith. It implies that everything is dependant upon faith. When we move our arm, we are able to move it because we have the faith that if we exert that effort our arm would move. Without faith, we would not even try. Is it possible then, that all that we can receive is also dependent on faith? That an essential element of our learning here on earth is to imbue our souls with that faith to be able to reach the Celestial Kingdom. That as we believe and have faith of what we can and SHALL receive, it is by that faith we DO receive?

Just some stuff I have been pondering upon over the past few months and probably will still continue to ponder upon this summer.

JohnsonJones · August 30, 2018

It's been awhile since I came to the forums. Had a tough time getting over jet lag when I got back, and getting ready for the new year kept me busy. Then had a daughter and son visit. Never realized how much bandwidth a few people can utilize when they are all on the internet. It was good. It made me stay offline for awhile at home and I found other things to keep me occupied (like trimming the bushes that my wife wanted me to do).

However, it's been back. Will have a couple long posts (as Summer is a long time and had a long time to reflect on some things that occurred to me during the summer), which I may put an abbreviated version in my thread here. Anyways, looks like I also have a LOT of reading to catch up on.

JohnsonJones · August 31, 2018

When I was 14 I encountered a grave difficulty. I prayed to the Lord to help me with it and promised that I'd always believe he existed if he did. Upon reflection, I started to wonder, what did I mean by that. If I was praying already by default, it must mean that I already believed in him. After that I always knew in my heart that God existed.

When I was 17 I was greatly confused about religion. I was unsure of which religion was true. I felt that the Catholic church could be it, as that is what I knew at the time. It claimed direct descendancy from the original church, and, unlike other churches, was the only one that had the Authority to be the One and Only church.

However, there were things that did not seem to match up with it to me and so I started investigating and looking at other churches. I felt that having authority was perhaps the most important thing, because that showed that it truly was the church of the Lord.

The Baptists felt authority was granted by the Spirit, that a man would feel called and thus his calling to the ministry. They also felt that one could KNOW through the spirit that they were saved. I looked at that and couldn't see how it was possible in that light as many who claimed to be saved also turned around and did some terrible things. The Lord saves who he chooses, but if one is already saved, then what excuse could they say for turning right around and committing sins like adultery or other types of things blatantly stated to be against the commandments.

I looked at Islam and when I narrowed the list down felt that they had a plausible claim to authority. They did not claim it came by the Holy Spirit but directly from Heaven to their prophet and from thence to those he passed it to. The problem I had was that they did not believe in Christ, and I definitely believed in Christ.

With most of the other Protestant churches, there was an item I believed already. It is found in A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, a book I had not read at that time, nor even really heard of, but there was a principle that I felt was right. Protestants left the Catholic church for many of the same reasons that I was wondering about it. They felt that the Catholic Church had left the true way...however, as authority was an important facet to me, I felt that if the Catholic Church was fallen, than none of the other churches that came out of it could have the correct authority either.

In that light, I reflected the idea found in a Marvelous Work and a Wonder that I read later that a dead tree cannot have living branches.

So I pondered about it. I considered perhaps I just wasn't holy enough and even thought about going into the Priesthood.

I started studies in religion and felt it was important to know.

It wasn't until two years later that I got my answer. I was sitting with an LDS missionaries. One of them was talking, I think it was around the latter portion of their first discussion with me. One of them started talking and he said...

What are you feeling right now.

I looked down and I said, something, probably like, I don't know...or good I suppose.

But what he said next has effected me so strongly for the rest of my life. I didn't know then how he knew what I was feeling. He told me that right then and there, I was feeling the Holy Ghost. That it was telling me that what they were teaching me was true.

It was at that Moment, that very moment I realized he was correct. I was feeling something and I could identify that it was something different than I would normally feel without the LDS teachings. It was a feeling I felt when I read the Book of Mormon and when I had attended Sacrament meeting. It was like a bolt of lighting realizing that he was right. I did not feel this when I wasn't involved with the LDS church. The Catholic Church and no other church felt this way. At that moment I KNEW he was right and was telling me the truth. It is perhaps one of the most astonished moments.

What is crazy is that it wasn't the first time I had actually felt it. As I said, I had felt it when going to the LDS meetings and when reading the Book of Mormon, but it was only at THAT moment that I finally recognized it myself!

I was already predisposed to the LDS church in that it also had a claim to authority independent of the Catholic church. ..but it was THAT moment where I can say I truly gained a testimony of the Church.

I am probably a terrible person trying to help others feel and identify the spirit, but I feel that it is VERY important. It is this ONE thing that I feel truly converts people to the gospel beyond all other things, and why, if we can, identify that feeling.

Hopefully, with me telling my story, those who are not members who may stumble upon it have also felt this feeling. It is a calm and peaceful feeling, almost gentle that feels right at your heart. It isn't loud or forceful and very subtle, but it is there. I hope that others can also find the spirit testifying the of truth when they read the Book of Mormon or attend our Church meetings and that those who are not members can recognize this feeling and what it is and be converted to the gospel.

JohnsonJones · January 5, 2019

This is where I post things that I think of in interest. Sometimes it's part of something I posted elsewhere. In reflection on the world around us and the changing dynamics of the church I posted the following in another thread, but want to keep better track of it so reposting it here with some added commentary at the end.

There seems to be in various items of research, indications that there are MORE active members within the church who are Women than there are Men.

The church has been reliant upon a patriarchal basis since it's formation. In this, the father leads in the home in holiness and the Priesthood. I say lead, but it should probably be...presides...in the home.

In this, it is expected that he would be righteously presiding in the home. However, we also know that no man should try to use the authority of his Priesthood by evil means. He should not be trying to coerce, force, or use unrighteous dominion to preside over a home, but rather love and charity, compassion and comprehension.

So, in the present day church we have multiple difficulties with this type of leadership in many instances. There are many homes where there is spousal abuse. In this light, is the man presiding in righteousness? Should a wife listen or be led to someone who is leading such in unrighteousness? Would the Lord expect them to follow or be presided over by unrighteous individuals? Who then presides over the home in righteousness?

Even more so, for the many women who do not have a priesthood holder in the home to preside in the priesthood, and those that are single or otherwise have no priesthood in the home or in their lives except for possibly a father, what type of instruction should be given to them in their lives?

A Bishop cannot possibly be the one to lead their home as he does not live there and thus cannot preside over their home (unless it is specifically his own family) in righteousness.

Thus, where and who presides over the home in righteousness in their position?

By all rights, it then would fall to the Woman to preside over the home in righteousness, even if she is not necessarily the one leading the home or making the decisions

This can bring up interesting questions regarding the many righteous sisters in the church and how various items are handled.

This is by no means advocating for them to be given the priesthood as men are, and in fact I do not believe that this is the proper order of things to be done (and if it were, I sure hope the Lord would grant me a blessing to gain a testimony of it if it WERE the right thing, but I do not feel it was, is, or ever will be the correct order of the Kingdom of the Lord, though I do believe that they are part of the HIGHEST order as in that of Celestial Marriage).

There ARE questions though that are coming into our modern age which I think many are striving for answers to. I do not feel that we should capitulate to certain groups of people advocating for changes (such as granting woman the right of Priesthood authority and being able to be Bishops and such) in how the eternal organization of the gospel is presented to run, but I do think that we may need to consider ways within what we've been given and what has been done in the past to seek answers to these questions and dilemmas of our modern age.

To this degree I feel the brethren (meaning first, the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, next the First Presidency and then the Apostles) are seeking and striving for answers to these questions, not necessarily for women to get the priesthood, but in charity towards those who may not have the priesthood (or at least righteous priesthood in those where they are married) within the home itself.

I think that modern Culture within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one that is going at complete opposite directions of what the Lord desires. Where the Lord has an emphasis on items which we see in the Proclamation of the Family, the world wants to tear down the family in any way that it can.

I think the IDEAL is still a home where the Man is a righteous Priesthood holder. He is there to be a good father, to preside in righteousness and to support and provide for his family. That does not necessarily mean he is always the one at the front leading the charge any more than when the Bishop presides at a Sacrament meeting. A sacrament meeting may have a counselor in the Bishopric conducting the meeting, even as the Bishop is presiding at that meeting. It may be that the wife is the one who is talking and doing certain aspects, even as the husband presides.

I see the ideal home where both share in the duties of the home and both lead in righteousness. It is where they are loving mothers who care and raise righteous children to the lord.

However, with the world teaching divorce, or pride and consumption, where arrogance and ego outweigh that of humility and love, there are many broken homes even within the church today. There are many who do not have the opportunity to marry a righteous priesthood holder, or have married who they thought was a good member only to see that member fall away.

The reality of our day is that as we get closer to the Second Coming the world will get more and more wicked. It will probably be reflected more within the church itself as well. I do not know how the church will deal with all that is occurring, but I know that the Lord will oversee the church and ensure that the gospel and the truths it holds is preserved. If we continue to have faith in the Lord I feel that he will help us through the tough times and dark times and that if we stay faithful and endure to the end, will live with him again in the life afterwards.

Edited January 5, 2019 by JohnsonJones

JohnsonJones · November 6, 2019

I have some time this week to do things and I decided I'd update this thread with various posts I've made throughout the past year or so (maybe a little more) on various ideas and things I've posted, so it may see a number of updates regarding culture and my own thoughts on things in the next few days. I'm going to start with something that's been turning in my thoughts recently on two areas of The culture in the church and our opinions and prejudices that have not been posted previously.

Just as a heads up, this is regarding my own opinions and thoughts on things, so obviously not necessarily aligning with everyone else or anyone else in the thoughts and opinions.

Edited November 6, 2019 by JohnsonJones

JohnsonJones · November 6, 2019

The Lord's morality is not OUR morality.

There has been many people that have complained about the Lord's morality as found in the Old Testament and at times even the New Testament. The cannot understand why the Lord approves such things and label the Lord as evil, bad, or wrong. It brings to mind the idea that in the Last Days many will label Good as evil, and evil as good.

To light the fires of controversy and to ease into the idea that has really been taking me to task recently I will begin with a topic which many become inflamed about. The Lord approved slavery.

Now, to our Modern Western minds, any type of slavery is evil. It is wrong. Our morality instantly paints slavery and slave masters as evil. However, slavery is not condemned in the Bible and in some instances is condoned vigorously. If anything, it appears the Lord even pushes the idea of slavery at some instances. In our current translations the terminology surrounding this slavery is weakened or lessened. The excuse is that we think of slavery only in the context of the American Slavery situation while it was somewhat different in Israel. While this is true, a SLAVE was a SLAVE. It was not like our indentured servants, it was a true slavery.

A slave was not necessarily a bad position. A slave was OWNED completely, totally, and absolutely by their master. The Master could be a good master or a bad master, but a slave was controlled by their master. In many ways a slave was an extension of their master. They were property, but as the Master's property they were also an extension of the Master's own estate. In this, a Slave of a powerful master could be more powerful in social, economic, and every other standing than almost any other citizen. A primary example of this was Joseph who is perhaps the greatest of the slaves shown in the Old Testament. He was a slave. He was absolutely owned by his master. When he became the Slave of Pharaoh he was the second most powerful being in Egypt and possibly on the Earth at the time. He was a slave, but he had higher standing than almost every other mortal being on earth at the time except for his master Pharaoh.

This was ancient style slavery and was repeated in various civilizations throughout history. In many the slaves were the ruling class. They were the power that extended from the throne or ruler itself. It is something we tend not to recognize, but this understanding that slavery was approved and could be weak and punished (as in many American Slavery holdings that we see as bad) or strong and powerful is a dynamic that is represented in the scriptures on several occasions. AS we have diluted these slavery references at times, it can be difficult to actually understand some of the references.

Two ideas of this come to mind. The first is in regards to us and two masters. A servant does not SELL themselves into subjectivity. A Slave does. An individual that sells themselves into slavery is a slave. The Slave can be freed by it's master, or it can be freed on certain years as per Judaic law. The slave itself normally cannot earn it's freedom back individually in many instances, nor can it simply leave on it's own accord. It CAN be sold to another master, or another master can buy the slave or pay it's price. In this way, a parallel was set in the scriptures that we SELL our selves into slavery to an evil master when we commit sins. We become slaves to the adversary in some ways and cannot free ourselves. This is a BAD master (with all the bad connotations we attach to slavery). The only way OUT of this is to be bought by another. The only other one that can get us out by paying the price of our sins is the Lord. He is the parallel of the GOOD master, and indeed, in a very literal sense, he IS the Good master.

Just like Joseph was an extension of his master, one who is bought by the Lord and becomes the slave of the Lord becomes the very extension of him. The serve only ONE master, the Lord, and as his slave they extend his power. AS he stands over every other being in the Universe, his slaves also stand over every other being except one, their own master. In essence, by becoming the slave (rather then the servant, who can also serve a master, but is never on the same standing as an elevated slave in ancient society as they are merely a servant rather than an actual extension of the Master himself) they become more powerful than any other except their Master.

This obviously will send many into conniption fits of the very thought. They will argue against this parallel presented in the scriptures as it offends their Western Morality and Western sensibilities. They cannot comprehend that the Lord's Ways are not the Ways of man, and what we may term as evil is not necessarily something he sees as necessarily evil.

Which brings me to the second point. In the King James Version the idea of being a slave has been hidden and at points lessened. One area that strikes me particularly blatant is with James. In our version James says he is a bond-servant which is a particular type of slave similar to that of an indentured servant. However, in my analysis, he does not say bond-servant, he literally says he is a slave. In this, he is recognizing the ancient idea of slavery of a slave under a good master. He is using this parallel to point out his own state, that he (like the rest of us) was a sinner but has been bought and paid for by the Lord. This can be a very relevant idea then to understanding why faith is so important and why it is shown by our ACTIONS, not just by our statements of such.

This difference of morality is striking among us today in regards to the differences of the Lords' view versus our view. We do NOT want to humble ourselves and obey the Lord nor acquiesce his views on morality in our modern time. Instead, we wish to try to paint him into OUR own image and OUR OWN morality, rather than be made in his image and focus our own beliefs and form as his.

This becomes apparent in the next venue that I will discuss which, though some may think slavery is more controversial, is actually MORE controversial in discussion than slavery in my view. Slavery is more obvious in effect (which is why I used it to bring up the idea as an introduction to begin with) but the following I think is more disliked and hated than slavery in our modern day.

This idea is one of the Order of the Lord and the Order of Heaven. It is the natural order of the Lord and one that puts that MEN should lead and Women are their helpmeet.

JohnsonJones · November 6, 2019

In our recent Come follow me there were chapters in Timothy that discussed the role of women. The teacher of Sunday School in my local ward stumbled as they tried to make excuses in regards to this chapter. There were various things such as Paul speaking as a man, Paul speaking only to the local customs and situations of their times and that we are more enlightened today...and finally that this was not supposed to be a literal interpretation or reading.

I would contend that the teacher was wrong on all accounts. This was Paul addressing the ORDER of the LORD. These ideas are NOT NEW ideas and in fact were touched upon in the Old Testament as WELL as the New Testament. This is not the only time Paul stated such things and in fact he has at least two witnessing letters that he addressed it.

That we IGNORE such ideas of the Lord today says MUCH about how we are trying to make the Lord in our OWN image rather than listen to the Lord and try to make ourselves in HIS image.

First, let's look at the verses Paul talks about such things...or at least two instances...We have

1 Timothy 2

Quote

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

²For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

³For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

⁴Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

⁵For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

⁶Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

⁷Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

⁸I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

⁹In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

¹⁰But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

¹¹Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

¹²But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

¹³For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

¹⁴And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

¹⁵Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

In this we actually see a parable and parallel between us and the marriage relationship. In this, we first have the Lord's situation compared to us related. We see that ONLY through the Lord we are saved. We do not dictate to the Lord the conditions of which we are saved, we do not have the position in life. That is NOT the order of the Lord.

Paul directly relates his position in relation to the Lord to that of wives and women.

In this, we CANNOT teach (aka, change the teachings of the Lord) nor usurp authority over the Lord (as Paul could not usurp). Instead, we are to be humble and accept the teachings and authority of the Lord.

This is given for two reasons.

The one that many women's rights in the church fall back upon is to decry the idea that Adam was not deceived but the women was by bringing up the idea of Eve's statement that they could not have had joy if they had not fallen. However, as Paul points out, Eve was the one who chose the forbidden fruit and thus was conversely chastised and advised to be saved in childbearing.

HOWEVER, even without that, there is another reason given for why Adam is the head of the family unit and NOT Eve. The reason is simply that Adam was first. Adam was formed first.

In this same context we have the Lord. HE IS THE FIRST among us. He IS THE ELDER BROTHER. He is not just the Lord because he is as the Father (though that is a good enough reason in itself) but also because he is the FIRST.

In like manner, Adam is the first formed and the first creation (first creation of man to be more explicit). Thus, he is the leader.

In this same manner it reflects the Order of Heaven. THIS is why men are supposed to the leadership in the Church and hold the Priesthood. It is the ORDER of things.

Our modern morality wants to destroy this Order of heaven. We want men and women to be "equal" in everything and cannot understand WHY the Lord would have a patriarchal order where Men are the leaders and not the women. We want our Modern Western Morality above THAT of the Lord.

However, I'd said I'd post at least two witnesses from Paul on this issue, so let's post 1 Corinthians 14.

Quote

²⁶How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

²⁷If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

²⁸But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

²⁹Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

³⁰If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

³¹For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

³²And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

³³For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

³⁴Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

³⁵And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

³⁶What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

³⁷If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

³⁸But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

³⁹Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

⁴⁰Let all things be done decently and in order.

Prior to this in the chapter Paul was discussing tongues and how it should come forth and be utilized. So where does this thing come from about Women and how does it relate?

This is a slightly different situation and as I see it he is talking about how edification in church and leadership in churches go. In relation, with prophets and confusion, he is speaking about how one can know about what is the right revelation, the right edict, the right guidance for a group in the church to be led.

In this he says some interesting things that are for another topic, but to the effect that in the mouth of two or three witnesses are things verified in the church. Even with a prophet, you will need at least two others (though three is also presented) where you have another prophet to agree with the first, and a third (or fourth) to be the judge of whether it is valid [doctrine?].

In this some of it is so that there is no confusion, especially when one says something that is contrary to what has been stated previously (something that has arisen quite often most recently in our own church to a degree, and ironically it sometimes is simply one or two against ten or more prophets in the past and most of the scriptural prophets which can make quite a bit of confusion).

As I am mostly addressing only ONE topic here (that of women and the priesthood as well as leadership) I am not going into any great detail on the other items addressed in this chapter.

He once again falls back upon the idea that women cannot do this. IN this he is pointing out that in leadership in this regards (in my opinion, if anyone needs a reminder) once again, that women are not to speak in this. It is the MEN that lead.

Here is more specific in that this is not just because of his opinion, it is the LAW. But whose law? Obviously not Roman law as in that at times women were actually the head priestesses of some of their false deities and even led worship in their service to their various temples. My opinion is he is referencing once again to the Order of Heaven and directly to the LORD'S Law of doing things.

I'll continue in a post below now that I've brought up these two scriptures, but I will not once again what I have stated repeatedly on this topic, the Lord's Morality is not OUR Modern Western Morality. Just by bringing this up I expect many would call my misogynistic and many other terms because what I have stated is directly against what our modern morality teaches, even if it is backed up by a literal reading of the bible.

JohnsonJones · November 6, 2019

Brigham Young said...

Quote

our Sister have been engaged they have no right to meddle in the affairs of the kingdom of God outside the pale of this they have a right to meddle because many of them are more sagacious & shrewd & more competent to attend to things of the financial affairs. the never can hold the keys of the Priesthood apart from their husband. When I want Sisters or the Wives of the members of this church to get up Relief Society I will summon them to my aid but until that time let them stay at home & if you see Females huddling together veto the concern and if they say Joseph started it tell them it is a damned lie for I know he never encouraged it but I know where the Chit was laid but I am determined to stay these proceedings for by it our best men have been taken from us.

And this gem of a thing

Quote

There is no woman on the face of the earth that <can> save herself— but if she ever comes into the Celestial Kingdom, she must be led in by some man— God knew what Eve was.

I am going to tie this into the posts above, by saying that Brigham Young here was not being a Misogynist, but in fact was stating this because he KNEW the LAWS and ORDER of the LORD.

This was NOT because he was sexist, nor because he was falling to the wrong moralities of his time. He had stringent back up of these statements in Scriptures themselves.

Our modern western morals based on modern western Philosophy wishes to do away with the things of the Lord and ascribe this as the chauvinistic ideas of the culture of the time. I on the otherhand say this is yet an example of our Modern philosophies and ideas not being aligned with that of the Lord.

On the otherhand I see that he was acknowledging What women should or should not do. Women SHOULD be able to lead other women, to aid women, and to talk to others and help others in the church. This is one of the many reasons we have a Relief Society. He noted that they were greatly talented, and in many aspects more so then men, but that the Order of the Lord was NOT that they should be the Priesthood Holders.

We see today that many are trying to have women have a leadership role and to take leadership over the Church as well as hold the Priesthood. Many churches have adopted this stance in our modern times in accordance with Modern Western Morality. We have seen that it has turned to their disfavor as those that turn away from the standing principles of the Lord seem to suffer in attendance, membership, and instead of increasing their congregations have led to a great deal of people falling away, not just from their churches, but from the Lord.

I feel a LOT of this is that in their eagerness to acquaint themselves with modern morality, they fail to balance it out. In giving out to women (many of whom are more faithful than the men to begin with and would not have fallen away) they lose the prerogative of the men. They take away the rights of men and give less incentive for men to remain. The problem they have of an imbalance between men and women is thus aggravated as even more of the men fall away and more women stay...but at the same time hasten the decrease of attendance.

As much as the world denies it, men still lead in the home to a great degree, and when men fall away they will take many of their families with them. If a church decreases the role of men and minimizes them, they soon find out that men who have a church that minimalizes them will have nothing to do with that church.

Those churches still have male members, but the problems they sought to solve by accepting modern morality does NOT solve any problems and only worsens the problems they sought to solve (falling membership and imbalances between faithful men and women members where the women far outnumber the men and there are not enough male members for women to marry and remain faithful to only that church or denomination).

This is one of many plagues upon Christianity today that we see in multiple churches out there. Other churches that do NOT acquiesce as easily to the modern morality seem to hold their ground in regards to numbers, at least better than their more liberal counterparts.

I say this is that...

You must stand your ground, or stand for nothing.

Those churches that remain faithful and true to their foundations and hew closer to the Lords way of doing things are holding fast and standing strong better against a world determined to destroy Christianity than our own.

Which brings me to OUR Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. We have had quite a number of changes over the past few years in relation to this issue. I am not ignorant of those who are no longer members or claim to be exmormons of our church. They rejoice over these changes. They say they are the ones that blazed the way and actually forced these changes upon us.

While I do not acknowledge that they have any right to say this, I WILL say I am concerned. I see these changes recently in the church, at times in absolute opposition to the Bible and the Prophets. Ezra Taft Benson noted that the most important prophet for us today is the prophet alive today. I agree, but that does not elevate the concern I see in some regards to certain changes.

A prime example...woman have been allowed to be witnesses for weddings in the past. This was due to a legal requirement in many areas where you need several witnesses. If you did not have enough male witnesses, you would need to have women witnesses and thus for legal reasons it was allowed. However, this was for signature purposes.

NOW, we allow women (and children) to be witnesses in a baptism. This can require a women or child DICTATING to a Priesthood holder on how to do a Priesthood ordinance.

The question then, is this in accordance with Scriptures and the Law of the Lord?

I don't know to be honest. I am still seeking answers, but on an initial look it seems to not quite be in accordance with Paul nor with what other Prophets said. It IS the current policy of our church though and I have recently seen it in action.

Where as with marriages it used to be an emergency situation where we needed the signatures, the new policy is being pushed forwards as having primarily women as witnesses in some temples, stakes, and wards. To me this is ALARMING.

It speaks to me that at our current rate, we are not far off from adopting the same liberal tendencies as other religions. We would be in violation of the LAWS which Paul refers to and which Brigham Young uses as his (in my opinion) reasons for men and the Priesthood.

However, I still feel we are the Church of the Lord and guided by the Church...but I HAVE concerns on the direction we are headed.

Are we going to be a church driven to and fro by the wind and whatever Modern Morality dictates or be a church that stands it ground.

So...I am CONCERNED about this. I hope that we do NOT go a step further than we already have and decide that women should have the Priesthood.

I feel that the BIGGEST reason people are pushing for women to have the priesthood is that they do NOT understand leadership, no how the Priesthood is supposed to be exercised or how it is supposed to be done.

They see the priesthood as a dictatorial exercise of leadership. It is one where authority is dictated from a pulpit and is enforced by compulsion, dominion or control.

Unfortunately, all too often, this is how it is exercised in some homes and places today, but that is NOT the instruction we have received.

The Priesthood as spoken of in Section 121:41-46 of the Doctrine and Covenants...

Quote

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of brighteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

I hope that we remain true to the Laws of the Lord, the Laws of Heaven and the Laws of the Priesthood. In this, it is of no offense that women do not hold the Priesthood as men do, as our roles are different and the ways we do things should be in accordance with the way the LORD wants it and not the ever shifting winds of our culture or society.

JohnsonJones · November 6, 2019

On a lighter topic in regards to LDS culture...

I recently picked up Teachings and Commentaries on the Doctrine and Covenants for a very cheap price. I happened upon it in a local thrift store of all places. I was surprised and wondered why anyone would get rid of such a book.

Then I thought about my own classes I teach. In the texts I put out by me, I try to include what I feel is the most important and valuable items for the students. To me, I think the work is invaluable for them to study. Obviously, many of them get rid of them as soon as the class is over.

In upper level classes I assign many texts which I consider the most informative and instructive. These are items I would have in my own library and feel are essential materials. Once again, obviously many of the students get rid of them as soon as they are able to.

I wonder if we do the same thing with church materials. I am sort of a book hoarder and I have kept many manuals from church classes (Sunday School, Priesthood) from over the years. to me I cannot fathom why I would want to get rid of such valuable information.

When I consider all the other stuff people collect, movies about bloodshed, destruction, illicit relations, romance, and many other items and compare to the church materials, I wonder how many have heard of the idea that we are too read out of the best books and study the best materials. Is this an idea gone to the wayside. If we should study those materials which will uplift and enrich our lives, are not things of the gospel so much more pertinent and valuable to our life than the lastest fantasy or romance novel that came out.

This is simply my thought on the matter as I saw that someone discarded the recently picked up volume I have to study. I am sure that many items many members choose to read instead of church materials are just as valuable as me and the items I read and perhaps allow them a better view and understanding of our current world than one such as I, who lives a lot in the past (historian and such) instead.

JohnsonJones · November 6, 2019

One thing the Old Testament does is to create a type and shadow, or a story of prophecy regarding a coming Messiah. In this, Moses could also have been seen as a type and shadow.

If we use this story, then there would be a prophesied savior for the Hebrews. This Savior would have certain qualities and would be known. The Savior would be a prince, and perhaps the rightful ruler of the Hebrews. He may have been born under certain conditions which fulfill the prophecy.

Moses had a similar situation at birth to one several thousand years later where many babies were killed (at the time of the Lord it was to prevent a King of the Jews prediction or prophecy). It could be that a similar situation was here, that this was done to prevent a Hebrew Savior that would lead the people from Captivity. Thus, we see a type and a shadow where similar events occur.

If this was a prophecy at the time, it would be well known to the Hebrews (and possibly also the Egyptians...indeed, if the dialogue of the above occurred where Pharaoh was trying to destroy the Male Hebrew babes due to prophecy, he and many others would have known about this). Now, whether it was seen as Moses being the fulfillment of this when the Daughter found Moses, or if Moses later found out about the Prophecy and put it together and thought it could be him is unknown.

Most likely this prophecy came from Joseph (of the coat of many colors fame) who prophesied about his descendants or Jacob...once again...all speculative on my part.

If Moses felt he was the one prophesied he knew that he would be a Prince (or was a Prince) who was to free the Hebrew People. He did not know the vehicle as to which this was too happen, but if prior speculation is correct, if he was trying to fulfill the prophecy than Pharaoh would probably be against him if he knew Moses was trying to fulfill it. Thus, avenging the death was not just a matter of Moses and Murder, but stopping Moses from being the fulfillment of the prophecy to lead the Egyptian Slave force out of bondage.

Eventually Moses became this Savior, using the Power of Heaven to convince Pharaoh to release the Children of Israel. This too is a type and a shadow. As Moses helped to free them physically from bondage, the Lord when he came as the Savior saved the Jews (and all men) from spiritual bondage.

When Joseph Smith was doing a NT translation many things came to light in the short translation that he did. If one reads the Book of Moses one finds far more there than an initial read of Genesis. It is possible if he had ever gotten to do the full treatment of Exodus (or if we had it if he did) that similar thoughts and ideas would have come to light regarding the story of Moses.

JohnsonJones · November 6, 2019

When I was younger we were taught the difference between concubines and the full on wife in the days of Genesis dealt directly with the Sealing power. Those who were married for time and all eternity were wives in the fullest sense. They were sealed up to be wives under the power of the priesthood. Those who were not, were considered concubines. They were wives in this life, but had not been sealed by the priesthood for eternity to their husband.

Thus, in relation to Jacob, when these handmaids were given as wives to Jacob, they were not sealed to him, thus any children they had were theirs in THIS life, but in the eternal nature of things, these children were literally Leah's and Rachel's in accounting for their prosperity.

This is something I was taught in my youth, but I have not seen taught in some time in the Church. I'm not sure why.

Today, instead they teach it is more about the elevation or status of a wife rather than anything regarding the priesthood or priesthood ordinances

JohnsonJones · November 6, 2019

Thus, at first glance it indicates that in the state they were in, they must have remained in the same state. This could be used to infer that the reason we come to this earth is because change is able to occur. That, mortality is the only place where change can happen, while eternal states nothing can change. However, this is a surface view, for if this was so, then how spiritual children created and how would one continue to have children in the eternities?

Something to note in the verse I quoted above which is one of the chief verses we use when stating this idea that the fall was necessary is that it DOES NOT state that Eve fell that men might be, but that ADAM fell that men might be.

This is important, for it indicates that only Adam's fall was necessary that men might be, not Eve's. Why would this be?

If we think about how we proclaim about the family today, and that both men and women were necessary, then we realize that a man by himself cannot have children. In the same way, a woman by herself cannot have children. There needs to be both of them for children to occur. Thus, by partaking of the forbidden fruit, Even was going to be cast out of the garden/die in that same day that she partook of it. Adam would then have no woman there to have children with. Thus, if he were to follow the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, he would need to also partake of the fruit in order to also be with Eve (though other questions could arise, such as did he realize that he wouldn't die physically the same mortal day as he partook or not, though obviously he died spiritually that day, as well as within the 1000 year day idea that was given as a heavenly day time period as well).

Hence, for there to be children, and men, Adam at that point had a choice. He could not partake of the fruit and remain single in the Garden...or he could partake of the fruit and take his chances. Only in this manner could men be born.

This thought that Adam had to fall in order to be with Eve ALSO follows the argument of why only ADAM is listed as being the one that had to fall so that men might be and not Eve.

Of course, it still does not answer whether they could have had children in the Garden, and the first portion of the verse indicates that they could not have children in the garden anyways on their own.

The next justification to look at is that the reason they could not have children was that they were in a state of innocence. In otherwords, they were as children in many ways. This could mean that though their bodies may actually have physically been able to have children, they did not have the knowledge to act upon this. They may have been able to have children, but the simply did not realize how.

Then comes the first portion, which I discussed, which is problematic with our current ideas of eternal progression and progeny. If things cannot change, then there cannot be children. However, this would apply to any changes which goes counter to the idea of having children in the eternities.

Brigham Young presented ideas in relation to this which are controversial to a great degree to this day, but answer many of the conundrums that we see regarding our current beliefs/ideas about eternal progression and the scripture above.

Brigham Young tried to explain that the name Adam was utilized in several different ways in the Scriptures. He would explain it as such. It is NOT a doctrine taught in the church today, though you can see some of it's element remaining in our teachings, and hence why at times what we teach today can seem in conflict with other things we teach today.

Adam is the word for MAN, or Mankind. Thus, another reading of the scripture above is that when it says Adam it is both referring to the Man-Adam as well as the Man-Eve. They are both the entirety of Mankind at the time.

However, it goes deeper than that. Brigham Young also explained that Adam is also a specific name. Adam, our mortal father was specifically also named Man, as Adam means Man. This name was ALSO his Father's name. Thus you have Father-Adam, and Adam the Son, or the Man-Adam. Father Adam set forth a plan for his sons and daughters to follow. Adam the Son thus came to the Garden of Eden with Eve.

Brigham also taught that Adam (the Son) was an immortal being and had already received his Celestial Glory prior to this life. This idea has Adam bringing Eve his wife and coming to the Earth and consuming plants of food of this mortality. This caused blood to run through his veins and enable him to have physical children. Thus, he condescended, or came to Earth and mortality, and this was in fact his fall. Much of what we see otherwise in Genesis is allegorical to help us understand what took place, but Adam and Eve came to earth not out of sin, but a spiritual thing in order to make it so that man could be.

Thus, they could have had spirit children, but without taking the fruits of this earth, they could NOT have physical children. The spirit provides the essence for spirit children, but flesh and blood is required for physical/mortal children with physical bodies.

As I said, the above is NOT doctrine and merely was Brigham Youngs opinions on the matter, rather than what we believe today. However, if we look at that, it could provide some plausible ideas a great many things to me.

It explains that Adam and Eve were in that holy state where they could not have physical change. Thus, they could not have a physical change in their bodies and they could not have physical children. It might have been possible for them to have spiritual children, but the state of innocence meant that they would not have spiritual children either. In order for this to happen, they needed to have the fall. When Eve partook of the fruit she became mortal, and as mortal, she was to be tossed out of the Garden. She literally died, or started to die by becoming mortal, the instant that she partook of the fruit. Furthermore, she would die spiritually as she would be separated from the Lord in that day. If Adam was to be with her, he also needed to partake of the fruit, or he would not be able to follow the other commandments of the Lord. Given this situation, he had to choose between to terrible choices, whether to stay in the Garden or to partake of the fruit. He had to choose which was the greater commandment I suppose in this case, for he could not obey BOTH commandments (not partake of the fruit and to multiply and replenish the Earth) in this instance. Thus, he did not sin, but a transgression.

Just some thoughts on the question asked. I think many will answer in a specific and absolute manner, but I think that at times some questions are more nuanced in their answers then it seems on the surface.

JohnsonJones · November 6, 2019

One portion would be in consideration to the Line of Joseph and the Patriarch of the Church. It appears that for now, this idea of the Patriarch of the Church has been taken from the Earth for now. We are left with the lower Patriarchs, each with a similar authority of the Church Patriarch, but not as encompassing as the responsibility that he used to have.

In addition, it would appear that in some arenas the doctrine taught by the Lord and his apostles in the New Testament has been forgotten, forgone, or taken away. We see this reflected in some individuals conversations in regards to the Temple Ordinances to a degree. I'm not really going to touch upon such things here other than to admit that these types of conversations take place regarding some changes in thought and approach within the Church. Why this occurred, I do not know. It could be that some favors or ideas in relation to us have also been taken away.

Why, I'm not sure.

Sometimes things are taken away due to wickedness, but as I stated, I am unsure of the exact reasons for what has occurred above.

However, as many have stated, the things of heaven are Eternal and unchanging principles, not things that die on the whim of men.

The Patriarchal order itself in the practice of the family is still the proper order instituted by the Lord regardless of what happens in the world. It is still found in the Scriptures and can still be practiced in the Home. In this, it is not that the father commands nor demands obedience, but that he leads the home with love. It is more akin to how Captain America and the Avengers team up (Comic Books), or Frodo and Sam (Lord of the Rings), or Joseph and Hyrum Smith. One is typically the Leader, but the tasks they take on are normally more of a co-equal job in which they tackle things together and cooperate and converse with each other on how they will do things. Sometimes it is not the leader that is the one that makes decisions, and sometimes it is the leader who needs support rather than taking charge. In almost all instances, it is a companionship that strengthens each other through cooperation rather than a dictatorship of authority.

In this, as the Father is there to lead the home, but NOT be a dictator over it. Leadership is not dictatorship and normally those who are dictators are not really very good leaders. Good Leaders listen to those they lead and try to inspire them to follow them. It is a matter of inspiration and encouragement rather than one of dictatorship and force.

Something else to consider, that may be dying, but not dead yet, or in better words, slowly fading from the Church but not taken away from it yet, is that of the Patriarchal Order in the Priesthood. There are some here that would disagree with what I am about to discuss.

This Order is the highest one in the Priesthood. To obtain this Priesthood authority, it CANNOT be held solely by a Man. It is ENTERED JOINTLY by him and his spouse. In this way, his wife ALSO holds the Priesthood. Through this order of the Priesthood in the past, women have been able to call down the powers of their husbands priesthood in blessings and other things as seen in Church History. They are JOINT holders of this Priesthood authority. The natural order of this leads to the Man being the Priesthood Holder in the Home. He is the one who leads in the Priesthood. The ONLY instances (that I know of) when I wife called down upon the priesthood of her husband was when he was absolutely unavailable and normally other priesthood holders would be unable to help her in that instance. It does NOT mean she leads or becomes the priesthood holder in the home, but if church history is an example, that she can bless her children and home in his stead if he is absent. Though this is no longer really something we practice, it can be seen as having been done in church history. It indicates that this is a JOINT power, but also emphasizes the proper order and leadership of it in the home. Without one, the other cannot possess it. A MAN CAN ONLY have this Priesthood authority and enter into this order if they are Sealed together in an eternal union. Without a spouse, the husband loses this authority.

To be clear, it is NOT a separate Priesthood, but a Priesthood authority, or natural order from the Priesthood. It is still the Melchizedek Priesthood, but a higher manifestation of it. It is the more complete manifestation of it rather than a separate grouping.

This particular order of the Priesthood is the Highest there is, encompassing all others within it. It is under this authority that men act as a representative of the Lord in their homes, and in their absence the mother also has equal hold. This helps them to lead their children in righteousness, and guides them to bind their children to them both spiritually and eternally.

This has not been taken from the earth or the church (that I know of) yet. It may be in the future with the way things are going (I don't know the future), but currently, it is STILL here.

Thus, in this way the Patriarchal order is still among us for our present time, in my understanding.

JohnsonJones · November 6, 2019

Once again, this is a thread where I collect my thoughts and such on various cultural and traditions dealing with the church as well as some ideas. What I am currently doing is collecting some of the ones that I want to keep track of better and posting them in this thread rather than fishing around for them when I want to reflect on them.

JohnsonJones · November 6, 2019

Hopefully we will ALL meet together in the Kingdom of Heaven, but I think we will be judged more on how much like the Lord we become and emulate rather than just simply following the instructions of other men or leaders, or simply following along. I think it deals more with our hearts and minds and deeds, how we think and why we think what we do, than simply just what we do in relation to the church or church callings and such.

I DO think that we tend to be judgmental in our observations and thoughts on who is the elect and who are not at times. We may be very surprised at who attains the Celestial rewards in heaven. Some who may the be greatest among us may be those who we felt were the lowest of us, and some of those the world holds in high regard may not be some of those that are of the highest standing when we reach heaven. Man seems to have a very different valuation in regards to judging those who are the best and the worst than that of the Lord. I just hope that I myself will be able to reach heaven and find joy, and that my children will also be able to join me there.

Hopefully we will also find many of our loved ones and friends, and hopefully all of you will find yourselves in a joyous occasion in heaven as well.

JohnsonJones · November 6, 2019

I HAVE talked to the Lord. I have SEEN him. It is possible for those who are not General Authorities to do so. I am NOT the Prophet though, nor am I the Seer or Revelator. However, because I have seen the Lord I KNOW that he is real. Many have been given this gift and opportunity in this life.

There are others who have seen the Lord at various times. Many of these have occurred in Near Death experiences or similar times. Many of those will also say they know the reality of his existence.

However, this is a personal thing. I KNOW because I have seen and heard. There is no way to show you the experience, as it was not recorded on any devices I have or was able to give. Many work to try to disprove the experiences others have had so that instead of saying that they know from seeing and hearing, that it is still a belief based on the brain's actions. People can tell you what they have seen and heard in this life or their experiences, just like any other experience. They cannot make anyone believe that those experiences are true or not. The same applies in this. I KNOW he lives, but you have not experienced what I have, so I cannot make you believe that or to help your belief in that regards.

However, this does not diminish their testimony of these things, nor does it mine. I know he is real because I have seen him. I BELIEVE in him because of the Spirit and the Holy Ghost. They reaffirm my testimony. My experiences are just as real as they have been when I type on this computer and touch the keyboard, or when I eat my lunch or any other experiences we have.

In this, I'd say there are MORE resources than just "two biased books" but for the most part, those who testify of him are largely ignored in many ways. Even a testimony from the Holy Ghost can give one faith, and that in itself I consider a testimony and yet another resource that testifies that he is real. Those who have this testimony and bear it can have a powerful effect and they too are a resource testifying that the Lord, the atonement, and it's effects in this life are real.

There are many things I do not KNOW. There are many things that are merely belief to me. There are many things that are less than that and are merely opinions, or less than that, mere thoughts on a matter. I cannot tell you about how the Bible or Book of Mormon happened in history. I believe many things but I haven't been granted knowledge of all things. But I will say that one can KNOW of the Savior being a reality and that Jesus Christ is real. I know this, and I know there are others who also have had experiences that have also given them this gift while in this life.

JohnsonJones · November 6, 2019

In regards to the Blacks and the Afterlife, that teaching has not changed...but you have to understand the teaching in the first place. The teaching was NOT JUST about Blacks. It was about everyone.

I've referenced it sometimes in these forums, but the basic idea is that we had choices in the pre-existence. Those choices reflect on the circumstances in which we were born into this life. Those who truly wanted to follow the Lord and be part of his church pursued the idea of being IN this church. They tried to ensure ways in which they would arrive at the right time and place to receive the blessings of the gospel and the church in their lives. In many ways, it's the idea of our situation here being directly related to how fervently we pursued trying to be in this position in the pre-existence. Some of us wanted certain trials to teach us certain principles, others wanted ease and luxury and didn't care about the gospel or getting to the Celestial Kingdom.

In this, what position we were born into with this life directly reflects what we chose in the previous life. This is one way which I personally believe the Lord knows whether we would have accepted the gospel with all our hearts in this life or not, even if we never hear of the gospel. IT is a reflection of how we felt about it in the pre-existence and our lot here in this life.

Thus, it is FAR more than just Blacks during the early days of the church, it is everyone and their position in regards to the gospel and their ability to accept it and the blessings of it.

Some may view it as a racist view, but this applies equally to those of European descent who never get the gospel or accept it, as well as anyone else.

In regards to the endowment...if you wish to talk about that in the temple, we can at some point. Previous changes were not as drastic as the one recently. Some of those who talk about it freely may try to say they were, but in reality...they were not.

There WERE some items that were added by Brigham Young later on. These changes were ONLY meant to be around for 3 to 4 generations. After that time period, they were to be removed. Many refer to these changes as drastic changes, but they were never part of the original endowment to begin with. Other changes did not deal with some things which I won't discuss outside of the temple, but they were not actually seen as a vital portion of the ordinance. It was not as drastic as...say...changing the very nature of the Priesthood in who could perform an ordinance.

Why that was changed...it may be that Priests could perform baptisms already...and so the thought was to extend it to the temple. I am not privy to the inner workings of the Council of the Twelve of the First Presidency.

AS for some of the things you mention, you might want to read the Pearl of Great Price and see what it has to say about certain things.

In regards to Birth Control being evil...Birth Control in and of itself wasn't evil just like gun in and of itself is not evil. It is the reason and purpose that you use it for. This has not changed. The world has changed and become more wicked, and the Saints have become more accepting of it. This could also be a reason why some things have changed in the endowment more recently.

The items with Birth control were actually only advice and at times policy related to that advice, but it was NOT doctrine. The doctrine that it relied on is still in place. To a degree it relates directly to the item I mentioned above about our choices in the pre-existence. The idea is that there are many spirits in the pre-existence that wish to be born into the Church. The ONLY way they can be born into the church is if they are given to parents in the church having children. When we limit how many children we have, we are by default not allowing some of those who may have wished to be ours into our family. This is no fault of their own, but it could be, in theory, on us. We all make choices and have to make choices. We are also given the adage given to Joseph Smith sr. that basically says not to try to run before we can walk. In otherwords, if we cannot afford to have children, we might want to try to get to the point where we can afford the children first.

So, there has always been a little confliction of ideas in that regards, but the idea still stands that there are those in the pre-existence that want to be born into the Church and there is only one way currently provided for them to do so. If they want to be born in the covenant, it's reliant on those who are already here and in an celestial marriage to try to help them receive that blessing.

In this Birth control (and certain forms of it is STILL dissuaded, especially if it is more permanent than temporary) is still not promoted as a good thing. However, with the prevalence and acceptance of it by church members, unless one wants to really storm down on the members (and the church doesn't seem so much like that these days...Brigham's days seemed far more likely to do things like that) it's a futile endeavor to try to tell Church members that it is not advisable to take Birth Control in this day and time. This extends to many other things that we were once advised to do or not to do. The majority of Members seem to simply follow along with the world in many aspects and so even if it were advised, the members ignored it anyways.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, Blacks and anyone who was born into a situation that they could not receive all the blessings of the Priesthood were seen as having made that choice in the Pre-existence. The interpretation of that choice (less valiant) was stated at various times...even by prophets and apostles. We have not stated that they were wrong...per se...(remember, the essays are not actually doctrine, even if we refer to them a lot), but that we do not understand why certain things were said or stated (even if some have a pretty good idea).

If you asked Brigham, in regards to the latest changes...you may be correct. In regards to earlier changes...at least MANY of them, he would probably answer you...has it been 3 or 4 generations? If so...what happened is what was always meant to happen. In some other items...you are probably correct. Part of what was done previously was to cut down on the time it took to do certain ordinances. They used to take half a day or more very early on. It was looked at and saw what was actually instructional, and what was actually the ordinance itself along with the covenants that were made in the ordinance. I do not have all the answers, but it could have been due to wickedness on our part that some instruction was taken out, or various other things in which instruction was reduced, but the essential portions of the ordinance were left in.

Evolution was clear that it was them speaking as men...but it WAS a very STRONG opinion of theirs. It is still an opinion held by many.

I think with some of the items you mention, they would have said that it is because of the wickedness of the members that things have been taken away. That, at least prior to a few years ago, the core of it was still there (for example, dissuading Birth Control was actually still in policy to a degree, even if we did not talk about it as much), even if the members are not being given as much of the information as they used to be. I'd say they would have the opposite opinion that you have, that rather than more light and understanding, as members increase in wickedness, light and understanding is slowly being taken away.

In a way, they probably would be correct, looking at how willfully we've accepted the worldly things of today and discarded a LOT of what was taught in the past. Even today as surgeries to permanently have birth control, or have an abortion, or other things are not seen as things to be sought after in this world, they happen a great deal with members in the church.

In regards to some things though, you are probably right. They would probably have said a HARD NO to some of the things that are occurring today. The question is WHY and who are these things attributable. I tend to think it deals more with the bureaucracy of the church, but obviously others have different opinions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will add something of interest...that also could indicate a rising wickedness of our generation and later. If what Brigham Young said was true, and we accept the Revelation on the Priesthood that all men can hold it and all authority, it indicates something pretty interesting.

We are in the wrap up phase prior to the Second Coming. It means the rest of us already had our chance and we rejected it. It means that we had all the light and knowledge laid out before us, and instead of the world accepting it, they rejected it.

Now comes the time which is similar to the Nephites and Lamanites where the Nephites became far more wicked, and it was the Lamanites who truly became more like the people of the Zion.

If so, look to see Africa become the last refuge of righteousness and holiness in the future, and the rest of the world to become more and more wicked and evil.

Just a thought.

Sign In

Johnson's miscellaneous thoughts on LDS culture, tradition and ideas thread

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

JohnsonJones

SilentOne

Vort

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Announcements