By their fruits ye shall know them...

[green]

The Bible and Book of Mormon clearly teach this principle.

I've made it know how I feel about the new handbook changes.

Here are the other issues I've had before:

How is it that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, two men who drank alcohol, could see God and Jesus (which according to Mormon Doctrine requires that you be so "clean" that your physical body is transformed to allow you to exist in God's presence) but we can't drink alcohol and take the sacrament? Why is it that this "policy" has never been released to the Church in official doctrine and added to the D&C? Why is it that we are breaking the WOW by drinking and are subject to the spirit leaving us when we do so, causing us to miss out on revelation and personal guidance BUT the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 can be obese and receive revelation for the entire church...when the WOW does not discriminate between eating healthy and drinking alcohol? So, it is ok for some to break the WOW but not others?

I guess that falls in line with yesterday's ruling that it is ok for men and women to break the Law of Chastity but not men and men or women and women.

Back to the WOW thing, if it is ok to be obese, but not ok to drink alcohol, why don't they change that in the D&C? They should add another section retracting 89 and clarifying it. And don't tell me that they don't believe in changing scripture. This religion is founded on changing scripture. We added a whole extra book. Joseph Smith has the JST (changing the Bible). We have constantly changed the Book of Mormon. My dad's mission Book of Mormon is different than mine. We just bought scriptures for our oldest boy, and his scriptures are different than mine. We are 100% ok with changing scripture.

So, why doesn't the apostles stand up and say, "I saw Jesus last night, and this is what he told me" like every prophet before them?

Which leads me to my next point:

Tithing. When Tithing was instituted early in the church, it was this:

As the matter presents itself to my mind, it is as though there had been a contract made between myself and the Lord, and that in effect He had said to me: “You have need of many things in this world—food, clothing, and shelter for your family and yourself, the common comforts of life, and the things that shall be conducive to refinement, to development, to righteous enjoyment. You desire material possessions to use for the assistance of others, and thereby gain greater blessings for yourself and yours. Now, you shall have the means of acquiring these things; but remember they are mine, and I require of you the payment of a rental upon that which I give into your hands. However, your life will not be one of uniform increase in substance and possessions; you will have your loses, as well as your gains; you will have your periods of trouble as well as your times of peace. Some years will be plenty unto you, and others will be years of scarcity. And, now, instead of doing as mortal landlords do—require you to contract [p.208]with them to pay in advance, whatever your fortunes or your prospects may be—you shall pay me not in advance, but when you have received; and you shall pay me in accordance with what you receive. If it so be that in one year your income is abundant, then you can afford to pay me a little more; and if it be so that the next year is one of distress and your income is not what it was, then you shall pay me less; and should it be that you are reduced to the utmost penury so that you have nothing coming in, you will pay me nothing.”

That is very clear: You pay for the necessities of life FIRST. Then you pay tithing.

And, now, instead of doing as mortal landlords do—require you to contract [p.208]with them to pay in advance, whatever your fortunes or your prospects may be—you shall pay me not in advance, but when you have received; and you shall pay me in accordance with what you receive.

This states that tithing is different than most debts. You DO NOT pay tithing first, you pay when you have excess (which is in line with the scriptures). If you have NO abundance YOU PAY NO TITHING.

Compare this to what Holland recently said in conference:

Elder James E. Talmage once described this as a contract between us and the Lord. He imagined the Lord saying: “‘You have need of many things in this world—food, clothing, and shelter for your family … , the common comforts of life. … You shall have the means of acquiring these things; but remember they are mine, and I require of you the payment of a rental upon that which I give into your hands. However, your life will not be one of uniform increase … [so] instead of doing as mortal landlords do—requir[ing] you to … pay in advance, whatever your fortunes or … prospects may be—you shall pay me … [only] when you have received; and you shall pay me in accordance with what you receive. If it so be that in one year your income is abundant, then … [your 10 percent will be a] little more; and if it be so that the next year is one of distress and your income is not what it was, then … [your 10 percent will be] less. … [Whatever your circumstance, the tithe will be fair.]’

Holland MISQUOTES Talmage. Talmage says if you have NONE, you PAY NONE. Holland deletes this phrase. He implies you always pay tithing. Holland then deletes the phrase "NOT IN ADVANCE" and implies that tithing is to be paid FIRST, which is widely taught from the pews at church. You get your check, you move the decimal place over, and if any is left, you take care of your family. That is not what Smith, the scriptures or Talmage taught.

Now, Holland is an Apostle. My problem with his changing the tithing doctrine is NOT that he changed it. It is that he changed it by sneaking around previous teachings. Why misquote Talmage to prove your point? You ARE AN APOSTLE. You have the RIGHT TO SEE JESUS.

Get up on the pulpit and say, "JESUS TOLD ME WE ARE CHANGING TITHING. He came to me or an angel came to me and said that it is no more after you have paid your worldly debts as Talmage taught. It is now required that you move the decimal over. We will add a new section to the D&C's clarifying this."

Do you see the difference? Example one is a man trying to create rules and regulations without God's approval, so he has to change and twist previous apostle's words around. Example two is an apostle of God who gets revelation and speaks with power and authority from God.

Which leads me to the next question:

Why have we stopped receiving revelation from the heavens? Why have there not been new scriptures? You would think in this day and age, we would need more revelation more than ever. We have technology that the early saints never dreamed of. Why is it there is no guidance from heaven on these issues? Why has the revelation and scripture stopped with polygamy?

That brings me to another issue: Why is it that the little girl can't get baptized because her parents are polygamists, but many of the Apostles TODAY practice polygamy? Heck, my DAD practices polygamy. He is married/sealed to multiple women and they don't even want to be married anymore and have civilly divorced.

And I haven't even started on the Pearl of Great Price. I can't read that book anymore. It's a fraud.

Anyhow, like I've said, I think yesterday's ruling may have been the last straw. The good news is, if the Church feels that it is ok to make kids wait until they are 18 to get baptized in certain situations then I can wait until my kid can decide what he wants to do. There is one less thing to feel guilty about. lol.

 

[DutchJazzer]

TL;DID READ.

its interseting but i have no insight on this.

just wnated to let you know i read it cus there will be som tl;dr comments

 

[Bronco70]

I'm kinda like you, green. I have a lot of issues with the church and policy and culture. I'm still active (largely because my kid's social structure is pretty much our ward, and I really don't want to ruin things for them - some of their friend's parents are horribly judgmental and reactive people) but I find myself becoming more and more disenchanted with the whole system.

There is a lot of disparity between the church that was organized by JS, and the bureaucratic behemoth that exists today. I know, I know... an organization with millions of members must be run differently than one with a few hundred. But it's way beyond that. There are myriad cultural and policy protocols that are widely regarded as doctrinal, even though they are not. And little is done to make correct distinctions or disabuse the membership of these misunderstandings. In fact, they are frequently reinforced by church leadership.

You touched on a couple - the WoW, and tithing. The WoW has been my biggest bugaboo for some time now. To oversimplify it, the membership has basically cherry picked the parts that they want to follow, and disregarded the rest.

I could go on for pages about members who preach being more Christlike, but are about as far from that themselves as they could be.

That all being said, I was pretty shocked and disappointed when I heard about the announcement of the policy, and I'm still heavily disappointed, but after having read points and counterpoints from both sides, I think this is really not going to have a whole lot of real world impact. Will some people be inconvenienced? Yeah, there will probably be some. I think this is less about specific people being denied rights and more about LDS vs. LGBT. How many children of LGBT parents are clamoring to be baptized at 8? I really don't know. I'm guessing it's not a tsunami.

Anyway, like I said, I don't agree with it, and I'm disappointed, but I think, in the big picture, it's going to be largely inconsequential.

 

[Just Ted]

So many threads on these exact topics. Search Jazzfanz... You will find all of the arguments you are seeking. This coming from an awesome person of faith in gospels, not people. Yes, I said I am awesome. It's true ya know.

 

[b_line]

Parley pratt married a married woman as a plural wife. Then he tried to steal the kids away from the husband. Then the ex husband murdered him. The lds church views pratt as a martyr and a saint.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Parley pratt married a married woman as a plural wife. Then he tried to steal the kids away from the husband. Then the ex husband murdered him. The lds church views pratt as a martyr and a saint.

Margaret Higgins Sanger was a despicable person who promoted eugenics, and was an avid racist wanting to exterminate African-Americans. The lefts views her as a martyr and a saint

 

[babe]

Parley pratt married a married woman as a plural wife. Then he tried to steal the kids away from the husband. Then the ex husband murdered him. The lds church views pratt as a martyr and a saint.

Well, public relations professionals can be trusted to spin things the right way, always. Brigham Young considered Pratt a blowhard and nuisance to have around, and contrived to keep him away from the general body of the Church by sending him on mission after mission elsewhere. Some of the stuff he wrote is kept out of the public view pretty well by the Mormon "Image Managers" who are, today, Madison Ave. publicity firms.

But aside from all that, if you want to go hunting through Mormon History for self-justifying reasons to dissent or stop believing the thoroughly managed official accounts, you don't need to stop here. The whole field is full of landmines that will blast the past somehow, thousands of self-convincing examples, if you please.

When I was a missionary, there were a few occasions when it was pretty necessary to observe "If this were not the Restored Gospel, the Elders would have destroyed it long ago." Well, people are people, and the Gospel is pretty much something else.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Parley pratt married a married woman as a plural wife. Then he tried to steal the kids away from the husband. Then the ex husband murdered him. The lds church views pratt as a martyr and a saint.

I feel for the ex husband. I have gone through this same thing, and I often contemplate murder.

 

[babe]

I feel for the ex husband. I have gone through this same thing, and I often contemplate murder.

Having studied the available history of this case carefully, it's pretty clear the legal husband was reportedly abusive and the idiot Pratt was trying to "save" her. She was reportedly quite attractive, and Pratt thought he was gonna be able to sport her around downtown SLC as a sort of "trophy wife". But I'm pretty sure she was something of a liar, expert at manipulating stupid men, and if I was in the sort of predicament again, I'd just move on philosophically thanking God she was gone and good riddance.

The kids are who I feel sorry for. Can you imagine having a mom like that?

Guys, when a married woman starts telling you her woes and looking at you feigning a need for sympathy, just walk on by.

 

[colton]

Having studied the available history of this case carefully, it's pretty clear the legal husband was reportedly abusive and the idiot Pratt was trying to "save" her.

Agreed. I think the husband and wife were also separated, although probably not in the legal sense given what divorce law would have been like back in those days. Pretty sure the wife did not consider herself to still be married, though, in any sort of religious sense.

She was reportedly quite attractive, and Pratt thought he was gonna be able to sport her around downtown SLC as a sort of "trophy wife". But I'm pretty sure she was something of a liar, expert at manipulating stupid men...

I hadn't heard that before. Where's that info from?

 

[♪alt13]

The Bible and Book of Mormon clearly teach this principle.

I've made it know how I feel about the new handbook changes.

Here are the other issues I've had before:

How is it that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, two men who drank alcohol, could see God and Jesus (which according to Mormon Doctrine requires that you be so "clean" that your physical body is transformed to allow you to exist in God's presence) but we can't drink alcohol and take the sacrament? Why is it that this "policy" has never been released to the Church in official doctrine and added to the D&C? Why is it that we are breaking the WOW by drinking and are subject to the spirit leaving us when we do so, causing us to miss out on revelation and personal guidance BUT the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 can be obese and receive revelation for the entire church...when the WOW does not discriminate between eating healthy and drinking alcohol? So, it is ok for some to break the WOW but not others?

I guess that falls in line with yesterday's ruling that it is ok for men and women to break the Law of Chastity but not men and men or women and women.

Back to the WOW thing, if it is ok to be obese, but not ok to drink alcohol, why don't they change that in the D&C? They should add another section retracting 89 and clarifying it. And don't tell me that they don't believe in changing scripture. This religion is founded on changing scripture. We added a whole extra book. Joseph Smith has the JST (changing the Bible). We have constantly changed the Book of Mormon. My dad's mission Book of Mormon is different than mine. We just bought scriptures for our oldest boy, and his scriptures are different than mine. We are 100% ok with changing scripture.

So, why doesn't the apostles stand up and say, "I saw Jesus last night, and this is what he told me" like every prophet before them?

Which leads me to my next point:

Tithing. When Tithing was instituted early in the church, it was this:



That is very clear: You pay for the necessities of life FIRST. Then you pay tithing.



This states that tithing is different than most debts. You DO NOT pay tithing first, you pay when you have excess (which is in line with the scriptures). If you have NO abundance YOU PAY NO TITHING.

Compare this to what Holland recently said in conference:



Holland MISQUOTES Talmage. Talmage says if you have NONE, you PAY NONE. Holland deletes this phrase. He implies you always pay tithing. Holland then deletes the phrase "NOT IN ADVANCE" and implies that tithing is to be paid FIRST, which is widely taught from the pews at church. You get your check, you move the decimal place over, and if any is left, you take care of your family. That is not what Smith, the scriptures or Talmage taught.

Now, Holland is an Apostle. My problem with his changing the tithing doctrine is NOT that he changed it. It is that he changed it by sneaking around previous teachings. Why misquote Talmage to prove your point? You ARE AN APOSTLE. You have the RIGHT TO SEE JESUS.

Get up on the pulpit and say, "JESUS TOLD ME WE ARE CHANGING TITHING. He came to me or an angel came to me and said that it is no more after you have paid your worldly debts as Talmage taught. It is now required that you move the decimal over. We will add a new section to the D&C's clarifying this."

Do you see the difference? Example one is a man trying to create rules and regulations without God's approval, so he has to change and twist previous apostle's words around. Example two is an apostle of God who gets revelation and speaks with power and authority from God.

Which leads me to the next question:

Why have we stopped receiving revelation from the heavens? Why have there not been new scriptures? You would think in this day and age, we would need more revelation more than ever. We have technology that the early saints never dreamed of. Why is it there is no guidance from heaven on these issues? Why has the revelation and scripture stopped with polygamy?

That brings me to another issue: Why is it that the little girl can't get baptized because her parents are polygamists, but many of the Apostles TODAY practice polygamy? Heck, my DAD practices polygamy. He is married/sealed to multiple women and they don't even want to be married anymore and have civilly divorced.

And I haven't even started on the Pearl of Great Price. I can't read that book anymore. It's a fraud.

Anyhow, like I've said, I think yesterday's ruling may have been the last straw. The good news is, if the Church feels that it is ok to make kids wait until they are 18 to get baptized in certain situations then I can wait until my kid can decide what he wants to do. There is one less thing to feel guilty about. lol.

IMV, you either believe JS met angels, found gold tablets, and reestablished gods church on earth or you don't.

It sounds like you have been dancing around/struggling with the question that is central to all this for you personally. You are under no obligation to answer to anyone but yourself. Do you believe in the BoM, JS story, and the LDS as the one true church?

 

[babe]

Agreed. I think the husband and wife were also separated, although probably not in the legal sense given what divorce law would have been like back in those days. Pretty sure the wife did not consider herself to still be married, though, in any sort of religious sense.



I hadn't heard that before. Where's that info from?

As I recall, She and her husband were in the San Francisco area about the year 1860, gold rush days still. I think the story was that she could not then get a legal divorce. . . something to do with the laws still reflecting Catholic doctrine from the Spanish tradition. Even today, California's, and Nevada's marriage laws continue to reflect some aspects of that tradition, as in being community property states. I think that is why Pratt took her by ship around the horn to New Orleans and thence was going through Arkansas to Utah when the husband caught up with him and killed him.

I think I got that info from some anti-Mormon source back in the 1970s. The speculation about her character, and Pratt's wisdom, is from my own calculations of human nature. . . .

I confess to having a bias on the subject of beautiful women who can effectively secure the sympathies of passerby men in regard to allegedly abusive husbands, with various charms and tears. I might be influenced somewhat from my experience in Catholic countries where the laws do not promote easy divorce and practically require an annulment from the Pope. . .

 

[babe]

IMV, you either believe JS met angels, found gold tablets, and reestablished gods church on earth or you don't.

It sounds like you have been dancing around/struggling with the question that is central to all this for you personally. You are under no obligation to answer to anyone but yourself. Do you believe in the BoM, JS story, and the LDS as the one true church?

Seems to me, offhand from various impressions of your own remarks, that this struggle is your own, as well.

So here is my take on all this. I have sympathy for all of green's questions, as I've entertained them myself to some extent. I note that he says he reads the scriptures regularly, which places him in the class I call the sincere LDS conscientious scholar. If you're like that, you will torment yourself with serious questions your entire life. You might never get all the answers lined up in a neat little row, but you'll always be an honest man.

That said, how could God ever line up all His truth in a neat little package we could just take whole cloth and never see a defect in the fabric? I mean, given that it is placed in human hands and explained by mortals at one point or another?

 

[babe]

Agreed. I think the husband and wife were also separated, although probably not in the legal sense given what divorce law would have been like back in those days. Pretty sure the wife did not consider herself to still be married, though, in any sort of religious sense.



I hadn't heard that before. Where's that info from?

This is my second reply to this response. I have found proof, once again, of my sincere ignorance in matters I am too casually willing to spout off about professing some unattained wisdom. . . . here is a compelling, to me, article on the subject at hand, which I urge all to read through from beginning to end. Most appropriate in a thread originally entitled as this one is. . .

https://jared.pratt-family.org/parley_histories/parley-death-stephen-pratt.html

Thank you, Colton, for provoking me to seek some reference to the subject that would satisfy your standard of truth.

 

[babe]

For those too pressed to indulge in reading the whole story, here is the upshot:

Looks to me like Parley P. Pratt conducted himself honorably through a long course of events, over years of evolvement of circumstances.

Looks to me like the husband was abusive in the extreme, across many years of "marriage", and was indeed violent and dangerous in the extreme. A modern court would have issued restraining orders and terminated his marriage and parental rights, and would have several times put him in prison for assault and battery.

 

[♪alt13]

Seems to me, offhand from various impressions of your own remarks, that this struggle is your own, as well.

No, it's really not. I don't know if I have something that is that important to my identity that I'm struggling with. I tried to think of something but I can't think of anything on that level. I have things that I struggle with for sure but there's nothing that I have internalized deeply that I currently question, nor do I expect to. Perhaps what makes me me is too straightforward and simple. I love my kids and try to enjoy life. Big cosmic questions are fascinating but I don't think I'm really defined all that much by the answers.

So here is my take on all this. I have sympathy for all of green's questions, as I've entertained them myself to some extent. I note that he says he reads the scriptures regularly, which places him in the class I call the sincere LDS conscientious scholar. If you're like that, you will torment yourself with serious questions your entire life. You might never get all the answers lined up in a neat little row, but you'll always be an honest man.

That said, how could God ever line up all His truth in a neat little package we could just take whole cloth and never see a defect in the fabric? I mean, given that it is placed in human hands and explained by mortals at one point or another?

Is that not the mundane existence you get to look forward to in the afterlife?