Posted on 08/10/2002 5:45:29 PM PDT by JMJ333
I always wanted to meet the exception to the rule.
Those quotes you gave show the importance of following the living prophet, and do not justify you in being extremely selective in "following" dead prophets for the purpose of straying from the living prophet and attacking the Church.
As Grig pointed out last night, Brigham Young did not attest to the accuracy of the Journal of Discourses in your #249, as you claim. He did not say he had the opportunity to correct those transcriptions either. He said that the transcriber had devoted so much time to the effort, probably to the neglect of his farm or other livelihood, that he should have some compensation through the sale of the books.
Your #329: I am desperately trying to find out if [any Latter-Day Saint has] an official position on this subject, or any subject, for that matter. Is there any person alive or dead that I can rely upon to provide the "official" position of the LDS Church on this subject in particular or any subject whatsoever in general?
Translation: Won't you LDS guys please, please, give me (Marlowe) a club to beat you with? 8o)
... because that is what you have been trying to do all along, and doubtless intend to do until you have a change of heart.
I have told you many times where the official position is: the LDS Scriptures. But, you say, there is precious little there on the subject of Official Declaration 2, or on subjects such as abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, or burial versus cremation, for example. You will recall, in my #239, that official statements unanimously approved and signed by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles come next. Most of these are not doctrinal statements, but are on matters of policy, which can and do change as times, conditions, emerging technologies, and circumstances warrant. You may have heard of the General Handbook of Instructions, which has a number of policy statements in it that are used by bishops when counseling members faced with pressing decisions.
The Lord does not compel in all things, nor prescribe in all situations, as perhaps you would like Him to do so you can have an "official position" to attack:
D&C 58:26
26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
But most pertinent to the subject at hand, there are areas where the Lord does not say as much as we might like Him to say, and so you demand an official position on the Lord's view of things before 1978, or Terry insists that she must speculate beyond what is revealed about things before the foundation of the world so she can disprove our doctrine on the nature of God based on that speculation, or evolutionists insist that the earth could not have been created by God as Moses testified because of the geological and astronomical "evidence" they hold forth.
The best thing to do, but the hard thing to do, is to respect the fact that the Lord has said no more, but has said enough for our salvation, and that we should focus on what He has said, and live accordingly, that we and our loved ones may be saved at the last day.
As we have posted before, the late Elder McConkie recorded his thoughts about that day in June 1978. He answers some of your questions there, if you will take the time to read it carefully:
Elder Bruce R. McConkie on Official Declaration 2
I understand him to say that the Lord showed him how to see in the Scriptures that this revelation would come before the Second Coming, and not after the first resurrection, or after time is no more. I understand him to say that those who thought otherwise in the past were working with the light the Lord had given them, and the Lord was not explaining more back then, just as He probably did not explain to Malachi that the Gospel and its blessings would go to the Gentiles after the Jews rejected Christ.
As I have said before, before 1978 we were told that Brigham Young wrote (not in the Journal of Discourses) that someday the priesthood restriction would be lifted. We didn't know when, and the Lord had not told us why it was there in the first place.
So, if you really need to, write a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley, the current President of the Church, asking for the "official position" of the Church on why the Lord had different policies regarding His priesthood after the death of Abel and before 1978, but be honest and tell him that you plan to attack the Church here on Free Republic with whatever information you get. (Include a copy of this post, so he knows we are working with you on this and has some background.)
You could also hold out an olive branch, and tell him that his answer might help you, because you left the Church at the age of 18, ostensibly because you were given some disinformation about the teachings of Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, which you believed, and disinformation about the changes in the Book of Mormon since the first edition, which you believed, and decided the Church was hiding it. Then June of 1978 came and you thought the Church was rejecting the teachings of Brigham Young yet again (yet you are convinced that Brigham Young is a false prophet -- go figure.)
As I understand, from reading the link above, the answer you may get is: The Lord made the policy clear, but did not explain why, and there was unfortunate speculation.
Let's stick to the Scriptures.
NOTE: An eternally significant observation!
|
Must be tough posting from the bus depot:>)
You call what I am asking as speculation. I call it clarification
The LDS has in recent years desired to be classified as "christian" but we have a basic difference in who God is. To me before we can move on that needs some kind of resolution.
I have sought for a defination of what you have called "eternal" .We define eternal differently...
We define the godhread differently..
These are very basic differences....no small potatoes...I have tried to understand using the Bbile (my scripture) how JS or you came to your understanding..I can not find it there.
So then I have to move to your scriptures to see how it is you believe it ......then we run into the problem Marlowe addresses ....your scriptures seem like moving targets to me .
I have learned a bit on the idea of speculation within the LDS but it seems to me a firm doctrine on who God is and how he got to be God is fundamental and should not be left to specualtion
I don't know about the ~entire~ CRC. If I would point a finger at a specific group, it would have to be the Canadian CRC churches.
You see, way back at Calvin there was this Canadian CRC girl I was just completely enthralled with (but of course, Wrigley, you remember this well! -the one who resembled 'Posh' Spice). Unfortunately, while we were very good friends, she felt she had better things to do than show an interest in my (quite honorable) advances. Even if we would have 'shown interest', I'm ~sure~ I would not be accepted by her parents -you know- being American and all. Besides that, I'm sure the marriage 'celebrations', so to speak, would not have been that joyous! And just think of the acceptance factor in light of the inevitable decision I made to leave the CRC. Horrors!
Anyway, because of this heartbreak I suffered (completely ~not~ my fault, mind you), I have pretty much written of all of the Canadian CRC as being very repressive and wacko!
So, I can understand a little where ctd is coming from.
Jean
Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race.
A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures.
Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin
These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning.
Enoch saw the people of Canaan, descendants of Cain, and he says, "and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people
__________________________
Interesting Comments.
__________________________
But the following is the most interesting comment of all:
"The Lord said, I will not kill Cain, but I will put a mark upon him, and that mark will be seen upon the face of every Negro upon the face of the earth; AND IT IS THE DECREE OF GOD THAT MARK SHALL REMAIN UPON THE SEED OF CAIN UNTIL THE SEED OF ABEL SHALL BE REDEEMED, AND CAIN SHALL NOT RECEIVE THE PRIESTHOOD, UNTIL THE TIME OF THAT REDEMPTION. History of Wilford Woodruff, p. 351.
Lets all diagram that sentence, shall we.
I thought we had a concensus that that event occurred in 1978. That is when the curse was removed, wasn't it?
So the natural question is: Why are there still black people?
The mark of the black skin was supposed to be removed at the same time that the Black people were allowed to have the priesthood.
What happened? Another prophecy. Another FALSE Prophecy?
Let all the lurkers understand that your husband and my wife and daughter were also present at our meeting!
(I don't want any viscious rumours to start on FR)
Jean
Not many good-looking women at the bus depot; that's for sure. :-)
I can give you the names, addresses, and phone numbers of at least 50 people who would readily confirm that I am an exception to the rule. Many of them are lawyers and judges and very much wish I wasn't an exception. A good number of them are defendants!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.