~ History Lesson and D&C 87 (Civil War Prophecy?)
James
~History Lesson and the D&C 87 (Civil War Prophecy?)
When talking about Joseph Smith's prophecies many
Latter-day Saints point to Doctrine and Covenants 87,
the so called Civil War prophecy which was written on
December 25, 1832. What most Mormons do not talk about
is the historical setting of this particular LDS
"revelation".
By the early 1830's politicians knew that slavery was
going to be an issue. Even when the Constitution of the
United States of America was being written and approved
the slavery issue became a great disagreement between
the northern and southern states, as a result, the
"Great Compromise". The Constitution that gave birth
to America would count a slave as "three-fifths" a
person (1).
The slavery question continued to haunt the United
States. The Missouri Compromise in 1820 is a clear
example. Missouri would be admitted as a slave
state, while Maine (then a part of Massachusetts)
was made a separate state. This would allow an
equal balance of free and slave states in the U.S. Senate.
Also, slavery would be prohibited north of
the 36 degree 30 minute line of the Lousiana
Purchase (2). At the time John Quincy Adams would
forewarn that the problem was the "title page to a
great tragic volume." Thomas Jefferson more
eloquently said, "We have a wolf by the ears,
and we can neither safely hold him, nor safely
let him go." (3)
An issue between southern and northern states
would again boil with the passing of the 1828 and
1832 tariffs on imported manufactured goods. The
tariffs were favored by the northern states and
backed by then President Andrew Jackson. The
northern states (free states) would benefit
the most from the collected duties with improved
roads. The northern states were much less dependant
on imported manufactured goods and the south
was in the opposite position. The south would
carry the brunt of the tariffs. The southern states
depended on the importation of manufactured products,
while trading and selling raw material from the
sweat of its slave labor force. The 1828 tariff
was a indirect and divisive political attack on the
southern states.
In 1828, the South Carolina legislature responded
to the tariff by formally and publicly denouncing
the added duties. Such a response was not at all
that uncommon for the time, however the legislature
went further by publishing the "Exposition and
Protest" (4). This publication was anonymously
authored by South Carolina statesman and then current
Vice President John C. Calhoun.
Tension built as South Carolina raised its voice
in protest of the 1828 tariff. The protest reached
its peak in 1832 after the passing of the 1832 tariff.
This same year John Calhoun resigned from the
Vice Presidency of the United States and inspired
an unprecedented "Ordinance of Nullification" (5,6).
In November 1832, a nullification convention was
held in Charleston, South Carolina, which defiantly
nullified the federal tariffs within its borders (7).
President Andrew Jackson responded to the nullification
with harsh words, declaring that South Carolina's
actions were "incompatible with the existence of the
Union, contradicted expressly by the Constitution,
unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every
principle on which it was founded and destructive
of the great object for which it was formed." (8)
Jackson even went to Congress to obtain a force bill
that would give him power to send federal troops into
South Carolina to collect the tariffs (9). South
Carolina responded defensively by preparing for
a military showdown organizing volunteers into
regiments to prepare for war and succession if needed
(10).
Are the words of Joseph Smith very prophetic with
this historical setting? South Carolina was preparing
for war at the exact same time Joseph Smith penned
the D&C 87 "revelation". From a historical perspective
Joseph Smith was not making a prophecy at all, only
repeating what many people and politicians were thinking
and alluding to at the time -- slavery was going to
divide the Union. The division was only a matter
of time. History clearly shows us that the most
vocal and ardent defender of slavery was South Carolina.
Let's take a look at D&C 87 for a minute. The LDS
"revelation" states that " 1. Verily, thus saith the
Lord concerning the wars that will *shortly* come to
pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina,
which will eventually terminate in the death and misery
of many souls." (emphasis mine)
Joseph Smith wrote D&C 87 in December 1832. The Civil
War did not begin until April 1861, almost thirty years
later. Is this what Joseph Smith means by "shortly"?
Then D&C 87:2 states, "And the time will come that war
will be poured out upon *all* nations, beginning at this
place".
Although the Civil War did involve some other countries
on minor ways, it by far did not spread to other nations,
and certainly not "all" nations. The next verse clearly
shows that Joseph Smith was wrong about prophesying
the Civil War.
Then D&C 87 states, "For behold, the southern States
shall be divided against the Northern States, and the
Southern States will call on other nations, even the
nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall
call upon other nations; and then war shall be poured
out upon all nations."
This prediction is clearly wrong about the civil war.
Great Britain's role in the Civil War was minor at
best. Britain supplied some equipment to the
Confederacy during the war, but limited this capacity
in fear that the northern states would retaliate.
During the Civil War Great Britain traded with both
the northern and southern States, and Great Britain
never declared war on either.
In my view, history presents the setting for Joseph
Smith's Doctrine and Covenants 87, it was not a
"revelation" but rather an observation. Nevertheless,
Joseph Smith's own words do not bear truth. War
did not pour itself out on "all nations" from South
Carolina. The closest humanity has come to a world
war was World War I and II. World War I started in
Europe with the assassination of Archduke Francis
Ferdinand. World War II started with Hitler in Germany.
Joseph Smith didn't even get the right continent, nor
time frame.
As Abraham Lincoln once said, "Fellow Citizens, we
cannot escape history....." (Second Annual Message
to Congress, December 1, 1862). We also cannot
escape the truth.
Sincerely,
James
***************************************************************
* For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site: *
* http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm *
***************************************************************
* For an alphabetical index of Mormon resources: *
* http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/table.htm *
***************************************************************
References for Post:
1. US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2.
2. A Pursuit of Liberty, A History of
the American People, by R. Jackson et al., Wadsworth
Publishing Company, Belmont California, 1990, pg. 317.
3. 1001 Things Eveyone Should Know About American
History, by John A Garraty, Doubleday, New York,
pg. 27.
4. A Pursuit of Liberty... pg. 323.
5. The Timetable of History, by Bernard Grun, Simon &
Schuster, New York, 1991, pg. 396.
6. 1001 Things Everyone ... pg. 27.
7. Secret and Sacred, The Diaries of James Henry
Hammond, a Southern Slaveholder, edited by Carol
Bleser, Oxford University Press, 1988, pg. 10.
8. A Pursiut of Liberty ... pg. 324.
9. ibid. ... pg. 324.
10.Secret and Sacred .... pg. 10.
Michael Terribilini
My only comments about your most recent post are that you are taking
everything too literally. First, 30 years is a very short time to the
Lord who was the source of the relevation given to Joseph Smith. Second,
it is true that the entire world did not get involved in the Civil War.
However, I would challenge you to find any long period of time since the
Civil War that there were no wars anywhere in the world. Most of them
have involved many nations and have barely stopped short of destroying the
Earth on numerous occasions.
The bottom line is to not read everything so literally.
Mike
James
(Message sent to Michael and to s.r.m.)
Michael Terribilini wrote:
>
> My only comments about your most recent post are that you are taking
> everything too literally.
We are all entitled to our own interpretation of the facts.
Thank you for providing yours (eventhough I disagree with it).
> First, 30 years is a very short time to the
> Lord who was the source of the relevation given to Joseph Smith.
You certainly hold a different nterpretation of the word "shortly",
but that is fine with me. What evidence do you have (other than
personal feelings) that the "Lord" was the source of the revelation?
Is there anything in the LDS "revelation" that prophecied
something that was not readily predictable by the people at
the time?
The main point I am emphasizing in my original post is that
the idea of a war starting in South Carolina between the northern
and southern states was highly likely at the time Joseph Smith
wrote the statement. Nevertheless, when many Mormons talk
about D&C 87 they neglect to discuss this relevant (IMO) information.
> Second,
> it is true that the entire world did not get involved in the Civil War.
The Civil War was a war fought mainly between the northern and southern
states. No other country declared war on either the north or the
south.
> However, I would challenge you to find any long period of time
> since the Civil War that there were no wars anywhere in the world.
Exactly my point, if one says that there will be a war
shortly this observation would likely be fullfilled.
Saying that a war will occur shortly is as informative as
saying the sun will rise tomorrow (IMO).
In my view, Joseph Smith's statements were drawing from
the historical situation of the time. At the time
Joseph Smith wrote D&C 87, South Carolina was preparing
for war if the federal government attacked. This
simple fact is usually not discussed when Mormons point
out the "civil war prophecy".
> Most of them have involved many nations and have barely stopped
> short of destroying the
> Earth on numerous occasions.
Absolutely not. There has never been a war that just stopped short
of destroying the Earth. World War II was the largest war, and it
didn't even come close.
If anything came close to destroying the Earth, it would have been
the lack of war, and the nuclear build up between USSR and the USA.
But, then again, a nuclear war would not destroy the Earth, although
it may set humanity a couple of steps back.
Sincerely,
James
*************************************************************
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
*************************************************************
Sharon A. Lindbloom
Michael Terribilini wrote:
>
> Second,
> it is true that the entire world did not get involved in the Civil War.
> Civil War that there were no wars anywhere in the world.
Is there any long period of time BEFORE the Civil War that there were
no wars anywhere in the world?
Sharon
--
"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might
become the righteousness of God in Him." 1 Corinthians 5:21
For a biblical perspective on Mormonism visit Word for the Weary's web
site at:
http://www.answeringlds.org
Marc A. Schindler
"Sharon A. Lindbloom" <in...@answeringlds.org> wrote:
>Michael Terribilini wrote:
>>
>> Second,
>> it is true that the entire world did not get involved in the Civil War.
>> However, I would challenge you to find any long period of time since the
>> Civil War that there were no wars anywhere in the world.
><snip>
>
>Is there any long period of time BEFORE the Civil War that there were
>no wars anywhere in the world?
>
>Sharon
>
Yes, of course. Since the Civil War ushered in an era of "technological
warfare" which had, among other effects, the unfortunate consequence
of directly involving civilians (in bombardments of cities, for instance,
which, while this happened before, was only on a very small scale and
then only of ports). In other words, the WHOLE period before the U.S.
Civil War was a time in which there was no war in the modern sense. Wars
had to last very long before they had significant effects upon civilian
populations before the USCW (like the 30 Years War and the 100 Years
War in Europe) but even then their effects were relatively localized.
Today a war can break out very quickly which can disrupt an entire
country (the latest being Sierra Leone, for instance, but tomorrow it'll
be another place). Also wars can quickly escalate to involve many other
countries (Sierra Leone's has brought the Nigerians in, the largest
country and strongest army in Africa)--look at what a minor tempest in
a Kuwaiti teapot turned into, and what Yugoslavia almost became.
--
Marc & Kathleen Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta
"There are three kinds of mathematicians: those who can count, and those
who can't."
- Kurt Gödel
Woody Brison
Suppose we grant James' premise, that it was not very difficult
to foresee the Civil War in 1832. Does it then follow that
Joseph Smith was a charlatan? I would like to introduce a bit
of further analysis.
Probability is often expressed on a scale between one and zero.
Here is a conceptual look at it:
1.0 Certain
0.9
0.8 Pretty likely
0.7
0.6
0.5 Unknown one way or another.
0.4
0.3
0.2 Pretty unlikely
0.1
0.0 Impossible
Expressing things this way, some math can be called in. For
instance, let's say the odds, in 1832, that there would soon be a
civil war was 0.8 (pretty likely). That the fighting would begin
with South Carolina might not have been too difficult a guess
either. Why don't we put that at 0.75 just as a guess. We could
debate those numbers, but assuming we settled on 0.8 and 0.75, we
would calculate the probability that BOTH items would occur like
this:
(0.8) x (0.75) = 0.6
It may seem a little surprising that the probability of calling
both these items is so low -- little easier than predicting a
total unknown -- when they were both fairly likely, but that's
what the laws of mathematics say. Let's go thru all the actual
predictions on Section 87. First, let's divide them into three
categories: Those that haven't yet come true, those that have
failed, and those that have come true:
-----------
Predictions that haven't yet come to pass:
* after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters
* either the slaves or the masters (not clear which) shall be
marshaled and disciplined for war
* the remnants [Native Americans] who are left of the land will
marshal themselves
* Native Americans shall become exceedingly angry
* Native Americans shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation
* The inhabitants of the earth should be made to feel the wrath
of God
* war will be poured out upon /all nations
* The day of the Lord cometh quickly
* A full end of all nations
-----------
Predictions that have failed:
(none in this category)
These two lists can be well defended and I leave that debate to
others unless someone really needs to see my reasoning. It is
the third category that I wish to focus on for my analysis.
-----------
Predictions that came true: For this category, let's tag each
with a probability from the point of view of how likely was it at
the time of the prophecy. I have not loaded these, just assigned
a number that seems reasonable to me and let the consequences
follow as they may:
0.8 Wars would shortly come to pass (one seemed to be brewing)
0.75 These wars would begin in South Carolina
0.95 The Southern States should be divided against the Northern
States
0.9 The Southern States would call on other nations
0.8 The Southern States would call on Great Britain
0.7 Great Britain (or possibly the Southern States) would find
themselves defending themselves against other nations
0.8 They should call upon other nations to help
0.2 These wars would eventually terminate in the death and
misery of many souls
0.6 There would be famine
0.5 There would be plague
1.0 There would be earthquakes
1.0 There would be thunder
1.0 There would be fierce and vivid lightning
--------
The probability of all these coming true -- which they have --
is
(0.8) x (0.75) x (0.95) x (0.9) x (0.8) x (0.7) x (0.8) x
(0.2) x (0.6) x (0.5) x (1.0) x (1.0) x (1.0) = 0.01378944
This is about 72 to 1 against. While the individual odds can be
debated and adjusted, probably some would be adjusted downward
and some upward. This kind of analysis tends to be surprisingly
accurate for that reason, if the individual odds are assigned
with any moxey at all.
The likelihood that President Smith simply read the times, is
thus far thinner than was suggested. If we were to continue in
this analysis including other prophecies, we could undoubtably
show probabilities -- unassailable ones -- of him being a prophet
amounting to proof. An example of this with the Book of Mormon
has been put together by Kitson Kelly and can be found at
<http://www.primenet.com/~kitsonk/mormon/bomanc.htm>
Woody
-----
When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take steps
into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two
things will happen. There will be something solid for us to
stand on or we will be taught to fly. -Patrick Overton
Linards....@post.rwth-aachen.de
[Moderator's Note: Please keep follow-ups on the topic of LDS religion]
(Sorry this news reader does not provide quoting)
The statement that the 30 Years war was a small localized war is, sorry to say,
totally wrong. It was the most devastating war in terms of the percentage
of people killed (not to mention the misery) that Europe has seen to this
day.
Linards Ticmanis
James
(Message sent to Woody and to s.r.m.)
Woody Brison wrote:
<snip>
Did you miss my original post? In my original post I pointed
out the historical fact that South Carolina was preparing for
war with the north at the exact same time Joseph Smith was
writing the revelation. Most certainly, the odds of war would
be higher than 60% at that time.
<snip>
> Predictions that came true: For this category, let's tag each
> with a probability from the point of view of how likely was it at
> the time of the prophecy. I have not loaded these, just assigned
> a number that seems reasonable to me and let the consequences
> follow as they may:
The numbers in which you assign are very subjective, and on the
very conservative side.
> 0.8 Wars would shortly come to pass (one seemed to be brewing)
Not only was a war brewing, South Carolina was preparing for
war. They had already started organizing regiments, and obtaining
volunteer soldier to oppose the Union at the time.
> 0.75 These wars would begin in South Carolina
Again, the Nullification Convention that nullified federal law
was in South Carolina. It's like someone predicting unrest in
Kuwait after Iraq invaded it. The probability of further unrest
is very very likely.
> 0.95 The Southern States should be divided against the Northern
> States
The Southern and Northern states were already divided sharply
on the issue of slavery. As many people said at the time, Civil
War was just a matter of time between the two groups.
> 0.9 The Southern States would call on other nations
How many wars have existed where a nation does not call on or
contact other nations? This was a certainty if Civil War were
to break out, especially considering that the South traded
very heavily with the South for raw materials.
> 0.8 The Southern States would call on Great Britain
This is very obvious considering that the Southern states
were already trading and dealing with Great Britain at the
time.
> 0.7 Great Britain (or possibly the Southern States) would find
> themselves defending themselves against other nations
Great Britain was not brought into the Civil War to any great
degree. Nevertheless, Great Britain continued trade with the
South supplying weapons and equipment, while at the same time
trading with the North. Great Britain was certainly not being
attacked by another Northern ally at the time. The war had
not spread as the so called revelation claims.
> 0.8 They should call upon other nations to help
Nations always call upon other nations. This is like assigning
a probability that people will die in a war... but then again
that is exactly what you attempt to do!
> 0.2 These wars would eventually terminate in the death and
> misery of many souls
ALL wars terminate in the death and misery of many souls. Please
show me one war that hasn't.
> 0.6 There would be famine
Show me any length of time where there were no famines in this
world?
> 0.5 There would be plague
Show me any length of time where there were no plagues in this
world?
> 1.0 There would be earthquakes
>
> 1.0 There would be thunder
>
> 1.0 There would be fierce and vivid lightning
>
<snip>
> The likelihood that President Smith simply read the times, is
> thus far thinner than was suggested.
I completely disagree with your reasoning and mathematics. For
starters you suggest that each event is statistically independent,
which is a grave error in statistics. For instance, it's a certainty
that people will die when a war comes, yet you assign an independent
probability that people have only a 20% chance of experiencing misery
and death. This is most certainly a misuse of statistics.
I encourage you to take another look at a statistics book and also
the U.S. history of the time.
Sincerely,
James
****************************************************************
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
****************************************************************
Woody Brison
(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
soc.religion.mormon)
James' reply, to my statistical analysis, of his history lesson on
Section 87, concentrated on three areas:
1. Realization of some of the items predicted.
>Great Britain was not brought into the Civil War to any great
>degree...Great Britain was certainly not being
>attacked by another Northern ally at the time. The war had
>not spread as the so called revelation claims.
The revelation says the South would call on them, it doesn't say
how they would respond, only that they in turn would call on
others in defense against others, unspecified; it also says or
implies wars (plural) in several places.
Even on my first reading of this prophecy, about 24 years ago, I
gathered that it was talking about WWI and II and beyond. It
seems a real confinement, that it should be understood to speak
only of the Civil War, and I don't know how you reach that
conclusion.
2. Individual event probabilities
>The numbers in which you assign are very subjective, and on the
>very conservative side.
Yes, I tried to be conservative in all of them. I didn't want to
make it look like I was biasing the thing my direction; I often
bumped them higher than my own inclinations, out of respect for
public lack of faith:) As I said, the individual numbers may be
debated, but if so, some will rise and some will drop. But if you
are going to insist that every item was a certainty, as your
comments seem to indicate, I'm not sure I will be able to follow
you. You have taken exception with every single number I chose.
For instance, I allowed:
>> 0.9 The Southern States would call on other nations
0.9 is near certainty, but you seem to need it higher:
>How many wars have existed where a nation does not call on or
>contact other nations? This was a certainty if Civil War were
>to break out, especially considering that the South traded
>very heavily with the South for raw materials.
My first guesstimate was about 0.8 -- I think that if we looked at
10 nations at random that went to war before 1832, about 8 of them
would be found to have asked for help from other nations, and
about 2 have gone it alone. This is purely a quick guess. I then
reasoned that the South was weaker militarily than the North, so
they would have been more likely to seek some help, but on the
other hand this weakness was not recognized by many in the South.
I therefore bumped my estimate up from 0.8 to 0.9.
Every one of my numbers had some thought put into it, not overmuch,
in similar fashion. Am I correct in surmising that you want to
assign odds of 1.00 to every item? That is not reasonable, no
rational mind would accept that. Were we to do that, our table
would look like this:
1.00 Wars would shortly come to pass
1.00 These wars would begin in South Carolina
1.00 The Southern States should be divided against the Northern
States
1.00 The Southern States would call on other nations
1.00 The Southern States would call on Great Britain
1.00 Great Britain (or possibly the Southern States) would find
themselves defending themselves against other nations
1.00 They should call upon other nations to help
1.00 These wars would eventually terminate in the death and
misery of many souls
and so on. This seems to be your assessment of the odds of these
things happening, from your line-by-line vetos. Can you honestly
say that you believe, that in 1832, every one of these items were
absolutely certain and this was apparent to everybody? If so, why
wasn't there a mass exodus from the implicated regions?
My general impression is that rather than thoughtfully considering
my analysis on its merits, you are desperate that it must be
countered at all hazards. Could you not reconsider? I invite you,
or anyone, to suggest some reasoned alternate numbers.
But even if we convince ourselves to put 0.95 for most of them, the
product is still far lower, and that product is what Joseph Smith's
revelation defies.
3. Methods of calculation
>I completely disagree with your reasoning and mathematics. For
>starters you suggest that each event is statistically independent,
>which is a grave error in statistics. For instance, it's a certainty
>that people will die when a war comes, yet you assign an independent
>probability that people have only a 20% chance of experiencing misery
>and death. This is most certainly a misuse of statistics.
Actually, I tried to be cognizant that certain parts of the
prediction list depend on others, and separated them as well as I
could. Look at what I wrote in that instance:
>0.2 These wars would eventually terminate in the death and
misery of many souls
Since I had already assigned a number to there being wars, this is
the probability that given wars, /many people would suffer misery
and death, nor did I tangle the item with any later calculation.
Suppose we were to question some political and military experts in
1832, and ask them this: Suppose for a moment that wars were to
occur soon. How likely do you think it would be that they would
be shockingly devastating, with much death and misery? I don't
think any in prosperous America would have said it was likely.
My estimate of this probability stems from the meaning of the
words "death and misery of many souls", which I infer from some
following items in the revelation. War would be "poured out on
all nations" [twice!], that "by sword and by bloodshed the
inhabitants of the earth shall mourn" and that the consumption
decreed would "make a full end of all nations"! We are not
reading about exercises with a few thousand dead, as previous wars
were; we are being informed here about utter devastations,
entirely beyond the experience of any living then. People don't
usually see catastrophies orders of magnitude worst than any
precedent, so I assigned a number of 1 in 5 as a guess.
Subsequent history provides a perspective on things. Think about
weapons: battleships and submarines that can sink whole convoys,
machine guns that obliterate armies, and so forth. These weapons
were unknown in 1832; they were first used in the Civil War,
became common in subsequent wars, and have resulted in sickening
annihilations.
Previous wars were not like that. Body counts were in the dozens
to maybe thousands in a typical battle. Now, they are sometimes
in the hundreds of thousands and often include civilians. Russia
lost 20 million people repelling one invasion. In Germany, many
cities had 95% of the buildings reduced to rubble. 6 million Jews
were deliberately murdered by the Nazis. In Japan, over 200,000
people died from just /two /rounds. That kind of thing was not
anticipated by anyone but Joseph Smith in 1832. Not only did the
technology not exist, but there were certain rules of etiquette...
The future was totally unanticipated. By assigning a probability
of 20% I think I probably erred on the side of generosity.
I think the sum of the revelation has to stand as highly unlikely
from the standpoint of what was reasonable then, and totally
remarkable as to its precision about what actually happened. This
should invite further study of prophecies by LDS presidents, and not
casual study either.
Woody Brison
Marc A. Schindler
Years War in passing, but meant "localized"* in contradistinction to a
world war. I am well aware that it was a devestating war, but not on a
worldwide scale; also, its devestation arose primarily out of the fact
that it dragged on for so long (today we can devestate much more
"efficiently"!) As an aside, one of the reasons it dragged on so long
was that it was an inter-imperial war disguised as a religious war,
which is rather typical of European wars, I think.
* I used the word "localized" but I don't think I used the word "small";
if I did I retract it.
Hedgehog
> Did you miss my original post? In my original post I pointed
> out the historical fact that South Carolina was preparing for
> war with the north at the exact same time Joseph Smith was
> writing the revelation. Most certainly, the odds of war would
> be higher than 60% at that time.
Actually, I did miss the beginning of this thread--even the moderators
don't see everything. What you seem to be saying is that if a prophecy
predicts something that is (subjectively) likely, then it is not prophecy
at all. This seems to be a unnecessarily strict rule. It reminds me a
bit of a passage in the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis.
For those who may not have read the Screwtape letters, Lewis creates a
fictional dialogue between two demons on their strategy for bringing down
a Christian man. At one point the more experienced demon suggests that
the mans proclivity for prayer can easily be turned into a source of
doubt. This is because for any particular prayer, the man will either
acquire the desired response or he will not. If he does not acquire the
desired response, the demons will plant doubts on the efficacy of the
prayer. If he does receive the response he wanted, no doubt he will be
able to percieve some of the chain of causes and effects which led to that
favorable result and you can suggest to him that the favorable response
would have happened anyway without any prayer on his part.
You seem to be saying that since the causes for the American War between
the States were longstanding and deep, it was a trivial matter for a
person to make a prophecy of a war between the states. But wouldn't the
study of history be totally irrational if vast wars suddenly broke out for
no reason? To update the terms of the prophecy a bit, what if some modern
day prophet predicted the dissolution of Canada on the basis on
Francophone/Anglophone tensions. If the event does come to pass,
intellectual honesty does demand that one credit the prophet.
Finally, when discussing prophecy, it is always good to keep in mind the
story of Jonah in the Bible. Jonah predicted that Ninevah would be
destroyed by her sins. Instead, Ninevah repented and God spared it.
Jonah accused God of making a fool of Jonah himself. But for God, the
principle of free agency is more important than the earthly respect
prophets receive. In the same way, perhaps the Southern States could have
been somehow less hot headed and avoided physical war entirely. In that
case, Smith would have looked as foolish as Jonah felt himself to be. But
in both cases the prophecy may have been genuine.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Woody Brison
I think the term Jello belt is hilarious, and I'm going to use it
all the time from now on.
The meaning for the term for me is the endless parade of LDS Church
socials. There is good food. Trust me, it's not all jello. There
is entertainment. Some fools get up on the stage and do something
entertaining.
Best of all the people chat together. Mormons need this more than
any other thing I have observed. So many forces today isolate us
from each other, it becomes almost a critical need.
If I were a bishop, once a month I would cancel Sunday School and
tell everybody to just go into the cultural hall and the classrooms
and just mingle for an hour. There's probably some rule against
that, but the need to talk is real.
Wood
Philip Striplin
william....@ast.lmco.com (Woody Brison) wrote:
>If I were a bishop, once a month I would cancel Sunday School and
>tell everybody to just go into the cultural hall and the classrooms
>and just mingle for an hour. There's probably some rule against
>that, but the need to talk is real.
Two (actually, for once, quite serious) comments from me, out here in
the "what's Jello anyway?" belt:
1. We actually did this once; we had a series of disasters one Sunday
so we *couldn't* teach several of the Sunday School classes, so we
just cancelled it. We got grief from every level of authority going,
so I assume that yes, there *is* a rule.
2. Having just been released as Gospel Doctrine teacher, my thought
is that far too many members do precisely what you say: stand around
in the corridors and chat during Sunday School. The brethren have
been trying to re-emphasise the importance of SS for some years now;
they have some way to go.
Irrelevantly yours
Phil
Woody Brison
Please post to any LDS and Christian email list, newsgroups, or
boards which you participate in. Webmasters, please link to
http://GraceWeb.org/FreeSaints/ (retain capitializations).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject: New List Announcement: Free-Saints
* For Immediate Release:
>> The Free-Saints email list has reopened and has announced a
>> series of topics covering a broad spectrum of LDS issues.
* Free-Saints Charter:
The Free-Saints mail list (founded May, 1995) is a group of folk from
around the world who come together to discuss doctrines & activities of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The basis of these
discussions is found in the command of Brigham Young, 2nd LDS President:
"Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints
with it, and see if it will stand the test." (Journal of Discourses,
Vol.16, p.46)
To that end, the Free-Saints email list is available for public
discussions of topics related to the LDS church. Debates are to focus
on such topics and the integrity of arguments which support them.
Insults and flames are grounds for removal from the list. Posting is
limited to 3/day/listmember and henceforth mailoads are moderate.
* How do I subscribe/unsubscribe?
Just address an email to: mailto:free-sain...@graceweb.org
With the command in the BODY of the email "subscribe" (w/o quotes)
To unsubscribe, follow the same steps with the command unsubscribe.
* The topics we will be sure to cover by the end of 1997 are:
Jul 11: The Goal of our Faiths
Jul 17: Agency & The Plan
Jul 21: The Bible
Jul 28: Repentance & Perfection
Aug 7: LDS Authority
Aug 14: Evaluating Truth
Aug 21: Forgiveness
Aug 28: Jesus' Role
Sep 4: Book of Mormon: Content & Origins
Sep 11: Book of Mormon: Reliability
Sep 18: Adam's Fall/Sin
Sep 25: Atonement & Salvation
Oct 2: Doctrine and Covenants
Oct 9: LDS Culture & Practices
Oct 16: God's Attributes
Oct 23: Jesus' Divinity & Incarnation
Oct 30: Pearl of Great Price
Nov 6: LDS Prophets
Nov 13: Jesus & Man
Nov 20: Justification & Sanctification
Nov 27: Major Mormon Teachings not in Standard Works
Dec 4: Premortality / Our Earthly Existance
Dec 11: Postmortality / What is Heaven
Dec 18: Temple Work and getting to Heaven
Dec 25: Series Feedback
Other topics may be freely discussed anytime.
* For full information, send a message "intro free-saints" to
mailto:majo...@graceweb.org
Jim Guest
Woody Brison wrote:
>
> The Free-Saints email list has reopened and has announced a
> series of topics covering a broad spectrum of LDS issues.
>
> around the world who come together to discuss doctrines & activities of
> the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
===================
I know this sound a little paranoid, but you know, every
time I see someone give a blanket invitation and advertise
a new group to "discuss" LDS doctrine, I get a mental picture
of someone saying, "OK, all you LDS, stick your stupid necks
out so we can beat you silly with our accusations, half-truths,
and outright lies.
I might expect such a list to be called "Free-Saints" as an
indication of the true intention of such a list, which may be
to "free" them from their present beliefs by scattering seeds
of doubt among those with less mature testimonies. I may be
wrong in this case, but perhaps you can see my point.
Jim
Jim
Woody Brison
sel...@psyber.com (Best Sellers) wrote:
> The Temple covenants mandate a covered patella...Your wife made
> a covenant in the Temple to wear a garment that, by necessity,
> must COVER the patella. I say "by
> necessity" because there is a function, clearly explained in the
> Initiatory Ordinance and again at the veil, that cannot occur
> unless that bone is covered by the garment.
The word patella I don't recall hearing in the Temple. Listen
carefully to the words.
Every knee will bow to God when He is made manifest. Doesn't
matter what people are wearing, all will kneel.
I go swimming just about every day. In the bathroom, I take the
garments off and put on a swim suit. I go swimming and greatly
rejoice that the good Lord made water. Then I dry off and get
dressed again.
On Sunday, my whole family often gets in our little pool. It is
unheated, and we have no air conditioning. We just get in to cool
off. Six days a week we get in and swim and play. On Sunday we
get in and move reverently around in the water. If there is some
commandment against that, I'm unaware of it.
Wood
Woody Brison
fitz...@concentric.net wrote:
> Will their location be revealed or are they in the Great Temple in Salt
> Lake City? Thanks Ron
For cryin' out loud, just answer the guy's question!
The angel Moroni took the plates when the translation was done, as
you can read in Joseph Smith's account of it. The angel brought
them back to exhibit them to the three witnesses, and apparently
again for the eight witnesses, altho they didn't see the angel.
I don't think the plates are anywhere that mortals can get to them.
There is some legend that Joseph took Brigham Young to a cave in
the Hill Cumorah where there were the plates with a lot of others.
I can't remember where this is written, maybe someone else can help
there.
In 2 Nephi 27 you can read that the plates contain two sections.
The record of the Nephites, those who have slumbered in the dust,
is the Book of Mormon that we have now. The other section is a
revelation written by the Brother of Jared, it reveals the entire
history of the earth from start to finish, and it won't be given
during the time of the wickedness of the children of men, so I
think that means not until the Millenium.
If so, there be little reason why they would be anywhere that
mortals can get to them. If the Apostles had them under lock and
key, what would they do with them? It would just be an unnecessary
hazard. Better I think that the Angel has them and will bring them
forth when the time comes.
Woody
Peter Lima
Woody Brison wrote:
>
> [was: Postings in soc.religion.mormon]
. . .
> In the same way I believe God educates his children. Mortal life
> experience is the first coat, we learn what it's like first hand
> to be on our own making our own decisions. The churches of the
> world are like a second coat, where the gospel is learned and
> applied to the mortal experience. The Lord's own Church is the
> final finishing experience. If this were not available to all,
> this view of it would make no sense.
> The Lord has said that the other churches teach incorrect things.
> I haven't heard him say they are all bad.
>
> Woody
What do you do with:
"Behold there are save two churches only: the church the one is the
church of the lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil. . .
" 1 Nephi 14:10 etc. ?
Steve Scalf
Peter Lima <xri...@earthlink.net> wrote in article <15...@srm.npl.com>...
>
> What do you do with:
> "Behold there are save two churches only: the church the one is the
> church of the lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil. . .
> " 1 Nephi 14:10 etc. ?
>
>
1 Nephi 14:10
And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is
the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil;
wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth
to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the
whore of all the earth.
The church of the Lamb of God is also called the church of the Firstborn in
the D&C. This is NOT the same thing as the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints! I am sure there are many members of the church who
belong to "that great church, which is the mother of abominations." The
Lord spoke specifically of members of the LDS Church in the following
verses:
D&C 1:15,16
15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine
everlasting covenant;
16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man
walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is
in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which
waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall
fall.
And if you look in Revelation, you see Babylon the great is the name of the
whore of all the earth, the mother of abominations.
There are good and honest children of God out there who love the Lord, but
who belong to other churches. If they are given the opportunity in the
next life, they may fully embrace the whole gospel. I think these folks
will stand a better chance of exaltation than Mormons who "walk in their
own ways."
Steve
--
------------------
Remove the "nospam" from "Scalf_...@nospam.worldnet.att.net"
to get the REAL me
J. & S. Harrison
Sent to Peter and SRM:
Peter Lima wrote:
> What do you do with:
> "Behold there are save two churches only: the church the one is the
> church of the lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil. . .
> " 1 Nephi 14:10 etc. ?
The honest in heart who accept Christ are Christian and in the church
of the lamb of God even if they have not yet ascribed to the whole
Plan of Salvation; even others who are honest in heart and good to
their neighbor are probably not in the other church.
This is my opinion but I will be shocked if it is not borne out by
fact.
The other church would be peopled with those who purposely attempt
to thwart God's plan, or possibly those who have negligently let
Satan lead them into thwarting God's plan, but not those who are
doing their best to abide by God's will even if they are mistaken
about what God's will is. Merely being in another religion, even one
that has convinced its members that they should go out and evangelize
members of the LDS church, is not enough to constitute being led
astray. Faithful people can learn a lot wherever they are and will be
able to catch up on certain important things and not have those things
held against them on Judgment Day.
Peace,
Stephanie
Peggy Rogers
Peter Lima wrote:
> Woody Brison wrote:
>
> > The Lord has said that the other churches teach incorrect things.
> > I haven't heard him say they are all bad.
> >
> > Woody
> What do you do with:
> "Behold there are save two churches only: the church the one is the
> church of the lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil. . .
> " 1 Nephi 14:10 etc. ?
And what do _you_ do with:
"Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil."
D&C 18:20?
A lot of people try to use the quoted passage from I Nephi 14 to
assert that Latter-day Saints believe their church is identical to
"the church of the Lamb of God," and all other churches are identical
to "the church of the devil." I tend to see the passage from the
D&C as contradictig that interpretation. Clearly, according to LDS
scripture, there _are_ other churches which are not "the church of
the devil," so the scripture in I Nephi might be about something
a little bit different.
--
Peggy Rogers
Braun, William
>
> Sent to Peter and SRM:
>
> Peter Lima wrote:
>
> > "Behold there are save two churches only: the church the one is the
> > church of the lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil. . .
> > " 1 Nephi 14:10 etc. ?
Sorry I can't quote chapter and verse, but does not the Bible record Christ as saying
something to the effect of "either you are for me or against me"?
This I believe is the sense of 1 Nephi 14:10. Those who have faith in Christ and make
him the Lord in and of their lives are in for him, all others are aginst him. Many in
the LDS Church are not really "for him", while many in non-LDS churches are indeed "for
him".
Though some uninformed members of the LDS Church may feel that all non-LDS are in "the
church of the devil" this is NOT the view of the Church, its leaders, its scriptures, no
those members who are aware of the actual doctrines and positions of the Church.
Other Church are not "of the devil", they are just wrong on some matters and do not have
priesthood authority, etc.
Bill
Hedgehog
In article <15...@srm.npl.com>, "Steve Scalf"
<Scalf-...@nospam.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> The church of the Lamb of God is also called the church of the Firstborn in
> the D&C. This is NOT the same thing as the Church of Jesus Christ of
> Latter-day Saints! [snip]
> There are good and honest children of God out there who love the Lord, but
> who belong to other churches. If they are given the opportunity in the
> next life, they may fully embrace the whole gospel.
Some LDS readers have speculated that God gave contradictory commandments
to Adam in the Garden of Eden. If this is true--if God does test and
challenge us with contradictory commandments--then is it possible that
many churches exist because we humans are trying to reconcile the
contradictory commands that we have been given? Perhaps Mormons excel at
obeying some commands, Protestants at others, Roman Catholics at a third
set, and so on.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Peggy Rogers
Hedgehog wrote:
> In article < 15...@srm.npl.com>, "Steve Scalf"
> > The church of the Lamb of God is also called the church of the Firstborn in
This has been my view for a long time, Hedgehog. It seems to me that God,
being infinite, has a hard time commuicating all of his attributes to a
single person or group of people. Thus, some emphsize his lovingkindess
and mercy, others emphasize his justice and his desire that we should do
what is right, and others are especially aware of his abudant creativity
or his awesome majesty. It seems to me that we need each others' diverging
viewpoints in these matters to round out our own understanding. But in a
fallen world, they have unfortuately become a source of contention and
hostility.
Of course, I can only say this because I am not so much a true-believing
Mormon as a kind of LDS Universalist. That's one of the reasons that I
agree with Hedgehog so often. ;-)
--
Peggy Rogers
Raymond Bingham
I uncovered clues pointing to Braun, William (wbr...@smart1.net) having written:
>> Sent to Peter and SRM:
>> Peter Lima wrote:
>> > What do you do with:
>> > "Behold there are save two churches only: the church the one is the
>> > church of the lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil. . .
>> > " 1 Nephi 14:10 etc. ?
>Sorry I can't quote chapter and verse, but does not the Bible record Christ as saying
>something to the effect of "either you are for me or against me"?
I don't recall that scripture. I do recall a story in the New testament
where a number of disciples of Christ are out teaching the Gospel and they
encounter others that they don't recognize out proclaiming the gospel. They
return to Christ and ask "Who are these?" perhaps hoping that Christ will
denounce them as false teachers. Christ states that if they are not against
you, then let them be.
Best regards,
--
************************************************************************
* Raymond Bingham (aka. wReam...) * "The meek shall inherit the earth, *
*********************************** and the bank shall reposess it." *
* 100 % PURE Unabashed Opinion ***************** -- Sawyer Brown ***
*********************************** (from Cafe on the Corner)
J. & S. Harrison
Peggy Rogers wrote:
> Of course, I can only say this because I am not so much a true-believing
> Mormon as a kind of LDS Universalist. That's one of the reasons that I
> agree with Hedgehog so often. ;-)
Care to elaborate?
J. & S. Harrison
Raymond Bingham wrote:
> >Sorry I can't quote chapter and verse, but does not the Bible record Christ as saying
> >something to the effect of "either you are for me or against me"?
>
> I don't recall that scripture.
It goes both ways: 'Not for' implies 'against' and 'not against'
implies 'for.' Matt 12:30 and Luke 11:23 or Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50.
But then of course there is Rev. 3:16 which presents a less tolerant
view of middle ground.
Hmmm ...
Steph
Best Sellers
Hedgehog thought hard about this before writing:
-> Some LDS readers have speculated that God gave contradictory commandments
-> to Adam in the Garden of Eden. If this is true--if God does test and
-> challenge us with contradictory commandments--then is it possible that
-> many churches exist because we humans are trying to reconcile the
-> contradictory commands that we have been given? Perhaps Mormons excel at
-> obeying some commands, Protestants at others, Roman Catholics at a third
-> set, and so on.
I think we may be guilty of "misappropriation" of an English
word. The commandments Adam and Eve received in the Garden of
Eden were not "contradictory", they were mutually exclusive.
They could not obey either without disobeying the other.
The resason I feel they are not contradictory is their purpose:
To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
Without both the Fall and the Atonement, we, as God's spiritual,
but stymied, children, could not reach the full potential of our
existance.
It was only when Adam and Eve fell that we could have become
physical. It was only through the redemption of Jesus Christ
that we could become eternal. It was only through the
resurrection of Jesus Christ that we can become immortal.
I also find it curious that each of these events happened in a
Garden: The Fall in the Garden of Eden, the Atonement in the
Garden of Gethsemane and the resurrection in the Garden of the
Empty Tomb.
It is also interesting to note that the chronology is
symetrical, a physical Chiasmus if you will:
>From the antemortal Kingdom of God, Adam first moves to Eden.
>From Paradise, man goes into the forelorn world of the Telestial
kingdom. From the peace of Gesthsemane, Christ goes to
Golgotha. From the place of the skull, He goes to the
tranquility of the Tomb and thence to Paradise. Because of His
work, man goes from the sweaty world to Paradise and from the
Spirit World on to the Celestial Kingdom.
-> ...
Lehi
Jesus Christ commands us to render ONLY those things that are
Caesar's unto him, but those things that are God's unto Him.
Where do you send your children? See www.sepschool.org.
______
Those who educate are more to be honored than those who bear the
children. The latter give them only life; the former teach them the
art of living. (Carolyn Warner, former Superintendent of Public
Instruction in Arizona)
Each child belongs to the state. (William H. Seawell, professor of
education at the University of Virginia)
If the state monopolizes the philosophy of its citizens, it is
not significant that it does so in the classroom rather than
in the chapel.
(1996) Moi
Spencer Shellman
I remember reading an article in the Ensign once where the writer
postulated that other churches are an integral part of the Lord's plan
to bring the truth to his children. I cannot personally accept such a
statement as doctrine. When the Lord spoke to Joseph Smith, he didn't
tell him to join the Methodists or Presbyterians and get some truth
there until he could restore the true Church; he told Joseph not to join
any of the churches. The amount of gospel truth available through
uninspired, unauthorized religious leaders (especially those who rule
out continuing revelation) is insignificant compared to the great truths
that can come from a church led by the Lord's prophet.
I don't know exactly where this idea came from that the Lord must use
other churches to accomplish his purposes, but I suspect that it is
based on 1) a desire to get along better with other churches by
exaggerating their importance, and 2) the idea that the Lord cannot
inspire those who have no access to missionaries or a Church
organization, but can only enlighten them through their religious
traditions. I'm not trying to argue that all leaders of other churches
are evil, only that the Lord can get along fine without their help.
--
"If one hand claps and the angels dancing on the head of a pin don't
hear it,
does it make a sound?"
Spencer D. Shellman
H. Christian Jorgensen
On 1 Aug 1997 12:47:31 GMT, "J. & S. Harrison" <har...@ionet.net>
wrote:
An LDS Universalist is someone who is in the LDS church and who believes
that there are other religions that have some of the truths. These
other religions also contain people who have the ability to return to
Heavenly Father by other means than what the LDS subscribe to.
An LDS Universalist does not exclude the LDS church from mainstream
Christianity and does not limit their religious beliefs to just the LDS
POV....
An LDS Universalist will go so far as to accept truths about other
religions outside of Christianity.
I am an LDS Universalist by nature and believe that there are many
outside of the LDS church who are good, and will return to Jesus Christ
someday. I beleive that many are part of the 'Universal' body of Christ
(If we are Christian and have accepted JC), or are part of a larger
'Universal' body of good, governed by a higher authority (such as God or
Heavenly Father or whatever).
This is not LDS doctrine of course and can greatly limit your progress
towards personal salvation in the LDS church if you believe this way.
Many mainstream LDS believe that this POV is heretical and is an
aberration brought on by influence from the adversary.
However, many of the LDS spiritual roots have been adopted by other
religions either before or after JS came along. So there is indeed
some truths in other religions, just that the LDS feel that they have
corraled the whole truth.
Hope this helps. Please correct me if this is different than your views
Peggy.
God Bless You
Christian Jorgensen
---
ste...@hardy.math.okstate.edu
In article <5s3gp2$l...@q.seanet.com>,
Spencer Shellman <shel...@burgoyne.com> wrote:
>I don't know exactly where this idea came from that the Lord must use
>other churches to accomplish his purposes, but I suspect that it is
>based on 1) a desire to get along better with other churches by
>exaggerating their importance, and 2) the idea that the Lord cannot
>inspire those who have no access to missionaries or a Church
>organization, but can only enlighten them through their religious
>traditions.
I would be very easy to convince that there are people who have read
the Book of Mormon with the right preparation and correct attitude
yet who have not received a testimony of the truthfulness of the
gospel. I can easily picture these people as honest in heart, humble,
loving the Lord, and as dedicated to serving Him as anyone in the
LDS church. I can picture our Father asking for extra valiant spirits
in the preexistence to volunteer to go down to callings on earth where
they would have parts of the veil drawn more securely over their minds
and would not learn the truth of the gospel during this life because
they were especially needed outside the church. Why would they be
needed outside the church? To keep members from being complacent,
for there must be opposition in all things. The easy challenge is to
choose right from wrong. The hard part is to keep all the right things
to do firmly in mind and pay the correct amount of attention to each
one. We can't do all at once. Sometimes nonLDS help remind us about
other things we should be looking at. And, unfortunately, sometimes
we don't even try to do enough and nonLDS are there to shake us out
of our self-satisfaction.
The forces of apostasy are still alive. Without continuing revelation
we would be completely at their mercy, but even those who are accountable
to receive the revelation for the church are human and imperfect and
need to have their attention caught and directed to things they are
supposed to be inquiring about. Joseph Smith was that way. The
good, humble, intelligent people in other churches and the marvelous
focus that other churches can have on one or two important aspects of
the gospel can all serve to prompt leaders and members of our church to
pay greater attention to all aspects of God's plan for our salvation.
Peace,
Stephanie
--
David Bowie
Once upon a time, jorg...@super.zippo.com (H. Christian Jorgensen)
wrote:
<snip>
: I am an LDS Universalist by nature and believe that there are many
: outside of the LDS church who are good, and will return to Jesus Christ
: someday. I beleive that many are part of the 'Universal' body of Christ
: (If we are Christian and have accepted JC), or are part of a larger
: 'Universal' body of good, governed by a higher authority (such as God or
: Heavenly Father or whatever).
: This is not LDS doctrine of course and can greatly limit your progress
: towards personal salvation in the LDS church if you believe this way.
How could it limit one's "progress towards personal salvation in the LDS
church" to believe such?
<snip>
David, who's never thought so
--
Remove the -65741073508489149083041448985324639898339919646905062003482332947526752928116325051780375880615506405855114140257368175661800499526894860900372590735575458573060852850684717854355204400653761992201047813472657780030258424454357315592394689373114193506851843130330710016.000000rom my e-mail address to reply
David Bowie dbo...@mailas.upenn.edu
PhD student in Sociolinguistics http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbowie
And yes, that actually *is* my real name!
Scott Peterson
ste...@hardy.math.okstate.edu wrote in article
<5s5ilt$gbi$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>...
> In article <5s3gp2$l...@q.seanet.com>,
> Spencer Shellman <shel...@burgoyne.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I can picture our Father asking for extra valiant spirits
> in the preexistence to volunteer to go down to callings on earth where
> they would have parts of the veil drawn more securely over their minds
> and would not learn the truth of the gospel during this life because
> they were especially needed outside the church.
This sound vicious and cruel, not like the Father I am trying to know. To
me, the gospel is always before us (in the scriptures). We, as
individuals, stumble because we forget what is there, or worse, ignore it
in our everyday life.
There are very few examples in my life when a member of another church has
"kept me from being complacent". The scriptures often affect me in this
way, however, as I discover the nuggets of truth they contain.
Scott
Hedgehog
> An LDS Universalist is someone who is in the LDS church and who believes
> that there are other religions that have some of the truths.
[snip]
> This is not LDS doctrine of course and can greatly limit your progress
> towards personal salvation in the LDS church if you believe this way.
Does this mean that you could be denied a Temple recommend for being too
outspoken in your universalist view?
As I understand the LDS view of the Apostasy, the key issue is not so much
the loss of truth, but the loss of authority. Despite my criticisms of
the Articles of Faith, I think most Christian denominations would agree
with most of what was expressed in them.
I think there is a danger in religion that one's view of oneself can come
to be dominated by contrasts with others. A universalist tends to be as
interested in what is shared between religious traditions as what is
different.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Woody Brison
[Moderator's Note: Make sure follow-ups stay on topic]
In article <33EDFD...@theonramp.net>, jaz...@theonramp.net wrote:
> I'm new to this group. But I have to agree with Brian, women may not
> hold the priesthood, but they do hold the most important roll of all and
> that is raising our kids. Men help out in that roll but it's the women
> who do the nurturing.
Running the country and fighting wars and going out to lunch with
the guys has to be more important. That's why we macho guys
rarely volunteer to work in the nursery at church. Except that
strange fellow Mormon, he maintains that truly righteous men all
love little children. Kind of a wierd concept...
>...For some reason believing in distinct rolls for
> men and women is thought of as old fashion. If we look at todays society
> it seems that the breakdown in this belief of distinct rolls has been
> one of the major causes in the breakdown in our family and social
> structure.
In WW2, when we drove the Germans out of France, the Parisians
were very grateful. The American boys took advantage of that
gratitude and the fact that the Parisians were starving. Rolls
were traded for rolls, spelling /is important. It was a shocking
thing, American armed forces had never before exhibited that kind
of low behavior. It was a milestone in the progress of
civilization. I don't know what caused it.
After the war, guys like Hugh Hefner proceeded to destroy much of
the rest of American morals. From the resultant chaos arose the
women's lib movement -- the men no longer looked upon women as
cherished anchors of goodness, but as things to be used, so the
women felt the need for a change, although they had no idea what
was missing. That's my take on it anyway.
If morals were at a much higher level generally, there would be no
confusion as to the nature or even the desirability of different
roles for men and women. Just to know that one's ancestors always
did it that way would be enough. Today we have to sift through
the behavior of our ancestors and make value judgements on what
WAS done right.
The Twentieth Century was necessary to break up some of the old
calcified religious/political blocks to the Restored Gospel. But
it also created a lot of chaos too, maybe it's not so noticeable
coming on kind of gradual as it has. Look to great-grandparents
for models of male/female roles.
Wood
T&R Hudson
Spencer Shellman <shel...@burgoyne.com> wrote in article
<5s3gp2$l...@q.seanet.com>...
> [Snip] When the Lord spoke to Joseph Smith, he didn't
> tell him to join the Methodists or Presbyterians and get some truth
> there until he could restore the true Church; he told Joseph not to join
> any of the churches.
But JS had been attending their several meetings as often as occasion would
permit. He had, in fact, already got some truth there.
> The amount of gospel truth available through
> uninspired, unauthorized religious leaders (especially those who rule
> out continuing revelation) is insignificant compared to the great truths
> that can come from a church led by the Lord's prophet.
Could the restoration have occurred (that is, would there have been anyone
prepared to receive it, including Joseph Smith) without the work of other
churches? Would we even have a Bible without the Catholic or Orthodox
churches? Would the Bible be available to 19th Century farmboys, in their
own language, without the Protestant restoration?
> I don't know exactly where this idea came from that the Lord must use
> other churches to accomplish his purposes, but I suspect that it is
> based on 1) a desire to get along better with other churches by
> exaggerating their importance, and 2) the idea that the Lord cannot
> inspire those who have no access to missionaries or a Church
> organization, but can only enlighten them through their religious
> traditions. I'm not trying to argue that all leaders of other churches
> are evil, only that the Lord can get along fine without their help.
I am struck by Nephi's words in 2 Nephi 33:10 to those who are reluctant to
believe his testimony:
"hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in
these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will
[I think he's saying "in time ye will come to"] believe in these words, for
they are the words of Christ... "
And then there's Mormon, in Moroni 7:13:
"every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in
Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may
know with a perfect knowledge it is of God."
Do other churches invite to do good and lead people to believe in Christ?
If so, then they are "of God." Wouldn't God use them, then, to accomplish
his purposes?
And does a church necessarily have to be Christian to teach those
principles and values that prepare one's heart for Christ? Could Islam, for
instance, be a stepping stone for some?
I'm impressed by Alma's declaration (Alma 29:8) that "the Lord doth grant
unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea,
in wisdom, _all that he seeth fit that they should have..._"
If God doesn't have any use for other chuches, why did Joseph Smith go out
of his way to assist a Catholic priest in ministering to the Catholics in
Nauvoo? On one occasion, the priest (who's quoted in a church film about
Joseph Smith that is shown at Carthage prison) couldn't make it across the
river to his flock in Nauvoo because of a flood or problem with his boat,
and Joseph went and got him. He certainly treated the clergyman as if he
was in the service of the Lord. Why did Joseph say he would give his life
to defend the right of a Presbyterian, or a Catholic or a Methodist... to
be a Presbyterian, or a Catholic, or a Methodist? If God doesn't use them
to accomplish His purposes, would it be a cause worth Joseph's dying for?
And why did Joseph Smith say that when the Lord comes again and establishes
His millenial government, there will be members of other faiths among those
He places in authority? (Can anyone source that last statement for me?
I'd like the exact wording, and can't find it.)
Finally, Steph posted about the possibility of a valiant soul not receiving
a testimony of the restored Gospel because the Lord has another mission for
him/her. I'd just like to speculate about some possible historical
examples.
Alexander Donavon: risked much to defend the despised Mormons in court and
was a faithful "Gentile" friend when the people desperately needed him.
He saved Joseph Smith's life by disobeying his commanding officer's order
to execute him, calling it "cold-blooded murder" and vowing to launch a
legal head-hunt on the superior if he went ahead with the execution
himself. Could Alexander Donavon have served the Lord inside the Church as
well as he did outside? Is it just possible that his life's mission
precluded membership in the restored Church?
Thomas L. Kane: so great a friend to our people that they named Kanesville
(by Winter Quarters) after him. He was so profoundly impressed when he
overheard the secret prayer of an LDS pioneer that he sobbed and wept. (See
story at LDS Gems web site at
http://www.xmission.com/~dkenison/lds/ch_hist/ story # 297). He
mediated for the Saints during the Utah War and aided them countless other
times. Incidentally, Hedgehog take note, he was also a great friend of the
Quakers. Yet he never joined the church. Is it significant that George Q.
Cannon waited a mere 4 months after Kane's death before performing his
temple work in the St. George temple (see Church History in the Fulness of
Times, p. 353).
Abraham Lincoln: certainly new of the Saints. Must have met with LDS
representatives. Recommended they deal with the "Mormon problem" by
leaving the people alone. But wasn't receptive to the restored Gospel.
Yet his personal integrity is legendary. Was he not one of the Master's
sheep, or did the Master's voice call him somewhere else? Could he have
done all the good he was sent to do had he gained a testimony of the
restored Gospel?
C.S. Lewis: Even suggested that the purpose of life is to have joy. His
insights and teachings are so familiar to us, it's almost a wonder that he
wasn't one of us. Didn't he know about the Church? Well, one of his
books, I think _The Voyage of the Dawn Treader_ seems to indicate that he
did, when he refers to a British family who are teetotalers and wear funny
underwear. The reference isn't particularly complimentary, especially
considering the initial character of their son. So why didn't C.S. Lewis
catch the vision? Could it be that the Lord needed him instead to testify
of Christ to the countless millions in mainstream Christianity,
non-Christians, and even LDS who've profited from his books?
If the Lord used such men as the above to bring about his purposes, and I
believe He did, why wouldn't He use the churches they belonged to as well?
Peace,
Rebecca
Russell C. McGregor
Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote in article
<5sqn7u$lf9$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>...
> In article <5s5irg$geh$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jorg...@super.zippo.com
wrote:
>
> > An LDS Universalist is someone who is in the LDS church and who
believes
> > that there are other religions that have some of the truths.
>
> [snip]
>
> > This is not LDS doctrine of course and can greatly limit your progress
> > towards personal salvation in the LDS church if you believe this way.
>
> Does this mean that you could be denied a Temple recommend for being too
> outspoken in your universalist view?
No. The original poster is describing perfectly orthodox LDS doctrine. I
was taught that ALL other religions have some truth in them; all of them
also have some error mingled with that truth; and only one Church, namely
ours, has what we call "the fulness of the Gospel." I understand this to
mean the totality of saving doctrine and ordinances, and the authority to
administer the same. The idea that it "can greatly limit your progress
towards personal salvation in the LDS church if you believe this way" is an
unusual one, and quite outside of my experience.
Russell McGregor.
--
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a straw"
(Brigham Young)
Hedgehog
> When the Lord spoke to Joseph Smith, he didn't
> tell him to join the Methodists or Presbyterians and get some truth
> there until he could restore the true Church; he told Joseph not to join
> any of the churches.
What if I prayed to God about which college I should attend? What if God
replied "Don't go to any existing college. I will guide you to found a
college according to my own principles"? Does this really prove that no
other college has any truth at all?
> I don't know exactly where this idea came from that the Lord must use
> other churches to accomplish his purposes [snip]
So why was there a great apostasy in the first place? Did God screw up
somehow or does God somehow accomplish his plan via the apostasy?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
In article <5shqj4$2...@q.seanet.com>, "Scott Peterson"
<spet...@dbintellect.com> wrote:
> ste...@hardy.math.okstate.edu wrote in article
> > I can picture our Father asking for extra valiant spirits
> > in the preexistence to volunteer to go down to callings on earth where
> > they would have parts of the veil drawn more securely over their minds
> > and would not learn the truth of the gospel during this life because
> > they were especially needed outside the church.
> This sound vicious and cruel, not like the Father I am trying to know. To
> me, the gospel is always before us (in the scriptures).
Why is it vicious and cruel? Do you assert that such volunteers would not
be judged with allowances made for the extra thickness of the veil?
> There are very few examples in my life when a member of another church has
> "kept me from being complacent".
Is the importance of being jarred from one's complacency to be evaluated
solely on a quantitative basis?
Could the scarcity of examples of being jarred from complacency by members
of other religions actually be a sign of how we are too complacent?
Peace,
Hedgehog
SFlorman
In article <5sqn7u$lf9$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, hedg...@scripps.edu
(Hedgehog) writes:
>jorg...@super.zippo.com wrote:
>
>> An LDS Universalist is someone who is in the LDS church and who believes
>> that there are other religions that have some of the truths.
>
>[snip]
>
>> This is not LDS doctrine of course and can greatly limit your progress
>> towards personal salvation in the LDS church if you believe this way.
This is an unfair snip. The idea that other religions have some of the
truths is very, very "mainstream" LDS and not necessarily indicative that
someone is a "universalist." IIRC, the original poster went on to define
"LDS universalism" as believing that the LDS Church is not necessarily the
only way to get back to Heavenly Father, which is not LDS doctrine if terms
and context are properly defined.
Hedge distorts the original poster's intent by unfairly implying that
"believ[ing] that there are other religions that have some of the truths"
is "not LDS doctrine of course," which is incorrect and misleading. To
then go on and ask:
>Does this mean that you could be denied a Temple recommend for being too
>outspoken in your universalist view?
...is also misleading. Well, yes, depending on how you answer the
recommend interview questions. But you cannot be denied a recommend for
"believ[ing] that there are other religions that have some of the truths,"
since that is in fact LDS doctrine.
regards,
--steve
Steve Florman
sflo...@worldnet.att.net
SFlorman
In article <5sr3cb$snv$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jorg...@super.zippo.com (H.
Christian Jorgensen) writes:
>Doctrinally, a true 'universalist', will have difficulty accepting
>certain aspects about the LDS church, especially the doctrine stating
>that the LDS church is 'the only true church' here on earth". As a true
>'universalist', one believes that there are truths and goodness in all
>churches (not just Christianity).
This is orthodox enough.
> Obviously if a 'universalist'
>believes in other truths, then logically there must be other leaders
>who could potentially be 'prophets' of the Lord.
This is neither logical nor obvious. There is only one God, and only one
way back to him. That way back we call "the gospel." Other people may
believe certain things that are in harmony with what we believe (i.e., they
"have truths,") but disbelieve other things that we consider necessary to
knowing God. This is why members of other churches studying the LDS have
been counseled to bring with them all the good and true things they already
know, and accept more truth. This also implies that they may need to
discard some untruths which impede their relationship with God. In
doctrinal terms, one bad apple may well spoil the whole barrel, if that bad
apple is essential to one's salvation.
> Obviously if one
>accepts this POV, it is fairly clear on what should happen when the
>temple recommend questions are asked to this person. The true
>'universalist' will have extreme difficulty passing the interview, if
>they are truthful.
>
>So if I take a true 'universalist' stand, I am at risk of either failing
>the temple recommend interview or having my TR removed if I espouse my
>views in public.
Which is to say, that if you believe that members of other churches are
eligible for exaltation and eternal life in the celestial kingdom without
becoming LDS and receiving the ordinances, and you state that in the
interview, you would be denied a recommend. If you believe that members of
other churches have bits of the truth and grow closer to God thereby,
that's probably OK unless your interviewer misunderstands you.
If you believe the first part but state the second in order to "mollify"
your views, you should think long and hard.
> Sure I can mollify my views and convince myself that I am a true
> 'universalist'. The LDS church teaches doctrine that is clearly
> 'universalist', so I must be one. But the LDS church also teaches
> doctrine that is exclusionary. Within the umbrella of the only "true'
> church on earth, the other churches must fall in line. Other churches
> will not be able to return to their HF if they do not follow the LDS
> rules. This is not universalist. This is exclusionary.
This begs the question. What's wrong with being exclusionary? Well, when
men do it, that's one thing. When God does it, that's quite another, and
he has made himself clear on this issue. If God says, "You ain't comin'
back unless you're LDS," I don't think I want to be the one criticizing him
for being exclusionary.
One logical conclusion that could be drawn from the above is that being
"universalist" is easier than coming to grips with what the Lord really
requires of us, and that by calling him "exclusionary" we're really telling
him that he doesn't know how to run his universe. In reality, the Church
is not exclusionary - anyone is allowed in, as long as they are willing to
abide by the rules.
To say, "You're exclusionary because you won't let me do what I want and
still play in your yard" is at best petulant, and at worst, blasphemous.
regards,
--steve
sflorman@%worldnet.att.net
Jeremiah W. James
On 15 Aug 1997 15:33:18 GMT, hedg...@scripps.edu (Hedgehog) wrote:
[snip]
> So why was there a great apostasy in the first place? Did God screw up
> somehow or does God somehow accomplish his plan via the apostasy?
My take on it is that neither is the case, but that God accomplished his
plan *in spite of* the apostasy. The fault for the apostasy must be
laid at the feet of mankind, not of God.
--
Jerry James
Email: je...@cs.ucsb.edu
WWW: http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~jerry/
T&R Hudson
sflorman wrote:
> In article <5sr3cb$snv$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jorg...@super.zippo.com (H.
> Christian Jorgensen) writes:
>
> >Doctrinally, a true 'universalist', will have difficulty accepting
> >certain aspects about the LDS church, especially the doctrine stating
> >that the LDS church is 'the only true church' here on earth". As a true
> >'universalist', one believes that there are truths and goodness in all
> >churches (not just Christianity).
>
I'm not familiar w/ this doctrine. In D&C 1:30 the Lord calls the church
"the only true and living church..." not "the only true and the only
living." There is no claim to a monopoly on truth. (What does living
mean? I think it refers to current authority and continuing revelation).
> > Obviously if a 'universalist'
> >believes in other truths, then logically there must be other leaders
> >who could potentially be 'prophets' of the Lord.
What do you mean by "prophet?" If you mean someone with the gift to
prophesy, there's no conflict with "orthodox LDS doctrine." We accept the
scripture that the testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophesy.
And it seems a little illogical that the documented pre-restoration
prophecies of the restoration could occur during the apostasy, but the Lord
would stop talking to people of similar faith, etc., just because His
Church was now restored and they weren't members of it.
If, by prophet, you mean "authorized representatives of the Lord with the
keys to act in His name," then you've got a doctrinal difference. But if
you just mean that the Lord can inspire people outside of the Church, and
they can reveal the insights to others that He reveals to them, well, you
don't have an argument with Church doctrine.
> > Obviously if one
> >accepts this POV, it is fairly clear on what should happen when the
> >temple recommend questions are asked to this person. The true
> >'universalist' will have extreme difficulty passing the interview, if
> >they are truthful.
> >
> >So if I take a true 'universalist' stand, I am at risk of either failing
> >the temple recommend interview or having my TR removed if I espouse my
> >views in public.
Within your 'Universalist' perspective, are the ordinances of the temple
necessary for salvation? If you don't believe they are, why does it matter
whether you fail the interview?
> Which is to say, that if you believe that members of other churches are
> eligible for exaltation and eternal life in the celestial kingdom without
> becoming LDS and receiving the ordinances, and you state that in the
> interview, you would be denied a recommend.
Do we believe that everybody has to become "LDS" to be eligible for
exaltation? Do we know that the Lord's Church in the spirit world bears
the name "LDS"? Do the inhabitants of the spirit world still inhabit time?
Are they in the "latter-days"? Say, for instance, we were able to trace
our genealogy back to the days of Abraham. If we did temple work in behalf
of ancestors who lived then, would it follow that they had now become
members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I don't know.
I don't know that it matters. I do know that sooner or later, what is
required is to gain membership in the Church of the Firstborn, through
faith in Christ and the reception of His grace, which necessarily involves
the making and keeping of sacred covenants that are received by ordinance.
Anyone who receives eagerly the light the Lord gives them, will receive
more light, and if they continue in it, the necessity of those ordinances
will, in time or after, become clear to them. Is that "exclusionary?"
>
> > Sure I can mollify my views and convince myself that I am a true
> > 'universalist'. The LDS church teaches doctrine that is clearly
> > 'universalist', so I must be one. But the LDS church also teaches
> > doctrine that is exclusionary. Within the umbrella of the only "true'
> > church on earth, the other churches must fall in line. Other churches
> > will not be able to return to their HF if they do not follow the LDS
> > rules. This is not universalist. This is exclusionary.
By "rules" do you mean ordinances? If the Lord has opened the way that
those ordinances will be available to all, and that all who love and heed
Him will come to understand their necessity and His will that they receive
them, how exactly is the requirement to receive them "exclusionary?"
Christian, I would truly like to understand. I too am frustrated by
occasional manifestations of the same sort of arrogance displayed by those
during Jesus' ministry who boasted about being the children of Abraham (not
such a far cry from our own position, since being a child of Abraham meant
being heirs to the covenant). I think it's spiritually dangerous, not to
mention deeply insulting to faithful adherents of other religions who are
heeding the light they've received at least as well as we are. But I fail
to see how your earnest belief in the impartiality of the Lord can not be
squared with the true doctrine of His restored Church. Sure it doesn't fit
with a lot of philosophies dearly held (like that the most valiant are born
into the covenant). But those are philosophies, not doctrine, whether or
not you can find evidence of them in the non-doctrinal book _Mormon
Doctrine_.
My concern about the "Universalist" stance is that, in addition to throwing
its adherent into a self-perceived conflict with Church doctrine, it tends
to lead toward a depreciation of the First Presidency and Quorum of the
Twelve. It seems to seed uncertainty about whether they are actually in
touch with the Lord and being led directly by Him in a special way as His
special witnesses. That in turn leads to the assumption that anytime we
may disagree with them, it's because they're wrong. Not that I would claim
infallibility for them. But the nature of their calling is to stand on the
watchtower (no intended reference to JWs there) and to raise the warning
voice to us. They see things we do not, and it seems to me to be another
form of arrogance (and just as spiritually dangerous) to grant our own
understandings equal weight with theirs.
Peace,
Rebecca
J. & S. Harrison
Scott Peterson wrote:
> ste...@hardy.math.okstate.edu wrote...
> > I can picture our Father asking for extra valiant spirits
> > in the preexistence to volunteer to go down to callings on earth where
> > they would have parts of the veil drawn more securely over their minds
> > and would not learn the truth of the gospel during this life because
> > they were especially needed outside the church.
> This sound vicious and cruel, not like the Father I am trying to know. To
> individuals, stumble because we forget what is there, or worse, ignore it
> in our everyday life.
Well, I don't see how it would be vicious or cruel. I suggested
that those people were volunteers, so God would not have forced
them to wear blinders; they would have chosen it. Furthermore, this
choice would not (in my way of thinking) prevent these people from
ultimate exaltation.
I'm really big on the volunteer idea. It is how I comfort myself
when I think of some of the considerable tragedies in my life. I
volunteered for this assignment, in part to learn compasssion, in
part to be able to aid others with less strenght than I, and possibly
so that someone else wouldn't have had to go through the particular
set of trials that I had to face (through no apparent fault of my
own).
Why would volunteering to go to a life where one could not sense
the truth of the gospel be different from volunteering to go to a
life where the gospel would not be available? For instance, what
is the difference between volunteering to be Joseph Smith's
grandmother and volunteering to be ... ummm ... Hedgehog? ;-)
> There are very few examples in my life when a member of another church has
> "kept me from being complacent". The scriptures often affect me in this
> way, however, as I discover the nuggets of truth they contain.
Well, they have kept me in from being complacent in a big way. In
fact they have led me to study the scriptures. My patriarchal
blessing should have been enough to get me to study (it is bigtime
powerful) but it wasn't. And Sunday School definitely wasn't. I
know this isn't the pet peeve thread, but in my experience not much
scripture studying gets done in or for Sunday School. There are gems
of wisdom to be found there, but not many come directly from the
scriptures, and of those which do, not many come from the Bible.
And even if there was time to get into any passages deeply, hardly
anybody reads the assignment!!!!!!!!
It is almost as if we are afraid of the Bible, but as I have faced
the people who have said that I should indeed be afraid/concerned
because the Bible condemns me (and my "version" of Christ), I have
learned that I need not be afraid of anything but complacence.
Peace,
Stephanie