SatanWasSetUp wrote:I disagree. The prophet could remove all those things from the church and it would still be "true," even the one and only true church in all the land. You underestimate the authority the prophet has. The only real doctrines in the church are what the current prophet says. And for those few TBMs who are troubled by the changes, the apologists step in with their creative and mind bending excuses.
If those things change, I will not only leave the church, I will actively preach against it.
But I have no doubt that those things will not change.
But where do you draw the line and consider it changed enough for you to leave the church?
If the atonement is thrown out, then the church isn't true. If there is no priesthood authority exclusively held by the church, then it isn't true. If we no longer have temple sealings, endowments, and baptisms for the dead, then the church isn't true. If the resurrected Jesus didn't visit the Americas, then the church isn't true.
The early church's leaders views of god and the godhood changed. the temple ceremony changed. garments have changed. who can hold the priesthood has changed. scripture has changed. polygamy has changed.
Adding more light an knowledge is one thing. Discarding fundamental doctrine is another thing entirely. If the atonement does not remain at the core of our doctrine, then I would know for a fact that the church had apostatized. But I also know that this will not happen.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
I agree that someday women will hold the Preisthood or some form of it. What that will be, who knows. When will that be, it may not be in this existance. I see it just like the single sisters who have not had a chance to marry, in this life. The opportunity will be there in the next life for them. This may be the case with the Preisthood. But I don't know and no one on earth knows either.
PS - Was that realy Boyd K. Packer or some poser. If so - how cool is that?
I don't say my golf game is bad, but if I grew tomatoes they'd come up sliced! - Anonymous
Canuck Mormon wrote:I agree that someday women will hold the Preisthood or some form of it. What that will be, who knows. When will that be, it may not be in this existance. I see it just like the single sisters who have not had a chance to marry, in this life. The opportunity will be there in the next life for them. This may be the case with the Preisthood. But I don't know and no one on earth knows either.
PS - Was that realy Boyd K. Packer or some poser. If so - how cool is that?
Yes, my son. It is I. The spirit moved me to come to this board and bless that participants with counsel from the Lord's anointed.
SatanWasSetUp wrote:If those things change, I will not only leave the church, I will actively preach against it.
But I have no doubt that those things will not change.
Now you know how some of those felt who objected to the abolition of polygamy, including some among the 12. They didn't go as far as you propose to, however.
Remember, polygamy was once held as a "core" doctrine of the LDS Church.
If that could go (and being removed from it, we cannot see how central polygamy was to 19th century Mormon doctrine), it is entirely conceivable that the ban on women holding priesthood could go, particularly in face of overwhelming public condemnation.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
My great aunt is a Prophetess... whatever that means and/or entails.
In regards to the OP, I think the response would be a McConkie type thing… "limited light… forget things we said… family reunions on the Sabbath are bad… etc."
I have been wondering lately though why men need the priesthood to enter the temple, but women don't...
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
guy sajer wrote:Now you know how some of those felt who objected to the abolition of polygamy, including some among the 12. They didn't go as far as you propose to, however.
Remember, polygamy was once held as a "core" doctrine of the LDS Church.
If that could go (and being removed from it, we cannot see how central polygamy was to 19th century Mormon doctrine), it is entirely conceivable that the ban on women holding priesthood could go, particularly in face of overwhelming public condemnation.
Indeed I see the ban on women and the priesthood to be similar to polygamy. I think many would struggle with it, but I do not think it is as core as the atonement, baptism, priesthood, and the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.
But since I know that will never happen, I'm not worried. Maybe garments change or women get the priesthood, or maybe the Word of Wisdom changes or something like that. To me that would not matter.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Now you know how some of those felt who objected to the abolition of polygamy, including some among the 12. They didn't go as far as you propose to, however.
Remember, polygamy was once held as a "core" doctrine of the LDS Church.
If that could go (and being removed from it, we cannot see how central polygamy was to 19th century Mormon doctrine), it is entirely conceivable that the ban on women holding priesthood could go, particularly in face of overwhelming public condemnation.
And, going back in time a bit farther...
The doctrine of monogamy was taught, preached, embraced and IN THE SCRIPTURES prior to its removal and alteration.
My understanding is that change to polygamy was pretty tough for some members at the time. They believe as DOCTRINE, practice, and eternal principle monogamy then all of a sudden... NOPE! We are taking that our of scripture and now polygamy is the rule of the day.
I just don't see how there is anything in the LDS church that can't be changed in a wink of the eye.
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
truth dancer wrote:I just don't see how there is anything in the LDS church that can't be changed in a wink of the eye.
I can't see how the church could possibly discard the atonement and consider itself to be the same. It'd be like dehydrated water, or a triangle that doesn't have precisely 3 sides.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Canuck Mormon wrote:PS - Was that realy Boyd K. Packer or some poser. If so - how cool is that?
It's a poser, I think it's kinda sick, and I also think it's yet another reason more TBMs don't come here.
But many posters here question whether it is the real BKP or not. Therefore, he must not be posting anything too outrageous, otherwise it would be obvious he's a poser. Since he's dishing out counsel that is consistent with the real BKP, what's the big deal? It would be offensive if he came on here cussing and talking about sex acts, but he's not. He's saying things the real BKP would say. All the fake GAs here aren't very offensive. They're like SNL parodies, harmless and not too slanderous.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks