How do the Mormons do it?

[Miriam1947]

I and others have raised some very significant issues in this thread and the majority of them have been ignored in favor of non responsive answers or outright exclusion via ignoring. If this is an invitation to use language that offends–well, it won’t happen qua intentional offense here. But I wonder if the LDS is serious about major points of theology or if it has just given up? This is aimed at no-one in particular, not even those who defend what we would consider the untenable, but rather at that part of the soul each of us has that acknowledges the truth in Catholic doctrine. The Church has not survived for some 2 millennium by any other means than the holy spirit; why would anyone reject that full and complete and final revelation in favor of something else not proven or witnessed or rooted in even the faintest kind of *unbroken, documentable *tradition?

Mormonism cannot exist unless they humanize God and try to prove a non existent apostacy.

I always hear how wrong I am but, for Mormonism, God is just like us only better. He got it! He went to the highest exaltation.

For me that is what is always comes down to.

Mormons cannot get to the first cause.

 

[ParkerD]

I and others have raised some very significant issues in this thread and the majority of them have been ignored in favor of non responsive answers or outright exclusion via ignoring. If this is an invitation to use language that offends–well, it won’t happen qua intentional offense here. But I wonder if the LDS is serious about major points of theology or if it has just given up? …

Michael,

Maybe what you brought up had been brought up before in other threads recently enough that it didn’t seem necessary to be repetitive.

If you have one single, basic question that hasn’t been answered on this thread and that you feel has to do with the topic, then if it seems legitimate rather than more of a “blowing off steam” question or a rhetorical question, I as one who has attempted to respond will do that for your question if you care to ask it again.

All of mwok’s points had been discussed recently enough to not need the repetition again, plus there are other sources for answers to those issues.

We probably start from such a different point of view, also, about religion and God’s purposes with humankind, that it may be that when you felt an issue wasn’t being addressed in the way you thought it should, would be because of the greatly different perspective on the underlying issues.

 

[mwok]

Michael,

All of mwok’s points had been discussed recently enough to not need the repetition again, plus there are other sources for answers to those issues.

Well going by that course of action we can ignore most if not all questions non-Catholics have as they have already been addressed in ecumenical councils and/or encyclicals. Why not humor us with a brief response instead? If Mormonism is the truth there would be no discomfort or irritation at repeating the truth, maybe the same answer needs to be repeated. My point is I pointed out something that I have not seen addressed, but you say that his has been exhaustively discussed. If this is the case, give me a summary or direct me to these threads/posts discussing Humanae Vitae “prophesies” VS. Continuing Revelation.

 

[NewSeeker]

Mormonism cannot exist unless they humanize God and try to prove a non existent apostacy.

I always hear how wrong I am but, for Mormonism, God is just like us only better. He got it! He went to the highest exaltation.

For me that is what is always comes down to.

Mormons cannot get to the first cause.

Exactly! The Mormon god is coeternal with matter and made of matter. He is not transcendent; he is not outside space and time. He lives within and is part of the material cosmos. There is no first cause within Mormon thought.

 

[Michael19682]

Michael,

Maybe what you brought up had been brought up before in other threads recently enough that it didn’t seem necessary to be repetitive.

If you have one single, basic question that hasn’t been answered on this thread and that you feel has to do with the topic, then if it seems legitimate rather than more of a “blowing off steam” question or a rhetorical question, I as one who has attempted to respond will do that for your question if you care to ask it again.

All of mwok’s points had been discussed recently enough to not need the repetition again, plus there are other sources for answers to those issues.

We probably start from such a different point of view, also, about religion and God’s purposes with humankind, that it may be that when you felt an issue wasn’t being addressed in the way you thought it should, would be because of the greatly different perspective on the underlying issues.

Parker,

The first non-proper noun word of your response is “maybe.” For me this sets a tone of uncertainty. Do you know for certain whether my issues were raised previously? If they were, then I would, also ‘certainly’, accept a pointer to the referenced previous discussion. It is not your job to do my research, of course, but your critique of my post with that notion invites just such a counter reply as here.

I’m not sure what you mean by “blowing off steam” or questions for “rhetoric”–but I would draw other Catholics attention to the simple notion of psychological projection. In other words, perhaps you, who know the meaning of the quoted apparent figures of speech, should further define them for us. Thinking about them humorously here, for example: I am not a whale or a steam engine. Perhaps one of the purposes you hold for God with man is humor: I can only guess your mindset from these figures. Jesus did smile, presumably, as he was fully human. But for me at least, the overriding tone of the gospels is not humorous.

Also, I never said that an issue wasn’t being addressed ‘in the way’ that I ‘thought it should’; I said, the answers were non responsive or that there was ignoring and exclusion. For me, it appeared that the questions answered were culled specifically for their ability to produce answers that LDS could articulate.

You appear in the quoted reply to be amenable to one question. I can not limit myself to one question necessarily–because their are many issues our respective churches hold in difference. However, perhaps you would be willing to open yourself to a brief discussion of the historical context of Mormonism in early 1800 united states history. Best for me would be if you referenced the Book of Mormon as evidence of your discussion points. I make this request in those terms because we have ample evidence now for our Bible and its contexts enriched by archaeological finds and very ancient, extant texts. It would seem only reasonable if the LDS could furnish evidence of a similar high, scientific standard–that is, if they wish to seriously enter a debate on social, political, and historical terms.

The topic of the thread is: How do the Mormons do it? I think my request is in line with the thread topic. Incidentally, and irrespective of what your figures of speech mean, I am usually to the point and in general do not post replies that are not literal: if you care also to point out such an instance of “blowing off steam” or “rhetoric” and enter it into the public discussion, please do.

 

[truthsave]

How do the Mormons do it?

OK then I will tell you mine.

They think the truth is a sbjective feeling. If they experience a mooving feeling is the Holy Ghost. They testimony is an obessive repeting I know that is true. But do you know why you know that is true? Since you feel it?
Feeling is their main tool of selection. A good feeling comes from God a bad comes from the devil. So family is from God. They know the Lord project. There is no mistery for them. For you that are not a mormon it is difficult to understand. The philosophy they have is toward the justification of their choice not the search of truth. This is extremely important. If the truth is contrary to their believes it means is not the truth. It is as simple as that.
If they reed 10 passages and have 40 scientific research not validating their believs and one affirmation that could be interpretated on their advantage what do you think they consider?

They are not truth seeker. They are confort seeker, well being emotional seeker.
For them is not take your cross and follow me, but take your conforts and follow me with.

For Christians Jeusus is the way. For Mormon Joseph Smith is the way to Jesus.
This must be clear for non mormon.

For them Christ affirmation, found in the four evangiles if you want to find your life you will loose it if you want to loose it in my name you will find it, is a total aberration. They don’t want to loose their life, they want their life to continue the way it is on eart on the other kindoms.

They think they are Christians, they would like to be recognized as Christian buy Christians and they cannot understand why since they held all the keys. I am orthodox and of course I consider Christian the Catholic, the Anglicans and so on. Yes we have differences but we are Christians.

They say they are Christian since they use the same names for completely different beings.
Who they call Christ is not our Christ, He doesn’t have the same mission.
The Father is called the Father but is not our Father.
They think if they use the same name to identify different beings these different beings are the same.

Sorry for you Mormons, you are good human being, but not Christians and you will never being considered Christians by Christians despite your best effort.
So just keep in mind you know that is true you are the closest follower of Jesus Christ since you know that is true, this will save your confortable lives.
Why you want to be recognized by "faulse - apostates "Christians that you are Christians? How can an apostate as a Catholic or Orthodox like me fell you have the truth? We are apostates. Yes I know you will be happy to convert us but sorry I think we like to take the risk of been completely fooled by Jeusus Christ “wrong translations” and by Catholic or Orthodox saints then being fooled by Joseph Smith “revelations”.

For my personal point of view you have been fooled and keep on being fooled by a despered need of being daddy “good boys”.

 

[ParkerD]

Banarick,

I don’t mind the articles about DNA at all. There is ample support that there were other migrations to the Americas than one single migration and a spreading out from the North to the South.

The Book of Mormon itself speaks of many migrations to the New World, and reiterates the Old Testament prophecies that the Jews would be scattered throughout the world–not just the Old World, since God of course knew that there was a larger world than the Old World the people there were familiar with.

One who reads the Bible, needs to decide if for them it is some kind of allegory with an allegorical or fictional timetable for its events, or if it has literal meaning. For me, I believe it has literal meaning for Adam and Eve being the first flesh on the earth, and that occurred just before 4,000 BC. But for those who don’t accept that kind of timetable (not saying the creation was in six days, but after the fall of Adam and Eve the mortal timetable begins), then anything goes, I suppose.

The migration across the Bering straight could have included remnants of the house of Israel at some point, since they had a scattering that included going to the north countries including to the mountains and through the mountain passes. So for anyone to say that the predominant lineage in the New World for native Americans was closer to the peoples of the mountains of northern Asia than to Middle Easterners, is not a problem for the Book of Mormon, at all.

The words “principal ancestors”, by the way, were not in the Book of Mormon itself, and contained a belief that some had but not the teaching of the Book of Mormon itself on the subject of migrations to the New World.

Michael19682,

I’ll begin answering your post by re-posting this comment from this thread, since it bears on the topic you brought up.

When I used the word “maybe”, it was because I hadn’t read all your posts plus the ones I did read didn’t seem to have what seemed to be a clear question that had to do with the topic.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

… Best for me would be if you referenced the Book of Mormon as evidence of your discussion points. I make this request in those terms because we have ample evidence now for our Bible and its contexts enriched by archaeological finds and very ancient, extant texts. It would seem only reasonable if the LDS could furnish evidence of a similar high, scientific standard–that is, if they wish to seriously enter a debate on social, political, and historical terms.

The topic of the thread is: How do the Mormons do it? I think my request is in line with the thread topic…

Michael,

If one looks at religion during the course of history, as both a history of “God’s dealings with humankind” and as a compendium of “what God wants humankind to know in order to grow in spirituality, love and compassion, and inner peace and happiness”,–

then there is both an outward history in the Bible and an enclosed history that doesn’t deal with all that was going on in the entire world during the course of the events that were being described. It only has a smattering of what one could call “outward history” events–what I mean is events that pertained to other people besides the “house of Israel” and those particular people writing the history and compiling the records that we now have as the Bible.

If God wanted to “prove” to the world that the Book of Mormon is true, then He certainly “could have” and “should have” allowed archaeological evidence to be very clear and easily found. Then people would have “proof” and they would feel somewhat obligated to spend time reading the Book of Mormon (though there are a lot of people who don’t seem to feel very obligated to read the Bible, even though it has archaeological support).

Since I look at the Book of Mormon as providing support in “what God wants humankind to know in order to grow in spirituality, love and compassion, and inner peace and happiness”, and since growing in those qualities is, if one reads the epistles of Paul, not only not helped by outward “proofs” but is actually hindered by outward “proofs” which encompass the “wisdom of men” or “enticing words of man’s wisdom”,–

then I would not expect there to be archaeological evidence that “proves” it to be true.

I would expect that God would have had a hand in the history of the weather and “hiding” processes" such that the archaeology would make it very difficult if not impossible to “prove” the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon through that means.

 

[NewSeeker]

Michael,

If one looks at religion during the course of history, as both a history of “God’s dealings with humankind” and as a compendium of “what God wants humankind to know in order to grow in spirituality, love and compassion, and inner peace and happiness”,–

then there is both an outward history in the Bible and an enclosed history that doesn’t deal with all that was going on in the entire world during the course of the events that were being described. It only has a smattering of what one could call “outward history” events–what I mean is events that pertained to other people besides the “house of Israel” and those particular people writing the history and compiling the records that we now have as the Bible.

If God wanted to “prove” to the world that the Book of Mormon is true, then He certainly “could have” and “should have” allowed archaeological evidence to be very clear and easily found. Then people would have “proof” and they would feel somewhat obligated to spend time reading the Book of Mormon (though there are a lot of people who don’t seem to feel very obligated to read the Bible, even though it has archaeological support).

Since I look at the Book of Mormon as providing support in “what God wants humankind to know in order to grow in spirituality, love and compassion, and inner peace and happiness”, and since growing in those qualities is, if one reads the epistles of Paul, not only not helped by outward “proofs” but is actually hindered by outward “proofs” which encompass the “wisdom of men” or “enticing words of man’s wisdom”,–

then I would not expect there to be archaeological evidence that “proves” it to be true.

I would expect that God would have had a hand in the history of the weather and “hiding” processes" such that the archaeology would make it very difficult if not impossible to “prove” the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon through that means.

You’ve made the same argument numerous times on various threads. You argue that God provides other means - spiritual means - for discovering the truthfulness of the BoM. We’re back to Moroni’s Promise. So, what do you think?

1. Do you believe someone can pray sincerely, with real intent, and with faith in Christ for a testimony and consistenly get “No, the BoM is not true” as an answer (i.e., they NEVER get a “Yes”, no matter how long or how sincerely and faithfully they pray)?
2. Do you believe someone can pray sincerely, with real intent, and with faith in Christ for a testimony and get absolutely no answer at all, ever?
3. Do you believe that someone who consistently gets a “No” or no answer at all, ever, has, ipso facto, done something wrong (e.g. they weren’t sincere, did not pray with real intent, lacked faith, was not listening when the Spirit whispered, weren’t willing to ‘do what it takes’ to manifest a true desire to know, didn’t correctly understand the process for obtaining an answer, etc.)?

A simple yes or no to each question should suffice, but if you wish to elaborate on your answers, feel free - especially if you would answer ‘maybe’ to any of them. But I would appreciate knowing whether you would answer yes or no to each question. Thanks.

 

[ParkerD]

Well going by that course of action we can ignore most if not all questions non-Catholics have as they have already been addressed in ecumenical councils and/or encyclicals. Why not humor us with a brief response instead? If Mormonism is the truth there would be no discomfort or irritation at repeating the truth, maybe the same answer needs to be repeated. My point is I pointed out something that I have not seen addressed, but you say that his has been exhaustively discussed. If this is the case, give me a summary or direct me to these threads/posts discussing Humanae Vitae “prophesies” VS. Continuing Revelation.

mwok,

I didn’t have time earlier, nor do I now–some of these areas become an endless conversation.

But I’ll respond briefly when I have the time, tonight or tomorrow or Saturday.

 

[Pipukwes]

In reading this thread, there is one thing I have always wondered. If as the Mormons believe, that Jesus came to the Americas, why is there not one account or history of it among any of the 500+ Indian Nations in the US alone?

 

[Michael19682]

Michael,

If one looks at religion during the course of history, as both a history of “God’s dealings with humankind” and as a compendium of “what God wants humankind to know in order to grow in spirituality, love and compassion, and inner peace and happiness”,–

then there is both an outward history in the Bible and an enclosed history that doesn’t deal with all that was going on in the entire world during the course of the events that were being described. It only has a smattering of what one could call “outward history” events–what I mean is events that pertained to other people besides the “house of Israel” and those particular people writing the history and compiling the records that we now have as the Bible.

If God wanted to “prove” to the world that the Book of Mormon is true, then He certainly “could have” and “should have” allowed archaeological evidence to be very clear and easily found. Then people would have “proof” and they would feel somewhat obligated to spend time reading the Book of Mormon (though there are a lot of people who don’t seem to feel very obligated to read the Bible, even though it has archaeological support).

Since I look at the Book of Mormon as providing support in “what God wants humankind to know in order to grow in spirituality, love and compassion, and inner peace and happiness”, and since growing in those qualities is, if one reads the epistles of Paul, not only not helped by outward “proofs” but is actually hindered by outward “proofs” which encompass the “wisdom of men” or “enticing words of man’s wisdom”,–

then I would not expect there to be archaeological evidence that “proves” it to be true.

I would expect that God would have had a hand in the history of the weather and “hiding” processes" such that the archeology would make it very difficult if not impossible to “prove” the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon through that means.

If I understand what you say in essence, then it doesn’t matter whether the LDS is following a true book, but only one that guides them well enough to grow, as you say in those qualities that lead to a better human society. If that’s the substance of your comment, why discuss further? Without dark humor intended–I could write a book with likely the same effect, albeit to a infinitely lesser degree than the Bible; but from where would I get my wisdom and truth? Without rootedness in God, literally and figuratively, without coming from God himself, such books come and go. The Bible tells us that all good things come from God. So be it. It’s irrefutable.

The proof I asked for was not to prove anything to God himself, who knows all things. I was asking as a mere person who wants proof as I have come to be accustomed to it. Are you are essentially telling me that my standards of proof make no sense in the LDS contexts? Yet my, modern, Catholic standards have shown great good, therefore they come from God. How can you claim they are no longer valid if they come from God?

You raise other points, make other assertions in your response that I could comment on, but I will defer that work until you have a chance in a day or two to respond again.

Peace.

 

[Stephen168]

Since I look at the Book of Mormon as providing support in “what God wants humankind to know in order to grow in spirituality, love and compassion, and inner peace and happiness”, and since growing in those qualities is, if one reads the epistles of Paul, not only not helped by outward “proofs” but is actually hindered by outward “proofs” which encompass the “wisdom of men” or “enticing words of man’s wisdom”,–

then I would not expect there to be archaeological evidence that “proves” it to be true.

You just said something similar to what Thomas W. Murphy said about the Book of Mormon. Science has shown the Book of Mormon to be a work from 19th century America, not ancient America. It is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, but is inspirational fiction.

Murphy is also an example of how much “free will” Mormons are allowed in the their beliefs.

 

[ParkerD]

In reading this thread, there is one thing I have always wondered. If as the Mormons believe, that Jesus came to the Americas, why is there not one account or history of it among any of the 500+ Indian Nations in the US alone?

Pipukwes,

If I have understood the accounts of oral histories I have heard about, then even though the name “Jesus” wasn’t used, there are accounts of a visitor among several of the ancient tribes who taught the people. But that can be explained away, and often is.

 

[ParkerD]

Ok then, lets test the spirit!

Humanae Vitae(HV) VS. Continuing Revelation(CR)

CR:
Emma compains of smoking and drinking in her house-Word of Wisdom

Illustrating the principle that one who desires knowledge from God, needs to ask for it, even if it’s a subject that might have been brought up to ask about by someone else–such as Emma asking Joseph if there wasn’t a higher standard of behavior and health than what she was seeing.

Joseph prophesies that the New Jerusalem will be built in Missouri within his own generation-Failed

The commandment Joseph Smith received was to begin building the temple, which happened, and to finish building the temple during that generation, which happened. It was a great blessing to the Latter-day Saints before their having to flee to Utah from Nauvoo, IL. The temple building process was to “begin” “at this place”. It did.

US Government puts pressure on Mormons to stop polygamy- Polygamy no longer practiced

Yes, and plural marriage had been given to the Latter-day Saints as a test of faith (for which some fell away) and was removed from being practiced by force of the United States government after tremendous resistance had been exerted by peaceful means. The timing was right for the change to no longer practice plural marriage, and then began a different test of faith. Some fell away because of the change.

Pressure to ordain African Americans to the priesthood- New revelation stating blacks can now hold the priesthood

That change was many, many years in the making within the leading counsels of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, waiting patiently and praying for the revelation that the time was right for the change. There was never a question that such a change would occur, and it was not a surprise to most strong members of the LDS church–it was welcomed and rejoiced over.

HV:
Declared in 1968 when most of Pope Paul VI’s advisors said the Church should change its teachings on contraceptives in marriage

Infidelity and moral decline- I think most of us can agree that this statement is true, just watch tv or look through a magazine.

Lost respect for women- again just watch tv or look through a magazine. Also, men using women as a means to an end.

Abuse of power- Forced sterilization in 3rd world countries and the “One Child” policy in China

Unlimited Dominion- Some are so convinced that they have complete control over their bodies that the sterilize themselves, have abortions, change genders, etc,etc,etc.

---

And this was just ONE encyclical by ONE Pope.
The evils of contraception were true then and they are true now, why?
Because Peter led by the Holy Spirit said so!

That’s fine as far as I’m concerned for that belief and standard of behavior.

For Latter-day Saints, there are some decisions that are considered having moved into what I would call a more “direct-line communication” process of asking God for personal revelation as a couple if there was a question about the timing of having children and yet being supportive of each other as a couple. So although couples are encouraged to have children and not limit family size, such a decision is left to the couple ultimately, with the encouraged teaching that the couple should be prayerful and be inspired about the decision they are making (not speaking of “the pill” or of ending a pregnancy, but of the other matter).

–Illustrating that there is a real belief in personal revelation between a couple and God, through sincere prayer with asking questions of Him about such an important matter, of which He certainly has a hand in and desires to make His will known.

 

[ParkerD]

You’ve made the same argument numerous times on various threads. You argue that God provides other means - spiritual means - for discovering the truthfulness of the BoM. We’re back to Moroni’s Promise. So, what do you think?

1. Do you believe someone can pray sincerely, with real intent, and with faith in Christ for a testimony and consistenly get “No, the BoM is not true” as an answer (i.e., they NEVER get a “Yes”, no matter how long or how sincerely and faithfully they pray)?
2. Do you believe someone can pray sincerely, with real intent, and with faith in Christ for a testimony and get absolutely no answer at all, ever?
3. Do you believe that someone who consistently gets a “No” or no answer at all, ever, has, ipso facto, done something wrong (e.g. they weren’t sincere, did not pray with real intent, lacked faith, was not listening when the Spirit whispered, weren’t willing to ‘do what it takes’ to manifest a true desire to know, didn’t correctly understand the process for obtaining an answer, etc.)?

A simple yes or no to each question should suffice, but if you wish to elaborate on your answers, feel free - especially if you would answer ‘maybe’ to any of them. But I would appreciate knowing whether you would answer yes or no to each question. Thanks.

NewSeeker,

(1) Verse 3 says, “that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.”

That would mean a person has a real feeling in their heart about God’s mercy, and the feeling of gratitude and love and an enlarging of the scope of their view of God’s mercy “unto the children of men” in many parts of the world, including having a desire for God’s mercy to extend to the ancient peoples of the Americas (who really did exist, even if they weren’t “Lamanites”–they were real people who are known to have existed).

So with that foundation, then the person is asked to “ponder it in your heart”. That could take years, perhaps a lifetime–I don’t see a timetable in that verse. The next verse talks about “receive these things”, which is like looking at a gift and saying, “OK–I accept this gift” and then doing the kind of asking it describes but doing it patiently.

(2) I would say that the answer goes back to item one, and that it could be a lifetime of pondering and increasingly seeing God’s mercy extended so that the person “remembers”.

(3) Again, I think it sounds like a timetable was being placed into the process, and that God is totally in charge of His timing. One of life’s biggest lessons is patience, for every human being ever born who lives to adulthood. We see that in every life.

 

[ParkerD]

If I understand what you say in essence, then it doesn’t matter whether the LDS is following a true book, but only one that guides them well enough to grow, as you say in those qualities that lead to a better human society. If that’s the substance of your comment, why discuss further? Without dark humor intended–I could write a book with likely the same effect, albeit to a infinitely lesser degree than the Bible; but from where would I get my wisdom and truth? Without rootedness in God, literally and figuratively, without coming from God himself, such books come and go. The Bible tells us that all good things come from God. So be it. It’s irrefutable.

The proof I asked for was not to prove anything to God himself, who knows all things. I was asking as a mere person who wants proof as I have come to be accustomed to it. Are you are essentially telling me that my standards of proof make no sense in the LDS contexts? Yet my, modern, Catholic standards have shown great good, therefore they come from God. How can you claim they are no longer valid if they come from God?

You raise other points, make other assertions in your response that I could comment on, but I will defer that work until you have a chance in a day or two to respond again.

Peace.

Michael,

“Why discuss further?” may indeed be the right choice about this kind of question.

I don’t think God limits the truths He is willing to communicate to humankind, to the Bible. I think if a person thinks that, then when they get to the hereafter they might as well not expect anything more than a Bible to read and think, “OK–here’s my Bible for eternity for all the knowledge I ever want to have”.

Your standards work for the truths you desire, it’s true.

If you read the New Testament, you don’t find a closed door about knowledge from God–you find an open door.

 

[Stephen168]

(1) Verse 3 says, “that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.”

That would mean a person has a real feeling in their heart about God’s mercy, and the feeling of gratitude and love and an enlarging of the scope of their view of God’s mercy “unto the children of men” in many parts of the world, including having a desire for God’s mercy to extend to the ancient peoples of the Americas (who really did exist, even if they weren’t “Lamanites”–they were real people who are known to have existed).

So with that foundation, then the person is asked to “ponder it in your heart”. That could take years, perhaps a lifetime–I don’t see a timetable in that verse. The next verse talks about “receive these things”, which is like looking at a gift and saying, “OK–I accept this gift” and then doing the kind of asking it describes but doing it patiently.

(2) I would say that the answer goes back to item one, and that it could be a lifetime of pondering and increasingly seeing God’s mercy extended so that the person “remembers”.

(3) Again, I think it sounds like a timetable was being placed into the process, and that God is totally in charge of His timing. One of life’s biggest lessons is patience, for every human being ever born who lives to adulthood. We see that in every life.

Translation; No. It is Joseph Smith’s false dilemma.

 

[mwok]

Illustrating the principle that one who desires knowledge from God, needs to ask for it, even if it’s a subject that might have been brought up to ask about by someone else–such as Emma asking Joseph if there wasn’t a higher standard of behavior and health than what she was seeing.

The commandment Joseph Smith received was to begin building the temple, which happened, and to finish building the temple during that generation, which happened. It was a great blessing to the Latter-day Saints before their having to flee to Utah from Nauvoo, IL. The temple building process was to “begin” “at this place”. It did.

Yes, and plural marriage had been given to the Latter-day Saints as a test of faith (for which some fell away) and was removed from being practiced by force of the United States government after tremendous resistance had been exerted by peaceful means. The timing was right for the change to no longer practice plural marriage, and then began a different test of faith. Some fell away because of the change.

That change was many, many years in the making within the leading counsels of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, waiting patiently and praying for the revelation that the time was right for the change. There was never a question that such a change would occur, and it was not a surprise to most strong members of the LDS church–it was welcomed and rejoiced over.

That’s fine as far as I’m concerned for that belief and standard of behavior.

For Latter-day Saints, there are some decisions that are considered having moved into what I would call a more “direct-line communication” process of asking God for personal revelation as a couple if there was a question about the timing of having children and yet being supportive of each other as a couple. So although couples are encouraged to have children and not limit family size, such a decision is left to the couple ultimately, with the encouraged teaching that the couple should be prayerful and be inspired about the decision they are making (not speaking of “the pill” or of ending a pregnancy, but of the other matter).

–Illustrating that there is a real belief in personal revelation between a couple and God, through sincere prayer with asking questions of Him about such an important matter, of which He certainly has a hand in and desires to make His will known.

So what you are saying is that if you pray to God and get the OK it is fine for one couple to contracept but not fine for another who did not get the OK?

 

[ParkerD]

So what you are saying is that if you pray to God and get the OK it is fine for one couple to contracept but not fine for another who did not get the OK?

mwok,

If we are talking about the normal contraceptive, and if the couple have sincerely prayed about it and are in agreement with each other, then yes, an answer for one couple could be OK for a limited time, and for another “you shouldn’t postpone this blessing in your lives.”