Joseph Smith Teaches that Jesus Christ is the Rock Upon Which Youth and Adults Must Build Their Foundation

[pinay]

To all -

I only scanned most of the posts, so this might have been mentioned already.

The “King Follet’s Discourse” is not LDS doctrine. It was a discourse given by Joseph Smith at a funeral. He was speaking as a friend of the deceased and not as a prophet of God. This discourse, as well as several others documented in the Journal of Discourses, were not added to LDS doctrine because the church could not ascertain if the prophet was speaking as the mouthpiece of God or was giving speculation. Joseph Smith did not clarify this before his death and succeeding prophets did not consider these discourses doctrine.

But, even while speculating, it is fair to say that whatever Joseph Smith speculated would have had the advantage of being based on certain revelation already given.

So, if I think through the speculation and speculate myself… having plural gods in the universe doesn’t contradict with our God. So what if Bob over yonder is a god… he is not My God and he is not somebody I have to follow. His existence doesn’t have any bearing on my universe. As far as our salvation is concerned - we have our Heavenly Father, His Son, the Holy Ghost, and that’s it.

But then, it’s not doctrine - so why bother with it…

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hello Rebecca,

I’m not sure what you mean by this. If my understanding is correct, you are trying to say that the Mormon idea of morality is only for what’s practical here and now?

That is actually quite the opposite. Everything the LDS teaches is in light of the eternities.

Let’s take a very simple example - LDS scripture commonly referred to as the “Word of Wisdom” advices members to abstain from coffee. This is not for the here and now alone. This is in light of the effect coffee has to the Spirit. Chemical dependency affects one’s spirituality which could affect the spirit’s state after mortality.

Polygamy.
Murder.
Lying.
Men of African lineage denied priesthood.

Are just a few examples. There are more. All are condoned by LDS as morally correct, for a certain time or place. Answersplease gave an example of “lying for the Lord”, there are more example of this as well. Smith lied about his adulterous affairs, declaring very firmly he had only one wife. Sorry, at the time he said this he was “married” to at least 33 women.

To the WoW, please, all caffeinated drinks were once defined under the WoW, by one of your prophets. Now, LDS gulp down caffeinated soda, and explain away past definitions as non-scriptural. Never taught. Coffee is not named in your scriptures either.

But this is not what I was thinking of. Mormon morality is pragmatic, in the sense that Mormons will support immorality, as long as they themselves are protected from it.

At a public hearing Tuesday, church spokesman Michael Otterson expressed strong support for ordinances that, starting in April, will ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in housing and employment. Salt Lake City, home to the worldwide faith’s headquarters, approved the statutes in a unanimous City Council vote. sltrib.com/news/ci_13766464

While the proposed anti-discrimination statutes would exempt small businesses, religious organizations and landlords with few units, they would not grant the same privilege to, say, owners of an apartment complex or business that may have a religious objection to hiring or housing someone because of a person’s sexual orientation.

“If a gay employee or gay tenant can unilaterally invoke the protections of these ordinances, unconditionally,” wrote Sutherland spokesman Jeff Reynolds, “isn’t it only fair and reasonable that a person of faith should be allowed to unilaterally invoke the same laws’ protections, unconditionally, just as that person’s church is allowed to do?”
The Salt Lake City-based think tank is calling on the Legislature to ** expand the religious exemption to church “adherents**.” sltrib.com/news/ci_14002853?source=pkg

Either you believe a thing is immoral, and you speak and act as though you do, or you don’t. Mormons want it both ways.

Catholic morality is not such that we teach God defines a different morality for different people. Morality is not conditional. For mormons, it most certainly is. Abortion is a very prime example of mormon conditional morality, or as I said, pragmatic morality. Pragmaticism allows for immoral actions, which has only one logical conclusion, it is not moral.

 

[pinay]

Polygamy.
Murder.
Lying.
Men of African lineage denied priesthood.

Are just a few examples. There are more. All are condoned by LDS as morally correct, for a certain time or place. Answersplease gave an example of “lying for the Lord”, there are more example of this as well. Smith lied about his adulterous affairs, declaring very firmly he had only one wife. Sorry, at the time he said this he was “married” to at least 33 women.

To the WoW, please, all caffeinated drinks were once defined under the WoW, by one of your prophets. Now, LDS gulp down caffeinated soda, and explain away past definitions as non-scriptural. Never taught. Coffee is not named in your scriptures either.

But this is not what I was thinking of. Mormon morality is pragmatic, in the sense that Mormons will support immorality, as long as they themselves are protected from it.

Either you believe a thing is immoral, and you speak and act as though you do, or you don’t. Mormons want it both ways.

Catholic morality is not such that we teach God defines a different morality for different people. Morality is not conditional. For mormons, it most certainly is. Abortion is a very prime example of mormon conditional morality, or as I said, pragmatic morality. Pragmaticism allows for immoral actions, which has only one logical conclusion, it is not moral.

Okay. Just making sure I understood what you meant.

 

[ParkerD]

To general readers:

It appears that some readers desire to discuss the contrasts between having as the foundation of the church and the foundation of the guiding leadership’s authority, the principle of revelation by means of a firm and unshakable testimony of Jesus which leads to having the Holy Spirit and leads to sanctification–versus having as a primary leadership principle that the “keys of the kingdom” are the same as the “key of David” (which “key of David” is always held and retained by Christ as taught in the Bible.)

By the time of Constantine, there had developed within the then-existing church a system of leadership that did not have a council of apostles but had a council of leaders with their own views. Either at that point or earlier than that, the key doctrine that Christ is the sole holder or “bearer” on His shoulder of the key of David, always, was lost, leading to a teaching that the keys of the kingdom were the same as the key of David. This opened up the opportunity for other doctrinal changes to please the people and to retain authority and leadership within the grasp of those who said they “held” the “keys of the kingdom”. It eventually would lead to the idea sent out that any change in the early church was directed by the Holy Spirit.

This loss of doctrinal purity is exactly why John had the vision he had that there was going to be a departure of the church into the wilderness, and that the dragon would be making war with those seeking to keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus. (Revelation 12:16-17) It is why John or the other apostles weren’t directed by the Holy Spirit to choose new apostles after the first few were chosen during the post-Ascension period of leadership by Twelve Apostles as shown in the New Testament. John was the last living apostle on the earth, yet his leadership was not being sought as the key leadership position at the time he wrote the book of Revelation from his vision, yet he still held the apostolic keys of the kingdom at that point, and no one else did.

Having a testimony of Jesus is the focal point of the Bible. The idea that the words “a nail in a sure place” (Isaiah 22:22-23) is not talking about the crucifixion, when placed in conjunction with the key of David when it is known that Christ fulfills Davidic prophecies, is a departure from doctrinal purity.

The “Keys of the Kingdom” is not the same expression as the “key of David.” Christ couldn’t delegate the atonement, which is what was being prophesied in Isaiah 22:22-23.

The name “Eliakim” from Isaiah 22 means “God shall cause to arise.” This goes right along with John’s vision about the key of David in Revelation 3:7. We can arise in resurrection and can arise in a new birth because of the Savior’s atoning sacrifice and His resurrection and triumph over death.

Note in Revelation 3:5 that the vision John has shows that the Person who is talking and saying “I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels” in that verse is the same Person who is “he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;”

This is not a reference to Peter. It is a clear reference to Christ as the One who said “I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” (Revelation 1:17-18)

The Key of David is the same thing as the “keys of hell and of death”. This is why the opening and shutting can’t be done by a “man”. It can only be done by Christ, who suffered the atonement and crucifixion so He could open those gates with His key–the Key of David, which was laid “upon his shoulder” and the “government” will be “committed into his hand.” (Isaiah 22:21)

Those words I just cited ought to bring immediately to mind the passage a student of the Bible ought to love–“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom,…” (Isaiah 9:6, 7)

Isaiah also wrote by revelation, Isa. 26: 3
3 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.

May it be so for each reader here. Peace to each and all, as your mind is stayed on Him and trusts in Him.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hello Rebecca,

I’m not sure what you mean by this. If my understanding is correct, you are trying to say that the Mormon idea of morality is only for what’s practical here and now?

That is actually quite the opposite. Everything the LDS teaches is in light of the eternities.

Let’s take a very simple example - LDS scripture commonly referred to as the “Word of Wisdom” advices members to abstain from coffee. This is not for the here and now alone. This is in light of the effect coffee has to the Spirit. Chemical dependency affects one’s spirituality which could affect the spirit’s state after mortality.

Roman Catholics and LDS are actually pretty close - closer than most other Christian churches when it comes to morality.

Then we should see coke, pepsi, mountain dew, etc all included in the proscription in the wow since they are equally “addictive”. IMO the wow is best looked at at a covenant that LDS make not to use the things listed.