When will D&C 132 be removed or modified?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not sure where you get that I don't think that prophets are human beings, or that revelation must be accompanied by thunderclap. Moreover, I don't see how any of this has to do with your willingness to reject a scripture because it doesn't meet with your pre-conceived notions of God.

I am keenly interested in exactly how you've come about this personal theology. Please tell me how is it that you determine which passages are truly God-inspired and which aren't? Is there some independent methodology of which I'm not aware? Does the Spirit tell you?

I read, think, pray, and search. And I compare and contrast particular teachings of prophets with the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself as contained in the New Testament.

One must be blind not to see that Christ's teachings and the teachings given by various prophets are sometimes dreadfully inconsistent. So for me--Christ's teachings come first, and then I also rely on personal revelation.

And I don't think my attitude is different from what Joseph Smith taught: everyone can receive their own personal revelation. You can read scriptures about God destroying Emma, and then turn and read the parables of Christ. If you can somehow see (or feel) consistency, then that is your own personal revelation, and I respect that. There is enough room for all of us in the Church.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I read, think, pray, and search. And I compare and contrast particular teachings of prophets with the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself as contained in the New Testament.

One must be blind not to see that Christ's teachings and the teachings given by various prophets are sometimes dreadfully inconsistent. So for me--Christ's teachings come first, and then I also rely on personal revelation.

And I don't think my attitude is different from what Joseph Smith taught: everyone can receive their own personal revelation. You can read scriptures about God destroying Emma, and then turn and read the parables of Christ. If you can somehow see (or feel) consistency, then that is your own personal revelation, and I respect that. There is enough room for all of us in the Church.

Inconsistency is in the eye of the beholder, methinks. And while personal revelation is obviously a key teaching of our religion, I seem to remember an old missionary scripture about prophecies not being of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). I'm surprised that someone as thoughtful as you cannot see the problems inherent with permitting and even endorsing members disregarding scripture as they see fit.

In other words, it isn't within your purview to decide what scripture is from God, and which isn't. Doing so is probably one of the best modern-day Uzzah examples there is.

As to your last statement, I don't know who you think is telling you there is no room for you. As long as you don't teach these things (which you've said you don't), I don't see why anyone would say you couldn't be a member in good standing.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

In other words, it isn't within your purview to decide what scripture is from God, and which isn't. Doing so is probably one of the best modern-day Uzzah examples there is.

Or perhaps you could put it a in a kinder tone and say that I "don't yet have a testimony of certain scriptures" such as those describing God's alleged threats to destroy Emma if she would not allow Joseph to take 30 additional wives.

I admit it. I don't have a testimony of those scriptures. So sue me.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Or perhaps you could put it a in a kinder tone and say that I "don't yet have a testimony of certain scriptures" such as those describing God's alleged threats to destroy Emma if she would not allow Joseph to take 30 additional wives.

I admit it. I don't have a testimony of those scriptures. So sue me.

No no no... that implies you want to believe.

You clearly do not.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

No no no... that implies you want to believe.

You clearly do not.

I'm glad you are a true believer in God's desire to destroy Emma if she would not "go along" with Joseph's need to take extra wives.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I'm glad you are a true believer in God's desire to destroy Emma if she would not "go along" with Joseph's need to take extra wives.

This discussion isn't about me. It's about you. Stop misdirecting.

You don't want to believe that the words Joseph wrote in D&C 132 are God's words, despite the fact that he said they were.

Therefore, you believe Joseph Smith to be a false prophet. Really quite simple.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

This discussion isn't about me. It's about you. Stop misdirecting.

You don't want to believe that the words Joseph wrote in D&C 132 are God's words, despite the fact that he said they were.

Therefore, you believe Joseph Smith to be a false prophet. Really quite simple.

I believe most of the words in D&C 132 were inspired by God. I believe a few of them were not inspired words. And I believe that Joseph Smith sincerely believed that they were all inspired words.

Therefore, Joseph was not lying.

And I believe that he was a fallible human being who was truly a prophet, who made a couple of mistakes here and there.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Or perhaps you could put it a in a kinder tone and say that I "don't yet have a testimony of certain scriptures" such as those describing God's alleged threats to destroy Emma if she would not allow Joseph to take 30 additional wives.

I admit it. I don't have a testimony of those scriptures. So sue me.

You can put in a kinder tone. If you're willing to be brazen enough to say scriptures are not scriptures, don't get annoyed with me when I respond by telling you you're out of line.

I have no problem with someone who is struggling to understand God's character via difficult passages of scripture.

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I'm glad you are a true believer in God's desire to destroy Emma if she would not "go along" with Joseph's need to take extra wives.

This is really an absurd reductionist view of the statement. First, you have projected a "need" on to Joseph that is not evident, so far as I know, in church history. There is no evidence Joseph originally was asking for more wives, and every evidence that he was commanded to.

Second, if you believe in other of church scripture, the idea that God would "destroy" someone for disobedience is not a big stretch. I believe it was Heber Kimball who testified that God would have destroyed him if he had refused to abide the polygamist covenant.

Do you believe in a God that would command a righteous man to kill his own son? Do you think Abraham knew that the angel would stop him before the completion of the act? How about Jonah? How far do you think the Lord was willing to take it?

God commanded the Moses-led Israelites to drive out the then-occupants of the Holy Land. He later ordered Saul, via Samuel, to wipe out the Amalekites, women, children, animals, the works. And when he failed, Samuel personally "hewed [the Amalekite king] Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal."

Your requirement that the mortal Jesus supercedes the ante- and post-mortal Jesus is also something you must substantiate with more than your own prejudices.

What this all boils down to is you have selected some aspects of the Godlike nature which comport with how you want him to be. When he steps outside of that box that you have drawn for him, he becomes a being you cannot abide worshiping, and so you enforce the box by dismissing the behavior.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is really an absurd reductionist view of the statement. First, you have projected a "need" on to Joseph that is not evident, so far as I know, in church history. There is no evidence Joseph was asking for more wives, and every evidence that he was commanded to.

Once again, you prove that you are clueless and have no idea how polygamy actually originated.

Originally Posted by Tex

Do you believe in a God that would command a righteous man to kill his own son?

No

Originally Posted by Tex

God commanded the Moses-led Israelites to drive out the then-occupants of the Holy Land. He later ordered Saul, via Samuel, to wipe out the Amalekites, women, children, animals, the works. And when he failed, Samuel personally "hewed [the Amalekite king] Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal."

Those are evil acts that people justified by claiming that God commanded those acts to occur. Fanatical Muslims use God in the very same way in an attempt to destroy us.

Originally Posted by Tex

Your requirement that the mortal Jesus supercedes the ante- and post-mortal Jesus is also something you must substantiate with more than your own prejudices.

And you're assuming that everything in the old testament was actually commanded or spoken by Jesus Himself. I do not make the same assumption.

Originally Posted by Tex

What this all boils down to is you have selected some aspects of the Godlike nature which comport with how you want him to be. When he steps outside of that box that you have drawn for him, he becomes a being you cannot abide worshiping, and so you enforce the box by dismissing the behavior.

Actually, God drew the box for me, and I'm quite comfortable with where it stands. Maybe God has simply drawn a different box for you. Maybe your testimony is more developed than mine, or vice versa.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Once again, you prove that you are clueless and have no idea how polygamy actually originated.

We can have a discussion about this, if you like, but I don't think that's really the point here, is it.

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Actually, God drew the box for me, and I'm quite comfortable with where it stands. Maybe God has simply drawn a different box for you. Maybe your testimony is more developed than mine, or vice versa.

"God drew the box for me" -- what does that mean, exactly? You pick and choose which scriptures sound right to you, and that constitutes God "drawing the box"?

The fact that you reject even the Abrahamic commandment suggests to me that we will find little common ground in this discussion.