Multiple personalities?

[_twinkie]

I'm a relatively new LDS... As a result of the plural family thread, I have just read the D&C 132 for the first time. I also read Woodruff's declarations. Is it just me, or does the threatening, iron-fisted God that revealed the covenant (?is that the right word?) to Joseph seem much, much, different than the God that spoke to Woodruff? I wasn't looking for difference, I just noticed it.

A couple of things said to Joseph:

"For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting acovenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. "
"And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

Over and over again, talk of being "destroyed!" I hear, "do what I say or suffer the consequences."

What Woodruff Said:

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

Just a small quote, because it is very long, but what I am hearing here sounds like a reasoning God. Not at all the same one that spoke before.

So how do you explain this?

1. The lord has to deal with different people in different ways
2. The person writing is projecting their own personality
3. other ideas???[/quote]

[_moksha]

Good question. I have always wondered by God likes to talk in archaic English.

[_ozemc]

I'm a relatively new LDS... As a result of the plural family thread, I have just read the D&C 132 for the first time. I also read Woodruff's declarations. Is it just me, or does the threatening, iron-fisted God that revealed the covenant (?is that the right word?) to Joseph seem much, much, different than the God that spoke to Woodruff? I wasn't looking for difference, I just noticed it.

A couple of things said to Joseph:

"For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting acovenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. "
"And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

Over and over again, talk of being "destroyed!" I hear, "do what I say or suffer the consequences."

What Woodruff Said:

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

Just a small quote, because it is very long, but what I am hearing here sounds like a reasoning God. Not at all the same one that spoke before.

So how do you explain this?

1. The lord has to deal with different people in different ways
2. The person writing is projecting their own personality
3. other ideas???

Well, I don't want to stifle you on your spiritual journey, but I will just point out a few observations.

Jesus said that following Him would not be easy, that there would be many challenges and trials. Let's face it, when He was up against the authorities of His day, He was crucified rather than denying His principles and His message.

His disciples, as well, suffered cruel persecution and death due to their testimony of Him.

Now, if we say we are followers of Christ, at what point do we allow what we consider to be our God-given testimony to falter?

There are many people today throughout the world who are facing death on a daily basis just for their witness.

I find it a little troubling that a major article of faith could be so easily discarded due to threats of prosecution, considering what Jesus and His disciples went through. If we claim to be His followers, do not we follow Him into death, if need be?

Or do we cast aside our core beliefs when it becomes too risky, or when we risk personal trials?

[_Jason Bourne]

Twinkie,

The issues surroundinghte Church's abandonment of polygamy are complex and difficult. Well in my opinion the whole issue is complex and difficult. The Church was under tremendous legal pressure to give up polygamy. Believe that God commanded it or not. But I have concluded that the attack by the federal government on the LDS Church is unprecedented in this nation's history and certianly was unconstitutional.

THis paper may shed some light. It is long but worth the read. I do not buy all the conclusions the author makes, but he does a good job in summarizing the issues.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Pr ... cation.pdf

[_ozemc]

Twinkie,

The issues surroundinghte Church's abandonment of polygamy are complex and difficult. Well in my opinion the whole issue is complex and difficult. The Church was under tremendous legal pressure to give up polygamy. Believe that God commanded it or not. But I have concluded that the attack by the federal government on the LDS Church is unprecedented in this nation's history and certianly was unconstitutional.

THis paper may shed some light. It is long but worth the read. I do not buy all the conclusions the author makes, but he does a good job in summarizing the issues.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Pr ... cation.pdf

I agree, Jason.

The government had no business telling the church what it could do. As long as someone is not hurting anyone else, believe what you want.

[_Gazelam]

Joseph found out about polygamy very early on, and procrastinated his obedience of the principle. You can imagine how it would be to try to be obedient to that principle while explaining it to others. He had a hard enough time geting people to believe that the Father and the Son are two seperate beings. people left the church every time he taught something new. when he finally got around to putting the doctrine to paper, he probably included the times God began to get angry with him for not implementing the principle earlier. Just my opinion. Joseph was the prophet of the restoration, and all things had to be restored, including polygamy.

In the case of Wilford Woodruff, God wasn't commanding the practice to be stopped. He was merely recommending it. No need to get angry.

[_twinkie]

Gaz, you said something interesting about the commandment being given much earlier thatn was written down. Is it widely accepted that Joseph Smith actually practiced polygamy? I have heard that Emma denied later that he ever practiced it. Do you know if it is true? She also didn't follow Brigham Young.

I am starting to wonder if the polygamy thing was made up by Brigham Young. Has that theory been addressed anywhere?

[_marg]

1. The lord has to deal with different people in different ways
2. The person writing is projecting their own personality
3. other ideas???

[/quote]

What's your evidence of a God?


What's your evidence that people who claim God talked to them (in this case J. Smith, W. Woodruff) actually did so?

Quite simply twinkie, if one chooses to believe extraordinary claims without evidence, one can believe in any extraordinary claim they wish, no matter how absurd, how irrational, how crazy, how delusional, how idiotic those beliefs might be.

As for Bourne's statement that he believes the Gov't acted unconstitionally against polygamy it would appear he thinks institutionalized polygamy is quite ethical. If so, he has no idea of the abuses against the less powerful which institutionalized polygamy encourages. Laws against polygamy are there to protect the vulnerable, the helpless because those people are not in positions to protect themselves.

[_twinkie]

Marg,
What is your evidence that I don't have evidence? If I refuse to give you my evidence, you still don't have evidence that I don't have any evidence. You can just assume that I don't have evidence.

That being said, honestly, I don't have any evidence. LOL. I do have a sense of humor though. No, I don't have any evidence of that either.

[_marg]

Marg,
What is your evidence that I don't have evidence? If I refuse to give you my evidence, you still don't have evidence that I don't have any evidence. You can just assume that I don't have evidence.

The burden of proof is on those who make the positive claims.

My point was that one can speculate an infinite number of scenarios and beliefs regarding a god and what he does , one being no more true than the other without transparent evidence. It is really a futile endeavour and irrelevant to determining what is true/real for practical purposes.

That being said, honestly, I don't have any evidence. LOL. I do have a sense of humor though. No, I don't have any evidence of that either.

Rational empiricism the method employed by the scientific method which is a combination of using evidence and reasoning, is the most practical method of attaining approximations to truths/reality for operational purposes. Reasoning alone without any means to assess the truth claims is unreliable.