Bishop's Resignation Letter

[_RockSlider]

Will, Lectures on Faith, did not the Prophet state that one attribute of God was that he is unchangable? For if it were not so, how could one have faith in a God that was changeable.

Is not truth that which is unchangeable? With the Hebrew spelling being the first, the middle and the last letter, i.e. 3 knocks, i.e. past, present and future.

And is not right and wrong a form of truth?

[_just me]

I just love when apologists whip out that letter to Nancy Rigdon. It was first published by the great and wonderful John C. Bennett in his antiMormon book. HAHAHAHA! Who knows if it was really written by Joseph Smith at all? Unless we accept as truth everything published in Bennett's book...

Do they know that they are using antiMormon sources to support the wickedness of leaders past?

Too funny.

(ps if anyone knows of a friendly source for this letter previous to the publishing of Bennett's book, including the original document, I am open to be wrong)

[_Will Schryver]

Will, Lectures on Faith, did not the Prophet state that one attribute of God was that he is unchangable?

Did Joseph Smith state that?

Are you sure?

Regardless, cannot God be "unchangeable" in many respects, and yet dynamically changing in others--and yet both attributes be present in perfection?

Again, the question becomes, do you accept or reject that Joseph Smith was revealing the mind of God when he wrote the following?:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said that thou shalt not kill, -- at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted -- by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

-Joseph Smith to Nancy Rigdon, April 11, 1842

I submit that the Prophet Joseph can be indisputably confirmed by the scriptural record.

[_Will Schryver]

I just love when apologists whip out that letter to Nancy Rigdon.

I love it when the letter is cited in general conference--which it has been on numerous occasions in my lifetime.

Who knows if it was really written by Joseph Smith at all?

I'm not aware of any dispute over its authenticity.

[_RockSlider]

Are you sure?

Very sure, At one time, I studied this out with much prayer, fasting and meditation:

Joseph Smith listed it as the third of six attributes that must exist in a God to be an entity that anyone could have true faith in.

Here's a link
http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/lectures_on_faith.htm see the third lecture, see page 38.

and a snippet for your perusal:

"12 From the foregoing testimonies, we learn the following things respecting the character of God.
13 First, That he was God before the world was created, and the same God that he was, after it was created.
14 Secondly, That he is merciful, and gracious, slow to anger, abundant in goodness, and that he was so from everlasting, and will be to everlasting.
15 Thirdly, That he changes not, neither is there variableness with him; but that he is the same from everlasting to everlasting, being the same yesterday to-day and forever; and that his course is one eternal round, without variation.
16 Fourthly, That he is a God of truth and cannot lie.
17 Fifthly, That he is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that fears God and works righteousness is accepted of him.
18 Sixthly, That he is love."
Now these words make sense to me.

edit:

and of course you know that this was the "Doctrine" portion of the D&C before the "doctrine" was removed leaving only the commandments and covenants in our current printings

[_sock puppet]

What is immutable, however, is the light of Christ. It is not situational ...

So you say ... and I have no doubt you believe it--notwithstanding a gnawing sense that it just might not be true; that Joseph Smith was absolutely right when he said:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said that thou shalt not kill, -- at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted -- by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

-Joseph Smith, Letter to Nancy Rigdon, April 11, 1842

Again, I am deliberately attempting to place this question in stark relief. My observation is that the fundamental principle it embodies eventually becomes the cutting edge of the division effected among the people who have been exposed to the restored gospel.

It is undeniably clear that your perspective is in direct opposition to what Joseph Smith had to say on the topic, don't you agree?

The question then becomes: did Joseph Smith reveal the mind of God in this often-quoted letter to Nancy Rigdon? I am personally convinced that he did.

Will, was that letter one JSJr wrote to Nancy Rigdon to try to get into her pants--I mean, to tell her god commanded that she become another of his 'spiritual wives'?

[_Will Schryver]

Are you sure?

Very sure ...

You just might stand in need of some more research into the authorship of the Lectures on Faith.

In any event, my observation above remains salient and pertinent, regardless of the long-disputed authorship of the so-called Lectures on Faith.

[_Will Schryver]

Will, was that letter one JSJr wrote to Nancy Rigdon to try to get into her pants--I mean, to tell her god commanded that she become another of his 'spiritual wives'?

There is nothing in the letter concerning plural marriage--although that is undeniably the larger context of the correspondence. It is, however, quite apparent that Joseph Smith understood that the principle in question went far beyond the issue of plural marriage, per se.

[_RockSlider]

You just might stand in need of some more research into the authorship of the Lectures on Faith.

But of course you are welcome to your vengeful, whimsical and changeable god, who loves to build multi-billion dollar malls in his only true church's name.

Throw all the doubt you wish on the authorship of what I quoted there. Seems we have eyes to see and ears to hear a different Sheppard's voice.

Mine has all those attributes. Sounds like yours, not so much

[_Will Schryver]

... of course you are welcome to your vengeful, whimsical and changeable god ...

Thank you for your candor--and for adding your confirming testimony to the very point I've been trying to make.

It is quite apparent that you, like William Law and his many philosophical descendants, have exercised your agency in terms of what kind of god you are willing to believe in. As I've been trying to say, that what this life is all about.