tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post5856069859850666978..comments2024-03-28T15:23:18.071-07:00Comments on Pure Mormonism: What Do I Mean By "Pure" Mormonism?Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-91366878602564012472013-06-10T18:21:38.936-07:002013-06-10T18:21:38.936-07:00Me From Cali (Continued Part 3 of 3);"He was ...Me From Cali (Continued Part 3 of 3);<br><br>"He was about the Council of Fifty and the Danites"<br><br>The Council of Fifty, yes. The Danites, no. The Council of Fifty was intended to be the political and social organization of the Kingdom of God, which was not yet on the earth. (This was a small detail that escaped many of Joseph's contemporaries). It was also to be made up of both Mormons and non-Mormons, and was a benign organization, or council. It has been confused by some with the Danites, of which it has nothing in common.<br><br>The Danites (or "Sons of Dan") was an illicit gang organized by Samson Avaard for the purpose of exacting vengeance on the Mormon's perceived enemies. The Danites kept their existence secret from Joseph Smith because they knew he would strongly disapprove based on the revelation he received in 1833 commanding the Saints to bear their persecutions patiently. Scholars have been trying to determine for years regarding Joseph's knowledge of the Danites. Consensus seems to be that when he found out he was furious.<br><br> "Especially in reference to ‘putting out a contract’ on Governor Bogg’s life"<br><br>If you have evidence that Joseph Smith was behind the shooting of Lilburn Boggs, I know many scholars who would love to see it. Boggs and others were convinced Joseph Smith was behind the shooting, and it's likely that a Mormon did it, but there is no evidence pointing to Joseph Smith as authorizing the hit. Some have speculated it was the work of Porter Rockwell, and I'm inclined to that view myself. My personal opinion is that whatever the circumstances, Boggs had it coming to him. But that kind of vindictiveness was contrary to the nature of the prophet, and certainly there is no evidence tracing him to the deed.<br><br>"The Kirkland anti-banking scheme."<br><br>Yep, big mistake. And proof of what happens when even a prophet oversteps his calling. Also a cautionary tale, I would suggest, for any Mormon who believes God will bless those who get the Church tangled up with Babylon.<br><br>"He threatened his primary wife (of whom he publicly lied about saying that she was his only wife) in the D&C saying she would be “destroyed” if she didn’t go along with him."<br><br>Are you referring to the story of the angel with the flaming sword who stood over Joseph and threatened to destroy him if he did not take additional wives? That is an urban legend that did not appear until many years after Joseph's death, and once it started, it was repeated by several people. What we don't find, however, is any mention of it in any of the writings of Joseph Smith. Besides, if such an incident really occurred, why would the angel appear to Joseph instead of Emma? By all accounts, SHE was the one standing in the way. SHE was the one who needed convincing. Why not have the angel appear with that flaming sword to Emma to get her to go along?<br><br>These are questions a lot of Mormons don't bother to ponder. They just accept them as fact without further research or follow-through because they find these stories necessary to bolster their belief in things about their religion that are not true.Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-6780143543075109812013-06-10T18:18:36.519-07:002013-06-10T18:18:36.519-07:00Me From Cali(Continued),Allow me to address a few ...Me From Cali(Continued),<br>Allow me to address a few of the assertions you made, because I I do not find there to be any basis in fact for any except one:<br><br>"Mr. Waterman, you have to acknowledge that JS was about a lot more than that! He was about polygyny (even involving teenage girls) AND polyandry"<br><br>I don't have to acknowledge any such thing, because I have found no evidence to support those allegations. Joseph's practice of plural marriage is widely accepted in the Mainstream LDS Church because without it, the authority of the current leadership would be called into question. I have made a concerted effort the past three years to find any evidence to support the allegations that Joseph Smith was personally involved in the things you believe him to have been, and I have found nothing but vigorous statements to the contrary. We have numerous denunciations in Joseph's own words, while on the other hand are accusations by his enemies during his lifetime, and rumor and hearsay from his "friends" beginning around 1878. Not convincing.<br><br>"He was about having himself annointed king of the whole world, and that no one gets to enter the Kingdom of God in the next life without his permission (as taught by BY)"<br><br>You answered that charge yourself, "As taught by Brigham Young." I'm only interested in the documented teachings of Joseph Smith. And even then, not every word Joseph Smith uttered should be taken as gospel, as he himself reminded the Saints continually.<br><br>"He was about scrying for hidden treasure"<br><br>Yeah, so what? I've searched for hidden treasure myself when I was the same age young Joseph was when he was accused of being a "money digger." I'm not ashamed of my youthful dreams, and I don't fault a poor farm boy for doing what even Mark Twain and his friends were doing 30 years later: hoping to find hidden pirate treasure. And if, as a young adult, someone was willing to pay me to help dig up his farmland in search of treasure, I would have willingly taken the job just as young Joseph Smith did.<br>Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-7529518438364803892013-06-10T18:14:28.295-07:002013-06-10T18:14:28.295-07:00Me From Cali;I believe you labor under a false ass...Me From Cali;<br>I believe you labor under a false assumption, and one that is shared by many active latter-day Saints as well as non-members such as yourself. That assumption presumes that for a person to embrace Mormonism, he must embrace the modern institutional Church. Not so. There are many, many people who consider themselves believers in the Restoration who have no need to be counseled by self-appointed leaders.<br><br>It seems to me that in the absence of modern revelation, the only wise recourse is to ignore those who promote any teaching that is not in harmony with scripture. So to answer your question with a question, why would I submit to an interview with a church leader whose first allegiance is to The Church (TM) rather than to Christ and his gospel?<br><br>The "Church" would doubtless consider David Whitmer an apostate, though it is clear he was true to the precepts of "Mormonism" all his life. He was even critical of and rejected some of the actions of Joseph Smith, yet his writings and opinions persuade me that he was as true a "Mormon" as could be found in the latter 19th century.<br><br>Whitmer did not feel it necessary to align himself with any of the denominations that resulted after the splintering of the church, but there is no question in my mind that he was a Mormon to his dying day.<br><br>Of course, I reject the teaching you quote above by Dallin Oaks, just as I reject the declarations of other so-called "leaders" who are known to fabricate their own doctrines intended to persuade the membership that they would be lost unless they follow them. I don't belong to the Church of Dallin Oaks or Thomas Monson or any other fallible being. I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ. My membership in the formal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is secondary to my membership in the church as defined by Jesus in D&C 10: 67.<br><br>(Continued)Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-29906203037187319052013-06-10T16:41:32.502-07:002013-06-10T16:41:32.502-07:00Like most members, I grew up believing we earned o...Like most members, I grew up believing we earned our way. I realize now that is not what is taught in the Book of Mormon. We are saved by the atonement of Christ, not by following a checklist of "righteous behaviors."Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-43752322848664744352013-06-10T16:36:56.285-07:002013-06-10T16:36:56.285-07:00I think there is little doubt that Joseph intended...I think there is little doubt that Joseph intended to expose Brigham Young, among others in the Church hierarchy, as he declared his intention to do just that three weeks before he was murdered.<br><br>He also gave a special talk to all the women of the relief society warning them about the cancerous practice that was taking hold in Nauvoo and assuring them that if a prophet or any other persons should ever preach such iniquity they should "shun them as the flying fiery serpent."<br><br>These don't sound like the words of a man who intended to one day reveal the practice as having come from God.<br><br> It was only after Brigham Young had the church history doctored to expunge such statements, and the fact that many who followed Brigham were illiterate converts from the lower classes of British society that Brigham was able to convince the pioneers that plural marriage was something he received from Joseph Smith.Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-76459755238097224722013-06-10T07:30:50.499-07:002013-06-10T07:30:50.499-07:00Me, Do you have proof that Joseph Smith had 33 wiv...Me, <br><br>Do you have proof that Joseph Smith had 33 wives or are you just believing all the hearsay and ignoring what Joseph published and said himself all his life against polygamy?<br><br>It makes no sense that he would fight and warn against it like he did, if he thought the Saints would someday have to accept it. For he tried to turn them against it and anyone, even a prophet, who might come teaching it.<br><br>Joseph knew enough that he couldn't put out scripture against polygamy like he did and then bring our opposite scripture 'for' polygamy (132), for true followers of Christ would never accept it. <br><br>Were Christ and the BoM prophets lying too, for they also preached against polygamy?<br><br>If Joseph did live polygamy then of course he was a false or fallen prophet, but I have not seen any proof that he did and I find lot's of proof that he didn't. I find that despite his other faults and weaknesses, he preached the same things as Christ and the BoM Prophets, especially in regard to polygamy.<br><br>So I believe Joseph was too smart to fall for polygamy as a principle, but as a man, yes he could have weakened and fell just like many other prophets through the ages fell for polygamy, but I find no proof that he did, and neither did a court of law who examined the best the LDS Church had on the subject either. <br><br>I believe that Joseph was about to excommunicate Brigham and other leaders for polygamy but he died before he could do that. Joseph did seem to be deceived by evil men alot, calling them to high office in the Church, men like BY, Bennett and many others. <br><br>And either BY and others hid their polygamy so well that Joseph didn't find out till the last few months of his life that they were secretly living it, or Joseph took along time to reign people and leaders in who were doing evil. I think he had a good heart and wanted to look/hope for the best in people. I see this alot in people today, good people who don't want to call the kettle black on their close friends. <br><br>But, still, Emma was said to say that Joseph didn't have confidence in Brigham in the later years and feared for the Church if Brigham ever took charge of it, so it seems he knew something was wrong with him, though he may not have realized just how deep he was into polygamy, though he probably knew he like the idea of it.<br><br>But there is no proof that Joseph was unfaithful to Emma, just wild rumors and hearsay that one would expect from people trying to justify their whoredoms, and especially if Joseph was a true prophet then of course all hell would break loose against him as it seemed to.<br><br>It's easy to believe the hearsay and what the Church says' happened, but the Church or LDS historians who have a stake in their bias, are hardly sources you can trust, since if Joseph didn't live polygamy, it's never going to tell you that.<br><br>Have you read the book 'Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy' ? I would encourage it. It shows another side of the story.<br>Anon 23noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-12001476054484588622013-06-10T01:30:59.122-07:002013-06-10T01:30:59.122-07:00With all due respect and as a brother, Anon 23 (an...With all due respect and as a brother, Anon 23 (and I sincerely mean that), get your head out of the sand and resign your membership in the Flat Earth Society (that’s a little snarky, I’ll admit). But like the world really is a sphere, Joseph Smith did have at least 33 plural wives. If you can’t wrap your head around this, I don’t know what I can say to convince you.<br><br>My best.<br>Me from Calihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17092831822080476254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-49583724540203280602013-06-09T19:50:48.461-07:002013-06-09T19:50:48.461-07:00Me from Cali,Sorry to comment on your post to Rock...Me from Cali,<br><br>Sorry to comment on your post to Rock, but may I say that it appears you have fallen for alot of false information about Joseph Smith and his brand of Mormonism. I also believe in Joseph's brand of Mormonism, but not Brigham's or anyone who came after him. <br><br>Thus Elder Oak's remarks are astounding to me, for I believe he must know how often most Bishops on up to the Church's Prophets and Apostles fall to sin and are deceived by false revelation from the Adversary, and thus preach false doctrine. How can he ever think he or they are talking for Christ when they preach and practice so often completely contrary to Christ? One things for sure, Christ doesn't change his doctrines from yesterday to today. <br><br>And about Joseph, if you really study the facts, there is no proof that Joseph ever preached or practiced polygamy, just vile hearsay that he did, usually from those who wanted to live polygamy and have it seem justified. I find most people like to believe Joseph lived polygamy and had a lot of faults, so they can feel better about their own faults.<br><br>So to listen to Brigham or anyone else who followed him west, or D&C 132 which Joseph probably never heard of, is not wise in my opinion.<br><br>While not even true prophets are perfect, Joseph preached as close to Christ as any Christian preacher or prophet I've ever known of. As did the BoM prophets, whether the BoM is true of not, it still teaches Christ's same doctrines. <br><br>Whereas, all Church leaders today preach and practice completely opposite doctrines to what Christ taught, no matter how righteous & holy & authorized they may say they are.Anon 23noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-18507979085310396852013-06-09T16:49:55.753-07:002013-06-09T16:49:55.753-07:00... Con’tYou have a lot of insightful things to sa...... Con’t<br><br>You have a lot of insightful things to say about the LDS church of today, which, in the way I read it (and agree with a lot of what you say), certainly is not always complementary and in line with what the LDS church leadership would be pleased about, nor in agreement with you. I mean, that’s the quotidian, teenage “Well, duh!”<br><br>So that’s why I asked you about your ‘brand’ of Mormonism. Meaning, I don’t think you would be considered a valid ‘Mormon’ by the current LDS leadership. However, you are a Christian, so you may be more about ‘Pure Christianity’ rather than ‘Pure Mormonism’. Anyway, that’s how I see it. Or another way of putting it is that you have been ‘Mormonized’; that has been your historic conditioning, but you are certainly not a Mormon according to current, official LDS standards. And how you can even accept JS as being a ‘true’ prophet from the point of his inaugural days -- circa 1820 -- is beyond me. He was a con! And even if his brand of fraud was for pious intentions, the facts are pretty clear, copious and convincing that he was indeed ‘something’, but certainly not a man who “communed with Jehovah” in the way the official LDS church tells the story.<br><br>And please note that I would not have wanted it to be this way, but after a LOT of study I don’t see how any honest, rational, objective truth seeker could see it any other way.<br><br>Again, thanks for your indulgence.<br><br>P.S. Please let me know if I’ve written something that has contravened some ‘rule’ or ‘etiquette’, or some such thing. I do not wish to cause any harm. Thanks, and God bless.<br>Me from Calihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17092831822080476254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-16196520716884904802013-06-09T16:48:45.552-07:002013-06-09T16:48:45.552-07:00Hello, again, Mr. Waterman. Thank you for the deta...Hello, again, Mr. Waterman. Thank you for the detailed reply, but I still can’t figure out where you stand with regard to the ‘official’ Mormon church as it is today. If you were to have a conversation with, or be interviewed by almost any Stake President (at least in the United States), say, for a temple recommend, I don’t think they would see you as the expected, regular type of believing and ‘temple worthy’ member. You have even stated, if I recall correctly, something about you haven’t been excommunicated yet, or something like that (again, I’ve read all of your posts, however I don’t remember a lot of them). This has been my experience, anyway.<br><br>And again, as with D.C. 1:38, I don’t think it’s a ‘stretch’ to think that most leaders of the church think that when they speak, they speak for the Lord. Listen to what Dallin Oaks says at time 3:00 (and forward):<br><br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g64_UW9_VXA<br><br>“You’re the servant of the Lord, and your action is the Lord’s action.” So, if this principle even applies to ‘lowly’ bishops and stake presidents, i.e., what they speak and declare “by inspiration,” is the same as if the Lord were speaking, how does this bode even more so for the Prophet, apostles and other GAs. And when Elder Oaks shakes hands with people, it seems to me he’s inferring that it’s like shaking hands with the Lord. He doesn’t say that directly, but at least that’s how I interpret it because he says that it’s very special to shake hands with an apostle of the Lord, which begs the question: Special in what way; a sort of ‘divine investiture of authority’?<br><br>You also said, “Pure Mormonism, under Joseph Smith's tutelage, was nothing less than pure Christianity, which is defined as love of God and love of neighbor.” Okay, but JS wasn’t just about “love of God and love of neighbor.” Mr. Waterman, you have to acknowledge that JS was about a lot more than that! He was about polygyny (even involving teenage girls) AND polyandry; he was about having himself annointed king of the whole world, and that no one gets to enter the Kingdom of God in the next life without his permission (as taught by BY); he was about scrying for hidden treasure; he was about the Council of Fifty and the Danites (especially in reference to ‘putting out a contract’ on Governor Bogg’s life); the Kirkland anti-banking scheme; he threatened his primary wife (of whom he publicly lied about saying that she was his only wife) in the D&C saying she would be “destroyed” if she didn’t go along with him. And the list goes on and on.<br><br>... Con’t<br>Me from Calihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17092831822080476254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-27763846686595402462013-06-09T01:53:26.729-07:002013-06-09T01:53:26.729-07:00Hello, again, Mr. Waterman. Thank you for the deta...Hello, again, Mr. Waterman. Thank you for the detailed reply, but I still can’t figure out where you stand with regard to the ‘official’ Mormon church as it is today. If you were to have a conversation with, or be interviewed by almost any Stake President (at least in the United States), say, for a temple recommend, I don’t think they would see you as the expected, regular type of believing and ‘temple worthy’ member. You have even stated, if I recall correctly, something about you haven’t been excommunicated yet, or something like that (again, I’ve read all of your posts, however I don’t remember a lot of them).<br><br>And again, as with D.C. 1:38, I don’t think it’s a ‘stretch’ to think that most leaders of the church think that when they speak, they speak for the Lord. Listen to what Dallin Oaks says at time 3:00 (and forward):<br><br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g64_UW9_VXA<br><br>“You’re the servant of the Lord, and your action is the Lord’s action.” This principle even applies to ‘lowly’ bishops, i.e., what they speak and declare “by inspiration,” is the same as if the Lord were speaking, let alone the Prophet, apostles and other GAs. And when Elder Oaks shakes hands with people, he’s inferring that it’s like shaking hands with the Lord. He doesn’t say that directly, but at least that’s how I interpret it because he says that it’s very special to shake hands with an apostle of the Lord, which begs the question: Special in what way?<br><br>You also said, “Pure Mormonism, under Joseph Smith's tutelage, was nothing less than pure Christianity, which is defined as love of God and love of neighbor.” Okay, but JS wasn’t just about “love of God and love of neighbor.” Come on, Mr. Waterman, you have to acknowledge that JS was about a lot more than that! He was about polygyny (even involving teenage girls) AND polyandry; he was about having himself annointed king of the whole world, and that no one gets to enter the Kingdom of God in the next life without his permission (as taught by BY); he was about scrying for hidden treasure; he was about the Council of Fifty and the Danites (especially in reference to ‘putting out a contract’ on Governor Bogg’s life); he threatened his primary wife (of whom he publicly lied about saying that she was his only wife) in the D&C saying she would be “destroyed” if she didn’t go along with him. And the list goes on and on.<br><br>You have a lot of insightful things to say about the LDS church of today, which, in the way I read it (and agree with a lot of what you say), certainly is not always complementary and in line with what the LDS church leadership would be pleased about, nor in agreement with you. I mean, that’s the quotidian, teenage “Well, duh!”<br><br>So that’s why I asked you about your ‘brand’ of Mormonism. Meaning, I don’t think you would be considered a valid ‘Mormon’ by the current LDS leadership. However, you are a Christian, so you may be more about ‘Pure Christianity’ rather than ‘Pure Mormonism’. Anyway, that’s how I see it. Or another way of putting it is that have been ‘Mormonized’; that has been your historic conditioning, but you are certainly not a Mormon according the current, official LDS standards. And how you can even accept JS as being a ‘true’ prophet from the point of his inaugural days -- circa 1820 -- is beyond me. He was a con! And even if his brand of fraud was for pious intentions, the facts are pretty clear, copious and convincing that he was indeed ‘something’, but certainly not a man who “communed with Jehovah” in the way the official LDS church tells the story.<br><br>And please note that I would not have wanted it to be this way, but after a LOT of study I don’t see how any honest, rational, objective truth seeker could see it any other way.<br><br>Again, thanks for your indulgence.<br><br>- Paul<br>Me from Calihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17092831822080476254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-34911026599367889502013-05-31T01:53:27.425-07:002013-05-31T01:53:27.425-07:00To Paul (Continued)Appropriate to the founding of ...To Paul (Continued)<br><br>Appropriate to the founding of this country, every community in America created its own local militia for the purpose of defending their townships and counties. The militia at Carthage, Illinois, for instance, went by the name "The Carthage Greys," and the people of Nauvoo named their group "The Nauvoo Legion." It was common for members of militias to muster out on the Fourth of July each year in full regalia as part of Independence Day festivities.<br><br>Mormons were no different than their neighbors in this regard. The misconception you appear to labor under, that Joseph Smith went "prancing around" in his Nauvoo Legion uniform leads me to believe you felt this was how he regularly appeared in public. He did not. <br><br>You say you have read all of my blog posts, yet I believe I have clearly stated in several of them that I reject the idea of the modern LDS church, or any church at all, as being some kind of "true church," since the Lord defines his church in D&C 10: 67 as consisting of ALL who repent and come unto him. Placing one denomination as superior to another would seem to contradict that definition. I agree with Jonas, who stated in the first comment following my post above, "There is no single source of truth coming through man. There is no 'true church'. There is only truth and that comes from God. The only way to find that truth is to open ourselves up and allow ourselves to be 'taught by the spirit'."<br><br>You ask about D&C 1:38 as an indication "that we need to follow the leaders, specifically the General Authorities, and ‘the’ Prophet -- that following them is ‘the same’ as following Jesus."<br><br>That interpretation seems to go far beyond the words contained in that scripture.<br><br>God is saying that his word "shall not pass away, but will all be fulfilled." What is it then that shall not pass away? Why, those things his ancient prophets foretold would one day come to pass. God assures us those prophecies will one day ALL be fulfilled.<br><br>In ancient times God warned, through his servants, of things that were to come to pass in the latter days that had not yet been fulfilled. All God was saying in verse 38 was that those former predictions were things we could still count on happening in the future. He wanted us to know He was not taking any of it back. His word was good, and if he predicted something, we ought to expect that what he prophesied about WILL come to pass. You can take that to the bank. God was making no excuses for himself or his prophecies.<br><br>How anyone can extrapolate that verse to mean that every utterance of a man now holding high office in the Church should be given equal weight with those actual prophecies, is evidence of how far some people are willing to stretch a verse of scripture to fit the meaning they want it to have. <br><br>That verse implies no such thing. As Charles Penrose, member of the First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith and Heber Grant succinctly put it, “We respect and venerate” [the prophet], but “we do not believe that his personal views or utterances are revelations from God.”<br>(Millennial Star, 54:191)<br><br>I hope this answers your questions, Paul. Thanks for reading!Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-61339409976951572812013-05-31T01:47:52.967-07:002013-05-31T01:47:52.967-07:00Paul,You ask, "why not pure Christianity, rat...Paul,<br>You ask, "why not pure Christianity, rather than pure Mormonism?"<br><br>I believe that is what I was getting at when I wrote the piece, and I regret you did not get my intent. As I wrote, "Pure Mormonism, under Joseph Smith's tutelage, was nothing less than pure Christianity, which is defined as love of God and love of neighbor."<br><br>Likewise I'm certain I made it clear that God neither demands nor requires us to have loyalty to the Church, so I do not hold a loyalty to that body, as you inferred. My allegiance is to Christ, and not to any earthly institution.<br><br>You ask also about my loyalty to Joseph Smith. I'm not certain that word appropriately describes my attraction to his teachings. Had I lived during Joseph's day and been his personal friend, I suppose he could have expected a degree of loyalty from me. But since we were not personally acquainted, I can't say that I am loyal to Joseph Smith. Neither do I think Joseph Smith would have expected loyalty from anyone living in or around Nauvoo who was not personally acquainted with him, any more than I would expect loyalty from someone who was not acquainted with me.<br><br> All I know about Joseph Smith is from what I have read of his teachings. My testimony of him would not be of much value, as he and I were not personally acquainted.<br><br>To the extent the Lord used Joseph Smith on occasion through which to reveal certain things, I believe those words are worth heeding. <br><br>To "heed" the words of a prophet is a very different thing from blindly following or obeying him, and from the teachings he left behind, I believe we can be pretty sure Joseph Smith would be the first to reject the common mantra today that members of Christ's church were expected "follow the prophet." <br><br>It is a rare occasion these days for a president of the Church to speak the words God has put into his mouth. So rare, in fact, that in my lifetime I am aware of no occasion when one of these men has delivered a prophecy or revelation they claimed was received directly from God. Although we boast a religion founded on divine revelation, we really can't point to many revelations received since the days of Joseph Smith. It's time we admitted the LDS church today is running on fumes. We deserve to repent of our institutional sins so that God will lift the condemnation and allow revelation to once again flow freely.<br><br>(Continued below)Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-57400779709650258732013-05-30T00:36:42.064-07:002013-05-30T00:36:42.064-07:00Dear Mr. Waterman: I get a lot of what you are say...Dear Mr. Waterman: I get a lot of what you are saying, and please note that I am a striving Christian that falls far short of the bar that Jesus has set for me. Nevertheless, having said this, the Mormon church inaugurated by JS, according to my years of examining the history (the un- sanitized history) of many books (I am not BSing you, I have purchased and read -- mostly all cover-to-cover -- a lot of books on Mormonism: ‘for’, ‘against’, and ‘questioning’) doesn’t conclusively ‘prove’ or even adequately conclude that the LDS church is ‘the one, true, living church’. Actually, to my way of thinking, there is more against LDS claims than for them. Hence, why not ‘Pure Christianity’ instead of ‘Pure Mormonism’? <br><br>And, oh, just a point before I forget: Doesn’t D&C Section 1: 38 -- “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same,” mean or suggest that we need to follow the leaders, specifically the General Authorities, and ‘the’ Prophet -- that following them is ‘the same’ as following Jesus -- your ‘point #3’?<br><br>But as for my first paragraph, you have to admit that JS has come across as a pretty arrogant, narcissistic, ‘something-or-other’, for example, prancing around as a Lieutenant General in full uniform regalia is hardly the Jesus of the New Testament.<br><br>I’ve read all of your posts (again, no BS), and I have learned a lot more about Mormonism and have appreciated your take on many things, but I really don’t understand how you successfully maintain ‘loyalty’ or ‘affinity’ (begging forgiveness for the lack of better terms) to JS and the Mormon church?<br><br>If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, IT’S NO DOUBT IS A DUCK and not a tapir!<br><br>I would really appreciate a response, and I thank you.<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>- Paul<br>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-17000154524008858802013-04-17T18:55:54.281-07:002013-04-17T18:55:54.281-07:00I love your attitude towards the church, but your ...I love your attitude towards the church, but your beliefs are not welcomed by any member I know. It's like they have decided the easiest way to be LDS is listen and, without any critical thought, blindly accept what the GAs and the 15 say. No matter how counter-scriptural it is.<br><br>It seems as if the entire church is about legalism–pray, pay and obey. With edicts being issued from some of my leaders that loudly say, "Sit down and shut up."<br><br>So, do you believe the church teaches that salvation is by works or by grace?MTgunfighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05985092048056869700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-5094756446884609732013-03-08T11:03:28.182-08:002013-03-08T11:03:28.182-08:00Caroline,Rock's blog is a great find. I found ...Caroline,<br><br>Rock's blog is a great find. I found it about a year and a half ago. It helps us keep our sanity.<br><br>It made me feel sad when you said... "It happened again today and I left church feeling confused and saddened." I, my wife and our daughter have felt the same way on many occasions and we have been members all our lives. <br><br>The scriptures and the words of true prophets (when they are speaking as prophets) are two of the standards by which we can measure to see if a teaching is true or not. This is as Anonymous has indicated above. I would add a third standard, which is that we go directly to the source and ask God and He will let us know if a teaching is true or not by the power of the Holy Ghost.Of course being a recent convert you already know that.<br><br>By the way take some grains salt with you next Sunday.Gary Huntnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-90082224154950844122013-03-04T10:12:35.604-08:002013-03-04T10:12:35.604-08:00Caroline, Yes, opinion is usually touted as doctri...Caroline, <br><br>Yes, opinion is usually touted as doctrine, especially if that opinion is from the President or Apostles of the Church. For everyone thinks their way of seeing things is right.<br><br>But Joseph Smith & other prophets & church leaders, have taught that the way to know if someone's opinion or teachings or revelation is true or not is by comparing it to what the scriptures say, especially the Book of Mormon. If what even the President of the Church says is 'contrary' to what Christ & the scriptures teach, then we will know for sure that he is wrong. <br><br>Joseph Smith warned about even following Prophets would taught falsehoods or evils things. <br><br>There have been many false & evil things that contradict Christ & the scriptures, taught by Church leaders from Brigham Young on to today, like polygamy, divorce & remarriage are allowed, false temple ceremonies taught as true, the false teaching that 'men preside over women' & 'women must submit to husband', women can't have Priesthood, black couldn't have Priesthood, Tithing is not correctly taught or the money used properly for the poor, Church leaders are paid salaries, etc. etc.<br><br>The test of this life, Joseph Smith taught, is to see if we can be deceived by falsehoods or false prophets or not. So we must keep the commandment to 'question & prove all things & person' to make sure they & what they say are true & righteous or not. For those who are deceived will lose their exaltation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-37819766987977350182013-03-03T20:45:26.189-08:002013-03-03T20:45:26.189-08:00I am so glad I found your blog. As a recent conver...I am so glad I found your blog. As a recent convert, I really needed to hear this. Too often, opinion is touted as doctrine or facts. It happened again today and I left church feeling confused and saddened. I feel much more relieved and much happier, now. Thank you for your post.Carolinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17890506297408802831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-3908631120047556912012-04-25T07:37:03.734-07:002012-04-25T07:37:03.734-07:00Agreed.Sometimes forgiveness means recognizing tha...Agreed.Sometimes forgiveness means recognizing that some people are just the way they are; we can't change them, all we can do is quietly steer clear of toxic people as much as possible so as to avoid becoming infected. Which is not always easy when the offender is a family member.<br><br>We are required to turn the other cheek. But it would be foolish to walk up to a crazed tiger in a cage and press your face through the bars.Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-51276027142367586802012-04-24T10:24:25.832-07:002012-04-24T10:24:25.832-07:00Thank you. I'll be looking at this more close...Thank you. I'll be looking at this more closely and sharing it with my husband. The sort of judgement *we* randomly give to strangers (and sometimes those nearer *us*) is really quite different from the sort of judgement we sometimes have to make with regards to people.<br>There are some people in *my* life (and more precisely the lives of some of my family members) who are, frankly, evil and toxic. Evil. The meaning of it. Nehor sort of evil, but the kind that flatters and destroys. Didn't think people like that existed. For *me* and my family . . . it helps best to forgive them by seeing them as children gone astray, in need of discipline from Father in Heaven, NOT from me or mine. Feel an intense compassion for the waste of their efforts, when they could choose to do good things, instead of bad?<br>That sort of compassion makes a difference. Forgiveness does not, always, mean that we turn around and head right back into the relationship storm. In our case these people are not former family members or present family members; they are 'would have been/could have been' family members who made other choices and then stuck the dagger in as they made those choices. They 'look good' to many people, and they certainly would NOT be sitting at a table with a huge plate of food weighing more than is socially/culturally/healthfully acceptable. These are people with temple recommends and 'nice' callings who are really nasty. And look "nice".<br>You don't 'pretend' they are nice. You don't 'pretend' they didn't hurt you. But you see them, or try to, through God's eyes, knowing how sad He feels that they have hurt you. But you don't walk over and say, "hey, do that to me again, o.k.; it didn't hurt enough the first time"--<br><br>just *my* experience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-65159779557816167852011-10-17T23:16:44.546-07:002011-10-17T23:16:44.546-07:00I recently found a quote from Joseph Smith that fi...I recently found a quote from Joseph Smith that fits perfectly with this post, and even provides some additional light and knowledge that many of us may have never even considered. Ironically, in our day and age the church(tm) at all levels seems to embrace policies and practices that are nearly the opposite of what Brother Joseph taught on this occasion.<br><br>(when reading this quote, keep in mind that "charity" is defined as "The pure Love of Christ")<br><br>=====<br>"If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven ... If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins. What many people call sin is not sin; I do many things to break down superstition, and I will break it down;"<br><br>Documentary History of the Church, Volume 4, page 445 (Nov 07, 1841)<br>=====<br><br>Imagine what it would be like to hear that type of sermon preached at General Conference now....<br><br><br>-- anonymous_99Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-39421343927334495552011-08-30T21:38:36.409-07:002011-08-30T21:38:36.409-07:00No, I don't mean it's okay to hate if you&...No, I don't mean it's okay to hate if you're loving at the same time. One of the challenges we're here to overcome is to learn to love only, and leave hate for the devils. <br><br>The reason I think we have the need for constant repentance is that in the little things we do in life we often forget to be loving. Bypassing the beggar, being abrupt with others, little things like that are the reasons we decide, okay, tomorrow I'll do a reboot and work at being better. Resolve to be kinder to everyone, including family, who we often are shortest with. If we could somehow have the word "Kindness" before our eyes at all times, I think that would be a cool reminder.<br><br>By the way, I don't believe that the opposite of love is hate. The opposite of love is fear. Fear chases out love; it allows unrighteous judgment to sneak in, and it gives us permission to not make the effort. Conversely, love dispels fear. When we learn to do it right.<br><br>One of the quarrels I have with the way I was raised in the Church was the immense guilt I felt for constantly not measuring up. God doesn't expect us to figure it out all at once. We should expect to fall short often. He doesn't condemn us, and neither should our bishops and other leaders. <br><br>Nonsense like probation or six months without being allowed to take the sacrament does not assist the process. God's forgiveness is immediate; it's man who requires you to show perfect attendance and tithing receipts in order to prove you're sufficiently worthy to be let back in the good graces of the Church.<br><br>If you show kindness, I believe that covers a multitude of sins. I fail at being as kind as I'd like to be every day, but the idea is not to get discouraged, just resolve to take the lesson and make the adjustments and corrections. And hopefully get a little better at it every day.<br><br>I've given you more of an answer than you've asked for, Nate, but I do tend to go on. Bottom line: focus on love, be kind, and if that's all you get around to doing in your whole life, that's everything, ain't it? <br><br>Aim for a mental attitude of unconditional acceptance. Recognize that every one of us is on our own perfect path. It isn't important whether anyone else is as up to speed as you are. You worry about you, and let the other guy know by your actions and attitude that they're okay in your book. That's the ticket, I think, and that's all that's really meant by unconditional love. Not trying to change everyone else, but REALLY accepting them where they are.Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-19319615217777969342011-08-30T14:48:39.441-07:002011-08-30T14:48:39.441-07:00So I guess you're saying that it's ok to h...So I guess you're saying that it's ok to hate as long as you are loving at the same time? I can buy that as I have had heated arguments with my wife that probably came close to hating, but at the same time I always love her, and she is the most important thing in my life. So hate and love can in fact coexist.<br><br>So if by unconditional love you mean love them even while you hate them, then I don't have any issue with the phrase. And I think it fits in alright with my reading and understanding of the scriptures. In fact when I think about it, the disfavor from your post fits in perfectly with the Lord's "hot displeasure" from Moses 7:34. Moses 7 is one of my favorites and I'm not sure why I didn't think about when thinking about the interplay between the Lord's love and his displeasure.<br><br>Anyways I think that's what you meant. And if not I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth. I appreciate you taking the time to answer questions, and am impressed with how fast you do it as well. Like I said in my last post, I really have enjoyed reading the posts on your blog. Thanks for taking the time to put something like this together.Natehttp://nate.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-81365943195528460892011-08-30T14:26:34.067-07:002011-08-30T14:26:34.067-07:00Nate,An example of the type of love in LDS scriptu...Nate,<br>An example of the type of love in LDS scripture that has always struck me as unconditonal is the attitude of Ammon when he went into the land and declared himself willing to live among them and actually be a personal servant to the king. (Alma 31, or thereabouts.)<br><br>Ammon did not go there as a missionary intent on making converts; he honestly desired to do ANYTHING the king asked of him, and this among a people who he clearly knew "did pervert the ways of the Lord in very many instances." In other words, these people were rebellious scum, the new world version of Phillistines, not ordinarily worthy of any consideration.<br><br>Yet Ammon walks in, gets treated brutally when he gets there, yet announces that he wants to do whatever the king requires of him. He humbles himself before one of the cruelest people in the hemisphere. And by the way, God didn't ask this of Ammon. All this was Ammon's idea. He asked God.<br><br>God could have told Ammon "Look, these people aren't worth it. In fact, they're barely people. Find something better to do with your time."<br><br>But God had the same love for the Lamanites as Ammon did, and told him to go ahead.<br><br>Personally, I don't think I have it in me to humble myself before any king. But Ammon had unconditional love for this collection of low-lifes, and that love was powerful enough to change the hearts of an entire nation. <br><br>Later on you'll recall, when the Nephites had fallen into apostasy, it was the Lamanites who were calling the Nephites to repentance. The bad guys had become the good guys. And all because of the love of Ammon for a people he did not know and had no reason at all to care about.<br><br>I'd have to dig up my Strong's Concordance to do a fitting analysis of the word "hate" as used by God, but if memory serves it does not have the connotation we normally give it. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that God looks with disfavor on the actions of many of his children, but I don't think he "hates" any of us in the strong sense usually given the word.<br><br>I have felt like killing my own children on several occasions because they were such dad-gummed idiots, but I can truly say that no matter what they did I never stopped loving them unconditonally. I just sometimes wished they were dead, that's all.<br><br>I think God has parenting moments like that himself.Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-5905814885649949502011-08-30T13:18:37.136-07:002011-08-30T13:18:37.136-07:00So I just discovered your blog and I like almost a...So I just discovered your blog and I like almost all of it. But I am a little confused where you get the unconditional love part from in this particular post.<br><br>I couldn't find the phrase "unconditional" once in the scriptures anywhere. (Just once in the bible dictionary, and it was talking about the resurrection part of the atonement being an unconditional gift. Which is fine, but kind of irrelevant to the unconditional love discussion.)<br><br>I think what you are referring to is when Jesus said in Matt 5:44, when he said "love your enemies" and "love one another as I have loved you" (John 13:44). <br><br>So personally I get from this that we should use God as our example of how to love and hate people. So I did some research on who God loves and hates:<br><br><br>Romans 9:13<br>13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.<br> <br>Helaman 15:4<br>4 But behold my brethren, the Lamanites hath he hated because their deeds have been evil continually...<br><br>Ephesians 5:25<br>25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;<br><br>Ephesians 2:4-5<br> 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,<br> 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ,<br><br>Anyways these are some of the ones that I found. And it seems to me that God loves the church, and that God loves us when we repent. But it seems like it is a little bit of a stretch to say that God loves everyone all the time.<br><br>Anyways, I do not disagree with you that the world would be a much better place if there was more love and less hate. But I've just heard that phrase unconditional love thrown around a lot, and never could figure out where it came from. So I was just wondering if you could help me out with it.Natehttp://nate.comnoreply@blogger.com