I wasn't FLDS but I got away from LDS

I thank God that my children were never baptized in the LDS church.

One of my daughters sent me this link today:

Yikes. I guess this shows the importance of the roles of the Standard Works in a Church, because Jeff's was clearly violating scriptural principles.

Moses 7:
18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

Alma 1:
26 And when the priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors; and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength

It's unfortunate that we are painted guilty by association, and implying that the LDS Church controls their members in spiritual matters, as an FLDS cult controls their members with physical matters.

There is no “up or down” in the service of the Lord. There is only “forward or backward,” and that difference depends on how we accept and act upon our releases and our callings.(Dallin H. Oaks, April 2014)
 
Yikes. I guess this shows the importance of the roles of the Standard Works in a Church, because Jeff's was clearly violating scriptural principles.

You mean like the LDS do?:

D&C 89:12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
D&C 89:13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
 
You mean like the LDS do?:

D&C 89:12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
D&C 89:13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
Does LDS leadership teach contrary to this?
 
Please quote where I allegedly said that.
It was implied... here's how arrived at the conclusion of your implied statement:

You quoted me saying:
Yikes. I guess this shows the importance of the roles of the Standard Works in a Church, because Jeff's was clearly violating scriptural principles.
Commenting:
You mean like the LDS do?:

D&C 89:12
Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
D&C 89:13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
You're question "Like the LDS do..." What?
Filling in the gaps in the context of my comment would be "violating scriptural principles".

So I asked:
Does LDS leadership teach contrary to this?
If leadership represents the beliefs of the Church, as Jeff's would represent FLDS - it's a legitimate question.

And you responded:
So Mormons don't have to obey Scripture unless leadership proclaims it?
So, here, you're removing leadership out of the equation - referring to the Church as the body of the membership, not just the leadership.
Going back to initial implied statement "LDS violate scriptural principles", I then conclude "Absent LDS leadership guidance, LDS violate scriptural principles".

Thus, I ask a clarifying question:
Are you making a blanket statement that all Mormons are disobeying this scripture?
But now you are asking where you allegedly said that, which I am to conclude that you believe leadership nor all the membership are violating scriptural principles in terms of the Word of Wisdom.

So, to be clear, do you believe LDS violate scriptural principles? I apologize if I completely misunderstood you. Feel free, at your discretion, to detail how I should have interpreted your statements.

We may agree that many do in fact violate scriptural principles, in examples such as the Word of Wisdom. Yet, scriptural precedent says that's between God, and the individual, according to their level of conversion, and individual consciences. (Roman 14)
The WoW has promised blessings members can receive according to their faithfulness, which may affect their salvation in terms of sanctification, but not in terms of justification.
 
It was implied... here's how arrived at the conclusion of your implied statement:

No, it's not.
But thank you for misrepresenting me by putting words in my mouth.
Is it that you WANT to be reported?

So, to be clear, do you believe LDS violate scriptural principles?

Based on a recent search of "LDS barbeque" it's pretty obvious that the answer is "yes'.

We may agree that many do in fact violate scriptural principles, in examples such as the Word of Wisdom. Yet, scriptural precedent says that's between God, and the individual, according to their level of conversion, and individual consciences. (Roman 14)

I would suggest to you that you have an errant understanding of Paul here.
But it seems like you are trying to use it as an excuse to disobey Scripture.

In Christianity, meat is not forbidden. There was an issue in the first century regarding eating meat which had been sacrificed to idols. So if a weaker brother refrains, it is no sin. But to eat something that was prohibited certainly IS a sin.

The WoW has promised blessings members can receive according to their faithfulness, which may affect their salvation in terms of sanctification, but not in terms of justification.

Sorry, that's not how D&C 89 reads, as some sort of "option".
 
No, it's not.
But thank you for misrepresenting me by putting words in my mouth.
Is it that you WANT to be reported?
I simply detailed how I interpreted your statements, giving you the opportunity to clarify them.
If you feel that I misrepresented you, by all means, I am comfortable with you reporting me and I'll accept their determination.
Based on a recent search of "LDS barbeque" it's pretty obvious that the answer is "yes'.

I would suggest to you that you have an errant understanding of Paul here.
But it seems like you are trying to use it as an excuse to disobey Scripture.

In Christianity, meat is not forbidden. There was an issue in the first century regarding eating meat which had been sacrificed to idols. So if a weaker brother refrains, it is no sin. But to eat something that was prohibited certainly IS a sin.
Per D&C 89, I don't see where it saying eating meat is prohibited. It's up to the member to interpret what "sparingly" means according to the letter and the Spirit of the Law.

Sorry, that's not how D&C 89 reads, as some sort of "option".
"Option" for what?

All laws are options - that's free agency. Yet, consequences are not optional:
D&C 93:31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.
 
Per D&C 89, I don't see where it saying eating meat is prohibited. It's up to the member to interpret what "sparingly" means according to the letter and the Spirit of the Law.

"Sparingly" is a pretty easy word.
So are "winter" and "famine".

"Option" for what?

All laws are options - that's free agency. Yet, consequences are not optional:

Really?
Are there punishments for disobeying the Ten Commandments?
Are there punishments for refusing to follow the WoW?

D&C 93:31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

Do we get to interpret what we think "plainly manifest" means, or "receive not the light"?
I mean, as long as you're playing fast and loose with "Scripture"...
 
"Sparingly" is a pretty easy word.
So are "winter" and "famine".
Agreed. So what's the relevance in light of our conversation?
If you were a member, and you felt that people in your stewardship we're consuming too much meat, then it would be your responsibility to admonish those in your stewardship to eat less meat. Some may feel there's other areas that are more important to focus on, and eating meat sparingly is lower on the list of priorities.

Really?
Are there punishments for disobeying the Ten Commandments?
Yes. All will be subject to God's justice.

Are there punishments for refusing to follow the WoW?
Is "absence of blessings" considered "punishment" - such as having "the destroying angel pass by them" (vs 21)? If so, I'd say "yes."
Works are evidence of our faith.

Do we get to interpret what we think "plainly manifest" means, or "receive not the light"?
I mean, as long as you're playing fast and loose with "Scripture"...
You seem to be omitting the role and relationship with the Holy Ghost. God knows our hearts. It's the Holy Ghost that tells us "all we can do". If we're living below what we know what we are capable of, then our consciences would torment us, which would lead us to repentance. God holds us accountable to the light we have received. We can't lie to God.
Any belief that we are "playing fast and loose with scripture" as a matter of convenience, must not believe that God is able to communicate directly with His people, and assumes conversion/sanctification is binary state, not one of degrees. Maybe those are assumptions that need to be established.
 
  • The Word of Wisdom requirement in the temple recommend interview was in place for many years before Prohibition was repealed The temple recommend requirement was in place by 1919. Prohibition wasn't repealed until 1933.
www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Word_of_Wisdom/History_and_implementation

Doctrine and Covenants 89
2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days

Although the Word of Wisdom was received on 27 February 1833, its acceptance by individual members of the Church was gradual. On 9 September 1851, some eighteen years after it was given, the Patriarch to the Church, John Smith, delivered a talk in general conference on the Word of Wisdom. During his address, President Brigham Young arose and proposed that all Saints formally covenant to abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, whiskey, and “all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom” (“Minutes of the General Conference,” Millennial Star, 1 Feb. 1852, p. 35). The motion was accepted unanimously and became binding as a commandment for all Church members thereafter.

Which scripture verse refers to it as a commandment?
 
  • The Word of Wisdom requirement in the temple recommend interview was in place for many years before Prohibition was repealed The temple recommend requirement was in place by 1919. Prohibition wasn't repealed until 1933.
www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Word_of_Wisdom/History_and_implementation

Doctrine and Covenants 89
2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days

Although the Word of Wisdom was received on 27 February 1833, its acceptance by individual members of the Church was gradual. On 9 September 1851, some eighteen years after it was given, the Patriarch to the Church, John Smith, delivered a talk in general conference on the Word of Wisdom. During his address, President Brigham Young arose and proposed that all Saints formally covenant to abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, whiskey, and “all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom” (“Minutes of the General Conference,” Millennial Star, 1 Feb. 1852, p. 35). The motion was accepted unanimously and became binding as a commandment for all Church members thereafter.

Which scripture verse refers to it as a commandment?
Nowhere. And yet...

"Members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles hold all the keys necessary for governing the Church."

"Governing" includes being able to set policy and standards for membership.
 
Back
Top