The LDS temples

[baker]

Of course they won't be at lds.org the JofD is NOT church sanctioned!

Huh?

Who then, did sanction them?

 

[twhite982]

Tom, I realize this is just a bit off the topic we are discussing here but your second to last paragraph struck a bad cord with me. Not because you stated it but because of what it implies. What is mean is....what right is it of JS and Heber to make an "eternal" decision in regards to Helen. Who gave them the right to choose for her? Do you understand what I am saying. I know what I am thinking but having a hard time to put it to type.

Grace

I know what you're trying to say and that is why I said I don't have all the details, i.e. if Helen Kimball had any kind of say in the matter or if this type of arrangement (arranged marriages) was typical or even practiced occasionally during the 19th century.


Tom

 

[twhite982]

Huh?

Who then, did sanction them?

Doc T has already discussed this with you as you well know.

I have yet to see even a remote sanctioning of the JofD, i.e. sold in church distribution.

Doc T has all the references to who, what, when , and where.


My point is that the JofD as you well know is NOT official doctrine, but is used for learning and study. The two do equate though.

BTW, I am not ignoring your last post to me. My response will take a little homework as we've seemed to come to a stalemate, since to follow your reasoning I have to use your pressupositions and and to follow thinking you have to use mine.

Anyways more to follow....

Tom

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Doc T has already discussed this with you as you well know.

I have yet to see even a remote sanctioning of the JofD, i.e. sold in church distribution.

Doc T has all the references to who, what, when , and where.


My point is that the JofD as you well know is NOT official doctrine, but is used for learning and study. The two do equate though.

BTW, I am not ignoring your last post to me. My response will take a little homework as we've seemed to come to a stalemate, since to follow your reasoning I have to use your pressupositions and and to follow thinking you have to use mine.

Anyways more to follow....

Tom

TW, once again I have to ask you...if it is not chruch docterine, why are they teaching it?

Grace

 

[rnmomof7]

Oh man you weren't joking.

Your conspiracy theory is rediculios. There are thousands of copies of the JofD available to ALL.

Sorry YW they are not on the web with a web search, they are not on the "official" LDS site

If I want them I have to buy them

Again my gospel link 2001 has the entire 26 volumes.

Yea for a price.

http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100010644&sku=4028853

I have found sites on-line that have them for free.

Not the J&D on the web were one can surf it .Tom, make your statement clear.

Where do you think all the sites critical of the LDS church get their copy?

The same way you do .
By paying for it.

So give me a link that offers it FREE Tom .

Of course they won't be at lds.org the JofD is NOT church sanctioned!

Huh?

How convenient . The words and teachings of the prophets and presidents can not be approved of by the "official church" .
That my friend is VERY telling

AND that is why it is not on the web free for use.

Show me



I'll let you do your own searching, but I can tell they are available, as can be seen from your link.


BTW Read the top line of the link you provided, it collaberates my story!


Tom

Tom this is a deceptive conversation.

I will let the interested lurkers decide if there is any free for use J&D on the web to surf.

You knew thats what i meant when I said I found it on a Swedish site. But you chose to use all manner of band width to cloud the issue .

I never said I could not purchase it. I said it was not on the web .

Is it an embarrassment to you that your church will not let it be publicly viewed without dropping coins into the church coffers?

 

[Alma]

Alma,

Thanks for your reply. After I read your post, I was searching for some background information concerning the Reed Smoot investigation. Since my searches kept pulling up a specific review, maybe you could just help me. Was Senator Smoot being investigated for allegedly practicing polygamy, or was he being investigated for supporting polygamy because he was both a Senator and an LDS apostle? Or was the investigation for a different reason?

Also, when did sealings for "eternity only" cease?


Thanks.

Reed Smoot was the legally elected Senator from Utah. However, a nationwide protest against him taking office was promoted by several different religious organizations. They made all kinds of allegations including that he was a polygamist (which was false.) The senate impaneled a committee to hear evidence on whether or not Smoot was eligible to represent the state of Utah. Mostly it was a smear campaign directed at Mormonism rather than at Reed Smoot.

When it was finally determined that Smoot did not practice or countenance polygamy, the tactic changed to disqualify him because he believed in revelation from God. The former congressman from Ohio who presented the case for the protestants (those who protested, not "Protestants"), summed it up by saying:

"Several hundred thousand sincere men and women have believed and now believe, as they believe in their own existence, that Joseph Smith, jr., received revelations direct from God, and if anyone ever believed that, we must assume that Senator Smoot believes it.

Now, a Senator of the United States might believe anything else in the world but that and not be ineligible to a seat in the body to which he belongs. He might believe in polygamy; he might believe that murder was commendable; he might deny the propriety as a rule of life of all the ten commandments; he might believe in the sacrifice of human life; he might believe in no God or in a thousand gods; he might be Jew or Gentile, Mohammedan or Buddhist, atheist or pantheist; he might believe that the world began last year and would end next year, but to believe with the kind of conviction that Reed Smoot possesses that God speaks to him or may speak to him is to admit by the inevitable logic of his conviction that there is a superior authority with whom here and now he may converse, and whose command he can no more refuse to obey than he can will himself not to think."

In reply, Smoot's attorney, (non-Mormon Wash. D.C. attorney) replied:

"This we start with, that there is no question made here that Senator Smoot has lived in all respects a blameless life. No charge is made that he ever violated the law the statute law, the common law, the criminal law, or the moral law. He stands here, confessed, by the admissions of those who are brought here by the remonstrants to testify against him, the bitterest enemies he has anywhere, after a careful investigation of his life from the time he was born down to the time he was giving his testimony, to be a man upon whose name they have been unable to find any blemish. Yet you are asked, nevertheless, to say that he is not fit to sit with you, and that he should be excluded from the Senate of the United States.

...It is strange indeed, that this committee should be asked to consider that a disqualification of a man as a Senator or as a member of Congress. I had supposed it was the doctrine of all the Christian churches of this country that when a man is in trouble and perplexity he is advised to go to his closet and seek counsel from the Almighty. I had supposed that in every church in this country on every Sabbath Day there go up prayers to the Almighty to aid those who are in trouble and distress, to take care of the sick, to see that those who are upon the sea have a safe voyage, prayers for women who are about to go through the perils of childbirth, prayers for the President of the United States; and I suppose you are asked to decide that those who offer up those prayers and those who believe in them are not fit to go into the Senate of the United States because, perchance, if they get in here they might think the Almighty had instructed them how to vote on the question of railroad rates, or the tariff, or something of that kind.

If there is anything in his argument, that is it. I suppose these ladies who are here will have to go home and tell their children if they have children, or tell the mothers who have children, that when they kneel down at their mother’s feet to say the Lord’s prayer, it is all right for them to say Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is done in heaven, because that relates to spiritual matters; but when they come to say Give us this day our daily bread, they must shut their little mouths, because some day they may want to get into the Senate of the United States, and they will be kept out because they are asking the Lord to interfere in things temporal.

I read the other day, having occasion to investigate another matter, that a great man who was President of the United States, in considering perhaps the most momentous event in the history of this country and one of the most momentous in the history of the world, brought his Cabinet before him, in September of 1862, and said he had been considering the question of issuing an emancipation proclamation, and that he had promised himself and promised his God that under certain circumstances he would issue such a proclamation. He had been urged to issue that proclamation long before, but because of the adverse results of the battles around Richmond, when McClellan was in command, because Pope’s army had been crushed afterwards and was falling back on Washington, he had said it would not do to issue that proclamation then, because it would be said it was a cry of distress that it was ridiculous to issue such a paper when it was obvious there was no power to enforce it. But he told his advisers that he had promised his God that if there was a victory for the Union arms, he would issue the proclamation; and after Lee had been checked and compelled to retire across the Potomac by the battle of Antietam, on the 17th of September of that year, he, a few days afterwards, called his Cabinet together and complied with the promise he had made to God. I suppose if Abraham Lincoln were still alive and should be elected to the Senate, you would be asked, on the theory that Mr. Carlisle has applied here, to fold your cloaks about you and tell him to stay out because he is not fit to sit by your side. If this means anything, it means that."

Ultimately, the majority of the senators voted to exclude Smoot from the Senate, but the Supreme Court determined that it took a two-thirds majority rather than a simple majority and he was allowed to have his seat.

My personal opinion of the matter is that this was little more than old fashioned bigotry under the guise of offended American morality. The government had for years prosecuted Mormons for having more than one wife, but the laws were drafted and interpreted to only apply to men who claimed to have sexual relations with wives rather than prostitutes or mistresses. The U.S. Senate had even established a red light district within the sight of the capitol building; but they obviously weren't worried about illicit sex or prostitution, only about sex as practiced by Mormons. In order to evade prosecution a man needed only to claim that the sexual relations weren't "in the marriage" relation and he would have been exempt from prosecution.

Alma

 

[twhite982]

TW, once again I have to ask you...if it is not chruch docterine, why are they teaching it?

Grace

Sorry, thought I already answered your question earlier.

There are many statements in the JofD, which do align with established church doctrine.

Just because statements are used from the JofD doesn't make the entire collection as the source for doctrine.

The statements are typically used because they align with our standard works.


Tom

 

[twhite982]

Sorry YW they are not on the web with a web search, they are not on the "official" LDS site

If I want them I have to buy them

I found them after doing 3 searches for them.

They are available on-line for your viewing pleasure, but as I stated before, you do your own homework.


I'm getting tired of you calling me deceptive.

Show proof or edit the statement please.

Tom

 

[rnmomof7]

I found them after doing 3 searches for them.

They are available on-line for your viewing pleasure, but as I stated before, you do your own homework.


I'm getting tired of you calling me deceptive.

Show proof or edit the statement please.

Tom

I said it was deceptive conversation , I did not call you deceptive .

I searched 20 minutes and various key words on goggle and no J and D.

I was not asking you to do my Homework
If they are there and you choose not to link to them..well that says something too

 

[twhite982]

I said it was deceptive conversation , I did not call you deceptive .

Then I mistook your comments as pointing to my methods as being deceptive.

I searched 20 minutes and various key words on goggle and no J and D.

As a quick hint use the " " to simply the search or you'll be in search mode all day long.

I was not asking you to do my Homework
If they are there and you choose not to link to them..well that says something too

What does it say?


Tom

 

[rnmomof7]

Then I mistook your comments as pointing to my methods as being deceptive.

no . I think you are pretty honest.

I meant the discussion was circular

As a quick hint use the " " to simply the search or you'll be in search mode all day long.

What does it say?


Tom

Says you do not want to help me .........

 

[Rescued One]

I have yet to see even a remote sanctioning of the JofD, i.e. sold in church distribution.

What does "sold in church distribution" mean, Tom?

 

[twhite982]

I meant the discussion was circular

Maybe so, but remember this ALL started from YOUR comments, which stated that the LDS church is hiding things.

Says you do not want to help me .........

I asked because I don't want to assume what your intent was.

But you are right, I don't feel inclined to help you.

From my interactions with you, I have noticed you twist many LDS teachings. I have approached you in trying to correct those things, but you were would not stop posting those same comments.

I fail to see how giving you a link for the JofD will help your case, as its my feeling that you're not interested in looking at the statements in context.

I have yet to see ANYTHING that would make me change my mind about you.


But, they ARE available online and I did find an non-LDS, non-payment link to the JofD. That much I will help with, but I don't want to hand it on a silver platter. Those things we work for are often more appreciated than those things we don't.


Tom

 

[twhite982]

What does "sold in church distribution" mean, Tom?

The LDS church has a distribution store where most things are sold at cost.

I pretty sure it can be found on lds.org.

The is NOT a blanket statement that says EVERYTHING offered at church distribution IS official church doctrine.


The church has not taken an official stance on EVERY issue, but they do provide authors, mostly LDS general authorities who try to expound on various subjects.


Hope that helps,


Tom

 

[fatboys]

TW, once again I have to ask you...if it is not chruch docterine, why are they teaching it?

Grace

FB: I don't know how many times I have explained this to critics. The JofD is not church doctrine, but that does not mean that any of its teachings are wrong. Many of the basic principles of the gospel are taught in them. And those things that critics love to hammer on are not understood. Critics have place their own understanding on what was being taught. The Doctrines we live by are found in the four standard works.

 

[Rescued One]

FB: I don't know how many times I have explained this to critics. The JofD is not church doctrine, but that does not mean that any of its teachings are wrong. Many of the basic principles of the gospel are taught in them. And those things that critics love to hammer on are not understood. Critics have place their own understanding on what was being taught. The Doctrines we live by are found in the four standard works.

That has changed, hasn't it?!

 

[Rescued One]

The LDS church has a distribution store where most things are sold at cost.

I pretty sure it can be found on lds.org.

The is NOT a blanket statement that says EVERYTHING offered at church distribution IS official church doctrine.


The church has not taken an official stance on EVERY issue, but they do provide authors, mostly LDS general authorities who try to expound on various subjects.


Hope that helps,


Tom

I'm still confused. I was LDS for many years and I don't know what this store is. Is it something only in Utah?

 

[twhite982]

I'm still confused. I was LDS for many years and I don't know what this store is. Is it something only in Utah?

There are several distribution centers, although I only know of the ones in Utah.

Tom

 

[unbound]

FB: I don't know how many times I have explained this to critics. The JofD is not church doctrine, but that does not mean that any of its teachings are wrong. Many of the basic principles of the gospel are taught in them. And those things that critics love to hammer on are not understood. Critics have place their own understanding on what was being taught. The Doctrines we live by are found in the four standard works.

Does the fact that the "discourses" are only "taught" and are not "standard works" make them exempt from analysis? Will there ever be a time when such "teachings" are "official doctrine"? Is this something the LDS organization is trying to understand at the present time?

 

[Rescued One]

There are several distribution centers, although I only know of the ones in Utah.

Tom

Are they different than the LDS bookstores that LDS go to in other states?