This broadcaster has 662 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
May 16, 2019 5:22 am
One member is examining the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from a biblical perspective viewpoint when Mormonism is sponsored by Mormonism research ministry since 1979 Mormonism research ministry has been dedicated to equipping the body of Christ with answers regarding the Christian faith in a manner that expresses gentleness and respect. And now, your host for today's viewpoint on Mormonism are morbid leaders quite capable of making honest mistakes.
Welcome to this edition of viewpoint on Mormonism on your host, Bill McKeever, founder and director Mormonism research ministry with me today is Eric Johnson.
My colleague at MRM on Monday we began looking at an article written by Mormon blogger Greg Trimble titled take it easy on Pres. Nelson and if you didn't catch as earlier shows up just bring you up to speed very quickly the context of his peace had to do with a reversal on a quote." Policy has its being described in the church today reversing what was said in 2015 regarding the children of those in same-sex marriage relationship or a same-sex relationship. I should say back in 2015 it was decreed and put into the church handbook that children of those in the household such as that would not be allowed to be baptized. There was a provision from what I understand that they could be baptized if they renounce the behavior of their parents but children and young children could not be blessed in the Mormon church if they lived in that household of a same-sex couple. This was reversed in April 2019 and the reason why we certainly raised questions about this is because the policy as it's understood was considered a revelation. At least that's the way it was described by Russell M. Nelson when he gave a talk at Brigham Young University on January 10, 2016. Obviously, Greg Trimble, the Mormon blogger that we've been talking about this week.
Thought it was good news when the church reversed this position and now no longer is it considered apostate behavior for those who engage in same-sex behavior and children living in the household of parents. In that situation can be baptized but the point is is that Trimble is trying to argue on behalf of his church leadership, making it appear that such a reversal is not something that should concern people. He thought it was good news when it was reversed and he also says he felt that what they did recently was right. Which makes me think that what they did in 2015 must've been wrong at least in Greg Trimble's eyes so we been examining some of the comments that he makes in this piece and yesterday we were looking at a paragraph or Trimble admits that he is not privy to a lot of the information that his leaders may have makes the statement, we don't know what is going on behind the scenes. We don't know what situations might have arisen that might have caused the policies of the past. We don't know what information they have. When these decisions are being made.
We don't know if it was a quote on quote Revelation regarding the policy or just an honest mistake and yesterday show Eric II zeroed in on that phrase. Honest mistake because as I said yesterday if I was a member of the LDS church. I would be very troubled by that phrase. To think that my leaders can make honest mistakes on issues so big and this was a big decision they made in 2015 because as we discussed, we know for a fact at least 1500 people resigned from the Mormon church over this.
In other words, from a Mormon worldview.
They gave up the potential of them being exalted in the celestial kingdom. Now the church says hey whatever we say.
Back in 2015. Forget all about that.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, it doesn't matter what they said back in, like what Bruce McConkie said when it came to the priesthood revelation of 1978 just forget whatever was said in the past, and the question we are asking is, does the God of the Bible really work that way and we would argue know he does not all… Think about another decision that was made based on pragmatics and that would be official declaration, one which band polygamy, at least on paper in 1890 that was put together by Wilford Woodruff and if you look at some of the teaching of the leaders in the years previous to that, you'll see that these leaders were very big on God demanding that they would not only believe in polygamy but they would practice polygamy. Brigham Young himself said the only men who become gods or even the sons of God are those who enter into polygamy. So you would think that polygamy was a pretty big deal. In the 19th century if it's necessary for your salvation to even be a son of God, as Brigham Young taught you would think that this would go a little bit more beyond policy.
Perhaps it sounds like it was a revelation. The Brigham Young understood it that way.
Certainly did in 1866 he said this, I heard the revelation on polygamy and I believe it with all my heart and I know it is from God. I know that he revealed it from heaven.
I know that it is true, and understand the bearings of it and why it is, and that comes from Journal of discourses, volume 11, page 269. He said that on August 19, 1866 the way Brigham Young describes polygamy sounds awfully familiar to the way Russell M. Nelson described the policy of 2015 regarding children in a same-sex household. Let me give you another example Wilford Woodruff who was the fourth president of the church. This is what he said in 1869. He says if we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird one ordinance in the church and kingdom do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and apostles, with Revelation and the gifts and graces of the gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether.
He goes on and says he has told us to do.
Thus, and we shall obey him and days to come. As we have in days past.
Now he said revelation as well and this is Wilford Woodruff folks, that's the same Wilford Woodruff who introduces the manifesto of 1890 because he was the president at that time. So the same president that gives the Mormon church. The manifesto of 1890, promising the federal government that they would no longer have people enter into plural marriages. It's the same hen who said 21 years earlier that they couldn't do that because they have to follow the dictates of God. Here's an example where it took God.
21 years to change his mind. This is something that happens in 3 1/2 years now. The question I want to ask Latter Day Saints is do you really think that the doctrine of polygamy was not really a doctrine at all times. Is it been described as a doctrine. How many times what is it described as coming forth as a revelation there just read Brigham Young saying that very word. It was a revelation from God. And yet Mormons are telling us today that you can't change a doctrine. You can only change policy.
Do you see why we see this as a game of semantics because certainly polygamy was a doctrine and it was abandoned. Now the Mormon church would make us believe that it has nothing to do with plural marriage any longer and I would agree that when it comes to marrying to living wives, they would be correct because the Mormon church does not allow a member of their church to have two living wives. But polygamy still goes on in the hereafter.
You can be sealed to more than one wife in this lifetime a Mormon mail can be sealed to a woman if that woman dies then that male can marry another woman and be sealed to her for eternity as well as long as she was not already sealed to another man. Now I know Russell M. Nelson knows this doctrine because Russell M. Nelson is sealed to women for eternity Wendy Nelson.
His current living wife is not the only one that Russell M.
Nelson hopes to be with in eternity. He had another wife who passed away.
Then he marries Wendy Nelson who was not sealed to another man previously so I'm sure Nelson's pretty aware of this doctrine and has every hope of being married polygamist leak in the next life. But the question is this why would Brigham Young say that the only men who become gods, even the sons of God are those who enter into polygamy and then the church takes away the provision for becoming a God in the next life. In 1890. Now I know that even after the manifesto came out the Mormon church was still solemnized in plural marriages. They were still doing it. They told the government they wouldn't.
They were still doing that in many of the cases they were done down in Mexico or up in Canada were the laws of the United States did not affect them.
The church itself came out with the gospel topics essay dealing with plural marriages after the manifesto and they have admitted that this went on even after Wilford Woodruff promised in the manifesto of 1890 that that would not take place, was that honest mistake, let's go back to 1890 and official declaration, one which is found at the end of the doctrine and covenants, and in 1981.
The church added excerpts from three addresses by Pres. Wilford Woodruff regarding the manifesto.
It was not in the 1977 edition it was in the 1981 and following addition and is very interesting because you do not see the word Revelation anywhere in the actual manifesto, but then here's what this says in the one of the excerpts it says this I saw exactly what would come to pass. Wilford Woodruff says if there was not something done.
I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. There's the spirit inspiration that Nelson talked about but I want to say this, I should have let all the temples go out of our hands. I should have gone to prison myself and let every other man go there because he was concerned that the Lord is showed him that if he did not give in on this.
The government was in a take away the four temples the church around it was gonna put them in prison and so he sees this had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that. It was all clear to me.
I went before the Lord and I wrote what the Lord told me to write I leave this with you for you to contemplate and consider the Lord is at work with us you notice Bill what he just said after he said revelation back in the 1860s that polygamy was always supposed to be one feather in a bird now.
He says that the Lord told him to write this. He's saying this.
A year later, in 1891, and I'm sure he's getting a lot of people who were criticizing him for this very hard decision. Imagine how many lives were affected and he says hey it wasn't me it was God telling me, but he showed me what would happen.
Had it not happen. Perhaps Russell M.
Nelson is thinking the same thing. Look what will happen if we don't allow these poor children to be blessed and baptized there going to be harmed. I don't see much of a difference between the two. The question I'm asking myself, as you say that Eric is what Wilford Woodruff said in the late 1860s was an honest mistake didn't make an honest mistake when he made that statement because from what I gather, and reading history. A lot of men went to jail because they stood firm that this was a revelation from God and needed to be practiced regardless of what the corrupt federal government. And that's how they looked at the government at that time. Regardless of what this government was telling them to do was Wilford Woodruff leading those people astray when he said you must stand firm, because that's what God wants and then we find out couple decades later.
Apparently God has a reversal on this so you see, God is quite capable of reversing doctrinal positions in the Mormon church. So when a leader gets up and says what we can't change doctrine.
That's just not true.
Folks, because the Mormon church has in fact done that in its history. Thank you for listening you would like more information when guarding this research ministry. We encourage you to visit our website www.mrm.org you can request our free newsletter research.
We hope you join us again as we look at another viewpoint is