Life and then Some

Sitting here
waiting for something
anything to happen
yet it won't, it doesn't know how

Life occurs
beyond bliss
and reason
yet here we sit, waiting

Article of Faith 2

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

The second Article of Faith clearly states that we don’t believe in original sin. Original sin, is the sin which Adam and Eve committed in the Garden of Eden. That is, hearkening unto Satan and eating of the fruit. In turn, we are only responsible for the sins which we commit here in our own lives. Seems nice for sure, don’t have to be held to another person’s sins to dictate our lives.

Well...that’s not the whole truth though.

You see, in November of 2015 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints included some things in their Official Handbook of Instructions (Handbook One) redefining apostasy. It included in that definition that members in homosexual relationships would be declared in apostasy. (It’s okay to have the thoughts, just don’t act on them.)

It also changed a few things around for children of those same sex couples. Children who have two parents who are the same sex, cannot be baptized at the age of eight. Thus they are being punished for the “sins” of their parents...which appears to go against the 2nd Article of Faith.

Adam is our first parent, those to whom we are direct descents of are our biological parents. Either way, we shouldn’t be judged for either of their sins. Like the story of the blind man in the New Testament of the Bible. The Savior’s disciples asked who had sinned the man or his parents that he had been born blind. The Savior’s response was that neither had sinned. It wasn’t his or his parents fault that he was born blind.

Should not this be the case with children who are born to same sex couples? People should be allowed to love each other no matter their gender. Didn’t God teach love? Didn’t Jesus teach that we should love everyone no matter what?

What Is Doctrine?

There are times in this life where we cannot fully understand or grasp it all. I do not know exactly how any of that works or happens, but here we are and that should be enough? Maybe not. I do not know exactly how this life is meant to be played out. It racks my brain more than anything else at the moment. It has indeed become a downfall of repressed memories, upon the likes which I cannot find myself the trouble to handle at times.

If there was a pre-existence and we did live with God before this life...we shouted for Joy to be able to come down and gain a body like he did? We wanted to forget everything we knew and simply come down without any sort of knowledge before hand what we would be getting ourselves into?

I have often stated that I hoped God would have taken each of us aside personally and spoken with us explaining that which was about to happen, personally to us. Instead of just tossing us down here without any kind of preparation. Even though we would forget all such things we had grown accustomed to. If that didn’t take place? Even to calm the nerves of children afraid of the future, then I am saddened by that thought.

There are quotes from general authorities about certain people being born with “limitations” and the like because of their not being fully righteous in the pre-existence. I find that thought abhorring. Here is the quote in question:

"The privilege of obtaining a mortal body on this earth is seemingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though unfaithful or not valiant, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies although under penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limitations."1

It brings about an interesting thought does it not? President Lee felt that those people born with a disability were less valiant in the pre-existence. People believed this thought back then. It has taken a change in later years, as we no longer teach this thought. Like we don’t teach that black people were cursed with the mark of cain because of not being valiant in the pre-existence. Yet these teachings were taught at one time. They were believed to be doctrine.

Doctrine has an...interesting ring to it. The terminology itself is not what one would assume. Can there be many types of doctrine within the church? There is the Doctrine of Christ, which the Savior stated would be the most important doctrine one can follow in order to return back to Heavenly Father. Is that the only doctrine we need to know and follow?

If so, then why must there be so many different policies and doctrines upon which a member must follow and believe in, in order to obtain Eternal Life? Is it wrong to question such things? Is it wrong to want to have an understanding of these matters?

There is the notion that we would choose which path to be in, that depending upon our wanting to find the gospel, we would be born where we were. In order to find the gospel, we would need to be born into certain homes, nations, with the ability to reach the gospel as easily as we needed to. This thought comes from the bible:

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:2

So, apparently we would reach after the gospel based on our pre-existence and how we lived there. How noble and righteous we were there depends on how and when we would find the gospel of Jesus Christ during this state.

I cannot say for myself how I was in the pre-existence for I do not remember any of it. Like everyone else here I have that vail over my mind. It is a tricky thought to accept that isn’t it. We accepted such a handicap to come down here. I imagine it was either that or we wouldn’t be allowed to come at all.

We learn that those who add to or take away from the Doctrine of Christ are to be punished. They should not be followed and are false prophets. I wonder about those people who would say that certain doctrines are doctrines of salvation…or rather for salvation. Without them we cannot return to God. Is that really the case? Does God only love those who follow His rules to a T without faltering? I mean, we all make mistakes sure. But will He cast those aside who did not choose the exact one religion which He established on the Earth?

Will they be tossed aside without further thought? Or will mercy take over, and will one learn what they didn’t quite grasp down here? If there is only one true religion, wouldn’t that religion include everyone in their worship service and not throw out those who are different then them?

Above all, I believe Jesus taught that we should love our neighbor. We should love the Lord our God first, but then we should love our neighbor. Sometimes I wonder at how policies and practices are in place that do not show that love. Certain beliefs in the LDS church are not all inclusive of people, of everyone. They are set out to separate people and not allow them to be together in the eternities. All because some people do not agree with the theology or doctrine of the church.

People are not made to worship idols, or churches, or leaders of churches. God would not approve. Yet some leaders allow this hero worship to occur. Even to be able to enter the Holy Temple, people have to say the believe in a restoration, they have to believe Joseph Smith to have been a prophet in order for that restoration to occur. How does that affect my eternal salvation in the slightest? How does believing in and following modern revelation affect my eternal salvation?

I thought I was supposed to follow Christ and love God and His ways not the will of man.

1. Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, pp. 165
2. Acts 17:26-27

Living The Truth

There are times when you have to simply live the truth. Whatever truth that is. Does the bible not teach that:

The truth shall set you free?¹

I believe it does. So, what does that mean exactly? Personally to me, it means that no matter where the truth will lead you. As long as you study it with intent and with actual pure of heart, with no desire to deceive anyone not even yourself, you will come across that which will help you feel at peace.

Personally I for one, would love to have peace in my life. A religion which causes you to experience anxiety over simple things doesn't make sense to me. I believe that's one reason why I no longer believe. But only one. There are many reasons why I no longer believe in the LDS religion or faith. Those questions have come from and have lasted a long time without having answers to any of it. It is rather troubling to my mind if you ask me.

1. John 8:32

Changes Over The Years

Looking over at lds.org, I found a discrepancy. It has to do with Joseph Smith and money digging. In 1989, this was taught that Joseph had no dealings with money digging or “peepstones”. A peep stone, is a stone used to look for buried treasure, an act that Joseph was indeed doing.

Here’s the quote from a 1989 article:

The Knight families knew Joseph Smith in the earliest days, when he was accused of gold-digging and using peep stones. If Joseph Smith were a charlatan or disreputable money grubber as detractors charged, the large Knight clan would not have felt such deep trust in him. Their loyalty to him was based on firsthand, intimate knowledge, which stands today as a solid witness that the Prophet’s character, from when he was twenty to his death at thirty-eight, was righteous and good.¹

And now a quote from the new church history volume, Saints:

In September 1826, Joseph returned to the hill for the plates, but Moroni said he was still not ready for them. “Quit the company of the money diggers,” the angel told him. There were wicked men among them. Moroni gave him one more year to align his will with God’s. If he did not, the plates would never be entrusted to him.²

So apparently, over time the story can and does change.

1. The Knight Family (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/01/the-knight-family-ever-faithful-to-the-prophet?lang=eng#note9-)

2. Saints Vol 1, Chapter 4 (https://www.lds.org/languages/eng/content/history/saints-v1/04-be-watchful)

First Presidency Statement 1969

December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

Dear Brethren:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by “wise men” whom God raised up for this “very purpose,” and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended “for the rights and protection” of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is “not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223] join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our [p.224] chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.

We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.

Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.

Faithfully your brethren,
The First Presidency

By Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner

First Presidency Statement 1949

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency

Statement of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, August 17, 1949, Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.

Hyrum Smith on Polygamy

Hyrum Smith, Times And Seasons vol 5, p 474