|
You are here: Greater Things > Newsletter > Archive > Sept. - Dec. 1999 > #72 |
{888} Would that all were prophets
Message #72
Date: Nov 08 1999 14:24:01 EST
From: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@greaterthings.com>
Subject: {888} Would that all were prophets
SUBJECT: New Essay Posted: Would that all were prophets -- The Hallmark
Mormon test of Questioning Polygamy
www.greaterthings.com/Essays/questioning_polygamy.htm
Laura,
Rather than call Joseph a "fallen" prophet, I think the far more applicable
term is "mortal, with follies" -- just as God intended it to be. He does
not want us hanging our salvation on a mortal; so by design he builds in
weaknesses, that we might look past the mortal to the eternal.
It is the mindset that wants a dispensational prophet to be an infallible
spokesman for God from which the idea of a "true" or a "fallen" prophet
springs.
When we realize that God wants all of us to be prophets, and that in a
limited sense all already are prophets -- each person having a "word of the
Lord" to impart to us as it were, in whatever form, for us to discern by our
agency -- then the label of "true" or "fallen" prophet is irrelevant, for it
is the "prophet within" that we should be concerned with.
Hence the Savior's admonition, "Let every man stand or fall by himself, and
not for another; or not trusting another. Seek unto my Father, and it shall
be done in that very moment what ye shall ask, if ye ask in faith, believing
that ye shall receive." (JST-Mark 9:44,45.)
Then comes the punch line: "And if thine eye which seeth for thee, him that
is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor
and offend thee, pluck him out. It is better for thee to enter into the
kingdom of God, with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell
fire." (JST-Mark 9:44,45.)
That applies to any ecclesiastical figure, whether it be Gordon B. Hinckley,
or the time-honored Moses, Joseph Smith, Isaiah, Nephi -- anyone. If we
find a doctrine taught by one of these greats raised up by the Lord, to be
out of harmony with our conscience, it is not only our right but our duty to
remove that offending doctrine from our hearts and belief systems.
I, with you Laura, believe that teaching polygamy to be a necessary
prerequisite incumbent upon all the most faithful saints is out of harmony
with the light of Christ within. I believe Paul felt the same way, and said
as much very eloquently in Galatians 5. As you know, I have recorded and
posted my belief on this matter for all the world to see.
www.greaterthings.com/Essays/polygamy.htm
Yes, polygamy may be exactly what some people need to experience to learn
certain lessons. But to expand the practice and teach it as incumbent upon
all is folly. We have to be willing to stand in such a belief even though
it is goes so cross-grained with what the early venerated brethren of
Mormondom taught emphatically, including Joseph and Brigham.
It is for this reason that polygamy creates a wonderful test of this
principle for the most valiant of seekers.
Would to God that all were prophets.
That is my motto as expressed at the footer of each page of Greater Things
web site.
The day is coming when it will no longer be said, "Know ye the Lord, For all
will know him from the least unto the greatest of them."
Our willingness to step into our independence before the Lord is a crucial
step in this direction.
So I applaud you Laura for stating your mind in defiance of what you believe
to be in error, though your stance be hugely unpopular with so many very
stalwart believers, who are yet clinging to tradition and trusting in man
rather than relying on the truth that God gives to them inside.
Sincerely,
Sterling D. Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: Laura S Shortridge <lsshortridge@juno.com>
To: davids_outcasts@listbot.com <davids_outcasts@listbot.com>
Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 7:27 AM
Subject: Re: Personal Saviors
David's Outcasts -
http://www.GreaterThings.com/OpenForum/Davids_Outcasts.htm
Blayne, my purpose here is not to ruffle your feathers. Sorry if I've
done such. I have just sat quietly by for years on Shulemna and now this
list, reading about how polygamy is necessary for exaltation. That
assertation has always felt wrong to me. As I've said before, it goes
against the Light of Christ within me. It has not been until recently
that I have finally grown enough spiritually to "stand on my own two
feet" so to speak, that I have had my own personal revelations on this,
so that I no longer need to lean on others to form an opinion, etc. This
is one chunk of meat that I have chewed and swallowed on my own (by that
I mean myself and my God, not with interference from other mortals)...
and it has given me much strength and nourishment. I've finally taken a
step forward and I am sharing what I have learned. We can quibble about
how many wives Joseph Smith had and/or how many other men's wives he
took, etc., but the bottom line is... it doesn't matter to me. Joseph
Smith was a man and I don't worship him anymore than I worship GBH. Not
anymore. If a prophet helps one on their path to Christ, then that
person can gladly accept the help until he/she is strong enough to
continue on alone (which at some point each of us must do). But when a
prophet stands in the way of a person attaining the Christ, then he is a
fallen prophet. I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but Joseph was
a fallen prophet. His mission was to bring forth the Book of Mormon not
to start an organized religion. He screwed up on April 6, 1830 when he
organized a state-recognized church. That was no more Father's will than
giving the 166-pages to Martin Harris. Reading the discriptions of
polygamy and Joseph Smith stealing other men's wives is, if true,
abhorrant. I would want to live nowhere near such a people until they
repented. I am greatful to Joseph Smith for his part in bringing forth
the BOM, I love him as a brother, I sorrow for his folly, and I believe
in his final days he recognized and repented of that mistake. But he
also paid his life for it. My message is an admonishment to follow the
Christ within, not the follies of man.
Love always,
Laura
On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 17:08:41 -0700 Hawkiye <hawkiye@uswest.net> writes:
>David's Outcasts -
>http://www.GreaterThings.com/OpenForum/Davids_Outcasts.htm
>
>My point was that I don't think it is for anyone else to say what was
>Josephs
>Abrahamic test was, weather polygamy or the many other things he went
>through. If
>PM was his test (and he said he did not want to enter) but obviously
>was willing
>why wasn't it taken from him before he married 37 wives?
>
>Laura S Shortridge wrote:
>
>> David's Outcasts -
>http://www.GreaterThings.com/OpenForum/Davids_Outcasts.htm
>>
>> I will try to be as brief in my responses as possible :)
>>
>> Blayne said:
>> >Joseph plunged into Polygamy lock stock
>> >and barrel
>> >as early as 1831 showing he believed it was a command from God he
>was
>> >to obey.
>>
>> Laura says: "History" has become so distorted that it can't be
>sorted out
>> according to so-and-so recorded this and so-and-so recorded that.
>> "History" says Joseph practiced polygamy. "History" also says
>Joseph
>> denied publicly that he practiced it (which would make him a liar
>> according to the other "history"). See the catch-22? The true
>history
>> can only be taught through the spirit because there are no
>first-hand
>> accounts available in the flesh.
>>
>> Blayne said:
>> >Also Abraham also took polygamous wives so how does polygamy
>become
>> >the abrahamic
>> >test?
>>
>> Laura said: You missed the point entirely. Polygamy wasn't
>Abraham's
>> test, his willingness to sacrifice Isaac was his test. Here is
>Randall's
>> excellent post to which I was refering:
>>
>> "Plural marriage was Joseph's Abrahamic command. It was like
>Abraham
>> being told to sacrifice Isaac. Like Abraham, Joseph took Isaac to
>> sacrifice, but then at the last minute learned what it was all
>really
>> about.
>>
>> He was killed by evil men for what he had learned.
>>
>> Today, there are many who are taking their sons up for sacrifice
>and
>> completeing the foul deed, not knowing what it is about. Brigham
>killed
>> Isaac many times, thinking that he was being righteous. Many
>people
>> today follow suit.
>>
>> Randall"
>>
>> Blayne said:
>> >I think it is an individual thing and few enter polygamy for the
>> >right
>> >reasons but I don't see it as evil or wrong unless its done for
>the
>> >wrong reasons
>> >just like anything else it depends on how one uses it.
>> >
>>
>> Laura says: Yes, exactly, Blayne. That is what I was saying. I
>never
>> said polygamy was evil or wrong but that it is NOT NECESSARY FOR
>> EVERYONE like so many on this llist have claimed.
>>
>> Blayne said:
>> I think if we try to look at it as
>> >Randall suggest
>> >and look at the symbolism of the need for polygamy for exaltation
>> >perhaps there
>> >is a more profound meaning then the literal that we get so hung up
>> >on?
>> >
>>
>> Excellent suggestion, Blayne. What do you (and others) think might
>be a
>> more profound meaning than the literal?
>>
>> Love always,
>> Laura
