Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: exbishfromportland ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 04:26PM

I'd been kicking this idea around for awhile, even posted some thoughts on here on the subject. Finally put it all down in a way that seemed to make sense to me and decided I thought it was something important enough to put in front of their noses. I signed my name at the bottom and then under that "Former Bishop, Arleta and Mt. Tabor Wards, Portland, OR."
Now, lets see what happens. :)

Corporation of the First Presidency
50 E. North Temple St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84150

August 26, 2013

Re: Common Consent and the Ordinances of the Temple

To the First Presidency,

The Doctrine and Covenants teaches that "all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church."(D&C 28:13). This applies to adding new scripture. President of the Church Harold B. Lee taught "The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church."There are six recorded instances of this happening in the LDS Church:

April 6, 1830: When the church was organized, the Bible and Book of Mormon were unanimously accepted as scripture.
August 17, 1835: Select revelations from Joseph Smith were unanimously accepted as scripture. These were later printed in the Doctrine and Covenants.
October 10, 1880: The Pearl of Great Price was unanimously accepted as scripture. Also at that time, other revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants which had not been accepted as scripture because they were received after 1835 were unanimously accepted as scripture.
October 6, 1890: Official Declaration—1 was accepted unanimously as scripture. It was later published in the Doctrine and Covenants.
April 3, 1976: Two visions (one received by Joseph Smith and the other by Joseph F. Smith) were accepted as scripture and added to the Pearl of Great Price. (The two visions were later moved to the Doctrine and Covenants as sections 137 and 138.)
September 30, 1978: Official Declaration—2 was accepted unanimously as scripture. It was immediately added to the Doctrine and Covenants.

When a doctrine undergoes this procedure, the LDS Church treats it as the word of God, and it is used as a standard to compare against other doctrines.
The saving ordinances of the gospel; baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost and the very important ordinance of the Sacrament are included in the Doctrine and Covenants. Since the Doctrine and Covenants have officially been accepted as revelation, then these ordinances are by definition also revelation.

The church considers temple ordinances so necessary that without them one cannot go to the Celestial Kingdom. The ordinances of the temple: washing and anointing, baptism for the dead, ordaining to the Melchizedek priesthood, the endowment and sealing are not included in the Doctrine and Covenants. They have not been approved by Common Consent as revelations.
It thus follows that these ordinances can not then be considered official revelation; they cannot be considered inspired, infallible or binding.

Without going the official process of making certain that doctrine is sure and true, these highest ordinances of the gospel could contain many errors. If someone is to make such solemn covenants as the temple requires, in order to secure the highest possible blessings God has to offer to his children, it follows these ordinances should be held to the highest possible standard. The members should be absolutely certain they are official revelation. These ordinances must go through the church mandated process:
1. Sustained unanimously by the Quorum of the Twelve
2. Presented to the body of the church by the prophet in a session of General Conference
3. Sustained by the general membership of the church
4. Included (the full and complete text of all these ordinances) as additions to the Doctrine and Covenants.

In the absence of these actions I say it is pointless to perform these temple ordinances for either the living or dead.

Billions of dollars have been spent to build temples around the world. Millions of dollars have been spent to access, record and store information on people who have lived and died. Thousands of members have been called on missions associated with family history; others volunteer hours, days, months, and years to work in Family History Centers. Millions of hours have been spent by members to prepare names of ancestors for temple work. The numbers boggle the mind.

And yet, with 141 temples in operation and ordinances performed for what now must be close to a quarter billion individuals; all the work done in the temples thus far has been for naught.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: androidandy ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 05:02PM

Yep, all temple work is for naught. Its to keep the Morbots busy and enslaved to the cult.

As former members we see how sillyass the endowment ceremony is.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Joy ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 05:05PM

Bravo!

Please try to get this published where people will actually read it! Put it on all the ex-Mormon and Mormon websites. Make fliers out of it.

Would it be all right with you if I print this up, and give it to some of my ex-Mormon friends, and Mormon family members?

Very. Well. Done. Sir!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: oldklunker ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 05:28PM

I agree with your assessment. But alas you just wasted a stamp. The answer to your questioning is stated best by the great Hinkinator..." I don't believe we teach that..." They own the corporation and they run it to their satisfaction, the members are nothing but money donors.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: jong1064 ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 05:36PM

Won't they just say it's too sacred to publish?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: schweizerkind ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 05:40PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: blueorchid ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 05:42PM

If they respond, I think this will be the answer:

"You have a point. Do you have any good ideas on how we should spin this?"

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Southern ExMo ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 05:54PM

Your points are all well taken, and it IS an excellent letter.


BTW,are you still a member of record?


Please let us know when they schedule your "Court of Love."


We'd like to be your cheering section, to give you support when that happens.


And it WILL happen, after a letter like that.


You have made excellent points, and they will have no other way of defending themselves than to formally oust you.


After all, the corporation is what really counts, right????

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brother Of Jerry ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 08:26PM

You've proven they have the wrong number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

The conclusion is irrelevant, because the premise is false.

Since they made the whole think up anyway, they can make the pin as big or as small as they want. Common consent. How quaint!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SusieQ#1 ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 09:43PM

Hmmm, interesting approach.

It's likely they would answer (if they do) that some ordinances, ceremonies,policies, etc., are received by the prophet and do not require common consent.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: left4good ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 09:52PM

They would reason that the common consent is given in sustaining the big cheeses, and they in turn reveal what they want when they want with no need for consent on the revelations.

Cult.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Beato ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 10:10PM

Perhaps the changes done in the Book of Commandments, after reprinted as DyC are not revelations, because common consent was not involved at all...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dydimus ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 10:18PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 10:41PM

they won't read it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: cynthia ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 11:06PM

The letter will go to your bishop, the big 15 have said they don't have time for the members questions and not to bother them

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: justlurking ( )
Date: August 31, 2013 11:26PM

Cynthia is right. They will find out your "true identity" and send a letter to your bishop.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: SusieQ#1 ( )
Date: September 01, 2013 12:02AM

I will add my view (with others) that the top leaders would claim that by sustaining them in the annual stake conference, you are supporting everything they do. Nothing further is needed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: MyTempleNameIsJoan ( )
Date: September 01, 2013 12:53AM

I like it.
They can't obtain common consent as it would counter the secrecy necessary to program the faithful people's minds. They are never allowed to talk about the temple rituals which makes the common consent aspect null and void. If people knew all the details prior to going to the temple they might see through it all and that would never do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2013 12:55AM by joan.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: homoerectus ( )
Date: September 01, 2013 01:10AM

How does the first presidency's mail reviewers decide what mail to pass along, and what mail gets shredded and thrown in the garbage?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2013 01:10AM by homoerectus.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Just Thinking ( )
Date: September 01, 2013 01:32AM

I enjoyed your letter, but I'd like to note the following:

1. Mormons are known as 'Sheeple' for a reason: they will blindly follow in lockstep, and 'vote' for, anything presented to them. It's the classical rubber stamp taken to the max. Technically the membership has to approve, but in reality the outcome is a forgone conclusion.

2. The "Lectures on Faith" were originally part of the D&C but they were removed in 1921. The original Section 101 was removed in 1876, the 'code names' for certain people and places (Barauk Ale = Joseph Smith, Mehemson = Martin Harris, etc.) were replaced with actual names in 1981. All these changes, and more, were done, I'm quite certain, without formal approval of the membership. I don't think Spencer W. Kimball's 'Declaration' re blacks and the priesthood was formally approved for inclusion in the D&C, but there it is. The point is - changes can be made in Mormon scriptures with or without membership approval - so the law of common consent is, in reality, little more than a suggestion.

Isn't it wonderful? Isn't it grand?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: misterzelph ( )
Date: September 01, 2013 01:43AM

Yes sir

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: lastofthewine ( )
Date: September 01, 2013 03:13AM

If they weren't just making it all up as they went along, you may have a point.

'Calvinball' and 'nailing jello to a wall' are great analogies.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  *******    ******     *******   **    **        ** 
 **     **  **    **   **     **   **  **         ** 
 **     **  **         **           ****          ** 
  ********  **   ****  ********      **           ** 
        **  **    **   **     **     **     **    ** 
 **     **  **    **   **     **     **     **    ** 
  *******    ******     *******      **      ******