Why does the Church ignore 3 Nephi 12:31-32

[Rensai]

As for contradicting the former revelation - Joseph was the one that relayed the revelation to the man regarding his mission, which the bad angel tried to negate.

I guess the question regarding the gospel topic(s) bothering you is Do you believe that both men involved (earlier and later) - they were both prophets, and both received revelation from God in the matter? Yes or No.

I don't believe prophets would receive contrary revelation on doctrine from each other, no matter how many years apart they were. Modern prophets today have to teach the same doctrines as ancient Prophets from the Book of Mormon and can never contradict their teachings. The Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of our religion, it is the foundation of our doctrine. We tell false prophets today by if they teach different than what the Book of Mormon teaches.

The meaning of the quote about a bad angel is not changed when the whole story is told, which I was well aware of, it actually strengthens the idea that you discern bad angels or false revelation by it's contradicting previous revelation or doctrine.

Joseph taught this concept at other times also, as have many other prophets through the years. I have posted their quotes a number of times in the last few weeks, and will again if you missed them, for they explained that not even prophets can teach contrary doctrine to what the scriptures teach or we would know it's false.

As far as those many scriptures you quoted, I believe it is very different when God commands someone personally to do something specific or go somewhere on a mission, etc. He can change or revoke his commands regarding specific situations and people, but when he teaches doctrine for the whole world it always stays the same, for it's based on eternal law that even He must obey or he would cease to be God. (for he didn't come up with it, truth always was.)

When Christ's brought forth his new law it only built upon the existing law or completed it. The people of Moses only had a lesser law given to them, (the ten commandments), and Christ came and gave the people even harder commandments to live, but his new commandments did not contradict the 10 commandments, he only built upon them further.

For example, not only should we not commit adultery, Christ now clarified further that if we divorce & remarry without justification we also commit adultery. He was teaching an even higher aspect of the law that wasn't taught yet, or at least not generally, even though it had always been true, even for the people in Moses's day, who did not get a free pass to divorce without consequences.

But Christ's new insights that built on existing scripture were even harder to take, things even Christ's disciples appeared to have a hard time with. They even said that if such was the case with divorce and they couldn't do it anymore, maybe it would be better for a man to never marry, (then get stuck with the same woman his whole life).

We still are required to live the 10 commandment, as well as Christ's additional laws for they are in harmony with each other.

Likewise, prophets can give us additional insight like Christ did, like with marriage when Pres. Hinckley said we should put our spouse's needs, desires and welfare before our own. That isn't actually in the scriptures but it is in complete harmony with the command the scriptures give to love our spouse.

True prophets will give additional insight but it just will never contradict former scriptures, it will only be more specific on how to live the scriptures even better.

@ Awake

I thank you for your references and comments. What you have written is very good. I cannot find any fault in what you have said. However, do you feel inclined to comment on the original question.

If you can't fault what shes written then you must fault the church. Be careful, Amore Vero is good at taking quotes out of context and making them seem to support her ideas. She isn't even LDS. Like legion said,

there's a long list of policy changes in church government throughout the scriptures. Major one with the transition out of the Law of Moses. One could easily pick a dozen plus to criticize church leadership about if they were so inclined....

The scriptures are full of policy changes for the church throughout history. Therefore her assertion that they can never change is patently false. I don't see how anyone who's thought about it at all can support her assertion.

[Jason]

I don't believe prophets would receive contrary revelation on doctrine from each other, no matter how many years apart they were. Modern prophets today have to teach the same doctrines as ancient Prophets from the Book of Mormon and can never contradict their teachings. The Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of our religion, it is the foundation of our doctrine. We tell false prophets today by if they teach different than what the Book of Mormon teaches.

The meaning of the quote about a bad angel is not changed when the whole story is told, which I was well aware of, it actually strengthens the idea that you discern bad angels or false revelation by it's contradicting previous revelation or doctrine.

Joseph taught this concept at other times also, as have many other prophets through the years. I have posted their quotes a number of times in the last few weeks, and will again if you missed them, for they explained that not even prophets can teach contrary doctrine to what the scriptures teach or we would know it's false.

As far as those many scriptures you quoted, I believe it is very different when God commands someone personally to do something specific or go somewhere on a mission, etc. He can change or revoke his commands regarding specific situations and people, but when he teaches doctrine for the whole world it always stays the same, for it's based on eternal law that even He must obey or he would cease to be God. (for he didn't come up with it, truth always was.)

When Christ's brought forth his new law it only built upon the existing law or completed it. The people of Moses only had a lesser law given to them, (the ten commandments), and Christ came and gave the people even harder commandments to live, but his new commandments did not contradict the 10 commandments, he only built upon them further.

For example, not only should we not commit adultery, Christ now clarified further that if we divorce & remarry without justification we also commit adultery. He was teaching an even higher aspect of the law that wasn't taught yet, or at least not generally, even though it had always been true, even for the people in Moses's day, who did not get a free pass to divorce without consequences.

But Christ's new insights that built on existing scripture were even harder to take, things even Christ's disciples appeared to have a hard time with. They even said that if such was the case with divorce and they couldn't do it anymore, maybe it would be better for a man to never marry, (then get stuck with the same woman his whole life).

We still are required to live the 10 commandment, as well as Christ's additional laws for they are in harmony with each other.

Likewise, prophets can give us additional insight like Christ did, like with marriage when Pres. Hinckley said we should put our spouse's needs, desires and welfare before our own. That isn't actually in the scriptures but it is in complete harmony with the command the scriptures give to love our spouse.

True prophets will give additional insight but it just will never contradict former scriptures, it will only be more specific on how to live the scriptures even better.

@ Awake

I thank you for your references and comments. What you have written is very good. I cannot find any fault in what you have said. However, do you feel inclined to comment on the original question.

If you can't fault what shes written then you must fault the church. Be careful, Amore Vero is good at taking quotes out of context and making them seem to support her ideas. She isn't even LDS. Like legion said,

there's a long list of policy changes in church government throughout the scriptures. Major one with the transition out of the Law of Moses. One could easily pick a dozen plus to criticize church leadership about if they were so inclined....

The scriptures are full of policy changes for the church throughout history. Therefore her assertion that they can never change is patently false. I don't see how anyone who's thought about it at all can support her assertion.

Elder Christofferson discusses a few such policy changes in his last conference address -
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... t?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People get wrapped around the axle about policy changes (like Blacks having the Priesthood, polygamy, circumcision, Law of Moses, - etc etc etc)....when church/world history is rife with policy changes based upon the needs and standing of the people then living as well as ultimately the will of God. God is no respecter of persons...but that isn't always evident in the earthly administration and policy (like certain people having the Priesthood and others not allowed). But the reality is God is eternal....and whether in this life or the next....everyone will receive the opportunity to accept or reject (line upon line and precept upon precept)....and thus ultimately God is indeed no respecter of persons.

But policy (and church government) changes do have a way of separating out people without a testimony of God and His will concerning associated policy changes....determining quite quickly who is in tune and who isn't (like the 4 way separation of the church...Emma/Joseph Smith III, Strang, Rigdon, Young...following the death of Joseph Smith).

[John5]

Rensai: said: The scriptures are full of policy changes for the church throughout history. Therefore her assertion that they can never change is patently false. I don't see how anyone who's thought about it at all can support her assertion.

I don't recall any policy changes which negate the doctrine of Christ. We are talking about the Sermon on the Mount. Are you saying a policy change negated the doctrine Christ taught?

[JohnnyL]

Not that I want to open a can of worms, but it does beg the very common modern question of wives putting away their husbands for lesser sexual sins such as masturbation or viewing pornography. Should those be grounds for divorce?

Does anyone actually do that aside from some LDS women on the quirky fringe of our culture?

Actually, yes. It might not be the only thing, but it's the main driver for some. Of course, there are other women who divorce men for none of those sexual sins... These are probably the "least quirky" of them all.

[Jason]

Rensai: said: The scriptures are full of policy changes for the church throughout history. Therefore her assertion that they can never change is patently false. I don't see how anyone who's thought about it at all can support her assertion.

I don't recall any policy changes which negate the doctrine of Christ. We are talking about the Sermon on the Mount. Are you saying a policy change negated the doctrine Christ taught?

Did Christ teach the gentiles during His ministry? Why the change later with Peter? Didn't Christ (Jehovah) give the Law of Moses to Moses and the children of Israel? Only to later make a policy change?

[AGStacker]

I am re posting my post from above because it seems as though most people overlooked it.

The answer is right there!

"Elder Oaks:

In ancient times and even under tribal laws in some countries where we now have members, men have power to divorce their wives for any trivial thing. Such unrighteous oppression of women was rejected by the Savior, who declared:

“Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matthew 19:8–9).

The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... e?lang=eng"

[SpeedRacer]

Answer to the original question. The church does not ignore it. There are certain things you cannot do if you are ever divorced. The church does allow the members to live according to the light they have. What the take away should be is to seek the Lord in your decision to marry the first time, and trust him when things get difficult.

[John5]

Rensai: said: The scriptures are full of policy changes for the church throughout history. Therefore her assertion that they can never change is patently false. I don't see how anyone who's thought about it at all can support her assertion.

I don't recall any policy changes which negate the doctrine of Christ. We are talking about the Sermon on the Mount. Are you saying a policy change negated the doctrine Christ taught?

Did Christ teach the gentiles during His ministry? Why the change later with Peter? Didn't Christ (Jehovah) give the Law of Moses to Moses and the children of Israel? Only to later make a policy change?

Good points. So now are we assuming we have had a policy change to a lesser law because our generation is unable to live the full law revealed by Christ, which puts us in a class with the Israelites when they were in the wilderness. I thought the Church was making progress in these latter days.

[awake]

I am re posting my post from above because it seems as though most people overlooked it.

The answer is right there!

"Elder Oaks:

In ancient times and even under tribal laws in some countries where we now have members, men have power to divorce their wives for any trivial thing. Such unrighteous oppression of women was rejected by the Savior, who declared:

“Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matthew 19:8–9).

The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... e?lang=eng"

Even if an apostle has a different opinion it still has no power to change or nullify the laws of Christ for us today. Neither prophets or apostles can teach anything different or contrary to what Christ said, and prophets say that if they do we are not to accept it.

[Jason]

Rensai: said: The scriptures are full of policy changes for the church throughout history. Therefore her assertion that they can never change is patently false. I don't see how anyone who's thought about it at all can support her assertion.

I don't recall any policy changes which negate the doctrine of Christ. We are talking about the Sermon on the Mount. Are you saying a policy change negated the doctrine Christ taught?

Did Christ teach the gentiles during His ministry? Why the change later with Peter? Didn't Christ (Jehovah) give the Law of Moses to Moses and the children of Israel? Only to later make a policy change?

Good points. So now are we assuming we have had a policy change to a lesser law because our generation is unable to live the full law revealed by Christ, which puts us in a class with the Israelites when they were in the wilderness. I thought the Church was making progress in these latter days.

Its a wheat and tares church up until the separation and cleansing...

[awake]

So now are we assuming we have had a policy change to a lesser law because our generation is unable to live the full law revealed by Christ, which puts us in a class with the Israelites when they were in the wilderness.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a second that weak or wicked people in any age of time get 'lesser laws' and a free pass to sin without consequences. The 'consequences' for not being worthy of and living higher laws still will be applied in the eternities, if not on earth.

When Moses' people didn't live worthy to receive Christ's higher laws it was because they were wicked and living in sin and thus they also forfeited their Exaltation. Christ's higher laws are still in effect even if people don't know about them. Just like the law of gravity is still in effect even if we don't know about it.

If people are so wicked they refuse to accept the Celestial laws, then God will let them go to the lower Kingdom governed by the lower laws they were only willing to hear.

We can't be saved by 'ignorance'. If people aren't given the higher laws of Christ it means they are under condemnation by the Lord because of wickedness and are not living worthy to receive the saving laws that lead to Exaltation. Thus they lose that opportunity for all eternity.

[John5]

The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.



Awake - - The above is taken from your post. Is that part of Elder Oaks' quote or is that your words? If it is taken from something Elder Oaks said, can you point me to where I can see the original source? If that is actually a quote from Elder Oaks, I will accept that as the final answer to my original question.

Thanks

[awake]

The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.



Awake - - The above is taken from your post. Is that part of Elder Oaks' quote or is that your words? If it is taken from something Elder Oaks said, can you point me to where I can see the original source? If that is actually a quote from Elder Oaks, I will accept that as the final answer to my original question.

Thanks

That was part of Elder Oaks talk in Gen. Conf. in April of 06 I believe.

But apostles, let alone prophets, can't teach anything contrary or different than what Christ said. They have no power or authority to change Christ's laws for the Church, even Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith and others taught that.

So that was just Elder Oak's opinion that went contrary to the scriptures and thus we have been told to disregard it as false.