CV75

I think God lets a lot of unimportant things go. How long did the Brother of Jared go in life incorrectly assuming that the Lord's flesh and blood form could not be seen (or whether He had such a form at all)? Only to be told to write and seal up the answer for a long-future date. Some things, correct or not, incomplete or confounded or not, simply are not impactful upon the Lord's timetable for certain things to happen in certain certain moments in certain dispensations.

Hypotheses are unsatisfactory answers to important questions, but they could be the beginning. Posing a hypothesis, “If unsubstantiated x is true, then unsubstantiated y is true” is just another way of asking the question, but in a most biased manner. Without further examination and exploration in the “real world,” constructing and comparing hypotheses based on personal preference and preset conclusions is ill-informed and does not answer the question.

No, I am looking for you to test your various hypotheses with documented instances and occurrences, not bias, opinion and possibilities. It might help if you list your questions with the facts you have gathered that can be used to answer them. I've asked for this before ( Posted Friday at 06:29 PM ) and you insisted a hypothesis was a "textbook example" -- which are far from the same things. If you don't understand the distinction, as indicated in the subsequent exchanges, maybe we can flesh that out, though with a little work you can get up speed on your own. Thank you.

I trust your observation and conclusion. That members can't handle revelation has been repeatedly part of your hypotheses. No, they say saying other things, just as I wrote them. And you can even say they are examples that Brigham Young as president of the church did not teach false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years, or taught it correctly/completely in some ways and incompletely/incorrectly in others, for 25 years. It depends on your bias, spin, context and semantics. I choose not to employ black-and-white, dichotomous analysis to drive a predetermined conclusion. And you did use this as an example of it being "distinctly possible that the Lord would "take away light and truth from the restored Church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines..." as you did here: Posted Friday at 09:45 AM

Why limit the choice to 2? How about simple fallibility, misunderstanding and miscommunication, or practice with councils and group revelation and continuing revelation in council, or expediency in the Lord changing priorities and emphasis to best convey His plan of redemption?

Anyone's answer to this is simply a reflection of bias since the Holy Ghost confirms or corrects bias in the hour of actual need. It does not establish a rule that God changes the marriage covenant because the saints and the world agree that it is socially unpopular or straining. Even in permitting divorce and OD1, the standard of marriage remained intact.

I see these kinds of post-talk corrections as examples of inspired clarification in council, not that the members are unable or unwilling to handle a verbatim transcription.

All unbaptized mortals live with the influence of the light of Christ in their lives, even it is only to remain organized as a soul until death. Some are not accountable and some reject Hos light to the degree they are able, but none can sink below the reach of His light. As the source of that light, I can see how He could descend below all things and still maintain His existence, and the lowest mortal condition is still sustained by His light. Jesus' mission was in covenant with the Godhead, so as unique and independent as His role may have been, it was still part of the larger plan, agreement and mutual trust for fulfillment. The Father and the Holy Ghost were aware of what was going on in His mission, as completely forsaken as He may have felt for the sake of descending below all things. Jesus may have felt forsaken, but I do not think He forgot or abandoned the Godhead and it that sense it remained with Him.

But just about anything supports possibility. So what -- "O then, is not this real?" Bias does make an appealing possibility a working model us, but that dos not make the model reflective of what is light, good and known. "Real possibility," when it comes to answering spiritual truth, is an oxymoron. Faith in possibilities is not the same as faith in things not seen which are true.

I understand you did not want to create a discussion about the content of your hypothesis; this is why I asked you for some documented examples. Then we could discussion their applicability instead, as i began to do with the examples I offered up.

Sorry, you did not. You provided an acceptable hypothesis with no factual basis for a conclusion and seem to be ignoring the requirement to do so. That is up to you. There is nothing wrong with expressing a feeling, bias, belief or opinion, but that is all it is, and I take discussion to be more than just sharing and refuting these for the sake of sharing and refuting. I provided a couple of examples of well documented examples; with a bit of work you can do the same for your specific hypothesis.

Which United Order was it connected with, and when? I understand there were a number of local iterations. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/united-orders?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/united-firm-united-order?lang=eng

But your proposition, "If what Brigham Young taught was true..." is still a hypothesis, and not presented an example of an documented event or a condition, as textbooks require. We need something more substantial. Jesus and Eder Oaks taught about the Lord permitting divorce without the stain of immorality as an exception to the higher law because of the hardness of our hearts (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/19?lang=eng&id=8-9#p8). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2007/05/divorce?lang=eng. This is an example of a higher light and truth being excepted or excused, but not taken away. You need to identify a stronger example of a time when a higher law was rescinded by the Lord because of the wickedness or lack of faith among a threshold number of saints or the membership at large. An example from the D&C is the command to build the Jackson County temple was rescinded: (see D&C 124, but also101, 103). Try to identify an example like that which reflects your concerns. What other revelation or commandment has been rescinded because the members couldn't handle it? It needs to be something more substantial than policies, procedures and practices.

Since in your view it distinctly possible that the Lord would "take away light and truth from the restored Church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines," please describe how you conclude this from your observations concerning changes in how revelations are communicated since the phraseology, "This saith the Lord..." was last used. This is why examples are useful; please provide at least one to expand the discussions beyond an hypothesis or assertion. This is how Alma 32 works: you cannot attain knowledge without nourishing the seed, the seed in this case being the hypothesis, with observed facts or events and doing the work to make the connections.

Of course, changed teachings could theoretically represent a departure from the Lord’s will. Assumptions are optional of course. I have found that honestly knowing that my relationship with Lord is improving as a result of my good faith participation in the restored kingdom of God on earth indicates that this kingdom is indeed on the right trajectory and the Lord is in charge of it despite any distractions that may come our way. I would encourage you to provide examples and ask the same OP question concerning it. An academic, object lesson.: Why hasn’t there been a revelation to correct this departure from the original X “Thus saith the Lord…” revelation?