Romans 12:1-2; “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”
One of their lesson books from the very ‘heart’ of Mormonism, went through a revision I never thought I’d see in my lifetime.
This event quietly took place last week in the shadows of General Conference. No fanfare to speak of, no hoopla outside of articles in local papers, and a couple of nods on Facebook and blogs.
An article in the Salt Lake Trib reported the Church finally caved to repeated complaints of a teaching found in the LDS pamphlet, “For the Strength of Youth” — declaring that “victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sin and do not need to repent”.
The passage of ‘scripture’ the lesson referred to is found in Moroni 9:9, and was used to stress a woman’s worth is found in being a virgin.
I guess they (the Mormon feminists as they call themselves) feel they won a battle there, but the real issue seems to have been missed altogether. Why is something like Moroni 9:9 even considered a holy, inspired work of God to begin with?
It has to be one of the most deplorable things ever written. Maybe if it hadn’t been written they wouldn’t be teaching young girls other deplorable things like rape is the fault of the victim, or a young woman’s sole worth is found in being a virgin…
Moroni 9:9; “And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue—”
While the reference may have been wiped from existence in the youth book, the Mormon scripture is still intact. Moreover, the website that houses this lesson still carries the ill-conceived idea God cherishes a woman’s virginity above all other things.
Their continued emphasis on this false doctrine, as well as ‘mankind’s greatest power is in the reproduction of their species’, is patently false. Here’s how Dictionary.com defines virtue (keep in mind, this is only a partial listing.) –
“…moral excellence; goodness; righteousness conformity of one’s life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness; rectitude… chastity; virginity…”
The moral attributes listed in our shortened list far outweighs the only physical definition of this word. However, the problem lies in the fact Mormonism can’t ever seem to let go of the sex topic. It’s been passed on down from one generation to the next, beginning with Joseph Smith.
The Trib article also stated the following –
“In a blog post at By Common Consent, Haglund explained that “the chastity in which the Lord delights (Jacob 2) is not merely virginity, and cannot be taken away by another person, especially not by violence or abuse.””
I agree 110% with Ms. Haglund’s opinion! It’s just common sense, chastity can’t be taken by force.
While she’s right that Jacob 2 isn’t all about virginity, roughly half of it is. Ironically (or maybe not), it condemns polygamy…hmm…go figure…
This event shows how a few people are getting through to Mormon HQ. Sadly, however, they haven’t completely figured out yet that all of it is bad. We must go to the source of the problem to root it out, and in this case it’s the Book of Mormon. They must totally denounce all of it, completely and totally, and not just cherry pick their way through something in deciding whether or not, it’s acceptable.
In light of the changes, it got us to thinking about their evolving canon, and we have a few questions.
At what point is ‘scripture’ no longer deemed infallible?
At what point is ‘scripture’ no longer scripture?
At what point is ‘scripture’ no longer deemed trustworthy?
Is the removal of one verse okay?
How about two?
What if the passage it’s couched in changes the meaning?
What if it doesn’t?
Who gets to do the rewrite?
Is the change ‘voted’ on like everything else in Mormonism?
You see my friend, these aren’t just rhetorical questions each and every Mormon must contemplate.
This is real life, right here, right now changes, made to Mormon theology today, in 2016. Don’t be surprised tomorrow if they change the canon.
If you’re LDS, when do you say, ‘enough is enough’?
Is it here?
Is it now?
If it’s not, maybe it should be.
Mormon canon is pregnant with racism, false prophecies, false doctrines, and outright lies. Their history is no better with false declarations of being the only true church on the face of the earth. If that wasn’t bad enough they keep beating the same drum to ‘follow the prophet’, or else. It doesn’t look as if Ms. Haglund was following the prophet. She had the wherewithal, and courage, to speak out.
Were the prophets who okayed the lesson book all these years, wrong? If so, now what? Do you still place your eternal welfare in their hands?
You see my friend, when we are sold out to God, and believe in His word, then concerns about your private life will fall into its proper place. There would be no need for the constant focus to be on reproducing, or spending millions trying to defend yourself while denying polygamy.
Being a true follower of Jesus entails a desire to please Him which means that even though you’re still a sinner in the world, you’re becoming less likely to sin because of the Holy Spirit’s work inside of you. As we pointed out yesterday about being transformed to His image, you lose yourself (John 3:30) in doing His will.
I can assure you, the more you study and know the true God of the Bible, the less desire there is in your heart to become a god yourself, or a belief you need to follow a man (aka, Mormon prophet) for direction.
If you’re LDS, please know we don’t say these things to bash you, or to demean your moral character! We care deeply for you and your salvation and we’re praying you’ll come to know the real Jesus!
With Love in Christ;