Close Topic Options

Mormons Living A Higher Law, Here, And Now

Living A Higher Law, Here, And Now

There are groups that supposedly put themselves outside the realms of the Church by claiming that they live the 'Higher' law. In other words, and as a for instance... Plural marriage (Celestial Marriage) which we all know here is Doctrinal but NOT for the living at the moment, is practiced in secret by these groups.

Now, my objective here is NOT to focus on plural marriage, but merely to make a point. Can an individual or group of individuals declare themselves above the Lesser law and that they now live a 'Higher' law? Can I for instance say to the Church... "Church, I will no longer pay the Lesser law of tithing because I have made my endowment in which I excepted the higher law of the United Order? You will notice the Church still requires those who have been endowed to give 10% to the Church.

Let's look at another example. The Higher Priesthood, the Melchizedek Priesthood, is it subject to itself or should one with this authority still find himself abiding by the same precepts given to the Lesser or Aaronic Priesthood.

Should we see the Church as a place to graduate from in this life, here and now or should we expect that regardless to our achievements we should always be subject to the Church's teachings because the voice of the Church is the voice of God?

I'm very interested in thoughts.

Now Here Law Higher Living Mormons

This is how I see it. In my opinion, if you are a member of the Church then you're subject to its teachings. You cannot say you are a member of the Church and then create your own version of what God wants you to do. Yes, we are open to personal revelation but if those revelations go against what the Church presently teaches then we know something isn't right.

So to answer your question yes, an individual or group can declare whatever they want, they do it all the time but to say it comes from God BUT at the same time in opposition to current Church teachings is a different story.

Mormons Living A Higher Law, Here, And Now Studies Doctrine Mormon

It is my understanding that personal revelation can only be valid if it is over ones own stewardship and does not extend over the stewardship of others, regardless of our intense spiritual feelings to share information that contradicts established Doctrine. We cannot receive revelation for the Church if we have not received the keys to do so. This is contrary to the pattern that has been set up by God.

I may receive revelation for my family, revelation that may assist in raising them to be the people that God would want them to be, or I may receive revelation to assist me in my calling in the church. That revelation however does not extend to other members of the Church outside of my stewardship. When I assume that the Doctrines that I learn supersede the Doctrine as taught by those who have stewardship over the entire Church (Prophets, Apostles) and I teach those as God given then I have crossed a line. It is safest, in my opinion, to be perfect in the lower law that we have right now before we ever try to move onto the higher law.

Elder James E. Faust said in "The Power of the Priesthood"

I have also been thinking about something President Maxwell said in his talk "Called to Serve"

We may receive amazing insights into the Gospel and may also receive manifestations so grand that they make an irrevocable impression on our lives. But there are times that we need to keep these sacred, and wait until the Lord has commanded us to live the higher law. Essentially we are sometimes required to "hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the Lord" Lam 3:26.

Now Here Law Higher Living Mormons

God is perfect, so is His House. The people in His House are not perfect, but the structure of His House is because it is built on a Rock. Therefore, when others claim something different to the established order of His House we can well know that this new something is likely to be on a sandy foundation. When the winds come and blow we know what happens to those houses built on sandy foundations. That is the main clue I believe in the Lord using the rock as a focus. It is solid, can take pressure and does not change. Sand is all the opposite, it moves, changes, cannot stand up to any pressure and is mostly useless as a foundation.

Now Here Law Higher Living Mormons

We know that sometimes the higher laws can and will be lived outside of what we might traditionally consider the "church." Moses for example lived at a time when the "church" rejected the higher laws of the Gospel, and were given the lesser law (see JST Genesis chapters 32-34). In order to receive his fulness of Glory he HAD TO live the higher laws. The requirements for exaltation are always the same (TPJS, sry, I'm at work I don't have it with me, otherwise I would give a page number). So we KNOW through Joseph Smith and through logical thinking that Moses and a select few of his contemporaries were living the Higher laws while the church lived the lesser laws. How did they do it? Because they had the authority of the priesthood.

this is similar to today. The church and the priesthood may be the same, but not necessarily. Eventually we have to graduate from this Church which is a preparatory church unto the Church of The Firstborn. Without this step we will not receive a fullness of glory. The Priesthood is what is important. The priesthood of God is a perfect theocracy. It is completely unchangeable and is perfectly subject to the will of the Lord. If the priesthood doesn't obey, they will loose the priesthood.
Here the church differs. The church is the preparatory step, and is a democracy. The church may accept or reject teachings of the gospel, and still remain. So while the church may actively restrict a man from living the higher laws, the priesthood will still very well require it. Who shall a man obey then?

This needs to be treated separately from the issue of keys. In the beginning of the church, the church was monogamous for example while a many of the higher priesthood bearers lived the law of Celestial Plural Marriage. They did this by virtue of the priesthood they bore, and did so without sanctioning of the church in any way shape or form. In this sense we can always live the laws. The other question is, what's with the keys? The keys we know are here on earth for ALL the Gospel ordinances, including the higher ones. We are subject to the keys.

Would we sin though if we were to live the laws of the fullness? I don't think so. For example, Brigham Young taught that God never would have a problem with His people living the higher laws ( he did not use the phrase "not have a problem", that's my circumscription of what he was saying) in a talk relating to the living of the united order, saying we cannot do it wrongly as there would be no sinning in living it with or without the specific "church order" to do so. D&C 132 contains a similar statement relating to plural marriage:
v. 61-62, esp. V62 "he cannot commit adultery." Why? Because this is the only form of marriage in the heavens, prepared from the beginning. If we do it righteously (following the instructions in v61) we will not be condemned for it. It may not fulfill the requirements of a sealing, and not be Eternal, but temporal, but it is not labeled to be a sin. Same thing again with consecration for example. Why would God have a problem with His saints working together in a group, living together in the united order even if the church as a whole was not doing it?

Mormons Living A Higher Law, Here, And Now

The key word is sometimes, and it seems in these cases it was only practiced by those who held the keys, not members of the Church who had not received keys pertaining to the higher laws.

I believe it can be a sin.

Is it a sin for a Baptist or Methodist to baptise someone without the keys and without authority (draw near to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me)?

Would it be a sin for me to try to give the temple endowments outside of temple to someone, based on a "personal revelation" that they were worthy to receive these endowments?

Would it be a sin for me to take on another wife because of a personal revelation that I should take her as such?

Some ordinances and practices can only be done at specific times and places. I do not have the authority to practice animal sacrifice, even though this must be done before the Second Coming of Christ. I would not attempt to give the endowment to others, or seal someone through the priesthood that I hold (because the keys are held by others and have not been given to me). To do so, I believe would be a sin.

I am more inclined to believe that this Church is part of the Church of the Firstborn (As the Aaronic priesthood is part of and subject to the Melchesidic priesthood). I do not believe they are seperate entities. I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as was the Church during the times when the Law of Moses was in affect and when Christ established the Church in the Meredian of time, is part of the Church of the Firstborn.

This will have to be a point of disagreement between us I suppose.

Rather off topic, but...

QUOTE

The keys we know are here on earth for ALL the Gospel ordinances, including the higher ones.

I am not sure about this, though it may be true. I would suspect that there are priesthood ordinance that have been reserved for a later time in our progression toward Godhood that we do not have access to today. The temple seems to make it clear that there are things that we will receive that we do not have here on earth when we pass the angels and become priests and priestesses and kings and queens.

Message Edited...
LDS_forever: I just fixed your quote tags.

Edited: LDS_forever on 8th Oct, 2009 - 1:15am

I am not sure about this, though it may be true. I would suspect that there are priesthood ordinance that have been reserved for a later time in our progression toward Godhood that we do not have access to today. The temple seems to make it clear that there are things that we will receive that we do not have here on earth when we pass the angels and become priests and priestesses and kings and queens.

Mormons Living Higher Law Here Now

Agreed.

I don't think so, for he would be doing it out of ignorance, thinking he was doing the right thing. From what I was always taught and how I read the scriptures was that though yes, everybody does have to comply with the laws of the Gospel, I don't think this baptism would be counted unto them as sin for they don't know any better. Of course you need to be careful as to how far you stretch this "they don't know any better."

Good point you raise there. I agree with you on this point. I think that would be clearly overstepping boundaries. But I believe you giving someone temple ordinances is different from you living in a community of friends attempting to live consecration, or plural marriage. Let me explain. I think your scenario differs from the point I was trying to put across (I'm very sorry for my limited English here again by the way...). In the temple scenario, saving ordinances are performed for which specific keys are required which you do not possess. That is as you noted like the example of baptism. They are both priesthood ordinances. As you would not have the authority to do so, the ordinances (in our assumption) would be completely invalid before the Heavens. I agree it would be wrong for someone like you or me to do so, for we know better. The baptist minister baptizing as I said would be different. So would be him giving temple ordinances. That is something on a different level than baptism, and I'd clearly feel uncomfortable with that.

But I don't see how living according to the Laws of Heaven is wrong. I don't see a scripture that clearly says so you know. Yes, in some cases the law may be taken from a group of people due to their wickedness (see Jacob 2 in the book of Mormon). Would you taking another wife mean you were fulfilling the law of Celestial Marriage in it's fullness? No, you're not sealed and not taken in that holy covenant. I do not see though where this would be a sin, as I said D&C itself says otherwise. It simply says "it cannot be adultery" if the steps in the verse before are followed. Added to that would be you not only following these steps, but even receiving direct revelation - hence, commandment - to do so. What is the sin in our patterning our lives according to the pattern of the Heavens? I don't agree that living a pure and holy live according to the revelations would be sinful. Same with the united order. I don't think we even need to be baptized to live that one. We can come together, and work together, without using each other, without egoism etc. This will make us better men, not sinners. God ordained us living the united order, not capitalism. Do you think then that if you would live according to the rules of the united order without a specific order from the church president to do so in a capitalist society, that if you were to be before judgement day, that God would count that as sin towards you and tell you that you should've lived the capitalism of the world that stood for many things contrary to the gospel instead? I don't think so


About all the keys being on Earth today:
I was referring to the keys to the ordinances that have been revealed to us through Joseph Smith. It is true, that the fullness of the Gospel has not been fully revealed, and I don't think it ever will be due to Eternal Progression. The "fullness of the Gospel" is something you could say that becomes "fuller" always. But we have been given certain ordinances and certain keys thereof, and though the Lord threatened to take these to another people if we were to fail to live up to them, we were also informed that they were given for the last time, and will never be taken away. So if the church were not to have them, than someone would have to have them otherwise that revelation would have been a contradiction. That was what I was referring to. But you're right, there may/will be ordinances revealed to which we do not yet have the keys.

Mormons Living Higher Law Here Now Mormon Doctrine Studies

It would be if it isn't your law. I live in Trinidad, does that mean I should live US law and expect it to apply in my life and in the lives of those around me?