2 replies to this topic

[DBMormon]

http://www.fairblog....alist-polygamy/

this podcast from FAIR is borrowed from KSL radio using a program with Martin Tanner discussing fundamentalist groups continued use of polygamy.  He states that the main reason he sees Bro. Wooley's communicated revelation from the Lord or Joseph Smith to John Taylor as suspect is the lack of the revelation being submitted for common consent to the general membership.

My thought on this is  -

"One issue I have with this and I am coming from a faithful perspective. When Joseph institues polygamy to begin with in 1830′s with Fanny Alger and others to follow, he never presents this doctrine or it’s institution to the general membership for their commen consent. In fact he doesn’t even present it to the twelve as a whole for their sustaining vote. So there is presidence of establishing doctrine and revelation without a vote of common consent. I look forward to replies from others on how one takes into account this fact."

your thoughts??????

Edited by reelmormon, 01 May 2012 - 09:02 AM.

[Storm Rider]

When it is not brought before the Church for common consent to be obtained, the concept cannot appropriately be called a doctrine of the Church. However, that does not mean that revelation is false; only that it is limited to a few and the body must ignore it.

A teaching for the Church only can become a doctrine through common consent.

[DBMormon]

so we are left with a loophole.  A doctrine was true, revealed and practiced without common consent and yet the claim that it is never to be taken off the table had to have common consent.  

I am not FLDS but certainly see that the argument that a "Supposed" revelation didn't go through the common consent it is not to be trusted.  If true then the revelation to put it in place shouldn't have been trusted.

I think sometimes it doesn't hurt for us as a faith (LDS) to just say... you know what... good point.  there is no argument there on that.    I think Mr. Tanner is digging for a an extra reason beyond Bro. Wooley lied or misunderstood or Bro Taylor recieved a false revelation.  The reason of common consent is not valid unless it is used 100% of the time for every revealed Doctrine