Mormon Prophet John Taylor's view on Polygamy

[Jaybear]

Jaybear,

Ahh, but you are wrong. Zak's argument is that biblical prophets lied, mormon leaders lied, ergo mormon leaders can lie and still be prophets.

Actually we need to elaborate a little more.

Bibilical prophets. lied, commited adultury, murdered and all sorts of things. All of these are considered Prophets... for the most part Mormon leaders did none of these yet they are the ones looked at as hell hounds. Something is wrong with this picture!

Why bring up other flaws, when the only issue on the table was dishonesty. That would be piling on.

But in response to your querry,why treat them different, the functional difference is that the flaws of the biblical prophets are written in scriptures for all to see and learn.

The flaws of the mormons prophets are burried, with an army of apologists challanging the foundational claims of any possible asserted flaw, whether it be whether JS claimed to find treasure with a rock, slept with married women, or bragged about being better than Jesus Christ. (the old second and third hand argument). God forbid Danites were real, or BY had a role in the MMM.

When the LDS church celebrates JS as both a prophet and a flawed man, then maybe the critics will stop pointing out the flaws.

[Neo]

You don't need to... you have proven yourself.

Lets move on.

You have proven yourself to be one who tries to divert attention from the original thread.

Neo

[Zakuska]

Jaybear,

But that misses the problem completely...

When the LDS church celebrates JS as both a prophet and a flawed man, then maybe the critics will stop pointing out the flaws.

People say Mormon leaders cant be prophets because of all their flaws, so we point out the Bibilical prophets have worse flaws than LDS leaders, to show that it is a fallacy to discount LDS leaders as prophets by Flaws.

So it is only a response to an attack of flaws. We don't bring up the flaws unless others bring up the flaws first.

Perhaps if Crictics would quit bringing up flaws we would quit defending by flaws.

Second not even Joseph Smith claimed to be perfect. Its the Critics who claim a prophet has to be perfect to be a Prophet. God is possesing him as a sock puppet after all. Thus their argument goes... because Joseph Smith MIGHT have boasted.... oops he cant be a prophet. All our defense shows is that it is an invalid test of a Prophet.

[KevinG]

Neo you are trolling plain and simple. You were the one who diverted the thread by pulling on the, I don't like your prophets and the "Joseph's Boast" string. Can you address the points actually made about the Principle and John Taylor?

The Principle was never revoked, the practice of it was suspended in ways that were in accordance with the law of the land (no multiple sealings for the living).

The doctrine is still on the books, and believed by many faithful Latter-day Saints.

Although even if the U.S. were to repeal the ban on polygamy I doubt we as a people much less the world are ready to live it correctly (we have a bad enough time living monogamy with honor).

The reason the Principle was suspended due to pressure under the law was this:

Doctrine and Covenants 124:49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.

Your harping on a single quote about Polygamy does not demonstrate that you know much about the Principle, it's practice, who was called to do it, how the call was given, when and why it was given, or why the practice was suspended. I find that even among the Saints there are those who are manifestly ignorant of the doctrines, practice and issues involved. It is likely those who are mostly ignorant are the only ones who will be moved by a one note sermon on the topic.

The Principle still stands as doctrine, but the practice of it was limited due to persecution that would have cost the whole of eternal marriage and Temples on the earth if not suspended.

Your analysis in the first place was flawed. John Taylor did nothing in opposition to God or earlier revelations. Our Prophets followed the Lord's admonition to save the important work we had to do, and suspend a single practice, which was done by calling and not wide-spread (30% of members practicing plural marriage is the most liberal figure I've seen). The work was prevented by designing men, and the Lord accepted our sacrifice as far as we could do so.

Your knowledge of what the Principle is, and what it is not, is stunninly shallow, as is most critics understanding.

[Neo]

Neo you are trolling plain and simple.  You were the one who diverted the thread by pulling on the, I don't like your prophets and the "Joseph's Boast" string.  Can you address the points actually made about the Principle and John Taylor?

The Principle was never revoked, the practice of it was suspended in ways that were in accordance with the law of the land (no multiple sealings for the living).

The doctrine is still on the books, and believed by many faithful Latter-day Saints.

Although even if the U.S. were to repeal the ban on polygamy I doubt we as a people much less the world are ready to live it correctly (we have a bad enough time living monogamy with honor).

The reason the Principle was suspended due to pressure under the law was this:

Doctrine and Covenants 124:49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.

Your harping on a single quote about Polygamy does not demonstrate that you know much about the Principle, it's practice, who was called to do it, how the call was given, when and why it was given, or why the practice was suspended. I find that even among the Saints there are those who are manifestly ignorant of the doctrines, practice and issues involved. It is likely those who are mostly ignorant are the only ones who will be moved by a one note sermon on the topic.

The Principle still stands as doctrine, but the practice of it was limited due to persecution that would have cost the whole of eternal marriage and Temples on the earth if not suspended.

Your analysis in the first place was flawed. John Taylor did nothing in opposition to God or earlier revelations. Our Prophets followed the Lord's admonition to save the important work we had to do, and suspend a single practice, which was done by calling and not wide-spread (30% of members practicing plural marriage is the most liberal figure I've seen). The work was prevented by designing men, and the Lord accepted our sacrifice as far as we could do so.

Your knowledge of what the Principle is, and what it is not, is stunninly shallow, as is most critics understanding.

The whole point of my post was to see what the Mormon response was to the Taylor quote in light of the fact that polygamy was illegal and still is. The thread then began to take all kinds of rabbit trails that were not started by me.

Neo

[KevinG]

In that case, my response in a nutshell is: that Polygamy wasn't done away with, only the practice suspended. The sacrifice was accepted by the Lord given the circumstance of the Saints, and the nation was not overthrown. Call it an inspired third alternative by the perfect Savior, over the rather emotional dillemna presented to the Prophet, who can be very, very inspired while not being inerrant.

What other teachings of John Taylors have you studied. Do you find him on the whole to be untrustworthy or un-prophet like based on a comprehensive study of his writings and sermons, or just that one quote?

[cksalmon]

What other teachings of John Taylors have you studied. Do you find him on the whole to be untrustworthy or un-prophet like based on a comprehensive study of his writings and sermons, or just that one quote?

You've always been kind to me on this forum. So, please don't take this the wrong way: But, I'm wondering, if John Taylor has been shown to be duplicitous in this instance, is it possible to say that he is a true prophet in light of all his teachings?

In other words, if he was intentionally deceptive in this instance (and I realize that that is a point of contention here), is that deceptiveness justified because it served a higher good?

Just asking.

Hope you're having a wonderful evening!

CKS

[Neo]

In that case, my response in a nutshell is: that Polygamy wasn't done away with, only the practice suspended. The sacrifice was accepted by the Lord given the circumstance of the Saints, and the nation was not overthrown. Call it an inspired third alternative by the perfect Savior, over the rather emotional dillemna presented to the Prophet, who can be very, very inspired while not being inerrant.

What other teachings of John Taylors have you studied. Do you find him on the whole to be untrustworthy or un-prophet like based on a comprehensive study of his writings and sermons, or just that one quote?

I appreciate your response. Here is where my problem lies: It seems especially convenient that Woodruff got a revelation about polygamy, "being suspended" to use your words, right at the same time the US government was also putting immense pressure on Mormons regarding the practice of it. As I said earlier, that looks very much like caving in to political pressure. This is not the only instance where significant doctrines of the church were suddenly changed, nor is it the only time very disturbing statements were made by Mormon prophets. The quote by Taylor is one of many by several Mormon prophets that causes me serious concern. Beyond that, there are numerous other issues I have with Mormonism such as the Book of Abraham issue. When one adds up all of these things it does not create a very strong case for the truth of the LDS church in my opinion.

Neo

[KevinG]

What other teachings of John Taylors have you studied. Do you find him on the whole to be untrustworthy or un-prophet like based on a comprehensive study of his writings and sermons, or just that one quote?

You've always been kind to me on this forum. So, please don't take this the wrong way: But, I'm wondering, if John Taylor has been shown to be duplicitous in this instance, is it possible to say that he is a true prophet in light of all his teachings?

In other words, if he was intentionally deceptive in this instance (and I realize that that is a point of contention here), is that deceptiveness justified because it served a higher good?

Just asking.

Hope you're having a wonderful evening!

CKS

1) You would have to show me where he was duplicitous and not just wrong, or even more, made a rash statement based on information he did not yet have.

2) The broader question (which Neo thought was a diversion) is a prophet no longer a prophet if he is guilty of any mistake, transgression or misstatement?

The Biblical answer is that he is.

So is the bulk of President Taylors work and sermons consistant with or opposed to his being a Prophet in this dispensation? Have the critics really read enough of him to know, or are they just parroting what their preacher or some anti-mormon author taught them from disembodied quotes and prooftexted events?

I would bet on the latter.

[KevinG]

In that case, my response in a nutshell is: that Polygamy wasn't done away with, only the practice suspended.  The sacrifice was accepted by the Lord given the circumstance of the Saints, and the nation was not overthrown.  Call it an inspired third alternative by the perfect Savior, over the rather emotional dillemna presented to the Prophet, who can be very, very inspired while not being inerrant.

What other teachings of John Taylors have you studied.  Do you find him on the whole to be untrustworthy or un-prophet like based on a comprehensive study of his writings and sermons, or just that one quote?

I appreciate your response. Here is where my problem lies: It seems especially convenient that Woodruff got a revelation about polygamy, "being suspended" to use your words, right at the same time the US government was also putting immense pressure on Mormons regarding the practice of it. As I said earlier, that looks very much like caving in to political pressure. This is not the only instance where significant doctrines of the church were suddenly changed, nor is it the only time very disturbing statements were made by Mormon prophets. The quote by Taylor is one of many by several Mormon prophets that causes me serious concern. Beyond that, there are numerous other issues I have with Mormonism such as the Book of Abraham issue. When one adds up all of these things it does not create a very strong case for the truth of the LDS church in my opinion.

Neo

As I just said in my earlier response... I doubt your knowledge of LDS Prophets in this dispensation, much less the specifics of the Principle comes from prayerful study of the events and doctrines as a whole. You seem to be able to parrot anti-mormon literature and disembodied quotes, but lack understanding about even the most basic parts of the real doctrines surrounding the practice.

You still cannot answer questions regarding the difference between a practice, a policy and a doctrine. You never responded to my statements that it was a calling, not something that people took upon themselves. You didn't acknowldege, even after I pointed it out, that there are conditions where the Lord will accept an imcomplete sacrifice... In effect all you know about it is things anti-mormons have dredged out of the record to present it in a bad light.

I find it all too common that those who criticize these things, or who find them so disturbing as to lose their faith over them, are all too dependant on the few critics who assemble their poison for them. Your lack of understanding of the whole picture shows me you are just another who has drunk from the poisoned well, without tasing water from the source.

[Neo]

As I just said in my earlier response...  I doubt your knowledge of LDS Prophets in this dispensation, much less the specifics of the Principle comes from prayerful study of the events and doctrines as a whole

As someone who was raised LDS, I am very familiar with Mormonism. However, "prayerful study" is unnecessary over certain matters that are obvious. Do I need to pray and ask if grass is really green? No, because I have the ability to see that for myself. The same is true with dishonest statements made by Mormon leaders who claim to speak for God.

You seem to be able to parrot anti-mormon literature

I am always amazed when someone accuses me of "parroting anti-mormon literature" when all I have done is refer to the words of Mormon leaders.

Neo

[KevinG]

As I just said in my earlier response...

[Jaybear]

Dad:

2) The broader question (which Neo thought was a diversion) is a prophet no longer a prophet if he is guilty of any mistake, transgression or misstatement?

Not really.

Mistakes raises questions regarding a persons compentency.

False statements raises questions reagarding a persons integrity.

Failed or false prophecies raises questions regarding a persons claimed prophetic skills.

The facts and cirucmstances leading up to and following the issueance of the manifesto, would lead anyone to question whether Woodruff was acting as a prophet when he issued the declaration.

Frankly, considiring the language of the manifesto, and the post manifesto plural marriages sanctioned by the GAs, I have to think that the fundamentalists have a better argument, when they assert that God did not repeal the doctrine of polygamy.

[Neo]

As I just said in my earlier response...

[KevinG]

Frankly, considiring the language of the manifesto, and the post manifesto plural marriages sanctioned by the GAs, I have to think that the fundamentalists have a better argument, when they assert that God did not repeal the doctrine of polygamy.

I agree that it was not repealed, but it was never given to practice without it being a calling from priesthood authority. You could just as soon declare yourself Bishop as take on another wife without that call.

So Woodruff had the authority and the reason to suspend the practice (which is still doctrine as per D&C 132) especially given this passage, which he reported as a serious consideration when making the decision...

Doctrine and Covenants 124:49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.

So while the fundamentalists would be correct in saying the doctrine wasn't repealed, they would be incorrect in practicing it without the proper priesthood authority or calling.

[KevinG]

I rest my case your honor.

[cksalmon]

2) The broader question (which Neo thought was a diversion) is a prophet no longer a prophet if he is guilty of any mistake, transgression or misstatement?

Good morning dadof7!

Hope you're well.

Let me try to respond to at least this particular question.

1. No longer a prophet if he is guilty of any mistake?

I think, broadly construed, this is certainly not an indication of a false prophet.

2. No longer a prophet if he is guilty of any transgression?

Same as 1.

3. No longer a prophet if he is guilty of any misstatement?

Same as 1 and 2--but with a significant qualification. If he is speaking what he terms or implies is an authoritative word from God (in other words, if he claims to be acting as a prophet) and if that prophecy turns out to be false, then I would argue that the person in question can legitimately be termed a false prophet.

I'm not suggesting that my analysis perfectly lines up with the case under scrutiny on this thread--but just wanted to answer rather generically to what I thought was a good set of questions.

Best.

CKS

[Elphaba Lives!]

[Paul H Petersen wrote:] Truman G. Madsen wrote of Eliza R. Snow, who babysat and helped in the Prophet's home, saying that "she first admired him in his public ministry, saw him as a prophet, but not until she saw him in his own home, on his knees in prayer, and in his relationship with his children did her whole heart go out to him in admiration. 'He was,' she said, 'as humble as a little child.'"

I wonder why Mr. Peterson or Mr. Madsen failed to mention she was also one of Joseph's plural wives. I would think that would have priority over being a babysitter in Joseph's home.

Elphie

[Zakuska]

cksalmon,

In other words, if he was intentionally deceptive in this instance (and I realize that that is a point of contention here), is that deceptiveness justified because it served a higher good?

Bingo.

Thou Shalt Not Murder.

Psalms 106

30 Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed.

31 And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore.

Cold blooded murder was "counted as Righteousness".

Likewise Abraham nearly passes his son Isaac through the fires of Baal (Yes I know who he was scrificing to) and the haneous act was... "counted as Righteousness". (James 2) And Justified him before God.

Elphie,

Are you sure that was my quote?

[Zakuska]

cksalmon,

3. No longer a prophet if he is guilty of any misstatement?

Same as 1 and 2--but with a significant qualification. If he is speaking what he terms or implies is an authoritative word from God (in other words, if he claims to be acting as a prophet) and if that prophecy turns out to be false, then I would argue that the person in question can legitimately be termed a false prophet.

Ok so Jonah was a False Prophet by your standard...

1) He claimed to be speaking with the authority of God.

2) Ninevah was not destroyed in 40 days (3 in some manuscripts).

False Prophet!

No wonders he was sitting ouside the City walls throwing dust in the air and lusting after the blood of the city.

[KevinG]

2) The broader question (which Neo thought was a diversion) is a prophet no longer a prophet if he is guilty of any mistake, transgression or misstatement?

Good morning dadof7!

Hope you're well.

Let me try to respond to at least this particular question.

1. No longer a prophet if he is guilty of any mistake?

I think, broadly construed, this is certainly not an indication of a false prophet.

2. No longer a prophet if he is guilty of any transgression?

Same as 1.

3. No longer a prophet if he is guilty of any misstatement?

Same as 1 and 2--but with a significant qualification. If he is speaking what he terms or implies is an authoritative word from God (in other words, if he claims to be acting as a prophet) and if that prophecy turns out to be false, then I would argue that the person in question can legitimately be termed a false prophet.

I'm not suggesting that my analysis perfectly lines up with the case under scrutiny on this thread--but just wanted to answer rather generically to what I thought was a good set of questions.

Best.

CKS

I will answer my own question and yours... A man is a Prophet when the Lord calls him as such, and he remains in that office until the Lord sees fit to remove him. Any speculation on our part as to what errors, sins or other devices may cause the Lord to see a man unfit for the office is just that, speculation on our part.

I have loved and appreciated the men God has called. I adore Abraham, Isaac, Jocob, Moses, Noah and others who despite their weaknesses and frailties, were obedient and faithful to the Lord, and because of the atonement were (or will be) made perfect in Him. It gives my rascally old self hope that I can, if faithful and obedient to God, join them in His presence some day, with my family and friends. I reserve no less appreciation for the men in our time, who have taken on the difficult task of being the Lord's living representatives to the world.

[Zakuska]

AMEN! Dadof7

Heb 5

4 And no man taketh this ahonour unto himself, but he that is bcalled of God, as was Aaron.

How was Arron called?

Ex 28

1 AND take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest

[KevinG]

AMEN! Dadof7

Heb 5

4 And no man taketh this ahonour unto himself, but he that is bcalled of God, as was Aaron.

How was Arron called?

Ex 28

1 AND take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest

[Jaybear]

Dad: I know this next snarky statement will get me into trouble, but I sometimes wonder if those who criticize the LDS for living prophets even understand the Bible they claim to love? blink.gif

While exercising self-rightous condemnation, one should not confuse hypocracy with ignorance.

[KevinG]

Dad: I know this next snarky statement will get me into trouble, but I sometimes wonder if those who criticize the LDS for living prophets even understand the Bible they claim to love? blink.gif

While exercising self-rightous condemnation, one should not confuse hypocracy with ignorance.

In all fairness I owned a Bible for years, and even had opinions about it, based on what others told me was in it, and I had hardly cracked its cover except for Proverbs and Psalms (I really liked those).

I truly hope those arguing against my sacred beliefs are more ignorant than hypocritical. It's easier for me to understand jumpting the gun without having all the facts, than it is for me to understand having the facts but choosing to ignore them.

I find athiests are more consistant with their critiques of Mormonism vis a vis their own beliefs.

(...or was it me who needs to be reminded not to be hypocritical )

P.S. I read the Bible more now that I'm a Mormon.