Scott Lloyd Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 If you are ignorant of the flow of the discussion, perhaps you shouldn't have stuck your nose in it.I don't concede to being ignorant of the flow of the discussion. I just think it's helpful from time to time in a free-wheeling dialogue to restate and clarify the points of discussion so that we're all on the same page.
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 Is this thread about what Brigham Young said in this or that cherry-picked quote, or is it about what constitutes authoritative Church doctrine regarding the reasons for plural marriage?I don't think this thread is about "what constitutes authoritative Church doctrine . . ." Rather, this thread is about discussing "the reasons for plural marriage".Why does everything have to be "authoritative" and white-washed for you?
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 I don't concede to being ignorant of the flow of the discussion. I just think it's helpful from time to time in a free-wheeling dialogue to restate and clarify the points of discussion so that we're all on the same page.If you are aware of the flow of the discussion, then you would know why I quoted Brigham Young and provided the link to the Journal of Discourses. But, to make it clear for you. The reason I provided the link was so people (like you) could look up the quote and read it in context for themselves.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) I don't think this thread is about "what constitutes authoritative Church doctrine . . ." Rather, this thread is about discussing "the reasons for plural marriage".Whose reasons for plural marriage? I had thought the Church's reasons — or perhaps the Lord's reasons — for plural marriage were what was contemplated in this thread topic, but perhaps I'm wrong in that assumption. Did you create the thread? I thought frankenstein/DavidB did that.Why does everything have to be "authoritative" and white-washed for you?Authoritativeness is an essential element in credibility. Edited November 29, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 If you are aware of the flow of the discussion, then you would know why I quoted Brigham Young and provided the link to the Journal of Discourses.My suspicion was that you did it to present an isolated quote and make it seem binding on the Church of Jesus Christ. But rather than labor under that uncharitable assumption, I thought I would give you the opportunity to state your motive and intent upfront. But, to make it clear for you. The reason I provided the link was so people (like you) could look up the quote and read it in context for themselves.If by "people like you," you mean those who are wary of out-of-context quotation, thank you for the compliment.
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 Whose reasons for plural marriage? I had thought the Church's reasons — or perhaps the Lord's reasons — for plural marriage were what was contemplated in this thread topic, but perhaps I'm wrong in that assumption. Did you create the thread? I thought frankenstein/DavidB did that.DavidB is the OP for this thread. I was merely replying to a particular post within this thread which mentioned Brigham Young. I hardly think it "wrong" to mention Brigham Young when discussing the topic of polygamy within Mormonism.But, after re-reading DavidB's OP, specifically this part: The great debate that seems without end is why God command Joseph Smith to take plural wives as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and Solomon.<snip>So there are a small handful of reasons for polygamy. In the debate on the "why" it would seem far better to use the word of God, than to contrive natural man reasons for "why" God commanded something.<snip>I can see how discussing polygamy outside of LDS scriptures (what you consider "authoritative") goes beyond what the OP may have intended.Authoritativeness is an essential element in credibility.Since the JoDs is quoted by LDS General Authorities in LDS publications, I would assume there is useful information contained within. Do you find the JoDs to be completely worthless simply because they have not been canonized by the LDS church?
Scott Lloyd Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 Since the JoDs is quoted by LDS General Authorities in LDS publications, I would assume there is useful information contained within. Do you find the JoDs to be completely worthless simply because they have not been canonized by the LDS church?I've not said that. And from what I can tell, no one else here has either.Journal of Discourses is a mixed bag, and like most anything else, its content is to be measured against certain factors. One of these I and others have already suggested: whether or not a given statement is consistent with what has been perennially and institutionally taught in the Church down through the years.
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 I've not said that. And from what I can tell, no one else here has either.Journal of Discourses is a mixed bag, and like most anything else, its content is to be measured against certain factors. One of these I and others have already suggested: whether or not a given statement is consistent with what has been perennially and institutionally taught in the Church down through the years.So, since this thread is about polygamy . . . Are you going to address the quotes from the Journal of Discourses? Or, are you going to continue this little dance of yours?
Scott Lloyd Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 So, since this thread is about polygamy . . . Are you going to address the quotes from the Journal of Discourses? Or, are you going to continue this little dance of yours?So I don't have to search back through the thread, do you have a specific quote in mind, with a volume and page number, and a specific question?
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 So I don't have to search back through the thread, do you have a specific quote in mind, with a volume and page number, and a specific question?
Scott Lloyd Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) http://www.mormondia...entry1209198282I don't want to download a big PDF.Please give me a specific quote here with a volume and page number. I can then look it up (I have a hard-copy set of J of D on the shelf here at my office). And be specific about what's bothering you about the quote. Edited November 29, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
DavidB Posted November 29, 2012 Author Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) Azariah....please stop. Please stop. Anyone who does not take the time to figure out your first post in this thread was simply to offer citations on tacendas behalf, is cleary just looking for fight. Please just let's this thread die. I request for this thread to be closed.Many mormons on these type of boards will not address the quotes you linked. If they do address them it will be " we can ignore that prophet because his words they have not been formerly accepted by the presidency and apostles" Edited November 29, 2012 by DavidB
Scott Lloyd Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) Azariah....please stop. Please stop. Anyone who does not take the time to figure out your first post in this thread was simply to offer citations on tacendas behalf, is cleary just looking for fight. Please just let's this thread die. I request for this thread to be closed.It is not necessarily looking for a fight to ask for specifics.But if I understand correctly, depending on your posting privileges, you as thread originator have the capability to close the thread yourself, if that's what you want. I've closed my own thread before when it wasn't going how i wanted it to. Edited November 29, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 Azariah....please stop. Please stop. Anyone who does not take the time to figure out your first post in this thread was simply to offer citations on tacendas behalf, is cleary just looking for fight. Please just let's this thread die. I request for this thread to be closed.Many mormons on these type of boards will not address the quotes you linked. If they do address them it will be " we can ignore that prophet because his words they have not been formerly accepted by the presidency and apostles"My apologies DavidB. Since you are the OP of this thread, I will respect your request and "stop". I honestly don't know why some people are afraid to address the quotes I provided. I don't think I said anything "anti" or even confrontational.
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 It is not necessarily looking for a fight to ask for specifics.But if I understand correctly, depending on your posting privileges, you as thread originator have the privilege to close the thread yourself, if that's what you want.The specifics have been provided on more than one occasion within this thread.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 My apologies DavidB. Since you are the OP of this thread, I will respect your request and "stop". I honestly don't know why some people are afraid to address the quotes I provided. I don't think I said anything "anti" or even confrontational.I'm not afraid to address them. I just don't want to download a huge PDF file to do it.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 The specifics have been provided on more than one occasion within this thread.Indulge me one more time.
thesometimesaint Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) Of course not, however, if you can't tell the difference between your nonLDS grandmother's personal odd beliefs vs the preaching/teaching sermons of a man who is revered as a "prophet of God" who was the President of the LDS Church, then I think you've got bigger problems.God doesn't make sock puppets. Further no Saint has claimed Prophets of God are infallible. Was Peter a Prophet of God when he believed that Christians had to be a Jew first? Edited November 29, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 God doesn't make sock puppets. Further no Saint has claimed Prophets of God are infallible. Was Peter a Prophet of God when he believed that Christians had to be Jew first?Off topic. If you want to start a new thread about God and sock puppets, be my guest. If you want to create a new thread on Peter and his alleged belief that Christians should be Jews first, be my guest.
thesometimesaint Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 DavidB is the OP for this thread. I was merely replying to a particular post within this thread which mentioned Brigham Young. I hardly think it "wrong" to mention Brigham Young when discussing the topic of polygamy within Mormonism.But, after re-reading DavidB's OP, specifically this part: I can see how discussing polygamy outside of LDS scriptures (what you consider "authoritative") goes beyond what the OP may have intended.Since the JoDs is quoted by LDS General Authorities in LDS publications, I would assume there is useful information contained within. Do you find the JoDs to be completely worthless simply because they have not been canonized by the LDS church?Informative and useful to understanding what they personally believed but not binding on the Church. Not everything said by Church authorities is binding on the Church. Only those things as outlined in the Newsroom article I've already posted.
Azariah Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) Informative and useful to understanding what they personally believed but not binding on the Church. Not everything said by Church authorities is binding on the Church. Only those things as outlined in the Newsroom article I've already posted.So, from a historical perspective, was polygamy a doctrine of the church until the 1890 Manifesto? Edited November 29, 2012 by Azariah
thesometimesaint Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 So, from a historical perspective, was polygamy a doctrine of the church until the 1890 Manifesto?Yes. In much the same way that until God told Peter that Christians didn't have to be Jews first.
Rivers Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 I find it odd that church leaders taught that polygamy was necessary when only a small percentage actually practiced it.
thesometimesaint Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 Rivers:It is still necessary for those that God commands. Personally I don't see or favor the return of polygamy in this life.
Recommended Posts