New Gospel Topic Essays - Polygamy

[Pahoran]

True.

But them majority of the doctrinal changes WERE due to public pressure. Not all as you've shown, but many.  

 

And the fact remains that many were made without pronouncement of revelation on the subject - leading to members either accepting the change blindly and assuming revelation, or just having to live with it.

"Doctrinal changes?" And, "many?"

CFR, please.

It must be nice to be the only living Mormon who's doing it right...

Regards,

Pahoran

[canard78]

Be that as it may, it hardly strikes me as amounting to "public or member pressure."

And I vaguely recall that in some areas outside the United States, such requests were already being accommodated on a case-by-case basis.

I think there probably a better case to say that change happens in response to a need. Whether that "pressure" to change is articulated by an individual (Emma and the Word of Wisdom) or by a situation (Brazil temple and black priesthood or the end of Polygamy from US government pressure).

In the case of the age change the question was, as far as I understand it, in response to the question of how to address activity drop-out issues from 18-19.

Change/Revelation rarely happens without a need for it.

I sometimes wonder what further change or revelation could happen in the church if the leaders had the desire (from pressure or otherwise) to ask the question.

[rockpond]

How do you know that? You're scarcely aware of it yourself, and apparently only through rumor.

 

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. It's clear you're quibbling over semantics here.

 

I think you're making assumptions here about extent and frequency of something you are scarcely even aware of.

 

Not quibbling, just trying to understand what you mean.

 

I wouldn't say my information is based on rumor but it is definitely secondhand having come from talking about it with my parents who were there, quite heavily involved, for three years.

 

But if you are defining "member pressure" as the types of tactics employed recently by Ordain Women and the Temple Wedding Petition, then of course what I am discussing doesn't compare.

[JLHPROF]

I'm not clear how you can even go as far as to declare it was a majority. And "public"? Most of the public is not even aware of what goes on in the Church of Jesus Christ much less care enough to exert any pressure over it.

 

Public was a typo - should have been members (and a little bit the public).  Sorry.

 

"Doctrinal changes?" And, "many?"

CFR, please.

 

Revocation of Plural Marriage - Due to public pressure (gov't), and some members.

Revocation of United Order/Law of Consecration - Due to members unwillingness/inability

Addition and then removal of Adam-God teachings from the Church and Temple. - Due to doctrinal differences within/without

Ending of Adoption ceremonies in 1894 - This one has a revelation attached so no argument

Ending of Rebaptism - No pressure but no reason to stop either.

Official acceptance of Christ as Jehovah in the OT around the 1910s - Due to doctrinal differences within/without

Changes in the temple and garment in the 1920s - Due to member complaints, no revelation recorded

Reception of the 1978 Revelation on Priesthod - Due to pressure within/without, but done by revelation

Changes in the temple in the 1990s - Due to member complaints/discomfort, no revelation recorded

Changes in the temple in 2005 - Due to member complaints discomfort, no revelation recorded

Openly showing the temple clothing to the world - Response to inaccurate public claims

 

 

And lest we forget what brought about this sidetrack discussion - it was in response to this:

 

I guess over time one can dismiss all of God's commandments if the instructions are at odds with the standards of society today.  One can just take buy some liquid paper and delete everything in the scriptures one does not like.  It is an effective way to deal with difficult commandments.  Either ignore them or just declare the commandment did not exist in the first place.  I guess I can just say that God was not a part of the Word of Wisdom.  I don't have to wrestle with any claim that God would command us to not drink alcohol or use cocaine.  He didn't.  I am bring a keg of beer to the next church activiity.

[stemelbow]

Public was a typo - should have been members (and a little bit the public).  Sorry.

 

 

Revocation of Plural Marriage - Due to public pressure (gov't), and some members.

Revocation of United Order/Law of Consecration - Due to members unwillingness/inability

Addition and then removal of Adam-God teachings from the Church and Temple. - Due to doctrinal differences within/without

Ending of Adoption ceremonies in 1894 - This one has a revelation attached so no argument

Ending of Rebaptism - No pressure but no reason to stop either.

Official acceptance of Christ as Jehovah in the OT around the 1910s - Due to doctrinal differences within/without

Changes in the temple and garment in the 1920s - Due to member complaints, no revelation recorded

Reception of the 1978 Revelation on Priesthod - Due to pressure within/without, but done by revelation

Changes in the temple in the 1990s - Due to member complaints/discomfort, no revelation recorded

Changes in the temple in 2005 - Due to member complaints discomfort, no revelation recorded

Openly showing the temple clothing to the world - Response to inaccurate public claims

 

 

And lest we forget what brought about this sidetrack discussion - it was in response to this:

Good list

More for consideration:

The implementation of the priesthood ban. Just started, no revelation--part of explanation was it was the culture that inspired it.

The explanation of why the priesthood ban...later dropped--seemed to be used to answer the member question of why the ban.

Edited November 3, 2014 by stemelbow

[Pahoran]

Public was a typo - should have been members (and a little bit the public).  Sorry.

 

 

Revocation of Plural Marriage - Due to public pressure (gov't), and some members.

Not a doctrinal change, and necessary to save the Church from outright destruction.

Revocation of United Order/Law of Consecration - Due to members unwillingness/inability

Not a doctrinal change. The Law of Consecration is still in force.

Addition and then removal of Adam-God teachings from the Church and Temple. - Due to doctrinal differences within/without

A bit vague that, isn't it?

The "Adam-God" teachings went away because they were never doctrinally sound.

Ending of Adoption ceremonies in 1894 - This one has a revelation attached so no argument

Ending of Rebaptism - No pressure but no reason to stop either.

Actually there's a question as to what purpose they really served, and if that purpose still obtains.

Official acceptance of Christ as Jehovah in the OT around the 1910s - Due to doctrinal differences within/without

A "doctrinal change" that actually should have been consistently in place since at least April 3rd, 1836, since it was made rather unequivocally explicit in Doctrine and Covenants 110:3-4.

Changes in the temple and garment in the 1920s - Due to member complaints, no revelation recorded

Not a doctrinal change.

Reception of the 1978 Revelation on Priesthod - Due to pressure within/without, but done by revelation

I don't agree that that was due to "pressure." I was an active adult member of the Church in 1978. There was no discernible "pressure."

Nor do I regard that as a doctrinal change. We were always expecting it to happen eventually, we just didn't know when.

Changes in the temple in the 1990s - Due to member complaints/discomfort, no revelation recorded

Not a doctrinal change.

Changes in the temple in 2005 - Due to member complaints discomfort, no revelation recorded

Not a doctrinal change.

Openly showing the temple clothing to the world - Response to inaccurate public claims

Not a doctrinal change. 

Regards,

Pahoran

[JLHPROF]

Revocation of Plural Marriage - Due to public pressure (gov't), and some members.

Not a doctrinal change, and necessary to save the Church from outright destruction.

 

OLD DOCTRINE - PLURAL MARRIAGE REQUIRED FOR EXALTATION

NEW DOCTRINE - PLURAL MARRIAGE ONLY REQUIRED WHEN GOD COMMANDS

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Revocation of United Order/Law of Consecration - Due to members unwillingness/inability

Not a doctrinal change. The Law of Consecration is still in force.

 

OLD DOCTRINE - SIGN ALL YOUR BELONGINGS OVER TO YOUR BISHOP AND RECEIVE YOUR STEWARDSHIP

NEW DOCTRINE - WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS UNTIL THE MILLENNIUM SO ARE EXEMPT FROM THE LAW

 

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Addition and then removal of Adam-God teachings from the Church and Temple. - Due to doctrinal differences within/without

A bit vague that, isn't it?

The "Adam-God" teachings went away because they were never doctrinally sound.

 

OLD DOCTRINE - ACCORDING TO THE TEMPLE CEREMONY AND THE PROPHET AT THE TIME ADAM WAS OUR HEAVENLY FATHER

NEW DOCTRINE - TEMPLE CEREMONY CHANGED BACK AND LATER PROPHETS CALL THIS A HERESY

 

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Ending of Adoption ceremonies in 1894 - This one has a revelation attached so no argument

Ending of Rebaptism - No pressure but no reason to stop either.

Actually there's a question as to what purpose they really served, and if that purpose still obtains.

 

ALREADY SAID THERE ARE DOCTRINES FOR THE ORIGINAL AND DOCTRINES FOR THE NEW - BOTH ARE REASONABLE

 

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Official acceptance of Christ as Jehovah in the OT around the 1910s - Due to doctrinal differences within/without

A "doctrinal change" that actually should have been consistently in place since at least April 3rd, 1836, since it was made rather unequivocally explicit in Doctrine and Covenants 110:3-4.

 

OLD DOCTRINE - AS PART OF ADAM-GOD TAUGHT THAT JEHOVAH WAS ADAM'S FATHER, A RESURRECTED GOD

NEW DOCTRINE - JEHOVAH IS NOW THE PREMORTAL SPIRIT OF CHRIST (D&C 110 doesn't apply since Christ was then resurrected)

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Changes in the temple and garment in the 1920s - Due to member complaints, no revelation recorded

Not a doctrinal change.

 

OLD DOCTRINE - STRINGS and COLLAR WERE SYMBOLIC AT THE SAME LEVEL AS THE MARKS PROVIDE BLESSING

NEW DOCTRINE - STRINGS and COLLAR HAVE NO SIGNIFICANCE AND CAN BE DISGARDED WITHOUT LOSING BLESSING

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Reception of the 1978 Revelation on Priesthod - Due to pressure within/without, but done by revelation

I don't agree that that was due to "pressure." I was an active adult member of the Church in 1978. There was no discernible "pressure."

Nor do I regard that as a doctrinal change. We were always expecting it to happen eventually, we just didn't know when.

 

ASK ANY HISTORIAN WHAT LED TO THE INQUIRY THE BROUGHT THE REVELATION.  YOUR OPINION DOESN'T NEGATE HISTORICAL FACT.

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Changes in the temple in the 1990s - Due to member complaints/discomfort, no revelation recorded

Not a doctrinal change.

 

MORE DOCTRINAL CHANGE THAN ANY OTHER ON THE LIST, BUT CANNOT BE FULLY DESCRIBED HERE.

SUFFICIENT TO SAY :

OLD DOCTRINE - THESE ARE THE GOD GIVEN METHODS USED FOR MORE POWERFUL PRAYER AND TO ENTER GOD'S PRESENCE AND HERE'S HOW TO DEFINE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE.

NEW DOCTRINE - YOU NO LONGER NEED TO USE THESE METHODS TO REACH GOD BUT YOU GET THE SAME BLESSINGS AND HUSBANDS AND WIVES HAVE A DIFFERENT, MORE EQUAL RELATIONSHIP

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Changes in the temple in 2005 - Due to member complaints discomfort, no revelation recorded

Not a doctrinal change.

 

SEE ABOVE -

OLD DOCTRINE - INITIATORY WORK HAD SPECIFIC SYMBOLISM BEHIND EACH ACT

NEW DOCTRINE - ACTS UNNECESSARY, ONLY BLESSING MATTERS  (this is the closest one to switching from Baptism by Immersion to Sprinkling and calling it the same doctrine).

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Openly showing the temple clothing to the world - Response to inaccurate public claims

Not a doctrinal change.

OLD DOCTRINE - KEEP THIESE THINGS PRIVATE NOT AS PEARLS BEFORE SWINE

NEW DOCTRINE - HEY SWINE, CHECK OUT THESE PEARLS BUT WE WON'T TELL YOU WHAT THEY ALL MEAN.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

 

Revocation of Plural Marriage - Due to public pressure (gov't), and some members.

Not a doctrinal change, and necessary to save the Church from outright destruction.

 

OLD DOCTRINE - PLURAL MARRIAGE REQUIRED FOR EXALTATION

NEW DOCTRINE - PLURAL MARRIAGE ONLY REQUIRED WHEN GOD COMMANDS

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Revocation of United Order/Law of Consecration - Due to members unwillingness/inability

Not a doctrinal change. The Law of Consecration is still in force.

 

OLD DOCTRINE - SIGN ALL YOUR BELONGINGS OVER TO YOUR BISHOP AND RECEIVE YOUR STEWARDSHIP

NEW DOCTRINE - WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS UNTIL THE MILLENNIUM SO ARE EXEMPT FROM THE LAW

 

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Addition and then removal of Adam-God teachings from the Church and Temple. - Due to doctrinal differences within/without

A bit vague that, isn't it?

The "Adam-God" teachings went away because they were never doctrinally sound.

 

OLD DOCTRINE - ACCORDING TO THE TEMPLE CEREMONY AND THE PROPHET AT THE TIME ADAM WAS OUR HEAVENLY FATHER

NEW DOCTRINE - TEMPLE CEREMONY CHANGED BACK AND LATER PROPHETS CALL THIS A HERESY

 

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Ending of Adoption ceremonies in 1894 - This one has a revelation attached so no argument

Ending of Rebaptism - No pressure but no reason to stop either.

Actually there's a question as to what purpose they really served, and if that purpose still obtains.

 

ALREADY SAID THERE ARE DOCTRINES FOR THE ORIGINAL AND DOCTRINES FOR THE NEW - BOTH ARE REASONABLE

 

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Official acceptance of Christ as Jehovah in the OT around the 1910s - Due to doctrinal differences within/without

A "doctrinal change" that actually should have been consistently in place since at least April 3rd, 1836, since it was made rather unequivocally explicit in Doctrine and Covenants 110:3-4.

 

OLD DOCTRINE - AS PART OF ADAM-GOD TAUGHT THAT JEHOVAH WAS ADAM'S FATHER, A RESURRECTED GOD

NEW DOCTRINE - JEHOVAH IS NOW THE PREMORTAL SPIRIT OF CHRIST (D&C 110 doesn't apply since Christ was then resurrected)

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Changes in the temple and garment in the 1920s - Due to member complaints, no revelation recorded

Not a doctrinal change.

 

OLD DOCTRINE - STRINGS and COLLAR WERE SYMBOLIC AT THE SAME LEVEL AS THE MARKS PROVIDE BLESSING

NEW DOCTRINE - STRINGS and COLLAR HAVE NO SIGNIFICANCE AND CAN BE DISGARDED WITHOUT LOSING BLESSING

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Reception of the 1978 Revelation on Priesthod - Due to pressure within/without, but done by revelation

I don't agree that that was due to "pressure." I was an active adult member of the Church in 1978. There was no discernible "pressure."

Nor do I regard that as a doctrinal change. We were always expecting it to happen eventually, we just didn't know when.

 

ASK ANY HISTORIAN WHAT LED TO THE INQUIRY THE BROUGHT THE REVELATION.  YOUR OPINION DOESN'T NEGATE HISTORICAL FACT.

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Changes in the temple in the 1990s - Due to member complaints/discomfort, no revelation recorded

Not a doctrinal change.

 

MORE DOCTRINAL CHANGE THAN ANY OTHER ON THE LIST, BUT CANNOT BE FULLY DESCRIBED HERE.

SUFFICIENT TO SAY :

OLD DOCTRINE - THESE ARE THE GOD GIVEN METHODS USED FOR MORE POWERFUL PRAYER AND TO ENTER GOD'S PRESENCE AND HERE'S HOW TO DEFINE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE.

NEW DOCTRINE - YOU NO LONGER NEED TO USE THESE METHODS TO REACH GOD BUT YOU GET THE SAME BLESSINGS AND HUSBANDS AND WIVES HAVE A DIFFERENT, MORE EQUAL RELATIONSHIP

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Changes in the temple in 2005 - Due to member complaints discomfort, no revelation recorded

Not a doctrinal change.

 

SEE ABOVE -

OLD DOCTRINE - INITIATORY WORK HAD SPECIFIC SYMBOLISM BEHIND EACH ACT

NEW DOCTRINE - ACTS UNNECESSARY, ONLY BLESSING MATTERS  (this is the closest one to switching from Baptism by Immersion to Sprinkling and calling it the same doctrine).

 

JLHPROF, on 03 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Openly showing the temple clothing to the world - Response to inaccurate public claims

Not a doctrinal change.

OLD DOCTRINE - KEEP THIESE THINGS PRIVATE NOT AS PEARLS BEFORE SWINE

NEW DOCTRINE - HEY SWINE, CHECK OUT THESE PEARLS BUT WE WON'T TELL YOU WHAT THEY ALL MEAN.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

 

HEY JHL: TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING.  DIDN'T YOU KNOW?

 

I disagree with all or most of your "doctrinal" expositions.

 

I know all about the events preceding the 1978 revelation.  I don't need a "historian" to tell me about the times I lived through.

 

There was no "pressure."

 

Get over it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[JLHPROF]

HEY JHL: TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING.  DIDN'T YOU KNOW?

 

I disagree with all or most of your "doctrinal" expositions.

 

I know all about the events preceding the 1978 revelation.  I don't need a "historian" to tell me about the times I lived through.

 

There was no "pressure."

 

Get over it.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Yes I know, but I wanted to be sure my responses were legible amongst all the quotes of quotes.

And you have your right to disagree, but a change is a change.  Its significance we can debate another time.

As for the 1978 revelation, you may have seen no internal or external pressure but there are large numbers of material devoted to the fact that there was a push for the prophet to approach the Lord again, whether you saw it or not.

 

Thanks for the discussion!

[Silhouette]

May I interject a question here? I've noticed that "Rebaptism" has been referenced throughout this discussion. Could someone explain under what circumstances this would occur? Is it something different than being rebaptized after being excommunicated?

Sorry, I've just never heard the term before outside of the situation I mentioned above. Thanks in advance.

[canard78]

Yes I know, but I wanted to be sure my responses were legible amongst all the quotes of quotes.

And you have your right to disagree, but a change is a change. Its significance we can debate another time.

As for the 1978 revelation, you may have seen no internal or external pressure but there are large numbers of material devoted to the fact that there was a push for the prophet to approach the Lord again, whether you saw it or not.

Thanks for the discussion!

Apparently Pahoran doesn't accept the church's official explanation:

As the Church grew worldwide, its overarching mission to “go ye therefore, and teach all nations”17 seemed increasingly incompatible with the priesthood and temple restrictions. The Book of Mormon declared that the gospel message of salvation should go forth to “every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.”18 While there were no limits on whom the Lord invited to “partake of his goodness” through baptism,19 the priesthood and temple restrictions created significant barriers, a point made increasingly evident as the Church spread in international locations with diverse and mixed racial heritages.

Brazil in particular presented many challenges. Unlike the United States and South Africa where legal and de facto racism led to deeply segregated societies, Brazil prided itself on its open, integrated, and mixed racial heritage. In 1975, the Church announced that a temple would be built in São Paulo, Brazil. As the temple construction proceeded, Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Mormons who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter once it was completed. Their sacrifices, as well as the conversions of thousands of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 1960s and early 1970s, moved Church leaders.

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Clearly the church is willing to accept the circumstantial demands and pressures on the church structure and organisation and therefore more willingly and urgently sought divine approval for a solution.

This article is an outstanding overview:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7885

[canard78]

May I interject a question here? I've noticed that "Rebaptism" has been referenced throughout this discussion. Could someone explain under what circumstances this would occur? Is it something different than being rebaptized after being excommunicated?

Sorry, I've just never heard the term before outside of the situation I mentioned above. Thanks in advance.

from Wikipedia (which appears to draw heavily on BYU article by Quinn):

After the martyrdom of the movement's founder, Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1844, rebaptism became an important ordinance in faction of the church led by Brigham Young. Young led his group to the Great Basin in what is now Utah, and most of his followers were rebaptised not long after entering the basin as a sign that they would rededicate their lives to Christ. During the "Mormon Reformation" of 1856–1857, rebaptism became an extremely important ordinance, signifying that the church member confessed their sins and would live a life of a Latter-day Saint. Church members were rebaptized prior to new covenants and ordinances, such as ordination to a new office of the priesthood, receiving temple ordinances, getting married, or entering plural marriage.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebaptism_(Mormonism)

Edited November 3, 2014 by canard78

[JLHPROF]

May I interject a question here? I've noticed that "Rebaptism" has been referenced throughout this discussion. Could someone explain under what circumstances this would occur? Is it something different than being rebaptized after being excommunicated?

Sorry, I've just never heard the term before outside of the situation I mentioned above. Thanks in advance.

 

Yes.  It is different from being rebaptized after excommunication.  It was VERY common in the early days of the Church.

 

In the early days of the church people were rebaptized many times.  It was done for health, for renewal of covenants, before entering a new covenant (like marriage or a United Order), after gathering to Utah, before leaving on a mission and for other reasons.

 

One of the very first things Brigham Young did after the settlers were established in the Salt Lake Valley was require every member of the Church to be rebaptized.  This was about 1847.  Then during the "reformation" in 1856 pretty much the entire population of the Church were baptized again.  Joseph baptized Emma twice in the Mississippi river one evening for her health.

 

In 1897 it was felt that this was being abused so the First Presidency called a general halt to rebaptisms.  But they never changed the idea that it could be done if necessary.  It just became something that wasn't done by the time of the Reed Smoot trials.

[Scott Lloyd]

Apparently Pahoran doesn't accept the church's official explanation:

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Clearly the church is willing to accept the circumstantial demands and pressures on the church structure and organisation and therefore more willingly and urgently sought divine approval for a solution.

This article is an outstanding overview:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7885

I, like Pahoran, remember clearly the pre-1978 days. I was in my young adulthood when the priesthood restriction was removed.

 

What you are here calling "circumstantial demands" is not what most people think of when they hear the term that JLHPROF used earlier. It was "member and public pressure," I think. That connotes political and social pressure, not organizational growing pains, which, in effect, is what you are referring to here.

[Silhouette]

Thanks to those who answered my question about rebaptism. I would have quoted you both, but my phone won't let me do two quotes in the same post. This is interesting though. I wasn't aware that there had ever been such a thing.

[canard78]

I, like Pahoran, remember clearly the pre-1978 days. I was in my young adulthood when the priesthood restriction was removed.

What you are here calling "circumstantial demands" is not what most people think of when they hear the term that JLHPROF used earlier. It was "member and public pressure," I think. That connotes political and social pressure, not organizational growing pains, which, in effect, is what you are referring to here.

JLHPROF can answer for himself and clarify the intent of his comment.

I think I've been consistent. I see "pressures" or demands leading to many of the significant changes that have been made in church doctrine or practice. I would agree that they were not always social/political pressures but instead were pressures from organisational issues or other pressures.

[Pahoran]

Apparently Pahoran doesn't accept the church's official explanation:

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Clearly the church is willing to accept the circumstantial demands and pressures on the church structure and organisation and therefore more willingly and urgently sought divine approval for a solution.

This article is an outstanding overview:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7885

 

Yet another canard from Canard.

 

Of course Pahoran accepts the Church's official explanation.

 

I didn't realise I was so inarticulate as to need you to speak for me.

 

Which may explain why I never authorised you to do so.

 

I recommend you do not repeat your error.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kenngo1969]

JLHPROF can answer for himself and clarify the intent of his comment.

I think I've been consistent. I see "pressures" or demands leading to many of the significant changes that have been made in church doctrine or practice. I would agree that they were not always social/political pressures but instead were pressures from organisational issues or other pressures.

It's interesting how differently two people can view the same set of circumstances.  While some see the lifting of the ban on priesthood and the discontinuance of polygyny as as evidence that the Church of Jesus Christ  caved to social or political pressure in the past, I see these things as templates for resisting social and political pressure to change Church doctrines and practices, unless and until the Lord dictates otherwise.  I believe these lessons will come in handy as the Church continues to resist other potential changes that are in vogue among certain of the illuminati at the moment.

 

But maybe that's just me.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[tonie]

I think "weasel words" are unnecessarily factoring into the current discussion.  A rudimentary study of the Priesthood ban and its removal shows internal pressure to reconsider the ban as well as external pressure.  The ban was on the minds of the Prophets for many years prior to its removal.  There were members who publically and privately took issue with the ban. So it seems entirely unreasonable to suggest there was no internal pressure. And just because someone did not witness the pressure does not reasonably suggest there was no pressure.

 

As for polygamy, Temples would have gone unused and Temples unused, the Lord left it to the membership to continue to live it or not.  So was it revelation and inspiration to the general membership to choose what to do about plural marriage. I think Yes.    I am not sure that individual members needed much inspiration to sustain cessation of plural marriage; as the ramifications of continuing the practice were presented in a matter of fact and practical way.

[canard78]

Yet another canard from Canard.

Of course Pahoran accepts the Church's official explanation.

I didn't realise I was so inarticulate as to need you to speak for me.

Which may explain why I never authorised you to do so.

I recommend you do not repeat your error.

Regards,

Pahoran

Or...?

So you agree that there was an internal pressure to reach a conclusion based on the conditions in Brazil and Africa?

[Scott Lloyd]

Or...?

So you agree that there was an internal pressure to reach a conclusion based on the conditions in Brazil and Africa?

I think he said he accepted the Church's official explanation, not your  spin on it.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[LinuxGal]

One of the very first things Brigham Young did after the settlers were established in the Salt Lake Valley was require every member of the Church to be rebaptized.  This was about 1847.  Then during the "reformation" in 1856 pretty much the entire population of the Church were baptized again.  Joseph baptized Emma twice in the Mississippi river one evening for her health.

 

I suppose this is another one of those BoM things that were "clarified" later.

 

Mosiah 18:21 And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.

[JLHPROF]

I suppose this is another one of those BoM things that were "clarified" later.

 

Mosiah 18:21 And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.

 

Completely unrelated to rebaptism...and you know it. 

[LinuxGal]

Completely unrelated to rebaptism...and you know it. 

 

So if I read you correctly, the original baptism, the 1847 Salt Lake Baptism, the 1856 Reformation Baptism, and multiple baptisms for health were all "one baptism" and the shade of Alma can rest easy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I suppose this is another one of those BoM things that were "clarified" later.

 

Mosiah 18:21 And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.

I doubt that anyone here could successfully convey the real meaning to you, of this verse. It seems lost on you.  You seem hung up on the word one.