jwhitlock Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 If you don't like my description then provide a better one. The video is not that long. Elder Holland clearly says that the spirit told them to go down a wrong road, which then led him and his father to ponder "why?" The implications for the priesthood ban are, of course, all mine. Elder Holland, I think, would object to your description of what the Spirit told them as "wrong AND dangerous". I've watched and pondered that video a number of times, and have found it rather insightful on a certain aspect of how the Spirit works. Trying to apply it as a rationalization in this thread for why church leaders are wrong is rather superficial. 1
why me Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) Did Pres. Monson say recently, in an interview perhaps, that the men were happy with the stat?us quo, and there's no agitation for it? Would you have my back if I were exed for organizing a restore polygamy organization in the church a long the same lines as kate and OW? I have a feeling that you would not be covering my back and see my excommunication as justified. But I could be wrong. And rockpond would certainly not be writing supportive threads for the legitimacy of my organization. But I am only asking the leaders to pray about it and yet, I am telling them also that it must be restored to establish once again a restoration of all things. For after all, polygamy is in 132. I think that I would have a wonderful case. Edited March 16, 2015 by why me
rockpond Posted March 16, 2015 Author Posted March 16, 2015 My point was: should I be excommunicated for my organizing a restore polygamy campaign if I did the same tactics as kate. And if I were exed, would you come to my defense as you have done for kate? I would defend you against being a faithless person who has rejected Christ, yes. I can't speak to your hypothetical excommunication but I have not defended Kate Kelly against excommunication. I've said that from everything I understand, her leaders made the correct decision. And I think it is sad that it had to come to that.
Beach Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 To me the answer is simple , and I am pretty simple minded . Polygamy (dc132) is true, Joseph was a just and true prophet. Or , polygamy is an abomination to God ,Joseph is guilty of adultery. I don't think God would choose an adulterous man to restore the chuch of Christ . 1
Tacenda Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 Marrying other wives isn't in the revelation. Makes zero sense to me. But they all thought it was fine back then I guess.
JLHPROF Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 Marrying other wives isn't in the revelation. Makes zero sense to me. But they all thought it was fine back then I guess. If you mean marrying other wives, of course it was.If you mean marrying other men's wives, it wasn't in the revelation, but the explanations have been given many times.
Teancum Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 To me the answer is simple , and I am pretty simple minded . Polygamy (dc132) is true, Joseph was a just and true prophet. Or , polygamy is an abomination to God ,Joseph is guilty of adultery. I don't think God would choose an adulterous man to restore the chuch of Christ . There are a couple of other conclusion. God choose JS to restore the Church and he later went down a erroneous path especially with polygamy. David was chosen yet committed adultery. Saul was chosen and made major error. Or, JS was not chosen to restore anything and perhaps was not what he claimed. Maybe your last sentence really leads to that. 1
Tacenda Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 In the bible there was no drawn sword or threats to women and their families that their salvation is on the line, my words and opinion. 2
JLHPROF Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) In the bible there was no drawn sword or threats to women and their families that their salvation is on the line, my words and opinion. No, there were just consolation prize wives, forced wives, gifted wives, abandoned wives, stolen wives, and underage wives, all by God's chosen prophets.Go figure. Edited March 30, 2015 by JLHPROF 2
Teancum Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 No, there were just consolation prize wives, forced wives, gifted wives, abandoned wives, stolen wives, and underage wives, all by God's chosen prophets.Go figure.Apparently those self proclaimed prophets had issues as well. 1
JLHPROF Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Apparently those self proclaimed prophets had issues as well. "Self-proclaimed"? Really?
carbon dioxide Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Marrying other wives isn't in the revelation. Makes zero sense to me. But they all thought it was fine back then I guess.The way I see it, if all the parties involved did not seem to mind, why should I mind? 1
carbon dioxide Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 In the bible there was no drawn sword or threats to women and their families that their salvation is on the line, my words and opinion.As far as we know.
carbon dioxide Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 No, there were just consolation prize wives, forced wives, gifted wives, abandoned wives, stolen wives, and underage wives, all by God's chosen prophets.Go figure.Underage wives?
JLHPROF Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Underage wives? Most historians believe Mary the mother of Christ was between 12 & 14. And a few believe she was neither Joseph's first wife or even his only, and that he was quite an old man.Maybe underage was the wrong word since they had no such 18 year old standard. But definitely underage by our standard. Based on average age of marriage it's pretty safe to assume many other OT women were quite young too - Leah, Rachel, Rebekah, and many others. Who knows how old they were? It's only modern convention makes us assume they were over 18. Edited March 30, 2015 by JLHPROF 1
Teancum Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) "Self-proclaimed"? Really? Yes really. All prophets are self proclaimed. The question is whether they really are prophets and can be trusted. Unless God came to everyone and said "So and So is my prophet" how can they not be self proclaimed? Edited March 30, 2015 by Teancum
Teancum Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 The way I see it, if all the parties involved did not seem to mind, why should I mind? That is a pretty dangerous premise to base things on. Lot's of people involved and lots of bad things may agree and not mind. Does not make it right or a ok.
cinepro Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) The way I see it, if all the parties involved did not seem to mind, why should I mind? So how does Emma's objection to the principle make you feel? Edited March 30, 2015 by cinepro
Mystery Meat Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 "Self-proclaimed"? Really? In his case, perception really is reality.
Teancum Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 In his case, perception really is reality. Please do explain.
Kenngo1969 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 There are a couple of other conclusion. God choose JS to restore the Church and he later went down a erroneous path especially with polygamy. David was chosen yet committed adultery. Saul was chosen and made major error. Or, JS was not chosen to restore anything and perhaps was not what he claimed. Maybe your last sentence really leads to that.OK. If Joseph Smith "later went down an erroneous path," how do you explain Doctrine and Covenants 43:3-4? 3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me. 4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.
Kenngo1969 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Elder Holland has taught that the spirit can lead us down wrong and dangerous roads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNQC-_srxH8 I've sometimes thought that perhaps this will serve as a parable for the racial priesthood ban. If we hadn't continued the ban through 1978, we wouldn't have known how wrong racism is. Or something like that.No, he didn't teach any such thing! Now that this has been pointed out to you, I'm sure you'll be eager to present what Elder Holland said in context, and I, in turn, eagerly await your correction of the record. You are very clearly wresting what Elder Holland said to suit your own purposes. Consider this a CFR.
JLHPROF Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 So how does Emma's objection to the principle make you feel? Very sad for her and hopeful for her repentance.
JLHPROF Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Yes really. All prophets are self proclaimed. The question is whether they really are prophets and can be trusted. Unless God came to everyone and said "So and So is my prophet" how can they not be self proclaimed? God did that in several revelations through Joseph. But I guess that would be self-fulfilling...But in that case there would be NO prophets ever, which would make the scriptures false, which would eliminate Christianity, which would remove the atonement from our knowledge, which would make me an atheist.Not going to happen.
Kenngo1969 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 In the bible there was no drawn sword or threats to women and their families that their salvation is on the line, my words and opinion.I know polygamy is a bugaboo for you, but if I were you, I wouldn't appeal to the ever-loving, ever-patient, ever-kind, never-judgmental God of the Bible in an effort to bolster your position. After all, we know that God never commanded anybody to kill anyone else. Oh, wait ... Yeah, He did. I don't have time to go through the whole litany, so permit me just a couple of examples: Deuteronomy 20:17Genesis 22:2 1
Recommended Posts