Pahoran Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 This just strikes me as an ornate way of promoting prophetic infallibility and blind obedience. Wrong. But thanks for playing. Apparently the surest way to avoid "blind obedience" is to eschew obedience altogether. I'm not advocating "blind obedience." I'm suggesting humility. A difficult concept for the ark-steadiers to grasp, I know. Given that fallibility is an inevitable part of the human condition, the self-appointed judges of the Lord's anointed ought to start by recognising that it applies to them, too. You seem to be suggesting here that any thought, belief, or personal revelation one has that potentially differs from what prophets have taught is obviously from Satan. Not at all. I'm allowing for the alternative, namely that it could be a product of wishful thinking. You suggest that the normative LDS teaching is that differing from the prophet makes one apostate. Which could, by certain definitions, be true. But which prophet? President Hinckley stated to a very large audience that polygamy was not doctrinal. No, that's not what he said. He said that polygamy, as practiced by certain apostate groups, is not doctrinal. In the which he was not only right, but in full agreement with every one of his predecessors, including Joseph and Brigham. Kirk Van Allen wrote a blog post explaining why he believed polygamy was not of God. I don't see things as being so clear cut as your post here suggests. You need to start from the understanding that Mr Van Allen is fallible too. Regards, Pahoran 1
rockpond Posted March 11, 2015 Author Posted March 11, 2015 Wrong. But thanks for playing.Apparently the surest way to avoid "blind obedience" is to eschew obedience altogether.I'm not advocating "blind obedience." I'm suggesting humility. A difficult concept for the ark-steadiers to grasp, I know.Given that fallibility is an inevitable part of the human condition, the self-appointed judges of the Lord's anointed ought to start by recognising that it applies to them, too.Not at all. I'm allowing for the alternative, namely that it could be a product of wishful thinking.No, that's not what he said. He said that polygamy, as practiced by certain apostate groups, is not doctrinal. In the which he was not only right, but in full agreement with every one of his predecessors, including Joseph and Brigham.You need to start from the understanding that Mr Van Allen is fallible too.Regards,Pahoran What makes you think that I don't understand that Brother Van Allen is fallible? I started a thread to discuss his post. That doesn't mean I think he's got everything right. I'm not aware of who the "ark-steadiers" are that you are referring to... I don't see the point of your veiled digs at anonymous people. But I have no reason to think that Van Allen doesn't recognize his own human condition. And President Hinckley did not make the clarification that you claim, you are putting words in his mouth. 1
JLHPROF Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 He said that polygamy, as practiced by certain apostate groups, is not doctrinal. In the which he was not only right, but in full agreement with every one of his predecessors, including Joseph and Brigham. I'd like some clarification on this statement. I will refrain from a CFR, but where/when did Joseph or Brigham state that polygamy as practiced by any group was not doctrinal?
Mystery Meat Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 And President Hinckley did not make the clarification that you claim, you are putting words in his mouth. I agree with you here. But saying President Hinckley was describing all polygamy as not doctrinal is also putting words in his mouth.
carbon dioxide Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Good grief, man. Joseph lost 132 pages of the BOM and the church somehow survived. I'm sure we could lose quite a few sections of the D/C and be just fine. As I've said before, I'm not passing judgement on D/C 132 one way or the other. But I'm certainly not chaining myself, or my belief in the atonement, resurrection, and the goodness of God, to one wacky Section - a section that was intended only to convince Emma of the program. Perhaps Section 132 will end up being a setting stone for me. So far it hasn't. But it could also end up being a millstone.The Word of Wisdom revelation was given to address a specific issue that Emma was complaining about. Yet God gave this revelation not to just appease or satisfy Emma but for all our benefit. Same with D&C 132. Polygamy is a true, eternal principle and doctrine even though the Church does not currently practice it in normal sense. The doctrines of 132 existed before Emma was born and before the Earth was created. They will continue to exist.
rockpond Posted March 11, 2015 Author Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) I agree with you here. But saying President Hinckley was describing all polygamy as not doctrinal is also putting words in his mouth. I didn't put the "all" in there. I used his words and didn't add to them. Edited March 11, 2015 by rockpond 1
JLHPROF Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 I agree with you here. But saying President Hinckley was describing all polygamy as not doctrinal is also putting words in his mouth. I didn't put the "all" in there. I used his words and didn't add to them. What Pres. Hinckley said or didn't say in a press interview really should be irrelevant. It was a press interview. When Joseph Smith was asked point blank he denied even living polygamy. Telling the world the 100% truth has never been a priority. Now in a conference address, Ensign article, etc that might be different. But being questioned by Mike Wallace or Larry King? Gonna fudge a bit. 1
rockpond Posted March 11, 2015 Author Posted March 11, 2015 What Pres. Hinckley said or didn't say in a press interview really should be irrelevant. It was a press interview. When Joseph Smith was asked point blank he denied even living polygamy. Telling the world the 100% truth has never been a priority. Now in a conference address, Ensign article, etc that might be different. But being questioned by Mike Wallace or Larry King? Gonna fudge a bit. Yes, telling the world the 100% truth hasn't been a priority, as sad as that statement is. But it is interesting that President Hinckley can publicly declare that polygamy is not doctrinal while an average member is told that he will be excommunicated if he doesn't remove a blog post questioning whether polygamy is divinely sourced.
JLHPROF Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 an average member is told that he will be excommunicated if he doesn't remove a blog post questioning whether polygamy is divinely sourced.Oh, I don't think that's why he's in trouble. It's more likely statements like: "Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and many others, by definition, committed adultery.""I have come to the belief that D&C 132 and Joseph’s teaching of polygamy isn’t, wasn’t, and never will be revelation of God,""And when I look honestly at D&C 132 and the fruits of such words, I do not see God, but the works of men." Now you may actually agree with him, but he is unarguably:1. Expressing a lack of belief in some of the prophets.2. Expressing a lack of belief in some of the scriptures.3. Expressing a lack of belief in a doctrine of the Church (even if the practice is revoked).4. Expressing doubts about the worthiness of some of the prophets character and by extension their calling. Publicly this isn't questioning, it's preaching AGAINST what the Church teaches and some of its leaders. He is not saying he's questioning, he's saying he's decided the Church is wrong on this. No different that Kate Kelly, John Dehlin or dozens of other excommunicate apostates.He can question, but he's not asking questions. He's teaching his opinion as fact publicly.I question Church teachings on Jehovah. I don't reach out to members and try to convince them that the Church is wrong (except maybe on this board - ). And frankly, I'd probably be in trouble for what i say on this board along with 75% of the members who post here. 1
Pahoran Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 I didn't put the "all" in there. I used his words and didn't add to them. You said: "President Hinckley stated to a very large audience that polygamy was not doctrinal." Completely without qualification. Thus, a normal reading of your assertion was that President Hinckley was saying that "all" polygamy, or "all" Mormon-related polygamy, wherever and whenever practiced, was not doctrinal. And, in the context of your post, that seems to be exactly how you intended it to be read. But, as you perfectly well know, the topic on which President Hinckley was commenting, was polygamy as practiced by contemporary so-called "Mormon fundamentalist" groups. And since such groups were practicing polygamy without the sanction of the only person on earth who has the keys of Plural Marriage -- who, at that time, was President Hinckley -- then he was exactly 100% correct. And he was also in full agreement with every one of his predecessors, including Joseph and Brigham; both of whom excommunicated people for attempting to practice Plural Marriage without being authorised to do so. Regards, Pahoran 2
rockpond Posted March 12, 2015 Author Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) You said:"President Hinckley stated to a very large audience that polygamy was not doctrinal."Completely without qualification.Thus, a normal reading of your assertion was that President Hinckley was saying that "all" polygamy, or "all" Mormon-related polygamy, wherever and whenever practiced, was not doctrinal.And, in the context of your post, that seems to be exactly how you intended it to be read.But, as you perfectly well know, the topic on which President Hinckley was commenting, was polygamy as practiced by contemporary so-called "Mormon fundamentalist" groups.And since such groups were practicing polygamy without the sanction of the only person on earth who has the keys of Plural Marriage -- who, at that time, was President Hinckley -- then he was exactly 100% correct.And he was also in full agreement with every one of his predecessors, including Joseph and Brigham; both of whom excommunicated people for attempting to practice Plural Marriage without being authorised to do so.Regards,PahoranI think you are stretching in what you've derived from the context. And I think it's hilarious to imagine Brigham Young saying that polygamy "is not doctrinal". I understand the role of authorization but I still don't think those words would have ever escaped his lips (during his time as prophet). Edited March 12, 2015 by rockpond
rockpond Posted March 12, 2015 Author Posted March 12, 2015 Oh, I don't think that's why he's in trouble. It's more likely statements like:"Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and many others, by definition, committed adultery.""I have come to the belief that D&C 132 and Joseph’s teaching of polygamy isn’t, wasn’t, and never will be revelation of God,""And when I look honestly at D&C 132 and the fruits of such words, I do not see God, but the works of men."Now you may actually agree with him, but he is unarguably:1. Expressing a lack of belief in some of the prophets.2. Expressing a lack of belief in some of the scriptures.3. Expressing a lack of belief in a doctrine of the Church (even if the practice is revoked).4. Expressing doubts about the worthiness of some of the prophets character and by extension their calling.Publicly this isn't questioning, it's preaching AGAINST what the Church teaches and some of its leaders. He is not saying he's questioning, he's saying he's decided the Church is wrong on this. No different that Kate Kelly, John Dehlin or dozens of other excommunicate apostates.He can question, but he's not asking questions. He's teaching his opinion as fact publicly.I question Church teachings on Jehovah. I don't reach out to members and try to convince them that the Church is wrong (except maybe on this board - ). And frankly, I'd probably be in trouble for what i say on this board along with 75% of the members who post here.Agreed, Van Allen made some very strong statements. He offered to edit the post but, reportedly, his SP has insisted on removal. We'll see. I think it is becoming increasingly clear that local priesthood leadership is not going to tolerate online social media type publishing of ideas that contradict current doctrine. They appear to be drawing that outside the circle of questioning/doubting and inside the circle of apostasy. My point is that I think it's interesting that Pres. Hinckley can declare it not doctrinal. Many members can verbally profess a lack of belief in the principle. But a blog post the digs deep into, what I perceive to be the belief of many members, the non-divinity of plural marriage receives swift disciplinary action. 2
rockpond Posted March 12, 2015 Author Posted March 12, 2015 Oh, I don't think that's why he's in trouble. It's more likely statements like:"Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and many others, by definition, committed adultery.""I have come to the belief that D&C 132 and Joseph’s teaching of polygamy isn’t, wasn’t, and never will be revelation of God,""And when I look honestly at D&C 132 and the fruits of such words, I do not see God, but the works of men."Now you may actually agree with him, but he is unarguably:1. Expressing a lack of belief in some of the prophets.2. Expressing a lack of belief in some of the scriptures.3. Expressing a lack of belief in a doctrine of the Church (even if the practice is revoked).4. Expressing doubts about the worthiness of some of the prophets character and by extension their calling.Publicly this isn't questioning, it's preaching AGAINST what the Church teaches and some of its leaders. He is not saying he's questioning, he's saying he's decided the Church is wrong on this. No different that Kate Kelly, John Dehlin or dozens of other excommunicate apostates.He can question, but he's not asking questions. He's teaching his opinion as fact publicly.I question Church teachings on Jehovah. I don't reach out to members and try to convince them that the Church is wrong (except maybe on this board - ). And frankly, I'd probably be in trouble for what i say on this board along with 75% of the members who post here.Agreed, Van Allen made some very strong statements. He offered to edit the post but, reportedly, his SP has insisted on removal. We'll see. I think it is becoming increasingly clear that local priesthood leadership is not going to tolerate online social media type publishing of ideas that contradict current doctrine. They appear to be drawing that outside the circle of questioning/doubting and inside the circle of apostasy. My point is that I think it's interesting that Pres. Hinckley can declare it not doctrinal. Many members can verbally profess a lack of belief in the principle. But a blog post the digs deep into, what I perceive to be the belief of many members, the non-divinity of plural marriage receives swift disciplinary action.
Pahoran Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I think you are stretching in what you've derived from the context. Given that no statement means anything apart from its context, I respectfully disagree. And I think it's hilarious to imagine Brigham Young saying that polygamy "is not doctrinal". I understand the role of authorization but I still don't think those words would have ever escaped his lips (during his time as prophet). I can well imagine him declaring that some unauthorised person's practice thereof was not doctrinal. As in, not doctrinally sound. But then again, Brigham never had to give a radio interview. But he still manages to have the intent of his recorded sayings mangled. Regards, Pahoran
mfbukowski Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Section 132: Of Man Or God? Why are you are asking us? Does God post here? Edited March 12, 2015 by mfbukowski
why me Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Agreed, Van Allen made some very strong statements. He offered to edit the post but, reportedly, his SP has insisted on removal. We'll see. I think it is becoming increasingly clear that local priesthood leadership is not going to tolerate online social media type publishing of ideas that contradict current doctrine. They appear to be drawing that outside the circle of questioning/doubting and inside the circle of apostasy.My point is that I think it's interesting that Pres. Hinckley can declare it not doctrinal. Many members can verbally profess a lack of belief in the principle. But a blog post the digs deep into, what I perceive to be the belief of many members, the non-divinity of plural marriage receives swift disciplinary action.I think that the lds church is playing catch up when it comes to social media. It seems that members believe that they can saying anything they want about church doctrine when it is placed on social media. But we also need to understand that if such statements were said in meetings, they would most likely be in hot water. What ones says on social media can have tremendous influence on what members think and how they act. So, there also should be some accountability about what one says on social media also. Now in terms of Hinckley. To my knowledge, he was not given the question in advance. And if so, this was a mistake. In other words, I think that much of what he said in the interview was off the cuff and when one says things off the cuff, there may be misstatements etc. We have also seen this with the pope, who just happens to be the first pope to take questions unprepared for what these questions may be. Unfortunately, Hinckley doesn't get any slack for his answers during that interview or any other off the cuff interview. People hang on those words to justify their disbelief, anger etc. when people with critical minds understand the context of what he said and the mistake that he made in confusion. Fortunately, the pople gets more slack and understanding. And might I had that Hinckley was in his 90s when the interview took place or in his late 80s. Now, I know, that what I just wrote will have no impact whatever because people will still wish to put what he said in a negative light of hiding church doctrine. I feel sorry for Hinckley. A lifetime of great work as leader in the lds church has been 'blemished (because of critic exploitation) by a misstatement during an interview. Poor guy. But it is amazing just what members or former members wish to exploit for their own bias confirmation. Edited March 12, 2015 by why me
Dgal Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Now in terms of Hinckley. To my knowledge, he was not given the question in advance. And if so, this was a mistake.... We have also seen this with the pope, who just happens to be the first pope to take questions unprepared for what these questions may be. In credible interviews, the journalist does not submit their questions to the interviewee. Don't know why you think he should have been given the question in advance. That would be most unusual.
why me Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) In credible interviews, the journalist does not submit their questions to the interviewee. Don't know why you think he should have been given the question in advance. That would be most unusual.True. However, I tend to give an elderly gentleman some credit for his age and for his ability to field questions off the cuff. Unfortunately, critics do no such thing for this elderly man who spent his life helping others. One slip of the tongue and he is now almost constantly being raked through the mud by wayward members and critics, who claim, that he was hiding history or doctrine. I just feel sorry for this now dead gentleman. I see no charity for this now dead gentleman who just happened to be in his late 80s or early 90s in age during the interview. Edited March 12, 2015 by why me
Senator Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I'm not aware of who the "ark-steadiers" are that you are referring to... I don't see the point of your veiled digs at anonymous people. You don"t??
JLHPROF Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Phew..... Good to know for my upcoming TR interview. Is your TR interview with the press? How about with other churches? Maybe with the government? Of course honesty is the best policy, but as both Joseph Smith and Gordon B. Hinckley knew, you don't cast pearls before swine or give that which is holy to the dogs. Polygamy in belief or practice was none of the worlds business and it still isn't.
Buckeye Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Agreed, Van Allen made some very strong statements. He offered to edit the post but, reportedly, his SP has insisted on removal. We'll see. I think it is becoming increasingly clear that local priesthood leadership is not going to tolerate online social media type publishing of ideas that contradict current doctrine. They appear to be drawing that outside the circle of questioning/doubting and inside the circle of apostasy.My point is that I think it's interesting that Pres. Hinckley can declare it not doctrinal. Many members can verbally profess a lack of belief in the principle. But a blog post the digs deep into, what I perceive to be the belief of many members, the non-divinity of plural marriage receives swift disciplinary action. The answer comes by looking at pragmatism rather than principle. What really matters is whether your words have an impact on other members. Tolerance is a fine principle, but if you put out a convincing argument that other people rely on to change their minds, then some action may be taken against you. I'm not plugged into Kirk's circles, but it seems that his piece quickly gained traction. In fact, that is precisely why that Hales decided to release a response: On February 2, 2015, Kirk Van Allen posted a blog titled, “D&C 132: A Revelation of Men, Not God.” In it, he brings up some valid questions, which have previously been voiced by members and non-members in their quest to try and understand this “strange doctrine.” However, he also advances arguments that seem to superficially examine the topic without taking into account important theological and historical contexts. Since this essay is traversing the blogosphere and stirring up a whirlwind, an alternative view of his assertions seems useful. http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/03/09/lending-clarity-to-confusion-a-response-to-kirk-van-allens-dc-132-a-revelation-of-men-not-god/
Alan Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I think Kirk Van Allen's article is fairly well presented, apart from a few typo's.For me, it was disappointing that he failed to address the so-called "get-out clause" in Jacob. His argument is weakened by failing to do that in my view. I think his comment regarding Joseph's "adultery" is based on the fact that polygamy was not legal in Illinois so therefore, technically, he would have to be regarded as a adulterer from a legal perspective if he was involved in physical relations with women other than Emma, whether he was "married" to them or not.Of course, as there is no reliable contemporary evidence that these relationships were anything other than sealings, he is jumping to conclusions based on an unproven, and I would argue, unsafe assumption. Like I have said before, Joseph publicly denied he had any other wife but Emma and that he could prove those who said otherwise liars. That is and will remain good enough for me.
Recommended Posts