Wow Wasn't A Commandment, And Now It Is. Polygamy Was A Commandment, And Now It Isn't.

[Calm]

And this one:

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

And this one:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2015-fairmormon-conference/rethinking-the-mormon-racial-story

And his book as well.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

cinepro, God’s ways are not man’s ways. When the gospel was restored in 1830, man’s ways were to enslave black people and segregate black people.

 

Jesus Christ once referred to the gentiles as “dogs” and stated that the gospel was not to be preached to them.

 

The Bible tells us that Jesus sent the Apostles to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” and specifically told them not to go to “the Gentiles.” The gospel was not preached to the Gentiles until after Peter had the vision that he related in Acts, chapter 11.

 

Could it be that God knows the best way to build up His kingdom in these latter days and that God would give the priesthood to blacks in His own due time?

 

Anyone wondering about blacks and the priesthood needs to read this article.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/12/steadfast-african-pioneer?lang=eng

 

This completely dodges the question of fallibility.

Of course God is perfect.  That doesn't mean EVERYTHING the prophet does and says is without error.  That kind of zealotry misses law of obedience by veering too far to the right.

The key is learning to sustain them in the error, not deluding ourselves into thinking they never made one.

[Coreyb]

If the sealing power is required for LDS polygamy, than Fanny Alger is an exclamation point, not a question mark.

I contend that the Fanny fiasco was just a regular old extramarital affair.

[Calm]

Then why did her family according to others describe the relationship as a marriage, incuding iirc one of them saying Joseph asked permission to marry her?

"Mosiah Hancock (a Mormon) reported a wedding ceremony; and apostate Mormons Ann Eliza Webb Young and her father Chauncery both referred to Fanny's relationship as a "sealing." Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger

"Mosiah Hancock discusses the manner in which the proposal was extended to Fanny, and states that a marriage ceremony was performed. Joseph asked Levi Hancock, the brother-in-law of Samuel Alger, Fanny’s father, to request Fanny as his plural wife:

Samuel, the Prophet Joseph loves your daughter Fanny and wishes her for a wife. What say you?” Uncle Sam says, “Go and talk to the old woman [Fanny’s mother] about it. Twill be as she says.” Father goes to his sister and said, “Clarissy, Brother Joseph the Prophet of the most high God loves Fanny and wishes her for a wife. What say you?” Said she, “Go and talk to Fanny. It will be all right with me.” Father goes to Fanny and said, “Fanny, Brother Joseph the Prophet loves you and wishes you for a wife. Will you be his wife?” “I will Levi,” said she. Father takes Fanny to Joseph and said, “Brother Joseph I have been successful in my mission.” Father gave her to Joseph, repeating the ceremony as Joseph repeated to him.[2]"

Edited October 20, 2015 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

I contend that the Fanny fiasco was just a regular old extramarital affair.

 

I disagree.

I believe that Joseph knew of polygamy as from God having received that as early as 1831 but as of yet had no concept of eternal marriage (sealing).

 

I think he attempted to institute plural marriage under the only marriage format he knew at the time - a Church marriage with no eternal component understood.

If there was any "sin" in his marriage to Fanny, it was that he jumped the gun in putting into practice what had been revealed without all the required instruction from the Lord.

[Thinking]

Think of the words used in extending covenants in the temple... who is it before/to? No mention is made of the church whatsoever. It's all about making them before God, angels, etc.... Who are we to think that they won't testify of those covenants and to whom we made them when the day of judgment arrives? Even those who fell away after making the covenants still can't deny that the covenant was entered into.

 

There is at least one covenant that I can remember that mentions the Church. That's all I will say in respect to the board guidelines.

[Thinking]

 Tony, we do believe in fallible leaders who sometimes make mistakes.  Even serious ones that get perpetuated for decades. 

 

This is where fallibility makes no sense. There is a difference between a personal mistake and an institutional mistake, especially one that gets perpetuated for decades. The latter is evidence that the proclaimed prophet is not really a prophet.

[sunstoned]

Well, unless I misunderstood you leaving the Church,  you also don't think Joseph was a prophet or that the Church is true.

I'm not sure this is such a black and white situation.  Things are changing with the church, and rightly so as the church needs adapt to survive, and to survive it will probably need to continue the process that it has already started of divesting itself of its problematic history and teachings.  With the recent essays, it has taken some significant steps to distance itself from the racist policies and teachings of BY and other prophets.  With the essay on polygamy the church is starting to hedge. I think it is just a matter of time before they completely disavow polygamy and section 132 as not inspired just like they did with blacks and the priesthood.  I think it will be a better day once the church does this.

[sunstoned]

I contend that the Fanny fiasco was just a regular old extramarital affair.

I agree. I think all evidence points to this conclusion. 

[sunstoned]

I disagree.

I believe that Joseph knew of polygamy as from God having received that as early as 1831 but as of yet had no concept of eternal marriage (sealing).

 

I think he attempted to institute plural marriage under the only marriage format he knew at the time - a Church marriage with no eternal component understood.

If there was any "sin" in his marriage to Fanny, it was that he jumped the gun in putting into practice what had been revealed without all the required instruction from the Lord.

No sealing authority had been put into place.  No revelation on polygamy was recorded until 1842.  Even co-founder Oliver Cowdery thought it was a "dirty, nasty affair".   if it walks like a duck quacks like a duck.........

[stephenpurdy]

Using this logic, then why didn't God send angels down to prevent the U.S. Congress from ending this "eternal law"?

 

I am not sure if polygamy itself was an "eternal law".  That may have been a misinterpretation of the revelation.

 

I have always said that the saints in the 1800s who were sealed to the temple "for time and all eternity" and were sealed to 1 spouse ... well they certainly thought that they were partaking in Celestial Marriage.  They believed that they were part of an "eternal marriage" , yet they were not polygamous.

 

-stephen

[stephenpurdy]

 With the recent essays, it has taken some significant steps to distance itself from the racist policies and teachings of BY and other prophets.  With the essay on polygamy the church is starting to hedge. I think it is just a matter of time before they completely disavow polygamy and section 132 as not inspired just like they did with blacks and the priesthood.  I think it will be a better day once the church does this.

 

While I disagree with you about polygamy, I think you are right about the priesthood and blacks situation.  It isn't just the essays that point to this; look what they printed as an introduction to the official declaration in the standard works:

 

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood. 

 

(Emphasis added)

 

 

Unlike polygamy, there is no revelation from God saying that there should be priesthood restrictions based on lineage in the modern church.  In fact, Joseph Smith ordained blacks to the priesthood.  We don't know why that change and there was no revelation given which suggested that it should be changed.

 

Unfortunately, it seems to me that Brigham Young brought some "non-LDS" ideas with him into the church and then began implementing them when he became president of the church.  I believe that he was the chosen prophet of God, and I cannot think of anyone better to take the Saints into the Rockies, but it looks like he was a flawed human being.  The real question is why did God permit it?  Did God want us, as a people, to be humble and to be mindful of our flaws?

 

-stephen

Edited October 20, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[hagoth7]

If the sealing power is required for LDS polygamy, than Fanny Alger is an exclamation point, not a question mark.

Agreed. For some, it is an exclamation point. For example, one of my forefathers stopped going to church over this issue.

Because of his decision, several aunts, uncles, and cousins on one side of the family weren't active.

 

However, why would someone need to sealing power merely for plural marriage?

 

As to some of the patriarchs, was Abraham eternally sealed to Hagar? Was Jacob eternally sealed to Leah, Bilhah, and Zilpha?

 

As to kings, were Solomon and David eternally sealed to each of their wives?

 

As others have demonstrated elsewhere, Joseph translated Genesis in 1831, well before Fanny, and there is evidence that he had already contemplated the accounts of the early patriarchs, and what he saw as the eventual implications. He also subsequently saw the priesthood that he and others held as being sufficient authority to conduct a marriage - monogamous or otherwise.

[JLHPROF]

Agreed. For some, it is an exclamation point. For example, one of my forefathers stopped going to church over this issue.

Because of his decision, several aunts, uncles, and cousins on one side of the family weren't active.

 

However, why would someone need to sealing power merely for plural marriage?

 

The same reason someone needs the sealing power for a monogamous marriage - to make it eternally binding and valid in they eyes of God.

 

As to some of the patriarchs, was Abraham eternally sealed to Hagar? Was Jacob eternally sealed to Leah, Bilhah, and Zilpha?

 

Yes, absolutely.  Maybe not immediately, but at some point in time.

 

As to kings, were Solomon and David eternally sealed to each of their wives?

 

Some absolutely yes.  Some maybe not.

 

As others have demonstrated elsewhere, Joseph translated Genesis in 1831, well before Fanny, and there is evidence that he had already contemplated the accounts of the early patriarchs, and what he saw as the eventual implications. He also subsequently saw the priesthood that he and others held as being sufficient authority to conduct a marriage - monogamous or otherwise.

 

Agreed.  Joseph had a marriage to Fanny, with as much authority as he knew about at the time.  They had separated by the time eternal families were revealed, but fortunately a posthumous sealing was done by Church leaders in Utah.

[Tony Frank]

This completely dodges the question of fallibility.

Of course God is perfect.  That doesn't mean EVERYTHING the prophet does and says is without error.  That kind of zealotry misses law of obedience by veering too far to the right.

The key is learning to sustain them in the error, not deluding ourselves into thinking they never made one.

 

You obviously do not think there is a question of fallibility. You believe it to be an absolute given.

 

You believe Jesus Christ's prophet on the earth will err when revealing the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the Church, and you believe God will reveal the error to you. Either Jesus Christ wants you to believe the prophet will err, or Satan wants you to believe the prophet will err. And by the same token, either Jesus Christ wants you to believe God will reveal the error to you, or Satan wants you to believe God will reveal the error to you.

 

The eternal plan of salvation is about making choices. Satan wants you to make one choice and Jesus Christ wants you make another choice. As Lehi told his son, there is opposition in all things. Make a choice. Either you will believe what Satan wants you to believe, or you will believe what Jesus Christ wants you to believe.

[JLHPROF]

You obviously do not think there is a question of fallibility. You believe it to be an absolute given.

 

You believe Jesus Christ's prophet on the earth will err when revealing the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the Church, and you believe God will reveal the error to you. Either Jesus Christ wants you to believe the prophet will err, or Satan wants you to believe the prophet will err. And by the same token, either Jesus Christ wants you to believe God will reveal the error to you, or Satan wants you to believe God will reveal the error to you.

 

The eternal plan of salvation is about making choices. Satan wants you to make one choice and Jesus Christ wants you make another choice. As Lehi told his son, there is opposition in all things. Make a choice. Either you will believe what Satan wants you to believe, or you will believe what Jesus Christ wants you to believe.

 

Utter poppycock.

 

The gospel isn't so black and white.  God's plan is eternal and unchanging in nature and has existed since before the foundations of the earth.

So any changes made to the revealed gospel by his prophets require us to determine if the original was in error or the correction is in error, or in some cases if any actual change really occurred or it was just a bit of further light given.

 

While I believe that course corrections can, should, and do occur, that further light can be revealed, and that God does adjust for varying situations (as Joseph Smith taught), that is a long way from changing a  doctrine or ordinance based in the eternities and expecting me to believe that neither the old or new version could possibly have any error.

 

History and scripture is FULL of examples of prophetic error and God's corrections.  And yes, sometimes mortal men notice it before the correction occurs.  The question is can we sustain our head until their course is corrected or do we take it upon ourselves to try and correct them.  They ARE fallible, but correction comes top down, not bottom up.  Bottom up we just sustain and trust God.

[Thinking]

Bottom up we just sustain and trust God.

 

Bottom up you just sustain and trust what your fallible leaders tell you about God.

[JLHPROF]

Bottom up you just sustain and trust what your fallible leaders tell you about God.

 

Nope.  Not what I said.

Bottom up you trust that God can correct his own fallible leaders without your help.

There is no requirement to "believe" a demonstrably false teaching, regardless of who it comes from.  Only to sustain your leaders in their position instead of kicking against the pricks.

[Thinking]

Bottom up you trust that God can correct his own fallible leaders without your help.

 

How long do I wait for God to correct His fallible alleged leaders before I begin to wonder if they really are His leaders?

 

There is no requirement to "believe" a demonstrably false teaching, regardless of who it comes from.

 

Thank you. I won't.

 

Only to sustain your leaders in their position instead of kicking against the pricks.

 

What if the pricks that are used to steer us are steering us in the wrong direction. Are we just supposed to conform?

[JLHPROF]

How long do I wait for God to correct His fallible alleged leaders before I begin to wonder if they really are His leaders?

 

That is entirely between you and God.  Personally, I don't like to rush Him.

 

Thank you. I won't.

 

You're welcome.  Just be sure that something is demonstrably false before assuming it can't be from God.

 

What if the pricks that are used to steer us are steering us in the wrong direction. Are we just supposed to conform?

 

Conform is an interesting choice of words.  Nobody is being steered.  We are all walking the path.  Nobody gets into heaven on the Prophet's coattails and never will.  But following our priesthood head is mandatory - those who are naturally rebellious against authority hate this gospel principle, but it is played out beautifully in the example of the Savior, who did NOTHING except what his priesthood head told him to.

 

Proverbs 3

5 ¶Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

 

Following our own understanding is dangerous.  God wants us to follow him, and he sends prophets (Amos 3:7).   Make of that what you will.

 

 

 

 

 

[cinepro]

As others have demonstrated elsewhere, Joseph translated Genesis in 1831, well before Fanny, and there is evidence that he had already contemplated the accounts of the early patriarchs, and what he saw as the eventual implications. He also subsequently saw the priesthood that he and others held as being sufficient authority to conduct a marriage - monogamous or otherwise.

 

So, would the marriage to Fanny have been legal?

[Tony Frank]

Utter poppycock.

 

The gospel isn't so black and white.  God's plan is eternal and unchanging in nature and has existed since before the foundations of the earth.

So any changes made to the revealed gospel by his prophets require us to determine if the original was in error or the correction is in error, or in some cases if any actual change really occurred or it was just a bit of further light given.

 

While I believe that course corrections can, should, and do occur, that further light can be revealed, and that God does adjust for varying situations (as Joseph Smith taught), that is a long way from changing a  doctrine or ordinance based in the eternities and expecting me to believe that neither the old or new version could possibly have any error.

 

History and scripture is FULL of examples of prophetic error and God's corrections.  And yes, sometimes mortal men notice it before the correction occurs.  The question is can we sustain our head until their course is corrected or do we take it upon ourselves to try and correct them.  They ARE fallible, but correction comes top down, not bottom up.  Bottom up we just sustain and trust God.

 

Can you give an example of "changes made to the revealed gospel by his prophets"? Just one example please. I will address them one by one if you have examples. Please quote scriptures or quote Latter-day prophets.

[JLHPROF]

Can you give an example of "changes made to the revealed gospel by his prophets"? Just one example please. I will address them one by one if you have examples. Please quote scriptures or quote Latter-day prophets.

 

EDITED TO REMOVE RUDENESS

Pretty much everyone on this board can name a change made, but no two people can agree on which ones (if any) matter.

More debates on these changes throughout the history of the gospel have occurred on this board than you can shake a stick at.

You're new here, but trust me, however you would "address" them has been done before.

 

Besides, you've already made it clear which philosophical camp you fall in where the gospel is concerned and there is no point in debating with that particular camp. The gospel is true, the Church is God's church.  Hang around here long enough and EVERY change the Church has ever made will pop up for debate again. 

Edited October 21, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Thinking]

Conform is an interesting choice of words.  Nobody is being steered.  We are all walking the path.

 

You mentioned kicking against the pricks.

 

A prick (aka goad) is a sharp stick or spear used to prod or steer oxen.

[JLHPROF]

You mentioned kicking against the pricks.

 

A prick (aka goad) is a sharp stick or spear used to prod or steer oxen.

 

Fair enough.  I'll give you that one.  I always believed in the "kick against the pricks" analogy God is the the oxen driver, since it is the withdrawl of his spirit that leaves us to kick against them.