smac97 Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: This is historically inaccurate. The body of the church voted on the entire 1835 D&C, which included the "doctrine" which was the Lectures on Faith, and the "covenants" which included what we have in today. They should change the name today to Covenants, not the D&C, because they removed the doctrine when they decanonized it. Try reading this Dialogue article from 1987 if you're interested, it details the history around this. The essay starts on page 71 titled - "The "Lectures on Faith': A Case Study in Decanonization" https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/issues/V20N03.pdf Interesting stuff! Thanks for the link. -Smac 1
Sky Posted July 22, 2016 Author Posted July 22, 2016 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: No, I know what modern means. Do you? If I quote Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford, Lorenzo, Joseph F. I consider them modern prophets, being from our dispensation. But you know full well you mean "post-polygamy" and there is no reason to expect any quote on polygamy doctrinally or on the future in a time period when the entire Church was pretending it wasn't there. Standard insult response. Mock the man that is willing to do whatever God says. Heaven forbid you have a man that actually would follow the Lord no matter what. Again with the phony righteous feminist indignation. Nobody is sitting here dreaming of the day they will have a harem of their own. Recognizing that God is eternal, his laws are eternal, and his commands are to be followed is NOT wrong in any way. You can hate the idea of polygamy all you want and pretend that you will never have to witness such a thing, but doctrine and revelation trump all feelings and God will not be mocked. Funny you should mention Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford, Lorenzo, and Joseph F, but ignore Spencer W. and Gordon B. It is clear from their words that the law of God is monogamy, and that we are not now expected to live polygamy. They have not said anything about polygamy in the next life or what might or might not happen in the future. So we are left to speculate. So who's just a little out of step with the prophets now??? And remember, God will not be mocked. Quote We warn you against the so-called polygamy cults which would lead you astray. Remember the Lord brought an end to this program many decades ago through a prophet who proclaimed the revelation to the world. People are abroad who will deceive you and bring you much sorrow and remorse. Have nothing to do with those who would lead you astray. It is wrong and sinful to ignore the Lord when he speaks. He has spoken—strongly and conclusively. - Spencer W. Kimball https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng&_r=1 Quote I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter. If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (A of F 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time. There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together. More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage. - Gordon B. Hinckley https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/what-are-people-asking-about-us?lang=eng. 2
JLHPROF Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, Sky said: Funny you should mention Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford, Lorenzo, and Joseph F, but ignore Spencer W. and Gordon B. It is clear from their words that the law of God is monogamy, and that we are not now expected to live polygamy. They have not said anything about polygamy in the next life or what might or might not happen in the future. So we are left to speculate. So who's just a little out of step with the prophets now??? And remember, God will not be mocked. Oh, I don't deny being a little "out of step" with the prophets. And you said it yourself - since polygamy was revoked " They have not said anything about polygamy in the next life or what might or might not happen in the future". Given that they have said nothing, I am left with no other prophetic guidance than that given through the Lord's mouthpieces a century earlier. And they said plenty.
Sky Posted July 22, 2016 Author Posted July 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Oh, I don't deny being a little "out of step" with the prophets. And you said it yourself - since polygamy was revoked " They have not said anything about polygamy in the next life or what might or might not happen in the future". Given that they have said nothing, I am left with no other prophetic guidance than that given through the Lord's mouthpieces a century earlier. And they said plenty. You do know that living prophets always supersede dead ones, right? So you can interpret prophetic guidance in whatever misguided way you want, but leave the rest of us out of it! You do that at your own risk! 1
JLHPROF Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 16 minutes ago, Sky said: You do know that living prophets always supersede dead ones, right? You do know that any new revelation that contradicts previous revelation can be dismissed as false, right? You do know that any change in teaching without a corresponding revelation can be considered just opinion, right? You do know that an absence of teaching on a subject does not invalidate the teachings of a prior prophet, right? The prophet Joseph Smith taught that: "And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case;" and also that "How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation".
Teancum Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 4 hours ago, smac97 said: The Lectures on Faith were never canonized, hence there was no "decanonization" and no need to "present the removal {of them} ... for a sustaining vote." See, e.g., here: Thanks, -Smac Yea smac I know the apologetic dance on this. But you are wrong. I have researched this extensively and it is simply clear that the Lectures were considered canon and the first of a number of such lectures on doctrinal issues. It's pretty clear why they were removed. Their teachings on the godhead, particularly Lecture 5 conflicted with the evolved teaching LDS by the LDS church on the godhead and most certainly they conflicted with the 1916 FP position (written by Talmadge) on the godhead. A study of the canonization of the 1835 Doctrien and Covenants clearly calls the Lectures the doctrine of the D&C and all quorums of the church accepted them as such. To claim in 1921 that they were simple lessons and never considered canon was a simple convenient way for the leaders to remove Doctrien that then comflicted with the doctrine of the day. Interestingly McConkie loved the lectures especially Lecture 5 and wanted them put back into the D&C.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: You do know that any new revelation that contradicts previous revelation can be dismissed as false, right? You do know that any change in teaching without a corresponding revelation can be considered just opinion, right? You do know that an absence of teaching on a subject does not invalidate the teachings of a prior prophet, right? The prophet Joseph Smith taught that: "And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case;" and also that "How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation". I don't think the church views it this way. However, this is exactly why I reject the discriminatory November policy
Teancum Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 7 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Here is the problem, and the reason why you and some others on this thread are having a difficult time accepting that the prophet Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy was the will of God: It's because you are observing and analyzing this divine commandment to practice plural marriage with a carnal mind. The apostle Paul lamented he was only able to disseminate the easy-to-digest milk of Gospel knowledge to the Corinthian saints and not the harder to digest but more deeply rewarding meat of Gospel knowledge. He said the reason why he was constrained by the Spirit to not reveal the deeper things of God to the Corinthians is because they were still babes in the Gospel because they were still possessed of carnal minds and trying to understand the things of God with the carnal mind's distorted perspective... 1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Corinthians 3) You see, because you are looking at polygamy with a carnal mind you're unable to see that the Holy Ghost can refine spiritual sensibilities and motivations to the point that a prophet, like the prophet Joseph Smith, could practice plural marriage in righteousness and holiness. When on the great day of judgement the prophet Joseph Smith is vindicate before all the world by God himself for the practice of plural marriage, the Lord will explain that if some members of the Church had only put aside their cynical carnal minds, and began to see the commandment with purer and holier minds, they would have understood the prophet was not in error and did nothing wrong. As long as the carnal mind is nurtured and doggedly held on to, the deeper things of God will forever remain mysterious and misunderstood. Nah. Not really. It has nothing to do with a carnal mind. It simply had to do with having studies the issue for hundreds of hours and reading many many books on the subject it is pretty clear that to claim such nonesense was commanded by God is simply BS. I am sure that offends many here and may get me thread banned. But no Latter Day Saint here would ever defend such nonesense from anyone else. But because it was Joseph Smith well you have to go to the mat for it or perhaps your testimony may unravel. I know. I defended it for 30 years until it really became indefensible at least for me. 1
Teancum Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: The Lectures on Faith were largely subsumed into our D&C. How so?
Sky Posted July 22, 2016 Author Posted July 22, 2016 14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: You do know that any new revelation that contradicts previous revelation can be dismissed as false, right? You do know that any change in teaching without a corresponding revelation can be considered just opinion, right? You do know that an absence of teaching on a subject does not invalidate the teachings of a prior prophet, right? The prophet Joseph Smith taught that: "And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case;" and also that "How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation". I just choose to follow what the current prophets have and haven't said about this. Simple as that. You choose not to. That is your choice. But again, it is also your own risk. I'm so done with your righteous facade!
Teancum Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: True. But why does that matter? Lots of other doctrines are not in the Bible. It matters because LDS apologists often appeal to the Bible in their defense of LDS polygamy. You have done so in this thread.
smac97 Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 27 minutes ago, Teancum said: Yea smac I know the apologetic dance on this. But you are wrong. I have researched this extensively and it is simply clear that the Lectures were considered canon and the first of a number of such lectures on doctrinal issues. I was passing on a resource. I'm not particularly familiar with this issue. Quote It's pretty clear why they were removed. Their teachings on the godhead, particularly Lecture 5 conflicted with the evolved teaching LDS by the LDS church on the godhead and most certainly they conflicted with the 1916 FP position (written by Talmadge) on the godhead. I am curious as to how this "conflict" came about. Thanks, -Smac
HappyJackWagon Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: You do know that any new revelation that contradicts previous revelation can be dismissed as false, right? Quote True. But why does that matter? Lots of other doctrines are not in the Bible. JLHPROF- please help me understand your position. You often state that modern prophets can't contradict past prophets or scriptures. In just the past few posts on this thread you have stated that no new revelation can contradict previous revelation but you also say that lots of doctrines are not in the Bible. So if they're not in the Bible, they must be new, and therefore can be dismissed, right? I interpret your statements to mean there is no real need for modern prophets because everything we need, we already have. Am I reading you correctly?
Jeanne Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: JLHPROF- please help me understand your position. You often state that modern prophets can't contradict past prophets or scriptures. In just the past few posts on this thread you have stated that no new revelation can contradict previous revelation but you also say that lots of doctrines are not in the Bible. So if they're not in the Bible, they must be new, and therefore can be dismissed, right? I interpret your statements to mean there is no real need for modern prophets because everything we need, we already have. Am I reading you correctly? That is exactly how it reads to me,too. Now I am just wondering what is revelation and do we need it..do we really have it??
Teancum Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 1 minute ago, smac97 said: I was passing on a resource. I'm not particularly familiar with this issue. I am curious as to how this "conflict" came about. Thanks, -Smac Read the Dialogue article referenced. It is pretty clear that early Mormon teaching on the Gidhead was closer to Classical Christian Theism than that which came from about 1838 forward. The Book of Mormon presents more of a trinatarian Godhead as does the early D&C than what came from 1838 forward. From 1838 to 1844 Joseph's teachings about the godhead changed dramatically. His successors continued to expound these dramatic changes and even enter into places that the Church later rejected (mostly Adam God teachings). Throughout the 19th century LDS leaders were often not clear on who was Eloheim and who was Jehovah. This was all set straight in the 1916 FP statement on the Godhead. Because the Lectures on Faith confilcted with this statement, and especially Lecture 5, they simply removed them claiming, in error, that they were never really canon.
JLHPROF Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 39 minutes ago, Teancum said: It matters because LDS apologists often appeal to the Bible in their defense of LDS polygamy. You have done so in this thread. Only inasmuch as the Bible shows God has no problem with polygamists since so many Biblical chosen prophets were among the favored of God. I don't believe I have ever attempted to show a command to live polygamy in the Bible. I do believe the Bible provides many defenses for the practice even without a command to live the practice.
JLHPROF Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: JLHPROF- please help me understand your position. You often state that modern prophets can't contradict past prophets or scriptures. In just the past few posts on this thread you have stated that no new revelation can contradict previous revelation but you also say that lots of doctrines are not in the Bible. So if they're not in the Bible, they must be new, and therefore can be dismissed, right? I interpret your statements to mean there is no real need for modern prophets because everything we need, we already have. Am I reading you correctly? NEW is not the same as DIFFERENT. This isn't that complicated. Joseph was very clear on the nature and uses of revelation. Modern prophets cannot contradict previous revelation, they can only provide new revelation, usually specific to a new circumstance. But God does NOT change his doctrines. The Bible is incomplete as far as ALL the doctrines in the gospel but that doesn't give any new prophet the right to dismiss the doctrines of the Bible when they are properly understood. Any more than it gives the current prophet the right to dismiss his predecessor's teachings and revelations. This is not difficult to follow or understand. 27 minutes ago, Jeanne said: That is exactly how it reads to me,too. Now I am just wondering what is revelation and do we need it..do we really have it?? Revelation is further light and knowledge, not a change in God's word. We always need further light and knowledge.
Teancum Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Only inasmuch as the Bible shows God has no problem with polygamists since so many Biblical chosen prophets were among the favored of God. I don't believe I have ever attempted to show a command to live polygamy in the Bible. I do believe the Bible provides many defenses for the practice even without a command to live the practice. It is called culture. If you want to use as our defense a nomadic culture where women were simply property as your standard more power to you. I don't think God commanded it then. If God had anything to do with it, which is highly dubious, God simply tolerated it. No command for exaltation in the Bible. Edited July 22, 2016 by Teancum
Teancum Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: NEW is not the same as DIFFERENT. This isn't that complicated. Joseph was very clear on the nature and uses of revelation. Modern prophets cannot contradict previous revelation, they can only provide new revelation, usually specific to a new circumstance. But God does NOT change his doctrines. The Bible is incomplete as far as ALL the doctrines in the gospel but that doesn't give any new prophet the right to dismiss the doctrines of the Bible when they are properly understood. Any more than it gives the current prophet the right to dismiss his predecessor's teachings and revelations. This is not difficult to follow or understand. Revelation is further light and knowledge, not a change in God's word. We always need further light and knowledge. Seriously dude, "God" has changed doctrine all the time. Even in LDS short history God is changing things all the time. Problem is its not really God doing all the changing.
JLHPROF Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, Teancum said: Seriously dude, "God" has changed doctrine all the time. Even in LDS short history God is changing things all the time. Problem is its not really God doing all the changing. Ding-ding-ding...winner. God DOESN'T change doctrine. He may reveal new truth or extended truth, but he doesn't change what he has said. Even the Church acknowledges this: Doctrines are eternal and do not change; however, the Lord, through His prophet, may change practices and programs, according to the needs of the people. - https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual/chapter-2-the-living-prophet-the-president-of-the-church?lang=eng Of course, deciding which are doctrines and which are practices/programs is where the conflict really arises. 9 minutes ago, Teancum said: It is called culture. If you want to use as our defense a nomadic culture where women were simply property as your standard more power to you. I don't think God commanded it then. If God had anything to do with it, which is highly dubious, God simply tolerated it. No command for exaltation in the Bible. Command has nothing to do with it (although I think he did regardless of the record). God clearly has no issue with polygamy as a practice. If he did then polygamists are all adulterers and he would be highly unlikely to favor them as he has in scripture.
VideoGameJunkie Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 I just finished the 209 page book. It's worth a read but anyone pro Joseph Smith and Brigham Young will be angry at Carol Lynn Pearson.
VideoGameJunkie Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 Quick question, is polygamy essential to our exaltation? If not what's the big deal?
JLHPROF Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Quick question, is polygamy essential to our exaltation? If not what's the big deal? Why ask this when we've already discussed this and shown a lack of consensus? Some prophets said it is. Some prophets said it isn't. Some prophets said nothing. Ask God, not man.
VideoGameJunkie Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Why ask this when we've already discussed this and shown a lack of consensus? Some prophets said it is. Some prophets said it isn't. Some prophets said nothing. Ask God, not man. I've tried asking God in the Celestial room of the temple and still haven't gotten a clear answer. I asked if I will be living plural marriage in the eternities and haven't gotten an answer. I've asked 3 times in the temple pleading for anow answer.
JLHPROF Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I've tried asking God in the Celestial room of the temple and still haven't gotten a clear answer. I asked if I will be living plural marriage in the eternities and haven't gotten an answer. I've asked 3 times in the temple pleading for anow answer. Maybe God doesn't want us to know for sure yet. Kind of takes away faith in his previous revelations and prophets.
Recommended Posts