Storm Rider Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 14 minutes ago, DBMormon said: I will look at the rest of this as I have time but wanted to make a comment about this. Your using hindsight and walking back from a later interpretation to make an earlier one seem as if they are the same. How earlier leaders define an item and how later leaders define such must be parsed out. Using Elder Packer Packer to impose a later definition on a word that may have been defined differently earlier is in my opinion poisoning the well. I think when one looks at what was weighing on Pres, Taylor's Mind, when reading the disciplinary trial of Pres. Taylor's son John W. Taylor, when reading the quotes of how earlier leaders saw polygamy and seeing how the modern church prefers to assume this revelation is false and hence need not be dealt with paints a very different picture for myself comes to mind. How later leaders define "new and everlasting covenant" means little to the issue if we can show probabilities that it meant something different to earlier leaders and at least something different to Pres.Taylor. We rather than walk it back from the present need to be more vulnerable to asking what did these earlier leaders believe and what is most likely going on. It is always good to hear from you; I have missed your contributions on the Board. I think you ask an excellent question. Of course, to arrive at the answer we need to demonstrate what was meant in all contexts. That is part of the problem with writing about history. Not only must we put our historical presentation in proper context, but also need to portray all contexts of the period by all leaders. This is rather daunting and makes writing about history all the more complex. Those historians that attempt to write from an agenda - Fawn Brodie is a prime example - ignore all conflicting data and in order to achieve the objective. Historians err every time they attempt to write to demonstrate a specific objective. The only objective can and should be the simple recounting of what was said and what was done. I appreciate most this simple, direct approach of an honest historian.
salgare Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Can't we also consider the means of revelation in this? maybe it was John Taylor thinking it was Christ when it was not? If so, if the Church thinks this, then why not think it possible the same is true regarding the plural marriage revelation of section 132? I thought we were given a definitive means of determining resurrected beings?
stemelbow Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 Just now, salgare said: I thought we were given a definitive means of determining resurrected beings? Did Joseph shake the hand of the angel with a drawn sword? Or was he a spirit of a just man made perfect who didn't move to shake his hand? Those devils are stupid. I thought they were supposed to be smart and sneaky?
Popular Post smac97 Posted August 2, 2016 Popular Post Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, DBMormon said: I will look at the rest of this as I have time but wanted to make a comment about this. Your using hindsight and walking back from a later interpretation to make an earlier one seem as if they are the same. I am working off of the radical notion that prophets and apostles of yesteryear and today are called of and generally in communion with God, that they are basically good and decent men, that it is their province - not mine - to guide the Church in terms of doctrinal matters, and that their cumulative position taken on doctrinal matters can and should carry significant probative value - much more than glib, snide, accusatory positions taken by people who are not in authority and whom I do not know nor have reason to trust. Quote How earlier leaders define an item and how later leaders define such must be parsed out. Agreed. That is certainly part of the equation. EDIT TO ADD: Here are some resources as to "{h}ow earlier leaders" used the phrase "new and everlasting covenant": 1. Messenger and Advocate, Volume 2, Number 1, Editorial 2 (published from from October 1834 to September 1837) (emphasis added): Quote Duty calls upon us again, to state to our brethren and friends, (notwithstanding it is a painful task,) to say that a multiplicity of business, absence of some of our hands and the illness of others, are some of the causes why the Messenger and Advocate is again delayed beyond its usual time of publication. We hope that in time to come, we shall be able to issue each number in the time and season thereof. Notwithstanding our many embarrassments, we are laboring day and night to bring about and accomplish the work which is committed to us, through the dispensation of the new and everlasting covenant, which has come forth in these last days through the merits and mercies of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: and the prayers of the saints from Adam to Enoch, from Enoch to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Isaac, from Isaac to Jacob, from Jacob to Elijah, from Elijah to John, and from him until the church fled into the wilderness: and also from Lehi to Nephi, from Nephi to Alma, from Alma to Leghi [Lehi], from Leghi [Lehi] to Mormon and from Mormon to Maroni [Moroni], who have all prayed that the time might come, that Israel should be gathered and dwell on the earth for a season, when "Righteousness should cover the earth, as the waters do the great deep." They prayed in faith too, and prophesied of it, and sang praises to God and the Lamb, for his goodness and mercy which endureth forever. Not a reference to polygamy, I think. 2. Messenger and Advocate, Volume 2, Number 3, Letter from Wilford Woodruff (Dec. 1835) Quote DEAR BROTHER IN THE LORD:—Since the 21st of Sept. I have extended the limits of my travels to Clark River Ky. Here I proclaimed the gospel, on Sabbath and Monday, and was publicly opposed by a Campbellite Priest; although weak, in and of myself, yet I wielded the sword in the name of the Lord Jesus, and prevailed. I delivered three discourses; which included, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the authenticity of the book of Mormon, and the scattering and gathering of the house of Israel: after which three came forward for baptism: I confirmed them, by the water side, and left them strong in the faith of the new and everlasting covenant. There are some more in this place, who will follow the example of the three which I have been speaking of. I took my leave of these my new brethren and friends, and journeyed to Taropea, where we had baptized some before.—I held two meetings in this place; after which eight presented themselves as candidates for baptism: We immediately repaired to the water, the solemnities of eternity, and the the Spirit of the Lord rested upon the congregation. I baptized 14 since the 21st of Sept. Yours in the new covenant, W. WOODRUFF. Not a reference to polygamy, I think. 3. Messenger and Advocate, Volume 2, Number 3: Quote DIED.—In Lafayette county, Mo. on the 25 of August, Joseph Johnson, aged about 45 years. —In Clay county Mo. on the 28 of October, Joshua Lewis, aged about 40 years. —In this town, on Monday, 30, Nov. last, Lucy Gates, daughter of Thomas and Patty Gates, in the 23d year of her age. She formerly resided in St. Johnsbury, Vt. —Of whoopingcough, in Kirtland, Ohio. Sylvester M. Smith; Son of Sylvester and Elizabeth Smith, aged eleven weeks and four days, after a short illness of two weeks. —In Clay co. Mo. the 27th of November last, Christian Whitmer, one of the first elders of the church of Latter Day Saints, aged about 38 years. He died of severe affliction upon one of his legs, which he bore for a long time with great patience. He has gone home to his Creator rejoicing in the new and everlasting covenant. "Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord." Not a reference to polygamy, I think. 4. Journal of Discourses, Volume 1, "Introduction" (published between 1854 and 1886): Quote To the Saints abroad. This Journal of Discourses appears in a semi-monthly sheet of sixteen pages, upon good paper, and in a plain round type that aged persons can lead with ease, and forms a Volume of nearly four hundred pages. ... In the bonds of the New and Everlasting Covenant, I remain your brother and fellow-labourer, G. D. WATT. Not a reference to polygamy, I think. Here are a bunch more. Back to DBMormon: Quote Using Elder Packer Packer to impose a later definition on a word that may have been defined differently earlier is in my opinion poisoning the well. Well, we can trade such barbs all day. I could say: "Your tendentious, let's-ignore-any-need-for-context-or-circumspection-and-skip-directly-to-accusing-The-Brethren-of-failing-to-capitulate-to-the-personal-opinion-of-Bill-Reel-and-of-'dismissing-{C}hrist'-type of attitude is in my opinion poisoning the well." You are publicly accusing the leaders of the LDS Church (apparently all of them post-John Taylor) of "ignoring" revelation and "dismissing {C}hrist." And yet I'm the one "poisoning the well?" The mind reels. Quote I think when one looks at what was weighing on Pres, Taylor's Mind, Thank you! Here you perfectly demonstrate the "speculative eisegesis" I spoke of earlier. "An interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text." That's all you are doing here. Quote when reading the disciplinary trial of Pres. Taylor's son John W. Taylor, when reading the quotes of how earlier leaders saw polygamy and seeing how the modern church prefers to assume this revelation is false and hence need not be dealt with a very different picture for myself comes to mind. Yes. That's the nice thing about speculative eisegesis borne of a lack of evidence and context. You get to project whatever is on your mind onto the mind of John Taylor. You are at liberty to do that, of course, but your position is just as susceptible to the criticism you are imputing onto the Brethren ("imposing" your definitions of terms, your viewpoint, onto "earlier leaders"). Quote How later leaders define "new and everlasting covenant" means little to the issue if we can show probabilities that it meant something different to earlier leaders and at least something different to Pres.Taylor. And yet you haven't done that. At all. Speculative eisegesis doth not the showing of "probabilities" make. Moreover, this is not a purely academic exercise. In the LDS paradigm, "later leaders" are not subordinate to earlier ones. To the contrary, Ezra Taft Benson taught that "The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet." So here you are, ignoring some prophets and apostles - including the current ones - and subordinating them to dead ones. And yet one of those dead prophets said that this is precisely not what we are supposed to do. I'm curious as to how you go about choosing which prophetic counsel to follow, and which to ignore. It seems like you take the parts that you like (such as a purported revelation given to John Taylor which was never presented to Church leaders or to the Church, was never submitted for acceptance by common consent (as required by scripture), was never recorded in the Church (also as required by scripture), and so on), and reject any you do not like (see my previous post). Not exactly a winning formula, that. Quote We rather than walk it back from the present need to be more vulnerable to asking what did these earlier leaders believe and what is most likely going on. Oh, the irony. You are doing nothing but "walk{ing} it back from the present." You are engaging in speculative eisegesis of the first order. Thanks, -Smac Edited August 2, 2016 by smac97 6
bluebell Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Yes. That's what I'm saying. I don't know why the term mistress was brought up, but this is what you had said, "I have no idea why there is a difference in terminology, but they are not mistresses. " I pointed out that you were wrong in your terminology on this. No, I'm not wrong, I'm using a completely different definition of the term mistress than the scriptures are using. I'll rephrase and maybe it'll help, Concubines were not mistresses of the men involved. You know how when a married man has an affair with a woman the woman is know as his mistress? Concubines were not mistresses, they were lesser wives. Besides all of that, the verses you quoted are referring to Sarah as the mistress, not Hagar. Hagar is the servant. The mistress is the female head of the house-Sarah. Edited August 2, 2016 by bluebell 1
Glenn101 Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 24 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Did Joseph shake the hand of the angel with a drawn sword? Or was he a spirit of a just man made perfect who didn't move to shake his hand? Those devils are stupid. I thought they were supposed to be smart and sneaky? I think that this may go under the heading of "they can't help themselves." It's like an involuntary reaction. Glenn
rockpond Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 I just listened to Bill's presentation yesterday evening... I haven't been following this thread so hopefully I'll be forgiven for chiming in. I want to thank Bill for his great work and research. I've long been troubled by the dichotomy that so many try to force polygamy into: either it was a divine revelation from a true prophet or Joseph Smith is a total fraud trying to stroke his ego and satisfy his libido. Like Bill, I reject that dichotomy. I think one can believe that Smith was a prophet and that he erred in teaching/practicing polygamy. I think Bill does a great job of exploring the middle ground and offering doctrinal-based positions for a whole spectrum of belief. Well done. 1
Calm Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Yes. That's what I'm saying. I don't know why the term mistress was brought up, but this is what you had said, "I have no idea why there is a difference in terminology, but they are not mistresses. " I pointed out that you were wrong in your terminology on this. According to Calm's link it remains a question or debate whether concubines were married to the male. I'm not sure if you noticed my quotation from it, but it basically suggests for some they were considered married for others not. So, it could be that D&C 132 is blessing adultery in the strictest sense. We simply don't know. I hope that helps explain my point. Thanks. The term was brought up to distinguish between a concubine who has a legal relationship with a husband/man who had limited legal obligations to her and her children and a woman who had an ongoing sexual relationship, often based on some form of financial support, but without any contractual obligation on either individual's part. Perhaps we can substitute the term "courtesan" for "mistress" as Bluebell was using it to avoid confusion in the future. Whether or not they were married in the sense we understand marriage now or a similar ceremony that full status wives went through in the past***, they existed in the society as more than courtesans though less than full status wives. With a legal relationship defined in that society, it would not have been considered adultery in the strictest sense even. Since there have been no concubines in the latter-day practice of plural marriage, it is impossible to tell if it would have been viewed by them as adultery or not. ***" Stage 1: signing the "ketubbah" contract (Creating the marriage bond) i. The bride would chose her husband and her father would sign a legal contract with him called a "ketubbah". ii. Once this is signed the couple is 100% married but do not have sex yet. iii. Young children were often married, (arraigned marriage) but did not consummate until of age. Stage 2: The "chuppah": sexual consummation. i. Up to 7 years later, the groom is able to raise the money as set out in the ketubbah contract and notifies the father of the bride, who then sets a date to consummate the marriage at the bride's home. ii. The bride waits with her maidens, for the arrival of the groom and his companions. iii. The couple enters the chuppah room and consummates the marriage while the companions of the bride and groom wait and celebrate outside or in the next room. iv. The groom hands the bloodied "proof of virginity cloth" to the witnesses chosen by the bride's parents, who then give it to the bride for safekeeping. Stage 3: The wedding feast i. After consummation, the entire wedding party walks to the house of the groom in a procession for a wedding feast. ii. At the conclusion of the wedding feast, the couple has completed the ancient ritual of marriage. There was no "wedding ceremony" in the synagogue in the first century, performed under a canopy where the bride and groom would hold hands and say, "I do" before an audience of friends and family. This didn’t develop for hundreds of years after Jesus died on the cross as the Passover lamb for the sins of mankind."
Calm Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 Brigham Young defined the New and Everlasting Covenant as the Gospel that all Saints enter into at baptism: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/the-covenant-of-baptism-to-be-in-the-kingdom-and-of-the-kingdom?lang=eng&_r=1 1
stemelbow Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: No, I'm not wrong, I'm using a completely different definition of the term mistress than the scriptures are using. I'll rephrase and maybe it'll help, Concubines were not mistresses of the men involved. You know how when a married man has an affair with a woman the woman is know as his mistress? Concubines were not mistresses, they were lesser wives. Besides all of that, the verses you quoted are referring to Sarah as the mistress, not Hagar. Hagar is the servant. The mistress is the female head of the house-Sarah. Ok. I was confused by your use of mistress when mistress was the term used in the text. In context I saw that as a confusing way to converse. But that's ok. Mistress to me was irrelevant to the point. I'm not sure why it was brought up. But it's apparent, we are left without the question resolved. I realize it's easier to read concubines as wives, but as Calm's link makes clear saying they were wives is not necessarily true. That the terms are used to distinguish wives from concubines seems to indicate marriage was not, or might not have been involved.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I am working off of the radical notion that prophets and apostles of yesteryear and today are called of and generally in communion with God, that they are basically good and decent men, that it is their province - not mine - to guide the Church in terms of doctrinal matters, and that their cumulative position taken on doctrinal matters can and should carry significant probative value - much more than glib, snide, accusatory positions taken by people who are not in authority and whom I do not know nor have reason to trust. Agreed. That is certainly part of the equation. Well, we can trade such barbs all day. I could say: "Your tendentious, let's-ignore-any-need-for-context-or-circumspection-and-skip-directly-to-accusing-The-Brethren-of-failing-to-capitulate-to-the-personal-opinion-of-Bill-Reel-and-of-'dismissing-{C}hrist'-type of attitude is in my opinion poisoning the well." You are publicly accusing the leaders of the LDS Church (apparently all of them post-John Taylor) of "ignoring" revelation and "dismissing {C}hrist." And yet I'm the one "poisoning the well?" The mind reels. Thank you! Here you perfectly demonstrate the "speculative eisegesis" I spoke of earlier. "An interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text." That's all you are doing here. Yes. That's the nice thing about speculative eisegesis borne of a lack of evidence and context. You get to project whatever is on your mind onto the mind of John Taylor. You are at liberty to do that, of course, but your position is just as susceptible to the criticism you are imputing onto the Brethren ("imposing" your definitions of terms, your viewpoint, onto "earlier leaders"). And yet you haven't done that. At all. Speculative eisegesis doth not the showing of "probabilities" make. Moreover, this is not a purely academic exercise. In the LDS paradigm, "later leaders" are not subordinate to earlier ones. To the contrary, Ezra Taft Benson taught that "The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet." So here you are, ignoring some prophets and apostles - including the current ones - and subordinating them to dead ones. And yet one of those dead prophets said that this is precisely not what we are supposed to do. I'm curious as to how you go about choosing which prophetic counsel to follow, and which to ignore. It seems like you take the parts that you like (such as a purported revelation given to John Taylor which was never presented to Church leaders or to the Church, was never submitted for acceptance by common consent (as required by scripture), was never recorded in the Church (also as required by scripture), and so on), and reject any you do not like (see my previous post). Not exactly a winning formula, that. Oh, the irony. You are doing nothing but "walk{ing} it back from the present." You are engaging in speculative eisegesis of the first order. Thanks, -Smac Given the choice between Bill Reel and the prophets, I will cast my lot with the prophets. 3
rockpond Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Given the choice between Bill Reel and the prophets, I will cast my lot with the prophets. Way to completely miss the point of Bill's presentation. 3
stemelbow Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 21 minutes ago, Calm said: in the past***, they existed in the society as more than courtesans though less than full status wives. Maybe in some cases. But I don't know it's good to use that blanket statement, particularly since it's all very questionable. as times changed and as culture changed the whole concept seemed to vary as well. 12 minutes ago, Calm said: With a legal relationship defined in that society, it would not have been considered adultery in the strictest sense even. Since there have been no concubines in the latter-day practice of plural marriage, it is impossible to tell if it would have been viewed by them as adultery or not. I appreciate that. I was getting told, rather dogmatically, or dismissively, that it couldn't possibly be viewed as adultery. I'm not so sure that's true, and it's good to see you agree. I may take it a step further in thinking the message in D&C 132 may be viewed as God condoning or blessing adultery particularly since we don't know whether concubines were considered married in God's eyes or not--in spite of how it was practiced anciently. I feel it best to reject that idea in section 132. 12 minutes ago, Calm said: ***" Stage 1: signing the "ketubbah" contract (Creating the marriage bond) i. The bride would chose her husband and her father would sign a legal contract with him called a "ketubbah". ii. Once this is signed the couple is 100% married but do not have sex yet. iii. Young children were often married, (arraigned marriage) but did not consummate until of age. Stage 2: The "chuppah": sexual consummation. i. Up to 7 years later, the groom is able to raise the money as set out in the ketubbah contract and notifies the father of the bride, who then sets a date to consummate the marriage at the bride's home. ii. The bride waits with her maidens, for the arrival of the groom and his companions. iii. The couple enters the chuppah room and consummates the marriage while the companions of the bride and groom wait and celebrate outside or in the next room. iv. The groom hands the bloodied "proof of virginity cloth" to the witnesses chosen by the bride's parents, who then give it to the bride for safekeeping. Stage 3: The wedding feast i. After consummation, the entire wedding party walks to the house of the groom in a procession for a wedding feast. ii. At the conclusion of the wedding feast, the couple has completed the ancient ritual of marriage. There was no "wedding ceremony" in the synagogue in the first century, performed under a canopy where the bride and groom would hold hands and say, "I do" before an audience of friends and family. This didn’t develop for hundreds of years after Jesus died on the cross as the Passover lamb for the sins of mankind." It's obvious as times changed, so did the practices, particularly as it relates to concubines and marriage. Section 132 is interesting because it introduces to the concept of plural marriage the old practice of concubinage--unfortunately we don't seem to know how to apply that old practice to today.
stemelbow Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Given the choice between Bill Reel and the prophets, I will cast my lot with the prophets. I'm not sure it's fair to categorize the New and Everlasting covenant as mentioned by John Taylor as plural marriage or including plural marriage of necessity. While I grant it's possible Taylor meant to include plural marriage, it's also possible he did not intend to include such. 1
consiglieri Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Given the choice between Bill Reel and the prophets, I will cast my lot with the prophets. False dichotomy.
stemelbow Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Given the choice between Bill Reel and the prophets, I will cast my lot with the prophets. Given the choice, I'd rather evaluate for myself rather than just cast my lot. I rather like freedom of thought, though. Edited August 2, 2016 by stemelbow 1
DBMormon Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I am working off of the radical notion that prophets and apostles of yesteryear and today are called of and generally in communion with God, that they are basically good and decent men, that it is their province - not mine - to guide the Church in terms of doctrinal matters, and that their cumulative position taken on doctrinal matters can and should carry significant probative value - much more than glib, snide, accusatory positions taken by people who are not in authority and whom I do not know nor have reason to trust. Does the historical data show that these men are generally led by God to the extent that God is helping them to be on the same page on interpretations of doctrines, policies, beliefs, and practices. They while differing on favorite baseball team, favorite school subject, and favorite food; that it can be shown that they are generally unified on important and controversial pieces within the church. I simply don't see it. One only need read the behind the scenes stuff that is available to gauge that these men disagree within the context of feelings and beliefs on various crucial pieces of our faith. And to see 15 men agreeing as being equal to revelation seems like a false way to define revelation especially in light of these men always being reactive on social issues and problems. I ask my self if truly led by prophets that we define as in communion with god like moses, noah, and abraham....... then why do we need pilot programs, surveys, and seem to always be late to an issue long after the majority of society has already arrived there? When I ask myself what can I truly see foresight on behalf of the church long before the issue arose, I am left with very few. When I see the Church being unresponsive or late to serious issues I see many. In my mind I have had to renegotiate how to define prophet. I now define that if... a big if.... God wants to talk to his church he will do so through his prophet but that such face to face clear and direct communication has not occurred till going far enough back as Joseph Smith.
stemelbow Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, DBMormon said: Does the historical data show that these men are generally led by God to the extent that God is helping them to be on the same page on interpretations of doctrines, policies, beliefs, and practices. They while differing on favorite baseball team, favorite school subject, and favorite food; that it can be shown that they are generally unified on important and controversial pieces within the church. I simply don't see it. One only need read the behind the scenes stuff that is available to gauge that these men disagree within the context of feelings and beliefs on various crucial pieces of our faith. And to see 15 men agreeing as being equal to revelation seems like a false way to define revelation especially in light of these men always being reactive on social issues and problems. I ask my self if truly led by prophets that we define as in communion with god like moses, noah, and abraham....... then why do we need pilot programs, surveys, and seem to always be late to an issue long after the majority of society has already arrived there? When I ask myself what can I truly see foresight on behalf of the church long before the issue arose, I am left with very few. When I see the Church being unresponsive or late to serious issues I see many. In my mind I have had to renegotiate how to define prophet. I now define that if... a big if.... God wants to talk to his church he will do so through his prophet but that such face to face clear and direct communication has not occurred till going far enough back as Joseph Smith. I think you're about right. It feels to me like that which we call revelation these days is really just men in charge feeling impressed and very strongly about something--kind of like the policy change that's gotten so many of us questioning, and which President Nelson said was by revelation. Then again how much different was that then Joseph's own revelations? Beats me. Sure he may have had that visit in the sacred grove, as we call it, but maybe his other messages, like D&C 132 were his own impressions that he felt strongly about.
DBMormon Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 10 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'm not sure it's fair to categorize the New and Everlasting covenant as mentioned by John Taylor as plural marriage or including plural marriage of necessity. While I grant it's possible Taylor meant to include plural marriage, it's also possible he did not intend to include such. what is most probable? You see when plausibilities are your gauge on a 100 issues the statistical chance diminshes greatly.
DBMormon Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Given the choice between Bill Reel and the prophets, I will cast my lot with the prophets. It would be interesting to take the issues I have disagreed with on the church over my life and see which entity moves more in whose direction during my life. 1
DBMormon Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 49 minutes ago, rockpond said: I just listened to Bill's presentation yesterday evening... I haven't been following this thread so hopefully I'll be forgiven for chiming in. I want to thank Bill for his great work and research. I've long been troubled by the dichotomy that so many try to force polygamy into: either it was a divine revelation from a true prophet or Joseph Smith is a total fraud trying to stroke his ego and satisfy his libido. Like Bill, I reject that dichotomy. I think one can believe that Smith was a prophet and that he erred in teaching/practicing polygamy. I think Bill does a great job of exploring the middle ground and offering doctrinal-based positions for a whole spectrum of belief. Well done. thank you. 1
stemelbow Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 1 minute ago, DBMormon said: what is most probable? You see when plausibilities are your gauge on a 100 issues the statistical chance diminshes greatly. Well that's fair to consider, but I think we'd have to leave that as a consideration, rather than defining absolutes. He may or may not have intended to include plural marriage. I'm fine with that. I think there's plenty of other matter out there, maybe not as definitive, that get's the point across--revelation is not foolproof (not personal revelation and not revelation carried to the masses).
rockpond Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, DBMormon said: It would be interesting to take the issues I have disagreed with on the church over my life and see which entity moves more in whose direction during my life. Excellent point.
Duncan Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, DBMormon said: Does the historical data show that these men are generally led by God to the extent that God is helping them to be on the same page on interpretations of doctrines, policies, beliefs, and practices. They while differing on favorite baseball team, favorite school subject, and favorite food; that it can be shown that they are generally unified on important and controversial pieces within the church. I simply don't see it. One only need read the behind the scenes stuff that is available to gauge that these men disagree within the context of feelings and beliefs on various crucial pieces of our faith. And to see 15 men agreeing as being equal to revelation seems like a false way to define revelation especially in light of these men always being reactive on social issues and problems. I ask my self if truly led by prophets that we define as in communion with god like moses, noah, and abraham....... then why do we need pilot programs, surveys, and seem to always be late to an issue long after the majority of society has already arrived there? When I ask myself what can I truly see foresight on behalf of the church long before the issue arose, I am left with very few. When I see the Church being unresponsive or late to serious issues I see many. In my mind I have had to renegotiate how to define prophet. I now define that if... a big if.... God wants to talk to his church he will do so through his prophet but that such face to face clear and direct communication has not occurred till going far enough back as Joseph Smith. it's the principle of study it out in your minds and ask me. They take all that information, come with some kind of a conclusion and then ask God what to do, sometimes the answer is yes, no or just wait. I wouldn't say society has totally moved on in issues of racism, women's issues, LGBT issues etc. Would you discount Pres. Joseph F. Smith's experience recorded in section 138, Pres. Lorenzo Snow's experiences with the Saviour and even Pres. Wilford Woodruff's experience with polygamythat you seem so hot to trot about. Edited August 2, 2016 by Duncan
Recommended Posts