How can God not give exact instructions on how to obey a commandment?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

It it is possible, but I don't know if there is an exact number of wives Joesph Smith was sealed to --I've read/heard different numbers.  If Orson Hyde was already an apostle of the church, then why was it required of Joseph Smith to, in turn, marry Hyde's wife, Marinda Johnson Hyde?  Was Hyde's position as an apostle not sufficient enough with God to ensure she received the highest level of exaltation?  Only the prophet, Joseph Smith, could ensure this?  I just can't accept or believe that is from God in my opinion.   

There was no reason given for polyandry marriages, so it is all speculation.

Is there any reason you might accept as from God?  Such as if they had continued, it might have more quickly put men and women on an equal level? (As has happened with proxy sealings and is slowly happening with live ones as more women are being granted exceptions and not having to cancel sealings before receiving a new one and wording suggesting this only delays making a choice for the woman till later has been removed from the instructions for sealings,)

Edited November 5, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And yet another personal attack just because I have a different opinion on certain subject(s). Dishonest and and hypocritical?  How is my personal opinion on this matter dishonest?  And accusing me of being "superior" to others?  I am a member of the church by the way, although I don't accept certain doctrine and drink tea.  Your post just reconfirms how judgmental the LDS community can be, in general, especially if somebody does or doesn't have a certain belief, doesn't accept a certain narrative, or doesn't fit a certain mold.  

Are you not judging the LDS community by claiming it is judgmental?

Do you not think it might be the tone and choices of how to express your disagreement that might be triggering these types of responses?  After all, we have a number of posters who disagree with LDS or traditional LDS positions and they have not been spoken of in this way.

[Ouagadougou]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you not judging the LDS community by claiming it is judgmental?

Do you not think it might be the tone and choices of how to express your disagreement that might be triggering these types of responses?  After all, we have a number of posters who disagree with LDS or traditional LDS positions and they have not been spoken of in this way.

Who have I singled out?  And yes, I think the LDS community can be very judgmental (and many Mormon and non-Mormon friends agree with me).  If I disagree on a certain topic, and it's my opinion, people can disagree...and that's fine.  Have you not read the tone of some of the other comments that have came my way? 😀

[mnn727]

On 11/2/2016 at 1:38 PM, Ouagadougou said:

 but today – he can give us exact instructions on the following?

• Age we should start dating (16)

• How many earrings we should have

• What drinks we can and cannot consume

• What type of clothing is appropriate

• Recommended movies we should watch

• And the list goes on and on

 

God didn't give any of these other than in general, the specifics came from the Prophets and Apostles. Where'd you get the idea that he did?

[Ouagadougou]

7 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

God didn't give any of these other than in general, the specifics came from the Prophets and Apostles. Where'd you get the idea that he did?

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/prophet?lang=eng

Prophet

"A person who has been called by and speaks for God. As a messenger of God, a prophet receives commandments, prophecies, and revelations from God. His responsibility is to make known God’s will and true character to mankind and to show the meaning of his dealings with them. A prophet denounces sin and foretells its consequences. He is a preacher of righteousness. On occasion, prophets may be inspired to foretell the future for the benefit of mankind. His primary responsibility, however, is to bear witness of Christ. The President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s prophet on earth today. Members of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles are sustained as prophets, seers, and  revelators."

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Quote

• Age we should start dating (16)

• How many earrings we should have

• What drinks we can and cannot consume

• What type of clothing is appropriate

• Recommended movies we should watch

• And the list goes on and on

God didn't give any of these other than in general, the specifics came from the Prophets and Apostles. Where'd you get the idea that he did?

Then why on earth are we following them?
I have no interest in following prophetic teachings that AREN'T from the Lord.  Not even ones they expanded based on a general principle.
That's the very definition of "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men".

[mnn727]

21 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/prophet?lang=eng

Prophet

"A person who has been called by and speaks for God. As a messenger of God, a prophet receives commandments, prophecies, and revelations from God. His responsibility is to make known God’s will and true character to mankind and to show the meaning of his dealings with them. A prophet denounces sin and foretells its consequences. He is a preacher of righteousness. On occasion, prophets may be inspired to foretell the future for the benefit of mankind. His primary responsibility, however, is to bear witness of Christ. The President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s prophet on earth today. Members of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles are sustained as prophets, seers, and  revelators."

Some people hold inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets, and assume that the LDS have similar views. This leads some to assume that prophets are infallible. ^[1]

Joseph Smith himself taught that ‘a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such’.^[2] The Church has always taught that its leaders are human and subject to failings as are all mortals. Only Jesus was perfect, as explained in this statement from the First Presidency:

[mnn727]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Then why on earth are we following them?
I have no interest in following prophetic teachings that AREN'T from the Lord.  Not even ones they expanded based on a general principle.
That's the very definition of "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men".

•    Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

[James Tunney]

39 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

•    Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

When is it ever doctrine? When are they ever speaking for the Lord? They never tell us. It's supposedly too sacred or discounted like Nelson's recent claim.

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

Some people hold inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets, and assume that the LDS have similar views. This leads some to assume that prophets are infallible. ^[1]

Joseph Smith himself taught that ‘a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such’.^[2] The Church has always taught that its leaders are human and subject to failings as are all mortals. Only Jesus was perfect, as explained in this statement from the First Presidency:

So it was just the apostles/prophet speaking as men (not inspired) when they instructed that we shouldn't?

- Date before 16

- Have more than one earring

- Drink tea/coffee

Because if they are just speaking as men (not wearing the prophet hat at the moment), then why follow their counsel, advice, direction, commandments, etc?

You can't have it both ways...  

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

When is it ever doctrine? When are they ever speaking for the Lord? They never tell us. It's supposedly too sacred or discounted like Nelson's recent claim.

I agree.  Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would be shocked if they came back today and saw that the current church only practices spiritual polygamy.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I agree.  Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would be shocked if they came back today and saw that the current church only practices spiritual polygamy.  

I doubt it.  Both men lived through some hefty cultural changes both in and outside the Church.  With JS especially, the practice was limited to a very small percentage, going for just a few years, and no one knew better than him what society could do to those who walked a different path as well as the importance of the temple.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I agree.  Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would be shocked if they came back today and saw that the current church only practices spiritual polygamy.  

True.  More than that, they'd likely believe the church was on the road to apostasy.  There are many quotes to that effect.

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I doubt it.  Both men lived through some hefty cultural changes both in and outside the Church.  With JS especially, the practice was limited to a very small percentage, going for just a few years, and no one knew better than him what society could do to those who walked a different path as well as the importance of the temple.

Polygamy was practiced for over half a century officially (and even continued unofficially after the 1890 Manifesto); that is hardly just a few years.

"In 1904, the Church strictly prohibited new plural marriages.Today, any person who practices plural marriage cannot become or remain a member of the Church."

Joseph Smith married Fanny Alger in 1833--and polygamy continued until even after the 1890's.

Also, 

"By 1870, 25 to 30 percent of the population lived in polygamous households, and it appears that the percentage continued to decrease over the next 20 years."

At one point over 1/4 of the population lived in a polygamous household...hardly a small percentage.  

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng

 

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

True.  More than that, they'd likely believe the church was on the road to apostasy.  There are many quotes to that effect.

And I agree with you. 😀  If you read the Journal of Discourses (not doctrine now) and other accounts, they both were in favor of polygamy and believed it was required to obtain the highest level of exaltation.  

Edited November 7, 2016 by Ouagadougou

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Polygamy was practiced for over half a century officially (and even continued unofficially after the 1890 Manifesto); that is hardly just a few years....

Joseph Smith married Fanny Alger in 1833--and polygamy continued until even after the 1890's.

Also, 

"By 1870, 25 to 30 percent of the population lived in polygamous households, and it appears that the percentage continued to decrease over the next 20 years."

At one point over 1/4 of the population lived in a polygamous household...hardly a small percentage.  

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng

 

Fanny Alger wasn't around for very long after whatever happened happened.  JS wasn't sealed to his next wife, Louisa Beaman, until 1841, thus wasn't actively, consistently involved in plural marriage until the last three years of his life.  Nor was it ever a 'normal' existence, but a secretive one, with probable intermittent contact with his wives.  Plus the practice itself varied overtime. I highly doubt it had a chance to become a routine, second nature part of his life, something he would see as unnatural if missing.  He had also guided the Church through four gatherings and three relocations, including losing two temple sites and seeing the Church experience mass apostasy and trauma, even including the murder of its members.  If anyone could understand change, IMO, it would be him.

As to BY, while it was a larger part (35 years vs. 23) of his adult life spent in plural marriage, still he was over 40 (midlife is generally considered around 45) by the time of his first plural marriage having had 16 years of marriage in traditional monogamy if I have counted it correctly while dying at the age of 76.  While once he accepted the practice he apparently quickly had a number of wives (wiki lists 42 sealings in 4 years or so, 16 of which were the first marriage for the woman, some ending quickly in death or at times divorce), since a third of his adult life was spent monogamous, it seems unlikely to me seeing the Church once more practicing monogamy would in anyway shock him, especially once he knew of the history of the Manifesto.  He had almost as many years as leader of the Church as a plural husband, he had massive experience dealing with the government and making his own adjustments to their rulings, interference, laws, etc.. I think he was too pragmatic to be shocked by the Church adapting.

It would be, IMO, much more surprising, for someone who had grown up in the Church when plural marriage was a practice, especially if his/her parents were plurally married.  Converts who had lived outside of Mormon'territory' where monogamy was the norm, even if they had accepted and lived plural marriage, would still find it mentally easier to shift back, IMO, though that would be complicated by current involvement.  And those who lived through the major upheavals and changes of the early years where most members were right in the middle of the conflicts would also likely be more flexible in their thinking than those who grew up in a relatively stable environment.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Calm

[ERayR]

On 11/5/2016 at 2:35 PM, Ouagadougou said:

And Moses married other men's wives?  

David did.

[mfbukowski]

On 11/4/2016 at 0:47 PM, Calm said:

It would be most likely their daughter's choice as it was Helen Mar Kimball's.

-----

O (can't remember the rest),

Your problem is not your disagreement.  It is the sources you are choosing to present your disagreement as reasonable.  There are better ones if you wish to be critical.

Odd that we can make her argument better than she can, and still see its flaws

[ERayR]

On 11/6/2016 at 3:55 PM, Ouagadougou said:

I agree.  Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would be shocked if they came back today and saw that the current church only practices spiritual polygamy.  

I doubt it.  Brigham Young saw what Salt Lake City would become.

[JLHPROF]

On ‎11‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 1:46 PM, mnn727 said:

•    Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

So I'll ask again.
Why are we following statements on:

• Age we should start dating (16)

• How many earrings we should have

• What drinks we can and cannot consume

• What type of clothing is appropriate

• Recommended movies we should watch

• And the list goes on and on

if they aren't coming from God?