Polygamy justification?

[Indy Coug]

To me, this is where the other members of the presidency, quorum of the 12 should intercede. They are supposed to be inspired as well. If a doctrine is set forth that is flawed, they should be in a position to refute/correct it.

To turn that question around, if flawed doctrine can come from a flawed prophet, how does the average person choose which doctrines are correct and which doctrines are flawed?

Which doctrines do you need clarification on that are of direct import on your personal religious observance? Blacks and the priesthood and polygamy are in the rear view mirror. Neither are relevant as far as how you conduct yourself as a member of the church and what you need to do to be considered in "good standing".

[Jeff Lebowski]

To me, this is where the other members of the presidency, quorum of the 12 should intercede. They are supposed to be inspired as well. If a doctrine is set forth that is flawed, they should be in a position to refute/correct it.

They are human too.

This just brings up a follow-up question: Most of us would admit that the church as an institution is not perfect. How much leeway are you willing to give that imperfection? What is the threshold?

To turn that question around, if flawed doctrine can come from a flawed prophet, how does the average person choose which doctrines are correct and which doctrines are flawed?

The same way we sift any truth claims. Ponder, study, pray. I don't think God expects us to turn off our filters for truth. Ever.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I think everyone here is willing to accept imperfections in a prophet. Just how far are you willing to go with that acceptance? Where is the threshold? I think that varies quite a bit from person to person.

I brought up the legalization of polygamy topic with my wife again yesterday. I then mentioned how Joseph Smith took on Orson Hyde's wife as a plural wife while Hyde was away on a mission and also propositioned Orson Pratt's wife to be a plural wife while Pratt was away on a mission. My wife gets slightly upset and asks me why I always bring up these kind of things and why I don't dwell on positive gospel-related things. She also says she doesn't like hearing these kind of things and thinks I'm trying to tear down her testimony.

I respond that the polygamy topic is just more interesting and the historical truth is certainly not being taught at church (though I can't blame the church for that, why air the dirty laundry?). I then say that clearly there are imperfections in the church and its leaders, but the church thinks the rank and file wouldn't have the ability to accept imperfections since one of the underpinnings of the church is adherence to the counsel from our leaders. After that I mentioned Elder Mark E. Peterson's talk during the 50s at BYU where he rails on blacks and calls them a bunch of fence sitters that weren't worthy of the priesthood and temple blessings. Simply put, it's impossible to reconcile that talk and chalk it up as inspiration coming from God. Clearly the "doctrine" behind the talk was a mistake and that whole policy was a mistake.

The overwhelming majority of the church teachings has a positive impact on people's lives. The central message of making and keeping covenants, repentance, faith, doing good deeds and using the priesthood to help and uplift others is still true. But men are invariably imperfect. Joseph Smith had an immense power over the early saints. Clearly they thought he was inspired and they certainly felt a strong spirit about him. But it's very difficult to reconcile the secrecy that surrounded the plural marriages and the timing of some of them (husbands were away on missions) and other aspects.

[Jarid in Cedar]

OK, that brings us back to my original point: How do we know what God would or wouldn't possibly say or do in all situations?

you fast ponder and pray. Search for the answers through your relationship with Jesus.

[scottie]

To turn that question around, if flawed doctrine can come from a flawed prophet, how does the average person choose which doctrines are correct and which doctrines are flawed?

The same way we sift any truth claims. Ponder, study, pray. I don't think God expects us to turn off our filters for truth. Ever.

When I read that the first thing that came to my mind was, "Then what's the point of having a prophet?"

[I.J. Reilly]

I brought up the legalization of polygamy topic with my wife again yesterday. I then mentioned how Joseph Smith took on Orson Hyde's wife as a plural wife while Hyde was away on a mission and also propositioned Orson Pratt's wife to be a plural wife while Pratt was away on a mission. My wife gets slightly upset and asks me why I always bring up these kind of things and why I don't dwell on positive gospel-related things. She also says she doesn't like hearing these kind of things and thinks I'm trying to tear down her testimony.

I almost alway err on the side of discretion with these type of things. I don't bring up any contraversial issues with anyone, wife included, because I'm not sure I would be delicate enough not to tear down people's testimonies.

I'm working on how to approach this type of stuff when I have kids. Also, someday when someone decides I should teach a class, especially a youth class, I will have to spend some significant time trying to figure out the best way to inform people but still not try to rearrange their worldview all at once.

[Jeff Lebowski]

When I read that the first thing that came to my mind was, "Then what's the point of having a prophet?"

Seems like an overreaction to me. Is a prophet only useful if the prophet is perfect?

[SeattleUte]

When I read that the first thing that came to my mind was, "Then what's the point of having a prophet?"

Come on. This "prophet" notion has become a cause for big horse laughs. It's not that the LDS Church isn't anticipating and reacting to the important events of the day--events no less cosmic than Jerusalem's impending fall to the Persians or famine in ancient Egypt--they are always irrelevant or the last to figure out what's right. When Harry Truman and FDR were sounding the siren on Hitler and Nazi Germany where were the LDS prophets? What was the LDS position on Smoot-Hawley? How long after the Civil Rights Act did the LDS Church stop practicing apartheid? Gay marriage? When since Joseph Smith have they said a single thing that could anyone could call revelatory? On the contrary, they have said things hundreds of years behind the times that they later had to recant. They are reverse prophets. What they stand for is rolling back the clock, not revelatory thinking.

[I.J. Reilly]

I think this is fodder for another thread..............when I joined the Church, I was excited to have a "living prophet" on the Earth, and since then, well I'm not sure that if I shared my feelings they wouldn't get savaged...I just say that my expectations, as a convert, would be that a prophet would be far more vocal. I feel like the prophet is like the Irish National Soccer Team.

This is certainly a valid concern. What are you singing about when you sing, "We Thank Thee, O God, For a Prophet"? The modern-day prophet could certainly be seen as underwhelming by some.

Of course, there is a balance to be struck. One that was coming out with revelation every other week would definitely take some shots for being an authortarian, controlling leader.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

To turn that question around, if flawed doctrine can come from a flawed prophet, how does the average person choose which doctrines are correct and which doctrines are flawed?

I've discussed my thoughts about this on the board before. Basically, I think the church has set up a house of cards where one bad doctrine or flaw will cause the house of cards to come down for some members.

But I think the "everything coming from your leaders is revelation from God" tool is designed to keep the lowest common denominator in line. Not everyone has the discernment to understand which teachings, policies and doctrines are the most important to follow and which ones are either wrong or don't need attention paid to them.

I have railed on requiring single men in BYU singles wards to hometeach other single men in the ward. I think it's totally idiotic and a waste of time. A portion of the guys in the BYU wards get this, but the EQPs almost never do. Literally every other week, I had some EQP spending a significant portion of priesthood talking about hometeaching and getting the numbers up. A couple of them even would berate the entire EQP for the bad numbers. It boggles my mind to think about how much time was wasted on this extremely unimportant topic.

Why the rigidity? Why can't the church just make an exception that single active BYU men in singles wards don't have to hometeach other single active men in the ward? Answer: the church doesn't want to deal with exceptions, it doesn't want to introduce guesswork into a lot of things. If you introduce guesswork into the system, then some people will take it the extra mile and perhaps think it was fine to also ignore the homely single sisters in the ward (people that would usually welcome hometeaching and where it could have some marginal positive impact).

[SeattleUte]

Seems like an overreaction to me. Is a prophet only useful if the prophet is perfect?

Give me a single example of a truly revelatory statement in the last 100 years. A statement that shows foresight and bears on the well being and very lives of millions of people. A much better case on this point could be made for the Pope.

The "modern revelation" mantra is just a mechanism of control.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I almost alway err on the side of discretion with these type of things. I don't bring up any contraversial issues with anyone, wife included, because I'm not sure I would be delicate enough not to tear down people's testimonies.

I'm working on how to approach this type of stuff when I have kids. Also, someday when someone decides I should teach a class, especially a youth class, I will have to spend some significant time trying to figure out the best way to inform people but still not try to rearrange their worldview all at once.

There's no way I would ever bring up any of this stuff in church. I do bring it up with my wife and my dad as a matter of discussion. There's really no place for this at church. It's ridiculous to think that the church should bring up negative historical flaws when people attend meetings for edification.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Give me a single example of a truly revelatory statement in the last 100 years. A statement that shows foresight and bears on the well being and very lives of millions of people. A much better case on this point could be made for the Pope.

The "modern revelation" mantra is just a mechanism of control.

President Hinckley was telling everyone to pay off their mortgage during a time of extreme excess.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Give me a single example of a truly revelatory statement in the last 100 years. A statement that shows foresight and bears on the well being and very lives of millions of people. A much better case on this point could be made for the Pope.

The "modern revelation" mantra is just a mechanism of control.

I am not rising to your bait.

[SeattleUte]

Seems like an overreaction to me. Is a prophet only useful if the prophet is perfect?

If a prophet gets civil rights totally wrong what can he possibly do to redeem his status as a prophet?

That seems to me prophet malpractice of the greatest possible magnitude. The sorry LDS record on blacks, women, gays, even Native Americans seems to me to say it all.