Polygamy justification?

[UtahDan]

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.

Here is the best example I can think of:

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

Lets hope we aren't around to see this come true.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

Yeah, you have mentioned that a couple of times.

[scottie]

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

My thinking was something like, if the prophet can say anything he wants to say, and it only becomes applicable to us once we've pondered it, studied it, and prayed about it, then we throw out the things we've determined are flawed, is a prophet necessary?

I wasn't trying to troll, I admit I typed before I really thought about what I was saying (I almost didn't hit submit).

[Jeff Lebowski]

My thinking was something like, if the prophet can say anything he wants to say, and it only becomes applicable to us once we've pondered it, studied it, and prayed about it, then we throw out the things we've determined are flawed, is a prophet necessary?

I wasn't trying to troll, I admit I typed before I really thought about what I was saying (I almost didn't hit submit).

If you see a prophet as some kind of random number generator, then I certainly agree with you. If you see a prophet as an exceptional, yet imperfect servant of God, then I don't understand why what you describe in your first paragraph would seem controversial or unlikely at all.

I am certainly not accusing you of trolling. It's a good question.

[RobinFinderson]

I am not rising to your bait.

Right, but could you rise to the bait? Is it even possible?

We are big boys (and a few women) and most of us have an idea of what the word 'prophet' means from the scriptures. The fact is, not since Joseph Smith, have any of the leaders of the LDS church lived up to the title based on reasonable expectations established by Christian scripture. SU has a point here, and refusing to 'rise to the bait' is a weak dodge.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Right, but could you rise to the bait? Is it even possible?

We are big boys (and a few women) and most of us have an idea of what the word 'prophet' means from the scriptures. The fact is, not since Joseph Smith, have any of the leaders of the LDS church lived up to the title based on reasonable expectations established by Christian scripture. SU has a point here, and refusing to 'rise to the bait' is a weak dodge.

lol.

[Jarid in Cedar]

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 a degree that it does not conflict with my personal relationship with God. Also to the degree that the institution recognize the imperfection in the future and admits the error.

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.

Couldn't put it better myself. IMO we should continually revisit and challenge our own current beliefs and dogma based on new information/experiences/etc.

[wuapinmon]

If you see a prophet as some kind of random number generator, then I certainly agree with you. If you see a prophet as an exceptional, yet imperfect servant of God, then I don't understand why what you describe in your first paragraph would seem controversial or unlikely at all.

I am certainly not accusing you of trolling. It's a good question.

I think he's getting at the idea that if we're able to go straight to God about stuff, why the need for a prophet anyway?

[Jarid in Cedar]

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".

They are in the rear view for certain. They have relevance into your belief that Joseph Smith(and Brigham Young) as a prophet and the matters of restoration of the church here on Earth. Belief in the church hinges on that matter.

They do not affect my current personal religious observance as the matter has been settled for me personally.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think he's getting at the idea that if we're able to go straight to God about stuff, why the need for a prophet anyway?

Order. Structure.

In this model, the prophet presents doctrine/revelation/counsel and we filter and process it. That's a far different scenario than millions of independent prophets.

Some quotes on the topic (thanks to SEIQ):

Elder Packer's mentor, J. Rebuen Clark, said in 1954:

"We can tell when the speakers are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost' only when we, ourselves are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.' In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak."

Charles Penrose in the Millenaial Star:

"President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill."


Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses 9:150:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)


and Brigham again in JD 4:36

"How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves."

and Brigham again in JD 3:45

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied...Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord."

George Q. Cannon, Oct. 19, 1891:

"Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an Apostle, or a President; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him.
Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men. Therefore, my brethren and sisters, seek after the Holy Spirit and the unfailing testimony of God and His work upon the earth. Rest not until you know for yourselves that God has set His hand to redeem Israel, and prepare a people for His coming."

[wuapinmon]

Order. Structure.

In this model, the prophet presents doctrine/revelation/counsel and we filter and process it. That's a far different scenario than millions of independent prophets.

Some quotes on the topic (thanks to SEIQ):

Elder Packer's mentor, J. Rebuen Clark, said in 1954:

"We can tell when the speakers are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost' only when we, ourselves are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.' In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak."

Charles Penrose in the Millenaial Star:

"President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill."


Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses 9:150:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)


and Brigham again in JD 4:36

"How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves."

and Brigham again in JD 3:45

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied...Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord."

George Q. Cannon, Oct. 19, 1891:

"Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an Apostle, or a President; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him.
Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men. Therefore, my brethren and sisters, seek after the Holy Spirit and the unfailing testimony of God and His work upon the earth. Rest not until you know for yourselves that God has set His hand to redeem Israel, and prepare a people for His coming."

Excellent quotes....thank you.

[RobinFinderson]

lol.

Another dodge. That is fine. Smart people, i.e. those who can see the church for what it is, have to define the church as something different than what the vast majority of members see it as. The church has to walk a fine line here, offering enough hocus pocus to keep the mainline happy (Exhibit A: The proclamation on the family), but not getting SO specific and prescriptive that they would drive off the highly educated members who enjoy thinking for themselves.

What I would really like to see, and I think we have been walking around the periphery of this for ages on sites like CUF and CG, is for the 'smart' Mormons to take back their church.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Another dodge. That is fine. Smart people, i.e. those who can see the church for what it is, have to define the church as something different than what the vast majority of members see it as. The church has to walk a fine line here, offering enough hocus pocus to keep the mainline happy (Exhibit A: The proclamation on the family), but not getting SO specific and prescriptive that they would drive off the highly educated members who enjoy thinking for themselves.

What I would really like to see, and I think we have been walking around the periphery of this for ages on sites like CUF and CG, is for the 'smart' Mormons to take back their church.

Sorry, but I just got a good laugh out of the way you came to SU's defense. Like he needs your help.

SU's opinion is well-established on this topic. I respect it but I see little benefit in debating him about it. It's burned-over territory. I could make his posts for him in the debate and no one would notice.

[cowboy]

Another dodge. That is fine. Smart people, i.e. those who can see the church for what it is, have to define the church as something different than what the vast majority of members see it as. The church has to walk a fine line here, offering enough hocus pocus to keep the mainline happy (Exhibit A: The proclamation on the family), but not getting SO specific and prescriptive that they would drive off the highly educated members who enjoy thinking for themselves.

What I would really like to see, and I think we have been walking around the periphery of this for ages on sites like CUF and CG, is for the 'smart' Mormons to take back their church.

You're so cool, Robin. Someday, I want to be just like you. The problem is this itsy witsy brain of mine could never measure up to your enormous intellect. I'll guess I'll just have to settle with being a moron who take some things on faith.

[Jarid in Cedar]

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).

The house of cards analogy is a good one. I have used that parallel before.