Monumental Mormon Revelations. Is Another One in the Works?

[The Nimble Pianist]

Early LDS prophets up until the turn of the century claimed, with divine authority that polygamy would endure forever in "Zion".

After a couple decades of harassment by the federal government, and a growing desire of the Mormons to have Deseret become a state, Wilford Woodruff, the fourth LDS president conveniently receives a "revelation" which ended polygamy in the LDS Church.




Early LDS prophets well up into the 20th century insisted that the LDS priesthood ban on Black men would be a perpetual ban, and that it was instituted before the world was even formed.

After increased heat by the public, allegations of racism, and the implications of LDS belief on the constitutionality of practices at Brigham Young University (the LDS owned and operated university in Provo, UT), Spencer W. Kimball, the twelfth LDS president conveniently receives a "revelation" which ends the LDS priesthood ban on Black men.



Now, the LDS Church again is taking heat concerning same-sex marriage, and are even being investigated for violating campaign-disclosure laws.

Since we seem to see a pattern here:

Public scandal and resentment for an LDS Church practice ------> Convenient revelation by LDS prophet ending whichever practice it was that prompted the scandal or resentment.


Is it reasonable to think that another monumental "revelation" might come to fruition in the next decade or two?

[Toke]

Is it reasonable to think that another monumental "revelation" might come to fruition in the next decade or two?

Jugding from the pattern, Yes.

[RandFan]

Is it reasonable to think that another monumental "revelation" might come to fruition in the next decade or two?Yes, religion is typically 10 to 20 years behind cultural evolution. In subsequent years the church will look more and more extreme and become more and more marginalized. Public support is against gays and lesbians (as far as marriage goes) even in a liberal state like California but I suspect there will be a sea change in the next generation. People are far more tolerant of gays and lesbians than the once were and I don't think kids care right now. When they are of voting age the culture war concerning gays and lesbians will be history.

[Bob Blaylock]

Early LDS prophets up until the turn of the century claimed, with divine authority that polygamy would endure forever in "Zion".

After a couple decades of harassment by the federal government, and a growing desire of the Mormons to have Deseret become a state, Wilford Woodruff, the fourth LDS president conveniently receives a "revelation" which ended polygamy in the LDS Church.

Early LDS prophets well up into the 20th century insisted that the LDS priesthood ban on Black men would be a perpetual ban, and that it was instituted before the world was even formed.

After increased heat by the public, allegations of racism, and the implications of LDS belief on the constitutionality of practices at Brigham Young University (the LDS owned and operated university in Provo, UT), Spencer W. Kimball, the twelfth LDS president conveniently receives a "revelation" which ends the LDS priesthood ban on Black men.

Now, the LDS Church again is taking heat concerning same-sex marriage, and are even being investigated for violating campaign-disclosure laws.

Since we seem to see a pattern here:

Public scandal and resentment for an LDS Church practice ------> Convenient revelation by LDS prophet ending whichever practice it was that prompted the scandal or resentment.

Is it reasonable to think that another monumental "revelation" might come to fruition in the next decade or two?


It's very easy to make the church, (or any other organization) look inconsistent when you fail to distinguish actual statements of official policy and doctrine from unofficial opinions held and expressed by its members and even its leaders.

Nowhere in any scripture or other official statement of doctrine or policy, has it ever been stated that polygamy would always be practiced. In fact, it's made clear, at some point in The Book of Mormon (I'll have to look up the reference later) that this is a practice that God may and will allow at some times, and not at other times.

Similarly, there is no official statement that holds that Negroes would always be excluded from the Priesthood, or that any other racial restrictions would always be in place. Again, there have been times when it served God's purpose to observe such restrictions, and other times when it has not.

Both of these have precedent in the Bible, as well as in Mormon-specific scripture.


Homosexuality, and other forms of sexual immorality, are an entirely different matter. Far be it from me to presume to state what God ever can or will do, but it has always been made clear that God intended sexual intimacy to be only between a man and a woman who are married to one another, and that such a marriage is the basis for a family (http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d 82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0), which is the basis for any stable society.

I very much doubt that God will ever reverse himself on this matter. Homosexuality will always remain immoral, and any concept of homosexual “marriage” will never be anything more than a sick mockery of genuine marriage.

[Toke]

:dl:

So no one said the same right before it was revealed that respectively blacks and monogamy were ok with god.

[The Nimble Pianist]

:dl:

So no one said the same right before it was revealed that respectively blacks and monogamy were ok with god.


That's just it. Mormon apologists are in a habit of moving the goalposts after the fact in order to make the church seem consistent. Then again, progressive revelation in of itself allows for the goalpost movement.

How do we know when Brigham Young or Joseph Smith were speaking in the capacity of a prophet or of a imperfect man? We don't, that is until a subsequent prophet tells us decades after the fact.

The Journal of Discourses, the Millennial Star, the Times and Seasons, and other publications were Church publications. Their LDS readers during the 19th century read them as definitive publications. 20th century Mormons don't because the 20th century LDS church says that these are just the personal opinions of the authors not official doctrine.

Today, whatever is published in the Ensign or Liahona are taken as authoritative. In the 22nd century, we might see the LDS church say the same about them as the 20th/21st century church said about the Journal of Discourses.

Hindsight bias is great, ain't it!?

[RandFan]

Again, there have been times when it served God's purpose to observe such restrictions, and other times when it has not. And what purpose did polygamy and not allowying blacks to have the priestood serve god?

And why was light skin "delightsome"? Does god still think lightskin is "delightsome"?

"...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people..."

That was changed in 1981 because the most perfect book needed to be clarified but 2 Nephi 5:21 still says:

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

"You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Journal of Discourses 7:336).

Both of these have precedent in the Bible... Well that makes it ok...

[Akhenaten]

It's very easy to make the church, (or any other organization) look inconsistent when you fail to distinguish actual statements of official policy and doctrine from unofficial opinions held and expressed by its members and even its leaders.

In other words, it's easy to make them look inconsistent because of their inconsistencies.


Nowhere in any scripture or other official statement of doctrine or policy, has it ever been stated that polygamy would always be practiced. In fact, it's made clear, at some point in The Book of Mormon (I'll have to look up the reference later) that this is a practice that God may and will allow at some times, and not at other times.

Similarly, there is no official statement that holds that Negroes would always be excluded from the Priesthood, or that any other racial restrictions would always be in place. Again, there have been times when it served God's purpose to observe such restrictions, and other times when it has not.

Does it really matter whether the whole cloth that these rules are made up from is official or not? Unofficial BS seems to not work just as well as the authorized stuff.


Both of these have precedent in the Bible, as well as in Mormon-specific scripture.

Well, if the Latter Day Book of Fairytales is backed up by the Really Old Book of Fairytales it's just got to be true, doesn't it?


Homosexuality, and other forms of sexual immorality, are an entirely different matter. Far be it from me to presume to state what God ever can or will do, but it has always been made clear that God intended sexual intimacy to be only between a man and a woman who are married to one another, and that such a marriage is the basis for a family, which is the basis for any stable society.

If that's what Sky Man intended, he's not very good at managing things is he? He probably intended that atheists would never be able to marry and raise happy, healthy families either, but we seem to manage just fine. That must piss him off some.


I very much doubt that God will ever reverse himself on this matter.

Ol' Flip-Flop himself? Anyway, seems the Prez of the LDS is calling the shots in these latter days, so who cares what this god thing has to say?


Homosexuality will always remain immoral, and any concept of homosexual “marriage” will never be anything more than a sick mockery of genuine marriage.

Gosh, that's progressive and enlightened. What a great shame that your church only exists in my country for a bit of comic relief. It sounds like it would be great to have them running things, although the traditional owners might have some problems with you.

[Toke]

So my guess/suspicion is accurate.
Thanks for the factual backup.:)

[Sun Countess]

The great thing about fictional characters is that they can do whatever the authors make them do.

[geni]

I suspect the line most religions will end up takeing is that state marrages are not religious marrages. Thus gay state marrages don't cause a problem.

[The Nimble Pianist]

I suspect the line most religions will end up takeing is that state marrages are not religious marrages. Thus gay state marrages don't cause a problem.

I suspect the same with most religions as most keep relatively consistent.

I haven't seen the Catholic Church even buckle on their position with divorce. I wouldn't be surprised if they lobbied back in the day to prevent no-fault-divorce from becoming the norm in a civil sense. Now that it's a reality, they simply say "it's not something a Catholic may participate in".

Mormonism on the other hand has a habit, in its short 169 year old history of dramatically revising its doctrines. Not just progressive "reinterpretation", but out right abolition and revision. Where the Catholic Pope I'm sure worries about continuity with "tradition", the LDS Prophet is not concerned with such for he has a direct hot-line with the I-can't-make-up-my-mind LDS God.

It's for this reason I posed this question.

[Bob Blaylock]

That's just it. Mormon apologists are in a habit of moving the goalposts after the fact in order to make the church seem consistent. Then again, progressive revelation in of itself allows for the goalpost movement.

How do we know when Brigham Young or Joseph Smith were speaking in the capacity of a prophet or of a imperfect man? We don't, that is until a subsequent prophet tells us decades after the fact.

The Journal of Discourses, the Millennial Star, the Times and Seasons, and other publications were Church publications. Their LDS readers during the 19th century read them as definitive publications. 20th century Mormons don't because the 20th century LDS church says that these are just the personal opinions of the authors not official doctrine.

Today, whatever is published in the Ensign or Liahona are taken as authoritative. In the 22nd century, we might see the LDS church say the same about them as the 20th/21st century church said about the Journal of Discourses.


There is — and has been from the beginning — a specific process by which doctrine is established in the church. This process requires unanimous agreement among the President (prophet) and the Twelve Apostles.

If you confine yourself to doctrines which were established by this process, then you will not find the inconsistency that you are trying to claim has existed in the church. But then representing our doctrines in a manner that is in any way fair or honest doesn't seem to be conducive to any point that you would like to try to make about us.


Especially in the early days, many of our leaders were often careless about making clear the distinction between when they were stating official policy and doctrine, and when they were expressing their opinions; and also especially in the early days, there was a certain amount of carelessness similarly regarding what was published. In much more recent years, processes have been established, that didn't previously exist, for vetting material that is put forth in official church publications, to insure a high degree of consistency with established doctrine. This isn't to say that church magazines, such as the Ensign or Liahona, are themselves to be treated as scripture and accepted as absolutely authoritative sources of doctrine.


With regard to the racial issue, it might be worth pointing out that Joseph Smith had repeatedly expressed the opinion that Negroes ought to be treated as equal to other races, and that one day, they would be. Today, most of us agree with this, but in his day, it was a rather radical opinion for him to hold, and not one that was readily accepted among his contemporaries. Neither his opinion on this matter, nor the very different opinion held and expressed by Brigham Young and most of the others of that time, were ever put to the process by which doctrine is established. It was not, in the time that Joseph Smith was leading the church, any kind of official doctrine that Negroes were intended to be equal to other races; nor, when Brigham Young took over, did it become official doctrine that Negroes were intended to be inferior.

It seems, by way of analogy, to be worth mentioning something I heard a few years back about Pope John Paul II. He supposedly expressed the opinion that animals have souls, and that they go to heaven; but he was careful to make it clear that he was expressing his own belief, and not something that was to be taken as an authoritative Catholic doctrine. I could wish that a lot of our leaders, even today, were as careful about what they say and write as the Pope was in this instance.

[RandFan]

It seems, by way of analogy, to be worth mentioning something I heard a few years back about Pope John Paul II. He supposedly expressed the opinion that animals have souls, and that they go to heaven; but he was careful to make it clear that he was expressing his own belief, and not something that was to be taken as an authoritative Catholic doctrine. I could wish that a lot of our leaders, even today, were as careful about what they say and write as the Pope was in this instance.So does the Pope talk to god?

So, let me get this straight, god talks to prophets but let's them make idiots out of themselves? Oh, and when Brigham Young declared that he was speaking on behalf of god when he spoke of blood atonement (http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/jofdvol4p215_221brighambloodatonement.htm), the inhabatance of the moon (http://www.challengemin.org/moon.html) and other concepts now rejected by the Mormon Church, god never took the time to set him straight?

Bob, your explanations are tortured. As are the explanations of FAIR (http://en.fairmormon.org/Brigham_Young_and_moonmen). Let's assume for a moment it was simply opinion, how is it a prophet of god can't find answers that won't make the voice of god look like an imbicele?

Why did Joseph Smith provided detail of what moon men looked like and how they dressed?

Hello god... are you there?

Now, let's consider that the "moon men" opinion was delivered during a sermon in the Tabernacle and Brigham Young stated:

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon and it is as good Scripture as they deserve" (Ibid, p. 95).

It's really reaching to state that a the voice of god was ruminating during a sermon and god would not take the opportunity to correct the mistake.

[Kopji]

Does anyone have a link to where the presidency and apostles approved polygamy as the church doctine?

[RandFan]

Does anyone have a link to where the presidency and apostles approved polygamy as the church doctine? I don't think such a thing exists. Joseph Smith claims to have recieved revelation in response to a question to god about plural marriage.

History of Polygamy in Utah (http://www.onlineutah.com/polygamyhistoryembry.shtml)

When establishing the LDS Church, Joseph Smith recorded numerous revelations he claimed to receive, often in answer to questions about the Bible, which are now included in the Doctrine and Covenants, part of the LDS canon. In answer to his question as to why many of the Old Testament leaders had more than one wife, Smith received what is now known as Section 132. Although the revelation was not recorded until 1843, Smith may have received it in the 1830s and married his first plural wife, Fanny Alger, in 1835. Polygamy was not openly practiced in the Mormon Church until 1852 when Orson Pratt, an apostle, made a public speech defending it as a tenet of the church. From 1852 until 1890, Mormon Church leaders preached and encouraged members, especially those in leadership positions, to marry additional wives

[RandFan]

BTW: According the Journal of Discorses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses) Jospeh was ordered by an an angel with a fiery sword to mary multiple women or else he would be killed.

"When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith ... he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine."
- Prophet Joseph F. Smith, "Plural Marriage for the Righteous Only-Obedience Imperative-Blessings Resulting", Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29 Don't you just hate it when god does that?

God: Hey.
Me: Hey.
God: I want you to marry that hot chick who lives next door to you.
Me: Oh, I couldn't do that.
God: If you don't I'll kill you.
Me: Lisa?
Lisa: Yeah?
Me: God said I have to marry you.
Lisa: Riiiiight...

:rolleyes:

Sure, I believe it. It's not like guys want an excuse to get in the pants of young women.

[Kopji]

An interesting difference with RLDS aka CofC flavor of Mormonism is that it is the General Conference that has final approval about what is accepted as church law or revelation.

I'm pretty sure the policy of the early church is the precedent for that. Since polygamy was never presented to or accepted by the church... etc etc.

[Kopji]

(Not to interrupt), but in that same line of thinking, the Doctrine and Covenants of RLDS continues to be added to. It is plausible that a 'revelation' about gay marriage could be received, and then either rejected or approved by the General Conference.

I could be wrong about this, but didn't one of the recent LDS prophets say something to the effect that a prophet's message was to the people of their time and circumstances, and [faithful Mormons] should not always expect things to stay the same. (?)

[geni]

So does the Pope talk to god?


I think the more relivant question is does god talk to the pope. And as I understand it the answer is that he is guided by the holy spirit.

[Pixel42]

Far be it from me to presume to state what God ever can or will do
Every single Mormon I have ever encountered has presumed to state what God can and will do. They have also told me everything he has done, and what he thinks about every single issue. They insist that they do not just "believe" all these things but "know" them. You show no sign of being an exception.

The arrogance of Mormons never ceases to astound me.

[Toke]

If I was a profet, god would surely command me to have several wifes/mistresses.:D
This reminds me of david koesh, he got similiar commands from god.

Anyway, religions do tend to be draged along by general developments in society.
Just look at the RCC they stopped burning heretics centuries ago.

[blobru]

So does the Pope talk to god?

So, let me get this straight, god talks to prophets but let's them make idiots out of themselves? Oh, and when Brigham Young declared that he was speaking on behalf of god when he spoke of blood atonement (http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/jofdvol4p215_221brighambloodatonement.htm), the inhabatance of the moon (http://www.challengemin.org/moon.html) and other concepts now rejected by the Mormon Church, god never took the time to set him straight?

Bob, your explanations are tortured. As are the explanations of FAIR (http://en.fairmormon.org/Brigham_Young_and_moonmen). Let's assume for a moment it was simply opinion, how is it a prophet of god can't find answers that won't make the voice of god look like an imbicele?

Why did Joseph Smith provided detail of what moon men looked like and how they dressed?

Hello god... are you there?

Now, let's consider that the "moon men" opinion was delivered during a sermon in the Tabernacle and Brigham Young stated:

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon and it is as good Scripture as they deserve" (Ibid, p. 95).

It's really reaching to state that a the voice of god was ruminating during a sermon and god would not take the opportunity to correct the mistake.

:confused: So what is LDS doctrine on same sex marriage on the moon? (to wit: Do maters in craters traitor the Creator?) :dig: {sorry}

I note from your inhabitants of the moon (http://www.challengemin.org/moon.html) link that Brigham Young also was convinced the sun was inhabited:

"Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?...when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 271)

What then is the LDS position on inter-"planetary"* marriage? Has it been revealed yet whether a relationship between a moon-guy and a sun-girl is delightsome in God's eyes, or de-fright-some? Despite some orthodox thoughts to the contrary, I believe a just and loving God, if we are truly made in His image, would wholeheartedly approve of, and probably pay a handsome ransom and then some, to take in some intense close-up cool moon-lass on hot sun-chick action. And if a moon-dude and a sun-stud wish to consecrate their otherworldly affection, He ought to send martian roses and a bottle of venusian brandy. And I ain't even an LDS prophet! Why, one almost gets the feeling that anyone could make this crap up -- it's only a matter of finding people stupid enough to believe you. Wonder if John Gray (http://www.marsvenus.com/xcart/product.php?productid=66&cat=0&page=1&featured) was Mormon? :cupid: *[to be picky, the sun is a star, the moon a satellite]

[RandFan]

I think the more relivant question is does god talk to the pope. Meh~ A semantical quibble but, yeah, you are right.

And as I understand it the answer is that he is guided by the holy spirit.Yeah because god doesn't just talk to people anymore.

[Elizabeth I]

There is — and has been from the beginning — a specific process by which doctrine is established in the church. This process requires unanimous agreement among the President (prophet) and the Twelve Apostles.

If you confine yourself to doctrines which were established by this process, then you will not find the inconsistency that you are trying to claim has existed in the church. But then representing our doctrines in a manner that is in any way fair or honest doesn't seem to be conducive to any point that you would like to try to make about us.


Especially in the early days, many of our leaders were often careless about making clear the distinction between when they were stating official policy and doctrine, and when they were expressing their opinions; and also especially in the early days, there was a certain amount of carelessness similarly regarding what was published. In much more recent years, processes have been established, that didn't previously exist, for vetting material that is put forth in official church publications, to insure a high degree of consistency with established doctrine. This isn't to say that church magazines, such as the Ensign or Liahona, are themselves to be treated as scripture and accepted as absolutely authoritative sources of doctrine.


With regard to the racial issue, it might be worth pointing out that Joseph Smith had repeatedly expressed the opinion that Negroes ought to be treated as equal to other races, and that one day, they would be. Today, most of us agree with this, but in his day, it was a rather radical opinion for him to hold, and not one that was readily accepted among his contemporaries. Neither his opinion on this matter, nor the very different opinion held and expressed by Brigham Young and most of the others of that time, were ever put to the process by which doctrine is established. It was not, in the time that Joseph Smith was leading the church, any kind of official doctrine that Negroes were intended to be equal to other races; nor, when Brigham Young took over, did it become official doctrine that Negroes were intended to be inferior.

It seems, by way of analogy, to be worth mentioning something I heard a few years back about Pope John Paul II. He supposedly expressed the opinion that animals have souls, and that they go to heaven; but he was careful to make it clear that he was expressing his own belief, and not something that was to be taken as an authoritative Catholic doctrine. I could wish that a lot of our leaders, even today, were as careful about what they say and write as the Pope was in this instance.

Ah, yes, the old "the Bible doesn't really say that or if it does, that's not what it meant" defense.

[tsig]

Ah, yes, the old "the Bible doesn't really say that or if it does, that's not what it meant" defense.

It's the original "Get out of jail free" card. Playable any time a logical trap is spotted.

"My infallible prophet said that?!!"

As Joseph Smith, Jr. said " A prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as such"

[cwalner]

I think the more relivant question is does god talk to the pope.
No, but Alan Rickman might. :boxedin:

[The Nimble Pianist]

There is — and has been from the beginning — a specific process by which doctrine is established in the church. This process requires unanimous agreement among the President (prophet) and the Twelve Apostles.

[...]

Especially in the early days, many of our leaders were often careless about making clear the distinction between when they were stating official policy and doctrine, and when they were expressing their opinions; and also especially in the early days, there was a certain amount of carelessness similarly regarding what was published. In much more recent years, processes have been established, that didn't previously exist, for vetting material that is put forth in official church publications, to insure a high degree of consistency with established doctrine.


In other words, 21st century backpedaling, just as I surmised.

Thank you for making my point for me Bob. It saved me 20 minutes.

[The Nimble Pianist]

:confused: So what is LDS doctrine on same sex marriage on the moon? (to wit: Do maters in craters traitor the Creator?) :dig: {sorry}

I note from your inhabitants of the moon (http://www.challengemin.org/moon.html) link that Brigham Young also was convinced the sun was inhabited:



What then is the LDS position on inter-"planetary"* marriage? Has it been revealed yet whether a relationship between a moon-guy and a sun-girl is delightsome in God's eyes, or de-fright-some? Despite some orthodox thoughts to the contrary, I believe a just and loving God, if we are truly made in His image, would wholeheartedly approve of, and probably pay a handsome ransom and then some, to take in some intense close-up cool moon-lass on hot sun-chick action. And if a moon-dude and a sun-stud wish to consecrate their otherworldly affection, He ought to send martian roses and a bottle of venusian brandy. And I ain't even an LDS prophet! Why, one almost gets the feeling that anyone could make this crap up -- it's only a matter of finding people stupid enough to believe you. Wonder if John Gray (http://www.marsvenus.com/xcart/product.php?productid=66&cat=0&page=1&featured) was Mormon? :cupid: *[to be picky, the sun is a star, the moon a satellite]

Oh no, remember that The Journal of Discourses is only Brigham Young's personal opinion. It doesn't count anymore.

[RandFan]

There is — and has been from the beginning — a specific process by which doctrine is established in the church. This process requires unanimous agreement among the President (prophet) and the Twelve Apostles.

Especially in the early days, many of our leaders were often careless about making clear the distinction between when they were stating official policy and doctrine, and when they were expressing their opinions; and also especially in the early days, there was a certain amount of carelessness similarly regarding what was published. In much more recent years, processes have been established, that didn't previously exist, for vetting material that is put forth in official church publications, to insure a high degree of consistency with established doctrine. So, I'm confused, was the process there from the beginning or wasn't it?

And here's a question: Does the average Mormon know what official church doctrine is on subjects such as blood doctine and Native American DNA and the Book of Abraham? My anecdotal experience says no.

When prosecutors were trying to get Mark Hoffman to accept a plea agreement his father was against it because of blood atonement. Church officials admitted at that time that blood atonement was not official doctrine. (http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no62.htm#BLOOD ATONEMENT)

[The Nimble Pianist]

Every single Mormon I have ever encountered has presumed to state what God can and will do. They have also told me everything he has done, and what he thinks about every single issue. They insist that they do not just "believe" all these things but "know" them. You show no sign of being an exception.

The arrogance of Mormons never ceases to astound me.

In all fairness, there are a number of topics which the LDS Church is either utterly silent on, or grants its members great liberty in thought which results in an array of opinions across Mormondom. Granted, once a current "prophet, seer, and revelator" makes his opinion known, contemporary devout Mormons will follow suit because LDS laypeople have know real way of knowing when a prophet is speaking in the capacity of a prophet and when in the capacity of a human being with his two cents.


There are many qualities of God that are mysterious in LDS theology and others that are neatly spelled out. It's a dogma of the faith that God is not trinitarian, that Heavenly Father has a physical body of flesh and bone (but not blood), and that he has at least one wife. How many wives, what their roles are in human affairs, and what God's relationship to her/all of them are left up to one's personal opinion.

[The Nimble Pianist]

So, I'm confused, was the process there from the beginning or wasn't it?


I quoted the same thing, but bolded the wrong part.


Yeah! What Rand said! :blush:

[The Nimble Pianist]

I think the more relivant question is does god talk to the pope. And as I understand it the answer is that he is guided by the holy spirit.


Not too different from LDS belief. As I understand it, Catholics believe the Holy Spirit is God.

LDS believe that their prophets receive revelation from God, which may or may not (typically the latter) involve actual visions where some embodied spirit literally makes an appearance. Most "revelation" involve "burning in the bosom" or dreams. I wouldn't be surprised if Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit uses the same media by which to guide the Pope.

[RandFan]

I quoted the same thing, but bolded the wrong part.


Yeah! What Rand said!I thought that was the case and I thought your point deserved a more focused view. You deserve the credit for that cop.

The explanations are all post hoc. Why is that?

Mormons: Prophets speak on behalf of god.
Prophet: The moon is inhabited.
Critics: The moon is not inhabited.
Mormons: Oh, uh... well, prophets only speak on behalf of god when they are speaking on behalf of god.
Critics: And how do we know when that is?
Mormons: Oh, uh... well, we have this process that has existed from the beginning and in recent years a specific process has been established...

The ever shifiting sands of belief. Make it up as you go along.

[hgc]

Why did Joseph Smith provided detail of what moon men looked like and how they dressed?

Hello god... are you there?

Now, let's consider that the "moon men" opinion was delivered during a sermon in the Tabernacle and Brigham Young stated:

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon and it is as good Scripture as they deserve" (Ibid, p. 95).


That's what you call oops and meta-oops. Here's some nonsense, and oh-by-the-way all my nonsense is god's word.

I am stunned to see an adherent like Bob having to admit that the early, revered leaders of the church were not speaking scripture when a) they clearly said they were speaking scripture, and b) contemporaneous adherents believed and acted as if they were speaking scripture.

[Toke]

Terry Prachet must be refering to mormonism in "Monsterous Regiment" where the god of nugga is one of relevations.
Their holy book is kind of a ringbinder with room for lots new pages.

"The devils party, a history of charlatan messiahs" by Colin Wilson is quite interesting.
With David Koresh as the posterboy, it covers a long string of prophets/messiahs and what makes them and their followers tick.

[The Nimble Pianist]

I am stunned to see an adherent like Bob having to admit that the early, revered leaders of the church were not speaking scripture when a) they clearly said they were speaking scripture, and b) contemporaneous adherents believed and acted as if they were speaking scripture.

Which brings us right back to the purpose of this thread.

See how adimant Bob is in stating that homosexuality is always and everywhere an affront to the Lord because:

1. The scriptures say so, and
2. all the prophets have said so.

I'm curious now what the LDS evolution on the nature and punishment of homosexuality is through documentation. I've never actually done much digging.

If I recall correctly, there is no prohibition explicitly mentioned in any of the uniquely-LDS scriptures (Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price), only in the Bible.

Old Testament doesn't tell us why gays are gay, only that they should be put to death for, at least, acting on it.

The New Testament tells us that homosexuality is an active choice brought about by the consequence of shunning God (see Romans) and that those who practice homosexuality will not go to heaven.

Now what's left is to see what LDS prophets have said about the matter. I know the LDS today are open to the possibility that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual could be an innate quality of a person. All I need are some previous church publications that deny this...

[cwalner]

Terry Prachet must be refering to mormonism in "Monsterous Regiment" where the god of nugga is one of relevations.
Their holy book is kind of a ringbinder with room for lots new pages.


I never quite got that. I always took that book as a general criticism of using revelation as a source for earthly government and politics.

Though your point about Mormonism being one of the few religions of significant political influence that actually accepts modern revelation is intriguing. I may need to reread in that light.

[Toke]

Mormonism is the only religion I am aware off that have "regular" relevations to make it fit society. The popes celestial phoneline is not as obvius relevation like to me.

I am not raised as religius and have only limited interest and knowlegde of religions.

[tsig]

Mormonism is the only religion I am aware off that have "regular" relevations to make it fit society. The popes celestial phoneline is not as obvius relevation like to me.

I am not raised as religius and have only limited interest and knowlegde of religions.

The Mormons just don't have the funny dresses and the latin phrases (ex cathedra), other than that they're identical.

[The Norseman]

"The devils party, a history of charlatan messiahs" by Colin Wilson is quite interesting.
With David Koresh as the posterboy, it covers a long string of prophets/messiahs and what makes them and their followers tick.

Thanks for the title, I'm going to be checking it out.

[blobru]

Oh no, remember that The Journal of Discourses is only Brigham Young's personal opinion. It doesn't count anymore.


:mad: Jiminy Crickets, what kind of a crazy tease religion is this anyway! Are there people on the sun, or aren't there? Sure there's no evidence that anyone could live on a five & a half thousand degree fireball, but who cares?! Next they'll be saying that Native Americans aren't really a lost tribe of Israel, just because there's no evidence to support that either. Evidence, schmevidence -- the man's a prophet, dammit!! With his own university!! And a pretty good football team, even if they do play in the WAC [snicker]. Show the guy a little respect, please.

Man, this is all so confusing. And I was all set to convert, too. :(

[Akhenaten]

I am not raised as religius and have only limited interest and knowlegde of religions.


I knew there was a reason I liked you straight away. ;)