Church previously denied a John Taylor revelation on polygamy now admits it

[canpakes]

Brian Hales chimes in on Stephen Smoot's public Facebook page to try and save him.

I respectfully disagree.

It is true JT was asking about continuing plural marriage and that he interpreted the revelation as God saying it was to continue. However, for me, the words in the revelation are highly ambiguous when cross-referenced to the verbiage in section 132 and the many terms early Church leaders used to refer to eternal marriage and plural marriage. Strict interpretations are not possible in my view.

More importantly, D&C 132:18 tells us that all eternal marriages must be “through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power,” meaning the “one” man mentioned in verse 7; otherwise, “it is not valid neither of force.” Consequently, the only person’s opinion regarding the meaning of the 1886 revelation is that of the “one” man holding the keys, which passed from Joseph Smith to BY at his death.

The bolded part about strict interpretations not being possible with JT’s revelation looks to be followed by a strict interpretation of 132:18.

What I’m curious about is how to read Hales’s interpretation of 132:18. I don't see that it dissuades the practice of plural marriage as opposed to merely asserting which of them may be ‘valid’. I guess that I’m not seeing Brian’s point, nor how 132:18 preemptively denies JT’s revelation, but my knowledge of LDS history is shakier than most.

[MG 2.0]

this 'branch' is the only one that has successfully become an international church able to 'spread the gospel throughout the world' before the second coming of Christ.

Argument from popularity is a fool's errand.

But the church isn't "popular" in the sense that it is one of the largest religious systems in the world. It is, however, the restoration movement that began with the Joseph Smith story that has become the largest.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Argument from popularity is a fool's errand.

But the church isn't "popular" in the sense that it is one of the largest religious systems in the world. It is, however, the restoration movement that began with the Joseph Smith story that has become the largest.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point.

Regards,
MG

Your explanation is an ever decreasing circle. You’re drawing targets around where arrows fell in the hopes of maintaining the belief system that you were brought up in.

Keep moving those goalposts MG until you find a little corner in which your belief choice is justified by something other than it was what you were brought up with.

[MG 2.0]

But the church isn't "popular" in the sense that it is one of the largest religious systems in the world. It is, however, the restoration movement that began with the Joseph Smith story that has become the largest.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point.

Regards,
MG

Your explanation is an ever decreasing circle. You’re drawing targets around where arrows fell in the hopes of maintaining the belief system that you were brought up in.

Keep moving those goalposts MG until you find a little corner in which your belief choice is justified by something other than it was what you were brought up with.

You're coming up empty.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Argument from popularity is a fool's errand.

But the church isn't "popular" in the sense that it is one of the largest religious systems in the world. It is, however, the restoration movement that began with the Joseph Smith story that has become the largest.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point.

Regards,
MG

You're still not being clear. What you’re saying is, that out of all the minority religious sects that stem from Joseph Smith, the one that you were brought up in has become the minority Mormon sect with more claimed members than the other minority Mormon sects. That’s why you have chosen to believe in it. It’s definitely nothing to do with the fact that it’s also the minority Mormon sect that your parents were members of, and also the minority Mormon sect that you were born into and were brought up attending, which teaches it’s young and impressionable members (like you were) that it’s the one true Church. All of that is entirely coincidental and were you to have been raised in a Muslim family you’d definitely have still chosen to believe in a minority Mormon sect that was founded in America.

Note: Some parts of my post may contain sarcasm

[I Have Questions]

I think the John Taylor revelation (now quietly slipped into the available Church archives) prompts one of two, mutually exclusive, conclusions.

Either John Taylor was a Prophet who received a revelation from God, and the Church should still be practicing polygamy today.

Or John Taylor was mistaken and we cannot trust Prophets to know what is and what isn’t a revelation.

[MG 2.0]

But the church isn't "popular" in the sense that it is one of the largest religious systems in the world. It is, however, the restoration movement that began with the Joseph Smith story that has become the largest.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point.

Regards,
MG

You're still not being clear. What you’re saying is, that out of all the minority religious sects that stem from Joseph Smith, the one that you were brought up in has become the minority Mormon sect with more claimed members than the other minority Mormon sects. That’s why you have chosen to believe in it. It’s definitely nothing to do with the fact that it’s also the minority Mormon sect that your parents were members of, and also the minority Mormon sect that you were born into and were brought up attending, which teaches it’s young and impressionable members (like you were) that it’s the one true Church. All of that is entirely coincidental and were you to have been raised in a Muslim family you’d definitely have still chosen to believe in a minority Mormon sect that was founded in America.

Note: Some parts of my post may contain sarcasm.

I will have to leave it there and let you have the last word on this matter even though I disagree with your simplistic view. I am a bit more complex and 'aware' vs. the caricature you would like to portray/build of a believer in the truth claims of the CofJCofLDS.

I know that I can't dissuade you of your own biases and predispositions that you have towards those that hold true to their covenants as followers of Jesus Christ.

It is He whom we follow rather than the dictates of man. It is Him to whom we look.

And yes, even though you may not accept the fact, I think I am fully aware of the choices I've made vs. the options and other philosophical viewpoints in dealing with our place in this world we inhabit.

Regards,
MG

[sock puppet]

Seems like a lot a of mental gymnastics would be required to explain this away. If only there were a Mental Gymnast around these parts who could give it the old college try.

The only apologetic that I can think of, and it's rather basic, is asking the question(s), "Did a restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ really happen?" Angels and divine beings and such. If the answer is yes, then secondarily, "Were there priesthood keys restored that were necessary in administering the ordinances of the Gospel?" Assuming that ordinances such as baptism/HG, etc., through divine authority are necessary. Thirdly, "Where do those keys reside today?"

If the answer to the first two questions is yes, then I place my bet on the CofJCofLDS as being the repository of that authority, including the sealing keys. If the answer to the first two questions is no, then the third question is obviously superfluous and unnecessary.

The reason I place my bet on the S.L. church is that this 'branch' is the only one that has successfully become an international church able to 'spread the gospel throughout the world' before the second coming of Christ.

Again, all bets are off if 1. There is no God 2. There was no need for a restoration 3. Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet...etc. (other reasons could be given).

I choose to believe in God as a creator. I choose to think that God speaks today in our time through scriptures and prophets.

To keep this short...I think John Taylor may have had this revelation...it may have been revoked...and the keys of sealing went with the S.L. church.

Regards,
MG

The questions you posit are not answerable. There is no evidence for the propositions posed by those questions. The only rational answer to them, is No, there was no restoration, if there ever was a gospel of Jesus Christ other than as persisted (and needed no restoration). No, priesthood keys were not restored (if ever existed). Thus, it matters not who claims to have those "keys."

When you say you "choose to believe in God as a creator" and "choose to think that God speaks today...", you reveal too much. You made a choice with no evidence. Thus, you chose what you think best serves you personally. Nothing more to it.

[MG 2.0]

The only apologetic that I can think of, and it's rather basic, is asking the question(s), "Did a restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ really happen?" Angels and divine beings and such. If the answer is yes, then secondarily, "Were there priesthood keys restored that were necessary in administering the ordinances of the Gospel?" Assuming that ordinances such as baptism/HG, etc., through divine authority are necessary. Thirdly, "Where do those keys reside today?"

If the answer to the first two questions is yes, then I place my bet on the CofJCofLDS as being the repository of that authority, including the sealing keys. If the answer to the first two questions is no, then the third question is obviously superfluous and unnecessary.

The reason I place my bet on the S.L. church is that this 'branch' is the only one that has successfully become an international church able to 'spread the gospel throughout the world' before the second coming of Christ.

Again, all bets are off if 1. There is no God 2. There was no need for a restoration 3. Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet...etc. (other reasons could be given).

I choose to believe in God as a creator. I choose to think that God speaks today in our time through scriptures and prophets.

To keep this short...I think John Taylor may have had this revelation...it may have been revoked...and the keys of sealing went with the S.L. church.

Regards,
MG

The questions you posit are not answerable. There is no evidence for the propositions posed by those questions. The only rational answer to them, is No, there was no restoration, if there ever was a gospel of Jesus Christ other than as persisted (and needed no restoration). No, priesthood keys were not restored (if ever existed). Thus, it matters not who claims to have those "keys."

When you say you "choose to believe in God as a creator" and "choose to think that God speaks today...", you reveal too much. You made a choice with no evidence. Thus, you chose what you think best serves you personally. Nothing more to it.

Unfortunately, as with other responses to my posts, this is a rather simplistic/dismissive and ultimately empty response. I know that you may not mean it as such...but such it is.

To procure and present evidence across the chasm which separates a believer from the pure rationalist is almost an insurmountable divide.

A believer can only witness to what they believe/know based on the varied sources of evidence that they have seen/experienced. That cannot be transferred successfully to one who has determined that the only source for ALL truth is through pure rationalism and the wisdom of this world.

It's an impossible task.

But for those that are open to other ways, not ignoring looking at the world 'as it is'... in regards to discerning and obtaining knowledge/truth...it is to those that I look to for the more interesting conversations and am in what they have to say.

Not that the viewpoints of pure rationalists/secularists/materialists ought not to be looked at and considered.

In my view it is those that have cut off their options on ways to obtain truth/light/knowledge who are self limiting their avenues for learning/growth/progress.

Regards,
MG

[sock puppet]

The questions you posit are not answerable. There is no evidence for the propositions posed by those questions. The only rational answer to them, is No, there was no restoration, if there ever was a gospel of Jesus Christ other than as persisted (and needed no restoration). No, priesthood keys were not restored (if ever existed). Thus, it matters not who claims to have those "keys."

When you say you "choose to believe in God as a creator" and "choose to think that God speaks today...", you reveal too much. You made a choice with no evidence. Thus, you chose what you think best serves you personally. Nothing more to it.

Unfortunately, as with other responses to my posts, this is a rather simplistic/dismissive and ultimately empty response. I know that you may not mean it as such...but such it is.

To procure and present evidence across the chasm which separates a believer from the pure rationalist is almost an insurmountable divide.

A believer can only witness to what they believe/know based on the varied sources of evidence that they have seen/experienced. That cannot be transferred successfully to one who has determined that the only source for ALL truth is through pure rationalism and the wisdom of this world.

It's an impossible task.

But for those that are open to other ways, not ignoring looking at the world 'as it is'... in regards to discerning and obtaining knowledge/truth...it is to those that I look to for the more interesting conversations and am in what they have to say.

Not that the viewpoints of pure rationalists/secularists/materialists ought not to be looked at and considered.

In my view it is those that have cut off their options on ways to obtain truth/light/knowledge who are self limiting their avenues for learning/growth/progress.

Regards,
MG

If one is alone in his belief in the irrational, he might be institutionalized.

If one follows the herd in the same, shared irrational belief, it is heralded as "faith."