Page 1 of 5
A different angle: Validity of mainstream Mormons
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:33 am
by _Polygamy Porter
While watching
Lifting the Veil of Polygamy I had a thought.
Perhaps our discussions and arguments with the defenders here are focusing on the wrong point in the timeline of Mormonism.
We need to stop arguing about everything prior to the 1890 manifesto.
Should we not be focusing on whether the mainstream LDS church is in apostasy first?
Should we not be dissecting the statements of Wilford Woodruff to determine if he was wrong?
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:40 am
by _The Nehor
I think it would be more advisable to ask God if Wilford Woodruff was wrong. Otherwise by what standard do you judge apostasy?
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:45 am
by _Polygamy Porter
The Nehor wrote:I think it would be more advisable to ask God if Wilford Woodruff was wrong. Otherwise by what standard do you judge apostasy?
I see where this is headed.
So then with that, if one feels that god tells them that polygamy, like Smith, Young, et al. taught, is divine, would you advise them to follow that feeling?
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:49 am
by _The Nehor
Polygamy Porter wrote:The Nehor wrote:I think it would be more advisable to ask God if Wilford Woodruff was wrong. Otherwise by what standard do you judge apostasy?
I see where this is headed.
So then with that, if one feels that god tells them that polygamy, like Smith, Young, et al. taught, is divine, would you advise them to follow that premonition?
If you're sure it's God telling you, then yes.
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:51 am
by _Polygamy Porter
The Nehor wrote:Polygamy Porter wrote:The Nehor wrote:I think it would be more advisable to ask God if Wilford Woodruff was wrong. Otherwise by what standard do you judge apostasy?
I see where this is headed.
So then with that, if one feels that god tells them that polygamy, like Smith, Young, et al. taught, is divine, would you advise them to follow that premonition?
If you're sure it's God telling you, then yes.
You make no sense as a Mormon. All other are wrong. Sure, they are free to make that "wrong" choice, but according to Mormon theology, bottom line, non mainstream-mormons, all other faiths , are wrong.
Why would god tell someone to follow a lie?
Re: A different angle: Validity of mainstream Mormons
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:10 am
by _Jersey Girl
Polygamy Porter wrote:While watching
Lifting the Veil of Polygamy I had a thought.
Perhaps our discussions and arguments with the defenders here are focusing on the wrong point in the timeline of Mormonism.
We need to stop arguing about everything prior to the 1890 manifesto.
Should we not be focusing on whether the mainstream LDS church is in apostasy first?
Should we not be dissecting the statements of Wilford Woodruff to determine if he was wrong?
You know what, Porter? I think it was harmony who asked here once if the church wasn't in a state of current apostasy. Very cool question! Thanks for bringing it up!
Re: A different angle: Validity of mainstream Mormons
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:20 am
by _Polygamy Porter
Jersey Girl wrote:Polygamy Porter wrote:While watching
Lifting the Veil of Polygamy I had a thought.
Perhaps our discussions and arguments with the defenders here are focusing on the wrong point in the timeline of Mormonism.
We need to stop arguing about everything prior to the 1890 manifesto.
Should we not be focusing on whether the mainstream LDS church is in apostasy first?
Should we not be dissecting the statements of Wilford Woodruff to determine if he was wrong?
You know what, Porter? I think it was harmony who asked here once if the church wasn't in a state of current apostasy. Very cool question! Thanks for bringing it up!
You are too kind ;)
I just thought that perhaps we should decide whether Wilford Woodruff was wrong before we decide if the common doctrines of the two organizations are divine.
Is it not contradictory to say
"god is the same today, yesterday, and forever" but then brag that
"modern revelation" allows the doctrines of god to change?
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:25 am
by _Tarski
The Nehor wrote:I think it would be more advisable to ask God if Wilford Woodruff was wrong. Otherwise by what standard do you judge apostasy?
That asking God thing apparently leads some people to one conclusion and others to another. Not a method with a good track record.
Don't FLDS ask God too?
Re: A different angle: Validity of mainstream Mormons
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:33 am
by _Jersey Girl
Polygamy Porter wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:Polygamy Porter wrote:While watching
Lifting the Veil of Polygamy I had a thought.
Perhaps our discussions and arguments with the defenders here are focusing on the wrong point in the timeline of Mormonism.
We need to stop arguing about everything prior to the 1890 manifesto.
Should we not be focusing on whether the mainstream LDS church is in apostasy first?
Should we not be dissecting the statements of Wilford Woodruff to determine if he was wrong?
You know what, Porter? I think it was harmony who asked here once if the church wasn't in a state of current apostasy. Very cool question! Thanks for bringing it up!
You are too kind ;)
I just thought that perhaps we should decide whether Wilford Woodruff was wrong before we decide if the common doctrines of the two organizations are divine.
Is it not contradictory to say
"god is the same today, yesterday, and forever" but then brag that
"modern revelation" allows the doctrines of god to change?
You did! You thought! Love it! Is that a WW quote there? I hate to tell you, EV's use the exact same phrase. Why would God change his mind? Doesn't God know what God thinks the first time around?
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:34 am
by _Polygamy Porter
Tarski wrote:The Nehor wrote:I think it would be more advisable to ask God if Wilford Woodruff was wrong. Otherwise by what standard do you judge apostasy?
That asking God thing apparently leads some people to one conclusion and others to another. Not a method with a good track record.
Don't FLDS ask God too?
*internet crickets chirping in the direction of Nehor*