Marlin K Jensen: Large numbers NOT apostatizing

[_malkie]

Although Woodruff claimed it was a revelation from God that caused the public abandonment of polygamy, even he acknowledged that the revelation came about because of societal pressure.

Nothing wrong with that. Joseph Smith himself came to the First Vision as result of societal pressure. But some people are under the mistaken impression that any doctrine can be changed via such pressure. The ones in question typically are morality issues or higher law issues or missed the mark on social pressure and in none of those cases did the doctrine actually change.

Could you pls explain what "societal pressure" brought Joseph Smith to the First Vision - I'm really not sure what you mean by that statement.

Also, which doctrines do you think are changeable "via such pressure"?

I'm also having a hard time determining what your last sentence means. Are you saying that no doctrines have actually changed, even the ones that appear to have done so due to societal pressure?

Thanks.

[_bcspace]

bcspace still believes Polygamy is doctrinal despite Hinckley saying he believed it wasn't doctrinal.

He never said any such thing. Even been over this with Juliann and she could not point to anything.

bcspace gets around this by saying that what Hinckley meant was, it's not doctrinal at the current time.

Nope. If I recall correctly it's that Hinckely carefully avoids stating it's not doctrine or was wrong; something like that.

But it was live doctrine before and it could be live doctrine again, it just isn't live doctrine right now.

The doctrine, in a nutshell, actually is that God authorizes plural marriage from time to time. Therefore it's just as much doctrine today as it was prior to 1890. So the real question is one of authorization, not doctrine.

bcspace also still believes that a black skin is the sign of the curse God places on unrighteous people.

Never has been doctrine because there are unrighteous people extant in all times who have not had their skin color changed because of it.

But as for the priesthood ban, the same as plural marriage applies. It happened. It has not been repudiated. Therefore, it is still doctrine. We are simply in the phase where they have the full blessings of the Priesthood.

Could you pls explain what "societal pressure" brought Joseph Smith to the First Vision - I'm really not sure what you mean by that statement.

Joseph Smith himself referred to it. It was the "great excitement" of religious revival that caused him to search teh scriptures and ask.

Also, which doctrines do you think are changeable "via such pressure"?

I think there are doctrines which are so fundamental that they can't be changed because we already know everything we need top know about the issue. Typcially morality issues, priesthood, atonement, and such. Everything else would just be speculation as to whether not they could change.

I'm also having a hard time determining what your last sentence means. Are you saying that no doctrines have actually changed, even the ones that appear to have done so due to societal pressure?

Not saying that no doctrines have ever changed, but yes, the ones most often cited as changed (plural marriage, priesthood ban, homosexuality) have not changed at all. In the case of the first two, we are merely in a different phase of the doctrine. In the case of the latter, the Church has merely emphasized another face, another side to the same coin.

[_Jason Bourne]

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polyg ... amy18.html

The LDS Church renounced polygamy more than a century ago and has had nothing to do with it ever since, Mormon President Gordon B. Hinckley said Tuesday in condemning the modern practice of plural marriage in Utah.

In an hour long interview with Cable News Network host Larry King, the 88-year-old leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints displayed characteristic wit and composure in responding to questions about his church, the President Clinton debacle, the nation's moral climate and even Mark McGwire's historic 62nd home run.

In recent months, Utah and national news organizations have reported heavily on polygamy, a vestige of the LDS Church's early history, in light of criminal child-abuse and incest charges leveled against two members of a shadowy Utah polygamous group.

When King asked him about the subject, Hinckley explained that Mormon pioneers brought plural marriage with them when they settled the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, but only ``on a restricted scale . . . it was practiced by between 2 and 5 percent of the people and it was carefully safeguarded.''

In 1890, Mormon President Wilford Woodruff ``received a revelation that it was time to discontinue it,'' Hinckley said. Six years later -- in part because of that decision -- Utah was allowed to become a state.

Since then, however, breakaway groups have continued to live in plural marriages, but only at the cost of excommunication from the LDS Church.

``It's behind us,'' said Hinckley, a man believed to be a ``prophet, seer and revelator'' by the church's 10 million members. ``I condemn it as a practice. It is not doctrinal. It is not legal.''

Current polygamists in Utah ``don't belong to the church,'' he said. ``There are no Mormon fundamentalists.''

The church has no position on whether to prosecute today's polygamists, he said. ``We are totally distant from it . . . it is outside our responsibility.''

Some scholars have noted that certain church leaders stayed in plural marriages even after the ``Woodruff Manifesto'' and say the principle has not been erased from Mormon scripture.

Granted thought I will give to you that an interview by Larry King is not binding on the Church.

[_Runtu]

Granted thought I will give to you that an interview by Larry King is not binding on the Church.

But that's the problem, Jason. A prophet can say anything he wants and claim it's revelation and even teach it at conference and in the temple, and then later someone says, "Oh, it was just personal opinion. It's not 'official.'" It's a cop-out that allows people to avoid the troubling crap that prophets have taught. Either they are prophets, or they aren't. It says a lot that we can't know whether a prophet's words are inspired or revealed until a committee of paid church employees gives the OK.

[_subgenius]

The Church arrives late to the party and then forgets to bring a bottle...

cute...but all you have done is avoid backing up your statement with evidence and/or facts.
I am willing to recognize that it is simply your personal (and cynical) speculation/delusion.
Unless you just forgot to actually "prove it".

[_subgenius]

...subgenious, are you seriously going to argue that the abandonment of polygamy by the church was not done in reaction (and thus, was "reactive") to societal pressure?

I never proposed any argument on the subject. I simply asked Drifting to prove his rather exaggerated (as usual) claim - for which he has yet to do (as usual).

Though i appreciate your Woodruff quote it hardly substantiates the claim that Drifting initially made.
Whereas one might consider the "pressure" from society as a cause of the alleged retraction of polygamy, it is apparent that Woodruff considers the law as the more emphatic cause. Now if it is your position that the law is the same as "society" then we can certainly proceed with future discussions with the consideration of that being your position.
Drifting said:

These two changes were made because of pressure from society, not from God. They were reactive not proactive

2 count them 2 changes.
You have, at best, provided some support for one change...but hardly evidence enough for anything more than speculation. Your own post reiterates that Woodruff stated it was from "revelation"...your subsequent reference of Woodruff speaking about a "wiser choice" is not so convincing as "pressure from society".

In FACT, the whole position of your argument is based on a pressure from society that was "revealed"...not any actual pressure that occurred.

But, please...proceed to provide actual evidence, at the same level as is requested of me, that proves otherwise.
personally i have already accepted that Drifting was just pontificating (as usual)

[_subgenius]

...A prophet can say anything he wants and claim it's revelation....

simply not true.
hyperbole

[_Runtu]

simply not true.
hyperbole

What restrictions would you put on a prophet if he says something and claims it was revealed to him?

[_bcspace]

Granted thought I will give to you that an interview by Larry King is not binding on the Church.

But that's the problem, Jason. A prophet can say anything he wants and claim it's revelation and even teach it at conference and in the temple, and then later someone says, "Oh, it was just personal opinion. It's not 'official.'" It's a cop-out that allows people to avoid the troubling crap that prophets have taught. Either they are prophets, or they aren't. It says a lot that we can't know whether a prophet's words are inspired or revealed until a committee of paid church employees gives the OK.

It's not a cop out by any stretch. It's simply following what's long been established. Beginning with D&C 107, we see that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are equal in authority and therefore, all 15 must agree of doctrine. Even WW had to get approval for the Manifesto (and it took two months If I recall correctly).

So now that you have been reminded and keep being reminded of the clear rule for identifying doctrine, you can't accept it because it invalidates many of your cherished criticism.

The fact of the matter is that the scriptures are only a tiny tiny portion of all the words ever spoken by the prophets gleaned over long periods of time. And so here is yet another example of why you must accept the Church standard for doctrine besides common sense.

[_Drifting]

The Church arrives late to the party and then forgets to bring a bottle...

cute...but all you have done is avoid backing up your statement with evidence and/or facts.
I am willing to recognize that it is simply your personal (and cynical) speculation/delusion.
Unless you just forgot to actually "prove it".

LOL!
What came first?

Pressure from non Mormon citizens about the Church's polygamous practice or the revelation making it an ex communicable offence?

Pressure from non Mormon sports teams and government officials about it's doctrinal position on blacks or the revelation reversing the position?

If you don't already know the answers then perhaps you wish to properly research the topics to factually repudiate my pontificating.

I look forward to your substantial rebuttal....