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

[MG 2.0]

You are proposing a God who is ultimately alone in the universe who sits around eternity upon eternity?

This is a gross simplification of what most Christians mean when they say God. To respond in kind to illustrate what you’re doing:

You are proposing a Mormon God with a physical body who has to sit on the toilet several times a day, if he is eating enough fiber?

Does he sometimes reminisce fondly about the time he physically impregnated the 14 year old Mary to produce Jesus?

And this is all a gross simplification of the God of the universe.

Rather banal and lacking imagination.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

This is an example of you being rude towards another poster MG. Maybe, instead of criticising Malkie personally, you could instead address his conclusion objectively, and demonstrate that Mormon god’s revelations have been reliable, and don’t need special pleadings nor excuses.

I think I've already outlined my thoughts in regards to revelation earlier in this thread. When you say that revelations have to be reliable I'm not quite sure that what you think this means dovetails with what I think revelation (pg. 4 of this thread) is and what it entails.

Regards,
MG

Have you replied to the wrong post? Because what you said in your reply has absolutely zero connection with the post I made pointing out that you were being rude to Malkie rather than addressing the content of his post.

[I Have Questions]

This is a gross simplification of what most Christians mean when they say God. To respond in kind to illustrate what you’re doing:

You are proposing a Mormon God with a physical body who has to sit on the toilet several times a day, if he is eating enough fiber?

Does he sometimes reminisce fondly about the time he physically impregnated the 14 year old Mary to produce Jesus?

And this is all a gross simplification of the God of the universe.

Rather banal and lacking imagination.

Regards,
MG

This is a also rude reply that attacks the poster rather than responding to and refuting the content of what that poster said. Show that drumdude has given a gross simplification of your version of a God of the universe, give some examples of your point, provide some reference materials etc.

[MG 2.0]

I think I've already outlined my thoughts in regards to revelation earlier in this thread. When you say that revelations have to be reliable I'm not quite sure that what you think this means dovetails with what I think revelation (pg. 4 of this thread) is and what it entails.

Regards,
MG

Have you replied to the wrong post? Because what you said in your reply has absolutely zero connection with the post I made pointing out that you were being rude to Malkie rather than addressing the content of his post.

Actually, it does.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Getting back to malkie's comment and the topic,

Mormon god's revelations are simply unreliable, absent all sorts of excuses, special pleadings, and "interpretations" with no better foundation than the revelations themselves.

Yes. They seem as reliable as a Magic 8 Ball. The Church has learned not to call anything specifically a revelation. Sure, they’ll say that General Conference contains revelation for members, but they won’t be specific about which statements are, or aren’t “revelations”. Now it’s all just policies and pr statements. The last time anyone declared a specific thing was a “revelation” was Nelson when he declared Gays were apostates and God didn’t want their kids in His church. That was u-turned within weeks. Farcical.

Now if President Taylor really did receive a revelation about polygamy, then the current SLC Church is operating in apostasy. If President Taylor didn’t receive a revelation then no President can be trusted to know what is, or what isn’t the will of God.

It really is that simple.

The LDS church is now admitting Taylor did have a revelation, as I understand it. Of course, it doesn't fit in with their sanitized version of events, but what does?

[drumdude]

Mormons have already been indoctrinated to believe that old prophet’s words are no longer relevant.

Just like whatever false revelations Rusty Nelson has for us today will be irrelevant when they are exposed in a few decades.

Mormons need only to be taught to follow whatever their leaders are currently teaching, and to think no further.

[MG 2.0]

Mormons have already been indoctrinated to believe that old prophet’s words are no longer relevant.

Just like whatever false revelations Rusty Nelson has for us today will be irrelevant when they are exposed in a few decades.

Mormons need only to be taught to follow whatever their leaders are currently teaching, and to think no further.

It's not a systematic either/or on each and every revelation. If you read my post on page four I brought up the possibility that revelation is time sensitive and also dependent on acceptance/non acceptance. There is also the consideration of higher law/lower law. All the way around and to some extent or another revelation is conditional. Revelation and doctrine are related and somewhat synonymous and yet different in some respects. As I said, there are a lot of moving parts.

Critics want to pin down the prophets. That way when things don't go according to planned expectations they can nail them and call out, "False prophet!"

There is really nothing new to see here except for new voices and new things/conditions to complain about.

Remember, revelation is only one component in an otherwise chaotic and unpredictable world. Does God know the end from the beginning? Sure. But that doesn't then mean that decisions and actions in the short term aren't in 'real time' and revelation then, by necessity, fits within that framework.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Does God know the end from the beginning? Sure.

I don’t believe that’s within the Mormon God’s capabilities. Remember, he is not the creator of the universe. He’s merely a more powerful homo sapiens within it.

[Marcus]

Mormons have already been indoctrinated to believe that old prophet’s words are no longer relevant.

Just like whatever false revelations Rusty Nelson has for us today will be irrelevant when they are exposed in a few decades.

Mormons need only to be taught to follow whatever their leaders are currently teaching, and to think no further.

I agree. Do you think that is why they allowed this revelation to be acknowledged, because they have laid the groundwork for rejecting past revelations, and therefore it's less damaging to admit it and discredit it, than to continue trying to hide it?

[drumdude]

Mormons have already been indoctrinated to believe that old prophet’s words are no longer relevant.

Just like whatever false revelations Rusty Nelson has for us today will be irrelevant when they are exposed in a few decades.

Mormons need only to be taught to follow whatever their leaders are currently teaching, and to think no further.

I agree. Do you think that is why they allowed this revelation to be acknowledged, because they have laid the groundwork for rejecting past revelations, and therefore it's less damaging to admit it and discredit it, than to continue trying to hide it?

A million percent. The members are so well trained to ignore the difficult issues now that they don’t even have to wrestle with these things anymore.