Willy Law wrote:Please help me to understand where you are coming from. Are you arguing that a letter from the first presidency does not indicate that it has the approval of the prophet?
No, what I'm saying is that the vague comment that there's a direct commandment somewhere does not actually establish a direct commandment.
LOL!! This is one of the funniest apologetic arguments ever.
How vague is this?
It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord
This statement came directly from the Prophet and his counselors. How could they have worded that in a way that it would establish for you that they really did receive a direct commandment? Is there any way they could make it less vague? How would you have worded it?
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Morley wrote:Neither did the 1890 Manifesto to end polygamy. Do you discount it as well?
maklelan wrote:Actually Woodruff has published his own account of the revelations that catalyzed the 1890 manifesto: ....
Morley wrote:Those explanations have not been canonized.
Aren't they part of OD1?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
maklelan wrote: No, what I'm saying is that the vague comment that there's a direct commandment somewhere does not actually establish a direct commandment.
LOL!! This is one of the funniest apologetic arguments ever.
How vague is this?
It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord
This statement came directly from the Prophet and his counselors. How could they have worded that in a way that it would establish for you that they really did receive a direct commandment? Is there any way they could make it less vague? How would you have worded it?
Mak has imposed a requirement that the First Presidency must actually describe the revelation or revelatory experience for it to constitute a "direct commandment." If they don't then anything they claim is a commandment could be just as false as the "policy" of denying blacks the priesthood.
I like this idea. Let's start applying Mak's test to other things that are currently considered "direct commandments" but for which no revelation was given. The obvious example is the Word of Wisdom. Where is the revelation that God forbids drinking "mild drinks made of barley." It is expressly permitted in the original "revelation," but was later deemed taboo through some misguided "policy" that is not backed up with a revelation. Same goes for coffee and tea (at least frappucinos and iced tea).
Another example is tithing. The revelation says it should be paid on your increase, but through some misguided "policy" that is not backed up by a revelation, the First Presidency has interpreted that to mean "income."
This is only the beginning. Do you want to wear two sets of earrings, be immodest, not wear the garment day and night? No problem! Those misguided "policies" were never backed up by revelations. The list is endless.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Willy Law wrote:Please help me to understand where you are coming from. Are you arguing that a letter from the first presidency does not indicate that it has the approval of the prophet?
No, what I'm saying is that the vague comment that there's a direct commandment somewhere does not actually establish a direct commandment.
I have to agree with Dark Helmet. How could the First Presidency make the following statement any less vague? It actually has the word "direct" right in the statement. I'm not sure how much more "direct" the brethren could have made it.
The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. Bruce R. McConkie
Fifth Columnist wrote:Mak has imposed a requirement that the First Presidency must actually describe the revelation or revelatory experience for it to constitute a "direct commandment." If they don't then anything they claims is a commandment could be just as false as the "policy" of denying blacks the priesthood.
I like this idea.
I like it too. Mak doesn't seem to realize that he has joined the critics. When the prophet and his counselors come right out and say they received a direct commandment from the Lord, most TBMs believe them. Mak doesn't. Neither do the critics. What conclusion can be made when the FP composes a written statement saying they received a direct commandment from the Lord, and you believe they really did not receive a direct revelation? They must be lying, right? Why else would they say they received a revelation when they obviously did not? Could they be honestly mistaken? Is there a prankster in a God costume appearing before the Prophet and giving them commandments?
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Fifth Columnist wrote:Mak has imposed a requirement that the First Presidency must actually describe the revelation or revelatory experience for it to constitute a "direct commandment." If they don't then anything they claims is a commandment could be just as false as the "policy" of denying blacks the priesthood.
I like this idea. Let's start applying Mak's test to other things that are currently considered "direct commandments" but for which no revelation was given. The obvious example is the Word of Wisdom. Where is the revelation that God forbids drinking "mild drinks made of barley." It is expressly permitted in the original "revelation," but was later deemed taboo through some misguided "policy" that is not backed up with a revelation. Same goes for coffee and tea (at least frappucinos and iced tea).
Another example is tithing. The revelation says it should be paid on your increase, but through some misguided "policy" that is not backed up by a revelation, the First Presidency has interpreted that to mean "income."
This is only the beginning. Do you want to wear two sets of earrings, be immodest, not wear the garment day and night? No problem! Those misguided "policies" were never backed up by revelations. The list is endless.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Ironic that the god of the only true church can not give better direction to his chosen leaders. As this type of mish mash and disclaiming previous statements is persistent in the church, I am left to conclude that the god of Mormonism is an author of confusion.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
Actually, Mak is right. It's not canonized, it's not in the canon... thus, it's not binding.
Good grief, y'all are as black and white as any TBM!
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
