The Revelations of 1886 and 1978

[_Tobin]

Both teachings were in error and were corrected and ended. There isn't some magic seal, statement, standard protocol, or circle dance the prophet needs to do to put an end to it. It was ended. I don't know why you are hung up on some technicality that nobody cares about but you.

The process you are describing here for the development and implementation of policy is that of a secular organization.

The LDS Church is a man-made organization comprised of men leading it. I'm sure there are Mormons on here that think otherwise, but honestly you can't explain any of the many changes in it unless you realize that.

If the LDS Church makes its way by trial and error, as you have described, what need does it have for God?

Again, learning and adjusting is part of being human. The idea that the LDS Church has it all correct and is run by "God" is laughable. There is a great deal that is wrong with it and ignoring that and not making changes to it is silly. In fact, the problem with the LDS Church is it isn't adaptable enough in my opinion.

Is it not God's job to lead the Church so as to make it more honorable, trustworthy and reliable than a secular organization?

No. The LDS Church is just an assocation of members where you can discuss similar doctrines, help one another, and so on. It is not God's job to force people to be perfect or even make good choices.

What happened to the direct communication with a divine being in the management and operation of the church that is the only representative of the eternal and everlasting gospel on the Earth?

It is always there, but it is hardly something the LDS Church has a lock on. The responsibility of direct communication is between us and God. The whole reason that the LDS Church was formed in the first place was because preachers were teaching whatever they "felt" was best instead of encouraging their listeners (and they themselves) to speak with God directly instead. The LDS Church is a perfectly fine Church if you realize that since you can filter out what is true and dispose of what is false. However, it is also not "perfectly" fine when it strays from this ideal and encourages people to listen to only LDS Church preachers instead (which has happened).

What happened to the God whose job it was to never let The Prophet lead the Church astray?

That is just a false doctrine promoted by the brethren and is just silly. God won't lead you astray - that is not true for any man.

Starting with "I see but one" Joseph Smith, and continuing pretty much unbroken through "Mountain Meadow" Young, "Manifesto" Woodruff, "I don't know that we teach that" Hinkley and "Prop 8" Monson, the LDS Church has a terrible track record in terms of the honesty and integrity of its leaders.
"Lying for the Lord" is a practice that has been openly discussed and practiced by Church leaders and, as a consequence, is widely associated with the LDS Church.
When you make the kind of claims you have so far on this thread, one is left to wonder if you really have a fact-based understanding of the way in which the LDS Church is lead and operated.

You are under the impression that the LDS Church is something it is not. The same can be said of the men that lead it. They are fallible men, and as human as anyone else and not God. And the LDS Church is only true as far as it leads people to God. It is also false when those in it teach and lead people away from God and doing what is right. The point of the whole thing is to get you to speak with God yourself and use your good reason and sense to make up you own mind. Mormons that rely on others to do the thinking for them (or the speaking with God) are just fooling themselves.

[_Tobin]

It simply is a search for the measuring rod of Mormon god's imparted knowledge. The Brethren shovel all the s*** they speak as god-given, until they have to retract it because it is later proven wrong. So why should ANYTHING that the Brethren say be given so much as the time of day? The Brethren are all just ass-chatting and claiming Mormon god told them those words--at least until they have to retract them later.

If you are looking for God's imparted knowledge, then speak with God yourself. And I agree that the Brethren (ugh, I hate referring to them like that) - the leaders of the LDS Church are often full of it. Joseph Smith was often full of it and it is a tradition they have kept unfortunately. I wish they would do a little more introspection and put more thought into the things they say and do instead of what they do now which is assume they know what is best given their positions.

[_Chap]

The point of the whole thing is to get you to speak with God yourself and use your good reason and sense to make up you own mind.

Which takes precedence in the event of a conflict, I wonder - what you think 'God' says to you, or 'your good reason and sense'?

If the latter, then that means 'God' might say something to you, but you end up rejecting it because 'your good reason and sense' decide against it. That is certainly putting a lot of trust in the power of a tiny human brain against its creator, is it not? Further, if nothing said by 'God' is to be accepted unless it passes the 'your good reason and sense' test, what is the point of listening to 'God' at all? Why not just rely on your own judgement in the first place?

If on the other hand 'God' and his utterances are to Trump all other considerations, then there doesn't seem to be much of a role for 'your good reason and sense'. Except ... how are you to judge whether the voice in your head is really 'God' talking, or a mere delusion. Use your 'your good reason and sense', perhaps? But ...

[_Tobin]

The point of the whole thing is to get you to speak with God yourself and use your good reason and sense to make up you own mind.

Which takes precedence in the event of a conflict, I wonder - what you think 'God' says to you, or 'your good reason and sense'?

If the latter, then that means 'God' might say something to you, but you end up rejecting it because 'your good reason and sense' decide against it. That is certainly putting a lot of trust in the power of a tiny human brain against its creator, is it not? Further, if nothing said by 'God' is to be accepted unless it passes the 'your good reason and sense' test, what is the point of listening to 'God' at all? Why not just rely on your own judgement in the first place?

If on the other hand 'God' and his utterances are to Trump all other considerations, then there doesn't seem to be much of a role for 'your good reason and sense'. Except ... how are you to judge whether the voice in your head is really 'God' talking, or a mere delusion. Use your 'your good reason and sense', perhaps? But ...

You are under the impression that conflicts, doubts, and questions are a problem. They aren't. They are part of the learning process and something we have to understand, study, and yes - even seek some inspiration from God for the answers from time to time. Our judgements do not happen in a vacuum (nor do they happen with us in possession of all the facts), so making imperfect decisions is part of life and they may change. Keeping that in mind, but driving towards the goal of trying to ascertain what the truth may be is what is important.

[_Chap]

The point of the whole thing is to get you to speak with God yourself and use your good reason and sense to make up you own mind.

Which takes precedence in the event of a conflict, I wonder - what you think 'God' says to you, or 'your good reason and sense'?

If the latter, then that means 'God' might say something to you, but you end up rejecting it because 'your good reason and sense' decide against it. That is certainly putting a lot of trust in the power of a tiny human brain against its creator, is it not? Further, if nothing said by 'God' is to be accepted unless it passes the 'your good reason and sense' test, what is the point of listening to 'God' at all? Why not just rely on your own judgement in the first place?

If on the other hand 'God' and his utterances are to Trump all other considerations, then there doesn't seem to be much of a role for 'your good reason and sense'. Except ... how are you to judge whether the voice in your head is really 'God' talking, or a mere delusion. Use your 'your good reason and sense', perhaps? But ...

You are under the impression that conflicts, doubts, and questions are a problem. They aren't. They are part of the learning process and something we have to understand, study, and yes - even seek some inspiration from God for the answers from time to time. Our judgements do not happen in a vacuum (nor do they happen with us in possession of all the facts), so making imperfect decisions is part of life and they may change. Keeping that in mind, but driving towards the goal of trying to ascertain what the truth may be is what is important.

I'd never have thought of that ...

I don't think these well-meaning generalities really meet my point at all. But never mind ...

[_beefcalf]

A text of the 1978 revelation has never appeared, as far as I have been able to discover.

That is true. No text has ever been presented.

And I might be mistaken, but I do not believe this revelation was ever presented to the membership of the church for sustaining vote.

You are mistaken.

http://www.LDS.org/ensign/1978/11/revel ... d?lang=eng

Hey Runtu,

Thanks for the information, and the link.
There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize the LDS church; there's no need to resort to invalid criticisms.

Just when you think you've heard everything about the interesting and often sordid history of the church, something new comes along. For me, it was this business with the 1886 revelation on polygamy. I need to finish reading a few other sources I've found on the topic. Until then, I'm walking on thin ice.

[_Runtu]

There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize the LDS church; there's no need to resort to invalid criticisms.

Just when you think you've heard everything about the interesting and often sordid history of the church, something new comes along. For me, it was this business with the 1886 revelation on polygamy. I need to finish reading a few other sources I've found on the topic. Until then, I'm walking on thin ice.

It is an interesting bit of history. I can't think of too many revelations that have been as effectively suppressed as the 1886 one about polygamy. as far as I know, hardly anyone disputes its authenticity, but they reject it because it wasn't presented to the church for a vote (probably because John Taylor was hiding from the law at the time).

[_Buffalo]

1886 Revelation
Given to President John Taylor September 27, 1886
My son John, you have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant how far it is binding upon my people.

Thus saith the Lord: All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.

Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness—because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen.

A direct quote from the Lord himself! Surely that ought to Trump "revelation" which contains no direct quotations from Jehovah at all.

[_beefcalf]

1886 Revelation
Given to President John Taylor September 27, 1886
My son John, you have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant how far it is binding upon my people.

Thus saith the Lord: All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.

Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness—because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen.

A direct quote from the Lord himself! Surely that ought to Trump "revelation" which contains no direct quotations from Jehovah at all.

Exactly.

What's interesting to me is how the apologist approaches this issue.

One is to prepend all discussion of this revelation with the word "purported', to throw doubt upon its validity, or even its very existence.

But the apologetic tact I'm reading about now is the argument that the "New and Everlasting Covenant" refers not solely to polygamous marriage, but all marriages conducted with the sealing power.

I haven't gotten far enough with this yet, but my gut feeling is that this argument won't withstand close scrutiny.

Has anyone already gotten there yet and who might be able to spoil the ending for me?

[_Runtu]

Exactly.

What's interesting to me is how the apologist approaches this issue.

One is to prepend all discussion of this revelation with the word "purported', to throw doubt upon its validity, or even its very existence.

But the apologetic tact I'm reading about now is the argument that the "New and Everlasting Covenant" refers not solely to polygamous marriage, but all marriages conducted with the sealing power.

I haven't gotten far enough with this yet, but my gut feeling is that this argument won't withstand close scrutiny.

Has anyone already gotten there yet and who might be able to spoil the ending for me?

Here's the thing: Why would John Taylor have approached the Lord and asked if sealings/eternal marriage were no longer binding on the Saints? That was never in question. The question (and the reason he was hiding from the feds) was whether they should stand firm with polygamy or give in to the law? The idea that he wasn't asking about polygamy is stupid and insulting.