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

[Equality]

Seems like a lot a of mental gymnastics would be required to explain this away. If only there were a Mental Gymnast around these parts who could give it the old college try.

The only apologetic that I can think of, and it's rather basic, is asking the question(s), "Did a restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ really happen?" Angels and divine beings and such. If the answer is yes, then secondarily, "Were there priesthood keys restored that were necessary in administering the ordinances of the Gospel?" Assuming that ordinances such as baptism/HG, etc., through divine authority are necessary. Thirdly, "Where do those keys reside today?"

If the answer to the first two questions is yes, then I place my bet on the CofJCofLDS as being the repository of that authority, including the sealing keys. If the answer to the first two questions is no, then the third question is obviously superfluous and unnecessary.

The reason I place my bet on the S.L. church is that this 'branch' is the only one that has successfully become an international church able to 'spread the gospel throughout the world' before the second coming of Christ.

Again, all bets are off if 1. There is no God 2. There was no need for a restoration 3. Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet...etc. (other reasons could be given).

I choose to believe in God as a creator. I choose to think that God speaks today in our time through scriptures and prophets.

To keep this short...I think John Taylor may have had this revelation...it may have been revoked...and the keys of sealing went with the S.L. church.

Regards,
MG

“If the answer is yes” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here in your circular train of logic.

Thanks for giving it the old college try, but as the resident questions-haver said:

Either John Taylor was a Prophet who received a revelation from God, and the Church should still be practicing polygamy today.

Or John Taylor was mistaken and we cannot trust Prophets to know what is and what isn’t a revelation.

Your a priori assumptions that the LDS church is “true” and that the “keys” are held by Nelson today do not engage with the fundamental issue, which is the veracity of Taylor’s revelation, the church’s lies about it for over more than a century, or the implications of both for the propositions you are trying to affirm.

[MG 2.0]

The only apologetic that I can think of, and it's rather basic, is asking the question(s), "Did a restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ really happen?" Angels and divine beings and such. If the answer is yes, then secondarily, "Were there priesthood keys restored that were necessary in administering the ordinances of the Gospel?" Assuming that ordinances such as baptism/HG, etc., through divine authority are necessary. Thirdly, "Where do those keys reside today?"

If the answer to the first two questions is yes, then I place my bet on the CofJCofLDS as being the repository of that authority, including the sealing keys. If the answer to the first two questions is no, then the third question is obviously superfluous and unnecessary.

The reason I place my bet on the S.L. church is that this 'branch' is the only one that has successfully become an international church able to 'spread the gospel throughout the world' before the second coming of Christ.

Again, all bets are off if 1. There is no God 2. There was no need for a restoration 3. Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet...etc. (other reasons could be given).

I choose to believe in God as a creator. I choose to think that God speaks today in our time through scriptures and prophets.

To keep this short...I think John Taylor may have had this revelation...it may have been revoked...and the keys of sealing went with the S.L. church.

Regards,
MG

“If the answer is yes” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here in your circular train of logic.

Thanks for giving it the old college try, but as the resident questions-haver said:

Either John Taylor was a Prophet who received a revelation from God, and the Church should still be practicing polygamy today.

Or John Taylor was mistaken and we cannot trust Prophets to know what is and what isn’t a revelation.

Your a priori assumptions that the LDS church is “true” and that the “keys” are held by Nelson today do not engage with the fundamental issue, which is the veracity of Taylor’s revelation, the church’s lies about it for over more than a century, or the implications of both for the propositions you are trying to affirm.

As I've said, I think John Taylor may have received this revelation. The track record for revelation throughout recorded Judeo-Christian history is a bit mixed and there seems to be a correlation between revelation being given as the 'will of God' and the receiving of the revelation by individuals or groups. Moses, if you believe the story, received the higher law when he went to the mount. A revelation from God through Moses. The people reject the revelation. They have their agency to reject a 'higher law' revelation. God then gives a lesser revelation...law...to the Israelites at that time and in that place.

Other examples could be given. The fact SEEMS to be that God gives revelation. Agency of man is then operative and man chooses to receive the revelation or reject it. In the case of the early saints it was the U.S. government that rejected that higher law that had been given to the church at that time and in that place. God rescinded the law and then revealed a portion of the law that the agency of man could accept at that time and in that place. The thing is, and this could be important, men/women were involved in the revelatory process. Revelation can be conditional based on agency and acceptance of revelation by people.

President Nelson and the revelation having to do with minors of gay parents having to wait to be baptized. Higher law that was rejected and thus a lesser law was given? It's a hard call in this instance. It doesn't seem to follow the previous two examples except for the component of 'conditional'. It may be that God knew the 'better course' was to have children of gay parents wait so as to not break up an otherwise happy home and/or force gay parents to make hard choices. An alternate revelation came. It has certain ramifications vs. whatever the ramifications may have been if the first revelation had be accepted. And it's a tough call.

In situations where revelation is purportedly given and there is a question as to its veracity for one reason or another church members have been encouraged to accept the 'mind and will of the Lord' as given and they will be the better off for it IN THE LONG RUN. Non acceptance through choice and/or reason can often result...ultimately...in a lack of faith/testimony.

Elder Renlund taught:

Sometimes we fall into a trap of dealing with false dichotomies. For instance, we might believe that observation or reason are the only valid ways to learn truth. Or we might believe that observation and reason undermine faith to such an extent that they should have no role in religious life.

This is a false dichotomy because observation and reason work synergistically with faith. “Faith without works” will not amplify itself. Faith will only grow by observation and reasoning, coupled with other spiritual work. In addition, observation, reason, and faith are often prerequisites not only to receiving personal revelation but to understanding that revelation.

https://speeches.BYU.edu/talks/dale-g-r ... evelation/

In other words, as I think about this remark, revelation has many moving parts. One of those parts involves us and our "observation, reason, and faith". God is subject to our agency and our thought processes. He may wish for and hope for His children to accept and covenant to obey a higher law or commandment but when that revelation is rejected or not fully accepted as being the 'word of the Lord', He accepts that choice of non-collaboration and gives another gift of a different kind.

The world seems to be FULL of examples that fall under this umbrella that I'm describing in simplified form.

Regards,
MG

[Mag’ladroth]

“If the answer is yes” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here in your circular train of logic.

Thanks for giving it the old college try, but as the resident questions-haver said:

Your a priori assumptions that the LDS church is “true” and that the “keys” are held by Nelson today do not engage with the fundamental issue, which is the veracity of Taylor’s revelation, the church’s lies about it for over more than a century, or the implications of both for the propositions you are trying to affirm.

As I've said, I think John Taylor may have received this revelation. The track record for revelation throughout recorded Judeo-Christian history is a bit mixed and there seems to be a correlation between revelation being given as the 'will of God' and the receiving of the revelation by individuals or groups. Moses, if you believe the story, received the higher law when he went to the mount. A revelation from God through Moses. The people reject the revelation. They have their agency to reject a 'higher law' revelation. God then gives a lesser revelation...law...to the Israelites at that time and in that place.

Other examples could be given. The fact SEEMS to be that God gives revelation. Agency of man is then operative and man chooses to receive the revelation or reject it. In the case of the early saints it was the U.S. government that rejected that higher law that had been given to the church at that time and in that place. God rescinded the law and then revealed a portion of the law that the agency of man could accept at that time and in that place. The thing is, and this could be important, men/women were involved in the revelatory process. Revelation can be conditional based on agency and acceptance of revelation by people.

President Nelson and the revelation having to do with minors of gay parents having to wait to be baptized. Higher law that was rejected and thus a lesser law was given? It's a hard call in this instance. It doesn't seem to follow the previous two examples except for the component of 'conditional'. It may be that God knew the 'better course' was to have children of gay parents wait so as to not break up an otherwise happy home and/or force gay parents to make hard choices. An alternate revelation came. It has certain ramifications vs. whatever the ramifications may have been if the first revelation had be accepted. And it's a tough call.

In situations where revelation is purportedly given and there is a question as to its veracity for one reason or another church members have been encouraged to accept the 'mind and will of the Lord' as given and they will be the better off for it IN THE LONG RUN. Non acceptance through choice and/or reason can often result...ultimately...in a lack of faith/testimony.

Elder Renlund taught:

Sometimes we fall into a trap of dealing with false dichotomies. For instance, we might believe that observation or reason are the only valid ways to learn truth. Or we might believe that observation and reason undermine faith to such an extent that they should have no role in religious life.

This is a false dichotomy because observation and reason work synergistically with faith. “Faith without works” will not amplify itself. Faith will only grow by observation and reasoning, coupled with other spiritual work. In addition, observation, reason, and faith are often prerequisites not only to receiving personal revelation but to understanding that revelation.

https://speeches.BYU.edu/talks/dale-g-r ... evelation/

In other words, as I think about this remark, revelation has many moving parts. One of those parts involves us and our "observation, reason, and faith". God is subject to our agency and our thought processes. He may wish for and hope for His children to accept and covenant to obey a higher law or commandment but when that revelation is rejected or not fully accepted as being the 'word of the Lord', He accepts that choice of non-collaboration and gives another gift of a different kind.

The world seems to be FULL of examples that fall under this umbrella that I'm describing in simplified form.

Regards,
MG

You do understand that metaphysically this then means that Mormonism is built on a contingent and changeable deity? Why should I choose to trust the prognostications of a being who might not love me in 5 minutes?

[MG 2.0]

As I've said, I think John Taylor may have received this revelation. The track record for revelation throughout recorded Judeo-Christian history is a bit mixed and there seems to be a correlation between revelation being given as the 'will of God' and the receiving of the revelation by individuals or groups. Moses, if you believe the story, received the higher law when he went to the mount. A revelation from God through Moses. The people reject the revelation. They have their agency to reject a 'higher law' revelation. God then gives a lesser revelation...law...to the Israelites at that time and in that place.

Other examples could be given. The fact SEEMS to be that God gives revelation. Agency of man is then operative and man chooses to receive the revelation or reject it. In the case of the early saints it was the U.S. government that rejected that higher law that had been given to the church at that time and in that place. God rescinded the law and then revealed a portion of the law that the agency of man could accept at that time and in that place. The thing is, and this could be important, men/women were involved in the revelatory process. Revelation can be conditional based on agency and acceptance of revelation by people.

President Nelson and the revelation having to do with minors of gay parents having to wait to be baptized. Higher law that was rejected and thus a lesser law was given? It's a hard call in this instance. It doesn't seem to follow the previous two examples except for the component of 'conditional'. It may be that God knew the 'better course' was to have children of gay parents wait so as to not break up an otherwise happy home and/or force gay parents to make hard choices. An alternate revelation came. It has certain ramifications vs. whatever the ramifications may have been if the first revelation had be accepted. And it's a tough call.

In situations where revelation is purportedly given and there is a question as to its veracity for one reason or another church members have been encouraged to accept the 'mind and will of the Lord' as given and they will be the better off for it IN THE LONG RUN. Non acceptance through choice and/or reason can often result...ultimately...in a lack of faith/testimony.

Elder Renlund taught:

In other words, as I think about this remark, revelation has many moving parts. One of those parts involves us and our "observation, reason, and faith". God is subject to our agency and our thought processes. He may wish for and hope for His children to accept and covenant to obey a higher law or commandment but when that revelation is rejected or not fully accepted as being the 'word of the Lord', He accepts that choice of non-collaboration and gives another gift of a different kind.

The world seems to be FULL of examples that fall under this umbrella that I'm describing in simplified form.

Regards,
MG

You do understand that metaphysically this then means that Mormonism is built on a contingent and changeable deity? Why should I choose to trust the prognostications of a being who might not love me in 5 minutes?

He is subject to the agency of created beings. He's not working alone. God is love. I personally don't think or even consider that God doesn't love me. If that is something you are willing to question that does open up a can of worms.

If God is love, however, then this "contingency" thing you're concerned with having to do with agency/choice doesn't have the negative features you might otherwise throw into it.

At least that's what I think. I suppose I could change my mind if convinced otherwise

Regards,
MG

[Chap]

The track record for revelation throughout recorded Judeo-Christian history is a bit mixed

You could say that, yes ...

[Mag’ladroth]

You do understand that metaphysically this then means that Mormonism is built on a contingent and changeable deity? Why should I choose to trust the prognostications of a being who might not love me in 5 minutes?

He is subject to the agency of created beings. He's not working alone. God is love. I personally don't think or even consider that God doesn't love me. If that is something you are willing to question that does open up a can of worms.

If God is love, however, then this "contingency" thing you're concerned with having to do with agency/choice doesn't have the negative features you might otherwise throw into it.

At least that's what I think. I suppose I could change my mind if convinced otherwise

Regards,
MG

So contingency is a metaphysical term that means that an object is dependent on something other than itself for existence. This means then that the object is mutable. Mutability means that this object changes.

In the metaphysical realm of god, this means then that if Elohim the head of the Mormon pantheon of exalted men and women, is subject to the will of other beings, he is not omniscient nor omnipotent. Which means he cannot be god.

[Chap]

... if Elohim the head of the Mormon pantheon of exalted men and women, is subject to the will of other beings, he is not omniscient nor omnipotent. Which means he cannot be god.

I have to say that the impression I have formed from non-systematic observation of Mormon god-talk over the years is that their deity differs in essential respects from the deity of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I'm not sure whether this difference is intentional on the part of Mormonism's founder, or whether it is simply what follows from trying to make overall sense out of a large number of statements made by him on particular occasions for different particular purposes.

[MG 2.0]

The track record for revelation throughout recorded Judeo-Christian history is a bit mixed

You could say that, yes ...

And as I've tried to make clear, there may be valid reasons for that. I think that some folds have a very limited view of what revelation might involve. As I said, lots of moving parts. In my opinion anyway.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

He is subject to the agency of created beings. He's not working alone. God is love. I personally don't think or even consider that God doesn't love me. If that is something you are willing to question that does open up a can of worms.

If God is love, however, then this "contingency" thing you're concerned with having to do with agency/choice doesn't have the negative features you might otherwise throw into it.

At least that's what I think. I suppose I could change my mind if convinced otherwise

Regards,
MG

So contingency is a metaphysical term that means that an object is dependent on something other than itself for existence. This means then that the object is mutable. Mutability means that this object changes.

In the metaphysical realm of god, this means then that if Elohim the head of the Mormon pantheon of exalted men and women, is subject to the will of other beings, he is not omniscient nor omnipotent. Which means he cannot be god.

If you are saying that the "object" is creator/God in this instance, I would disagree. God is not mutable, He is unchanging. He is, however, subject to the will and actions of independent beings that have the agency to choose. That does not in any way dictate whether or not he exists.

I think I've outlined my thoughts on this in some detail earlier on this page.

God is not dependent on us as to whether or not He exists. He does have a goal/desire to see as many of His children become more like him as possible. But, as the saying goes, God can force no man to heaven.

Thanks for your thoughts.

This is what this board should be. A conversation without building strawmen, ridicule, and looking at the other as a 'strange creature' that believes in the 'Mormon God'. (these two previous sentences are for others, not you, Mag’ladroth). You may have noticed, if you are new here, that there are some folks that have a difficult time being civil and giving others the benefit of a doubt.

What the critics don't seem to understand is that I DO give them the benefit of a doubt. I believe/hope that what they are doing and what they believe is the result of a clear conscience and a desire to teach/share AND learn. I can, of course, do better at giving others the benefit of a doubt and cutting some slack just as I would hope they do with their believing friends and neighbors and those they interact with online.

Thank you for being civil. It's interesting for me to bounce thoughts around and then see what others either believe or not believe. I learn from others.

I hope these type of conversations become the norm.

Obviously, as a believer, I am going to make statements that make it pretty darn clear that I believe. I don't think that should be something that gets in the way.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

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

Edit to fix typo