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

[MG 2.0]

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

I honestly think you haven't navigated this enough. Your statement, made above, doesn't have any meat to it.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

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.

[I Have Questions]

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

I honestly think you haven't navigated this enough. Your statement, made above, doesn't have any meat to it.

Regards,
MG

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.

[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

I honestly think you haven't navigated this enough. Your statement, made above, doesn't have any meat to it.

Regards,
MG

What, specifically, should I "navigate" more?

In the context of the topic, I honestly didn't think I needed to explain any further.

[Chap]

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

And of course, there is also the not insignificant point that for 99.99999999999% of human beings (probably even more) what 'revelation' means is 'Hey! There's this guy I met who told me he had just got a revelation from <insert name of deity>, and it all sounded pretty convincing!" .

And on that basis, a lot of things have happened in the history of the world that would otherwise not have happened, by no means all of them good.

[Mag’ladroth]

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.

Regards,
MG

The problem here is being reframed by you to a matter of existence. We’re not talking about existence. We’re talking about the Mormon pantheon’s action and power. You’ve told us here that Elohim acts in response to the will and decision of creatures outside of himself which means that he is fundamentally not omnipotent nor omniscient.

Also, the claim that the LDS god does not change is fundamentally contradicted by Mormon history and even current Mormon doctrine and attempts by Mormon apologists to create a synthetic and defensible Mormonism. It’s contradicted even now in this thread by the fact of the existence of this revelation.

If Taylor’s revelation on polygamy being acceptable post-polygamy ban is not valid, then neither is the First Vision.

[I Have Questions]

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.

Regards,
MG

The problem here is being reframed by you to a matter of existence. We’re not talking about existence. We’re talking about the Mormon pantheon’s action and power. You’ve told us here that Elohim acts in response to the will and decision of creatures outside of himself which means that he is fundamentally not omnipotent nor omniscient.

That looks to me to be an accurate reading of what MG asserted, and the logical conclusion that stems from it.

Also, the claim that the LDS god does not change is fundamentally contradicted by Mormon history and even current Mormon doctrine and attempts by Mormon apologists to create a synthetic and defensible Mormonism. It’s contradicted even now in this thread by the fact of the existence of this revelation.

If Taylor’s revelation on polygamy being acceptable post-polygamy ban is not valid, then neither is the First Vision.

To a normal, intellectually honest individual that understands logic, that’s correct. Unfortunately the SLC LDS Church is neither of those things. The SLC LDS Church reserves the right to pick and choose, to be inconsistent, and to not practice what they preach - as an example they preach that members should declare their income and pay an honest and full tithe to the Church, whilst they simultaneously devised a decades-long dishonest scheme to avoid declaring their income Church’s honest income so as to avoid paying an honest tax.

If you are looking for intellectual honesty, integrity, consistency, logic, and reason, from Church leaders or online defenders of the Church, then you’re going to come up empty. Every. Single. Time.

[Mag’ladroth]

The problem here is being reframed by you to a matter of existence. We’re not talking about existence. We’re talking about the Mormon pantheon’s action and power. You’ve told us here that Elohim acts in response to the will and decision of creatures outside of himself which means that he is fundamentally not omnipotent nor omniscient.

That looks to me to be an accurate reading of what MG asserted, and the logical conclusion that stems from it.

Also, the claim that the LDS god does not change is fundamentally contradicted by Mormon history and even current Mormon doctrine and attempts by Mormon apologists to create a synthetic and defensible Mormonism. It’s contradicted even now in this thread by the fact of the existence of this revelation.

If Taylor’s revelation on polygamy being acceptable post-polygamy ban is not valid, then neither is the First Vision.

To a normal, intellectually honest individual that understands logic, that’s correct. Unfortunately the SLC LDS Church is neither of those things. The SLC LDS Church reserves the right to pick and choose, to be inconsistent, and to not practice what they preach - as an example they preach that members should declare their income and pay an honest and full tithe to the Church, whilst they simultaneously devised a decades-long dishonest scheme to avoid declaring their income Church’s honest income so as to avoid paying an honest tax.

If you are looking for intellectual honesty, integrity, consistency, logic, and reason, from Church leaders or online defenders of the Church, then you’re going to come up empty. Every. Single. Time.

I’m gonna lay my cards out on the table and say I’m a Presbyterian in one of the towns scheduled to receive the “gift” of a Mormon temple. I was fine to leave LDS alone and engage in good faith friendly discussion until this aggressive and confrontational tone they’ve taken everywhere and with everyone. Especially with regard to building their temples and taking that tack that anyone who disagrees with them in any form is a bigot and persecuting them.

This failure to think logically, consistently, and systematically you’ve pointed out is baffling to me. The addition of arrogance and confrontational tone to this open deception practiced by them, has made me more negative towards them than apathetic as I was before.

[I Have Questions]

That looks to me to be an accurate reading of what MG asserted, and the logical conclusion that stems from it.

To a normal, intellectually honest individual that understands logic, that’s correct. Unfortunately the SLC LDS Church is neither of those things. The SLC LDS Church reserves the right to pick and choose, to be inconsistent, and to not practice what they preach - as an example they preach that members should declare their income and pay an honest and full tithe to the Church, whilst they simultaneously devised a decades-long dishonest scheme to avoid declaring their income Church’s honest income so as to avoid paying an honest tax.

If you are looking for intellectual honesty, integrity, consistency, logic, and reason, from Church leaders or online defenders of the Church, then you’re going to come up empty. Every. Single. Time.

I’m gonna lay my cards out on the table and say I’m a Presbyterian in one of the towns scheduled to receive the “gift” of a Mormon temple. I was fine to leave LDS alone and engage in good faith friendly discussion until this aggressive and confrontational tone they’ve taken everywhere and with everyone. Especially with regard to building their temples and taking that tack that anyone who disagrees with them in any form is a bigot and persecuting them.

This failure to think logically, consistently, and systematically you’ve pointed out is baffling to me. The addition of arrogance and confrontational tone to this open deception practiced by them, has made me more negative towards them than apathetic as I was before.

Yes, the SLC LDS Church equates freedom of religion to mean it can do what it wants, when it wants, where it wants, and to whomever it pleases. And if people complain, they’ll sue them into submission. And let’s, for the sake of argument that they don’t mean to be like that. They aren’t even bothered that that’s how they come across.

Bullies deserve to be fought every step of the way. And the Church is definitely a bully.

[MG 2.0]

I honestly think you haven't navigated this enough. Your statement, made above, doesn't have any meat to it.

Regards,
MG

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