None of this matters, Mr. Spin-Doctor. We were talking about dismissing the prophecy of people who lead your church, not electing officials.
We don’t dismiss prophecy. But we also don’t simply accept unsupported, uncorroborated statements as doctrine.
So to give me something to refute, you first need firm evidence of what God actually said to Brigman Young, and then we can discuss what he conveyed to the church in light of that. Until you can tell me what God actually said, there’s nothing to discuss.
Your problem is that Brigham Young appears to consider his statements simply restating what he considers to be already accepted doctrine, he doesn’t claim anything new.
The other issue is that not adhering to a command from God (e.g. Polygamy for those to who He commands it) is enough to keep a person from the Celestial Kingdom. In which sense, Brigham Young was correct.
It’s also funny that God … couldn’t let anyone know the priesthood ban would be lifted
Except that He did, go check your facts.
Okay, first of all, you didn’t show. I said “It says right here ‘Plural marriage’”, and your argument was “No it doesn’t say that.”
No, I agreed it contains those words: you produced a completely incorrect interpretation of what it says, making connections between statements that the text doesn’t contain; I said it doesn’t mean what you claimed it meant.
Your defense is that it is opinion,
Again, no. I never claimed that the words there in scripture were opinion.
and my response is that it’s very clear to anyone who follows the logic behind what is being said in D&C 132 is justification for plural marriage according to “God”. Your defense is that “new” means not plural marriage, which again I say, the entire thing from beginning to end is a justification for Plural Marriage.
The section
contains justification for plural marriage, sure. The bible contains lots about the life & writings of Paul; by your same logic I could claim the whole thing is about Paul, and leave Jesus Christ out altogether.
I say it was taught that Celestial Marriage was in fact Plural Marriage. I have yet to see any quotes from you from any leaders of the church or from scripture that specifically say that polygamy was not required to reach the highest state of salvation.
Yes, it was most definitely taught, especially after Brigham Young’s remarks. It was also unfortunately taught for quite some time that the Catholic church was the great and abominable church, the whore of Babylon. Those teachings (neither of which are doctrines) have been corrected.
Within the Catholic church it was taught (pre-Nicea) that Father, Son & Holy Spirit were three separate divine beings (Arianism), with Jesus subordinate to His Father (as Jesus Himself stated very clearly). Using the same arguments as you, I could very simply condemn the Catholic Curch for this, despite the fact that the church’s position was firmly decided and stated at Nicea.
While the Catholic church spends (or has spent, really; across the centuries) much time denouncing heresy; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints focuses on teaching of Christ, spreading the gospel and proclaiming truth. We are comfortable that we have stated time and time again about stray single statements made by individuals, and that anything not formally accepted by unanimous agreement of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, then presented as doctrine before the members of the church, does not constitute a binding doctrinal requirement of God.
** I challenge you to show me a quote that proves your side, that Celestial Marriage was never another word for Polygamous marriage, and was never taught as essential for salvation.**
Obviously the quote won’t exist, for two reasons I have already stated above:
It was taught within the church before the position was officially clarified; and for the individual’s to whom it was commanded, it was absolutelymessentialmto their salvation.
The Church doesn’t waste it’s time on arguing over opinions, misinterpretations and attacks; it states the truth clearly and publicly.
Again, I state my argument that you have unconvincingly rejected on multiple occasions. At one point in the history of the LDS church, it was taught that Celestial or polygamous marriage was essential for salvation, and that to not abide in this doctrine is to be damned. It is no longer taught that polygamous or Celestial marriage is essential for salvation. Therefore the core requirements for salvation have changed within the LDS church.
Just because something was taught doesn’t automatically make it doctrine; it is unfortunate when people teach things hat are not entirely correct due to misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Polygamy and Celestial Marriage are not synonymous terms; a Celestial Marriage is essential for salvation; which marriage may or may not be polygamous. Consider that we still technically do teach and practise Polygamy; we believe that a marriage sealed in the Temple lasts beyond the grave and the couple will still be together and married in heaven. Should a man outlive his wife, he is able to marry another, and be sealed to her too (provided she isn’t sealed to another); and he will still be sealed to both in heaven.
“Cast” or “gave” depends on the translation used, and the KJV does use “cast” in other instances where lots are used. Either way it doesn’t show that the Apostles “voted”, or reached consensus.
The difference in language between the usually seen ‘cast lots’ compared to ‘gave forth’ suggests to me that it wasn’t exactly the same process; but still an attempt to discern the will of God. Whatever the method, they did it together, and all accepted the result; the main pont of what I said.
If a Prophet of the LDS church can be that incorrect, couldn’t you, who doesn’t get to speak for God regarding His church, be as well?
