If you reject the idea of continuing revelation, you are perfectly in your rights in doing so. If you don’t believe that the LDS receives continuing revelation, that’s fine too. But continuing revelation is simply part of how the LDS conceptualizes its relationship to God, and its relationship to the APB.
The Holy Spirit speaks today, but did He not also speak yesterday? So, this does not allow for the sweeping under the rug of previous authoritative statements. If the Holy Spirit speaks in the past and the present, how can they accept contradictory statements by the same Spirit? In fact, this is an argument they use themselves in reference to the many churches of Christianity.
The priesthood ban, as the LDS defines it, was a policy, rather than a theological doctrine, so the charge of apostasy, as a corruption of doctrine, would not apply.
Except that the First Presidency stated that it was not a policy, but a direct commandment from the Lord.
Also, was Smith correct in ordaining blacks to the priesthood?
The Holy Spirit speaks, but He doesn’t speak to Himself. He speaks to us humans, who are embedded within space and time, as bodies and minds. What the H.S. reveals is, in part, shaped by how spiritually mature we humans are; and also by the Divine time-table of revelation. Why God reveals somethings at some times, and other things, at other times, is part of the Mystery. But, just by looking at the OT and NT, we see that God reveals things at different times, and, for Christians at least, it’s the Newer Testament that has precedence over the Older Testament. This doesn’t mean the OT is useless, but the OT is now understood in the light of the NT.
A policy can, in fact, be a commandment from the Lord.
So please tell us how a direct commandment from the Lord and not a policy can be understood to not be a direct commandment from the Lord, and a policy.
Of course.
This brings out an interesting point. Unless someone believes that God changes his mind and gives out different messages to different people, then the Holy Spirit will only transmit one message, not multiple messages.
I think you’re taking “doctrine” and “policy” in too literal a fashion. By “policy” I mean any structured action. By “doctrine” I mean any theological teaching. From that perspective, the APB was an action, a policy. The First Presidency, writing in the 19th century, probably used “doctrine” in a looser sense than I’m using it. But the APB still remains clearly an action, not a theological teaching. The theological teaching behind the APB would be the Curse of Cain, as communicated by Young in the 1850s.
excellent point…and one that Whyme/Ahimsa cannot comprehend.
Thank you, CatholicGuyNY. You have correctly understood and articulated my position. I will forgo posting the response I was going to make to Ahimsa, because you have already expressed my thoughts in fewer words, so I will let your response stand as my own.
This was the point I was trying to make when I started the thread, really.
The redefinition of words is, unfortunately, something we encounter frequently when dialoging with Mormons. Their definition of many things is profoundly different from ours, something that needs to be clearly understood before any meaningful dialog can take place.
And the definitions change often, sometimes mid-sentence, to suit whatever argument they are trying to make. Nailing jello to a wall, indeed.
I believe you are thinking of the Mormon Fundamentalists, not the RLDS. The RLDS do not accept all of D&C, and have rejected polygamy from the outset. They do not believe in the Adam-God Doctrine, but teach a formally modalist theology. I don’t think the ever enforced the priesthood ban, and in fact, they now ordain women.
