Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
I don't think it is a tight rope at all. Does this letter have any of the distinguishing features of doctrine? Was it sustained? Was it distributed to the members in written form? Is what it says a requirement? If so, they chose odd language given the use of the word "urge" instead of "must." This is no different than any other letter read from the pulpit. I don't understand how it attains the level of doctrine for you or others.
|
I don't think I've ever been told I "must" do anything. I'm invited to do a certain thing and then I do it or I don't. I'm certainly not perfectly obedient or even close, but I am not under any illusions that my compliance it optional when I disobey.
To answer the above point, I would ask what is the source of the test you have laid out for something to be doctrine. Was the test you are using sustained, given to members in written form and required? I see where you are coming from, but I think you are erecting much too high a hurdle with your doctrinal test.
What do you imagine the purpose of these letters is? They are to let us know what the prophet would like us to do. It is one of the benefits of having a living prophet. There are many things that we SHOULD do that do not have a specific corresponding question in the temple recommend interview that fall generally under sustaining the prophet and our other leaders.
I agree with you and others completely that you are free to disregard the counsel of the prophet. I do it myself sometimes, but I think you see my point that I object to what I percieve to be attempts to cloak these choices with the notion that such counsel is given with the implicit understanding that the prophet is sharing non-doctrinal opinions that carry no more weight than your opinion or mine.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
To flip the question, how do you distinguish this letter from the letter to write represenatives asking for no guns in churches or schools? Or asking for opposition to the MX missile?
|
I don't think I do unless there is some distinction between those letters (which I am not too familiar with) and this most recent one. In each case, those with authority tell us what they think is right and invite us to act on that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
How do you reconcile the fact that, if doctrine, this letter would make what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruf, John Taylor and others illegal? What would their reaction have been to this letter if they didn't know who signed it 135 years ago?
|
1. I don't try to reconsile it. Either you believe that we have a living prophet who gives us counsel for our time, and that sometimes it changes, or you don't. If you don't, then it is situational ethics and there is no intellectual defense for it beyond self interest and the politics of our time. Alternatively if you think that we recieve inspired direction then the whys and wherefores (while we CERTAINLY should study them) are not as important as faith and obedience. I'm not trying to tell you what to think or how to act, I'm just asking you to be consistent.
2. If this letter is indefensible in light of other fomer prophets practicing polygamy, as you seem to suggest, then so is the manifesto. Again, either these are inspired changes or they are not. If they are uninspired then they are irrelevant and there is no rational reason to follow them. If they are inspired then it is, IMO, a cop out to pretend that there is some method for ascertaining which ones they really mean and which ones we can intuit we are free to ignore.
3. Finally, what is the point of your question about what these men would think if they didn't know who signed it? The Lord has required MANY hard things of his people in every dispensation that no one would do unless they were asked to do so by the prophet, the spirit, and angel or God himself. A dozen examples of this leap readily to mind. It is precisely the impremature of authority that gives these things their weight. Even if all those men would be horrified in a vacuum, each of them would obey in context.