When will D&C 132 be removed or modified?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

We can have a discussion about this, if you like, but I don't think that's really the point here, is it.



"God drew the box for me" -- what does that mean, exactly? You pick and choose which scriptures sound right to you, and that constitutes God "drawing the box"?

The fact that you reject even the Abrahamic commandment suggests to me that we will find little common ground in this discussion.

Look, Tex. Here's what it all boils down to.

Before the Church publicly admitted the practice of polygamy (in 1852), part of the Doctrine and Covenants included a canonized “Chapter of Rules for Marriage among the Saints”, which declared, “Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with...polygamy; we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife...”

This "Chapter of Rules for Marriage among the Saints" was later removed from the canon.

If they can remove monogamy from the canon, then they sure as heck ought to be able to remove polygamy.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

"God drew the box for me" -- what does that mean, exactly? You pick and choose which scriptures sound right to you, and that constitutes God "drawing the box"?

The fact that you reject even the Abrahamic commandment suggests to me that we will find little common ground in this discussion.

1) For me, the Abrahamic commandment is figurative.

2) Have you prayed sincerely about God-endorsed genocide? I have. God told me he doesn't like genocide under any circumstances. Maybe He is saying something different to you.

3) God draws the box for me through personal revelation. I don't dispute the fact that you are also entitled to your version of personal revelation.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

1) For me, the Abrahamic commandment is figurative.

2) Have you prayed sincerely about God-endorsed genocide? I have. God told me he doesn't like genocide under any circumstances. Maybe He is saying something different to you.

3) God draws the box for me through personal revelation. I don't dispute the fact that you are also entitled to your version of personal revelation.

Well this kind of obliterates the "not yet have a testimony" "kinder" tone, doesn't it?

I'm not going to presume to know who you think revealed what to you. All I can say is, this kind of epiphany is not in harmony with the church doctrine on personal revelation.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not going to presume to know who you think revealed what to you. All I can say is, this kind of epiphany is not in harmony with the church doctrine on personal revelation.

Not in harmony? How so? Because he got a different answer than you?

Tex I am just curious as to how far you carry your old testament literalism. Do you believe in a global deluge? Do you believe that the earth was created in seven days and is roughly six thousand years old? If not, what gives you license to hold such a hard line on some old testament stories and not on others?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not going to presume to know who you think revealed what to you. All I can say is, this kind of epiphany is not in harmony with the church doctrine on personal revelation.

I think he wants to say that a person could never receive a personal revelation that contradicts a scripture.

I wonder what Tex might say about scriptures when they contradict themselves. I suppose he would claim that there are no genuine contradictions in scripture.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I think he wants to say that a person could never receive a personal revelation that contradicts a scripture.

I wonder what Tex might say about scriptures when they contradict themselves. I suppose he would claim that there are no genuine contradictions in scripture.

Contradictions arise all the time. Some of the reasons are because

1. One scripture supersedes an earlier one (Mosaic vs. the "higher law")
2. The net effect of garbled translations and transcriptions ends up pitting scriptures against each other
3. Some scriptures are of questionable origin; meaning it's dubious they should ever have been included to begin with

However, it's a little tougher to take a 66 verse "first hand account" section of scripture and start autonomously sifting through it and rendering judgement on which is and is not legitimate scripture.

Frankly, I don't give a crap if you really believe God said what he did about Emma or not; this is a very minor point that has no real bearing on the Gospel. I do find your reasoning to be pretty flimsy and your citation of scriptural case histories to support your piecemealing of D&C 132 to be a stretch.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Contradictions arise all the time. Some of the reasons are because

1. One scripture supersedes an earlier one (Mosaic vs. the "higher law")
2. The net effect of garbled translations and transcriptions ends up pitting scriptures against each other
3. Some scriptures are of questionable origin; meaning it's dubious they should ever have been included to begin with

However, it's a little tougher to take a 66 verse "first hand account" section of scripture and start autonomously sifting through it and rendering judgement on which is and is not legitimate scripture.

Frankly, I don't give a crap if you really believe God said what he did about Emma or not; this is a very minor point that has no real bearing on the Gospel. I do find your reasoning to be pretty flimsy and your citation of scriptural case histories to support your piecemealing of D&C 132 to be a stretch.

But you have no problem with the 19th century removal of the monogamy section from the D&C?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Not in harmony? How so? Because he got a different answer than you?

It has nothing to do with me. There is one man only who holds priesthood keys sufficient to declare doctrine and alter scripture. SoonerCoug is not that man.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Tex I am just curious as to how far you carry your old testament literalism. Do you believe in a global deluge? Do you believe that the earth was created in seven days and is roughly six thousand years old? If not, what gives you license to hold such a hard line on some old testament stories and not on others?

I'm not certain that the creation story (or the flood) falls on the same plane as the Amalekite massacre for purposes of comparison. But regardless of what I may personally think about any of these events, you will not find me co-opting the prophetic office to substantiate my positions.

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I think he wants to say that a person could never receive a personal revelation that contradicts a scripture.

Better men than I have taught this doctrine.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Better men than I have taught this doctrine.

Better men than you are still men.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

But you have no problem with the 19th century removal of the monogamy section from the D&C?

Well, there was this polygamy thing that got introduced for awhile (see point #1 re: superceding).