Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Creekster
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.
|
You are misrepresenting my viewpoint here. I do believe that we receive counsel from the prophet. What I don't believe is that every word from the prophet's mouth is counsel or that the prophet is always correct (infallible). In fact, no Mormon should, given that the prophets have said they are not infallible. We are required to study out each issue and ponder it before we act. I am in the process of doing so. To this point, I cannot accept the urging of the church to support a constitutional amendment (the language of which could still easily be altered). The prophet has not made this a matter of doctrine. Rather, it has been issued as an opinion of the First Presidency that Mormons should support the amendment. I feel free to disregard opinions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Creekster
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.
|
You are setting up another false dichotomy here. I don't need to accept Sunday's letter as being valid simply because I accept the Manifesto as being valid. The Manifesto was canon of the church. It was adopted by the church and incorporated into church scripture. Are you placing that on the level of a letter urging members to support an amendment whose language is not even set in stone yet? The amendment has made it out of a Senate committee with a 10-8 approval vote. Once it hits the floor of the Senate, I can guarantee you it will face several amedments before it is finally voted on by the entire body. You appear to be failing to make the distinction between doctrine and opinion/policy. Doctrine=manifesto. Letter on Sunday=opinion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Creekster
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.
|
The point is to demonstrate the pure irony/hypocrisy of the latest position. For over 150 years Mormons have felt that their rights were destroyed at the hands of an oppressive majority. Are we now attempting to become a part of another oppressive majority? As I stated when I began this thread, the Plan of Salvation is one of agency and choice. Some things need to be legislated to preserve order. Others should be left up to our discretion. As Mormons who have suffered at the hands of oppression, I would think the church would err on the side of caution and choose agency over legislation wherever possible. While the church may today be part of a majority, tomorrow they may not be, and when that day comes, today's actions will make our complaints sound awfully hollow.