@LValfreBefore we talk about "doctrine that's be altered and
changed so many times" we need to differentiate between eternal principles
and practices/policy. Practices and policies are intended to change. They are
applications of eternal principles to our daily lives, and as conditions we live
in change, so do practices and policies. Also, we should consider that some
things believed by LDS are urban legends. An example of this is the belief that
was common in the church when I was a youth that Negros couldn't have the PH
because they were neutral in the war in heaven. There is nothing in the
scriptures to support that belief, but it was a common belief among LDS. The
practice of polygamy is an example of a practice that has changed.If
people are confused about changing practices and policies, I would suggest they
study the scriptures to clarify principles and the church handbooks to clarify
policies and practices.
I am not sure of what "reconciliation of polygamy" means, but if it in
ANY WAY meant accepting pollygamy, it will result in me voting against any
candisate who does not unequivically denounce The Fundamentalist Latter Day
Saints (FLDS), and it's convicted leader, Warren jeffs.
Thanks for the responses Jans and BYR. And you are absolutely right BYR about
Holland's BofM talk. It is only fair to highlight that as one of the most
passionate defenses of the BofM made by anyone in recent memory.
Idaho Coug: I see your point. But I think the role of the GA is (or at least
should be) different. They are called to preach repentance. IF they were to
spend their time on apologetics (I would like to see them spend more time but
not where it deters from their primary role, at least as I understand that role)
they would be waiting tables, as in Act 6:2-3 (NET) (So the twelve called the
whole group of the disciples together and said, It is not right for us to
neglect the word of God to wait on tables. But carefully select from among you,
brothers, seven men who are well-attested, full of the Spirit and of wisdom,
whom we may put in charge of this necessary task. (A little out of context but
you get my meaning) Having said that, I do recall Elder Holland defense of the
BoM in general conference October last year, if I recall correctly.
How can you defend doctrine that's be altered and changed so many times? Which
parts/renditions/versions are you actually defending?
Idaho Coug, you are missing the boat here. The ones taking the primary role in
defining our modern understanding of doctrine, and who answer those difficult
questions, have been and will continue to do so - the prophets, apostles, seers
and revelators, who are called, set apart and sustained. They speak now, they
will continue to speak. We hear their words each week in church, throughout the
week as we study for Sunday school and other classes, over the pulpit with
direct statements from the first presidency, and twice a year directly in
conference. And if you think any response that comes from the PR department,
including regular church publication, isn't first approved and vetted by the
highest authorities, you are mistaken.All these other groups are
excellent examples of faithful LDS members who are making their best efforts to
engage in the public sphere in a challenging world - and I commend them for
their efforts. We should all pay attention and study these issues out in our
Otterson (PR Department), apologists, scholars and the new Mormon Defense League
(of extraordinary gentlemen who nonetheless have zero authority) are the one's
defining modern understanding of LDS doctrine and history. That is fine but it
sure is a change from when actual called and set-apart leaders played this role.
The interesting part is that there is no precident or doctrine in which a member
has to consider one single word a regular church employee (Otterson), or a self
appointed apologist, scholar or cool sounding committee has to say as binding,
final or any form of revelation. And yet, they are the one's taking the primary
role in answering the difficult questions at such an important moment in LDS
It isn't Romney and Huntsman we should be worried about. It is all the bad
publicity we're going to get from the Warren Jeffs fall-out.