RajahManchou

This is the precise argument used against the truthfulness of Christian teaching by early Jews. In LDS history, it is problematic for quite a number of reasons. Folks who thought this way were the ones who tended to reject any innovative doctrine in the Church, including vicarious baptism. It was of such a view that Joseph Smith spoke when he said that whenever he taught anything new to the Saints they flew apart like breaking glass. "No scriptural precedent" is the argument I've heard from the Temple Lot group, from the RLDS/CofC, and numerous others who disliked this or that doctrinal innovation in Mormonism. Further, at what point does polygamy cease to be a doctrine, and simply become a change of Church policy? Is that an honest assessment of the role polygamy played in the early LDS Church? I myself feel that this cheats the point a bit. Kindest, Rajah Manchou "My People Are No More"

Well. The idea that the entire doctrine of the Church is found within the Standard Works is a relatively late development, coming at the close of a more openly prophetic phase of Church history.I'd ask CrimsonKairos where one finds scriptural justification for the current expanded Priesthood role of the 12 Apostles within the Standard Works? As I recall, that role is clearly defined in D&C 107. However, that does NOT describe the of the modern Q12 at all. Is this similarly "telling"? :-) I'm just sayin' Kindest, Rajah Manchou "God hath sworn to give an inheritance to His people where transgressors perished."

___Snow___ In one of the Priesthood - Women thread it is asserted that according to LDS doctrine women hold or may hold the priesthood. In promotion of the view that women, according to LDS doctrine, hold the priesthood, a number of quotes and sources were posted - Council Minutes, blessings to individual members, writings of excomunicated Mormons, etc. Any knowledgeable Mormon knows that Council Minutes, Signature Books books, blessings, etc DO NOT constitute LDS doctrine, --- But these things can suggest the historical context in which certain doctrines develop. ___Snow___ as any knowledgeable Mormon knows that regardless of whether they like it or not, women do not have the Priesthood - not according to LDS doctrine. ---- If by "Priesthood" you mean ecclesiastical position in the Church, then LDS history does not suggest that women were to hold such a thing. However, it would also seem that early Mormonism took a much broader view of Priesthood than mere ecclesiastical position. Remnants of this broader view are still visible in such things as female administrators in the Temple. It may be true that the modern Church disavows such doctrines as women holding the Priesthood, and that they are even uncomfortable in the Priesthood role they share when it comes to the Fulness of the Ordinances. It seems true that the Church has taken a different evolutionary path, and has abandoned not only this concept, but a myriad of other interrelated concepts, such as plural marriage, adoption, the United Order, Brigham Young's Adam teaching, and so forth. These were all laid aside in what historian Thom Alexander has called the period of Mormon Transition, extending roughly from 1870 ~ 1930. To be evenhanded, I suppose that far fewer women would be enthusiastic about sharing in the Priesthood, if it meant the resurrection of polygamy. <cough> But there you have it, like love and marriage. ;-) Kindest, Rajah Manchou