While trying to nail down what an actual, official, hand-stamped by god TSCC "revelation" is, it might as well be like nailing the proverbial Jell-O to the wall.

Anything said by a prophet that's batcrap crazy is rejected, but if it's not considered batcrap crazy (yet) that's fine. Of course they conveniently ignore the elephant in the room type things like D&C 132, and call the "repeal" of this "everlasting" command from God a revelation, even though it didn't get originally set out like one. And to get a "revelation" from GOD, and then have a *vote* to sustain it!?!? It's from GOD--why does it need a vote!?

And then they go on about "personal" revelation, head of household "priesthood" revelation....

And on and on and on and on....

rant over, for now.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but Joseph Smith's "Thus Saith the Lord" revelations were never individually voted on and were considered binding when received. However, I do recall reading somewhere that those included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants were voted on in totality as a canon of the church. Joseph may have wanted this "accepting vote" since many of the early ones had been substantially rewritten especially the failed ones concerning the establishment of Zion in Missouri and the establishment of the various priesthood offices.

Since no prophet after Joseph has dared proclaim "Thus Saith the Lord" their mealy mouthed bullshit so-called revelations such as the Manifesto and the removal of the black priesthood "curse" were "voted on" individually (actually sustained) at general conferences.

I "fell off the wagon" (no alcohol, fortunately) and went out and engaged a couple of apologists after good old Denial C. Peterson griped about an attack on the church and rudeness on Internet comment sites.

Peterson is way too chicken to engage me, but I figured his hypocrisy needed to be exposed for the way he called my close friend and sometimes mentor Will Bagley, "a lying, venomous gasbag." He's gone after others as well including Tal Bachman, Steve Benson, Dave Twede, John Dehlin, and as soon as I get a full year off of all donuts--not just Krispy Kremes--to get some of this weight off, I'm gonna let fly with some new stuff (like, "Hey, Danny Boy, I know your problem. All of those donuts you've eaten have infected you with a terminal case of circular reasoning").

Anyway, some of his groupies came by; one tried to give me a lesson on Native American DNA, and he lost badly at a game of "Simon Says." Another tried to argue against the impossibility of a transoceanic sea voyage in 600 B.C. He insisted BYU anthropologist and Peterson buddy John L. Sorenson (the original "Tapir John") had credibility outside of Happy Valley and LDS apologetic circles. BTW, Sorenson doesn't just claim a single "drift incident" (which can't be totally discounted, but is extremely improbable); he says there was regular trade, commerce, and "biological exchanges."

I brought up the subject of some sculpted reliefs in India, noting the images claimed to be ears of corn were as large as "modern hybrids," and added I'd once seen ancient--well, six or seven hundred years old--corn cobs in an Anasazi ruin, and they were no bigger than a man's thumb.

I guess I should've linked this one...

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02862023

To those who looked at my old post on Short Topics taking Tapir John to the woodshed: That link has expired, but this is the same information on that subject.

Guy also brought up the Polynesians, another area Simon has discussed with me, and when I pointed out the DNA issues (their common ancestor with Native Americans probably goes back ~35,000 years, and the major mtDNA Haplogroup subgroup of "B" found in the Pacific is markedly different from Native American haplogroup B's), he decided to call me a jerk for suggesting he go spend some time at MormonThink.

Cabdriver Confession: I can definitely act like a jerk around those sorts, but I'm an honest one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 04:34PM by SL Cabbie.