rongo

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But isn't "Latter-day Saint" acceptable usage? I mean, I don't know why it would be any better than "Mormon" but I thought that was approved.

What was approved (but with bad logic, in my opinion) was "Latter-day Saints" to refer to members. As some have explained it, this is because it is part of the full name of the Church, while Mormon isn't part of the name at all. But, the rationale behind this has never been explained by Church leaders. "LDS" is anathema.

I think it's clear that President Nelson's intent is to stamp out use of Mormon over time, to stamp out negative associations people have with that. 

51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But isn't "Latter-day Saint" acceptable usage? I mean, I don't know why it would be any better than "Mormon" but I thought that was approved.

Not as the name of the Church --- in the same way that Mormon Church is not the name of the Church. I would think that "Latter-day Saint Church" is a "victory for Satan" under the same logic that "Mormon Church" is. For the record, I have never called the Church either --- neither before President Nelson's emphasis, nor after. I've either used the full name of the Church, or "the Church," depending on context and audience. 

I still do use "Mormons" for "members," and terms like "Mormonism" or Mormon as an adjective (just not with church). 

I am really surprised to see the Deseret News actually call the Church "the Latter-day Saints Church." I think this shows that even those most supportive of the emphasis don't follow it 100%. We've even had visiting 70s refer to Mormons, and then smile self-deprecatingly when they realize this. 

Isn't "the Latter-day Saint Church" as bad as "Mormon Church?" And from Tad Walch in the Deseret News?

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/4/7/23010650/lds-mormon-latter-day-saint-church-ukraine-shows-each-ward-is-a-humanitarian-organization

Granted, the copy editors probably wrote the headline, not Walch, but I'm stunned to see a headline like this. I mean, if the Deseret News slips like this, is it realistic to expect members not to?

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I believe I will bow out of further participation in the thread.  I don't think I have anything more to contribute that anyone would see as productive, so my continued participation probably would be superfluous and, as some might see it, harmful.  Ya'all have fun.  

It's all relative, Ken. Everyone will see your contributions differently. 

Aside from @pogi's theory about moral relativism (which I think he's going to be hard-pressed to define and defend) . . .

Aside from that, Jörg Klebingat was assigned the difficult task of dissolving the Armenia stake and reorganizing the Church in what was then the stake and mission (which had previously been touted as a strong stake with wards headed by native Armenians). My young women's president's parents were in that mission at the time, and the entire Church population was invited to a hotel ballroom for the conference. The entire stake presidency and other stake leaders and all but one of the bishops were released (he was called to be the sole native branch president), and the country was re-formed into a district with branches under the mission president, with foreign senior missionaries called as branch presidents. Roughly 2/3 of those present nearly rioted and stormed out (creating disturbances outside the hotel). Elder Klebingat thanked those who remained and told them that together, they would rebuild the Church in Armenia. Those who were angry resented the "carpetbagger" nature of Armenians being released, but the couple reporting this said that there was a night-and-day difference in the Spirit of the meetings and in feelings of peace and happiness in the new, now very small units. Rampant and widespread corruption and embezzlement were behind the needed change. 

Just some background into Elder Klebingat's history. I'm sure other anecdotes could be added. I think one of his sons served in one of the German missions relatively recently. 

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with your analysis of the word irrevocable. Do you have any speculation on the reason for the change in President Oaks’s word choice? Does it strengthen or diminish his point? 

To me, irrevocable is stronger than unchangeable. "Cannot be revoked" seems a little stronger than "unable to be changed." Maybe mileage varies --- they are similar in meaning. 

There was an item in the DNA issue of Journal of Studies about the Book of Mormon from a geneticist (Jeffrey Meldrum? His last name was Meldrum, and he wasn't Rod. Pretty sure he was at Idaho St.) in the back of the issue. He and his wife adopted a girl, and 10 months later, the hospital called and said that the same parents had had a boy and couldn't care for him. Could they adopt him as well? About a year after that . . . another boy from the same couple, similar situation. He summarized the original meme definition from Richard Dawkins (things that are transmitted socially that are every bit as "genetic" as DNA, but have to do with social transmission), and noted that their three children all have the same genotype --- their genetic heritage from their biological parents. But, the things that matter most are the spiritual heritage they received from their adopted parents --- who were their parents indeed in all that matters most.

When their daughter received her patriarchal blessing, the live blessing and the wording itself went out of their way to declare that she was "well born" of "goodly parents" --- unmistakably referring to their birth parents. The three children shared certain mannerisms, looks, and other physical quirks that they received from their birth parents --- things we would normally associate with upbringing and learned behavior, but that they shared in common and differently than the Meldrums' biological children. He said there is some as yet not understood connection between birth parents and children that transcends, even when there is no contact. 

I think and believe that bringing children into the world is a holy thing --- even when it doesn't happen under ideal circumstances. It's tragic and an abomination when this is done outside of the plan of salvation (Proclamation on the Family), but carrying and giving birth is still a crucial component of mortality. I think and believe that in at least some cases, this was explained and accepted in the pre-existence, and some women were told (or chose) to go through that for larger purposes known to them and God. 

I'll see if I can dig it up. He puts it a lot better than my summary from memory. 

ETA: My internet search skills are improving! Here it is:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1310&context=jbms

(start on page 46 of the issue, page 11 of the .pdg). "No More Strangers or Foreigners"

It was co-author Trent Stephens, not Jeffrey Meldrum. And it wasn't, their children, it was Stephens' wife Kathleen who was one of the three adopted children.

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So God the Father is your grandfather, rather than your father?  (Just making sure I'm understanding you right).

Technically, yes. Although some people may be His actual ones as well. To me, that wouldn't make these children "better" than others, any more than  believe that Jesus' children were somehow "demigods" or imbued with powers because He was their biological father. 

Under this, once spirits are adopted, they are really His (similar to divine investiture of authority). There is no difference, like what we would see between direct descent or adopted descent. 

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Can you elaborate on why the spirit creation ordinance operates with only a man and woman? Is it anything more than plumbing and "that's how things work on earth?"

I know that this is a flashpoint for those who want to take down barriers to eternal gay marriage in the celestial kingdom (why couldn't  a same-sex couple create spirits?). I don't think it has to do with "hardware" --- my own personal view is that there is a male-female duality that is eternal (no beginning, no end), and that it takes "both sides of the coin" (in a deeper sense than just biology). I think this is one of those "that which has been done on other worlds" stretching back infinitely. Because it simply can't be any other way by the nature of it (that we can't grasp in mortality). I think that it takes male and female to create life even with spirits

7 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

And, in particular, do you believe the celestial couples have any role with the child after the creation ordinance?  I know lots of women in the church that chafe at the idea they'll only be 'baby machines' in the eternities. To be honest, I'd never considered the possibility that my role, as a male, would also be only the creation of spirit babies.  

I believe they do --- and I would really like to believe that they do. I think exaltation is much, much more than just "being baby machines." When we take into account what has been taught and written about our lessons and instruction in the pre-existence, I think that the gods are heavily involved in preparing the spirits for the second estate. 

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Very impressive FHEs.  Are you suggesting that members blanch at the thought they don't fully become an Elohim (I've seen that myself) or blanch at the thought that spirit children are begotten by heavenly couples in a means parallel to how babies are created on earth? I couldn't tell if your view is that spirit children are conceived by heavenly parents - even if those parents are not on the level of God/Elohim - and, if so, whether your relationship with Elohim/God would be materially altered if you came to learn that was not how spirit children are created. 

From my study, I think that spirit creation is an ordinance requiring a man and a woman sealed as a couple (resurrection is also a priesthood ordinance). 

Most people believe that they can be an Elohim, and they react negatively to the thought that maybe they can't. I believe that only saviors can, and that exaltation for the rest of us consists of creation and assisting with "the work and the glory." Sounds great to me!  

15 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm thinking hardly anyone can do it these decades.  The number shrinks every year.  The Catholic Answers Forum and it's beloved "other faiths" board died in 2020 or '21.  The Reachout Trust countercult forum died 5 years previously.  

The heydays of the 80's and 90's where folks could sell books and get speaking fees at Baptist churches are over.  All that's left are people who will be eternally angry that Daniel Peterson exists.  And there just ain't any money in hating any more.

I've noticed a real drop in animosity and interest in this area compared to the 80s and 90s as well. The real threat and drag on churches and retention of young adults and youth now is secularism and skepticism (with related kindred social issues). 

This came up in FHE this week (we have two teenage sons still at home). Orson Pratt's explanation of D&C 76:24 in Journal of Discourses (assigned talk from Brigham Young publicly proclaiming plural marriage before going on a mission to the East to be the point man on it) notes that spirit children are begotten unto God, instead of of. He taught that the Firstborns of each wife were saviors, and that exalted couples (gods) provide spirit children who are adopted by Elohim.

I know that some people blanch at this thought, but it resonates with our family. When you combine the King Follett Discourse with the Sermon on the Grove, and other items like this Orson Pratt one (or Brigham Young's teaching that each earth has its own savior and tempter), it makes sense that a) you have to be a savior to be an Elohim, and b) exalted couples create and provide spirit children for the worlds. We don't feel that this makes us "children of a lesser god" --- exalted couples are gods in every true sense of the word. 

It's an interesting "open question" to discuss and think about, without anyone being "bound" by anybody's answers. It's definitely "prophet poker" territory (I think I heard Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie's heads explode when I posted this).  

29 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Your call. I personally find it useful to place the Church's position within a data-supported historical context: essentially, we are being called upon to discard or compromise our doctrines to accommodate a social construct/movement that is both culturally and temporally bound, one that has very little history and limited geographic reach and therefore no guaranteed future. (And in fact, I think we can see evidence that it is already beginning to self-deconstruct.)

Yeah, I also see signs that the LGBT wave might be cresting, and jumping the shark. I think a lot of young adults who are caught up in it right now are figuring out that they were sold a bill of goods, and will decide that they are not, in fact, "non-binary." It won't happen overnight, but I think momentum is starting to slowly turn.

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

If gender can be unclear, doesn’t that mean the physical expression of gender in mortality does not necessarily have to match the eternal gender nature?

I think this is undoubtedly the case in the case of true intersex/hermaphrodite people. But even for masculine women or effeminate men, they are still clearly female and male. And they genotype even matches this phenotype (XX or XY). 

I think that the few cases where this is unclear in mortality are a specific chosen element of mortality for that person (by God or by the person).

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

What exactly is the "proclamation definition" of gender and exactly what revelatory and unchanging doctrine is that definition founded upon?   The definition seems to equate gender with premortal/postmortal sex. 

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Each is a son --- or daughter when created. 

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

The "eternal gender" of intersex individuals is "unambiguous and clear" to whom? 

To us in mortality. Not to God. And, not to the intersex individual in the resurrection. For the very small number of people this affects, this burden they were given (or that they chose) in mortality will be resolved, and they will remember and not be constrained by the hurdles of mortality. 

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

If gender is based on sex, what eternal sex are they?  How is that unambiguous and clear?   Gender, for them, can only be based on how they personally identify - because that is all these people have to go on (and they often identify in different ways from each other, even within the same category of intersex).  So, is that the "proclamation definition" of gender - how we personally identify? 

They are whatever eternal sex they were created as as spirits. When the veil is lifted and we remember, it will be unambiguous and clear to everyone. I disagree that how people "personally identify" determines what sex they were created as as spirits.

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

How are they suppose to know if they should marry a man or a woman?  Is it just based on how they personally identify with gender or who they are personally attracted to?  What if they happen to be attracted to their same gender (whatever that is)?  What if they identify their gender wrong?  These things are in NO WAY unambiguous and clear. 

That's a real conundrum, and I believe that true hermaphrodites/intersex people will be judged accordingly. I think in most cases, marriage or normal adult sexual relationships are precluded for most true intersex people (people for whom sex traits are indeterminate). I think this will be factored into how they are judged --- especially if they themselves are truly confused or don't know for sure what sex they actually are. God either gave them this burden, or they chose it themselves, for reasons harking back to the pre-existence that we won't know until the resurrection. 

I think the intersex issue is a red herring, though, because this is a very small number of people in the scheme of things. The exponential explosion of "trans"-identifying teenagers and young adults (high 90s % of which are confused girls, in my experience as a teacher of 20 years) is almost exclusively a social, psychological, and media phenomenon. Almost all of these people are not "intersex" at all. Many of these girls later revert back --- they are confused and being tossed to and fro with social currents, contagion, and influences. It is very sad, and it is wreaking havoc on their psyches, independent of conservative religious teachings. The explosion of gender confusion itself is damaging and troubling to them, and a bigger factor than conservative religious rejection that it is immutable in them. 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

How does this work with civil marriages?  Sincere question because I've wondered about this before. 

For example, if an atheist couple goes to the courthouse and gets married by the justice of the peace, are they "married according to God's law" because they are male and female, or is there more to be married according to God's law than just the sex of the participants?  What about if two theistic satanists (I had to look that one up to make sure those were the ones who actually believes satan exists and is worthy of worship ) got married civilly?  Are they still married according to God's law?

Is "married according to God's law" just a fancy way to say heterosexual marriage, or does it mean something more?

Yes, I'm sure that's what that particular phrase means, and why it was added. It is simply "code" for man-woman marriage. When the heat gets turned up for the Church to recognize gay marriage because it's legal, it can simply say that it is legal as far of the law of the land, but not "according to God's law."

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

it's funny that marriage is considered a "loophole"   

How is it phrased now? "legal marriage unless you're gay"  or something softer like "legal marriage between 1 man and 1 woman"

"legally married according to God's law."

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Even in the temple the LoC is defined as no sxual relationship outside of marriage. Guess what, with SSM that definition doesn't condemn gay couples. 

That has been changed in the temple to exclude gay marriage. It's a relatively recent change, and obviously in response to the searches for loopholes that allow gay marriage. 

4 minutes ago, the narrator said:

See Alma 32. 

How do you govern a church (with laws and commandments) if it's just a Wild West of everyone's Alma 32 personal revelation? I agree that it's of paramount importance that we have our own personal revelation, but the Brethren as key-holders set the laws and commandments (obviously --- and I don't think you dispute this). Most active, believing members are in accord with what the Brethren say and how they explain this issue. Those who sharply disagree (and don't want to leave the Church) are in a tough spot on this. If the Church were ever to do a 180 on this issue, a great many members' Alma 32 experience would be diametrically opposed to the change. 

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I don't think you are understanding what I'm asking.  I'll try to clarify.

• I asked, where can we go to read what the LoC is? 
• You said that the only place that we can go is a pamphlet.
• I stated that it's odd that such a fundamental doctrine of the gospel can only be found in a pamphlet.
• You replied that our current understanding of the LoC is implied in the scriptures but not ever explicitly taught anywhere.  It's a given.

That doesn't make sense to me.  What other fundamental doctrines of the gospel are only implied in the scriptures but never explicitly taught?  

Where is the atonement "explicitly taught?" You would list scripture passages, and GA statements, right? But there isn't a concise, comprehensive treatment of it except in resources like FtSoY, True to the Faith, Gospel Principles, etc. 

You are implying (or outright stating) that the LoC is somehow different from any other doctrines of the Church. Its scriptural support and reliance on GA statements is very similar as these other doctrines. 

I never said "the only place that we can go is a pamphlet." I pointed to it as probably the best, concise, comprehensive explanation of it. The same "pamphlets" or "small books" would also contain the best concise, comprehensive explanations of our other doctrines, but the actual doctrine is throughout the scriptures and in GA statements. 

Just now, the narrator said:

They couldn't say or do anything. That's not how it works. You know that.

What are you recommending or advocating then? 

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For other fundamental aspects of the gospel of Christ, we don't have to rely on implication, universally understood but never actually stated doctrines, and fighting the evils of social activism to find them.  

Why is the LoC different?

It isn't. The only ones saying it is different, or treating it like it is different, are those agitating or wanting changes to it. 

For the overwhelming majority of active, believing members, it's simple (and always has been), and they are in accord with what the Church teaches and has taught about the Law of Chastity. Without having to refer to a de-loophole-ized legalistic "stated doctrine."

Sex (or anything like unto it) among people not in a man-woman marriage is a sin. This includes our thoughts ("committed adultery already in his heart" is in all three major books of scripture). This also includes arousing sexual thoughts and feelings in ourselves. 

There is sufficient in the scriptures and in what the Brethren have taught that this is understood by those who aren't trying to cross-examine the doctrine in order to poke holes in it. Even those who transgress it almost always understand that they are transgressing it --- the lines aren't in question. What people are trying to throw dust onto now is whether the guilt that is naturally felt because of the Holy Ghost and the light of Christ should be discouraged. 

7 minutes ago, the narrator said:

No, I'm saying that the appeals you are making are appeals to authorities and not to God Himself.

If is regardless of leadership or Church teachings, why do you immediately follow this question with an appeal to "doctrines"--aka teachings of persons or an organization?

If we all have our own lights as to what God has to say on this (appeals to God Himself at our personal level; what we individually feel God has communicated to us), and the Church has had a united and consistent stand on this from the beginning (declared doctrine through the key-holders) ---

--- but, you dismiss what the Brethren say and have said collectively or individually on this as "teachings of persons or an organization" as not being "God Himself" . . .

What could the Brethren possibly say or do that would clear your bar for God speaking for Himself? Anything they say or do will, following your line of questioning with @JLHPROF, be "teachings of persons or an organization."

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Perhaps so.  It would be interesting to ask, where could one find the LoC before the FtSoY existed?  

We have posters on here saying that any change in the interpretation of the LoC would be equal to the church stopping it's belief in Jesus Christ.  If that's true then it would mean that our current interpretation of the LoC is fundamental to the Gospel.  The gospel of Jesus Christ cannot exist without it.

Such a foundational and fundamental doctrine should exist somewhere other than a pamphlet, shouldn't it?  

 

I think we have always had it in the scriptures, in counsel from Church leaders, and in the collective knowledge --- but it's been only recently that everything is questioned and the need arose to "nail everything down." It's similar to the point that people make when they say "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality." He didn't have to --- it was universally understood by Jews and then later Christians that it was a sin. The "silence" in scripture isn't evidence of "an opening."

Until the recent onslaught and avalanche of gay activism and ally-ism in the Church (mirroring society at large), everyone would have been in agreement about whether or not this or that was against the law of chastity or not. Because of the attempts to poke holes wherever people think holes can be found, there is increasing wordsmithing in the temple definition, FtSoY, etc. Given all of this, I think the FtSoY treatment is comprehensive and extensive. The changed temple definition sealed off the "loophole" activists sought to justify gay marriage with (legally married, so not against the LoC).